This thread is to discuss Scandinavia (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Norway) and its possessions (e.g. Finland, Greenland, Iceland).
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Just finished a game as England, 1648 scenario normal/weakling. Noticed that:
1)denmark is very aggressive in colonising during the late game. Had colonies in Hawaii, Alaska, Africa and Northern Canada and in the Carribean. Maybe lowering the expansion value in the ai file would make them a bit less aggressive.
2) Sweden were not in any alliances. They fought solo the entire game and didn't even ally with the small north german states.
3) Russia was not aggressive enough (didn't declare war on Sweden after 1700) so Sweden managed to keep baltikum and Finland.
4) Sweden stopped declaring war on Denmark early in the game so they never got Skåne. Denmark didnt declare war on Sweden either.
1)denmark is very aggressive in colonising during the late game. Had colonies in Hawaii, Alaska, Africa and Northern Canada and in the Carribean. Maybe lowering the expansion value in the ai file would make them a bit less aggressive.
2) Sweden were not in any alliances. They fought solo the entire game and didn't even ally with the small north german states.
3) Russia was not aggressive enough (didn't declare war on Sweden after 1700) so Sweden managed to keep baltikum and Finland.
4) Sweden stopped declaring war on Denmark early in the game so they never got Skåne. Denmark didnt declare war on Sweden either.
I am here to discuss the additions of 3 regents for Sweden (along with events to match them later.)
The reason I added these was mainly for flavour, and also for the last one, plain and simple history. The fact is, when Charles X Gustavus died, Charles XI was 4 years old. I find it pretty ridiculous to have him ruling, and I think a regency is much more fitting. For Gustavus IV Adolphus, it wasn't as extreme, but there was still a regency for 4 years.
With Charles XIII, I definitely think it should be in. Charles XIV John had basically control of Sweden since when he came into the country. The old King and the Privy Council left control to Charles John, so he was basically ruler of Sweden during that time.
EDIT: No comment?
Code:
historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 0131534 }
startdate = {
day = 13
month = february
year = 1660
}
deathdate = {
day = 18
month = december
year = 1672
}
name = "Hedvig Eleonora (Karl XI)"
DIP = 6
ADM = 2
MIL = 5
dormant = yes
remark = "Regent for Karl XI"
}
historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 0131535 }
startdate = {
day = 29
month = march
year = 1792
}
deathdate = {
day = 1
month = november
year = 1796
}
name = "Duke Karl (Gustav IV Adolf)"
DIP = 5
ADM = 5
MIL = 5
dormant = yes
remark = "Regent for Gustav IV Adolf, later Karl XIII"
}
historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = 0131536 }
startdate = {
day = 2
month = november
year = 1810
}
deathdate = {
day = 5
month = february
year = 1818
}
name = "Karl Johan (Karl XIII)"
DIP = 5
ADM = 5
MIL = 7
dormant = yes
remark = "Bernadotte; de facto Regent of Sweden"
}The reason I added these was mainly for flavour, and also for the last one, plain and simple history. The fact is, when Charles X Gustavus died, Charles XI was 4 years old. I find it pretty ridiculous to have him ruling, and I think a regency is much more fitting. For Gustavus IV Adolphus, it wasn't as extreme, but there was still a regency for 4 years.
With Charles XIII, I definitely think it should be in. Charles XIV John had basically control of Sweden since when he came into the country. The old King and the Privy Council left control to Charles John, so he was basically ruler of Sweden during that time.
EDIT: No comment?
Last edited:
Not sure if this is the right place to post it but:
1. There is a typo in Sweden event 291005 about Sten Sture den äldre; it says "pleasant army"
but I'm fairly sure it should be "peasant army".
2. In the Sweden event 3230 about "Emperor Charles Philip of Russia" it says Charles Philip was the brother of "Gustavus Vasa" but he was in fact the brother of Gustav II Adolf (not sure what you call him in English) which would make him the grandson of Gustav Vasa. Such a low event number - does that mean it is this event in vanilla too?
3. Why is there no port in Västergötland? Local trade for the west of Sweden was through Gamla Lödöse - close to Göteborg/Gothenburg in Västergötland long before the time frame of this game. It is weird to have half your navy sink when rounding Skåne when it is returning to port after guarding the Skagerac.
1. There is a typo in Sweden event 291005 about Sten Sture den äldre; it says "pleasant army"
but I'm fairly sure it should be "peasant army".2. In the Sweden event 3230 about "Emperor Charles Philip of Russia" it says Charles Philip was the brother of "Gustavus Vasa" but he was in fact the brother of Gustav II Adolf (not sure what you call him in English) which would make him the grandson of Gustav Vasa. Such a low event number - does that mean it is this event in vanilla too?
3. Why is there no port in Västergötland? Local trade for the west of Sweden was through Gamla Lödöse - close to Göteborg/Gothenburg in Västergötland long before the time frame of this game. It is weird to have half your navy sink when rounding Skåne when it is returning to port after guarding the Skagerac.
I'm no modder or historian but they look good to me.
Karl XIV Johan was de facto ruler already as the crown prince from what I remember from reading his biography. There was a regency for Karl XI but I think it was the nobles rather than the old queen that made the actual ruling. About Gustav IV Adolf, I have no idea.
all monarchs and events for Sweden where upgrade in AGCEEP 1.58 . This as yet has not been implemented in FTG. You will need to wait
Also the port was removed as per advice from Swedish players as it was unhistorical. This was done a few versions ago.
Also the port was removed as per advice from Swedish players as it was unhistorical. This was done a few versions ago.
Well, actually no, I can fix it myself I just thought you wanted to correct some typos.
Really!? If a port is a naval port then Gothenburg wasn't one until the 17th century but that is still more the half of the game. It sure did beat all the other ports in Sweden for importance except for Stockholm when in came to trade and all of the other coastal provinces in Sweden/Finland have ports. The naval bases in Karlskrona and Helsinfors were also important in the latter part of the timeframe.
Maybe the "no port in Västergötland" is because the main city isn't Gothenburg or Lödöse but Skara which is inland? Is it the same for Rome/Ostia and Athens/Pireus then I can see a pattern. Still it is strange to have one of the top two ports in Sweden not appearing in the game.
Just came back to give some information regarding northern Scandinavia and Finland.
First: Västerbotten province (id 341) should have fish as it's resource. My father has found records of salmon being salted and shipped down to Pomerania during the Thirty Years' War. The province is filled with rivers which were in 1419 populated by salmon and similar fishes. Fishing is an important part of the areas around the gulf of Bothnia so I don't see why Naval Supplies is the resource for this province. It's only in modern times that Västernbotten has become a supplier of timber.
Second: Lappland province (id 260) should have furs as it's resource. Lappland was always a trading ground for fur, and this is where the court's fur came from. Taxes were paid in furs or fish, and there were classes of people who's only purpose were to trade for furs from the Lapps. Iron wasn't found here until the 1880s. Kiruna is also a bad cityname. The first society (and most important) was always Jukkasjärvi until Kiruna grew to be thanks to the mines in the 1900s. I'd like to make Lappland a trading post, but it'd be so easy to conquer so it should remain a level 1 colony with a fort.
Third: Umeå had only 40 people in 1637 when it became the main city of Västerbotten county. Why on earth does it have 1000 people in 1419? It should be changed to a level 3 or 4 colony. There were no cities here until 1621 and no administration. Österbotten also had few people in 1419. I think it should be a level 5 colony. With a fort.
First: Västerbotten province (id 341) should have fish as it's resource. My father has found records of salmon being salted and shipped down to Pomerania during the Thirty Years' War. The province is filled with rivers which were in 1419 populated by salmon and similar fishes. Fishing is an important part of the areas around the gulf of Bothnia so I don't see why Naval Supplies is the resource for this province. It's only in modern times that Västernbotten has become a supplier of timber.
Second: Lappland province (id 260) should have furs as it's resource. Lappland was always a trading ground for fur, and this is where the court's fur came from. Taxes were paid in furs or fish, and there were classes of people who's only purpose were to trade for furs from the Lapps. Iron wasn't found here until the 1880s. Kiruna is also a bad cityname. The first society (and most important) was always Jukkasjärvi until Kiruna grew to be thanks to the mines in the 1900s. I'd like to make Lappland a trading post, but it'd be so easy to conquer so it should remain a level 1 colony with a fort.
Third: Umeå had only 40 people in 1637 when it became the main city of Västerbotten county. Why on earth does it have 1000 people in 1419? It should be changed to a level 3 or 4 colony. There were no cities here until 1621 and no administration. Österbotten also had few people in 1419. I think it should be a level 5 colony. With a fort.
Nice, could you link this please?
I had no idea.
its part of this
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8964841&postcount=1
where you need to download into EU2 AGCEEP to see the tested changes. The part you are talking about was already accepted, as well as Finnic instead of Ugric culture and the other many swedish changes ( including monarchs and events related to monarchs)
I wish you the best of luck with that then since I much rather play AGCEEP with FTG than EU2.
(It was a long time since I studied computer science but wasn't a compiler something you did once and then just used? And since there is an AGCEEP for FTG how did you managed that in the first place? Or are you talking about some other type of compiler here?)
What Toio means is that there are many good pieces for the FTG version of AGCEEP, but someone needs to package them up and make sure they're compatible (with each other and with FTG). In the past, YodaMaster almost always did it.
Since i am from Denmark i have of course taken great joy in leading my home country to victory, especially trying out the different ways of keeping the Kalmar Union together. I have a few ideas for improvements:
I think there are 3 or so events that are the actual 'the Kalmar union survives', it would be cool if those events would also change the Flag of Denmark to the Kalmar Union flag (but not changning the country tag). This shouln't be too hard to implement. This would of course also require an event that would take away that flag if either Sweden or Norway reappears´
Perhaps Denmark, if it has managed to keep Sweden and Norway in the Kalmar Union, should be able to recieve Ugric as an accepted culture, like Sweden. Of course this would make Denmark much more powerful, so the event could have some prerequisites like owning and/or having converted all Ugric provinces.
Finally maybe Denmark should recieve some Swedish events and leaders that would have appeared regardless of Sweden being in the Kalmar Union.
---
The problems i can see with this is that it might make Denmark to powerful, so they should perhaps be countered with some comparable negative events. Of course, somebody should also write the events - i would do it, but i don't know how, and i don't think i have the necesarry knowledge of Swedish and Danish history :wacko:
I think there are 3 or so events that are the actual 'the Kalmar union survives', it would be cool if those events would also change the Flag of Denmark to the Kalmar Union flag (but not changning the country tag). This shouln't be too hard to implement. This would of course also require an event that would take away that flag if either Sweden or Norway reappears´
Perhaps Denmark, if it has managed to keep Sweden and Norway in the Kalmar Union, should be able to recieve Ugric as an accepted culture, like Sweden. Of course this would make Denmark much more powerful, so the event could have some prerequisites like owning and/or having converted all Ugric provinces.
Finally maybe Denmark should recieve some Swedish events and leaders that would have appeared regardless of Sweden being in the Kalmar Union.
---
The problems i can see with this is that it might make Denmark to powerful, so they should perhaps be countered with some comparable negative events. Of course, somebody should also write the events - i would do it, but i don't know how, and i don't think i have the necesarry knowledge of Swedish and Danish history :wacko: