Norway and province development after Common Sense

[zdlugasz]

I think you have to be Norwegian to say that, the areas of Norway that is best suited for farming would be the worst of the worst farming land in the rest of Europe.

Without being able to find anything on google, I doubt Norway was even able to feed itself on it own farming land before the industrial revolution.

Why all you people are so fixated with farming? Is it the only possible occupation? Ever heard of fishes, about trade? If rich copper/silver/... deposits were discovered and transportation means existed than it did not matter that terrain was inhospitable.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Why all you people are so fixated with farming? Is it the only possible occupation? Ever heard of fishes, about trade? If rich copper/silver/... deposits were discovered and transportation means existed than it did not matter that terrain was inhospitable.

I think it's because of the modifier that gives farmland provinces a +2 building slots.

 

[zdlugasz]

I think it's because of the modifier that gives farmland provinces a +2 building slots.

Fine, farmlands are great. But why people are arguing that developing mountain should be maybe not impossible, but at least not viable?
In many posts above I haven't seen discussion about number of slots, but about costs of development.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Fine, farmlands are great. But why people are arguing that developing mountain should be maybe not impossible, but at least not viable?
In many posts above I haven't seen discussion about number of slots, but about costs of development.

I think it's because they see a mountain province like a province which 100% of the terrain resembles the Himalayas...

 

[zdlugasz]

The post was original about the Norwegian mainland sucking, and the atlantic islands being the easiest provinces to develop.

I know, but it is sucking because of mountains and their development cost, not because number of slots is insufficient.

 

[perhje]

I think you have to be Norwegian to say that, the areas of Norway that is best suited for farming would be the worst of the worst farming land in the rest of Europe.

Without being able to find anything on google, I doubt Norway was even able to feed itself on it own farming land before the industrial revolution.

On it's own farming? Maybe not. Food? absolutely. Norway was actually a exporter of food. Fish was and is a big export for Norway. Farming was more of a way to feed themselves, but they didn't need to import anymore food than other countries in Europe because of much land which was used by herds of animals and big seas with fish. I would say the food imports has only increased because of price to produce the food in Norway compared to before the industrial revolution. Flat farming areas has only become more important in newer times because of the development of big machines, but it wasn't that important with a flat area when it was humans or animals that did the work. And fertility which isn't so much of a problem today because of new fertilizers was a important part in those times

 

[Kirkegaard]

On it's own farming? Maybe not. Food? absolutely. Norway was actually a exporter of food. Fish was and is a big export for Norway. Farming was more of a way to feed themselves, but they didn't need to import anymore food than other countries in Europe because of much land which was used by herds of animals and big seas with fish. I would say the food imports has only increased because of price to produce the food in Norway compared to before the industrial revolution. Flat farming areas has only become more important in newer times because of the development of big machines, but it wasn't that important with a flat area when it was humans or animals that did the work. And fertility which isn't so much of a problem today because of new fertilizers was a important part in those times

Norway exported fish yes, but that was also more or less it. It was historically far, far poorer than Denmark and Sweden, and the main reason must be the lack of good farming land. I do think the main reason Norway was the small partner with first Denmark and then Sweden was that they simply could not afford to be an independent nation.

If EU4 are a bit hard on Norway, I can't say. Never really played then.

 

[perhje]

Norway exported fish yes, but that was also more or less it. It was historically far, far poorer than Denmark and Sweden, and the main reason must be the lack of good farming land. I do think the main reason Norway was the small partner with first Denmark and then Sweden was that they simply could not afford to be an independent nation.

If EU4 are a bit hard on Norway, I can't say. Never really played then.

I would only say that it is about the development the game is hard on Norway. And the black plague is the main reason for the weakness for Norway in the period, the natural resources isn't. The danish king demanded big parts of the cobbermines in Røros and the whole of the silver mines in Kongsberg which limited Norway. Also Norway lacked aristocracy in the time that defined the structures and lost their power through the abolishing of the catholic clergy. Remember that also subject nation give a penalty to development and that should illustrate such thing. After the protestantism Norway is just a part of Denmark which wasn't a part the king would develop before the danish areas. Denmark was the strongest of those three nations, but if Norway was an indenpendent ally of Denmark, which the game often gets to, Norway would most likely be more developed than it was by the time it was given to Sweden. Also Norway wasn't really that poor compared to Sweden because of trade. Remember that Bergen was an important Hansacity in the time. But yes, if you don't count in trade Norway was far poorer than Denmark and Sweden.

 

[zdlugasz]

... But yes, if you don't count in trade Norway was far poorer than Denmark and Sweden.

But it is represented by initial tax and production in 1444. The issue here is not starting position, but potential for development.
So it does not matter if historically Norway was , 3 or even 5 times weaker/poorer (if it was). What matter is how much resources/effort would king need to improve this land. And actually, the poorer land (unless it is arctic), if it is in good location (trade, transportation), and has resources, than it would be easier to develop it (in comparison to super-developed land).

Holland was poor actually, but migration of people fleeing from southern lowlands, their investments, effort etc. made it rich. If king of Norway invested in mines, production of tar, whatever other things Norway could offer, then it would not be so poor.

So fixating on historical poorness of land, lack of huge farming etc. is completely irrelevant. The question is: what would happen, how much return would people get, if they invested.
And nobody gave any reason to WHY IT COULD NOT be developed (like e.g. it is permafrost).

 

[perhje]

But it is represented by initial tax and production in 1444. The issue here is not starting position, but potential for development.
So it does not matter if historically Norway was , 3 or even 5 times weaker/poorer (if it was). What matter is how much resources/effort would king need to improve this land. And actually, the poorer land (unless it is arctic), if it is in good location (trade, transportation), and has resources, than it would be easier to develop it (in comparison to super-developed land).

Holland was poor actually, but migration of people fleeing from southern lowlands, their investments, effort etc. made it rich. If king of Norway invested in mines, production of tar, whatever other things Norway could offer, then it would not be so poor.

So fixating on historical poorness of land, lack of huge farming etc. is completely irrelevant. The question is: what would happen, how much return would people get, if they invested.
And nobody gave any reason to WHY IT COULD NOT be developed (like e.g. it is permafrost).

I agree, but I just pointed what was historically Norways biggest way of getting money(compared to other countries). I also pointed out the "what if" which you are explaining a little bit later in the post(hope it wasn't to messy written), where i supposed that Norway would most likely be richer at the times of Napoleon. The problem was that the danish king took big profits from the natural minerals in Norway and used it more on Denmark and wars than it was used in Norway. But still, certain norwegians benefited greatly from those minerals as well