Form Scandinavia : any bad things about it at all?

[unmerged(80402)]

That's consistent, since a modern PLC will have no monarchs and crowns.

Hmm... maybe joining in the flags of Ukraine and Belarus would make the flag a bit more colourful. I mean, Minsk and Kiev were also major cities within the original pre-partitioned PLC territory.

Well it does not matter - the crown means soveregnity, and it does not matter if it is Republic or Kingdom...

Also, the PLC was republic btw... Respublicae duo Nationes. The Republic of both Nations. Which mean the sovergein nations were Poland and Lithuania, joined by the union.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Well it does not matter - the crown means soveregnity, and it does not matter if it is Republic or Kingdom...

Also, the PLC was republic btw... Respublicae duo Nationes. The Republic of both Nations. Which mean the sovergein nations were Poland and Lithuania, joined by the union.

I thought Stanisław Poniatowski was the King of Poland when PLC disappeared from the world map.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

I thought Stanisław Poniatowski was the King of Poland when PLC disappeared from the world map.

King of Poland, Great Prince of lithuania, etc. etc. etc.

Also Great Britain in also a republic, despite being monarchy...

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

King of Poland, Great Prince of lithuania, etc. etc. etc.

Also Great Britain in also a republic, despite being monarchy...

That's why it has the crown as a symbol. Poland has no kings so no crowns. Does the USA have crowns?

 

[unmerged(80402)]

That's why it has the crown as a symbol. Poland has no kings so no crowns. Does the USA have crowns?

Well at first place USA is not poland. Secondly if RoBN would be in modern era, i think it would be more or less simmiliar to GB now, so it would have king, but would be democratic...

 

[Knut Posse]

Well at first place USA is not poland. Secondly if RoBN would be in modern era, i think it would be more or less simmiliar to GB now, so it would have king, but would be democratic...

Well still, if we want to be pedantic on the subject of government, and I think that we definitely should, a republic understood in the m0dern sense and in the sense of French Revolution, does not have a king. But on the subject of Poland, or Rome for that matter, wouldn't it be more like an aristocracy? What I understand of the Polish state is that one of the biggest obstacles governmentally and thus in the development of a centralized state was the whole problem of the weak monarchy in relation to the nobility, allowing everyone and their dog to mess around with the functioning of the state by influencing a moderately powerful magnate or two. Nowadays it would no doubt be a constitutional monarchy like its old pal, Sweden.

 

[BlitzMartinDK]

You know guys, this is actually quite far from the original question....

 

[Knut Posse]

Quite true, so here's my two cents: Forming Scandinavia seemed like a nice thing to do, but having done that I realized that it was just something to do and that it was not very satisfying to achieve. You don't get any cool missions, no cool decisions or events and while I can't quote anything, the whole idea of Scandinavia does not seem to have any basis in history as a term or as an entity. I might be wrong, but it does not really hold any sort of meaning in the way Germany or the HRE does. You just change from being something concrete, like Denmark or Sweden into something vague and what sounds a bit anachronistic. And while thi flag isn't abhorrent to my eyes, I can't in good conscience say it's inspiring either.

So while there are no concrete bad things about it, there is the danger of loss of purpose and identity and the disastrous sense of ennui and feeling of anomie associated with that.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Well if they would got better flag i would like them. Well the flag is not worst possible in the universe(i think), but i agree the flag piri reis posted, is much much better.

Well still, if we want to be pedantic on the subject of government, and I think that we definitely should, a republic understood in the m0dern sense and in the sense of French Revolution, does not have a king. But on the subject of Poland, or Rome for that matter, wouldn't it be more like an aristocracy? What I understand of the Polish state is that one of the biggest obstacles governmentally and thus in the development of a centralized state was the whole problem of the weak monarchy in relation to the nobility, allowing everyone and their dog to mess around with the functioning of the state by influencing a moderately powerful magnate or two. Nowadays it would no doubt be a constitutional monarchy like its old pal, Sweden.

Well remember that 10% of nobility in such big country as RoBN, is a big percent - simmiliar % of PEOPLE were able to speak in Athenes - and they were a democracy. If the 3rd may constitution would not be delegalized(but russians), poland would reform, and would be simmiliar to normal democracy of nowadays, then the reforms would could start to allow more people eglible for voting.

 

[PiriReis]

Ah ok. I didn't know Norway had a different flag.

There were several if i am not wrong...

modern flag of Norway

alternate_norwegian_flag

royal standard

 

[BlitzMartinDK]

Quite true, so here's my two cents: Forming Scandinavia seemed like a nice thing to do, but having done that I realized that it was just something to do and that it was not very satisfying to achieve. You don't get any cool missions, no cool decisions or events and while I can't quote anything, the whole idea of Scandinavia does not seem to have any basis in history as a term or as an entity. I might be wrong, but it does not really hold any sort of meaning in the way Germany or the HRE does. You just change from being something concrete, like Denmark or Sweden into something vague and what sounds a bit anachronistic. And while thi flag isn't abhorrent to my eyes, I can't in good conscience say it's inspiring either.

So while there are no concrete bad things about it, there is the danger of loss of purpose and identity and the disastrous sense of ennui and feeling of anomie associated with that.

..I think the flag shows the intention of the designers : that this should be the continuation of the Kalmar Union, just extended to Norway Sweden and Denmark. But I will agree that the name could have been cosen better, like United Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (with the forming kingdom named first, of course!), or The Triplet Kingdoms ( -as in the historical Twinned Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway)

But I agree in the lack of decisions, and specifik missions (suggestion : dominate Our Sea -the Baltic?), and also that it might remove some player purpose and stuff...
It IS a rather powerful decision, though, giving you more "own culture", and some shifts on central..

On another note :I still think you should be able to integrate at least SOMETHING of the army, navy, and civil service (aka buildings), when you peacefully integrate/annex someone.. - Perhaps depending upon relations and trust between yourself and the countries being integrated?

 

[rustic]

Quite true, so here's my two cents: Forming Scandinavia seemed like a nice thing to do, but having done that I realized that it was just something to do and that it was not very satisfying to achieve. You don't get any cool missions, no cool decisions or events and while I can't quote anything, the whole idea of Scandinavia does not seem to have any basis in history as a term or as an entity. I might be wrong, but it does not really hold any sort of meaning in the way Germany or the HRE does. You just change from being something concrete, like Denmark or Sweden into something vague and what sounds a bit anachronistic. And while thi flag isn't abhorrent to my eyes, I can't in good conscience say it's inspiring either.

So while there are no concrete bad things about it, there is the danger of loss of purpose and identity and the disastrous sense of ennui and feeling of anomie associated with that.

Wikipedia article on Scandinavism. The difference between the unification of Scandinavia and the unification of Italy is that the latter actually happened. An unified Italy probably didn't seem very plausible in the timeframe of the game. That EU3 includes forming Scandinavia is IMHO very reasonable, especially when you compare it to the option of forming the HRE (and what's the "meaning" with that? ).

It might not be very satisfying to form Scandinavia, but as far as I can tell, those unifications generally isn't (but then I've only done Scandinavia, Italy, HRE and Russia).

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Wikipedia article on Scandinavism. The difference between the unification of Scandinavia and the unification of Italy is that the latter actually happened. An unified Italy probably didn't seem very plausible in the timeframe of the game. That EU3 includes forming Scandinavia is IMHO very reasonable, especially when you compare it to the option of forming the HRE (and what's the "meaning" with that? ).

It might not be very satisfying to form Scandinavia, but as far as I can tell, those unifications generally isn't (but then I've only done Scandinavia, Italy, HRE and Russia).

It could've been possible if Sweden didn't lose the Great Northern War, which it actually could've won had it not been so greedy. After the Thirty Years War, Denmark is basically a non-entity so the main problem would've been fending off Russia.

 

[Knut Posse]

Wikipedia article on Scandinavism. The difference between the unification of Scandinavia and the unification of Italy is that the latter actually happened. An unified Italy probably didn't seem very plausible in the timeframe of the game. That EU3 includes forming Scandinavia is IMHO very reasonable, especially when you compare it to the option of forming the HRE (and what's the "meaning" with that? ).

It might not be very satisfying to form Scandinavia, but as far as I can tell, those unifications generally isn't (but then I've only done Scandinavia, Italy, HRE and Russia).

Rome Reborn of course! And taking into account the timeframe of the game, while the disintegration ofthe empire was well underway in 1399 and while the HRE before that hadn't been the most integrated of countries, the same is true of France and Spain and it is at least imaginable, that if some pebbles had landed differently, the HRE would have united once more(at least imaginable, once again). Perhaps if the English had fragmented France more and Luther had for some reason agreed to bow to Rome and so on and so forth? As for Scandinavia, even with the article it seems a rather late idea, which I guess is true of Germany and Italy too. I don't know, for some reason it does not sound as convincing, but perhaps that's the Finn in me.

As it comes to Poland and democracy, I guess one could argue that Poland was a sort of a democracy in the vaguest sense, although in the modern sense ancient Athens isn't really, even if the idea is from there. Also, comparisons between athenian citizenship and european aristocracy become somewhat tentative, so direct comparison is a bit iffy.

 

[Revshawn]

In my game, Denmark was my ally and I had provided them with assistance in nearly every war they entered. They had expanded into mainland Germany and increased their power, keeping Sweden and Norway under their belt with high prestige gained from said wars. It looked like they would form Scandivania soon enough! And then Denmark decided to be all smart and they broke their alliance with me. And of course, without my assistance, the Holy Roman Empire showed them what they do to people who try to act all smart.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Wikipedia article on Scandinavism. The difference between the unification of Scandinavia and the unification of Italy is that the latter actually happened. An unified Italy probably didn't seem very plausible in the timeframe of the game. That EU3 includes forming Scandinavia is IMHO very reasonable, especially when you compare it to the option of forming the HRE (and what's the "meaning" with that? ).

It might not be very satisfying to form Scandinavia, but as far as I can tell, those unifications generally isn't (but then I've only done Scandinavia, Italy, HRE and Russia).

Actualy forming Russia is quite satisfying. Give you all the cores, and nice color... flag is annoying, but not that bad... After all, from distance it looks nice... and you are russia!!!

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Actualy forming Russia is quite satisfying. Give you all the cores, and nice color... flag is annoying, but not that bad... After all, from distance it looks nice... and you are russia!!!

Most of the cores are in horde lands or uninhabited provinces, so it's not as appealing as it sounds.

 

[Keanon]

Prettier in real life, Also, it's not the flag that is ugly, it's how Paradox makes it with the most saturated and jarring colors.

Compare:
Left is my take, right is EU3 vanilla



Edit:

Also, the other flag posted a page behind or so, the one from Deviant is hugely non-sensical, especially from the EU3 timelines point of view.

It uses a made up flag for Norway, a country that till the very end loved Dannebrog and it proposes a Swedish king as the overhead, which is rather silly too.

The Swedish kings were often totally random foreign houses, while the Danish line was rather steadfast and haven't even been broken yet.

The closest times for a union have all been with proposed Danish kings and only a few Swedish kings have ever thought it possible to become a king of Denmark and non of them succeeded.

Best flag for EU3 would be a CoA anyway and I present to you the best solution:

 

[Arondeus]

I'm at work, just browsing the forums between calls from clients. I am now incredibly curious why everyone seems to dislike the game's flag for a unified Scandinavia. I just started playing a week ago and haven't had a chance to unify my own advisers, much less an entire region. Does anyone have a link to the flag? I tried googling, but didn't get an immediately obvious result.
Thanks!

 

[MartinSWE]

The biggest drawback with forming Scandinavia is that you won´t get to play as Sweden anymore