I wouldn't say that is inaccurate considering Finland was part of Sweden for some 600 years.Mitte said:
-
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.
Geroshabu said:
What difference does that make?
Sweden never embraced ugric culture to any considerable degree. With the same logic a whole lot of countries in Europe should have multiple cultures, but they do not.
Im playing Sweden right now in a GC, 1640, and having ugric culture is making my efforts around lake Ladoga - too easy.
Well there was hardly even any large ugric communities in Finland at that time, most were spread out sparesly. The swedish could easily establish themselves as rulers over the region because of the lack of administration, which meant the region became an integral part of the kingdom.
And swedish rulers during that time didn't see Finland as any different from the rest of Sweden, and the population was basically treated the same way.
And swedish rulers during that time didn't see Finland as any different from the rest of Sweden, and the population was basically treated the same way.
Ugric culture for Sweden ain't ahistorical imo. Without it, why bother with the Baltic and Ingermanland? No the main problem is with Denmark's few provinces... and of course the fact that some Danish leaders and monarchs should be better.
Thats might be true, but the game mechanics is build on little larger provinces, probably to reduce the numbers of provinces in the game. But this doesn't only affect Denmark, doesn't Holland also have more Provinces irl?Hive said:
So it would be kind of dangerous to make such a big edit, because that would probably mean others will demand the same for other nations!
However, a COT in Copenhagen for the sund tax should be enough!
Fredrik_SWE said:
Well no edits to the map will be done anyway, so it's a moot point to discuss... but Neth aren't having trouble surviving, Denmark is.
About the Sund tax CoT.... I dunno. I think it's better to add it in 'The Mercantile Reforms of Christian IV', triggering from 1625 - and then remove the one in Mecklemburg. Also, Sweden shouldn't be able to get one by event...
But Denmark had trouble surviving historicly, they were invaded and threatend to be Vassilized/Annexed a few times, not only by Sweden i belive.Hive said:
And now i'm talking about after 1600th century. earlier Denmark does not fight for there survival, Sweden does, and this does EU2 really reflect historicly me thinks!
I like the idea of downgrading the provinces of Finland to colonies and/or removing forts rather than moving the Swedish-Novgorodian border. It looks like at least the provinces of Savolaks and Österbotten were quite uncolonised territories early on in the period. In the 1419 setup Österbotten, Finland, Nyland and Tavasteland all have forts. Did they really all have fortresses at the time?
On the Norwegian side of the border, Jemtland has a fortified city, whereas the province named Narvik has an unfortified colony. I might be subject to nationalistic propaganda here, but I have the impression that Jemtland was mostly wilderness when the Swedes conquered it. Narvik (the area in general) on the other hand was quite populated and scandinavian cultured well before 1419.
Giving Narvik an upgrade to city and reducing Jemtland to an unfortified colony sounds more historically accurate. From a game perspective I would give Narvik an unhistorical fortress in order to keep the coastline historically intact. It would represent the mountains that geographically clearly seperates it from Lappland in real life. This change would also make Sweden's CB on Jemtland less of a threat to Denmark/Norway.
One minor thing: Iceland should be upraded to a city. It had way more than 500 inhabitants in 1419. Now it can revolt, too, which would be cool, and not too weird.
-Nitram-
On the Norwegian side of the border, Jemtland has a fortified city, whereas the province named Narvik has an unfortified colony. I might be subject to nationalistic propaganda here, but I have the impression that Jemtland was mostly wilderness when the Swedes conquered it. Narvik (the area in general) on the other hand was quite populated and scandinavian cultured well before 1419.
Giving Narvik an upgrade to city and reducing Jemtland to an unfortified colony sounds more historically accurate. From a game perspective I would give Narvik an unhistorical fortress in order to keep the coastline historically intact. It would represent the mountains that geographically clearly seperates it from Lappland in real life. This change would also make Sweden's CB on Jemtland less of a threat to Denmark/Norway.
One minor thing: Iceland should be upraded to a city. It had way more than 500 inhabitants in 1419. Now it can revolt, too, which would be cool, and not too weird.
-Nitram-
Maybe Netherland has no problems to survive, but alle the italian countries has i.e.
NitramDatsgnos said:
There were castles in Nyland (Viborg, Viipuri), Finland (Åbo, Turku) and Tavastland (there's a castle near Tavastehus, Hämeenlinna). But making Savolaks and Österbotten colonies would perhaps be better gamewise, but it would always result in scandinavian Savolaks and Österbotten, which I, as a ugric person, have to oppose.
Fredrik_SWE said:
What are you talking about. The only excistential crisis in the EU2 period where Karl Gustav in 1658. The mere idea of a centralized state controlling all the baltic trade would cripple England and the Netherlands (and a lot of other european nations). It is therefore inconcievable that they would allow this to happen. Remember that it was the combined threath of these two nations which made Karl Gustav sign a peacetreaty, rather than annexing Denmark. The only reason the Netherlands didn't particpate in 1658 where the fact that it was Frederik III who declared war on Sweden (though he had no army or sufficent funds to wage it). The entire curse and blessing of Denmark from the end of the kalmar union to the end of WW2 where its position. A strong power controlling Sjælland could close the waters around it, thus preventing acces to most of eastern Europe. Therefore no major power dependant on the baltic could ever accept a strong state controlling Sjælland, and Sweden where a at this time a formidable military power. Remember that the Netherlands did not aid Denmark out of their good heart, they could care less about the danish kings - the baltic trade is an entirely different matter. In conclussion both the survival of Denmark and Sweden where in effect guarantied no matter who where strongest (from 1613 Sweden definately rose to become the strongest baltic power)
I think there may be three discussions going on here:
1. What is historical?
2. What will create a historical outcome in SP?
3. What will create a historical outcome in MP?
The first two questions may have different answers. Perhaps it is historical for Sweden to have Ugric. But if having Ugric culture makes Swedish AI conquer Norway, Denmark, or Novorogod with ease; then perhaps you need to do something that isnt quite historic to get a historic OUTCOME; which is different.
I have always been in favor of bending the TRUTH to create a historical OUTCOME. These are different things. First, we need to come up with a theory to explain Sweden's rise to power. If it is economic, then we need to provide some economic changes for Sweden. If it is military (probably imho) then we need to provide some military changes for Sweden. But we should use history as a guide, not a straight jacket.
If we are concerned with geographic outcomes, we just need to change certain variables to create the outcomes we want. Lets divide Swedish history into two pieces; early and late.
During the early period, we want Sweden to be able to defend herself, but not really expand into Norway, Denmark, Germany, or Russia. So we could lower her wealth and manpower during this period but increase fortifications and lower support limits in all of Scandinavia (they are far too high for such horrific terrain). This way, Sweden AND Norway will be hard to conquer (historical) but Sweden will be unable to project power outside of her country (also historical).
During the late period, we want Sweden to be able to conquer certain regions on the Baltic Coast and some parts of Germany. During this period, we should raise her economic and manpower values, boost her tech, and provide her with lots of free soldiers. You could even tweak DP sliders a good bit to generate morale advantages. The leaders during this period should be very good and Sweden should be given extra transports and galleys. She should have local fleet supremacy against minors; but not against Denmark (hence the galleys/transports) This way, Norway and Sweden will still be hard to conquer (historical), but Sweden will be able to project her power outside of her country (also historical).
The early period changes could be made directly to scenarios. The late period changes would have to involve event alteration as well.
Despite the innocent pleadings of many Sweden lovers (Johan included), Sweden is way overpowered and Denmark is underpowered during the early period. During the late period, there is room for debate. Unfortunately, by this time AI Sweden's neighbors are AI Poland/Austria/Netherlands. Not good.
Despite the subject of the above changes being SP AI Sweden, I think these edits would transfer nicely into the MP world. Though I do think that having 10 uber-leaders is a bit much for an extremely short-lived stunt as a world power.
1. What is historical?
2. What will create a historical outcome in SP?
3. What will create a historical outcome in MP?
The first two questions may have different answers. Perhaps it is historical for Sweden to have Ugric. But if having Ugric culture makes Swedish AI conquer Norway, Denmark, or Novorogod with ease; then perhaps you need to do something that isnt quite historic to get a historic OUTCOME; which is different.
I have always been in favor of bending the TRUTH to create a historical OUTCOME. These are different things. First, we need to come up with a theory to explain Sweden's rise to power. If it is economic, then we need to provide some economic changes for Sweden. If it is military (probably imho) then we need to provide some military changes for Sweden. But we should use history as a guide, not a straight jacket.
If we are concerned with geographic outcomes, we just need to change certain variables to create the outcomes we want. Lets divide Swedish history into two pieces; early and late.
During the early period, we want Sweden to be able to defend herself, but not really expand into Norway, Denmark, Germany, or Russia. So we could lower her wealth and manpower during this period but increase fortifications and lower support limits in all of Scandinavia (they are far too high for such horrific terrain). This way, Sweden AND Norway will be hard to conquer (historical) but Sweden will be unable to project power outside of her country (also historical).
During the late period, we want Sweden to be able to conquer certain regions on the Baltic Coast and some parts of Germany. During this period, we should raise her economic and manpower values, boost her tech, and provide her with lots of free soldiers. You could even tweak DP sliders a good bit to generate morale advantages. The leaders during this period should be very good and Sweden should be given extra transports and galleys. She should have local fleet supremacy against minors; but not against Denmark (hence the galleys/transports) This way, Norway and Sweden will still be hard to conquer (historical), but Sweden will be able to project her power outside of her country (also historical).
The early period changes could be made directly to scenarios. The late period changes would have to involve event alteration as well.
Despite the innocent pleadings of many Sweden lovers (Johan included), Sweden is way overpowered and Denmark is underpowered during the early period. During the late period, there is room for debate. Unfortunately, by this time AI Sweden's neighbors are AI Poland/Austria/Netherlands. Not good.
Despite the subject of the above changes being SP AI Sweden, I think these edits would transfer nicely into the MP world. Though I do think that having 10 uber-leaders is a bit much for an extremely short-lived stunt as a world power.
Of all the posts here I think ryoken69's and Peter Ebbesen's economical summary are the ones that are the ones that clearest identifies the problem. (And my post about Swedish leaders of course. ) Lowering initial Swedish taxes and manpower valus and perhaps make some of the early events less good ought to go a long way. That would tilt balance in favour of Denmark, without making them stronger and thereby threatening northern Germany.
) Lowering initial Swedish taxes and manpower valus and perhaps make some of the early events less good ought to go a long way. That would tilt balance in favour of Denmark, without making them stronger and thereby threatening northern Germany.
Please clarify. How can a map showing Finlands border, not even mentioning the borders of Novgorod be enough? Show me a map where there is slightest hint of Novgorodian influence on the coast of Österbotten!Hive said:
ryoken69 said:
I totally agree with that (and the rest of your post). How about taking away ugric culture at the start (thus making Sweden weaker ther) but letting them gain it during one of its events (e.g. the Parliament one)?
Byakhiam said:
Well, considering how Norway had a fort in Finnmark, Vardøhus, to make their presence known, and it's non-existance in the game, I can't see why some of the Finnish provinces can't be downgraded.
Sweden is overpowered. Solution up to now, get big and good buddies as Denmark and become stronger.
Norrefeldt said:
Well, the peace of Nöteburg (Pähkinäsaari) was made between Sweden and Novgorod. So where Sweden ends, Novgorod begins, at least that's the way I see it.
And the Österbotten is bigger than just the coast. It's probably true that the coast of Österbotten had swedish influence at the time, but deciding province ownership by so small part, then why not give Nyland to Russia in AoR and Nappy, as half of Nyland-prov was lost in the peace of Åbo (Turku) 1743...