Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

New map: Scandinavia

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Galleblære said:
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? ;)
Click to expand...

Its not an error, I know it would make sweden a (potential) stronger colonizer, I havent denied that, but as I explained earlier: IMHO the ahistorical exploit lies in swedens possible ability to colonize for example america, not in with how many colonist one would use doing it. We cant stop a Swedish player from colonizing america if he really wants to regardless of +1 colonist or not. But we can for certain give Lappland a historical starting population.

Its one thing if you dont agree with me on that, I totally respect that, but please spare us from comments of the kind: "Sven_vegas behaves nationalistic" they doesnt add anything(OT), if you have good real arguments, using them should be enough, and yes you did touch a nerve, the nerve of stupidiness. :rofl:
 
Sven_vegas said:
Its not an error, I know it would make sweden a (potential) stronger colonizer, I havent denied that, but as I explained earlier: IMHO the ahistorical exploit lies in swedens possible ability to colonize for example america, not in with how many colonist one would use doing it. We cant stop a Swedish player from colonizing america if he really wants to regardless of +1 colonist or not. But we can for certain give Lappland a historical starting population.

Its one thing if you dont agree with me on that, I totally respect that, but please spare us from comments of the kind: "Sven_vegas behaves nationalistic" they doesnt add anything(OT), if you have good real arguments, using them should be enough, and yes you did touch a nerve, the nerve of stupidiness. :rofl:
Click to expand...

So you don't see the problem of +1 colonist compared to the other majors, but insted write it off as a general problem that Sweden colonises? :D You still haven't given me an answer why you wanted that +1 colonist for Sweden! ;) Any nation in EU2 can become a strong colonizer if the player wants to, you can make Switzerland into the stongest naval power and colonizer in the world if you want to, so your point is rather moot and doesn't adress my question directed at you at all.

And don't get so touchy, maybe I could have been more delicate with my wording, but I didn't mean to point a big finger and accuse you, but speculated what your motivation for having a TP was! ;) If you are gonna flip out every time someone tries to guess the reasoning behind your post, you're in gonna end up in a hospital with high blood pressure! :)
 
Galleblære said:
So you don't see the problem of +1 colonist compared to the other majors, but insted write it off as a general problem that Sweden colonises? :D You still haven't given me an answer why you wanted that +1 colonist for Sweden! ;) Any nation in EU2 can become a strong colonizer if the player wants to, you can make Switzerland into the stongest naval power and colonizer in the world if you want to, so your point is rather moot and doesn't adress my question directed at you at all.

And don't get so touchy, maybe I could have been more delicate with my wording, but I didn't mean to point a big finger and accuse you, but speculated what your motivation for having a TP was! ;) If you are gonna flip out every time someone tries to guess the reasoning behind your post, you're in gonna end up in a hospital with high blood pressure! :)
Click to expand...

First of all I want to repeat that I dont think that the 600 pop to Lappland is such a bad idea. It’s not my first choice, but it’s still a fine solution. It was only bcz that nationalist talk that made me react. I accept your apologise, I could of course reacted less, but things like that really makes me mad. I guess it’s an individual thing what makes people angry. Let’s leave that behind and be forum friends again. :)

The answer to your question is that I dont want Sweden to have frontier bonus all the game, only until they colonized Lappland. A human player can exploit that, but I dont think the AI will. Likewise, making Switzerland into the strongest naval power and such also pretty much requires the nation to have a human player which takes several ahistorical decisions. To me the frontier bonus exploit is also just a human player making an ahistorical decision. I dont see the diffrence, so I rather say that your point is moot.
 
Hi

Sorry my english.

What happen to this scandinavian map and when? (I have just start to read these forums again, after long time... and just accidentally start to read this topic). Is there going to be some new game, new patch or?

I read english slowly and we have here so many pages, so I am not sure if you have decide something. Earlier in this topic you talk about Finnish (ugric) areas: that why there is that number and those areas.

Those areas have historical reasons. You should not change those areas in AGCEEP. When I start to play EU2 I think that gamemakers really know what they do because of those areas.

There were 4 bigger tribes in Finland (I mean nowadays-country called Finland area and some western parts of nowadays-Russia) in Viking-era, just earlier than GC begins. Those tribes were (Finnish names):

1) karjalaiset (karelians?)
They live mainly in Kexholm area, some in western parts of Ingermanland (there live other ugric tribes and some "Russians", I think). Later some karelians start to move to Karelia and that area is culturally very important part of finnish history (songs, tales…).

2) hämäläiset (tavasteland-area-people, "tava"… or tave… or something means first something like "dark" (some old swedish or german word) and people in that area have more dark hair and skin than in Finland-area where Swedish power landed first).
So they live in Tavasteland.

3) suomalaiset (finns)
Finn means now all people that live in country called Finland, but those days it means just people that live in that Finland-area.

4) saamelaiset (those nomads who live in north and not-agricultural areas everywhere, they move during history always more and more to north because more powerful other tribes).
These people don’t have own area in this game in nowaday-Finland (country) area.

Tribes 1-3 have same language when GC start. Some own dialects just.

ABOUT OTHER AREAS:

First areas where was higher number of people were Finland, Tavasteland and Kexholm. That’s the reason why there was kind of own tribes.

a) Nyland
Later in EU2 history like nowadays this is the most important part of country called Finland. When GC starts there live not so many people because there were not-so-good-land for agriculture.

b) Savolaks
One of later finnish tribes was "savolaiset" (Savolaks). They born when "hämäläiset" and "karjalaiset" start to move that area and mixed. Historically this is totally different (area) than old Tavasteland-area culture or old Kexholm-area culture.

c) Karelia
Then and nowadays not so many people. "Karjalaiset" start to move to north and build up that area. Culturally very! important area in finnish (country) culture: old songs, tales…

d) Österbotten
People from all 3 big tribes move to that area (and swedish people to coast-areas): furs, good fish-rivers, good agricultural-area...
Fast there was people that called themselves one tribe "pohjalaiset" and nowadays that area is called "Pohjanmaa" (northern part is part of area called "Lappland" like in Sweden). In history these "pohjalaiset" have reputation as fearless warriors and couple of time swedish government in Finland(country) area almost collapse because of this tribe. There should be "event" or something that if tax-rate is high during 1500-1650 these people start rebel easily again and again like really happens.

Northern "Österbotten" (nowadays called Lappland) was populated very slowly. North = north starts here Oulu-Kemi-Tornio cities area.

e) Kola
Nothing to do with any of those tribes (just some "saamelaiset"). Not so much people live there. Just some nomads. Later populate by Russian culture, i think first orthodox-monks start some monasterys and then some other people move to monastery-area...

-------

There is so much wrong information in "Kle" text page 6.

-------
Sute.. page 8:
"in Finland, where they are already sparsely populated and poor."

Historically that is not true. Area Finland was quite wealthy.

ABOUT MAPS
Tribe "pohjalaiset" have many and long wars against "karjalaiset". "Karjalaiset" attack to the coast of Österbotten and "pohjalaiset" deep to Karelia (I don’t have books here now, but I think that EU2-Kexholm area too… I am not sure if Karelia-Kola border is in right place, maybe it should be somewhere more north). So there have to be way from Karelia to Österbotten and from Kexholm to Österbotten. It is big historical mistake if there is none! At least one should be. Those "armys" didnt use some southern ways.

Because of these "borderwars" Sweden have lower taxes and dutys for people who live in Österbotten because they have to defend themselves without official armys.

SOUTH KARELIA / VIBORG AND KEXHOLM
Why in some maps there is these 2 different areas? Karelians trade in southern coast and historically there is no reason to separate these 2 area? Why couldn’t Kexholm end to southcoast so you have to go through "Kexholm" if you want to go west to Nyland or east to Ingermanland? 2 area is ok, not a big problem. Its hard to say what is right way to do these maps, because you have so many different aspect when you think borders: administration, culture, trade, religion, language…

Western coast of lake Ladoga is ancient "karjalaiset"-culture area, no way that culture is Novgorod! Other parts of Kexholm area was populated by "karjalaiset" later.
 
Last edited:
There might still be some very minor changes here and there, but the version that is already out is sufficient basis for publishing in the various threads. No time to lose. Try to focus on the issues at hand, changes to the map are very very likely to be included in the first release. It will all be for later releases.
For this thread, just discuss provinces numbered in white! The rest will be in other threads. Maps without the chicken scratch will replace this one as soon as I get my hands on it.
We need help with
  • Make conversion list for old ID - new ID(s). This will be used for converting knownprovinces lists in 300 country files. They should be configured like this to be readble to Aegnor's program:

    One old to one new conversion:
    Code: 
    oldID1-newID1 #Old name
oldID2-newID2 #Old name
oldID3-newID3 #Old name
etc..
    One old to multiple new conversion:
    Code: 
    oldID1-newID1 #Old name
oldID1-newID2 
oldID1-newID3 
etc..
    One old can convert into several new ones, but never the opposite! It's no exact science as it's only for this sole purpose.
    If there is no new one that fits, as if it's been covered in PTI, write 0.
  • Make the province.csv entries.
  • Make the 1419.inc entries.
  • Make the revolt entries.
As default provinces coming from a split old EU2 province in the new map get the combined tax values of the old one +1. Countries need to invest some to get the value out of the provinces, and this addition is an easy way to make up for it. There's already too much manpower on the map, and armies are several times the historical ones, and require no investment, so I don't think manpower should be affected. This formula is best applied to regions, like all provinces on this map piece.

Example: A region of old provinces had combined tax value X. Y new provinces added to the area gives a combined tax values on the new map X+2Y.



FYI: Straits will be put between Svealand & Finland, between Skåne & Själland, between Själland & Fyn and between Fyn & Jylland.

EDIT: Forgot Livonia, it's also included here: 554.
Iceland is 1351
Greenland is 286 (I think)
 
Last edited:
I can take southern coast of Baltic, I will update inc entries later

However, I may make modifications when I see northern Russia, Lithuania and Poland.

Right now all provinces (with presumably deletable Riga) are accounted

275-563 #Ingermanland
276-558 559 #Estland
282-553 554 555 #Livland
283-551 552 #Kurland
289 290 - 535 536 542 550 #Memel Prussia

EDIT: Chelmno (536) is on the right bank of Vistula river and belonged to TO in 1419 (and looking at vanilla map) should be extracted from Prussia. I have decided to remove Warmia from the above equation, it seems it should be extraced from old Danzig


Novgorod
Code: 
563
Province: Ingria
City: Ivangorod #Narwa is located in fact in Estonia, Ivangorod was founded in 1492 (as fortress) St. Petersburg was founded in XVIIIth century
Income: 3
Manpower: 2
Culture: ugric
Religion: orthodox
Goods: Fish
Livonian Order
Code: 
558
Province: Ösel 

City: Arensburg
Income: 2
Manpower: 1
Culture: ugric
Religion: protestant
Goods: Fish

559
Province: Estland
City: Reval
Income: 4
Manpower: 2
Culture: ugric
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

in case if Riga 553 is removed capital of Livonia moves to Riga
if Riga stays as city-province it should have different goods (not Grain)

553
Province: Riga 
City: Riga
Income: 4
Manpower: 1
Culture: ugric
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

554
Province: Livonia 
City: Dorpat
Income: 4
Manpower: 2
Culture: ugric
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

555 
Province: Dyneburg
City: Dyneburg
Income: 3
Manpower: 2
Culture: baltic
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

551
Province: Courland
City: Goldingen
Income: 4
Manpower: 2
Culture: baltic
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

552
Province: Semigalia
City: Mittau
Income: 5
Manpower: 2
Culture: baltic
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

Teutonic Order
Code: 
535
Province: Masuria # if borders were slightly modified it could be Prussia 
City: Marienwerder # or Rastenburg 
Income: 4
Manpower: 1
Culture: baltic
Religion: protestant
Goods: NAVS 

536
Province: Chelmno
City: Chelmno # capital however Torun/Thorn was bigger
Income: 4
Manpower: 2
Culture: polish
Religion: catholic
Goods: Grain

542
Province: Prussia # if borders are little modified it could be Memel
City: Königsberg 
Income: 6
Manpower: 3
Culture: baltic
Religion: protestant
Goods: Fish


Lithuania:
Code: 
550
Province: Samogitia
City: Raseiniai 
Income: 5
Manpower: 2
Culture: baltic
Religion: catholic
Goods: Grain

IMO Riga should be merged with Livonia, Oesel and Chelmno could be merged with other provinces as well (or alternatively tax should be added to this area because most provinces in this area have between 3 and 5 tax value

goods for Semigalia and Dyneburg and Riga were just copied from Courland and Livland; Prussia got old Memel goods and Masuria old Prussia goods (NAVS, because it was heavily forrested and has a lot of big lakes);

Edit: I have moved 1 tax from Estonia to Livonia since Riga and Livonia were larger, had higher population and were richer

Edit2: Chelmno: capital (between 1466 and 1772) was Chelmno, largest city was Torun/Thorn which was completely German and protestant, but majority of population in province was Polish and catholic
Code: 
Teutonic Order:
ownedprovinces = {
		533 534 535 536 542 Neumark
	}
nationalprovinces = {
		533 534 535 536 542 Neumark
	}
Livonian Order
	controlledprovinces = {
		551 552 553 554 555 558 559 
	}
	nationalprovinces = {
		 551 552 553 554 555 558 559 563
	}

550 to Lithuania
 
Last edited:
Other provinces:

306-431 #Holstein
307-588 589 #Sjelland
308-587 #Gotland
309-590 591 #Jylland

Should Schleswig be extracted from Jylland or Holstein?
In such case entries below must be changed.

Danmark:
Code: 
578
Province: Gotland
City: Visby
Income: 8
Manpower: 2
Culture: scandinavian
Religion: protestant
Goods: Fish

588
Province: Sjelland #my comp does not like AE
City: Kobenhavn #nor crossed o, if someone will post them I will replace 
Income: 11
Manpower: 4
Culture: scandinavian
Religion: protestant
Goods: Fish

589
Province: Fyn
City: Odense 
Income: 7
Manpower: 2
Culture: scandinavian
Religion: protestant
Goods: Fish

590
Province: Jylland
City: Aalborg 
Income: 10 
Manpower: 3
Culture: scandinavian
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

591
Province: Schleswig
City: Flensborg
Income: 7
Manpower: 2
Culture: scandinavian
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain
Holstein
Code: 
431
Province: Holstein
City: Hamburg # or should it be Kiel?
Income: 13
Manpower: 5
Culture: german
Religion: protestant
Goods: Grain

doktarr said:
It's likely that Riga (553) will be removed in the final version.
Click to expand...

Very good, I support such change with my whole heart, there are too many small provinces there.

With current layout of provinces we are losing city Memel (it will be in new Prussia, which will have capital in Koenigsberg (I guess) and I do not see really good candidate fro capital of Masuria. If we could slice Prussia in half (more or less) and merge left side with Masuria we would have Masuria with Koenigsberg and say Prussia with Memel

Name Prussia (in the current setup) is not really good choice, it is like if you divided Bavaria into 4 provinces and named one of them Bavaria.

EDIT:
Well, maybe Bavaria is not good choice because you can remove Franconia from it. Better choice would be e.g. naming one of Irish provinces Ireland
 
Last edited:
OT: can we expect next fragments of map (other than 3 already posted)?
 
Garbon said:
The whole map is "finished" and by finished I mean at a state where it is showable to the community. Obviously there are a few tweakings here and there that need doing like the Mediterranean seazones.
Click to expand...

Can you give direct link?
(I think that it was supposed to appear at languish but I did not bother to register earlier and now I am waiting when they accept my registration)
 
zdlugasz said:
Can you give direct link?
(I think that it was supposed to appear at languish but I did not bother to register earlier and now I am waiting when they accept my registration)
Click to expand...

I need to send the file to Norrefeldt first as it isn't uploaded in a presentable form (the few fragments are of one of the layers). I plan to do that tonight (CST) when I get off work.

Oh, well you won't be able to see it at languish. It was posted in a private forum there.
 
zdlugasz said:
Very good, I support such change with my whole heart, there are too many small provinces there.

With current layout of provinces we are losing city Memel (it will be in new Prussia, which will have capital in Koenigsberg (I guess) and I do not see really good candidate fro capital of Masuria. If we could slice Prussia in half (more or less) and merge left side with Masuria we would have Masuria with Koenigsberg and say Prussia with Memel
Click to expand...

Imho it would be really much better to make prussia + memel instead of prussia + masuria, additionally it would allow to represent properly nemen river, since memel is north of the river and prussia is to the south
as zgulasz said in the province masuria like it is now there was even no big city, its only lakes and forrests

for more info see here:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Prusy_Książęce.PNG
 
Norrefeldt said:
zdlugasz and rybka: We wont rearrange the Prussian provinces for the first version. I find the name Prussia good for it incorporates the core of what later became Prussia.
Click to expand...

Fine, but it means city Memel is lost.

I have updated my first post with province proposals.

Edit:
I wonder if Livonian Order will not be too powerful now : 6 instead of 3 provinces (even after removal of Riga), and +6 tax due to the province splitting
 
Last edited:
Norrefeldt said:
zdlugasz and rybka: We wont rearrange the Prussian provinces for the first version. I find the name Prussia good for it incorporates the core of what later became Prussia.
Click to expand...

For future considerations then.
All what would be required to cut (narrow) strip along Warmia border and add it to Masuria.

Regarding naming conventions: It is not in Scandinavia, however if I start earlier I have better chance:

- Hinterpommern is German name (province was incorporated into Brandenburg in 1648, before 30YW local population was dominating). Noncontroversial English name is Pomerania


Edit: during XIVth and XVth century Dukes of Pomerania were beating about Poland, Danmark, Teutonic Order and Emperor; Erik was also king of Danmark, Boguslaw VIII submitted to Polish king in 1410, Kazimierz IV was heir to Polish throne but was forced (by pro-Lithuanian party) to resign claims, sometimes were allied with Poland against TO sometimes with Teutonic Order against Poland.
Only in XVIth century they finally recognized Emperor as their overlord.

Edit2: from post moved to Polisg thread

Oesel is small island, not important and rich in any sense. It was owned by Danmark 85 years and this is not enough reason to make it separate province.
 
Last edited:
It is not “Semgalia”. It is in English and Latin is Semigalia.

One province Livonia is not the best idea either. Why not to add historical division with Dorpat bishopric lands instead of Riga?

I would not comment on Polostk and “Belarus” borders as it is clear fantasy as you know. In addition (do not know that I would have to repeat this so many times :)) “Belarus” (White Russia, Russia Alba, Белая Русь or whatever it was called) in the 15th century was using as the geographical term for Novgorod and Smolensk regions. In the middle of the 16th century it turned to Polotsk-Vitebsk-Smolensk region. And only in the second half of the 17th – early 18th century it was started to be used for central (Minsk voivodship) region too.
 
zdlugasz said:
Edit: during XIVth and XVth century Dukes of Pomerania were beating about Poland, Danmark, Teutonic Order and Emperor; Erik was also king of Danmark, Boguslaw VIII submitted to Polish king in 1410, Kazimierz IV was heir to Polish throne but was forced (by pro-Lithuanian party) to resign claims, sometimes were allied with Poland against TO sometimes with Teutonic Order against Poland.
Only in XVIth century they finally recognized Emperor as their overlord.
Click to expand...


And if Bogislaw XIV had died a little later, it is Poland that would inherit Pomerania. Negotiations between Bogislaw and Wladyslaw of Poland were well under way.
 
zdlugasz said:
- Hinterpommern is German name (province was incorporated into Brandenburg in 1648, before 30YW local population was dominating). Noncontroversial English name is Pomerania
Click to expand...
So far we only have a semi-convention on province names, which in this case probably means that it's called by the German Hinterpommern instead of Pomerania, very close to Pomerelia.

Herr Doctor said:
It is not “Semgalia”. It is in English and Latin is Semigalia.
Click to expand...
That should be fixed.

Herr Doctor said:
One province Livonia is not the best idea either. Why not to add historical division with Dorpat bishopric lands instead of Riga?
Click to expand...
Livonia wasn't historically divided enough under this period to warrant an extra province. It was almost always under the same rule. In any case, this wont happen now. Don't hope for ANY changes beyond erraneous names.

Herr Doctor said:
I would not comment on Polostk and “Belarus” borders as it is clear fantasy as you know. In addition (do not know that I would have to repeat this so many times :)) “Belarus” (White Russia, Russia Alba, Белая Русь or whatever it was called) in the 15th century was using as the geographical term for Novgorod and Smolensk regions. In the middle of the 16th century it turned to Polotsk-Vitebsk-Smolensk region. And only in the second half of the 17th – early 18th century it was started to be used for central (Minsk voivodship) region too.
Click to expand...
OK, glad you wont comment ;) So, Belarus it is then. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back