Err... Lappland should barely even be explored in 1419, let alone a level 6 colony. At best I'd put a trade post there.
-
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.
Mad King James said:
If the natives are removed it's not too unhistorical IMHO.
It will look a bit weird with a 600 pop Lappland when Västerbotten has 1000 pop I admit that, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.
Mad King James said:
A TP is even worse, you'll basically give the Swedish player a permanent +1 colonist if he wants it. Either PTI the province or give it a population of 600 I say.
As MKJ said, lappland shouldnt start with big population. IMHO, let sweden have its bonus, the harm is negligible.
EDIT: or merge Lappland :End of EDIT
I mean if its going to be historical Sweden arent supposed to use its colonists outside scandinavia anyway.
If Sweden does, then its allready gone very ahistorical, so why bother about +1 colonist in that case?
EDIT: or merge Lappland :End of EDIT
I mean if its going to be historical Sweden arent supposed to use its colonists outside scandinavia anyway.
If Sweden does, then its allready gone very ahistorical, so why bother about +1 colonist in that case?
Last edited:
because we can fix it easily? Why bother with a Lappland province if it creates all these troubles and ahistorical colonization bonuses?Sven_vegas said:
o
Flame of Udûn said:because we can fix it easily? Why bother with a Lappland province if it creates all these troubles and ahistorical colonization bonuses?
With easy fix, you mean merge Lappland with something else, or am I wrong?
I wasnt adressing that fix. I was adressing the add hundreds of population to lappland fix.
Flame of Udûn said:Why bother with a Lappland province if it creates all these troubles and ahistorical colonization bonuses?
As stated by me very recently in this thread, I have no desire for Lappland as a seperate province, as long as the northern national border is historical, im happy. Which makes me against a big chunk of PTI in Lappland. I will edit my post to include a merge as alternative.
Last edited:
Yes. There were very few inhabitants in the interior of Jämtland, so that's why Jämtland is one province and not two. By the same logic Umeå should become the main city of Lappland and thereby merge Västerbotten with Lappland, since Kiruna was a village way below 600 population. Even if Kiruna would be somewhat important, there are other provinces with two rather large cities (Malmö and Lund comes to mind, both were very much larger than Umeå).Sven_vegas said:
Flame of Udûn said:
I understand how you think, but I think it'd be really sad if Lappland goes.
Lappland and Västerbotten were different in many aspects. Västerbotten should be scandinavian and produce lumber, Lappland should be urgic and produce fur.
I know it's not that big a deal, but there's a lot more difference between Lappland and Västerbotten than between Jämtland and Härjedalen.
Moreover, the capital of Lappland should be Lycksele, Arvidsjaur or Jokkmokk. Kiruna has been more than a small village for no longer than about 100 years.
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
Anybody mind if I submit a strait between Svealand and Finland? It would give us an idea of how it would work, before the new map comes along.
Sute]{h said:
No, not at all. Maybe it can even be included in the next AGCEEP-beta?
My thought exactly.Hallsten said:No, not at all. Maybe it can even be included in the next AGCEEP-beta?
Sute]{h said:My thought exactly.
ok, this is what we need to add to the adj-defs.csv-file:
Code:
254;342;sea;880;Svealand-Finland-straitHallsten said:
So what is it than? Lappland with 600 population? I can't believe some people are seriously advocating a "permanent" +1 colonist for Sweden because having a population of 600 unhistorical. I mean, from a game perspective, what is worse? I don't think any player will be bothered that Lappland has 600 population.
"OMG! You frekking n00bs! Lappland is almost a city!!?!!"
Of course Sven_Vargas wants that +1 permanent colonist, he no doubt plays Sweden a lot. But leave nationalistic feelings out of this, will ya? I've already stated that NO Scandinavian nation should have that bonus, at least not for long, and giving a reasonably high population will give the frontier bonus only one real area of use, bringing Lappland up to size if wanted, and possibly any conquered russian colonies.
The problem with +1 colonist is if it's used outside Scandinavia, and Lappland usually become a city way before anyone know anything of the new world (which of course is very ahistorical, but better than the alternative), so I guess my point is I have nothing against a Lappland with too many inhabitnats, and if we're talking PTI why aren't the whole alps PTI and why are Alaska and North Canada even in the game, you seriously don't thin any armies could move there. Why not make that PTI also when we have started already.
Galleblære said:
Sven Vargas?
Maybe you meant vegas... Im impressed you are not only a devoted Eu2 player, but you are a mindreader to! Little bit flattered that you put some thought and time just to think about me and how I play. OT of course, but still nice, bcz I love to talk about me!
Actually I havent played big european nations since I was a rookie, its to easy, specially with a strong one like for example Sweden, and I im not very bothered that Lappland would have 600 population. I just expressed an opinion that Im even less botherd with frontier bonus. Talk all you like about nationalism, its just as OT as your mindreading games.
Personally I prefer keeping the discussion to real arguments. Which for clearity, you did write to, but you mixed it with bs. nationalism talk. Not very intelligent, IMHO.
Last edited:
Galleblære said:So what is it than? Lappland with 600 population? I can't believe some people are seriously advocating a "permanent" +1 colonist for Sweden because having a population of 600 unhistorical. I mean, from a game perspective, what is worse? I don't think any player will be bothered that Lappland has 600 population.
"OMG! You frekking n00bs! Lappland is almost a city!!?!!"
Of course Sven_Vargas wants that +1 permanent colonist, he no doubt plays Sweden a lot. But leave nationalistic feelings out of this, will ya? I've already stated that NO Scandinavian nation should have that bonus, at least not for long, and giving a reasonably high population will give the frontier bonus only one real area of use, bringing Lappland up to size if wanted, and possibly any conquered russian colonies.
I think there should be a Lappland with 600pop but no natives. This will add up to the same amount of people when it becomes a city anyway.
The alternative would be to merge Lappland with Västerbotten, but I won't like it.
Having a +1 colonist-bonus is ludicrous regardless.
yourworstnightm said:
Read the previous posts on this thread for an explanation of the PTI. Not all agree, but I think that it's way better to prevent all movements than to allow armies of 30000 men to cross between Lappland and Hålogaland. It doesn't make sense regardless of what Hannibal did or did not do.
Sven_vegas said:Sven Vargas?
Im impressed you are not only a devoted Eu2 player, but you are a mindreader to! Little bit flattered that you put some thought and time just to think about me and how I play. OT of course, but still nice, bcz I love to talk about me!
Actually I havent played big european nations since I was a rookie, its to easy, specially with a strong one like for example Sweden, and I im not very bothered that Lappland would have 600 population. I just expressed an opinion that Im even less botherd with frontier bonus. Talk all you like about nationalism, its just as OT as your mindreading games.
Personally I prefer keeping the discussion to real arguments. Which for clearity, you did write to, but you mixed it with bs. nationalism talk. Not very intelligent, IMHO.
Did I touch a nerve there?
I mean, as a veteran player of EU2 why would you advocate for a TP in Sweden, well knowing the consequences and potential exploit it can bring? Hence, my guess was that you wanted a "stronger Sweden". But I see that I was of course completly wrong, and you just... made an error?