Straights, but not narrows

[Hallsten]

Adding a Svealand-Finland-strait makes a lot of sense IMHO.

254;342;sea;880;Svealand-Finland-strait

Maybe we could increase the movement-time to Österbotten to make it more desirable to keep the strait open?

 

[Sute]{h]

It don't want to alter movement times, since noone knows if the AI can figure it out.

As to the fleet stuff... I love EU2 and telling me to get lost because I like straits and dislike naval loadings is rubbish. Just like telling me that I just like straits because they make the game easier is rubbish. I wont comment on the issue any further, since my stand has been made clear.

 

[WiSK]

Adding a Svealand-Finland-strait makes a lot of sense IMHO.

Heheh, now I moved you into the right thread Can you please elaborate on why you believe this. I tried reading some of the Scandinavia thread but I couldn't really get the essence of why you want this strait and how it's historically justified. I was probably reading over it too quickly.

So, could you give a broad summary of the arguments, pro and con, including historical precedent, for having this strait?

 

[unmerged(2456)]

It don't want to alter movement times, since noone knows if the AI can figure it out.

As to the fleet stuff... I love EU2 and telling me to get lost because I like straits and dislike naval loadings is rubbish. Just like telling me that I just like straits because they make the game easier is rubbish. I wont comment on the issue any further, since my stand has been made clear.

Well considering eventually if we finish the new map we will be changing movement times i don't think this argument holds as much water as it once did.

 

[Hallsten]

Heheh, now I moved you into the right thread Can you please elaborate on why you believe this. I tried reading some of the Scandinavia thread but I couldn't really get the essence of why you want this strait and how it's historically justified. I was probably reading over it too quickly.

So, could you give a broad summary of the arguments, pro and con, including historical precedent, for having this strait?

Movement of people and armies was possible both during winter, across the ice, and during summer by boat.
This is very much the same situation as the Danish straits.
An example of where movements occurred between Finland and Sweden is the 1808-1809 war.
The pros is that Sweden will have an easier time to move troops between Finland and Sweden proper during peace-time, it will also help to de-militarize the north.
I can't see any cons though, anyone?

 

[Sute]{h]

Well considering eventually if we finish the new map we will be changing movement times i don't think this argument holds as much water as it once did.

I'm not against it IF the AI can calculate movement times correctly. Otherwise we're going to cripple it's military movements compared to a human player.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Movement of people and armies was possible both during winter, across the ice, and during summer by boat.
This is very much the same situation as the Danish straits.
An example of where movements occurred between Finland and Sweden is the 1808-1809 war.
The pros is that Sweden will have an easier time to move troops between Finland and Sweden proper during peace-time, it will also help to de-militarize the north.
I can't see any cons though, anyone?

It's easier for Sweden to move troops from west to east
An invading Russia has easier access to Stockholm?

The distance between those two province is quite large, compared to the straights around the Danish islands very large. Where the winters that hard that all of the water was frozen and permiting movement?

Sweden already has a land connection with Finland no need to add another one imho.

 

[Sute]{h]

It's easier for Sweden to move troops from west to east
An invading Russia has easier access to Stockholm?

The distance between those two province is quite large, compared to the straights around the Danish islands very large. Where the winters that hard that all of the water was frozen and permiting movement?

Sweden already has a land connection with Finland no need to add another one imho.

The problem is that the current land connection is in northern Scandinavia cause a lot of unhistorical army behaivior in the region. We very much want to prevent large armies from clashing around Västerbotten-Österbotten. In fact the inclusion of a strait was one of the conditions of the Västerbotten-Österbotten land connection at all.

As to distances... the strait is supported by Ålandsøerne (a series of small islands going from Finland to Sweden). While the largest distance is greater the the distances between Sjælland and Fyn, we're not talking about huge distances here. Also moving armies across here was much easier than marching them across Norrbotten. Both in time and effort.

Oh... and Russia will have an easier road to Stockholm. Which will force a Swedish player to devote at least some efforts to naval power, so that such a road is denied the Russians. Increasing the importance to naval power in the Baltic in general, which is IMHO very much needed.

 

[unmerged(11496)]

As to the fleet stuff... I love EU2 and telling me to get lost because I like straits and dislike naval loadings is rubbish. ...

I wasn't telling you to get lost - the was my "disclaimer" that I was only tweaking you about playing Risk.

Sorry I wasn't more clear in that I was only busting your chops, not really taking you to task.

 

[Hallsten]

It's easier for Sweden to move troops from west to east

Yes, that's pretty much the point. In the EU2 timeframe an army would have moved across the sea if it was even remotely possible. Putting a strait across is both historical and realistic.

An invading Russia has easier access to Stockholm?

Yes, but that's historical. When Sweden has been defeated in Finland Stockholm has always been very threatened by attack from the Russians. Both during winter and summer.

The distance between those two province is quite large, compared to the straights around the Danish islands very large. Where the winters that hard that all of the water was frozen and permiting movement?

IIRC there were movements across the ice over Åland in the 1808-1809 war.

Sweden already has a land connection with Finland no need to add another one imho.

Not an argument IMHO. Both routes were very possible.

 

[Sute]{h]

I wasn't telling you to get lost - the was my "disclaimer" that I was only tweaking you about playing Risk.

Sorry I wasn't more clear in that I was only busting your chops, not really taking you to task.

Ok. I guess I was already worked up about other people claiming that I was only trying to make the game easier.

 

[WiSK]

IIRC there were movements across the ice over Åland in the 1808-1809 war.

Okay, but you aren't putting the strait there for the last 10 winters of the game are you? What about in 1420? Any idea?

Your strongest argument seems to be that a strait will stop the unhistoric movement across the northern provinces. That's fair enough.

However, putting a strait across with the current map means a jump of almost 150 km. Even with Åland in between, this has to be a serious stretch of the imagination to think that this is 'easy' to cross with a large army. So how many boats existed in that area which could move 50k soldiers?

Earlier you mention the comparison with Denmark. Go look at a map and make some measurements. Also consider the areas between the Danish isles were riddled with fishing boats which could be rounded up and commandeered at short notice. The area in the Baltic however covers a much larger area.

 

[Sute]{h]

Well... easy crossing are very much seen in a relative perspective. My answer would be easier than going through Västerbotten. And without a strait people (and the AI) will go through Västerbotten instead of doing naval crossing. So I think this is at least worth a try.

If we end up dropping the strait we should remove the land connection between Västerbotten and Österbotten as well thus forcing naval operations.

 

[Hallsten]

Okay, but you aren't putting the strait there for the last 10 winters of the game are you? What about in 1420? Any idea?

Your strongest argument seems to be that a strait will stop the unhistoric movement across the northern provinces. That's fair enough.

However, putting a strait across with the current map means a jump of almost 150 km. Even with Åland in between, this has to be a serious stretch of the imagination to think that this is 'easy' to cross with a large army. So how many boats existed in that area which could move 50k soldiers?

Earlier you mention the comparison with Denmark. Go look at a map and make some measurements. Also consider the areas between the Danish isles were riddled with fishing boats which could be rounded up and commandeered at short notice. The area in the Baltic however covers a much larger area.

1420 was colder than 1808, so I see no problem with that either.
Usually Sweden either pushed the Russians back or had no army at all in Finland, so there aren't too many instances where armies walked across the Sea of Åland. It's by no means unhistorical or impossible though!

I agree that it's a problem that an army of 500000 can cross the strait, but then again no strait in the game could have done that so it's not a big problem IMHO.

The Danish straits were only crossed once without boats in the EU2 timeframe IIRC, the Åland Sea-strait was crossed more times than that. Small boats for transporting armies can always be found if the seas are as calm as in this case.

 

[WiSK]

Well... easy crossing are very much seen in a relative perspective. My answer would be easier than going through Västerbotten. And without a strait people (and the AI) will go through Västerbotten instead of doing naval crossing. So I think this is at least worth a try.

Yes, it's worth a try. So did anyone try it yet? Or shall we just wait for a full release of AGCEEP and only then see if it's a problem?

If we end up dropping the strait we should remove the land connection between Västerbotten and Österbotten as well thus forcing naval operations.

Now this sounds to me like a more reasonable and historical solution. Of course the AI is going to choose the land route if it can. So I'd prefer to see this as the test. Sweden has a strong navy, so surely this will work: the AI likes to put men on boats more than the human does

Usually Sweden either pushed the Russians back or had no army at all in Finland, so there aren't too many instances where armies walked across the Sea of Åland. It's by no means unhistorical or impossible though!

Well, you seem to be arguing with me now! If you put the strait in, large armies will move across to Finland frequently, in Summer as well as Winter, and probably often with no good reason.

I can't see any cons though, anyone?

I agree that it's a problem that an army of 500000 can cross the strait, but then again no strait in the game could have done that so it's not a big problem IMHO.

We shouldn't ignore problems of the game mechanics. I find this an issue already at 50k men, let alone 500k (with cannons and horses besides)!

Now we see the advantage of forcing the use of navy to move the troops. The human player may find this tedious, but it will be more realistic especially since (with the strait) you would need a navy standing there anyway to guard the passage. So for the AI, cutting off the route though the north would force the use of navy also.

The Danish straits were only crossed once without boats in the EU2 timeframe IIRC, the Åland Sea-strait was crossed more times than that.

Of course, what this thread is about is to actually define what is a strait in AGCEEP terms. Some are leaning towards getting rid of all straits, others want to help the AI move troops in historical ways regardless of the realism. So please remember that any decisions set a precedent for future consideration.

My point about Denmark was not that they were crossable without boats. It was that there were more boats available for use. Sure the Åland Sea was crossable by foot during a cold winter, but that is a limited window for movement. As I said, if you put a strait there, you are inviting the AI to move back and forth at will.

Small boats for transporting armies can always be found if the seas are as calm as in this case.

But really, do we have much data on this at all? I can imagine that a few hundred or even thousand fishing boats can be found at short notice. But I can also imagine that the army's use of them would render the local population without their most important livelihood.

Again, it comes down to the question: what is a strait? We must look at the game mechanics, at the realism aspect, the gameplay and maybe many other side effects.

 

[chegitz guevara]

Bahrain should be connected by straights to both sides of the Persian Gulf. When the Safavids took it from the Portugese, the Safavids had no navy. They used small boats to move their troops over the water.

 

[Toio]

It seems that there are many players out there that do not want a challenge.

It is getting very ridiculous when you want to move 50k or 500k from one area to the other via straits without ships. Come on be serious.

How fast do you play the game? You must want a 3 hour game only.

Need to conquer all of Europe by 1500. Better stop writing events because they will not fire.



As I said best solution NO PASSABLE STRAITS.

Do not want to build a fleet , maybe start with Bohemia.

 

[Sute]{h]

Yes, it's worth a try. So did anyone try it yet? Or shall we just wait for a full release of AGCEEP and only then see if it's a problem?

I'm going to try it on 1.37 when it gets out, but my guess is its effect will be so subtle, that we won't really see them until large scale testing. By which I mean inclusion in the AGCEEP. The most altered effects will be Swedens inability to hole up without a navy, and altered army movement patterns.

Now this sounds to me like a more reasonable and historical solution. Of course the AI is going to choose the land route if it can. So I'd prefer to see this as the test. Sweden has a strong navy, so surely this will work: the AI likes to put men on boats more than the human does

This solution was however rejected in the Scandinavia map thread. Since a number of people dislike the use of PTI. Also I do have concerns about Swedens abilities to defend Finland if the AI can't move men by anything but ships.

Well, you seem to be arguing with me now! If you put the strait in, large armies will move across to Finland frequently, in Summer as well as Winter, and probably often with no good reason.

Well this isn't a matter of two side shouting at each other. The goal here should be consensus or at least compromise. As to the army crossings. If Sweden isn't at war this doesn't matter at all. It will only lower micromanagement. If Sweden is at war, then they will have to use a navy to keep the strait open. Which is by far an improvement to the current situation where the armies walk across Norrbotten.

We shouldn't ignore problems of the game mechanics. I find this an issue already at 50k men, let alone 500k (with cannons and horses besides)!

We used that argument to implement PTI. However the troop numbers in our argument was closer to 10000. I've personally never seen a 500k army. The attrition alone would kill it.

Now we see the advantage of forcing the use of navy to move the troops. The human player may find this tedious, but it will be more realistic especially since (with the strait) you would need a navy standing there anyway to guard the passage. So for the AI, cutting off the route though the north would force the use of navy also.

This is a solution... but not the favored one among the people in the Scandinavia map thread. My concern is that the opposion of the strait here, and the opposion of the PTI there will simply result in a zero change, which is the most unrealistic and unsatisfying solution. Not to mention the fact that armies CAN walk from Västerbotten to Österbotten, like armies can cross from Svealand to Finland without the need of large vessels. Sometimes by foot, sometimes by boat.

Of course, what this thread is about is to actually define what is a strait in AGCEEP terms. Some are leaning towards getting rid of all straits, others want to help the AI move troops in historical ways regardless of the realism. So please remember that any decisions set a precedent for future consideration.

I would put it the other way around. We want to help the AI move troops in historical ways and increase naval importance in the Baltic BECAUSE of realism. The current setup isn't any good. Sweden can totally ignore naval power.

My point about Denmark was not that they were crossable without boats. It was that there were more boats available for use. Sure the Åland Sea was crossable by foot during a cold winter, but that is a limited window for movement. As I said, if you put a strait there, you are inviting the AI to move back and forth at will.

But really, do we have much data on this at all? I can imagine that a few hundred or even thousand fishing boats can be found at short notice. But I can also imagine that the army's use of them would render the local population without their most important livelihood.

That would happen in Denmark as well. There might be more boats, but there is far more people who needs food.

Again, it comes down to the question: what is a strait? We must look at the game mechanics, at the realism aspect, the gameplay and maybe many other side effects.

Perhaps... but these effects can't be known without large scale testing. They can be guessed at yes, but nobody knows.

More importantly a strait like any other change should by measured simply by its ability to enhance the historical outcome in the region. A strait which consistently results in unhistorical outcomes shouldn't be in. Not even if crossing is simply 2 meters wide. On the other hand a straits could be quite wide if it increases the chances of the correct historical outcome and behavior.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Is there a list of the current straights for AGCEEP someone can get that way we can get a clear indication which can stay and go at a glance? As well as their province ids.

There are some outside Europe i'd also like to see redone.

We should start there before moving onward and adding any more straits.

 

[WiSK]

We used that argument to implement PTI. However the troop numbers in our argument was closer to 10000. I've personally never seen a 500k army. The attrition alone would kill it.

I've never seen one either. It was Hallsten who mentioned 500k. Perhaps he just accidentally typed an extra 0?

I would put it the other way around. We want to help the AI move troops in historical ways and increase naval importance in the Baltic BECAUSE of realism. The current setup isn't any good. Sweden can totally ignore naval power.

Okay, so let me summarise how I understand what you guys have told me.

1. Sweden is currently sending its armies around the northern passage which is unrealistic and ahistoric, meaning it has no need for a navy.
2. People in the Scandinavia thread dismissed the logical solution (of cutting off the passage) because they 'dislike PTI'.
3. There is concern about Sweden's ability to defend Finland with only ships, even though historically Sweden mostly used ships to defend Finland.
4. Historically, Swedish armies were able to walk the 150 km across the Åland Sea to get to Finland. The only record which has been presented is of an instance in 1808, right at the end of the game. But that doesn't matter because in 1420 'it was colder'.
5. If a strait is implemented, the problem that Sweden will be able to cross the Åland Sea at will with large armies including horses and cannons is not relevant because that is a problem with straits in general.