New map: Scandinavia

[unmerged(6105)]

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,

Ore mining was started in the 17th century with mixed succes, both in the interior and near the coast.

 

[Sute]{h]

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?

Ah... You've got a point there. :rofl:

 

[Galleblære]

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.

Just make them cities with 1000 population, and if that is too much of a boost, then lower the base tax value.

Of course, since "Narvik" and Finnmark has been merged to Hålogaland, I guess it will be different there and the province will actually be given a minor boost.

It really isn't a problem the way I see it.

 

[Hallsten]

Just make them cities with 1000 population, and if that is too much of a boost, then lower the base tax value.

Of course, since "Narvik" and Finnmark has been merged to Hålogaland, I guess it will be different there and the province will actually be given a minor boost.

It really isn't a problem the way I see it.

The two problems are:
1. Sweden will get base-tax from Lappland if it's a city.
2. A Lappland with 1000 inhabitants will look strange when Västerbotten, which had a much bigger population, also has 1000.

We could boost Lappland to 1000 by 1500 if that's acceptable, but I doubt that Sweden will do any exploring before the 1600's regardless. Can't the AI be set to don't explore?
Lowering Lappland to 0 is pretty unfair as well.

 

[Sute]{h]

The two problems are:
1. Sweden will get base-tax from Lappland if it's a city.
2. A Lappland with 1000 inhabitants will look strange when Västerbotten, which had a much bigger population, also has 1000.

We could boost Lappland to 1000 by 1500 if that's acceptable, but I doubt that Sweden will do any exploring before the 1600's regardless. Can't the AI be set to don't explore?
Lowering Lappland to 0 is pretty unfair as well.

I might be wrong, but wont a player colonize Lappland by 1500 anyways? I mean you have all those settlers and nothing else to do with them. I don't think a population boost event is the way to go, since it is effectively free colonization.

 

[Galleblære]

I might be wrong, but wont a player colonize Lappland by 1500 anyways? I mean you have all those settlers and nothing else to do with them. I don't think a population boost event is the way to go, since it is effectively free colonization.

Why would the player do it? Some, sure, but others just leave it as it is, like me for instance. Is it really fair that Sweden and Norway get +1 colonist compared to Spain, England and France for example? Also, please consider that most player wait untill AFTER the reformation before bringing it to city status, so that they don't have to send a missionary there later. This actually only hurts the AI.

Nobody will care if Lappland is a city, 100, 1000, what is the difference.

What is the worst, Sweden (and Norway) getting a "bonus" colonist, having a huge white chunck of PTI, or just bringing them to city status, and toning down the base tax value?

I realize that the player has saved a lot of money if he gets a city for free, which is why they should perhaps start out with slightly less cash and as I said, lover base tax values in those provinces changed.

 

[Sute]{h]

Is it possible to calculate standard province growth? If so why not set the population of Lappland so that it reaches 1000 in 1500 by itself?

 

[Gwalcmai]

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.

What capital is less than a 100 miles from the area being discussed? And what purpose would be served by those marches you say would've been undoubtable? If you form an army in Stockholm and want to attack Norway, how do you go about it? March 1000km to Tornio, go up the river, take Finnmark and then make your way down? Or just march straight on Oslo? And if you want to fight Russians, do you march those 1000km to Tornio so that you can have the pleasure of marching another 900km to St. Petersburg, or do you load your army on ships and send them straight to your Baltic holdings and fight from there?

Frankly, I don't think fighting there was impossible. The French and British fought each other over worse terrain and comparable distances in North America in the 1750s. Fighting there was just useless, as anything you could accomplish with the fight would be easier to achieve somewhere else.

 

[Galleblære]

Is it possible to calculate standard province growth? If so why not set the population of Lappland so that it reaches 1000 in 1500 by itself?

Sure, that would be one way to do it aswell. And with native populations, it will hit the 1000+ mark at the moment it reaches 900.

So what would a good starting population be? 800?

 

[Hallsten]

Is it possible to calculate standard province growth? If so why not set the population of Lappland so that it reaches 1000 in 1500 by itself?

If I haven't made a very embarassing error, 580 pop is a good start-value.

 

[Galleblære]

If I haven't made a very embarassing error, 580 pop is a good start-value.

600 then! I like round numbers!

 

[Hallsten]

600 then! I like round numbers!

Fine by me!
Note that this number is calculated assuming that stability is at +3 all the time, maybe we should assume another stab-value?

 

[Sute]{h]

Fine by me!
Note that this number is calculated assuming that stability is at +3 all the time, maybe we should assume another stab-value?

My guess is it will be about right if we go with 600. It might be a decade late but that wont matter much.

 

[unmerged(34273)]

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.

Chech out that little incident called the napolion wars

Another fine example is that little forgotten thing called the Great Nordic War. In both these cases russians invaded västerbotten by land. The reason why these were the only ones is that the rest of the time both sides were under firm swedish controll thus requirering little invasion. However it was a marching route under Karl XI mobilisation plan and was used as such several times.

 

[unmerged(34273)]

That map is always hte newst one, yes.
I'm against the removal of Lappland, but the PTI is important IMHO. The biggest forces that could possibly invade Norway from Lappland or Österbotten wouldn't be bigger than perhaps 100 or so men and that's impossible to model with the game as of now. In vanilla EU2 it is possible to invade Norway with a 30000 men army from Lappland, which is by no means possible.

Well if you do that you would take alot of attrition,

Im failry sure that the main there were no such invasion IRL is because they would consider that kind of attrition to expensive, not impossible. Karl XII marched through the marches of masovia even though the land is just as infertile.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Ore mining was started in the 17th century with mixed succes, both in the interior and near the coast.

That sounds like Västerbotten province to me. If Lapland is included I don't think it should have any contact to the west.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Fine by me!
Note that this number is calculated assuming that stability is at +3 all the time, maybe we should assume another stab-value?

We must also factor in random plagues, wars and whatnot, so we should still include an arbitrary population-boosting event in the 1500's to be on the safe side. Any good ideas for a name/description?

 

[Hallsten]

We must also factor in random plagues, wars and whatnot, so we should still include an arbitrary population-boosting event in the 1500's to be on the safe side. Any good ideas for a name/description?

Can population be a trigger?

 

[unmerged(6105)]

That sounds like Västerbotten province to me. If Lapland is included I don't think it should have any contact to the west.

Both. Some started in what is the lappland province. The two great mines in Kiruna and Malmberget where known at that time, but it took quite some years more until mining began on them.

Let me add that taxation and contact with the province was indeed scarce.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Can population be a trigger?

You are making this more complicated than it has to be.
A population boost of +1000 will make zero difference if the province is not below city size. It's just a safe guard, nothing else. So, you've got any good name/desc. ideas?