• 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.
Wasn´t that answered in post 24? If Norway ahistorically manages to stay independent it should have no aid in turning protestant because historically it only turned protestant after it fell under the reign of its protestant neighbors’. A player still can turn protestant by using the game mechanic for that.

(IMO)If Norway manages to stay independent it should indeed have aid in turning protestant. The Wiki article used as an argument is lacking of the historical and geographical context needed to understand Norway’s position in the early years after the reformation. First of all Norway didn't have any university at the time. Every noble in Norway was educated abroad, mostly in Denmark. So the archbishop of Norway, referenced in the aforementioned post was already fighting a losing battle. He was already in disputes with the nobility, and had a weakening powerbase.

Well as Norway tried to stay independent from its dominating neighbors’ Sweden and Denmark with the last catholic archbishop fleeing the land when the Danish took over that rather strongly shows to me that Norway would not have endorsed its enemies religion when staying independent.

Well here is a mix of religion and independence. The archbishop tried to stay independent and fight the reformation. He lost the due to nobles turning against him on religious grounds and he lost because nobles didn’t want to fight the new Danish king. So if you would; Norway would have imploded into Protestantism before it would have given in to the Danish throne. This would have taken a lot longer though. A war between Norway and Denmark would have had a nationalistic underpinning not a religious one.

What I would have liked to see AI do if Norway chooses to break away from Denmark in 1536 is a Norwegian civil war with a good chance that nobility installs a new protestant king. Becasue the king wants money, and a good way of getting it is by taking church land. One must understand that the conversion of Denmark for instance, had more to do with a powerstruggle between the king and the church than religious aspects.

I know that it is completely possible to turn Norway protestant via the game mechanics but I feel the arguments given that Norway "should" ahistorically stay catholic are too weak. Norway’s position was so interlocked with the Danish one that it is hard to imagine that Norway would not have followed their conversion.
I have played Norway a number of times. And the first thing I do is to cancel the vassalization from Denmark. From then on out it's ahistorical. And it’s pretty hard to imagine that Norway would have stayed a catholic outpost in the north while Denmark, Sweden and England converted; the major trading partners of Norway. You can say that it would have stayed catholic like Ireland, but Ireland is an island who didn't have the sort if influences Norway had.

The question regarding religion becomes somewhat different if you play historical up to the point that Denmark subsumed Norway or if you go ahistorical right away. If one chooses to go ahistorical right away as Norway one should have a conversion like the one in Denmark and Sweden game wise. If one plays historical up to the point Denmark historically subsumed Norway one should first encounter a war with Denmark. Following a defeat it should be game over. Following a win or a white peace Norway should be thrown out in a religious civil war with a good chance that the protestant sides win.

But since we are discussing ahistorical outcomes, it's impossible to be certain of nothin but our uncertainty.
(/IMO)

I have one question I haven’t found out yet. If Norway conquers Denmark and choose to stay Norwegian, do all of the "Danish" leaders get transferred to the Norwegian leader files? Because some of the "Danish" leaders were actually born in Norway. And if one choose to stay Norwegian, does the "Danish" events becomes Norwegian events, or do one have to choose to become Denmark to get the events?
 
...
I know that it is completely possible to turn Norway protestant via the game mechanics but I feel the arguments given that Norway "should" ahistorically stay catholic are too weak...

Noone is arguing that Norway should ahistorically stay catholic.
What I´m saying is that historically Norway vanished as a state into union with Denmark. As the historical result that is what AGCEEP with it´s "history first" attitude supports.
And if ahistorically Norway manages to stay independant then it can choose it´s own course regarding religion. It CAN turn protestant - or not.
The AI can change religion too just as the player and usually will do so when the majority of provinces has become protestant.

So I´m not saying that Norway has to stay catholic. I´m saying that there should be no events to push an independant Norway into any other direction than into the historical union with Denmark - neither events to force them to stay catholic, nor events that turn them protestant. Let Norway do that for itself as the game allows it to do that.

Norway’s position was so interlocked with the Danish one that it is hard to imagine that Norway would not have followed their conversion.

It´s hard to imagine that Norway would not have followed the danish in everything. That´s why they fell into the union with them historically.

I have played Norway a number of times. And the first thing I do is to cancel the vassalization from Denmark. From then on out it's ahistorical. And it’s pretty hard to imagine that Norway would have stayed a catholic outpost in the north while Denmark, Sweden and England converted;

Ah - then hit the "convert" button.

the major trading partners of Norway. You can say that it would have stayed catholic like Ireland, but Ireland is an island who didn't have the sort if influences Norway had.

Norway has a tradition of being an island too. Thule ^^
And Ireland is not an isolated outpost that stayed catholic because of some assumed isolation - it influenced the continent strongly even missionating in germany hundreds of years before FtG´s timeline.

I have one question I haven’t found out yet. If Norway conquers Denmark and choose to stay Norwegian, do all of the "Danish" leaders get transferred to the Norwegian leader files? Because some of the "Danish" leaders were actually born in Norway. And if one choose to stay Norwegian, does the "Danish" events becomes Norwegian events, or do one have to choose to become Denmark to get the events?

Just take a look yourself and open leaders.nor.txt in the AGCEEP/DB/leadres subfolder.
There is for example that entry:

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Ahistorical Danish leaders
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#XV century

historicalleader = {
category = admiral
id = { type = 6 id = 098809 }
name = "Magnus Gren"
startdate = {
year = 1451
}
deathdate = {
year = 1472
}
rank = 3
movement = 3
fire = 3
shock = 2
siege = 0
dormant = yes

}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 098810 }
category = general
name = "Junker Schlentz"
startdate = {
year = 1488
}
deathdate = {
year = 1500
}
rank = 10
movement = 3
fire = 2
shock = 3
siege = 0
dormant = yes

They are marked as "dormant = yes" which means they won´t appear in the game unless an event wakes them up to avoid that they appear twice for Denmark AND Norway.

None of those leaders are "transferred" however. It´s not possible in the game to move a danish leader to Norway.
For each leader there has to be one historical leader defined in the danish leader file who is not dormant (= becomes active automatically when his date comes) and a 2nd leader with a unique ID for Norway who is dormant ( = becomes only active if he is woken by event).
 
Last edited:
# Period Conversion Probability
# Small Normal Large
# Denmark 1532-1541 85% 90% 95%
# Norway 1536-1563 15% 28% 39%
# Norway 1536-1563 72%* 85%* 90%*
# S Sweden 1525-1538 85% 90% 95%
# N Sweden 1525-1552 85% 90% 95%
# NW Russia 1530-1557 15% 28% 39%
# N Russia 1535-1562 5% 15% 28%
# Iceland 1540-1567 15% 28% 39%
# Greenland 1550-1577 5% 15% 28%
#
# * Only if the province is owned by Denmark or Sweden. The probability is
# independent of that of the line above.

And what I'm saying is that Norway should have the same percentage of conversion probability as Sweden and Denmark, independent of whether Norway is independent or subsumed into Denmark or Sweden. If AGCEEP is history first, then by logic I think that Norway should have the same conversion probability as Denmark and Sweden. Because Norway became protestant, and would have, IMO, become protestant whether or not owned by its neighbors. The argument resides in the fact that Olav Engelbrektsson did not have the power to keep Norway catholic, IMO obviously.


I'm not asking for events that should push Norway in any direction, I only ask that conversion probability should be independent of owner of Norwegian provinces.

I agreed that Norway should be "pushed" into the historical subjugation under Denmark, but I don't understand why religious conversion probabilities, of a ahistorical Norway, should be dependent of whether or not this subjugation occurs in game, or not. If history first is the main argument?
 
# Period Conversion Probability
# Small Normal Large
[...]
# Norway 1536-1563 15% 28% 39%
# Norway 1536-1563 72%* 85%* 90%*
[...]
# * Only if the province is owned by Denmark or Sweden. The probability is
# independent of that of the line above.

This is all hypothetical but I think the probability of conversion should be the other way round: smaller if Norway is owned by Denmark or Sweden and larger if Norway is independent. I think we all agree that the system of automatic conversion represents voluntary conversion by the local clergy and populace and not merely conversions which happened to have taken place historically.

One could argue that one reason Norway refused to become Protestant is because the Reformation became tangled with ever increasing Danish centralisation. Norway would have been more willing to reform had it been independent since the Reformation would presumably be conducted by its own state-sanctioned church. On the other hand, if Norway is owned by Denmark or Sweden, the probability of voluntary conversion should be less so that the respective owners will have to convert Norway by force just as the Danes had to do historically. The same applies to Iceland, to an even larger extent.
 
This is all hypothetical but I think the probability of conversion should be the other way round: smaller if Norway is owned by Denmark or Sweden and larger if Norway is independent. I think we all agree that the system of automatic conversion represents voluntary conversion by the local clergy and populace and not merely conversions which happened to have taken place historically.

One could argue that one reason Norway refused to become Protestant is because the Reformation became tangled with ever increasing Danish centralisation. Norway would have been more willing to reform had it been independent since the Reformation would presumably be conducted by its own state-sanctioned church. On the other hand, if Norway is owned by Denmark or Sweden, the probability of voluntary conversion should be less so that the respective owners will have to convert Norway by force just as the Danes had to do historically. The same applies to Iceland, to an even larger extent.

That would be a problematic definition. According to that England should have no conversions to anglican because it´s just an invention of their king and forced upon a still existing catholic church and it´s bishops and population by Henry VIII.

IMO Denmark had to use force and infiltration (using danish nobles for positions in Norway) until the last catholic archbishop of Norway saw no choice but to abandon the country. Without that foreign intervention by the danish king claiming the norwegian throne, who could have forced him away? The powerbase of a purely norwegian king would have been far smaller than that of a danish king who has the loyalty of half the norwegian nobles too. So IMO the catholic archbishop would not have been driven away and so the chances of *automatic* conversions of whole provinces should be lower as it is.

An ahistorically independant Norway always has the option to use missionaries to convert it´s provinces if a player or the AI wishes to change the religion.

However our main concern for AGCEEP should be how to make AI Norway disappear as it historically did not last and fell first under danish rule and later under swedish. What an ahistorically independent Norway does that is controlled by a player should be left to do for the player.
 
That would be a problematic definition. According to that England should have no conversions to anglican because it´s just an invention of their king and forced upon a still existing catholic church and it´s bishops and population by Henry VIII.
English provinces should never voluntary convert to Anglican IMO.
 
English provinces should never voluntary convert to Anglican IMO.

Which is as far as I know because we don´t have a distinct "anglican" religion in AGCEEP. The religion change away from catholizism under Henry VIII is currently simply simulated by a change to protestantism. And there are protestant conversions in the religious event files for Britain.
 
Which is as far as I know because we don´t have a distinct "anglican" religion in AGCEEP. The religion change away from catholizism under Henry VIII is currently simply simulated by a change to protestantism. And there are protestant conversions in the religious event files for Britain.

Would it be possible to a create a new Anglican religion in the game?
 
Last edited:
I know that it is completely possible to turn Norway protestant via the game mechanics but I feel the arguments given that Norway "should" ahistorically stay catholic are too weak. Norway’s position was so interlocked with the Danish one that it is hard to imagine that Norway would not have followed their conversion.
I have played Norway a number of times. And the first thing I do is to cancel the vassalization from Denmark. From then on out it's ahistorical. And it’s pretty hard to imagine that Norway would have stayed a catholic outpost in the north while Denmark, Sweden and England converted; the major trading partners of Norway. You can say that it would have stayed catholic like Ireland, but Ireland is an island who didn't have the sort if influences Norway had.

The question regarding religion becomes somewhat different if you play historical up to the point that Denmark subsumed Norway or if you go ahistorical right away. If one chooses to go ahistorical right away as Norway one should have a conversion like the one in Denmark and Sweden game wise. If one plays historical up to the point Denmark historically subsumed Norway one should first encounter a war with Denmark. Following a defeat it should be game over. Following a win or a white peace Norway should be thrown out in a religious civil war with a good chance that the protestant sides win.

I must missed some of this post when it was new. While I'm not at all an expert on Scandinavian history, I agree that it is somewhat a compelling argument that it seems unlikely that Norway would be the single Catholic holdout in an otherwise Protestant Fennoscandian region just due to influences of places with a shared culture. The distinction of being independent from the start is also important here. It is too much for me to think that just because Norway would start off that way, that it would necessarily be culturally static for the duration of the game's 400s years.

Also, there is maybe a case to be made that though to have an independent Norway is ahistorical, making it Protestant is still preserving some history, as that part was historical.
 
I must missed some of this post when it was new. While I'm not at all an expert on Scandinavian history, I agree that it is somewhat a compelling argument that it seems unlikely that Norway would be the single Catholic holdout in an otherwise Protestant Fennoscandian region just due to influences of places with a shared culture. The distinction of being independent from the start is also important here. It is too much for me to think that just because Norway would start off that way, that it would necessarily be culturally static for the duration of the game's 400s years.

Also, there is maybe a case to be made that though to have an independent Norway is ahistorical, making it Protestant is still preserving some history, as that part was historical.

That would be using "historical" in a very loose way, picking parts that some people like but ignoring WHY those parts happened.

Either Norway falls historically under protestant danish rule - and is in part forcefully converted by them (which is the historical way that AGCEEP should try to achieve and push for)
or
it stays ahistorically independant fighting off the danish that still get cores on norwegian lands as they historically held them.

What currently is proposed is to go ahistorical independant BUT still go historically protestant without the historical danish push for protestantism.
That can - to me - only translate into what AGCEEP currently correctly does: Large chance to turn protestant if historically danish, smaller chance to turn protestant if not danish because the danish force to convert is missing and the last catholic archbishop of Norway who historically fled the country due to danish pressure has a larger chance to hold out.
 
That would be using "historical" in a very loose way, picking parts that some people like but ignoring WHY those parts happened.

But having Lithuania form Russia-which I think you said is a good idea- works exactly the same way. It wasn't historical in the sense of it actually happening, but it is historical in that it creates a state called "Russia" with Russian culture, in Russian cultural provinces, in areas that the actual historical Russia did occupy (at least some of them).
That can - to me - only translate into what AGCEEP currently correctly does: Large chance to turn protestant if historically danish, smaller chance to turn protestant if not danish because the danish force to convert is missing and the last catholic archbishop of Norway who historically fled the country due to danish pressure has a larger chance to hold out.

The poster from Norway said the situation was complex, and Norway might have converted even if failed to stay independent.
 
But having Lithuania form Russia-which I think you said is a good idea- works exactly the same way. It wasn't historical in the sense of it actually happening, but it is historical in that it creates a state called "Russia" with Russian culture, in Russian cultural provinces, in areas that the actual historical Russia did occupy (at least some of them).

Sure. Not because it was historical that Lithuania formed Russia - that never happened. The event for Lithuania to form Russia can happen only if Russia does not or no longer exist - and in that ahistorical situation an ahistorically strong Lithuania can do what it historically tried to do but failed: become the ruler of all Russians. That is one of the goals of AGCEEP: to push the game back into historical tracks it it´s possible. And if a major player like Russia has gone it´s good to have them back into play.

The poster from Norway said the situation was complex, and Norway might have converted even if failed to stay independent.

I agree with that. Norway *might* have converted even if they failed to stay independant. That is how it currently is: If danish large chance for norwegian provinces to convert, if independant STILL a chance to convert to protestantism - only a smaller chance.
 
ConjurerDragon;14752105 That is one of the goals of AGCEEP: to push the game back into historical tracks if it´s possible.[/QUOTE said:
That is the whole point. Me and others, and probably you, have seen revolts in norway not suppressed by the danish that have resulted in an independet norway. What we then see is that AGCEEP doesnt want to push norway into its tracks by having half the probability of conversion. It wants to put norway into the "this might have happend tracks, but didn't." So what we end up with is a strange looking religion map end game. I.e. the most suthern norwegian land beeing catholic. This beacause they are the only ones big enough to sustain a revolt into independence. The northern ones tend to be protestant. This is the exat opposit of what went on historacly. The most densly populated converted the fastest. The minor populated ones helt on to the old belieft way into the 16th century. The debate started because someone discovered that conversion rates is denpendent of holder of land. And I wonder if this rule is expanded to the rest of the map. If by chance france owns most of HRE, is there half the probability that reformation starts. If the papacy owns sweden, does the chance of conversion drop to norwegian standards. If AGCEEP is history first, why should norways conversion be dependent of holder? It should be dependent of history observed. Olav tried to gain independence. He wasnt stopped by the danish. He was stopped by the norwegians in the last norwegian privy council. What would have happend is not for AGCEEP to model by the above stated. It only wants it into the right track. So what then is most true to AGCEEP? A norway half catholic and half protestant by 1812, or a fully protestant norway by 1812. Or maybe a fully catholic norway by 1812.

Sadly this debate is "storm in a teacup" for me. Since I became a dad, there is no time to sit down and play. I have played norway so many times that even if I get the time to play, I will pick another nation regardless of weather "I get it my way". I appologise for all the spelling mistakes: No sleep for days......



Edit: But the most important thing is that I want to wish you all a merry xmas (if u guys celebrate)
 
Last edited:
That is the whole point. Me and others, and probably you, have seen revolts in norway not suppressed by the danish that have resulted in an independet norway. What we then see is that AGCEEP doesnt want to push norway into its tracks by having half the probability of conversion.

Pushing Norway to become protestant if independant is not pushing it to the historical course.

Historically there is no independant Norway in the games timeframe. It starts as Denmarks vassal and following historical choices will be annexed by Denmark. Should Norway ahistorically become independant again or ahistorically shake off danish rule then the "push" towards history is that Denmark has gained cores on all norwegian provinces so that they may conquer them. In my own games I only rarely see an independant AI Norway.

It wants to put norway into the "this might have happend tracks, but didn't." So what we end up with is a strange looking religion map end game. I.e. the most suthern norwegian land beeing catholic. This beacause they are the only ones big enough to sustain a revolt into independence. The northern ones tend to be protestant. This is the exat opposit of what went on historacly. The most densly populated converted the fastest. The minor populated ones helt on to the old belieft way into the 16th century.

Well if you play Norway then simply convert the state to protestantism and then send missionaries to convert those provinces that did not convert on their own.
Both is possible in the game using the normal game-mechanics. No events needed to achieve that.

However as the danish pressure to convert the land to protestantism is lacking in an independant Norway means the catholic Archbishop has better chances NOT to have to flee the land, I don´t see why the southern provinces should have a higher chance to convert on their own.

The debate started because someone discovered that conversion rates is denpendent of holder of land. And I wonder if this rule is expanded to the rest of the map. If by chance france owns most of HRE, is there half the probability that reformation starts. If the papacy owns sweden, does the chance of conversion drop to norwegian standards. If AGCEEP is history first, why should norways conversion be dependent of holder?

The examples you use are very unlikely to happen - except due to player intervention. Especially the Papacy owning Sweden if played by the AI is almost impossible.

The historical way (no Norway, provinces owned by Denmark) is taken care of by AGCEEP´s conversion mechanics.

It should be dependent of history observed. Olav tried to gain independence. He wasnt stopped by the danish. He was stopped by the norwegians in the last norwegian privy council. What would have happend is not for AGCEEP to model by the above stated. It only wants it into the right track. So what then is most true to AGCEEP? A norway half catholic and half protestant by 1812, or a fully protestant norway by 1812. Or maybe a fully catholic norway by 1812.

The historical way is what AGCEEP tries to achieve if the AI is left alone - and that means no independant Norway.
What a player does if he plays Norway is up to him and he can do all of the options you mentioned.
 
Pushing Norway to become protestant if independant is not pushing it to the historical course.

This is exactly what I disagree with. In my opinion there is no pick and choose about historical course. Norway went protestant in the game timeframe. What you say is that if one condition is not met, none of the others should be met as well. I.e. if there is one deviation from history (independence), none other (religion) should be pushed into a historical course. How would this game be if this was inplemented all over. I am also wondering why you don't take into account that the archbishop lacked support in Norway. You base your argument that norway would stay catholic if independent and that most likely the archbishop would be captain of the ship. He lacked support. And why wouldnt a norwegian ruler see the same benefit of converting as all of the others rulers in the area. Denmark, Sweden and England converted of political reasons, not religious.


"The historical way is what AGCEEP tries to achieve if the AI is left alone - and that means no independant Norway.
What a player does if he plays Norway is up to him and he can do all of the options you mentioned."

Seems like you missed the point of the rethorical question.
 
This is exactly what I disagree with. In my opinion there is no pick and choose about historical course. Norway went protestant in the game timeframe. What you say is that if one condition is not met, none of the others should be met as well. I.e. if there is one deviation from history (independence), none other (religion) should be pushed into a historical course. How would this game be if this was inplemented all over. I am also wondering why you don't take into account that the archbishop lacked support in Norway. You base your argument that norway would stay catholic if independent and that most likely the archbishop would be captain of the ship. He lacked support. And why wouldnt a norwegian ruler see the same benefit of converting as all of the others rulers in the area. Denmark, Sweden and England converted of political reasons, not religious.


"The historical way is what AGCEEP tries to achieve if the AI is left alone - and that means no independant Norway.
What a player does if he plays Norway is up to him and he can do all of the options you mentioned."

Seems like you missed the point of the rethorical question.

Perhaps you still misunderstand me.
I do NOT say that an ahistorically independant Norway MUST stay catholic - only that in that case the *chance* for the provinces to stay catholic should be (and in the current version of AGCEEP is) higher than if ruled by Denmark which actively promoted protestantism in Norway.
Even in the current version of AGCEEP every norwegian province always has a chance to convert to protestantism on it´s own. That chance is just larger if Denmark is in control than if Norway has shaken off the rule of Denmark. Should enough provinces convert then AI Norway should change the state religion on it´s own.

About Engelbrektson having no support in Norway - he was a member of the norwegian council, regent for Norway for 4 years and he managed to delay the coronation of the danish king he did not want 3 times. That doesn´t seem to me like he had no support in Norway before the danish drove him out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olav_Engelbrektsson
 
Perhaps you still misunderstand me.
I do NOT say that an ahistorically independant Norway MUST stay catholic - only that in that case the *chance* for the provinces to stay catholic should be (and in the current version of AGCEEP is) higher than if ruled by Denmark which actively promoted protestantism in Norway.
Even in the current version of AGCEEP every norwegian province always has a chance to convert to protestantism on it´s own. That chance is just larger if Denmark is in control than if Norway has shaken off the rule of Denmark. Should enough provinces convert then AI Norway should change the state religion on it´s own.

About Engelbrektson having no support in Norway - he was a member of the norwegian council, regent for Norway for 4 years and he managed to delay the coronation of the danish king he did not want 3 times. That doesn´t seem to me like he had no support in Norway before the danish drove him out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olav_Engelbrektsson

In my opinion this *chance* should be higher than it currently is. Maybe not in the 90s, but at least in the 60 - 70s, not in the 30s.

Engelbrektson lacked support, I didn't mean to say he had none. He didn not have enough. In the last privy council in Bud he could not gain enough support from the norwegians. 3 years later they threw him out.
 
Attached zip file contains AGCEEP files with changes regarding Scandinavia
- fixed typo in swedish event mentioned in 1 here
- changed early core of Sweden on Gotland from old full core to claimcore
- changed Denmak to start with only claimcores on Gotland (aquired only 1408 and changed own and control date and local resistance accordingly) and Jutland/Slesvig (only partial control as Slesvig is partly controlled by the Counts of Holstein
- changed start date of vassalizations that make the Kalmar Union so that they do not exist 0 years in 1419 but since 21 years when Erik was crowned

- due to my conservative view on "known" provinces I removed some of them from the knowledge of Denmark which makes to me a slower game with more expensive tech (isolation penaltry if knowing less than 20 other nations). They are only marked with # and can be simply returned if someone has a different view on that
 

Attachments

  • AGCEEP_Specific_Sweden.zip
    1,3 MB · Views: 0