Does Sweden *always* blob all over Scandinavia?

[Lumpy]

In my latest 1.12 game Sweden got completely annihilated and incorporated by Norway, and that without me participating in it. While Sweden might be very strong idea and development wise, people should consider that this game is extremely susceptible to confirmation bias. Something the guys over at the "xxx is underpowered" threads should think of, as well.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Yes, but for the period that Denmark and Sweden's rivalry and also in-game national identities draw inspiration from (17th-18th century, look at Sweden's ideas, little concerns pre-Gustav Adolf).

I am aware that Denmark and Sweden in game mainly are based on the very last part of the 1000 years of rivalry and lots of wars. Doesn't mean that it is less ridiculous, since in 1444 nothing was pointing towards Sweden being the great power it was in the late 1600s. Plus if we hadn't lost Skåneland---which was a fluke---Sweden wouldn't have gained the upper hand. Plus Denmark--Norway was able to hold back Sweden, but in game Denmark and Norway together aren't enough to hold back Sweden. Also those ahistorical Swedish cores on Skåneland is part of the problem. On one side they play their part in giving the Denmark Sweden rivalry and making Skåneland really contested, but on the other side they are a large part of Sweden doing ahistorically.

Formed Scandinavia by 1550 in my game

Congratulation on losing most of the DHE.

 

[Wagonlitz]

In my latest 1.12 game Sweden got completely annihilated and incorporated by Norway, and that without me participating in it. While Sweden might be very strong idea and development wise, people should consider that this game is extremely susceptible to confirmation bias. Something the guys over at the "xxx is underpowered" threads should think of, as well.

That is true. Sweden is OP though since this exact problem has happened over several iterations of EU and has been reported for many years.

 

[Sian]

in reverse some people are also running confirmation bias on the fact that Sweden aren't overpowered

 

[Lumpy]

in reverse some people are also running confirmation bias on the fact that Sweden aren't overpowered

Possibly. I, for one, think it is more or less fine as it is. Some of the NIs are indeed very powerful and could use a tone down, but don't forget that Sweden really lacks manpower. This renders them unable to wage prolonged war.

I think the particular poor performance of Denmark vs Sweden is caused by some severe flaws in the naval AI.

 

[Sian]

I think the particular poor performance of Denmark vs Sweden is caused by some severe flaws in the naval AI.

Oh, i agree ... the shortcommings of the naval AI is the culprit when it comes to the poor performance of specially Denmark, but also to a less critical extent England, and any intercontinental wars in general

 

[Lumpy]

Oh, i agree ... the shortcommings of the naval AI is the culprit when it comes to the poor performance of specially Denmark, but also to a less critical extend England, and any intercontinental wars in general

Yep. Ever had England as an ally when playing a continental power? Cringe-worthy experience, at best. They are often unable to land large armies or to defend their transports even if they got a superior fleet of warships. I really hope this is going to be addressed sometime in the future. And don't even get me started on naval battles.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Possibly. I, for one, think it is more or less fine as it is. Some of the NIs are indeed very powerful and could use a tone down, but don't forget that Sweden really lacks manpower. This renders them unable to wage prolonged war.

I think the particular poor performance of Denmark vs Sweden is caused by some severe flaws in the naval AI.

Denmark lacks manpower too. It is also ridiculous that Sweden can have a larger army than Denmark in 1444.

 

[Sian]

What England got going for them, which makes them less of a target, is that the same problems also works in reverse, that no AI can mount a competent attack the other way around, in this case Denmark suffers from 1. the strait crossing between Sjælland and Skåne, making so Sweden can just walk over due to Naval AI not defending, and 2. Hansa being more than willing to jump Denmark annexing loads of land from them, given half a chance, while Denmark can't preempticly declare war since Austria would be all over them for daring to attack a member.

In my latest game (anadoctial again), Sweden pretty much started off grabbing Independence+Skåne, Halland, Blekinge, and Bornholm, while Hansa jumped the corspe just after the independence war finished (and PU with Norway was annulled by ruler death), annexing all but Gotland, which Denmark then sat on being able to do absolutely nothing for the next 40some years, until Sweden felt like grabbing that as well

 

[Lumpy]

Denmark lacks manpower too. It is also ridiculous that Sweden can have a larger army than Denmark in 1444.

As I said, I'm no expert of Scandinavian history. I always thought Sweden had a slightly higher population than Denmark at this time, but this is apparently wrong. But where do you want to nerf Sweden? Its provinces already are pretty poor, I reckon. Maybe it's just Denmark that needs a buff?

In my latest game (anadoctial again), Sweden pretty much started off grabbing Independence+Skåne, Halland, Blekinge, and Bornholm, while Hansa jumped the corspe just after the independence war finished (and PU with Norway was annulled by ruler death), annexing all but Gotland, which Denmark then sat on being able to do absolutely nothing for the next 40some years, until Sweden felt like grabbing that as well

Now that you mention it, it is indeed quite common to see Denmark being jumped by both Sweden and the Hansa. As I said, I think Denmark could need a bit of a buff. Also, quite frequently the naval AI struggles to unite the Norwegian auxiliaries with the Danish main army, leading to both being vanquished easily.

 

[Sian]

it was first really when Sweden managed to grab Scania that the population counters flipped in their favor (so mid 1600s). That and slowly but surely managing to get more and more land argicultured, which was their greatest problem up through time, whereas Denmark while smaller, was also further to the south and had a better climate, making them able to cap them much earlier in how much food production they could make from their lands given then-current technologies.

Even today, Denmark have a higher output from their argiculutal per km^2 of farmland, simply due to superior climate, as when you get north of the swedish lakes, it starts becomming so bad argiculutal land (too cold) that forestry is more economically worthwhile

 

[Wagonlitz]

As I said, I'm no expert of Scandinavian history. I always thought Sweden had a slightly higher population than Denmark at this time, but this is apparently wrong. But where do you want to nerf Sweden? Its provinces already are pretty poor, I reckon. Maybe it's just Denmark that needs a buff?

Yeah a buff to Denmark probably would be the best way to go.

Now that you mention it, it is indeed quite common to see Denmark being jumped by both Sweden and the Hansa. As I said, I think Denmark could need a bit of a buff. Also, quite frequently the naval AI struggles to unite the Norwegian auxiliaries with the Danish main army, leading to both being vanquished easily.

Which is part of the problem. While we had problems with the Hanse historically they weren't able to conquer us. And actually the Danish and Norwegian armies oughtn't need to merge to stand a chance, since historically the Norwegian armies could hold Norway themselves and the Danish armies could do well itself. (The mid 1600s aside, but that was an outlier.)
Before the loss of Skåneland it typical outcome of a Danish Swedish war either was that we won or that it was a draw. And after the loss of Skåneland there was nothing but draws. The exchange of territory in 1645 and 1658 are pretty much the only territory exchanges in all of the 1000 years of Danish/Swedish rivalry.

it was first really when Sweden managed to grab Scania that the population counters flipped in their favor (so mid 1600s). That and slowly but surely managing to get more and more land argicultured, which was their greatest problem up through time, whereas Denmark while smaller, was also further to the south and had a better climate, making them able to cap them much earlier in how much food production they could make from their lands given then-current technologies.

Even today, Denmark have a higher output from their argiculutal per km^2 of farmland, simply due to superior climate, as when you get north of the swedish lakes, it starts becomming so bad argiculutal land (too cold) that forestry is more economically worthwhile

Indeed. Though didn't it still take a bit after 1658 for the Swedish population to become the largest? Also interestingly enough the Danish and Swedish populations would be almost equal in size if Skåneland still was Danish.

 

[Sian]

Indeed. Though didn't it still take a bit after 1658 for the Swedish population to become the largest? Also interestingly enough the Danish and Swedish populations would be almost equal in size if Skåneland still was Danish.

IIRC (although frankly this is hardly my time period of expertise), the populations was roughly equalized by Denmark loosing Skåneland, while the Swedish population started growing faster than the Danish by populating Skåneland with Swedes, although sure it might first have been late 1600s before the difference was noticeable.

 

[Baxil]

From my experience the problem is not Sweden being too strong, but Denmark being too weak. Infact if Denmark don't fall to Sweden (this happens very often indeed) she is conquered by The hansa or Pomerania or sometimes even Norway. So yes, i think that Denmark needs a little buff, at least to be able to defend herself.

 

[spinoza013]

1529

I supported their independence day one as they now seem to always break away in the first 10 years.

Also never seen Muscovy do well either.

 

[Nassau]

Key is the Netherlands. They allied the losing side to make sure neither of them controlled the Oostzee/Baltic. They allowed secret support of both sides during a time. Divide and rule.

Without other nations realising the importance of preventing a dominant side in a region a certain side can grow too powerful.

I am sure the Hansa and England would also like to see a balance between Denmark and Sweden. Because trade.

 

[kontinos]

Well part of the problem is that they have a navy that is too big (indirectly caused by them being way too rich) and they are seldom blockaded.

A pity the AI still doesn´t know how to blockade properly. The day I see ottoman fleet parking next to Venice is the day I will be scared by the AI.

Then i should be. Half the Ottoman fleet in Constantinople, the other half in Venice... Like 70+70...

 

[Zak Preston]

In both 2 of my campaigns Sweden had formed Scandinavia and happily started to expand into HRE. Well, I do like Sweden (especially their NIs), but this seems to be too much.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Key is the Netherlands. They allied the losing side to make sure neither of them controlled the Oostzee/Baltic. They allowed secret support of both sides during a time. Divide and rule.

Without other nations realising the importance of preventing a dominant side in a region a certain side can grow too powerful.

I am sure the Hansa and England would also like to see a balance between Denmark and Sweden. Because trade.

True. Although even without that support there is a good chance that hadn't Sweden had that string of brilliant kings it would have remained mainly draws and no large swaths of land would have changed hands.

Also if no outside powers intervene than Denmark should end up being the dominant in most games, since that is how it looked in 1444; and that most certainly isn't what happens in game.

 

[tapewormlondon]

Congratulation on losing most of the DHE.

Sorry, meant the AI did