Alleged Swedish Bias in EU

[Keynes]

In trolling these boards, I've noticed a lot of comments suggesting that Sweden is overpowered in EU and ascribing this to the nationality of the designers.

Anyways, I was looking through my old copy of the boardgame last night and checked out the two scenarios where Sweden appears -- The thirty Years War and the 1617 - 1665 campaign.

Holy crap is Sweden tough!

Sweden starts the 1617 campaign with the highest land tech (my English edition of the BG has a Habsburg typo) and gets an automatic advance to Baroque era tech in 1630, giving them a 2 -3 turn CRT advantage. All their troops come into the game as veterans, giving them a significant morale advantage. They have special reinforcement advantages. Gustavus is just as nasty in the BG as in the computer version: 6-6-6 and there are special rules to prevent him from dying to early!

If anything, Sweden in the BG is stronger than in the computer game, at least for the critical early-1600s period. And I can't think of any reason why Phillipe Thibaut woudl be biased in favor of Sweden. In fact, the implication is that the pro-Swedish rules were put in place so that the BG could simulate Sweden's actual perforamce in this period.

So my inclination would be to declare Paradox "not guilty" on this particular charge. But Im still annoyed by the economic system.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Interesting, did not know this.
I'm an absolute know-no on the BG - so all info about it is trés kewl.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by Keynes
In fact, the implication is that the pro-Swedish rules were put in place so that the BG could simulate Sweden's actual perforamce in this period.

It is hard to simulate the performance of a country which begins as a crappy no-account minor, unexpectedly develops into a real powerhouse, and then sinks back to being a crappy no-account minor again ... so you're probably right. So far as the Grand Campaign goes, I'd argue that you shouldn't even attempt to do so: we've all seen that in every GC, *some* obscure minor country will unexpectedly develop into a powerhouse. It's often one of the German states like Hessen, swallowing three of its neighbours and beating up on France; or some similar occurrence. Well, IRL it turned out to be Sweden, but that's no reason to code in artificial restrictions to make it be Sweden every time you play. Of course for scenarios like the Thirty Years' War, which begin when Sweden already *is* a powerhouse, this doesn't apply.

 

[Orm]

I agree with Heyesey.
I've said this before in similar threads and I maintain the view that the main reason for Swedens greatness during the 1600's was the substantial monetary aid it got from France. Without it, it's doubtful if Sweden would have entered into the 30 Years War at all. And that would probably have meant that this war would have to be called the 12 Years War or something like that.

 

[kurtbrian]

and that would look a little bleak compared to the 100 years war

 

[ziggy]

France did not start paying for swedens army untill 1631. A few years after Sweden had entered the war.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

sWEDEN

If Sweden declaired war on Russia in 1812, would Napoleon have won?

 

[Carolus Rex]

Sweden would have won.

 

[PatMaster]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Sweden would have won.

Of course!

 

[unmerged(3908)]

I thought the Russians beat up hte swedes after Tilsit when Nappy and Tsar Alexander agreed to split up Europe between them with Sweden allotted to Russia?

 

[Keynes]

Just to clarify: I'm not making any claim about the actual strength of Sweden in this period. Im just addressing the many accusations of bias that appear on the board. If Sweden is overly strong, that was a feature that exists in the BG and thus Paradox is IMHO off the hook for this.

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by D. Marlborough
I thought the Russians beat up hte swedes after Tilsit when Nappy and Tsar Alexander agreed to split up Europe between them with Sweden allotted to Russia?

They did, but after when sweden got a new king (one of nappys marshals) that very king was one of the main reasons that the russian tsar didn´t give in to Napoleon during the campaign of 1812.

 

[unmerged(3236)]

Re: Re: Alleged Swedish Bias in EU

Originally posted by Heyesey


It is hard to simulate the performance of a country which begins as a crappy no-account minor, unexpectedly develops into a real powerhouse, and then sinks back to being a crappy no-account minor again ... so you're probably right. So far as the Grand Campaign goes, I'd argue that you shouldn't even attempt to do so: we've all seen that in every GC, *some* obscure minor country will unexpectedly develop into a powerhouse. It's often one of the German states like Hessen, swallowing three of its neighbours and beating up on France; or some similar occurrence. Well, IRL it turned out to be Sweden, but that's no reason to code in artificial restrictions to make it be Sweden every time you play. Of course for scenarios like the Thirty Years' War, which begin when Sweden already *is* a powerhouse, this doesn't apply.

The goal of this game is that it should come to results resembling of what happened in history, so therefore sweden got some help to grow that big.

 

[Orm]

Originally posted by ziggy
France did not start paying for swedens army untill 1631. A few years after Sweden had entered the war.

Swedish troops occupied Stettin in 1630 and had a few skirmishes with imperial troops. In 1631 the Treaty of Bärwalde was signed between France and Sweden. That's when Sweden entered the war for keeps.
The war wouldn't have dragged on if the France hadn't paid the Swedes to fight.

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by Idiotboy


They did, but after when sweden got a new king (one of nappys marshals) that very king was one of the main reasons that the russian tsar didn´t give in to Napoleon during the campaign of 1812.

Even in 1814, Russia supported and pushed Bernadotte's claim to become ruler of France. But the Allies couldn't agree between each other on the one they wanted to place to fill the vaccum. So instead they proposed to Napoleon to stay as Emperor of France, but at the condition to restitute what he conquered, still guaranteeing to France a bigger territory than in 1789.

Napoleon refused.

Drakken

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by beowulf


Swedish troops occupied Stettin in 1630 and had a few skirmishes with imperial troops. In 1631 the Treaty of Bärwalde was signed between France and Sweden. That's when Sweden entered the war for keeps.
The war wouldn't have dragged on if the France hadn't paid the Swedes to fight.

Well, didn't France pay everyone and anyone to continue the war against Habsburg oppression. And the Swedes hardly were the only ones to make the war last so long. Sweden might have been a decisive weight around 1630-31 to prolong the war, but it did IMHO not have that same importance later in the war. (Even if it remained a powerful actor on the scene)

 

[unmerged(5934)]

I have never seen Sweden do as good as in real history. Usually they are very roughly handled about 1500 by Russia and some friends, such as Denmark, Spain or Poland, and never do completely recover. Actually, the best result Sweden has got in my campaigns has been because I was constantly pumping money into their coffers to encourage swedish colonial expansion (I was playing as Portugal and used Sweden to help against the other colonial powers when Portugal lost its colonial dinamism); but even in this case it was enough to make them resist Russia, but not enough to make them win the wars...

 

[Orm]

Originally posted by Nikolai II


Well, didn't France pay everyone and anyone to continue the war against Habsburg oppression. And the Swedes hardly were the only ones to make the war last so long. Sweden might have been a decisive weight around 1630-31 to prolong the war, but it did IMHO not have that same importance later in the war. (Even if it remained a powerful actor on the scene)

There were a couple of instances where the only thing that kept the war going was the swedish determination to get satisfaction (money and land) for their war effort. Without Sweden the whole protestant alliance would have collapsed.

 

[Idiotboy]

Originally posted by Alatriste
I have never seen Sweden do as good as in real history. Usually they are very roughly handled about 1500 by Russia and some friends, such as Denmark, Spain or Poland, and never do completely recover. Actually, the best result Sweden has got in my campaigns has been because I was constantly pumping money into their coffers to encourage swedish colonial expansion (I was playing as Portugal and used Sweden to help against the other colonial powers when Portugal lost its colonial dinamism); but even in this case it was enough to make them resist Russia, but not enough to make them win the wars...

I totally agree on this one. I´ve never seen sweden come out on top in my games. Usually they reduced to rubble early in the 16th century.

 

[Carolus Rex]

You must mean 17th century.

In my games they pretty much remain intact, give or take 1-2 provinces.