New map: Scandinavia

[Dimes]

If you reread the thread, you will notice that the pro-PTI league actually tried to seek a compromise by removing a lot of the proposed PTI, but each time we was simply met by the same response.

??? You have me baffled. I have seen no move towards a compromise from you what so ever?

I'm just wondering, can you suggest another way to prevent unhistorical army movement in northern Scandinavia? Cause some of us is quite tired of seeing Swedish-Russian wars fought across Västerbotten-Österbotten, and even worse Norwegians fighting the Russians across Finnmark.

Sigh, and here we go again and yet again and it seems forever again.... I find it ridiculous to try and "prevent unhistorical army movement in northern Scandinavia" by making it impossible with PTI, when EVERYWHERE else in the world it IS possible - even in highly unhistorical places like the jungle in South America. Should we then criss cross the map with PTI all over, just because in real life no armies moved there? No, in my opinion it is a weak argument, and should simply be discarded as unvalid.

PTI =! related to army movement ;p

PTI = area not civilised and not open for colonisation in EU2 timeframe

 

[Hallsten]

That would be me on both counts. By the way if I get too much linguistic bickering my solution isn't submitting to your demands but rather switching to English or Latin.

By the way, I'm sort of leery of a lot of the statements made here to rationalize keeping the "northern corridor" open. I have yet to find a single instance of any invasion route through Norrbotten, going in either direction.

Unless English/Latin is decided upon I strongly propose giving Norwegian provinces Norwegian names, Danish provinces Danish names and Swedish provinces Swedish names. Pretty logical IMHO...
I didn't know there were any problems regarding this. If my maps have had incorrect names it's due to my shortcomings as Scandinavian...

 

[Hallsten]

Issues upon which opions is still divided, but true consensus properly won't be reached. However the parties involved can accept either solution:

• Splitting Västergotland in two, adding an Älvsborg province.
• Merging Uppland and Södermanland. Especially if Älvsborg is added.

Then of course there is the issue of PTI, but the parts are still so far apart, that we can recommend one solution over the other.

Regarding Västergötland I'm still very much in favour of a split, since it will give so much to Danish/Swedish gameplay.

Regarding the PTI, the only viable reason not to have it seems to be that it's too deterministic. But if we're not at least a little deterministic the whole game will start dong weird things, like e.g. invading Norway with 20000men from Lappland.

 

[Sute]{h]

??? You have me baffled. I have seen no move towards a compromise from you what so ever?

This is the originally proposed PTI. You must admit, that PTI has been rolled back considerably since then. I guess now the pro-PTI league isn't inclined to roll back any further.

Sigh, and here we go again and yet again and it seems forever again.... I find it ridiculous to try and "prevent unhistorical army movement in northern Scandinavia" by making it impossible with PTI, when EVERYWHERE else in the world it IS possible - even in highly unhistorical places like the jungle in South America. Should we then criss cross the map with PTI all over, just because in real life no armies moved there? No, in my opinion it is a weak argument, and should simply be discarded as unvalid.

PTI =! related to army movement ;p

PTI = area not civilised and not open for colonisation in EU2 timeframe

You didn't answer my question. If by your definition PTI isn't related to army movements, how can we limit unhistorical movements? I already knew that you didn't think PTI the solution. So I asked which solution can you present? Oh... and we only want to use PTI where real life armies wasn't able to move. Not everywhere they didn't move. Granted a single unit might make the trip, but an army couldn't because of the logistics limitation of the era.

 

[unmerged(28604)]

I'm just wondering, can you suggest another way to prevent unhistorical army movement in northern Scandinavia? Cause some of us is quite tired of seeing Swedish-Russian wars fought across Västerbotten-Österbotten, and even worse Norwegians fighting the Russians across Finnmark.

I know this is repeating but another way mentioned in this thread is simply removing adjacency, but still without PTI. If I rember correct the big argument against that is that it could be confusing, but maybe we can rethink that argument so a compromise can be found.
I mean if people are confused then they arent less intelligent than to ask on the forum:

They ask: I cant move between x and y, is it a bug?
We answer: No, the adjacency was removed to prevent large army movement.

Problem solved.

Im not saying it would be super, but given this long and endless discussion, maybe it can be reconsidered?

 

[Sute]{h]

I don't mind that solution. I do however want an easily identifiable visual feature. But regradless the only PTI left is Kola and Finnmark. So unless we really need Kola and Finnmark, then there isn't much left to discuss.

 

[Dimes]

This is the originally proposed PTI. You must admit, that PTI has been rolled back considerably since then. I guess now the pro-PTI league isn't inclined to roll back any further.

Well, if you look *really* closely the only thing changed now is the access from Trøndelag and northwards and that ungainly spot in the middle of south Norway is removed... Everywhere else was just plain removed. So again, do you call that a compromise?

You didn't answer my question. If by your definition PTI isn't related to army movements, how can we limit unhistorical movements? I already knew that you didn't think PTI the solution. So I asked which solution can you present?

You can't, is the obvious answer - unless you go for the tax value. And why should you? Make it a pure pain in the butt to move armies there, but if I wan't to park 50.000 troops to attrition away permanently in Lappland, why should you make it so I can't? As I see it, your argument equals this: Oh no, god forbid, Spain moves armies across Ireland (which happens in quite a lot of games). That never happened in real life, so let's make Ireland PTI!

Oh... and we only want to use PTI where real life armies wasn't able to move. Not everywhere they didn't move. Granted a single unit might make the trip, but an army couldn't because of the logistics limitation of the era.

Well the main problem is that by your definition, honestly most of Scandinavia should be PTI. There is a reason why few armies there exceeded 10.000 and most were like 5.000 or less. And again, in EU2 you need to move 5.000+ into a province to siege i if it has any fortifications whatsoever. Troops moved from Lappland to Finnmark - not in the thousands probably, but well, they didn't need thousands, just hundreds... In the game you need thousands...

You need to look in other directions. If you don't want unhistorical army movements then make it less attractive (for both AI and humans) to attack there, but why on earth make it impossible?

 

[Hallsten]

We don't need a huge PTI either, it could be slimmed like in parts of the Himalaya in that's an issue.
A PTI will be, regardless of the looks, beneficial to gameplay in general IMHO.

 

[unmerged(28604)]

I don't mind that solution. I do however want an easily identifiable visual feature. But regradless the only PTI left is Kola and Finnmark. So unless we really need Kola and Finnmark, then there isn't much left to discuss.

Yes, some kind of identifiable sign would be even better. Personally I dont care much for Finnmark and Kola. Do correct me if im wrong but swedish lappland is also still missing in the current map. As I understand Sweden wont be frontier country without it. I think it needs to be in.

 

[Dimes]

As I understand Sweden wont be frontier country without it. I think it needs to be in.

Just curious really, but why do Sweden need that bonus? It's not like Sweden colonised a lot, is it?

 

[unmerged(28604)]

Just curious really, but why do Sweden need that bonus? It's not like Sweden colonised a lot, is it?

Ooops, , I didnt mean that Sweden needs it, its just nice to have it since it was there before

 

[Galleblære]

Ah well, sorry to barge in, but I actually think the norwegians spelled it Jemtland ;p

You *think*? How about knowing. I'm one of those bloody Norwegians. I'm telling you that we spell it Jæmtland.

 

[Fornadan]

You *think*? How about knowing. I'm one of those bloody Norwegians. I'm telling you that we spell it Jæmtland.

Sorry, but you're wrong this time. At least my edition of Heimskringla spell it Jemtland

 

[Hallsten]

Sorry, but you're wrong this time. At least my edition of Heimskringla spell it Jemtland

Is there a difference in the spelling in Bokmål and Nynorsk?

 

[Dimes]

You *think*? How about knowing. I'm one of those bloody Norwegians. I'm telling you that we spell it Jæmtland.

OK, I'm *telling* you that you are *wrong*.

Feel free to peek at the maps here: http://www.nb.no/karl-xii-kart/kartfunn.php?allefelt=%%%%

"så som det perifere Jemtland"

from http://www.dansk-norsk.no/kalender/foobar_grenseland.htm

"Jemtland- og Herjedalen-biblioteket"

from http://www.vigerust.net/redaksjon/herjedalen_biblioteket.html

Sorry to tell you this, but in each and every source that is a bit old (not just from the net, these were the fast ones from norwegian sources) it is IS spelled Jemtland in norwegian.

P.S. http://www.nb.no is the norwegian national library and gives hits on jemtland but none on jæmtland ;p

 

[Galleblære]

OK, I'm *telling* you that you are *wrong*.

Feel free to peek at the maps here: http://www.nb.no/karl-xii-kart/kartfunn.php?allefelt=%%%%

"så som det perifere Jemtland"

from http://www.dansk-norsk.no/kalender/foobar_grenseland.htm

"Løytnant Gotsche ledet 20 norske soldater på ski og tok en svensk vakt i Jemtland til fange."

from http://home.no.net/lorentzd/Krigen1718.html

"På et Svenskt kart over Jemtland og Herjedalen fra 1645"

from http://www.home.no/brekken/brekkens_historie.htm

"Jemtland- og Herjedalen-biblioteket"

from http://www.vigerust.net/redaksjon/herjedalen_biblioteket.html

Sorry to tell you this, but in each and every source that is a bit old (not just from the net, these were the fast ones from norwegian sources) it is IS spelled Jemtland in norwegian.

The problem is, 80-90% of the books and documents in Norway today use Jæmtland. Just do a norwegian google search on Jæmtland and Jemtland.

868 hits of Jemtland
4,180 hits of Jæmtland

Jemtland might be a more historically correct term, but Jæmtland is the easily the most widely used in Norway.

 

[Galleblære]

Sorry, but you're wrong this time. At least my edition of Heimskringla spell it Jemtland

True, but as I state in my last post, what do we go with. The more obscure original, or the more established version?

EDIT: After studying the serach resuly, I see its flawed, since the search for Jæmtland has included the swedish Jämtland.

Maybe Jemtland would be better than?

 

[Dimes]

The problem is, 80-90% of the books and documents in Norway today use Jæmtland. Just do a norwegian google search on Jæmtland and Jemtland.

868 hits of Jemtland
4,180 hits of Jæmtland

Jemtland might be a more historically correct term, but Jæmtland is the easily the most widely used in Norway.

Hmm...

P.S. http://www.nb.no is the norwegian national library and gives hits on jemtland but none on jæmtland ;p

 

[Galleblære]

So in conclusion, I am okay with Jemtland, since, afterall "Jæmtland" is the swedisfied version anyway.

But then we also have to check if there are "older" version of other province names in Norway, but I don't think there are any glaring problems.

 

[Sleepyhead]

So in conclusion, I am okay with Jemtland, since, afterall "Jæmtland" is the swedisfied version anyway.

But then we also have to check if there are "older" version of other province names in Norway, but I don't think there are any glaring problems.

What's wrong with Jämtland?
Sweden did own it a lot longer then Denmark, and Sweden is a more important EU country than Norway since it never was independent during this timeframe