Denmark problems and ways to fix them.

[ThePatriotOfDreumel]

So, we have many nations in EUIV. The bullies, the strong, the OP, the irrelevant and we have Denmark.

So, what exactly is it with Denmark that gets it it's own category?

It is so underpowered, dumb and f***** that it never gets to the end of the game.

Let's see Denmarks starting position:

Has Norway and Sweden as PUs and Holstein as an vassal.

So, it sounds extremely strong, right? NO!!!!

It all starts with Sweden, who has historical rival (Which gives +50% liberty desire) with Denmark, immediatly wants independence, Declares war(usually with Teutonic help).

So, here we get to an 80/20 chance. 80% chance for Denmark to get hammered, 20% chance for Denmark winning, with heavy losses.

Now, because Denmark is at 0 manpower, couple loans, no army and navy non-existant, the Hansa declares, they get hammered again, lose Most of their islands and Holstein, and then get hammered by Scotland/Pomerania. Now, Denmark is an OPM in Gotland, get killed by Sweden, Norway gets exiled to Iceland after Sweden takes most of their continental holdings.

So, how do we fix this scenario?

Well, first of all, Denmarks ideas: The legitimacy and naval forcelimit should be switched around. This gives them the chance to block Hansa from conquering Sjaeland. They also should always leave their navy in the öresund and Storlebaelt.

Second of all, general increase of Danish develelopment. This is also intended to increase their naval forcelimit and get them some extra money.

This should fix a lot of the problems Denmark has, and may let them live until 1550.

 

[Frossa]

I think moving around the Swedish Ideas wouldn't hurt either. While the Sweden of the 17th and 18th centuries was a formidable military power, it shouldn't have +20% Infantry Combat Ability as a Tradition right off the bat in 1444, that's seems very ahistorical and only serves to empower Sweden during a period when they were historically doing very poorly compared to their Danish overlords.

 

[hashinshin]

Denmark's ideas aren't the WORST... but there comes a point when having too much -unrest is pointless. That point hits when you have -3 unrest

The real problem is Denmark is losing to the Hansa. Nearly consistently the Hansa take down Denmark. There seems to be something wrong with that. I think perhaps Denmark should start with more development, but have their land be less useful to develop on. So their early game gets a boost, but they can't scale in to late game unless they take over better land.

I think, overall, if Denmark had 10 more development even they'd be doing a lot better.

 

[Issac1709]

@Wiz I think a triggered modifier for Denmark that give -100% discipline when fighting Sweden should fix this problem, what do you think?

 

[hwoosh]

Denmark's ideas aren't the WORST... but there comes a point when having too much -unrest is pointless. That point hits when you have -3 unrest

The real problem is Denmark is losing to the Hansa. Nearly consistently the Hansa take down Denmark. There seems to be something wrong with that. I think perhaps Denmark should start with more development, but have their land be less useful to develop on. So their early game gets a boost, but they can't scale in to late game unless they take over better land.

I think, overall, if Denmark had 10 more development even they'd be doing a lot better.

Really it's weird that the Hansa is modeled as an actual tag unto itself. Certainly it's bizarre, as you say, to envision the historical city of Lübeck conquering and annexing Denmark purely on the basis of its trade income.

I envision a "Hansa" subsystem à la HRE or Papacy, whereby nations with provinces in the Hanseatic trade nodes can invest in Hanseatic trade depots in their territories and get bonuses like trade efficiency or diprep for their share of the contribution to the overall prosperity of the Hansa, with additional "cap" bonuses for one of one's cities being recognized as the trade leader of the league. Or some such thing.

 

[Liquid Ghost]

I think you should read Wiz's latest development diary on Revanchism. You'll find your answer there, I think.

 

[spyroware1]

It should be added that the Swedish independence comes with the free Scanian cores which are the richest area in the region, plus a reconquest CB on Pusho'erway.

Denmark should get a couple more provinces, and should be able to integrate Norway off the bat, like seriously, Norway was essentially two coastal cities, three inland outposts and a remote northern sea route with tiny fishing villages. It was very easy to manage and control politically.

Or Sweden should lose the historical enemies modifier and have the breakup of the Kalmar Union as a disaster or an event chain that would make Sweden break free and then get the enemy modifier while Norway gets insta inherited.

Edit- if it wasn't clear, remove those OP cores already

 

[queermobile]

It should be added that the Swedish independence comes with the free Scanian cores which are the richest area in the region, plus a reconquest CB on Pusho'erway.

Denmark should get a couple more provinces, and should be able to integrate Norway off the bat, like seriously, Norway was essentially two coastal cities, three inland outposts and a remote northern sea route with tiny fishing villages. It was very easy to manage and control politically.

Or Sweden should lose the historical enemies modifier and have the breakup of the Kalmar Union as a disaster or an event chain that would make Sweden break free and then get the enemy modifier while Norway gets insta inherited.

Edit- if it wasn't clear, remove those OP cores already

I believe Wiz said the other day that Johan refuses to remove the Scanian cores, which is a little absurd considering they're part of the Danish heartlands, aren't they?
+1 for the Kalmar Union event/disaster. As it stands if I'm not playing ironman first thing I do is tag over and give Denmark 30 more development and Norway another 10-15 so that Norway can at least field an army the size of an OPM.

 

[Dr. B]

Denmark needs a boost, because Sweden is a bit OP, and Norway weak as a kitten.

Ideally the game could model the fact that Sweden could not challenge Den-Nor on the seas and Norway was frozen mountain guerilla hell to invade, thereby making it difficult for Sweden to gain swathes of territory. But this is alas not the case.

Worst are the swedish cores, on land they never owned. If anything, there could be claims as result of missions. This would (much-needed) slow down the Swedish ascent.

But as Johan says, the cores are there to stay for some reason of wich we might only guess, so increase development in Denmark and Norway by maybe 10 each to give them a chance.

Also increase naval force limits in both countries by modifier if necessary to make sure they can hold their own on the seas. Could also give Norway and Denmark an additional relationship boost to ensure the union holds.

 

[GChapman]

Also increase naval force limits in both countries by modifier if necessary to make sure they can hold their own on the seas. Could also give Norway and Denmark an additional relationship boost to ensure the union holds.

If Norway breaks free it is because
1. Negative prestige
2. Peace deals.

Just one of those two. Negative relation wont happen. They already got the historical friend modifier, isnt it?

Isnt a part of the problem the allies of Denmark? They dont have too many strong allies, so Sweden can break free easily.

 

[spyroware1]

I believe Wiz said the other day that Johan refuses to remove the Scanian cores, which is a little absurd considering they're part of the Danish heartlands, aren't they?

This has been brought up a few times but my guess is that it was said ages ago and at least now there's the precedent with Castile. That or Johan will have to make a fool of himself trying to justify this - by all means - every day occurence:

Spoiler

~I didn't intervene, I snatched the Baltic islands after the Swedish war of Independence which as the truce timer clearly shows was finished in 1450 (!) There's something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark indeed

 

[Dr. B]

If Norway breaks free it is because
1. Negative prestige
2. Peace deals.

Just one of those two. Negative relation wont happen. They already got the historical friend modifier, isnt it?

Isnt a part of the problem the allies of Denmark? They dont have too many strong allies, so Sweden can break free easily.

Agreed.
After re-reading the above post, I like very much the suggestion of spyroware1:

Sweden should lose the historical enemies modifier and have the breakup of the Kalmar Union as a disaster or an event chain that would make Sweden break free and then get the enemy modifier while Norway gets insta inherited.

Make it happen after 1500.
This would make sure Denmark is not immediately taken down by Sweden+supporters down to negative prestige, so that they lose Norway as well.
Also give development to make the playing field fair as mentioned above, and get rid of those crazy cores.

 

[Dr. B]

There's something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark indeed

Yep, this is the result. There is nothing wrong with claims and missions for Scania, Denmark and Sweden fought with great ruthlessness for that land.
But cores from game start is just wrong (including the norwegian ones), Sweden conquered that land by 1650+ if I remember correctly, and the locals were not exactly ecstatic about it...

 

[IIWW]

Yep, this is the result. There is nothing wrong with claims and missions for Scania, Denmark and Sweden fought with great ruthlessness for that land.
But cores from game start is just wrong (including the norwegian ones), Sweden conquered that land by 1650+ if I remember correctly, and the locals were not exactly ecstatic about it...

1658 to be exact. Treaty of Roskilde.

 

[TheDungen]

I wouldn't say 20:80 I'd say 50 50. But the results are the same sweden eats denmark or denmark eats sweden and then the winner curbstomps norway (assuming the winner isn't denmark and still has a PU on norway) all in all scendinavie form 90% of all games, the only question is who forms it. First of sweden and denmarks relations needs to start chafing with time, rather than sweden immideatly declaring independence (the kalmar union lasted for almost a century after the game started). Secondly them takign land of each other got to be loads more expensive, after the march over the beltm which was sweden full occupyign denmark, they got only a handful provinces (Skåne blekinge halland, bohuslän bornholm and trondheim as I recall it). After sweden did a unsucessfull rebellion during the karlmar union, did denmark take half of sweden (as they do in the game if they win the revolt) no they took småland and gotland. The warscore cost of provinces change depending on who own them but it needs to be more severe. Sweden and even denmark (though to a much lesser extent) are poor countries with poor provinces but those are the provinces they do have and they would fight as hard to hold on to them as france would for a province that held the same relative amount of their total wealth.

 

[TheDungen]

Yep, this is the result. There is nothing wrong with claims and missions for Scania, Denmark and Sweden fought with great ruthlessness for that land.
But cores from game start is just wrong (including the norwegian ones), Sweden conquered that land by 1650+ if I remember correctly, and the locals were not exactly ecstatic about it...

Most of the locals didn't give a flying crap the people of skåneland were always notoriously idependant even under denmark (There was a saying that the king of denmark only came to skåneland to hunt aurochs, and later when the king of denmark tried to rouse the skåneländers to war they replied that they hadn't seen any aurochs but would let him know if they did) but a few people used the change of king as an excuse to rob rape and murder. Doesn't stop people from romantisising said rapists and murderers in posterity though.

Also again skåneland shuld have it's own culture and tag (with an idea making them harder to core called "We haven't seen any aurochs")

 

[vicotnik]

Yep, this is the result. There is nothing wrong with claims and missions for Scania, Denmark and Sweden fought with great ruthlessness for that land.
But cores from game start is just wrong (including the norwegian ones), Sweden conquered that land by 1650+ if I remember correctly, and the locals were not exactly ecstatic about it...

Why are the Danish cores wrong? Sweden owned the area 1332-1360 (some parts from 1342), so they should still be cores in 1444 shouldn't they? The Norwegian cores are mostly nonsense though, but they are hardly the reason for imbalances. I don't think the Scandinavian situation could ever be properly balanced, and since the developers are Swedish that is tough luck for the Danish. Regardless of who wins Scandinavia is hardly ever the big threat in any campaign, and it probably shouldn't be.

 

[lucaluca]

Sweden overpowered, Russia (their natural ally) is a joke.

 

[War_lord]

The main problem doesn't seem to be Sweden. The Danes don't have any strong allies to lean on and Norway, their loyal PU, are quite weak. Meanwhile on top of Sweden, they have a rich enemy to their south that didn't exist historically.

 

[ShoGuL]

I thought I was on the OT Forum when I read the thread title