Boost the Danes

[Secuter]

As the title reads, boost Denmark. I've had 4 full games now, and I've yet to see them survive past the break of union with Sweden. Denmark needs more provinces, I've got a mod which splits Jutland into 4 provinces in total, Sjaelland in 2, it makes a tiny bit stronger, but not much.
Denmark has some excessively poor provinces, and to honest, their ideas are very much lagging in.. yeah well, everything. The Hansa or the Swedes (after they broke off) is usally eating up Denmark, sometimes Pomerania gets a piece too. The funniest thing I saw was when Sweden took Jutland. After some time, I believe it was The Hansa, took those provinces.. and guess what, it was Danish Separatist rebels that revolted, it was Swedish separatists... I mean.. really??

Ideas and traditions Traditions:
+1 Yearly legitimacy
+5% Ship durability]]] These traditions are pathetic, who would ever think that this would be any good?
Vornedskab

+10% Manpower recovery speed]]] - This is very weak, 10% is advicer level.
Old Naval Traditions

+1 Yearly navy tradition]]] One of the few good Danish ideas.
Found the Rentekammer

+10% National tax modifier]] Also rather "meh". Perhaps make it trade related instead? Denmark had long wars with other trade nations such as the Hansa.
Reorganize the Klaedekammer

−10% Naval maintenance modifier]]] Venice and Genoa has -20% though. Not saying it should be the same, but this is weak.
Found the Copenhagen Dockyard

+50% Naval force limit modifier]]] Had Denmark ever been able to field such a navy, then yes, it would have been good.
Den Danske Lov

−1 National unrest ]] it's accetable.
Religious Freedom is Atheism

+2 Tolerance of the true faith
+10% Church power ]] This is also good.
Ambitions:

+15% Light ship combat ability ]] 15 % to light ship combat? I mean.. really.. Yeah, Denmark were good with their gunboat war etc, but mere 15% remember, that other nations such as England, Spain, Genoa, Neatherlands and Venice has much better ideas than this. And that goes for almost all of Denmarks navy related ideas. Denmark repeatedly bested the Swedish navy. The Danish had one of the strongest navies at the time (up until the bombardment of Copenhagen)

 

[grommile]

IIRC, in 1.14 Denmark and Sweden will no longer start the game as Historic Rivals, which should help Denmark's survivability considerably.

 

[hashinshin]

The changes to denmark's development won't help their laughably weak ideas.

 

[Harlehus]

Really to me those ideas to not look noticeably weak just slightly below average. To tired to really tell though.

 

[Bryce325]

My last game denmark didn't even break for 150 years and probably would have stayed that way if I didn't ruin it for them

 

[hashinshin]

My last game denmark didn't even break for 150 years and probably would have stayed that way if I didn't ruin it for them

Historical Denmark didn't break. Ever. They're still here.

 

[DukeDayve]

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about history for the period of this game and certainly not the history of Denmark - it's one of those countries I just haven't got around to immersing myself in its history with books yet, so there's no need to get upset at the following comment.

Did Denmark - on its own, not the union with Sweden and Norway - ever become a real power in the period of EUIV? At any point in the years this game covers, did any nation ever say "My God man, we can't do that, we'll anger the mighty Denmark!"?

And if not, why would they be buffed? These games aren't historical simulators after all. The general idea is that you give the countries what they had at the time the game starts, then they take what you gave them and roll with it. If it's good it's good, if it isn't then it isn't.

 

[HansBaer]

AFAIK it wasn't even a regional power after the end of the Kalmar Union and became practically meaningless during the 30 YW, the only reason Denmark didn't get swallowed whole is because the Dutch intervened. Yet, that doesn't really matter. Countries like the TO, LO, Novgorod, Genoa, Provence hell even Ireland all went into oblivion but they all have way better ideas.
I don't mind Denmark disappearing almost every game, that's how the game works. Big eats small. They just shouldn't go down that fast and at least be able to hold their own on sea. A morale bonus to their army would also help, they are Vikings after all
However, my guess is their biggest problem isn't the historical rival modifier or their bad NIs. I rather think that they have the same problem as BBurg (who has arguably grade A ideas) and that's their really bad diplomatic setup. Due to their medium size, same as BB, they can be rivaled by much bigger and more powerful nations (Sweden, Poland, Bohemia, Muscovy) and get dogpiled by their smaller neighbors once the big boys take a bite out of them. Also, their only way to expand and earn prestige is either into HRE or naval landing, both things the AI doesn't really shine at.
As a human, you can easily mitigate this by getting smart allies and going over your dip limit in Denmark's case, the AI isn't able to do that however.

 

[profxyz]

I don't think ideas help that much when my experience is that most of the time, Denmark gets pounced on by a combination of Sweden + allies and the north German states (taking advantage of the war with Sweden) and gets reduced to the islands, or worse, by the first 50 years. Their fleet - assuming that their AI knows how to block straits - is simply not good enough to counter so many enemies at once.

And of course straits in EUIV are treated like typical sea zones, which is not historical (a fleet trying to blockade the Danish Straits would be in for some serious punishment from both floating and land batteries, for example in the 1801 Battle of Copenhagen; similarly for other straits like the Bosphorus).

So I think Denmark needs higher forcelimits at the outset, either through National Traditions or through greater development. I prefer greater development; Denmark without Scania is vassalizable in one war in 1444 (around 96% warscore or something), which I don't think does justice to that country. (Plus it allows most countries to vassalize Denmark and then impose a PU on Sweden pretty darn efficiently).

 

[Topias]

Separately, many of these ideas are fairly standard, if not overly strong. As a national idea set, they make a somewhat unfocused and weak whole. Denmark doesn't have Sweden's military might with their famous space marines or Norway's cheap and powerful light ships and colonial focus. Even though there are some useful navy-focused ideas, what are they supposed to do with that navy? Light ship combat ability is all well and good, but it's not complimented by a single trade idea. They can't really overly rely on galleys either, since half of their coast isn't inland sea. The tax modifier, while good, is very standard and doesn't really do enough to make them an economic powerhouse.

So yeah, it's a mixed bag with no proper focus or anything to really help them compete with their neighbours: Sweden will kick their ass on the land, Norway has far superior colonial prospects and the Hansa outclasses them at trade by far and is protected by the HRE. Better to just keep allying that Muscovy, buddy.

 

[Sunspawn]

(Plus it allows most countries to vassalize Denmark and then impose a PU on Sweden pretty darn efficiently).

What? How in the world would that let you PU Sweden?

 

[Oddb@ll]

It's always sad to see the proud danish nation being split between Sweden and the Hansa

 

[Sunspawn]

It's always sad to see the proud danish nation being split between Sweden and the Hansa

I usually see one of the Pomeranian princes grab the Sound islands (Lolland, Fyn and Sjaeland) with the Hansa eating Jutland.

 

[User4035]

The problem is that the AI Basically fights to the death in every single war.

The real solution is to program the AI to know when its been defeated and have them stop hiring 1 stack units that get instantly wiped.
The reason I keep saying this in threads is because paradox has bragged that their games have an AI and compare it to competitors like total war where their AI can bug out and be derpy sometimes.
When E4 came out I kind of agreed with their bragging. But as they kept modifying the game and then sacrificing realism and historical accuracy just so the AI can work it gets on my nerves.

Their solution to AI nations dying after 1 war is Revanchism. Which is just an artificial number increase. It would be like the player fighting to the bitter end, tons of loans and then you just console and get rid of half your loans, give you back half manpower, reduce your WE and your good to go.
This is stuff game companies did 20 years ago with simple games just to make it harder.

And they are telling us they can't program the AI to stop spamming 1 stack units next to occupied territory when they have 20 WE, 20 loans, 0 manpower and their opponent has half manpower reserves, no loans, combined alliance strength is 3 times forcelimit.
They seriously can't program that? its a bunch of if/than statements in the code.

 

[Quaade]

Did Denmark - on its own, not the union with Sweden and Norway - ever become a real power in the period of EUIV? At any point in the years this game covers, did any nation ever say "My God man, we can't do that, we'll anger the mighty Denmark!"?

No it wasn´t a real power during the period in the way that Sweden bacame, but was a real power in decline in the beginning. Needless to say, they should have the ability to become the real power, since circumstances leading up to Swedish independence could very well have been different but likely to happen due to them disapproving both being ruled by Denmark (trying to become the ruler themselves) and that the "forced" relations to Hansa meant their trading of their iron was made more difficult along with the danish taxes imposed on them.

Also, considering the Union was able to elect a King from Oldenburg, Pommerania and Bavaria they had some influence that mattered.

A little light reading, which sums of the events well to what I learned as a bred and borned dane ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

The union collapse is really just poorly portrayed currently, since the mechanics are lacking and using the ones that exist only helps making it less historical. In reality the only participants in the war was Sweden and Lübeck against Kalmar, while french, german and scottish mercenaries were used in 1520 due to Denmark loosing a string of battles, this was also not due to active alliances but hiring outsiders to fight the war.

In short, the Union was created due to the need to counter Hansa and the rare event of inheritances that occured shortly after, this was however prior to the period. What´s interesting is that in 1448, Sweden elected a king due to the death of the current union king and an "outsider" was elected. This however wasn´t to gain independence, but actually reestablish the union under swedish rule, this was followed by a string of struggles over the next 70 years, to which ended in Sweden surrendering in 1523, but was not forced into the union as a term of the peace. Which led to them becoming independent.

Norway was "annexed" in 1536 but by then the union had already collapsed. What´s most important, this was looked at as a rebellion and not as an independent nation vying for freedom, also since this was never the goal to begin with. The union was a reality when "war" broke out and was the purpose. So currently it´s simply not very well handled in-game.

Might be better to have it trigger as a disaster instead, or implemet a few new mechanics to better represent this special-case, like Sweden choosing to have their own king but still be de facto in a union could in game-terms simply make them vassals with a special CB. But since negotiations, restrictions and rights cannot be negotiated in-game, this can not be truly portrayed. However, it saddens me, that Sweden will go for independence so soon.

Should really be a string of internal struggles between the members of who holds power, and could see it as a cool new feature that a PU would have the risk of turning the table due to court intrigue during succession and having small "wars" breaking up that doesn´t allow for allies to be called. This would also improve the vassal interactions and the use of vassals, when you are at risk of having a small-sized war with your vassals due to a dispute over land, like when you hold one of their cores, which could have a number of outcomes like gaining the core, gaining more rights (like lower taxes, electing own ruler, declaring war of their own, right to marry) to flatout independence if overly succesful.

This struggles could be used to test the strength against your overlord, give you something to do as a vassal, and prepare you for the full war with your overlords vassals. Doesn´t always make sense that ALL struggles in these relations would grant the ability to call in allies, since most were only disputes viewed upon internationally as a rebellion.

And if not, why would they be buffed? These games aren't historical simulators after all. The general idea is that you give the countries what they had at the time the game starts, then they take what you gave them and roll with it. If it's good it's good, if it isn't then it isn't.

Since this game also portrays both what could be and what happened historically, giving out ideas based on historical reasons that could have changed if, like in this case the union never split. I wouldn´t say Denmark should be buffed, the ideas seen fine and complement how Denmark were and focused on during the period. But they could portray the conflict better and represent history a bit better. After all, we talk a conflict that started 4 years after game-start, not in 1750 where MANY variables could go change what lead up to this.

As the title reads, boost Denmark. I've had 4 full games now, and I've yet to see them survive past the break of union with Sweden. Denmark needs more provinces, I've got a mod which splits Jutland into 4 provinces in total, Sjaelland in 2, it makes a tiny bit stronger, but not much.

Yes Denmark is fairly weak currently, splitting provinces could be a solution but I for one wouldn´t recommend it. There is little reason for Denmark to being split further, since it reflect well how Denmark was build up, they could however be a bit stronger, but that could be done by development. The real issue is that the war is off, as argued above, and that Denmark wasn´t that weak as currently, being swallowed by both sweden and Hansa. In fact it took 70 years of warfare where Denmark won in reality, yet the independence was still reclaimed. But fighting/struggling for such a long period while still holding of Hansa doesn´t really show in-game right now

The ideas are good and reflect Denmark well, I actually think many of them are quite powerful and useful for Denmark, some you count as being ridicolously underpowered. However, since PDX already stated that they will look into Denmark and try to fix this in the next patch, I would hold off complaining until we see what they have done to this before suggesting major overhaul

 

[CrabHelmet]

Denmark very nearly was Sweden even in our time line in terms of being the relevant Scandinavian power during the Thirty Years War; Christian IV was just a much less adept judge of timing than Gustavus Adolphus. Christian IV was defeated in the Emperor's War because England and the Netherlands were unable to commit to support their ally due to other distractions. As a result, the later Swedish offensive which actually did have the support of their allies succeeded in making significant gains where the Danish offensive hadn't. Those gains to the south were used in the later Swedish offensive against Denmark that temporarily captured Jutland and forced Denmark to cede significant territory to Sweden; Sweden's victory in the Torstenson War would never have been possible were it not for Denmark's earlier losses in the Emperor's War.

If you rewrite history just a little and having England and the Netherlands be less distracted, then the territorial gains Sweden made during the Thirty Years War go to Denmark instead. Thus, Denmark never loses territory to Sweden to begin with, becoming the premier Baltic power as a result. The balance of power between Sweden and Denmark was very fine until 1626 and if anything narrowly favoured Denmark. You certainly shouldn't expect to see Denmark annexed four games in five by 1650, usually by the Hansa but occasionally by Pommerania.

 

[atestarossa]

I don't think adding provinces in Jutland is a point for improving Denmark though. Jutland was not really developed until after Germany took Schleswig in 1864. I think a point could be made to either improve the effect of the sound toll, or to help mimic its effects, improve the development of Sjælland.

That way Denmark can stay relevant, at least until they lose the east side of the sound, which semented the fact of Sweden as the superior country in the north. (As in, severely lessened the chance of Denmark growing back into greater status)

 

[Quaade]

Their solution to AI nations dying after 1 war is Revanchism. Which is just an artificial number increase. It would be like the player fighting to the bitter end, tons of loans and then you just console and get rid of half your loans, give you back half manpower, reduce your WE and your good to go.
This is stuff game companies did 20 years ago with simple games just to make it harder.

I do agree, that revanchism doesn´t really help the main problem to the game. I do like it being implemented though, but they should really focus on the overly stable nations instead. A great example is the lucky nation national unrest, for many of these nations unrest isn´t really an issue anyway and rarely have I seen AI being incapable of handling their revolt risk, only happens when they lost the 3rd war in a row after being dogpiled.

This period was riddled with instability, and while most were unsuccesful they did happen and just 1/20 times I like to see a Otto being torn apart from the inside due to religious and cultural conflict. But due to their ideas both national and elected they become super stable, even after loosing the 5th war in a row. Otto is a great example as to how they can still, with ideas make some nations succed more than others without relying on lucky bonuses. Some lucky bonuses I´m fine with though, but not all.

In essence, I agree... They should fix the core instead of just adding a modifier and hope that helps. It really is only a band-aid (not knowing how it will work though) and as said, should really focus on fixing the core reasons for this to happen.

And they are telling us they can't program the AI to stop spamming 1 stack units next to occupied territory when they have 20 WE, 20 loans, 0 manpower and their opponent has half manpower reserves, no loans, combined alliance strength is 3 times forcelimit.
They seriously can't program that? its a bunch of if/than statements in the code.

I think the main issue why they program the AI to not "recoignize" having lost, is due to players ALWAYS grabbing what they can and go for total domination. So in order to prevent players from tricking the AI into thinking they lost and grabbing land that they want they need to do something like that. As a player, you wouldn´t really quit the war just because you are on the loosing side, you would push and try you best to turn the war. That said, the AI could be improved to manage better, alse in terms of peace dealing.

The fort requirements are one of the thing I found odd, especially when the AI HAS lost, it feels arbitrary that you need to siege down a fort especially when the province would be in your ZoC anyway. I´ve had a few occasions where this was the issue and instead of making peace before, due to having to siege down a fort anyway, I just aswell go total domination instead and grab more money, humilate, force religion and such. Also makes little sense when AI only has a few forts that in effect are far away from the targeted province.

Ideally I want most wars to be "won" between 30-60 warscore, making the peacedeal able to grab less. To do this, I would say gaining warscore above this should both be more difficult, so taking the war goal would bring a "massive" warscore, but taking the rest is more limited impact. Also to this extend, I actually believe revanchism would be a great solution that could trigger at either 40 or 50 % WS giving the "loser" a way to fight back and perhaps enforce a white peace. So it would correlate to the current warscore, so decreasing it would decrease it´s effect aswell.

Turning the war would then mean losing the modifier and giving it to your enemy and the peace deal signed would decide whether the modifier would stay in effect for a period afterwards. Like a white peace negating it, but losing some would make it active still for a number of years. This way I think would be better, and actually give wars a new improvement in the middle of it while also making you as the player more interested in making peace at 40% rather than going for total domination, since in some wars, like a major against France where you just hold the numbers to occupy the rest, granting them revanchism mid-war could mean they would outnumber you quickly. Also the tax bonus would mean less loans taken by AI.

 

[Quaade]

+1 Yearly legitimacy
+5% Ship durability]]] These traditions are pathetic, who would ever think that this would be any good?

I do think this is good, since it means having the same amount of boats or even less, makes them more inclined to winning the battle, also lessens the cost of having to purchase new ones since less is lost. When dealing with heavy ships, this is quite useful and since Denmark need these it´s important. Having your ships fight longer before being sunk can REALLY turn the tide quickly.

+10% Manpower recovery speed]]] - This is very weak, 10% is advicer level.

It´s strong, I often need manpower and having this would mean recovering faster making me either stronger against my enemy I fought intensely or being able to recover enough to make gains elsewhere putting me in a better position the next war.

+10% National tax modifier]] Also rather "meh". Perhaps make it trade related instead? Denmark had long wars with other trade nations such as the Hansa.

Yeah, trade could be good and reflect Denmark somewhat. But given that they have the Sound Toll that gives trade, and the fact that they by that time didn´t have the strength to enforce it and thus not focusing as much on trade, this makes sense. If they held the sound toll they would have the trade modifier and this is just an added bonus, if the don´t it reflect them focusing internally instead of on trade, at which they weren´t dominant in that period anyway.

+50% Naval force limit modifier]]] Had Denmark ever been able to field such a navy, then yes, it would have been good.

They were able to have a larger navy than their size implied, it was recoignized as quite capable and feared by many. I mean, why else would the English be so inclined to act like they did? Also the gunboat war showed that the danish fleet were quite capable of fighting against what is refered to as a naval supremacy. They relied heavily on the navy, which actually led to vast deforestation in Denmark during this period, since so many ships were build and maintained that some forests simply vanished (giving room for agriculture, development gains) and major forests were shrunk massively.

To this date, we only have quite few "natural" forests, and only one that really can trace back to the ice-age.

−1 National unrest ]] it's accetable.

It´s powerful, gaining that -1 along with others make revolts less likely and for some parts make them never happen. Also, it makes you able to fight wars for longer without worrying about revolts starting to rise.

+15% Light ship combat ability ]] 15 % to light ship combat? I mean.. really.. Yeah, Denmark were good with their gunboat war

Somewhat agree, yes they were good but no experts either. They were great at naval warfare, but some of it was due to the fact that they also knew when and where to take the fight.

 

[captain zulu]

I do think this is good, since it means having the same amount of boats or even less, makes them more inclined to winning the battle, also lessens the cost of having to purchase new ones since less is lost. When dealing with heavy ships, this is quite useful and since Denmark need these it´s important. Having your ships fight longer before being sunk can REALLY turn the tide quickly.

yea, denmark should need and have a strong navy but 5% ship durability adds nearly nothing.. 5% .. other country's get 20% morale or combat ability and denmark gets 5% durability it is more useful to build 1 galley instead of 1 light ship as to have this tradition in most cases

ingame the swedish galleys just sink the danish fleet without a problem

-

the +1 legitimacy & -1 unrest & -2 true faith is totally useless for denmark coz atm denmark never goes big (or goes old..) with much luck they get the ösel island.. so what kind of rebels should they ever fear? peasants?!


prestige bonus, trade bonus, shock/fire/maneuver bonus for admiral etc and cheaper ships or someway to make more money would be useful but no minus unrest


but most of the time all the danish problems would be solved if they were able to get a (useful) ally