The 3 tiers...
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
This is a mentality I just can't understand. Poland existed and played a prominent role in Eastern Europe for the entire time period, disappearing only at the very end. 99.9% of gameplay will take place in a time period when Poland existed. If the game ended in 1750, you wouldn't even be able to make the same argument - so how does Poland's disappearance at the end of the game have anything to do with its importance in the 15th, 16th, 17th, and majority of the 18th Century?
It's like saying that the Ottoman Empire or Austria-Hungary are not important nations in Victoria II because they did not exist at the end of the time period. It's not about what happened at the end, it's about the journey there.
Think about it. If the game ended in 1600, would you say that Portugal should not be in the top 8, just because at the end of the timeframe they had been taken over by the Spanish Habsburgs?
Arguments based on the timeline are absurd and arbitrary.
The deluge happened in 1660 and kinda proves how weak Poland had become in relation to other powers of that era.
View attachment 65879
View attachment 65879
And then Poland, nearly completely conquered by foreign invaders, rose despite the adversity to reclaim the country. Just a couple of decades after the Deluge Poland fought successful campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and broke the Siege of Vienna.
Not to mention that your example can be placed completely in reverse when it's compared to the Great Northern War. Poland recovered from the Deluge, while Sweden lost her empire.
Not to mention that your example can be placed completely in reverse when it's compared to the Great Northern War. Poland recovered from the Deluge, while Sweden lost her empire.
Poland never fully recovered from the deluge though and played a minor role in European politics thereafter.
Sweden never fully recovered from the Great Northern War and played a minor role in European politics thereafter.
And did I not just provide a great example of Poland playing a major role, in relieving Vienna?
And did I not just provide a great example of Poland playing a major role, in relieving Vienna?
No, but Sweden's influence in Europe was both greater and lasted longer in comparison Poland's from 1630 and onwards. Further more, the Great Northern War was just the beginning of the Swedish empire's decline, not the end - and the war also had far greater consequently for Poland which would eventually become annexed by her neighbours.
about the battle of Vienna, while it was a great victory for catholic Europe it didn't really affect Poland's situation that much as the country still was in slow decline.
I felt a lot of deja vu when I wrote those posts, and now I remember why. The 2k forums were full with angry Poles when Gods & Kings were released for civilizations, arguing over why Sweden got the final spot and not Poland
o
about the battle of Vienna, while it was a great victory for catholic Europe it didn't really affect Poland's situation that much as the country still was in slow decline.
I felt a lot of deja vu when I wrote those posts, and now I remember why. The 2k forums were full with angry Poles when Gods & Kings were released for civilizations, arguing over why Sweden got the final spot and not Poland
o
Last edited:
Over half the people arguing for Poland aren't Poles though, while most arguing for Sweden are Swedish, the rest say it doesn't matter, that they don't care or that it could go either way.
This discussion is a bit ridiculous. Seriously, guys, who cares whether Sweden or Poland is in tier 1 or tier 2? The only things that matter are content and gaming experience - everything else is just a meaningless label. If Poland/Sweden is represented properly and you face plausible, semi-historical constraints, then it means that the system is working properly. If that's not the case, then sth is wrong. Being in tier 1 wouldn't help Poland at all if its strengths and weaknesses are not represented.
Polish people (and other guys from Central/Eastern/Southern Europe ) on the forum are often accused for being nationalistic. The topic has been showing clearly that all those Swedish defenders are behaving much more nationalistic. At least at the forum. You should remind that what we are talking about is only a game. A game with, probably, a lot of bugs and unrealistic behavior. It really doesn't matter that Sweden is situated in top 8, even if it doesn't deserve for the place. If PDS manage to avoid AI stupidness what is the weakest point of the Clausewitz Engine, I will say nothing against overestimation of Sweden. AI stupidness is for example the situation when Denmark annexes (and being able to maintain) Trebizond or Milan or Portugal colonizing Labrador.
Anyway, remember about modders.
Anyway, remember about modders.
Except for the fact that Poland didn't. A multinational coalition did, Poland just got a disappropriate amount of attention (and credit) for it since the Polish king was the commander-in-chief of the army. And besides, winning a single battle hardly proves much, single battles are largely toss-ups even when one side significantly overpowers the other. Hardly a relevant measure of power and prominence.
If we're talking historical plausability...
Like the title states, as people are stating that Sweden could've become a major power in northern europe (or technically they sort of were but that defeats the point) why not include Savoy? Throughout the middle ages Savoy formed the nation of Sardinia-Piedmont and then went on to unify Italy, impressive for such a small nation (especially when dwarfed by its neighbour France. This surely merits in inclusion in Tier 3.
P.S why no love for Australia Paradox? all your Australian players want to see some colour in that expanse of grey
Like the title states, as people are stating that Sweden could've become a major power in northern europe (or technically they sort of were but that defeats the point) why not include Savoy? Throughout the middle ages Savoy formed the nation of Sardinia-Piedmont and then went on to unify Italy, impressive for such a small nation (especially when dwarfed by its neighbour France. This surely merits in inclusion in Tier 3.
P.S why no love for Australia Paradox? all your Australian players want to see some colour in that expanse of grey
Are you sure? The Russian raids destroying half of the mainland Sweden kinda proves how weak and incompetent had become Sweden in relation to other powers of the era?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Great_Northern_War_Part2.png
What kind of influence did Sweden have on foreign politics in global scale? We had already discussed this here.
In addition after 1718 Sweden was just a simply peripheral toy in the hands of European powers (Britain, France and Russia) controlling it through the corrupted puppet factions of the "Hats" and "Caps". All the Swedish revanchist wars against Russia (1741–1743, 1788–1790) ended extremely poorly demonstrating the complete incompetence of the Swedish army despite all the warmongering bravado even unable to defend its Karelian and Finnish holdings gradually loosing them to Russia until in 1809 all of them were finally incorporated into Russia.
Despite the fact Poland returned all the territories (Podolia) lost previously to the Ottoman empire and destroyed the Crimean Tatars raid once and for all? But I do agree with you that Poland (neither Sweden) as regional power is not the best choice for 1 tier.
Yeah, once again - I agree with you that Polish and Swedish nationalists are pretty funny.I felt a lot of deja vu when I wrote those posts, and now I remember why. The 2k forums were full with angry Poles when Gods & Kings were released for civilizations, arguing over why Sweden got the final spot and not Poland
Poland's lack of prominence in Europe is mainly due to isolationist tendencies.
Poland's problems in game (unrealistic nationalist rebels in lithuania, grain being worthless as a trade good) that stop it doing as well as historically are things that probably need to be fixed in other ways.
That's really not the same thing. Poland is playable tier 1 or tier 4. Having 6 Germanic choices and 1 Slavic choices is a completely different level of bias. Especially when Civilisation as a game has no real reason to focus on western Europe like EU does.
What? I had just kind of assumed Savoy must be in tier 3 so I hadn't noticed it wasn't.
Milan is tier 3 but Savoy isn't? But Milan ceased to- Oh wait.
Poland's problems in game (unrealistic nationalist rebels in lithuania, grain being worthless as a trade good) that stop it doing as well as historically are things that probably need to be fixed in other ways.
I felt a lot of deja vu when I wrote those posts, and now I remember why. The 2k forums were full with angry Poles when Gods & Kings were released for civilizations, arguing over why Sweden got the final spot and not Poland
That's really not the same thing. Poland is playable tier 1 or tier 4. Having 6 Germanic choices and 1 Slavic choices is a completely different level of bias. Especially when Civilisation as a game has no real reason to focus on western Europe like EU does.
Like the title states, as people are stating that Sweden could've become a major power in northern europe (or technically they sort of were but that defeats the point) why not include Savoy? Throughout the middle ages Savoy formed the nation of Sardinia-Piedmont and then went on to unify Italy, impressive for such a small nation (especially when dwarfed by its neighbour France. This surely merits in inclusion in Tier 3.
P.S why no love for Australia Paradox? all your Australian players want to see some colour in that expanse of grey
What? I had just kind of assumed Savoy must be in tier 3 so I hadn't noticed it wasn't.
Milan is tier 3 but Savoy isn't? But Milan ceased to- Oh wait.
The events that tore Sweden apart happened much later than the events that tore Poland apart and neither did they have the same consequences for those countries. The annexation of Finland was a national trauma but even so Sweden was still involved in European politics and wars and got a revansche through the Napoleonic wars. The same cannot be said for Poland which were unable to project power outside its own borders for most of the time-frame of the late game. Even if they regained some territories after the battle of Vienna it would do little more than slow down their fall, that once again was much greater and quicker than the downfall of Sweden. And please, not every European power projected its power globally, but the events that involved them could still be of huge consequences for the rest of the world. Or would you say that Austria or Hungary were unimportant countries because they lacked proper colonies or didn't fight other countries in colonial wars? In this time, Europe was the scientific, industrial and arguable economic hub of the world, controlling the trading ports of half the Baltic sea would have far greater implications for the power balance of all European nations than controlling ports in ie newly established ports in the new world.
I also find the pain you show when you argue quite amusing. Did you personally experience Poland's annexation by her neighbours?
Last edited:
That still leaves first 100-150 years during which Sweden was pretty much irrelevant and inactive, minus struggles against the Danes. If you add last 100 years of irrelevance to that, not much is left.
Thought if the starting date is 1444 and end date is 1780 then Sweden has historically been an European great power for half that time.
But I agree that if we should have a debate about importance then more attention should be paid to the 15th and 16th centuries, after that I personally don't think there is a real contest which of the two countries had an upper hand.
Sweden was not involved in European politics as the great power but only as regional power. Should I repeat the same thesis like dozen of times?
The expensive Swedish participation in the Seven Years war was so poor that resulted in nothing but in change of the home government. At last Poland was able to utilize its victories against Turks (yeah, there are not only Vienna, btw) and return the lost territories. Of course, not all European countries are supposed to be global powers. And Sweden defiantly was not. The United Provinces were global power in the 17th cnetury and even after the economical collapse of the late 17th - early 18th centuries influenced the European politics more than Sweden. Just consider resources, demography and military forces these countries possessed in the 18th century. Your arguments about the trading ports are even more odd: are trying to compare Stockholm and Göteborg with Amsterdam or Rotterdam?
Yes, I was born before the end of the 18th century so the partition of Poland is a great trauma for me and my parents. Are you ok, really?
That is why in about 18 pages of this thread I am trying to show that there is no place for the regional powers as Sweden and Poland-Lithuania in the 1 teir and that the Netherlands played much more important role than both those Baltic realms combined?I am really surprised that some people are so blinded with nationalist propaganda that cannot see obvious things: Sweden never was on pair with England, France or Spain in warfare, politics, economy, colonisation, trade, while the United Provinces defiantly were such a country at last during the 17th century.
- Status