• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
1. Yes
2. It would be streching the PTI concept to have one there. You could perhaps march up there in the summer if you really needed to, but no one really did.
3. The AI would probably not succeed in defending it. The problem was there historically too.
4. You can not walk, it's pretty far though 2/3 of the way an archipielago. Some winters it might be possible, with great risk. Only a fool would ride. Same situation as with many straights.
5. One could say that. Walkable straight are quite liberally used, in vanilla EU2 right now.

With the vanilla definitions of PTI and crossable straights I would pick a straight if I had to chose.
 
What kind of fishing boats do you use to ferry 18th century artillery, and is it likely that you will find these and also enough large fishing boats to transport your 10000 horses too?
There's a difference in transporting a 15th c army and a 18th c army, enought to siege a level 3 fortress.
 
Norrefeldt said:
2. It would be streching the PTI concept to have one there. You could perhaps march up there in the summer if you really needed to, but no one really did.
It didn't happen often in history, it's not very realistic, but just in case the human player wants to use that route we should keep it open because, in theory, it was possible. Huh?

Norrefeldt said:
3. The AI would probably not succeed in defending it. The problem was there historically too.
But nobody's actually tested it. Genoa usually manages to keep Corsica without a strait, and she's surrounded by other strong naval powers. You're talking about defending Finland from Russia - which doesn't even get any sea ports until Sweden is in her strongest phase.

Norrefeldt said:
4. You can not walk, it's pretty far though 2/3 of the way an archipielago. Some winters it might be possible, with great risk. Only a fool would ride. Same situation as with many straights.
5. One could say that. Walkable straight are quite liberally used, in vanilla EU2 right now.

With the vanilla definitions of PTI and crossable straights I would pick a straight if I had to chose.
You've presented only opinion for the case against, and you still support a strait? I don't get it :confused:

I'm starting to realise you guys want a 150 km strait AND the northern passage to remain open. What really is the problem with loading some troops on a ship? Don't blame the AI here because he will do his best if he has to defend cores and has no other option to move.

I am really much more convinced by the arguments of Toio. The only strait we really need is the Bosphorus.
 
WiSK said:
It didn't happen often in history, it's not very realistic, but just in case the human player wants to use that route we should keep it open because, in theory, it was possible. Huh?
If these things you mention were the criterias we would add a lot of PTI. Most of Canada and the African coasts should be isolated provinces for example. I'm just reasoning from the current vanilla definition of PTI, which is a different story.

WiSK said:
But nobody's actually tested it. Genoa usually manages to keep Corsica without a strait, and she's surrounded by other strong naval powers. You're talking about defending Finland from Russia - which doesn't even get any sea ports until Sweden is in her strongest phase.
Russia is a different enemy than those states Genoa fight. (Still, I see Genoa have lost it year 1700 in about a third of my games.) Genoa manage to keep it since the enemies it might have will not get any decent warscore. An AI that can invade a number of connected provinces might have an easier time. But you are right, it needs testing before we can settle it.

WiSK said:
You've presented only opinion for the case against, and you still support a strait? I don't get it :confused:
If I had to chose -yes. I rather strech the definition of a straight, than add a lot of PTI for all places that are "unconnected" by your criterias.
 
Norrefeldt said:
If I had to chose -yes. I rather strech the definition of a straight, than add a lot of PTI for all places that are "unconnected" by your criterias.
Hang on there! Please don't put assumptions on me. I'm only talking so far about the northern passage between Sweden and Finland, not anything in Canada or Africa or elsewhere. And the only reason I'm talking about it is as a solution to the problem that Sweden and Russia send their troops that way.

My point is really that if you want to stop the problem that large armies which walk through Finmark and Lapland, then you must close that way: with PTI or just breaking the province connections. To make a strait may or may not help the AI to choose the sea route more frequently, but it won't stop the movement of troops.
 
Sorry, I just used the definition you mentioned:
It didn't happen often in history, it's not very realistic
to make an example of what it would lead to if we applied it consistently. If these criterias were used widely, and I do think we should have consistent criterias as long as it is possible, we should stop all movement that cannot pass this rule, not just in northern Scandinavia.
 
Norrefeldt said:
What kind of fishing boats do you use to ferry 18th century artillery, and is it likely that you will find these and also enough large fishing boats to transport your 10000 horses too?
There's a difference in transporting a 15th c army and a 18th c army, enought to siege a level 3 fortress.

Washington used small boats to move the entire Continental army, horses, cannon, supplies, etc. That was an 18th Century army, albeit a small one. A better commander than General Howe probably would have defeated us in 1777, and we Americans would be speaking English today . . . ;)
 
If a strait is added the map could be "compensated" with increased movement-time to Österbotten and possibly to Västerbotten as to make the strait more important.
It's by no means impossible to move between Sweden proper and Finland proper by land, it just takes a crazy amount of time.

The point I was trying to make about the strait not being crossed that frequently is that either Sweden or Russia was utterly utterly defeated before the war got that far, so that's in a way just an historical coincidence.

Regarding the possibility of moving HUGE armies I don't like it, but you can't do that with any of the present straits anyway so it's not really an argument IMHO.
Maybe a strait should have a cap on the "weight" a crossing army can have?
 
Norrefeldt said:
Sorry, I just used the definition you mentioned: to make an example of what it would lead to if we applied it consistently. If these criterias were used widely, and I do think we should have consistent criterias as long as it is possible, we should stop all movement that cannot pass this rule, not just in northern Scandinavia.
I didn't intend that to be a 'definition', but your point is fair enough :)

But, don't forget, setting a precedent also counts when making 150km wide straits....
 
Hallsten said:
Regarding the possibility of moving HUGE armies I don't like it, but you can't do that with any of the present straits anyway so it's not really an argument IMHO.
You've said that earlier, and it didn't make sense then either. Many of the present straits are at least of reasonable distance, like 1500-3000 meters. You are talking about 150 kilometers!

Hallsten said:
Maybe a strait should have a cap on the "weight" a crossing army can have?
Or you can use navy which already has this weight cap.
 
Moving an 16th-18th century army during winter through land way to Turku (= Åbo in Finland province) from Stockholm would really be a suicide. The distances are quite big and it can get pretty cold in winters. I got no clue how Sweden moved her armies to Finland, but I remember that 1809 date from somewhere too.

EDIT: Prolly possible in summers though, only thing is that there most prolly weren't any decent roads there.

Anyway, I'm for Finland-Svealand strait even though my post doesn't give any points why there shouldn't just be navy to do that. Anyway AI sucks with navy.
 
Last edited:
WiSK said:
You've said that earlier, and it didn't make sense then either. Many of the present straits are at least of reasonable distance, like 1500-3000 meters. You are talking about 150 kilometers!

Actually the biggest stretch of open sea is no more than 35km, roughly three times the distance of the Langeland Bält which is the biggest distance walked on ice by Karl X Gustav's army.
If this is too long a distance is up to the people who decide on what gets implemented or not, but I see no problem with it since there is a historical precedent for this.

WiSK said:
Or you can use navy which already has this weight cap.

Well, I can't argue with that... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
As a Scandinavian, I think the strait from Svealand to Finland should be in.
It's a far distance, but remember, the ice is thicker up there at winter than it is in Denmark. You can drive a car from Sweden to Åland at times.

Although the strait wasn't used much, it was still there to use. Remember, the reality is different from EU2. The biggest reason the strait wasn't used, was that Sweden had a large portion of its army in Finland. And it would be possible to move an army up through the Bothnican provinces, but which would you rather prefer, a travel time of assumably a week (probably less) or a travel time of several months? Sweden is actually quite large, you know.

I actually read now that the ice cut Finland off from Sweden proper during the winter...
That being said, the AI sucks at handling a navy. We would probably be seeing a Russian Finland in the late 16th century if we would cut off all land connections and not add straits between Sweden proper and Finland.
 
Norrfeldt said:
If these things you mention were the criterias we would add a lot of PTI. Most of Canada and the African coasts should be isolated provinces for example. I'm just reasoning from the current vanilla definition of PTI, which is a different story.
And that would be a bad thing because????

Anyway i'm not in favor of the straight because it will lead to more exploits and unrealistic behavior and its validity in EU2 terms is questionable, at best. There are many other places more deserving of straits than this area.
 
Jinnai said:
Anyway i'm not in favor of the straight because it will lead to more exploits and unrealistic behavior and its validity in EU2 terms is questionable, at best. There are many other places more deserving of straits than this area.
And I for one won't object to those places getting a strait. It is not like because we use a strait here, we can't have one somewhere else. As long as we have enough ID that isn't a problem.

I seen a couple of valid counter arguments, but I really can't see how this strait will open up for exploits.

Also I for one wouldn't mind using PTI to block of Västerbotten and Österbotten, but I would like a strait regradless. And if PTI isn't introduced, then a strait is a must. You must understand that the PTI faced far more resistance in the Scandinavian map thread than the strait faces here though.
 
Sute]{h said:
You must understand that the PTI faced far more resistance in the Scandinavian map thread than the strait faces here though.
Can you summarise the arguments for those of us who don't want to trawl through that thread? So far I understood only that people "dislike PTI" and that the passage should stay open "because it was possible (to move through the province)". Surely there have been some stronger arguments?
 
Hallsten said:
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?

Thats strange, the history I read about the 1808-1809 war, says that all transports (except those on land from västerbotten) to finland were stopped all winter bcz of the ice. Not that I object to the strait, I think it will help the game, but I doubt you are right about the ice thing.
 
Sven_vegas said:
Thats strange, the history I read about the 1808-1809 war, says that all transports (except those on land from västerbotten) to finland were stopped all winter bcz of the ice. Not that I object to the strait, I think it will help the game, but I doubt you are right about the ice thing.

OUCH!
I double-checked my source and I had misread a paragraph, I'm very sorry that I've mislead you. :eek:o

Since my main argument turned out to be made up I'll abandon this discussion for now.