Norway in Vicky2

[Mammut]

Im quite sure that if PI dont add some decision to turn Norway or Finland more and more independent as times go by, then turn to VIP and help them create the necessary events and decisions for this to happen.


Remember that PI main goal is to get a working game and will most likely focus on the historical parts in future expansions. And this is what I like with PI's games, they aim to make games that work and then leave it up to the modding community to made mods that tend to the individual players desire.

 

[Carewolf2]

And Finland, which point I brought up... sometime earlier this year. I forget.

The main conclusion earlier was that in 1836, they (Norway, Finland, etc...) couldn't really be considered independent, or not even vassals. They actually were (in the PI view too I guess) parts of the parent nation, even though they had some degree of theoretical and/or practical autonomy (which isn't modelled in the game, except by flavour events maybe).

This is nonsense. Norway rebelled right when they were won by Sweden and part of the cease-fire between Sweden and Norway was that Norway accepted the Swedish king as their own king, and the Danish crown princess renounced his claim, but that Norway could have their own navy, army, constitution and parliament, and that the state form would be a democratic constitutional monarchy (unlike Sweden). TThe Swedish army and navy was even denied military access to Norway. Try putting the lack of even military access into EU or Vicky terms.. Surely annexed makes no sense at all.. Wikipedia on Sweden-Norway.

Since Norway legally had the status of an independent state, the only institutions common to both countries were the king and the foreign service. All other ministries and government institutions were separate to each state, even the armies, navies and treasuries. The foreign service was directly subordinate to the king, an arrangement that was embodied already in the Norwegian constitution of 17 May 1814, before the revision of 4 November. An unforeseen effect was that foreign policy was decided in the Swedish cabinet and conducted by the Swedish ministry of foreign affairs. When matters of foreign policy were discussed in cabinet meetings, the only Norwegian present who could plead Norway's case was the prime minister. The Swedish Riksdag could indirectly influence foreign policy, but not the Norwegian Storting. Because the representations abroad were appointed by the Swedish government and mostly staffed with Swedes, the Union was often seen by foreigners to be more like a single state than two sovereign states. It is important to note, however, that the Union was no political entity; no one was a subject or citizen of the Union. This is clearly expressed in its official designation: The United Kingdoms.

 

[Dragoneer]

i think a dev said in another post that norway was a part of sweden because of gamebalance, which basicly means no norway because they want a powerfull sweden

 

[jamhaw]

This is nonsense. Norway rebelled right when they were won by Sweden and part of the cease-fire between Sweden and Norway was that Norway accepted the Swedish king as their own king, and the Danish crown princess renounced his claim, but that Norway could have their own navy, army, constitution and parliament, and that the state form would be a democratic constitutional monarchy (unlike Sweden). TThe Swedish army and navy was even denied military access to Norway. Try putting the lack of even military access into EU or Vicky terms.. Surely annexed makes no sense at all.. Wikipedia on Sweden-Norway.

From that it sounds like they would best be included as a Dominion at game start then.

 

[unmerged(1439)]

And Finland, which point I brought up... sometime earlier this year. I forget.

The main conclusion earlier was that in 1836, they (Norway, Finland, etc...) couldn't really be considered independent, or not even vassals. They actually were (in the PI view too I guess) parts of the parent nation, even though they had some degree of theoretical and/or practical autonomy (which isn't modelled in the game, except by flavour events maybe).

There could and hopefully will be flavour events for these minorities within the parent states, which may in some or most cases lead (eventually, through nationalist militancy) to rebellions wherein they become vassals. Maybe even some relatively major stuff like "Release Norway as a vassal or all Norwegian POPs get +5 MIL" could be in, or added in. Or rebellions could be left to occur with the dynamic system (perhaps the increased effects of nationalism later in the era, like in Vicky).

If you want to play Norway right from the start, it's as simple as starting the game, releasing it as a satellite, then saving and loading said save. You could even theoretically declare war and then white peace if you want to be rid of the vassal status too, but that'd hurt Sweden, and you might want to go through the fun of trying to end the vassalage as Norway instead.

P.S. Sooner or later, I'll probably get around to starting as Sweden or Denmark, and uniting all the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland, if that last one counts) under one flag and crown!

You cant compare Finland with Norway, Finland was never a vassal to Sweden it was a part of Sweden. If Russia never won that war Finland would still be a part of Sweden like any other part of Sweden. And Finland is part of the Nordic union for some odd reason but it shouldnt really be, finns are not nordic, nobody understands finnish.

 

[Yuri_Kenobi]

i think a dev said in another post that norway was a part of sweden because of gamebalance

They did, and that's a horrible explanation.

Using the historical facts to prove my point might not have been the right way to shed light of the issue. It seems both the developers and most people here are aware of the facts.

Let me present what I believe to be the issue at hand:
Victoria 2 is at its core a game about history, and its gameplay at its most basic is centered on the map, correct?

You can say the same thing about Civilization, but unlike Firaxis, Paradox tend to pride themselves on making historically accurate simulations.

Norway is represented on any map you can find from this time period and on any historical maps created today. If we agree, from a purely historical point of view, that Norway should be represented as an entity by itself but not independent from Sweden, how can we possibly say that it shouldn't be in the game?

The developers are working hard to present a historically accurate simulation of the economy, diplomacy, politics and all these things that we read in the dev diaries. Isn't the presence of an entire European country at least as important as all these things? Surely there are better ways to balance the game than sacrificing the historical integrity of the map, the heart of the game itself.

From that it sounds like they would best be included as a Dominion at game start then.

This is one possibility, but this is a brand new game, and the possibilities are endless! If the developers feel that the concept of a dominion doesn't fit, they can create an entirely new concept! It's all up to them now.

 

[unmerged(77752)]

Norway not being included at the start isn't a big deal.

If you want to be Norway just start the game as Sweden, release Norway, save and reload as Norway. Boom nothing to cry about!

 

[Yuri_Kenobi]

Norway not being included at the start isn't a big deal.

If you want to be Norway just start the game as Sweden, release Norway, save and reload as Norway. Boom nothing to cry about!

Clearly it's a big deal to some of us. I'm not crying about anything, I'm trying to affect the developement of the game in favor of a more historically accurate presentation of the actual situation. And if indeed it is a issue of game balance, then doing what you're suggesting upsets that balance, making the game less than the developers intended it to be. I have a problem with that.

 

[unmerged(77752)]

Clearly it's a big deal to some of us. I'm not crying about anything, I'm trying to affect the developement of the game in favor of a more historically accurate presentation of the actual situation.

Not really. You still do have the option to play as Norway, it hasn't been banned or disallowed outright.

A similar discussion about Norway being available at the start happened months ago, Paradox rejected it and by the Alpha Screens doesn't look like they changed their opinion.

And if indeed it is a issue of game balance, then doing what you're suggesting upsets that balance, making the game less than the developers intended it to be. I have a problem with that.

I'm not sure it upsets the game balance. Rather including Norway isn't a priority or isn't able to be represented properly in relation to their subservient status to Sweden in that era.

Again though, it is available to play at the start through the method I described. This can be done with many autonomous areas that weren't fully independent in that era (Hungary, Finland).

 

[DarthJF]

And Finland is part of the Nordic union for some odd reason but it shouldnt really be, finns are not nordic, nobody understands finnish.

You're mixing Nordic with Scandinavian.

 

[OHgamer]

Thread closed, we had this debate already in this forum and Paradox have stated how they are depicting the Scandinavian region in terms of the geopolitics of 1836. Those who do not quite agree with this setup are more than free to mod as they feel needed to reflect their personal understanding of the proper "historical situation" for 1 Jan 1836, but until Paradox decides otherwise the issue is closed and continuing to debate the issue ad infinitum is a waste of forum resources.

 

[unmerged(150720)]

Question on Personal Union and Norway

Here is my 2 questions.

Can you have personal unions?

Wasn't Norway more a satellite nation of Sweden, than integrated into Sweden?

 

[Andrelvis]

De facto it worked as if it were an autonomous administrative division of Sweden, as Sweden controlled it's foreign policy.

Would be interesting if we got personal unions, but I don't think we will.

 

[unmerged(150720)]

Well Hannover should definitely be an integrated part of Great Britain if Norway is of Sweden to make it fair...

 

[Andrelvis]

Well Hannover should definitely be an integrated part of Great Britain if Norway is of Sweden to make it fair...

Possibly. One would have to study the constitutions of each country to see if they had enough autonomy to be satellites or not.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Well Hannover should definitely be an integrated part of Great Britain if Norway is of Sweden to make it fair...

No, it wouldn't be fair. The personal union between Great Britain and Hanover ended one year after the start of the game, while Sweden and Norway's ended in 1905. And Hanover broke free because of simple succession laws, not because of a nationalist referendum. Besides, Paradox has already stated many times that Norway will be an integrated part of Sweden so why keep bringing up the issue?

 

[Andrelvis]

No, it wouldn't be fair. The personal union between Great Britain and Hanover ended one year after the start of the game, while Sweden and Norway's ended in 1905. And Hanover broke free because of simple succession laws, not because of a nationalist referendum. Besides, Paradox has already stated many times that Norway will be an integrated part of Sweden so why keep bringing up the issue?

If Norway wouldn't be integrated, then he would really have no reason to bring this issue up.

As for whether the personal union lasted more 1 or 100 years, it doesn't matter, if the situation in January 1st of 1836 was the same, then they should be the same in game terms.

 

[Orinsul]

its not the same though, Britain and Hannover had the same monarch, but ones government had no authority in the other
Swedens Parliament passed laws that were brought into effect in Norway, therefore Norway is part of sweden in game terms
as until an expansion, nations have no authority in their satilites

 

[Dragoneer]

they made it like this to make sweden more powerfull or "gamebalance" as its called, though your absolutely right, norway should be represented in a game in this time period, it was the most important period in norwegian history

 

[Yuri_Kenobi]

In before the thread is locked. Yeah, two threads about the very same topic was locked.

Yes the Norwegian situation is preposterous and makes no sense.

Unfortunately Paradox has given no explanation that makes sense. King said that it was this was his decision, and that apparently it was for 'balance purposes', which doesn't make any sense, this is a brand new game, and they can balance it in some other way than sacrificing the historical integrity of the game.

Another argument I've heard is that "Victoria II is using Victoria history".. yeah, that doesn't make much sense when the history is wrong.