Ahistorical Swedish & Castilian Cores

[Clownie]

Sweden has cores on Jämtland, Halland, Blekinge, and Skåne, despite never having owned these territories before in 1444 (I may be wrong on Jämtland, but Scania had always been under the Danish crown). It also has a core on Gotland, but at least that's Swedish, and has been under Swedish dominion at some point.

Castile, meanwhile, has cores on all of Granada's stuff, while Granada has cores on none of Castile's stuff. This doesn't really make sense at all. If anyone should have cores, it's Granada, having recently lost land of their primary culture. Meanwhile, the Iberians lost the southern coast, what, seven hundred years ago?

Why are these cores there? It's not like Sweden and Castile would fail without them.

 

[yerm]

Castile has cores because it railroads that land into Castile. I used to mod a lot of starting cores (a while ago) and that land often went to Morocco or Portugal (usually both, in that order). At best, I'd see Castile take 2 provinces or the cap, never all three. Those cores seem to be the only effective way to ensure Castile is the one who swallows it up.

Sweden has cores because Sweden.

 

[Frossa]

Sweden has Cores for the same reason as Castille. I see no problem with there being Cores in Skåne, Blekinge and Halland, I think you should see them as permanent claims instead, which would make more sense. Jämtland is a pretty dumb place to have a core in though...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Castile has cores because it railroads that land into Castile. I used to mod a lot of starting cores (a while ago) and that land often went to Morocco or Portugal (usually both, in that order). At best, I'd see Castile take 2 provinces or the cap, never all three. Those cores seem to be the only effective way to ensure Castile is the one who swallows it up.

Sweden has cores because Sweden.

No way, any mission along the lines of the Ottoman one to annex the Mamluks that puts claims on all 3 provinces would easily allow it to be Castile in a vast majority of games. There's no good reason Granada should not have cores on Castile, and Castile only having mission claims on Granada. The current representation is inconsistent with how the game handles its mechanics *and* unnecessary.

 

[Sir Leningrad]

It could certainly be better handled in the case of Castille, at least. Nonetheless, Granada should have no core outside itself, as Granada is not the Ummayad Caliphate or any remnant of it, but the last remaining taifa kingdom, so it had never owned the rest of Al-Andalus. Wich doesn't mean it shouldn't be able to have a decision acquiring cores in it once it owns the land, and forming Al-Andalus proper.

 

[jimmy89]

Some of those territories had actually been under Swedish rule in the past. The Swedish King Magnus Eriksson bought Skåne and Blekinge in 1332 and southern Halland in 1341.

 

[Zak Preston]

Same for Ottomans vs Mamlukes and Muscovy vs Novgorod: their missions (with claims) railroad AI vs AI victory not letting much chance to resist.

 

[birincikalite]

Well Castille is railroaded. Sweden is too, though they have the advantage of being the game's makers so they are op necesserily.

 

[Apelstav]

Sweden held Scania, Halland and Blekinge for some thirty years during the 14th century, though I actually agree with the cores being a bit unnecessary. Jämtland is probably due to the somewhat ambiguous political situations where they paid taxes to Norway but was under the Swedish church IIRC.

Edit: Though I think all of this could be handled by claim-giving missions.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

The Castilian cores on Granada should really be removed. I think the only justification there is that it's a recommended newbie-country, and gets some help for that. I don't think it really needs that though. For the AI to behave normally, adding claims to the provinces when taking the mission would be plenty.

Not sure on Skåneland, there might be some pro-Swedish bias there, but I can't really find a helpful source for the history of that area before the Kalmar Union.

 

[PiriReis]

The Castilian cores on Granada should really be removed.

+1 Change it to claims.

 

[salmanbabri]

The Castilian cores on Granada should really be removed. I think the only justification there is that it's a recommended newbie-country, and gets some help for that. I don't think it really needs that though. For the AI to behave normally, adding claims to the provinces when taking the mission would be plenty.

+1. Theoretically that might make Granada last a bit more longer as claims<cores. After all Granada did lasted till 1492. Adding an Al-Andalus decision + added missions for Granada from missions would be great. If Byzantines could get their DLC then why not Granada. Granada even has better ideas than Byz & is more challenging than them.

 

[birincikalite]

Yeah Granada deserves some love. As stated it lasted quite a long time considering their size. But in my games they seem to get wiped after the truce is over...

 

[Kipperian]

The visigoths don't think it's ahistorical.

 

[Karnak]

The visigoths don't think it's ahistorical.

yeah sweden should have cores on granada and castille also

 

[justin6477]

Sweden held Scania, Halland and Blekinge for some thirty years during the 14th century, though I actually agree with the cores being a bit unnecessary. Jämtland is probably due to the somewhat ambiguous political situations where they paid taxes to Norway but was under the Swedish church IIRC.

Edit: Though I think all of this could be handled by claim-giving missions.

It's worth noting that Swedish ownership of Skane from 1332-1360 wasn't by conquest, but a purchase of sorts. By EUIV logic, either Sweden should not have cores on Skane (seriously, there are missions for this and it's all of three provinces, they can afford to spend the admin points) or Sweden should be 84/100 years into losing them. Sweden being able to easily mug Skane off of Denmark isn't the worst thing in the world, it's when the Hansa beats up Denmark and GIVES it back to Sweden in a peace deal that things get weird.

 

[cleef]

I too believe that, as far as Granada and Castille goes, Granada should have cores on (at least) some of the spanish provinces...

 

[zodium]

My only wish is for pre-game cores to decay under the same mechanics as regular cores. Sometimes this is not the case, I think, like in cases where a country has literally never owned a province? But historical accuracy isn't really my forte, so who knows.

In the case of Granada, though, every map I can dig up suggests they had lost everything but the southern tip by 1294, so their Castilian cores would have decayed by 1444. Agreed that Castile really doesn't need those cores either after 700 or however many years. 'Finish the Reconquista' mission should just give claims.

Come to think of it, this would actually make a Castilian player choose between expending valuable ADM on the Reconquista, or on beelining for colonies. Given their terrible ruler/heir combo, this is not that straight forward.

 

[FreeSoc]

The visigoths don't think it's ahistorical.

Cores aren't allocated on the basis of land ownership 750 years prior to game-start.

 

[RobRoy3]

'Finish the Reconquista' mission should just give claims.

I might agree in theory. In practice, this is just a call for a minor nerf to CAS.

And while CAS might not need the cores, does it really need a nerf?

The cores serve their intended purpose - to encourage CAS to take territories in their historical area of interest. The cries of "railroading" get a bit shrill and knee-jerk, sometimes.

It ain't broke, so don't "fix" it. Far more likely that the "fix" would break something.