how? by making an unhabitated province in Jutland? Or a strait between Bergenshus-Jutland?yourworstnightm said:
Btw, you can delete your own posts by editing them, there is an option to delete at the top of the screen -
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Btw, you can delete your own posts by editing them, there is an option to delete at the top of the screen 
To be honest, I think it would be more accurate NOT to give Norway and Sweden the Frontier bonus, simply by making all their provinces cities. This is too easily abused anyway, when you consider that this frontier bonus is really intended to be used in their core lands. If the Swedish player manages to expand far into Russia, sure, he can have frontier bonus.
But as I said, too much of an exploit to just not upgrade Lappland, and get that +1 colonist for hundred of years. This is specially true for North Norway.
But as I said, too much of an exploit to just not upgrade Lappland, and get that +1 colonist for hundred of years. This is specially true for North Norway.
Galleblære said:
I agree that it's very unhistorical that Sweden and Norway have a frontier-bonus, but what do you propose we do?
Cut the provinces in question or boost them to 1000?
Both alternatives look bad IMHO.
anti_strunt said:Well, if the Norweigans/Danes can get a bonus from Hålogaland I really don't see any harm...
BTW, a question about Swedish history: Was Lappland really so much more thinly inhabited than, say, Tavastehus?
If someone is asking I'll answer.
inhabitant of Finland in 16th hundred. (all together something like 300 000 inhabitants)
Finland 20,5%
Åland 3%
Satakunda 12,2%
Tavast 13,8%
Western Nyland 7,2%
Eastern Nyland 5,5%
Kymenlaakso (area between Karelia&Nyland) 3,9%
Viborg Karelia 14,7%
Savo 6,6%
Österbotten 12,5%
which divided southern östernbotten 9,8%
and northern österbotten (from Karleby til Kemi) 2,7%
So In Finnish Lappland was next to none inhabitants (Same nomads not included) Swedish lappland wasn't that much different.
When we remember that inhabitants in österbotten rised between 1360-1560 500% (in northern österbotten 1200%) you can safely say that Lappland was really so much more thinly inhabitet than say, Tavastland.
BueDigre said:
We're not talking about a remote colony on the far reaches of the world, we're talking about territory less than a hundred miles from the capital, in the neighborhood of several VERY LARGE wars. It is understandable that parts of Alaska would be untrodden by massive armies and still be troddABLE, while it is less easy to justify the same for an area which, had it have *been* capable of allowing large armies to march across, they would have undoubtable done so.
I'm reading about the Swedish colonisation of northern Sweden (inkl Finland) by swedish historian Dick Harrysson. The Västerbotten coast (valleys of Lule river and Pite river) wasn't colonised and incorporated into Swedish state until the 14th century, and the interior much later.Ges said:
Still population density isnt connected to the shape of a EU2 prov, specially since the population in the game isnt the province population, but only a city.
For example the shape of Swedish Lappland can be whatever we choose. It can look like mickey mouse, it will still be a city of 100.
But from a historical point of view, we might prefer a historical political border, rather than mickey mouse shape. The PTI shape, isnt a historical political border, thats why it is so bad. PTI doesnt add anything additional either, since stoping big army movement can be done without PTI, by removing adjacency, and have a easy reconisable symbol for blocked movement instead.
For example the shape of Swedish Lappland can be whatever we choose. It can look like mickey mouse, it will still be a city of 100.
But from a historical point of view, we might prefer a historical political border, rather than mickey mouse shape. The PTI shape, isnt a historical political border, thats why it is so bad. PTI doesnt add anything additional either, since stoping big army movement can be done without PTI, by removing adjacency, and have a easy reconisable symbol for blocked movement instead.
Why not include the northern provinces (Finnmark, Lappland) as ucolonised provinces if thet was what they were. Of course that could mean some crazy nation from the middle of Germany colonise them or somethng. Having them as low level colonies give Sweden and Norway frontier bonus, and that's not so good that neither.
Still think PTI is not the answer. These lands were colonised during this era.
Still think PTI is not the answer. These lands were colonised during this era.
In what way does the frontier bonus matter? By the time they get to use all their colonists the bonus should be gone.
Sven_vegas said:
Umm, your point being?
Anyway, the eternal frontier-bonus is very easily fixed, just add some province-based event at a suitable date which adds 1000 inhabitants to Lappland ("Massive wave of colonists" or somesuch). If it can be added at some proper historical date with some background, all the much better.
Dont you need to border an empty province to get this (for Sweden meaningless) frontier bonus?
anti_strunt said:
Not that it was directed towards you, but if you like to know, the point I made is that it doesnt matter if people lived most in lower lappland, or something else. Bcz the game can still only model one city in a entire province. The shape of the Lappland province will still have to stretch all the way to the north, bcz the Eu2 map is a political map, with political borders. Otherwise it is not historical. Meaning that PTI only brings negative effects, since the positive one, (stoping big army movement) can be achieved without PTI.
Norrefeldt said:
It can be exploited, I guess. By not using the colonists in Scandinavia... ?
Norrefeldt said:
"Jarlens Sekel"?
I've read that one anyway, and as far as I remember there were people living all year round in the lower parts of Lappland (present Swedish and Finnish Lappland) so the southern part of Lappland should definately be on the map IMHO.
anti_strunt said:
Seems like a good idea IMHO. Since the chance of Sweden getting a random explorer is so low I don't think we'll have to worry about any weird colonies until the 1600's and by then we cold boost Lappland to a city.
The random explorers can arrive 1500. Just set any colonies high enough to make sure they are cities by then.
The book "Jarlens sekel" only tells the story till about 1400, but by then there was very little Swedish state control in southern Lappland, but the coast was settled. Of course the laps where living there, but they were pagans and not worth to control/tax. The interior had very little impact on Sweden until ore was found much later, and England started to by huge quantities of timber in 19th century. I don't think having Lappland as terra incognita would be a huge simplification, but the map would look neater IMHO if all the provinces were there and the links to Norway from Lappland removed.
The book "Jarlens sekel" only tells the story till about 1400, but by then there was very little Swedish state control in southern Lappland, but the coast was settled. Of course the laps where living there, but they were pagans and not worth to control/tax. The interior had very little impact on Sweden until ore was found much later, and England started to by huge quantities of timber in 19th century. I don't think having Lappland as terra incognita would be a huge simplification, but the map would look neater IMHO if all the provinces were there and the links to Norway from Lappland removed.
Norrefeldt said:
As far as i remember the Laps were taxed a little later on and there was also a significant fur-trade with them. Maybe fur as commodity?
I think it'd be sad to have all of Lappland as a PTI since it actually DID exist.
You can get random explorers that soon? I don't think I've ever gotten one...
Boosting Lappland to 1000 in 1500 isn't very historical, but if that's neccessary it's ok by me.
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
Sute]{h said:Well every area that is PTI does actually exist.
Terra Incognita means "unknown land" or something similar.
Given that this land is unknown, even permanently so, you can't prove that it exists, right?
Sute]{h said:Well every area that is PTI does actually exist.
Yes, even the areas that are outside the borders of the map do actually exist