• We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Wednesday, December 1st 2021 at 8:00 CST / 14:00 UTC for a few hours.

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Bash said:
You will laugh - this land has name of "Vyborg". ;)

:rofl: :D :rofl: ;)

Bash said:
If you will insist on keeping just another shitty province - suit yourself - it was your part of Scandinavia. Just take in a minute notice - you must keep game balance - then 34 Scandinavian province would be quite shitty in comparison with just 17 Russian "core-land" provinces and this number include "Karelia", Ural-mountains area and all Ob-provinces!
I've got an impression we will calculate resulting province value as part on province in question in National GNP of some country in question of some time-period. It would means - if you give "Vyborg/Karelen/South Karelen" province annual income of 1 ducati, it would mean "Moscow" province would receive around 25-27 ducati as result.
In other case some Muslim countries of Al-jazair region, which receive a lot of provinces, would get some fantastic annual revenues. More then that - China region, which is bursting now with new provinces, would be "rich as Croesus".
Price for bailiffs, governors and faith conversion and such would raise accordingly.
It means majority of Finnish provinces of Sweden would receive some quite weird numbers like 0.3 - 0.4 in present situation, but due to fact we can't give them partial numbers, they would get rather universal quantity of 1 ducati per anno.
Huge benefit for Swedish economy, revolt risks and stab costs.

That's where you're wrong, my friend.
At present (latest EEP/AGC) Sweden has 45 in base tax. These will be rearranged (I presume) in the new provinces so that the total base tax of the new Swedish map will be 45. Scandinavia as a whole has 125 base tax with 45 in Sweden, 54 in Denmark and 26 in Norway (Iceland and Greenland included). The Russian minors have a combines 88 base tax.

In the EU2 timeframe Sweden never fought a war against Russia with the other Scandinavian countries involved, so matching the Russian tax against the Swedish shows that Russia has almost twice the tax that Sweden has.

Bash said:
It wouldn't be any issue for me as Russian player, because I'd like to see Sweden as feeble as possible, but in AGC-EEP approach these lands wil eventually drop in Russian lap - then I've got a real concern in these issues. I haven't any desire to have a bunch of absolutely shitty provinces as Great Northern War result. :(
Well, it means - Sweden wouldn't be any treat to my country in Livonien War or in Times of Troubles - and it is good thing. OK.
Pls, get any medicine if it would utterly cripple any Russian enemy in long run. You can Finnmark for this purpose as well, we are exterminating our Kola anyway.

I agree that Viborg-Karelia won't be much of a catch for Peter I, but it wasn't back then either. Owning Viborg prevented sneak attacks against St. Petersburg and that was the most important thing. The true wealth in his conquests lie in Estonia and Livonia and the fact that he could build a port in Ingermanland.
As you know the Swedish advantage didn't lie in manpower or wealth, but in leadership, tactics and technology. THAT is how Sweden will defeat Russia in the 17th century and THAT is why Russia will defeat Sweden later on.


Bash said:
It means - we MUST insist on port in "Ingermanland" province. Suit yourself with your part of chart we would suit with ours. St.Petersburg must receive its port anyway.
Vyborg has its own port, St.Petersburg has its own (and we are making a really big nuclear submarines in ST.Peterburg port - if you are wondering).

I know that St. Petersburg has a very big port. But since Russia didn't have a proper Baltic fleet until the Great Northern War removing the port in Ingermanland would prevent Russia from building a fleet in the Baltic ahead of time.

Bash said:
My initia propose was TI - not "closed lake", but majority decided to "close" this area by Scandinavian peninsula.

If Finnmarken is turned into PTI it's easy to extend that PTI to the edge of the map.

Bash said:
Suit yourself. It would be another absolute shitty province with 1 or 0(!!!) ducati per anno. In other way Moscow province (for balance keeping) would receive more ducati then whole Sweden. (If you start to divide rather big GNP on 34 - each province would receive less then in case if you start to divide slightly lesser GNP onto 17 provinces where 5-6 provinces are big and other are shitty). Add to this equation expenses for just one Moscow bailiff to improve russian economy with a lot of bailiffs for lot of shitty provinces. And mind you - basic price of bailiffs will raise (for keeping balance reasons) in very dramatic manner. (We must punish some North-Africans for their magnitude of "new" provinces in midst of Desert, do you see?).

Promoting bailiffs, and other officials will cost more with more provinces but that can be taken care of through events if needed.


Bash said:
I don't think about it. I know - Vyborg belong to Sweden in starting setup.
Suit yourself. I would prefer to give this province to Novgorod and then yield this province to Sweden very fast - due to constant problem - Kexholm used to be converted to Orthodoxy for good, because it came to Russian posession when Russia hadn't another spending except fath conversion. And Orthodox Kexholm is quite bad sight-seeing of any historian.

You want Kexholm to be Swedish at the start to prevent it becoming orthodox? Again, that might be changed through events: "Catholic Finnish immigrants move to Kexholm" or whatever. It will, just as you say, be hard to prevent Novgorod from converting it, though.

Bash said:
Please, just understand one simple idea - if we start to follow method of calculating province value from initial GNP of country - only "Kexholm" of Novgorod would have equal value to sum of all Finnish provinces in Sweden posession - or you must cripple "core-Swedish" lands for keeping Finnish lands value.

The redistribution of wealth over the new provinces has to be historical. An extremely rich Kexholm is not very historical at all. Better then to add the excess wealth to Novgorod or Moscow.

Bash said:
I repeat - suit yourself, but remember - Karmar Union GNP would be divided between all your 34 (or such) provinces. Then we will calculate responding values for Muscovy' and Novgorod' lands.
It would means - all Scandinavian countries would be absolute "dwarves/Zwergs" in long run from - technology advance point of view (tech speed is function of provinces number ;).
Oh, by the way, it is history real picture - well done, you (and guys from Polish part of Forum) are crippling your countries fast enough for any Russian player pleasure. No strong Sweden, no strong Poland - this game is starting to be quite joy-riding for any Russian player indeed.

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash

Poland was a LOT more powerful than Sweden in the early part of the game, so that's a bit sad IMHO. Sweden should get a boost in a period from the mid 1500's and the mid 1600's to be able to rise. Poland, in turn, would start its decline in the 1600's...
 

Herr Doctor

Learned cat
17 Badges
Jul 11, 2002
3.868
168
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II
Hallsten said:
Poland was a LOT more powerful than Sweden in the early part of the game, so that's a bit sad IMHO. Sweden should get a boost in a period from the mid 1500's and the mid 1600's to be able to rise. Poland, in turn, would start its decline in the 1600's...
Well, the propositions for the Polish-Lithuanian map were done only in order to make finally historical map of the region. Scandinavian map looks more or less normal instead of Eastern Europe, which is really looking terrible, so… And there is still possible to add more basic taxes to the new Polish-Lithuanian provinces. :D
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Fine.
Let's start the same thing in "Brave new world".

1. First thing first. Port in Ingermanland issue.

Excuse me for pointing, but in real history Russia reached Pacific Ocean a bit earlier then we reached Baltic or Black sea shores. But it doesn't mean Russia received "coastal bonus" by reaching Pacific anyway. Reaching Caspian or Aral seas didn't mean Russia must receive the same "coastal" bonus as well.

Your description of Russian fleet under Peter the Great just laughable. According to game rules any country can't produce any fleet in TAKEN provinces, only in OWNED. According to History Russia has got her first coastal provinces aas result of Nystadt treaty after Great Northern War ending and Peter the Great death.
It means Russia in Great Northern war can't produce any fleet at all, then any fighting in Gangut/Hanko peninsula must be between regular Swedish fleet (as in real history) and bunch of Russian fish-boats (as in real-history). Yep, Russian victory in this really weird fighting means really great victory. (Try to come to shooting Frigate - like "Elephant" - in plain fishing boot without any arty support and I'll name you as really BRAVE SAILOR.)
More then that - naval techs of land-bound Russia were negligible in comparison to naval techs of sea-born Sweden. Bad quality of Russian fleet in comparison with Swedish fleet is most natural thing - not feature of St.Peterburg port.
I will repeat my example: we are making nuclear submarines in St.Peterburg sea-port. There isn't ANY Swedish port which producing ANY nuclear submarine now. Does it means we must eliminate all Swedish ports, because they are incapable to produce nuclear submarine?

If we start to follow your logic - it means all Swedish ports in Stockholm or in Karlskruna aren't existing now. It we start to follow my logic -

St.Petersburg was found in 1703. Its warfs (for big warships) were built in 10-years period. Warships were found AFTER warfs completion. Then these warships were built in some considerable amout of time as well. Russian naval technologies were in baby phase, then time for warship building was really long. It means - first russian warships (of very bad quality) appeared to Grengam battle time (as in real history).
But it is - real history situation. In EU2 terms St.Peterburg port start to function just after Great Northern War end. Do you see?

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Ges

Captain
7 Badges
Oct 23, 2003
312
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
I'm all for keeping the Ingermanland port. Peter the Great wasn't looking for conquering a port - He was looking for place to build one.

Actually since we are talking about ports it would be good idea to think over some of the Swedish ports in Gulf of Botnia.
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Bash said:
Fine.
Let's start the same thing in "Brave new world".

1. First thing first. Port in Ingermanland issue.

Excuse me for pointing, but in real history Russia reached Pacific Ocean a bit earlier then we reached Baltic or Black sea shores. But it doesn't mean Russia received "coastal bonus" by reaching Pacific anyway. Reaching Caspian or Aral seas didn't mean Russia must receive the same "coastal" bonus as well.

I only meant that if the port in Ingermanland was removed Russia still shouldn't suffer the in-game penalties for a landlocked country.

Bash said:
Your description of Russian fleet under Peter the Great just laughable. According to game rules any country can't produce any fleet in TAKEN provinces, only in OWNED. According to History Russia has got her first coastal provinces aas result of Nystadt treaty after Great Northern War ending and Peter the Great death.
It means Russia in Great Northern war can't produce any fleet at all, then any fighting in Gangut/Hanko peninsula must be between regular Swedish fleet (as in real history) and bunch of Russian fish-boats (as in real-history). Yep, Russian victory in this really weird fighting means really great victory. (Try to come to shooting Frigate - like "Elephant" - in plain fishing boot without any arty support and I'll name you as really BRAVE SAILOR.)
More then that - naval techs of land-bound Russia were negligible in comparison to naval techs of sea-born Sweden. Bad quality of Russian fleet in comparison with Swedish fleet is most natural thing - not feature of St.Peterburg port.

It's unfortunate that ships cannot be build in controlled provinces, since that would solve this problem. Maybe it could be solved with a tech-differance, but that still means that Russia can have a sizeable fleet early on and that's not historical. Btw, Peter I died in 1725 and the Great Northern War ended with the Treaty of Nystad in 1721.


Bash said:
I will repeat my example: we are making nuclear submarines in St.Peterburg sea-port. There isn't ANY Swedish port which producing ANY nuclear submarine now. Does it means we must eliminate all Swedish ports, because they are incapable to produce nuclear submarine?

If we start to follow your logic - it means all Swedish ports in Stockholm or in Karlskruna aren't existing now. It we start to follow my logic -

St.Petersburg was found in 1703. Its warfs (for big warships) were built in 10-years period. Warships were found AFTER warfs completion. Then these warships were built in some considerable amout of time as well. Russian naval technologies were in baby phase, then time for warship building was really long. It means - first russian warships (of very bad quality) appeared to Grengam battle time (as in real history).
But it is - real history situation. In EU2 terms St.Peterburg port start to function just after Great Northern War end. Do you see?

Sincerely yours, Bash

If we wanted to model nuclear subs that would be a good idea, yes.

Well, this whole thing seems to be a dead end and it seems that I have to fold in this issue even though I don't like the concept of a big 15th century fleet. Sadly the game-engine can't model it in an historical enough way.


Ok, back to the Karelia issue.
First off, what do you think of the borders as they are on my map?
 
Last edited:

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Ges said:
I'm all for keeping the Ingermanland port. Peter the Great wasn't looking for conquering a port - He was looking for place to build one.

That doesn't change the fact that Ingermanland didn't have a proper port at all until the early 18th century... ;)

Ges said:
Actually since we are talking about ports it would be good idea to think over some of the Swedish ports in Gulf of Botnia.

Not the right threat, but whatever... Removing the ports north of Finland and Svealand is fine by me sice there were none there during the EU2 timeframe.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Second thing is second.
Kexholm - Vyborg thing issue.

I'm aware - Kexholm province belong to Novgorod in game start moment. Vyborg surrounding belong to Sweden. No problem.

Ugly thing is - these lands were the same unity initially and making TWO different provinces instead of just one in situation - when we must keep as small amount of provinces as possible (if we like to make our countries stronger - if we like to cripple them - adding provinces is sure way to destroy any economy).

My point of view is - these lands were the same initially and they came into Russian Empire realms in the same time - as result of Great Northern War in Nystadt treaty. It's enough reasons for me to see on this land like one unity - "Kexholm" with center in Vyborg. Adding new province with ANY name is quite misleading thing which cripple country with this extra province. Initially it would be Sweden - and it's your own problem, but I (as dedicated Russian player) don't like idea to having some shitty extra province as result of Nystadt treaty at all.
Best idea which I have for dealing with this shitty thing - is throwing it out as vassal as soon as possible.
Good idea for any Finnish player - anyway. Finland would be created quite early by game terms, because main Russian headache in keeping her stab-cost and BB as low as possible.

Another aspect of this issue is - if Kexholm province fall to Swedish hands in mid-XVI or later, Kexholm province would be ORTHODOX and remain ORTHODOX till game end. (I explained of game-reasons for this un-historical outcome and haven't enough time for repeating - check in "New map: Russia" thread for my explanation - if you like it.)
Making some special game event just for keeping Kexholm province as Protestant - like in Ges proposition is another ugly method or "artificial legs" in our marvellous game.
I've got just one possible idea for keeping "Kexholm" province as Protestant till 1819 (as in real life). It must be Sweden to end of XV century as last possible point. From Nystadt Treaty time Russia hadn't time-period for any Protestant province conversion due to necessity to deal with catholic and Muslim provinces which would have more game value.

Then we've got two different approaches to proposed "One provinced" Kexholm with Vyborg capital.
1. It belongs to Novgorod in start-time, but comes to Sweden ASAP - Novgorod desintegration moment as terminal data, when it must be Swedish in any case.
2. It belongs to Sweden from game-start.
Both approaches has got its flaws, but they are better then excessive province implementation.
I'm ready to accept any outcome from both, because:
2) Any Novgorodian province elimination (especially so hard-reached as Kexholm) in starting setup is good thing for Muscovy (and I'm playing only for Muscovy - yes, I'm quite simple and used to consistency guy, if I start to play for any other country I'm playing only for MAJORs and Novgorod isn't major at all).
1) If this province would be Novgorodian from start it's economic value would be a bit better due to calculation of its value from Novgorodian GNP, which has division onto lesser number of provinces then - in case of calculation from Kalmar Union GNP. Division to 7 different provinces used to give better result, then division onto 30+ provinces ;). Yep, it mustn't differ very hard from its pauper Finnish brethren for whole territory consistency, but it would be more - anyway. Then I would be more happy after Great Northern war end and outcome ;).

If you are ready to make just one province of "Kexholm" with Vyborg capital, I'm ready to accept any decision of High Council (or majority of sensible posters in this Forum).

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Hallsten said:
Ok, back to the Karelia issue.
First off, what do you think of the borders as they are on my map?

Strange thing - I've already gave you my answer in "New map: Russia" thread. Your borders are fine with a couple exceptions:
1. I don't like border between Kexholm and Vyborg regions, because I prefer to see on it as one and the same region.
2. I don't like border between your "Karelia" or "East Karelia" and "Olonetz" regions, because we (in Russian part of Forum) decided to keep just one region: "Karelia" with Olonetz as its capital.
3. I don't like border between your "Karelia" and "Kola" regions, because we (in Russian part of Forum) decided to eliminate "Kola" region completely as quite irrelevant and not-needed for any game-purposes.
4. I don't like shore-line of northern point of Scandinavian peninsula, because we (in Russian part of Forum) decided to meet upper board of chart by Scandinavian peninsula, closing White Sea into "closed inland lake" formation.

I haven't any other objection to your version of map. Period.

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Ges

Captain
7 Badges
Oct 23, 2003
312
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
Bash said:
If you are ready to make just one province of "Kexholm" with Vyborg capital, I'm ready to accept any decision of High Council (or majority of sensible posters in this Forum).

Sincerely yours, Bash

We are not trading and arguing we are modeling and making synthesis.

In your russian perspective it's all about how much russia has to lose for getting Karelia. Ideal thing would be one rich russian Karelia - we'll you're not getting russian Karelia - althought that's not that far away idea. The vanilla Olonets province could have been turned russian in round 1750s by event with good reasons.

If we look how Russia looked things historically. They get Viborg and Kexholm in 1721. They get some more southern Karelia in 1740s. Then when they get rest of Finland 1809 they immeditialy released it as vassal. First time that I know that russians came out with idea of independent Finland was in 1740s but that time they didn't get it off the ground. Always after that it was russian idea to get Grand Duchy of Finland between Russia and Sweden. They understand that it was impossible to rule Finland as full part of Russia. So Russia had to deal historically with same things as any player will end up when stearing Russia against Sweden.

In the End Russia held Kexholm and Viborg 1721-1812. And because of these 90 years of game time Bash wants to have it easier for Russia. In the process he is ready to sacrifice good modeling of 1419-1617 (200 years of game time) and atleast semi good modeling between 1617-1721. I'm sorry but I don't get this madness Bash.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Ges said:
We are not trading and arguing we are modeling and making synthesis.

In your russian perspective it's all about how much russia has to lose for getting Karelia. Ideal thing would be one rich russian Karelia - we'll you're not getting russian Karelia - althought that's not that far away idea. The vanilla Olonets province could have been turned russian in round 1750s by event with good reasons.

If we look how Russia looked things historically. They get Viborg and Kexholm in 1721. They get some more southern Karelia in 1740s. Then when they get rest of Finland 1809 they immeditialy released it as vassal. First time that I know that russians came out with idea of independent Finland was in 1740s but that time they didn't get it off the ground. Always after that it was russian idea to get Grand Duchy of Finland between Russia and Sweden. They understand that it was impossible to rule Finland as full part of Russia. So Russia had to deal historically with same things as any player will end up when stearing Russia against Sweden.

In the End Russia held Kexholm and Viborg 1721-1812. And because of these 90 years of game time Bash wants to have it easier for Russia. In the process he is ready to sacrifice good modeling of 1419-1617 (200 years of game time) and atleast semi good modeling between 1617-1721. I'm sorry but I don't get this madness Bash.

Well.
1) How many parts of Karelia you like to have?
2) What would be their economical values?
3) What would be their population numbers?

You still didn't any real objections or suggestions at all - just complaints.

More then that - this thread which you like to start - started our Swedish comrade, not you - on contrary to your own promise.

Please, relieve your Soul - explain/reveal your ideas to us. We are ready to hear you - you are only Finnish contributor here - indeed.
Come on - don't complain. Just do it.

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Ges

Captain
7 Badges
Oct 23, 2003
312
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
Bash said:
Well.
1) How many parts of Karelia you like to have?
2) What would be their economical values?
3) What would be their population numbers?

1)I don't know yet about number of provinces, we still have plenty of time to agree on these issues. After all it will take months til new map will be included in AGCEEP
2)I won't touch economical values since that's all about balance. If someone will tell me how other places in Russia and in Scandinavia will be then I'll say something.
3)same thing. population is a balance issue.

Bash said:
You still didn't any real objections or suggestions at all - just complaints.

More then that - this thread which you like to start - started our Swedish comrade, not you - on contrary to your own promise.

Please, relieve your Soul - explain/reveal your ideas to us. We are ready to hear you - you are only Finnish contributor here - indeed.
Come on - don't complain. Just do it.

Sincerely yours, Bash

Isn't it awful? well I'll try to post some of my ideas today or tomorrow.
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Bash said:
Second thing is second.
Kexholm - Vyborg thing issue.

I'm aware - Kexholm province belong to Novgorod in game start moment. Vyborg surrounding belong to Sweden. No problem.

Ugly thing is - these lands were the same unity initially and making TWO different provinces instead of just one in situation - when we must keep as small amount of provinces as possible (if we like to make our countries stronger - if we like to cripple them - adding provinces is sure way to destroy any economy).

My point of view is - these lands were the same initially and they came into Russian Empire realms in the same time - as result of Great Northern War in Nystadt treaty. It's enough reasons for me to see on this land like one unity - "Kexholm" with center in Vyborg. Adding new province with ANY name is quite misleading thing which cripple country with this extra province. Initially it would be Sweden - and it's your own problem, but I (as dedicated Russian player) don't like idea to having some shitty extra province as result of Nystadt treaty at all.
Best idea which I have for dealing with this shitty thing - is throwing it out as vassal as soon as possible.
Good idea for any Finnish player - anyway. Finland would be created quite early by game terms, because main Russian headache in keeping her stab-cost and BB as low as possible.

Another aspect of this issue is - if Kexholm province fall to Swedish hands in mid-XVI or later, Kexholm province would be ORTHODOX and remain ORTHODOX till game end. (I explained of game-reasons for this un-historical outcome and haven't enough time for repeating - check in "New map: Russia" thread for my explanation - if you like it.)
Making some special game event just for keeping Kexholm province as Protestant - like in Ges proposition is another ugly method or "artificial legs" in our marvellous game.
I've got just one possible idea for keeping "Kexholm" province as Protestant till 1819 (as in real life). It must be Sweden to end of XV century as last possible point. From Nystadt Treaty time Russia hadn't time-period for any Protestant province conversion due to necessity to deal with catholic and Muslim provinces which would have more game value.

They might have been the same administrative unit early on, but Viborg and the surrounding area (prov. 5 on my map) had been Swedish de jure since 1323 and de facto since 1293 when Viborg was founded. To merge Viborg and Kexholm just to make it look good for a post GNW Russia isn't justified at all IMHO.
Historically Kexholm was really poor and Viborg was hardly more than a buffer to protect St. Petersburg. Tsar Peter didn't want Kexholm (tax base 2 or 3) and Viborg (base tax 4-6) because they were wealthy, he wanted them because they were rich. Estonia and Livonia were the wealthy areas.
Viborg and Kexholm will still be richer than most provinces out in Siberia, so they won't hurt IMHO.

Bash said:
Then we've got two different approaches to proposed "One provinced" Kexholm with Vyborg capital.
1. It belongs to Novgorod in start-time, but comes to Sweden ASAP - Novgorod desintegration moment as terminal data, when it must be Swedish in any case.
2. It belongs to Sweden from game-start.
Both approaches has got its flaws, but they are better then excessive province implementation.
I'm ready to accept any outcome from both, because:
2) Any Novgorodian province elimination (especially so hard-reached as Kexholm) in starting setup is good thing for Muscovy (and I'm playing only for Muscovy - yes, I'm quite simple and used to consistency guy, if I start to play for any other country I'm playing only for MAJORs and Novgorod isn't major at all).
1) If this province would be Novgorodian from start it's economic value would be a bit better due to calculation of its value from Novgorodian GNP, which has division onto lesser number of provinces then - in case of calculation from Kalmar Union GNP. Division to 7 different provinces used to give better result, then division onto 30+ provinces ;). Yep, it mustn't differ very hard from its pauper Finnish brethren for whole territory consistency, but it would be more - anyway. Then I would be more happy after Great Northern war end and outcome ;).

If you are ready to make just one province of "Kexholm" with Vyborg capital, I'm ready to accept any decision of High Council (or majority of sensible posters in this Forum).

Sincerely yours, Bash

You still haven't convinced me about the need of a unified Kexholm-Viborg. Given the fact that the two were separate for about 300 years historically speaks for itself, IMHO.
The issue with Kexholm turning orthodox is sad, but that can be solved with events, be it ugly or not.

Bash said:
2. I don't like border between your "Karelia" or "East Karelia" and "Olonetz" regions, because we (in Russian part of Forum) decided to keep just one region: "Karelia" with Olonetz as its capital.
3. I don't like border between your "Karelia" and "Kola" regions, because we (in Russian part of Forum) decided to eliminate "Kola" region completely as quite irrelevant and not-needed for any game-purposes.

I'm not at all involved with provinces that were Russian during the entire timeframe, we can talk names for those provinces later (I still want the area around Viborg to have "Karelen/Karelia" in its name ;) ).

Bash said:
4. I don't like shore-line of northern point of Scandinavian peninsula, because we (in Russian part of Forum) decided to meet upper board of chart by Scandinavian peninsula, closing White Sea into "closed inland lake" formation.

I haven't any other objection to your version of map. Period.

Sincerely yours, Bash

That will be taken care of later when the map is implemented, my map is just painted over the original EU2 one so it's not changed yet...
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Bash said:
You still didn't any real objections or suggestions at all - just complaints.

More then that - this thread which you like to start - started our Swedish comrade, not you - on contrary to your own promise.

Please, relieve your Soul - explain/reveal your ideas to us. We are ready to hear you - you are only Finnish contributor here - indeed.
Come on - don't complain. Just do it.

Sincerely yours, Bash

Easy there, everyone's welcome and all ideas are accepted. Let's just all stay civilized here... :)
 

Ges

Captain
7 Badges
Oct 23, 2003
312
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
For Bash, I hope you'll be happier now :) Sorry others.

karja11.jpg


Karelia with 2 provinces. Southern Karelia is part of any solution in South & West Finland. After all it was tightly binded to western Finland til 1721 and 1743. Kind of solution we have in vanilla.

karja12.jpg


Same kind of solution. Just that now we have 1 province added for South-Karelia/Viborg. This one is my favourite solution atm.

karja13.jpg


Karelia modeled with 4 provinces. Kind of good solution too. Sweden can try to conquer Viena Karelia/Northern Karelia. Borders could be adjusted thought.

karja14.jpg


This is what we should do with Karelia if take a look at what is going on with the rest of the world. I don't like it but if someone would like to add provinces...
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Ges said:
For Bash, I hope you'll be happier now :) Sorry others.

karja11.jpg


Karelia with 2 provinces. Southern Karelia is part of any solution in South & West Finland. After all it was tightly binded to western Finland til 1721 and 1743. Kind of solution we have in vanilla.

karja12.jpg


Same kind of solution. Just that now we have 1 province added for South-Karelia/Viborg. This one is my favourite solution atm.

Fine. These 2 are quite good. I would prefer to have first, because it have less provinces, but if you like it more - I'm ready to accept second.

Both of approaches are really answer to our request for getting just two provinces on Russian side of Russian-Sweden border. Choose yourself - it's completely cometence of Scandinavian part of Forum.

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
This is the one I'd like the most:
Ges said:
...but I can go with this one as well:
Ges said:
...if that's decided upon. The most important thing is that we have a Viborg-Karelia... :D

Good maps btw, GES!
 
Last edited:

Cagliostro

Charlatan or Mystic?
83 Badges
Apr 30, 2002
3.472
99
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
That doesn't change the fact that Ingermanland didn't have a proper port at all until the early 18th century...

1703 is still well within the time frame. It's not, IMHO, acceptable to leave St. Petersburg portless. A Russian AI will probably not build up a massive navy, and a Russian player can seize another province if he wants a port. The United States didn't exist until the late 18th century - does that mean the US shouldn't be simulated, either? :rolleyes:
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
Cagliostro said:
1703 is still well within the time frame. It's not, IMHO, acceptable to leave St. Petersburg portless. A Russian AI will probably not build up a massive navy, and a Russian player can seize another province if he wants a port. The United States didn't exist until the late 18th century - does that mean the US shouldn't be simulated, either? :rolleyes:

No, of course it doesn't.
I felt that it didn't matter wether the Russian ships were built in Viborg-Karelia or Ingermanland, but it turned out that my solution wasn't acceptable to most people so I've scrapped it...
 

almoravid

I ignore U
51 Badges
Sep 8, 2003
1.277
146
Visit site
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
Why have this small, ugly low-value south Karelia at all? It is not needed to represent anything but a minor border change. I would strongly disfavour it's inclusion, or any enlargements of Finland. BTW, why don't you Scandinavians add some PTI to Osterbotten? I thought you guys primarily travelled from Sweden to Finland by boat, not by land route. Or, if it's too ugly, you could make travel times through it longer.
 

Hallsten

Hairloss Ninja
36 Badges
Mar 17, 2001
5.273
66
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Divine Wind
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • 200k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis: Rome Collectors Edition
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV
almoravid said:
Why have this small, ugly low-value south Karelia at all? It is not needed to represent anything but a minor border change. I would strongly disfavour it's inclusion, or any enlargements of Finland. BTW, why don't you Scandinavians add some PTI to Osterbotten? I thought you guys primarily travelled from Sweden to Finland by boat, not by land route. Or, if it's too ugly, you could make travel times through it longer.

South Karelia was hotly contested all through the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries so it DOES matter both as a fought-over piece of land and an important fortress to guard against the Russian Hordes(tm)...
Regarding the PTI, this is the map I posted in the Russian thread :
eastcopy3se.jpg

This map is by no means commenting on the Kola-Far Karelia-PTI-issue at all, by the way.