Denmark suggestion

[Herr Doctor]

As I said IMO the Danish (because all the battles were won without any help from the Dutch and English, which fleets simply avoid the battles) colossal triumphs on the seas (Öland, Køge Bugt and smaller victories) compensated a hundredfold all the military loses in Skåne. Denmark was considered now for serious naval power again, its naval commanders and crews – for the big professionals (Duke of York, future King James II, named Juel the greatest admiral Europe ever saw), naval trade recovered… In fact the prestige and economical benefits were great for Denmark, while Sweden just did not gain anything from this war, except loosing its entire expensively and long built navy.

 

[tonythetiger]

having played neither sweden nor denmark much, I'm curious to ask what people think are the advantages/disavantages of each country in EU2. Having read this thread it has interested me enough to start a Den campaign but am wondering if it might be more of a challenge to play Sweden. What say you folks? How are each of their generals/leaders in the campaign? Which one is more of a challenge?

 

[Casablanca]

sweden is the easiest contry in the game, because they can take both Denmark and novogrod in the start, then start of with the german minors. (remember the developers of this game comes from sweden).

All your history lessons is very fine and such, i've been reading Danmark i krig. (my sister is studying history) and as a danish book it's propably favorable to denmark, but it is still stating that on the longterm denmark had the advantage, because they have a more homogenic contry now, then the swedish for instance.

We still need to discuss whether or not, denmark needs more provinces, i relation to the strength of german minors and the size of sweden.

-casa

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

having played neither sweden nor denmark much, I'm curious to ask what people think are the advantages/disavantages of each country in EU2. Having read this thread it has interested me enough to start a Den campaign but am wondering if it might be more of a challenge to play Sweden. What say you folks? How are each of their generals/leaders in the campaign? Which one is more of a challenge?

You will probably get better replies in the EU2 forum, but anyway... I think Denmark is probably easier, but I say that because I like their starting position more and I've played them quite a few times.

I've tried to play Sweden before, but I can't bring myself to attack any of her neighbors. I don't want to fight my "brother" countries of Norway and Denmark, and everything east all belongs to Mother Russia... Anyway, I always feel boxed in playing Sweden.

However, just based on how the AI performs, then I'd have to say Sweden is easier. I don't know what it is about Sweden, but they are always monsters over there. The AI techs like a madman with Sweden...and I mean France-level techs by the last century. Not sure how it happens, but it does.

 

[unmerged(53986)]

Russia has to one of the funnest ones.. conquering a vast empire, probly taking the greek provinces aswell.. careful to grab Constantinopel before the turks do & then vassalising those southern nations: Ottomans, "Persia", "Mughals" & China. Along with Austria and Poland who will also become vassals.

Filling Siberia with various manufacturies and conscription centres and dominating trade. Oh, likely the whole american west coast is colonised too, along with australia and south africa.

Then keeping some 2M in armies standing, and whenever someone like the french dare block trade a 200 ship and 150K*3 army goes off to punish
All those nations one cares the slightest about are all vassals soon enough, while tech is maxed out and inflation keeps on rising those last few decades.

 

[Ape]

And you need to learn
1. to read my comment,
2. that wikipedia is a not a complete historic reference
and 3. that personal attacks lead nowhere

The scanian war was the first of several revenge wars, and yes the first didn't go very well. The others are not mentioned individually in wikipedia, except for the great northern war, which was the last attempt to retake scania.

1. If I missunderstood you I apologize, there were three revenge wars: 1675-79(Scanian war), 1700 (part of GNW) and later in 1710-1719 (again part of the GNW) so what other wars are you talking about and I still wonder where you got this from:

When Denmark invaded in the revenge wars to take back Scania, the assault was halted either due to slow progress (winter), or in one case because France threatened to declare war on Denmark if we put siege to Stockholm.

So you might argue that without Dutch assistance Denmark would have been forced into annexation/personal union (which if looking on the Swedish experience would have lasted 10-20years), but without French assistance Denmark would have won back Scania.

I ask for evidence of this or that you concede the point that French assistance/threats or slow progress (winter) halted Denmark from regaining Skåne.

2. I know wikipedia aint a historical document and that its reliability isnt the best. Which I did comment upon when posting. OTOH I can if you persist track down at least half a dozen sites that will give you about the same information regarding the Scanian war. I have not seen you back up any statements you have made whatsoever. Evidence or concede the point.

3. I have not made any personal attacks. A personal attack is: "Your an idiot that believe that, go read a book", not: "You definetly need to learn history from somewhere". You understand the differance?

You also forgot that the ¼ of the Swedish armies until 1660 was still fighting the Poles (just consider how many soldiers were left to garrison the fortresses) and the Russians during the short unsuccessful campaign of the last to Livonia and Karelia. There were about 1.500 Swedish soldiers only in Samogitia…

Im not sure what relevance this has. While it is interesting that Sweden managed to defeat the Danes in the 1657-1658 war with one hand tied behind their back. Im not trying to critize you, Im merely asking what is your point?



Now regarding extra provinces, I think its a little early to start demanding extra provinces, as we dont know that the income forumula will stay the same from EU2, we dont know if the cost of troops, buildings etc will stay the same from EU2.

Personally I think that the balance between Denmark and Sweden in EU2 was about historical, the only problem is that the Swedish AI (at least in my games) hardly ever look east across the Baltic, but rather keep hammering the Danes into submission. With the end result of a Swedish Norway fairly early (mid 17th century).

 

[Sute]{h]

Now regarding extra provinces, I think its a little early to start demanding extra provinces, as we dont know that the income forumula will stay the same from EU2, we dont know if the cost of troops, buildings etc will stay the same from EU2.

Personally I think that the balance between Denmark and Sweden in EU2 was about historical, the only problem is that the Swedish AI (at least in my games) hardly ever look east across the Baltic, but rather keep hammering the Danes into submission. With the end result of a Swedish Norway fairly early (mid 17th century).

As to extra provinces I feel that MYmap got it about right. For the mainland Denmark the most important thing is to have Slesvig seperated from Jylland and Holstein. That is needed for a somewhat historical modelling of the area. In modern day Sweden it might be good to seperate Skåne into Skåne-Blekinge and Halland. But really Danish weakness doesn't come from a serious lack of provinces but from the fact that navies are useless in EU2. If naval power get an increased importance, that would seriously improve the balance much more than increasing the Danish province count.

Now that being said the Scandinavian procinces and the Swedish onces in particulary are unrealistically wealthy compared to the rest of Europe in vanilla EU2. Partly to keep Scandinavias historical strenght within this timeframe, but by dividing provinces the single provinces doesn't have to be so rich.

As to the balance between Sweden and Denmark I think we got it about right in the AGCEEP (especially with MYmap), after we reduced Swedens provinces income to a more realistic level. Sweden still tend to dominate the game after the Kalmar Union, but Denmark usually isn't beaten to pieces (by Sweden anyways ). Again what drags Denmark down is usually a lot of wars with German minors.

 

[Herr Doctor]

As to extra provinces I feel that MYmap got it about right. For the mainland Denmark the most important thing is to have Slesvig seperated from Jylland and Holstein. That is needed for a somewhat historical modelling of the area. In modern day Sweden it might be good to seperate Skåne into Skåne-Blekinge and Halland. But really Danish weakness doesn't come from a serious lack of provinces but from the fact that navies are useless in EU2. If naval power get an increased importance, that would seriously improve the balance much more than increasing the Danish province count.

We recently also added Lolland

 

[Sute]{h]

We recently also added Lolland

Why? :rofl:

 

[Ape]

As to extra provinces I feel that MYmap got it about right. For the mainland Denmark the most important thing is to have Slesvig seperated from Jylland and Holstein. That is needed for a somewhat historical modelling of the area. In modern day Sweden it might be good to seperate Skåne into Skåne-Blekinge and Halland. But really Danish weakness doesn't come from a serious lack of provinces but from the fact that navies are useless in EU2. If naval power get an increased importance, that would seriously improve the balance much more than increasing the Danish province count.

I definatly agree that the political situation on the southern parts of the Jylland peninsula (Schlewsig-Holstein) is horribly ahistorically modelled in EU2, and that a provincial divide is needed to get that more historically accurate. Regarding other provinces, I am alway in favour of more then in EU2.

And I also agree regarding Naval power, not only would Denmark benefit from an increase, but more importantly so would England/United Kingdom.

Now that being said the Scandinavian procinces and the Swedish onces in particulary are unrealistically wealthy compared to the rest of Europe in vanilla EU2. Partly to keep Scandinavias historical strenght within this timeframe, but by dividing provinces the single provinces doesn't have to be so rich.

I agree and I disagree, thing is that some real life provinces were actually decent (Östergötland, Västergötland, Uppland and Södermanland) while the rest was basiclly dirt poor. The problem is that the decent real life provinces are merged with dirt poor ones in EU2.

As to the balance between Sweden and Denmark I think we got it about right in the AGCEEP (especially with MYmap), after we reduced Swedens provinces income to a more realistic level. Sweden still tend to dominate the game after the Kalmar Union, but Denmark usually isn't beaten to pieces (by Sweden anyways ). Again what drags Denmark down is usually a lot of wars with German minors.

I disagree, I am under the impression (or illusion) that had Sweden concentrated its forces and resources against Denmark, rather then spread it out and fight Russia and Poland as well. Sweden would, particulary during the 17th century, have pounded Denmark into submission. Which I in my EU2 games I see Sweden do, as the AI mainly fight Denmark instead of fighting also against Russia and Poland.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Why? :rofl:

It helps to represent at last logical land connection through Jylland-Fyn-Lolland-Sjælland (if to have any at last) and strengthens Denmark against the land attacks from Jutland (those German minors which often terrorize Denmark in EUII).

And finally I like the name – Lol-land

 

[Sute]{h]

I disagree, I am under the impression (or illusion) that had Sweden concentrated its forces and resources against Denmark, rather then spread it out and fight Russia and Poland as well. Sweden would, particulary during the 17th century, have pounded Denmark into submission. Which I in my EU2 games I see Sweden do, as the AI mainly fight Denmark instead of fighting also against Russia and Poland.

Same could have been said about Denmark. If Denmark had limited their fight to Sweden, rather than picking on the north Germans they would have had the ability to withstand the Swedish withdrawal from the Union. Have you tried playing ACGEEP btw? Sweden is still capable of beating up Denmark.

Every vanilla game I've played always starts with Sweden beating up Novgorod. So the AI does attack the russian possessions. As to province income how can Sweden justify a province income rivaling north Italy?

 

[Sute]{h]

It helps to represent at last logical land connection through Jylland-Fyn-Lolland-Sjælland (if to have any at last) and strengthens Denmark against the land attacks from Jutland (those German minors which often terrorize Denmark in EUII).

And finally I like the name – Lol-land

Hehe... I just have a hard time imagining that an army heading for Sjælland would go there via Lolland. Unless of course they came directly from Holstein or Vorpommern.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Hehe... I just have a hard time imagining that an army heading for Sjælland would go there via Lolland. Unless of course they came directly from Holstein or Vorpommern.

Well, it is the way how the Swedish army moved here in 1658
http://www.oresundstid.dk/dansk/oresundstid/1600/flash/togtet1658-01.html

It was absolutely impossible to move from Fyn to Sjælland through the Store Bælt even in winters of 1658 or 1700. And “Lolland” province in MyMap will represent naturally all the Danish islands south to Sjælland.

 

[Ape]

Have you tried playing ACGEEP btw?

Yes, but I got annoyed in the over eventification of it, so now I just play vanilla.

 

[Skarion]

As Ape seem to be better knowing about this then me, I am just gonna add what I can find/know, so please correct me if something is wrong (Which I hope it is not).

----------

Ohh... and in the 1100-1525 Denmark did manage to force Sweden back into the Union several times. Which seems to imply that Denmark did have the upper hand. At times Denmark did lose wars leading to periods of Swedish independence though.

But not as of Danish superiority, rather of that Swedish nobles (Especielly the Germans and Danes in the Swedish Riksdag) who beat the Swedish freedomfighters in the back.


http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbrekt_Engelbrektsson

Upproret lade sig efter att ett antal rådsherrar vädjat om fred, och hela historien upprepades sedan under våren året därpå.

The rebellion (Engelbrekt) was stopped after an ammount of members of the Riksdag had pledged for peace, and the whole history repeated itself under the spring next year (Basicly Engelbrekt went back to the Riksdag, and told them to redeclare war or he would cut their heads off or something similar).


http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Knutsson_(Bonde)

Drotsen Krister Nilsson (Vasa) arbetade emellertid för unionens upprätthållande och Eriks återinkallande.

The Drots Krister Nilsson (Vasa, who is related with Gustav Vasa) worked for the union's receation and Erik (The Danish king) to be recalled.

Sedan i Danmark hertig Kristofer av Bayern blivit vald till kung, ansåg sig Karl Knutsson därför inte längre kunna stå emot unionspartiet.

Since in Denmark duke Kristofer of Bayern was elected king, KKB saw no way to any longer stand against the unionparty (Which was a Swedish party within the Riksdag who wanted to recreate the union).

---

The same texts as above I can find in for example:

Svensk historia by Alf Henriksson
and other books.

Which pretty much proves (In my view) that most of the wars there the union was recreated it was cause of the Swedish riksdag.

The same way Sweden had a powerfull ally in France after the 30year war. When Denmark invaded in the revenge wars to take back Scania, the assault was halted either due to slow progress (winter), or in one case because France threatened to declare war on Denmark if we put siege to Stockholm.

As Ape mentioned, the reason for the stopping of the Danish army was not winter, rather as of losses against the Swedish military.

Now when also that it is shown clearly that the united Dutch and Danish navies held the Baltic sea, Sweden only needed to be successfull in landmight for the Danes to surrender before they even were fully out of Swedish lands.

(I consider the Swedish article to be better as it is more clearly stating why the peace was put up while the English was more exact numbers and pretty a lot pro-Danish)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanian_War
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skånska_kriget

but without French assistance Denmark would have won back Scania.

As you see on the articles above (Especielly the Swedish one) you can see that Sweden did beat the Danish troops, and later even the Scanians were more pro-Sweden then supporting Denmark.

So, they wouldn't gained anything, they got the peace they could, if France hadn't been a part of the meddling Sweden probably tried to capture Norway as of it to be almost undefended while Danish troops were evacuated unto Danish proper.

these vessels helped Denmark to use this wonderful world trade market situation when the third neutral side was required to provide trade between the English, Dutch, French and Portuguese colonies, which were almost always in the state of permanent colonial war. This relived and made finally profitable (until 1790s) the refunded Danish Second East Indian Company as well as fasten the Caribbean colonization. It boosted the Danish economy and merchant initiatives greatly. It is the only period (1680-1780s with the exception of the Great Nordic war years) when the Danish mercantilist trade and colonialism were making profits.

If it may be true to some extent, it can be seen that in a long perspective it didn't matter at all.

As I said IMO the Danish (because all the battles were won without any help from the Dutch and English, which fleets simply avoid the battles)

As seen in articles above, the Dutch fleet did anticipate actively in at least the Scanian war.

compensated a hundredfold all the military loses in Skåne. Denmark was considered now for serious naval power again, its naval commanders and crews – for the big professionals (Duke of York, future King James II, named Juel the greatest admiral Europe ever saw), naval trade recovered… In fact the prestige and economical benefits were great for Denmark, while Sweden just did not gain anything from this war, except loosing its entire expensively and long built navy.

If I remember correctly from Svensk historia by Alf Henriksson this "expensively and long built navy" was a scratched together fleet which was not what it should have been as Sweden hadn't afforded to pay for the maintenance of it for ages. Most of the main losses was as of that some ships exploded or collapsed even before the battle took place and that there were no equippment nor working cannons on the ships.

While even if Denmark had a successfull navy and did maybe become a serieus naval power in the 17th century (Which I doubt) it haven't ment anything in the long term view as they didn't gain anything territorial and were never richer then they usually were.

sweden is the easiest contry in the game, because they can take both Denmark and novogrod in the start, then start of with the german minors. (remember the developers of this game comes from sweden).

Try to play Sweden, it is one of the hardest nations in the game for a WC as of the events which destabilise the nation and as of strong neighbours which they get in war with before it is ready.

(My attempt yet to a Swedish WC, will try to finnish it one day)
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234585

 

[Carewolf2]

This is starting to resemble viking age Norwegian story telling..

I remember in Gymnasiet we compared two historic tales in one written by a German historian and another by a Norwegian. The scene was a battle between Denmark and Norway where Denmark won. The Norwegian tale repeatedly emphasized that the weak and cowardly Danes only won due to help from renegade Norwegians.

Fast forward 1000 years to a internet-forum debate:
So when Denmark repeatedly subdued Sweden, it was only due to help from renegade Swedes.

Ape: I am looking up references. You are right so far I can't find much info online, but I have a few books on the subject I am going to check.

 

[Skarion]

So when Denmark repeatedly subdued Sweden, it was only due to help from renegade Swedes.

Well, yes..?

I would claim it as of the articles above and the fact that the Danes seldom won any battles against Swedes even under the 15th century while there are plenty of victories for Engelbrekt and KKB.

The only war that was pretty much successfull for Denmark was under Christian the tyrant (The great in Denmark right?) who made the bloodbath in Stockholm, and this was mostly as he had recieved a lot of money (As of his marriage wasn't it?) which he spent in thons of mercenaries which with a pretty much superior ammount beat us (Even if some claims that Sweden did in fact hold the castles but surrendered as of promises of peace it wasn't a Danish victory, but I would still put this as one of the few Danish true victories from Margarethe).

 

[Herr Doctor]

As seen in articles above, the Dutch fleet did anticipate actively in at least the Scanian war.

And what battle exactly it participated in, instead of standing in dozens sea miles form the Swedish-Danish actions? Just read something about the naval battles in this war.

If I remember correctly from Svensk historia by Alf Henriksson this "expensively and long built navy" was a scratched together fleet which was not what it should have been as Sweden hadn't afforded to pay for the maintenance of it for ages. Most of the main losses was as of that some ships exploded or collapsed even before the battle took place and that there were no equippment nor working cannons on the ships.

While even if Denmark had a successfull navy and did maybe become a serieus naval power in the 17th century (Which I doubt) it haven't ment anything in the long term view as they didn't gain anything territorial and were never richer then they usually were.

Well Sweden gained large territories in the 17th century and built up a real Baltic empire… a very ephemeral, badly populated and geographically divided “empire”, which collapsed absolutely three dozens years later after the Scanian war. So, I believe the answer who gained strategic victory in this war is quite clear.

 

[Skarion]

And what battle exactly it participated in, instead of standing in dozens sea miles form the Swedish-Danish actions? Just read something about the naval battles in this war.

1 juni 1676 besegras den svenska flottan i det förkrossande slaget vid Ölands södra udde av den holländske amiralen Cornelis Tromp.

The 1st june 1676 the Swedish fleet was beaten terrible at the south of Öland's coast by the Dutch admiral Cornelis Tromp.

Well Sweden gained large territories in the 17th century and built up a real Baltic empire… a very ephemeral, badly populated and geographically divided “empire”, which collapsed absolutely three dozens years later after the Scanian war. So, I believe the answer who gained strategic victory in this war is quite clear.

Well, if you view it on a scale:

1) The empire fell as of attacks from all bordering enemies that can be matched with the Napoleonic war for France, you can't realy blame it on a weak nation, rather on the fact that no nation have stood victorious against a such powerfull alliancesystem yet.

2) Denmark was still unsuccessfull to do anything at all even at all even after Sweden was broken, destroyed army, the king in a foreign nation and the nation trembling in the winds of war.

3) Denmark did loose Norway unto Sweden in the Napoleonic war.

4) Sweden was the richest nation on earth under a while the last century, while Denmark have not (What I know of) under it's whole existance.