Norway should have Eiriksfjord in 1444

[Erling01]

Norway colonized Greenland in around year 1000. They built 3 settlements. The last settlement to survive was abonded in mid-15th century. The settlement was called "The Eastern Settlement". The province in-game is Eiriksfjord.

After reading the thread for a while, I see that it would be a good idea to let Eiriksfjord be a colony with a population of 500 without a colonist. It would NOT destroy the colonization balance. Norway is weaker than it should be. A colony in Eiksfjord is not much to ask for.

 

[Frossa]

Being so remote and on the verge of abandonment, no Norwegian king could possibly have controlled anything on Greenland. It makes no sense.

 

[MrOobling]

The game starts in the mid-15th century. Unless you really want Norway to own Greenland at the start of the game and an event to take it away after a couple of years, there is no point.

 

[Zakath]

There was little to no contact with the settlement though, it was struggling with Inuit migrating South and failing crops due to a changing climate. The settlements had very little trade in the later decades, and would (if anything) more accurately be represented by being 500 norse natives.

I think it's fine as is, the last records was a marriage in 1408 and they had no bishops in the 15th century which shows how unimportant that area was for the Danish King.

 

[Erling01]

There was little to no contact with the settlement though, it was struggling with Inuit migrating South and failing crops due to a changing climate. The settlements had very little trade in the later decades, and would (if anything) more accurately be represented by being 500 norse natives.

I think it's fine as is, the last records was a marriage in 1408 and they had no bishops in the 15th century which shows how unimportant that area was for the Danish King.

Ever heard of Autonomy?

 

[Woifee]

Would mess up the colonization game. Norway could immediately colonize North America and would have a heads up.

What they could do: reduce aggression and stuff in greenland for skandinavians, so they can colonize easier: Like reconnecting the settlements.

 

[Incompetent]

Norway could start with a colony there, but it should immediately get an event saying that the Greenland colony is dying, with a choice between paying a large amount of money (enough that it would be a dubious investment even for players with colonial ambitions) and letting the colony get destroyed.

It doesn't actually affect the colonisation game much, because Norway already owns Iceland. The main thing holding back Norway's colonial ambitions at the start of the game is poverty and lack of sovereignty, not any geographic problems.

 

[Galaahd]

Ever heard of Autonomy?

You mean that super awful mechanic which you almost have no control over and which automatically ticks towards 0 without you having to do anything?

How would it represent the Greenland colony if it just goes to 0 in a few years?

 

[Zakath]

Ever heard of Autonomy?

Doesn't do a good job of representing a dying colony with at most a couple hundred inhabitants. You could probably represent it as a colony at game start, population size 500, with a one off colony modifier that has a negative 50 population growth. With the current tech it means that short of cheating, or absurd luck with the colonial events, the colony will be gone in a decade or three, having bankrupted Norway. Not a good thing, when Norway is borderline viable for the AI as is.

 

[Demetrios]

The last record of the Eastern Settlement is from a ship that left in 1410, and by that point the settlement was on the verge of collapse. Even if it managed to survive the intervening 34 years, it would have been all but gone by the time 1444 rolled around. Adding it in would be historically dubious at best, and serve no purpose in the game other than to give Norway an unhistorical head start to colonizing North America.

 

[Salje]

It would only achieve that Norway would just flee into North America as soon as Sweden/GB annexes European parts of Norway.

 

[theKLR]

Well, they could at least know about it on the map? They would still need to have the relevant ideas to be able to make something out of it.

 

[grommile]

Well, they could at least know about it on the map? They would still need to have the relevant ideas to be able to make something out of it.

If they know about it, then come 1494 everyone in Europe knows about it.

 

[Wagonlitz]

and would (if anything) more accurately be represented by being 500 norse natives.

Indeed.

As others have pointed out the last recorded contact was in 1408. We plain and simply don't know when it died out or what happened to the inhabitants. It might well have been gone in 1444; it might have lasted until 1500---we don't know.

Would mess up the colonization game. Norway could immediately colonize North America and would have a heads up.

And such arguments aren't valid at all; the setup is supposed to be as historical as possible. But giving Norway the Eastern Settlement doesn't really make sense historically; that is the relevant argument. Not a colonisation one.

Norway could start with a colony there, but it should immediately get an event saying that the Greenland colony is dying, with a choice between paying a large amount of money (enough that it would be a dubious investment even for players with colonial ambitions) and letting the colony get destroyed.

That would actually be a really good solution. It indeed would have been really expensive to reestablish contact and get it to grow again. I would prefer this angle on it.

with at most a couple hundred inhabitants.

Most of the early European colonies didn't really have much more than that though. A colony of 1000 inhabitants would be a really large one until far into the game. So it actually was sizeable.

If they know about it, then come 1494 everyone in Europe knows about it.

Very good point. But this is a problem, because Denmark--Norway never forgot about the colony or Greenland. In fact we sent out several, unsuccessful, expeditions to try and locate it during the first 200--300 years of the game. We also kept claiming it. The plague and deteriorating climate just cut the trade links and when we were ready to reestablish things we couldn't find it again (needn't mean it was gone, although it most likely was, since at least some of the expeditions looked the wrong places), but we dutifully kept looking throughout the centuries.

So Denmark and Norway---and most likely Sweden too---really ought to know about it. But everybody else had indeed forgot about it; if they ever knew about it in the first place that is.

 

[gronak]

I downright disagree with norway owning Greenland at the start, but maybe they should know about the land?

 

[Woifee]

And such arguments aren't valid at all; the setup is supposed to be as historical as possible. But giving Norway the Eastern Settlement doesn't really make sense historically; that is the relevant argument. Not a colonisation one.

Paradox guys mentioned it before: Gameplay beats historical facts.

There wasn't an austrian cultural identity until 1950s, but it's in the game for instance. Croatia was in a PU with Hungary in 1444, but in the game it's already integrated.

I could go on and on.

point. But this is a problem, because Denmark--Norway never forgot about the colony or Greenland

In other parts of Europe they knew of it as well. Adam of Bremen mentined it in Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum. It wasn't that big of a secret I assume.

 

[Aythne]

Indeed.
And such arguments aren't valid at all; the setup is supposed to be as historical as possible. But giving Norway the Eastern Settlement doesn't really make sense historically; that is the relevant argument. Not a colonisation one.

Very good point. But this is a problem, because Denmark--Norway never forgot about the colony or Greenland. In fact we sent out several, unsuccessful, expeditions to try and locate it during the first 200--300 years of the game. We also kept claiming it. The plague and deteriorating climate just cut the trade links and when we were ready to reestablish things we couldn't find it again (needn't mean it was gone, although it most likely was, since at least some of the expeditions looked the wrong places), but we dutifully kept looking throughout the centuries.

Historical accuracy might be YOUR priority, but it is certainly not the developer's. They've stated multiple times that gameplay considerations will always take priority over historical minutiae. It's why many historical states don't exist in 1444, and it's especially true for a colony that would drastically alter how colonization plays out.

And if you want to get historical, Terra Incognita doesn't mean "we don't know what's there". People in Europe knew about India and China and Africa pre age of exploration. They start off in TI because there are no well-established western routes to these places. By your own claims, the Danes/Norwegians weren't even able to find their way back to their own settlement; that seems like a perfect example of something that should be under TI. At best, there should be an event for the Scandinavians discovering its ruins once they actually commit to Exploration.

 

[Ranjid]

Paradox guys mentioned it before: Gameplay beats historical facts.

There wasn't an austrian cultural identity until 1950s, but it's in the game for instance. Croatia was in a PU with Hungary in 1444, but in the game it's already integrated.

I could go on and on.



In other parts of Europe they knew of it as well. Adam of Bremen mentined it in Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum. It wasn't that big of a secret I assume.

If the question is whether or not it should be Terra Incognita, it's quite simple, really: It should. Not only for gameplay purposes, but also historically. It's the same as Aragon knowing about Ethiopia pre 1500. Having a general idea that something exists, doesn't mean you know where and how exactly it exists.

Also, about cultural identities: Culture is hard to determine - even nowadays. Especially in border regions. Sure, austrians were culturally bavarians, having their own state. But then again, there was Nuremberg, Augsburg, Ulm, Memmingen, Salzburg etc. All of them viewed their respecitve cities as their fatherland. Not the HRE or Bavaria or Austria. Oh and don't get me started on cultural identities in the balkans. This certainly is impossible to get a real grasp on. Long story short: It's impossible to tell whether they viewed themselves as norwegians, greenlanders or simply representants of their respective village.

 

[yerm]

The Norway colony should be in at game start, with a small (far less than 1000) population that still needs to grow to become a completed city. Because Norway has no colonist slots, this colony would grow slowly and cost 4 per month in upkeep to maintain, which is absolutely crippling to their starting economy. The AI should simply abandon said colony immediately as too expensive unless someone gifts them money or subsidies off the bat. A human player would have the option to keep it if they so desire.

This, fairy obviously, becomes a serious issue when you throw in RNW and Norway having a colony in god-knows-where now at game start and the advantages that might come from it. Even without RNW it does give Norway a pretty big leg up in the colonial race. I still don't think it's truly a real problem - Norway is weak, and having a really wimpy game starter that happens to have some cool quirk (existing colony) is hardly a problem. Having Greenland as a starting city even still wouldn't overcome the negatives of just being Norway elsewhere when it comes to colony races. You could give Norway both Greenland and a couple on the mainland, they'd still be a weak MP pick. The addition of a colony wouldn't upset their balance; it would give them some spice.

 

[solidprice]

So you are telling me a real possible chance of more Norway flavor..... And a tiny chance of Norse being in the game? ....and people don't want it?