I won't disagree, but if you assume they will, you can similarly complain about every change they tell us about.
- 3
The Cossacks Feature Stream 1500 CET 20th November
- Thread starter DDRJake
- 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.
To clarify, Universities are not changing in 1.14. We forgot they already gave +1 building slot in 1.13
- 5
- 3
It seems like you are handling the streams now
. PDX didn't find a replacement for the great A_Spec ?
AE. It went from easy mode to "annex a dead tag and get half of Europe in a coalition" to easy mode to somewhat reasonable. And that's just 1.13.
I know that getting the golden middle is not all that easy when it comes to balance and such, but there is being off the mark and there is not even hitting the same timezone as the middle you want.
- 2
If you added the new building slot when the university is unlocked, you would avoid the shuffle effect
- 1
- 1
Yes it does ;-) However, could be enjoyable if they actually could change their name if such scenario did happen, like forming Hansa though that wouldn´t be historical accurate Hansa since they wasn´t created due to conquest
However it could be realistic that Lübeck would change their name after having expanded...It was a big deal to be merchant republic for Hansa members too, they even forced other nations to recoignize Hansa influence in their major trade ports where they in some cases had a quarter owned and driven only by Hansa and the rare examples (as far as I have gathered) where they forced a nation to "free" a trade port and recoignize Hansa influence and control, while it still de facto (or would it be de jure...) was owned by another nation. If my memory serves me, this happened to a polish city, but might want to check up on it again
There are little precedence of nations changing "tag" into what they conquered, while there should be a few if I remember correctly. But as a dane, I see it very unplausible that they would recoignize such a statement from a german city-state, just as it would be unlikely for Denmark to form Prussia, Germany or Hansa without actually transforming (shifting culture) first which could be plausible and actually doable in-game with Cossacks by changin to neighbouring culture, if it´s not restricted by not being able to convert your main culture.
Nationalism wasn´t such a big deal back then, was somewhat a deal, but the crown and "divine right" were still a deal. So Lübeck claiming the throne due to conquest would not be recoignized by any of the nobles in Denmark or any of the nations who had matrimonial ties to Denmark. A Swedish or Norwegian royalty would then have a greater claim to the naiton anyhow
However it could happen and I believe something similar happened too elsewhere, that conquer married into the royal family and thus de facto and de jure had a claim due to being in direct line with the, here, danish monarchy and then they could have the right to change their "tag"...Though that doesn´t really fulfill the requirement of being "danish or scandinavian culture" which were a big part of being Denmark, so a new tag would be necessary for this situation. But since this would be difficult to implement properly due to the sheer amount of different outcomes that should be weighted in, it would only really be an option for players anyway, which could simply be done by allowing renaming your nation.
So the best solution would be too keep it as Lübeck
Put a smile on my face this damned, cold winter morning (bet it´s worse in sweden) that you could forget such a thing was already implemented ;-) However the suggestion still stands, though I´m not sure how or if it could be implemented. Could you make it so that universities could be built when slots are full? I´m fine with having them restricted by numbers due to development (since not many universities existed in each nation) but then at least add a neighbour bonus, say 5 or 10 %
- 1
Yeah it´s wondrous how they can change so much, from when I believe it´s fine and restrictive to gameplay and not being too much of a strain either. However, would note that every feature they add and every other changes they make they might need to adjust AE for balancing, like when they put development in, how AE would be calculated was a huge balancing issue. It takes times to make it just right again
Hopefully they learn from it every time they need to do so, so the impact won´t be so great... Though I must say, the change into being "too wasy" was due to the devs having forgotten something about the calculation and no one in QA knew that this was not intended. The issue was noted by one the leading dev after a while when he found it odd that AE didn´t accumulate like he had wanted it to be, a fair human error that no one really had seen or caught
Only glad that the devs actually play this game so it was caught, since no one seemed to get it was off ;-)If you added the new building slot when the university is unlocked, you would avoid the shuffle effect
Adding a building slot when universities are unlocked doesn´t prevent the shuffle, since you could then put another building into it´s place and still need to delete a building to build a university
But making universities able to be constructed when slots are full, and then add the bonus for 1 slot after, so you won´t have to develop province by 20 before being able to build next time would prevent it - 1
- 1
Now that I think of it it's mostly CK2 but I guess france counts. They were in dire need of a nerf but now days they fail more than they succeed. That said it's still not as bad as the CK2 ones.
True enough, but i find it much more meanignful to point out ponential dangers before they happen than whine about them later.
Well it's kind of unavoidable.
Yeah that's a nice example. But like I said the EU4 crew are a lot better at this than the ck2 ones.
You mean that the promised extra building slots for every province should only be unlocked with the same tech that unlocks the university? That's a nice idea, still doesn't fix that universities were really not something every province had in this era, but still.If you added the new building slot when the university is unlocked, you would avoid the shuffle effect
No but lacking a proper mechanic having the hansa beign formed by controlling x number of hanseatic cities and a certain amount of development (rather than provinces, because that means you could really go tall and still form the hansa) is better than not allowing us to centralise the hansa at all.Yes it does ;-) However, could be enjoyable if they actually could change their name if such scenario did happen, like forming Hansa though that wouldn´t be historical accurate Hansa since they wasn´t created due to conquest
doubt it poland didn't have n coast in the hanseatic era, that belonged to the Tuetonic order and the grandmaster of the teutonic order was a hansa member. The hansa however fought sweden over visby. Also I think Riga may have been released as a free city due to hansa influence.It was a big deal to be merchant republic for Hansa members too, they even forced other nations to recoignize Hansa influence in their major trade ports where they in some cases had a quarter owned and driven only by Hansa and the rare examples (as far as I have gathered) where they forced a nation to "free" a trade port and recoignize Hansa influence and control, while it still de facto (or would it be de jure...) was owned by another nation. If my memory serves me, this happened to a polish city, but might want to check up on it again
Lubeck isn't really a nation is it though? Itäs a city state withing the nation of the holy roman empire. And there is presedence, when it comes to denmark. The house of oldenburg (rulers of OPM oldenburg) inherets the kingdom of denmark and becomes denmark. They didn't plaster oldenburg all over denmark. As for them bedomming danish. yes and no their pressence changed denmark somewhat, denmark was already being infleunced a lot by the german states that'spart of what led to the dissuloution of the kalmar union.
Divine right only comes into play with absolute monarchy quite late in the game. Hence why most germnaic nations chose their rulers (again the only nation in germany is the HRE which does). Sweden and denmark were very cultural distinct thtrough most of this era, sweden belongs int he baltic cultural spehere while denmark belongs in the north sea cultural spehere. Despite sweden's modern attempts to west wash it's history. Denmark not only had a lot more in common with the german states, it was activly pursuing becomming more like them, which as I said above is what brought about the collapse of the union.Nationalism wasn´t such a big deal back then, was somewhat a deal, but the crown and "divine right" were still a deal. So Lübeck claiming the throne due to conquest would not be recoignized by any of the nobles in Denmark or any of the nations who had matrimonial ties to Denmark. A Swedish or Norwegian royalty would then have a greater claim to the naiton anyhow
Well oldenburg became denmark, not through conquest but through inheritence. But the hasna should not because the lübeck is a republic and the kings of europe would not have appreciated a republic usurping a royal crown. I'm not saying that Lübeck should really become denmark, I'm saying they should have something that they can form that isn't the extreemly anachronistic Westphalen (hannover can only be formed by monarchies, and westphalen turns the former into a monarchy).Though that doesn´t really fulfill the requirement of being "danish or scandinavian culture" which were a big part of being Denmark, so a new tag would be necessary for this situation. But since this would be difficult to implement properly due to the sheer amount of different outcomes that should be weighted in, it would only really be an option for players anyway, which could simply be done by allowing renaming your nation.
So the best solution would be too keep it as Lübeck
No the best solution is the add the hansa back as a formable tag that can onl be formed by republics of the german culturegroup.
No they're far to much must have buildings already.Put a smile on my face this damned, cold winter morning (bet it´s worse in sweden) that you could forget such a thing was already implemented ;-) However the suggestion still stands, though I´m not sure how or if it could be implemented. Could you make it so that universities could be built when slots are full? I´m fine with having them restricted by numbers due to development (since not many universities existed in each nation) but then at least add a neighbour bonus, say 5 or 10 %
Last edited:
Naples, in Europe. Outside of Europe you're going to find many. Specially in India and SEA.
- 1
The exception that makes the rule. Outside of europe the naming conventions are diffrent than in europe. But in the nations who descend from the persian and egyptian empires (the middleast and europe) there are fairly few even there.
- 1
You might be totally right about that one
Looked it up, and I guess it was Reval I was thinking about and got it mixed up with Danzig. However it is not true that Poland didn´t hold any ports during the period? They achieved control over Danzig in 1466, while the city were counted de jure an independent republic they were under the protection and de facto part of the Polish crown. Also, Krakow was part of Hanseatic influence, while they didn´t pay for membership and didn´t sent representatives to league meetings and thus were only loosely part of the organization, they adopted the law and germans lived in the city due to the hanseatic influence... Would say Krakow was somewhat a part of Poland in the period There are some cities that are equal to this, where Hansa forced their laws upon them and made the nation accept this state of control and ownership creating some dual situation.
You really got this wrong, in many ways
Yes oldenburg came into ruling Denmark, but they had influenced through marriage in all kinds of courts in Europe, and the reason why they came into the Danish monarchy was due to marriage with the count of Holstein, which were part of Denmark so it was a direct line to the Danish monarchy, not Oldenburg that assumed control and this was really what happened due to monarchy marriage In short, the reason the line of Oldenburg came into the Danish was not because they forced it, it was because they already were in direct line of the Danish monarchy, was acknowledged as a direct line of the Danish monarchy due to being a child of the Holstein which were a member of the danish monarchy, nothing odd about that
I would argue that it wasn´t Denmark being influenced by German states, but Denmark who engaged in the diplomatic nature of marriage with German states which were quite normal back then... Just think of the Habsburg and the Spanish succesion ;-) Denmark did what Denmark and the rest of Europe had done for centuries already
But yes, Oldenburg didn´t plaster themselves over Denmark, and what I didn´t state was that I believe there should be a mechanic where a nation goes from a city-state to something more of a nation
The dissolution of the Kalmar union was not due to Oldenburg inheritance, which had many restrictions and were pointed by the Danish Council of the Realm by which to marry. The dissolution was partly due to the King died with no direct heir and Swedens amibition to take over the union due to this vacuum, the desire for independence came later when they de facto had been independent for 70 years after the union broke.
I´m not sure where you get the facts from? Scandinavia have been in the same cultural sphere with Danish, Swedes and Norwegians, even Finnish are in the same sphere and still are partly today but they also are in the sphere of the baltics. Stating they are not the same, is simply ignoring how Scandinavia had worked only hundreds of years before EU4 timeframe... You know, the vikings were something of scandinavian origin and consisted of Denmark, Norway and Sweden mostly and they influenced each other both by diplomacy and warfare.
The language back then were also hugely more similar, also suggesting that they were culturally in the same sphere and still to this day many people of Scandinavia can understand each other while not speaking exactly the same
No but the union with oldenburg had the same cause which caused the kalmar union to fail. Namely that denmark were more intrested in pursuing continental intrests, such as the continential practice of primogeniture (unlike sweden and norway who had old germanic elective monarchies) that's what caused the union to fail. Denmark belived thta the son of the king should be the next king the swedish nobles belived that the king was theirs to elect.You really got this wrong, in many ways
In short, the reason the line of Oldenburg came into the Danish was not because they forced it, it was because they already were in direct line of the Danish monarchy, was acknowledged as a direct line of the Danish monarchy due to being a child of the Holstein which were a member of the danish monarchy, nothing odd about that
I would argue that it wasn´t Denmark being influenced by German states, but Denmark who engaged in the diplomatic nature of marriage with German states which were quite normal back then... Just think of the Habsburg and the Spanish succesion ;-) Denmark did what Denmark and the rest of Europe had done for centuries already
But yes, Oldenburg didn´t plaster themselves over Denmark, and what I didn´t state was that I believe there should be a mechanic where a nation goes from a city-state to something more of a nation
The dissolution of the Kalmar union was not due to Oldenburg inheritance, which had many restrictions and were pointed by the Danish Council of the Realm by which to marry. The dissolution was partly due to the King died with no direct heir and Swedens amibition to take over the union due to this vacuum, the desire for independence came later when they de facto had been independent for 70 years after the union broke.
I am swedish I have worked with history, and yes lingualy swedne belongs with norway adn denmark, but if you look at other cultural traits the story changes a lot, sweden has a lot more culturally in common with finnland and estonia than with denmark and norway, with the excepion of language.I´m not sure where you get the facts from? Scandinavia have been in the same cultural sphere with Danish, Swedes and Norwegians, even Finnish are in the same sphere and still are partly today but they also are in the sphere of the baltics. Stating they are not the same, is simply ignoring how Scandinavia had worked only hundreds of years before EU4 timeframe... You know, the vikings were something of scandinavian origin and consisted of Denmark, Norway and Sweden mostly and they influenced each other both by diplomacy and warfare.
The language back then were also hugely more similar, also suggesting that they were culturally in the same sphere and still to this day many people of Scandinavia can understand each other while not speaking exactly the same
Denmark had elective monarchy until 17th? So I fail to see how Swedish succesion differ from danish, even read somewhere that they in fact were similar in the period but since I can´t find old text just like that, I can´t check if the source is credible. However Denmark was an elective monarchy, given that the eldest son would likely be elected, but they could choose whichever monarch they liked that shared the dynastic line. Which were also the reason a female monarch and monarchs outside of Denmark were elected.
The union broke due to Sweden wanted to own the union and wanted the election of their elected king by pursuing their claim to the throne of the union. It´s likely the election of Charles were or could be solely for gaining independence due to the rising unhappines towards danish taxes and political affairs. However, Eric did assume control over Sweden and it was first by the death of Christoffer they broke free.
The treaty of Kalmar is clear, in that the three kingdoms were to be ruled by one king by elective monarchy, first among the kings sons. The kingdoms had each their own laws and was to be ruled in according to these, as they should defend each other and with negotiations with other nations, a councilmember from each kingdom the right to make decisions on behalf of all. (actually the union is poorly reflected in-game
)The fact that Eric was elected, not being a son of Margrethe was not unheard of in any of the three kingdoms but with no direct heir issues over whom to elect could easily rise, which they did. Seems like they accepted Christoffer (might be due to defeat and promise of Gotland) as regent of Sweden and when he died childless so short after the crisis of Erics ascension.
The foundation of Treaty of Kalmar and it´s continuation were that the union was to be passed on to a direct succession of the rulers children, boys first. But since this never happened the Treaty couldn´t be used as a foundation to the union. So the dissolution was not due to continental interest, but due to succession laws that couldn´t be upheld and no agreement among the three as to a new successor. The three were required to choose among direct successor, so less to argue about, but when choosing among the royal line in general, huge disputes could arise (and did) and this happened twice in a very short time...
The sweden are descending from the northern germanic, the same as Denmark and Norway. Finland is partly from baltic or russia (can´t remember the correct word) and partly from sweden... So fail to see how that could make Finland and Sweden share more traits than other of Scandinavia.
The general consensus are that Sweden, Denmark and Norway have the same or similar cultural traits, with Finland having partial traits. So at which points do Finland and Sweden suddenly more similiar, other than the fact that Finland was ruled by Sweden and Swedes settled there among the original baltic inhabitants?
This only makes Finland more similar to Sweden, not Sweden less similar to Denmark and since the argument goes away from the general consensus that scandinavia are similar, due to the language, the ancestry and history there should be some very good arguments to go against a general consensus. Not to mention that the monarchies in these three were hugely intertwined suggesting more similarities than with Finland.
Your welcome to answer in private, since this serves no real purpose to the post but are arguments of history unrelated to Cossacks stream, which only came to be due to discussions of the changes to the union, not as the historical reason to it
- 1
- 1
You have a seriously skewed perspective on scandinavian history.Denmark had elective monarchy until 17th? So I fail to see how Swedish succesion differ from danish, even read somewhere that they in fact were similar in the period but since I can´t find old text just like that, I can´t check if the source is credible. However Denmark was an elective monarchy, given that the eldest son would likely be elected, but they could choose whichever monarch they liked that shared the dynastic line. Which were also the reason a female monarch and monarchs outside of Denmark were elected.
The union broke due to Sweden wanted to own the union and wanted the election of their elected king by pursuing their claim to the throne of the union. It´s likely the election of Charles were or could be solely for gaining independence due to the rising unhappines towards danish taxes and political affairs. However, Eric did assume control over Sweden and it was first by the death of Christoffer they broke free.
The treaty of Kalmar is clear, in that the three kingdoms were to be ruled by one king by elective monarchy, first among the kings sons. The kingdoms had each their own laws and was to be ruled in according to these, as they should defend each other and with negotiations with other nations, a councilmember from each kingdom the right to make decisions on behalf of all. (actually the union is poorly reflected in-game
The fact that Eric was elected, not being a son of Margrethe was not unheard of in any of the three kingdoms but with no direct heir issues over whom to elect could easily rise, which they did. Seems like they accepted Christoffer (might be due to defeat and promise of Gotland) as regent of Sweden and when he died childless so short after the crisis of Erics ascension.
The foundation of Treaty of Kalmar and it´s continuation were that the union was to be passed on to a direct succession of the rulers children, boys first. But since this never happened the Treaty couldn´t be used as a foundation to the union. So the dissolution was not due to continental interest, but due to succession laws that couldn´t be upheld and no agreement among the three as to a new successor. The three were required to choose among direct successor, so less to argue about, but when choosing among the royal line in general, huge disputes could arise (and did) and this happened twice in a very short time...
Language is NOT the same thing as culture, it's just one aspect and one that is fairly unreliable because national romanticism put so value into it. If you really want to track cultural kinship look at something that has seen less meddling, I'd advise cusine (a simple thing like what kind of bread was traditionally baked in a region will tell you far more about that people and who they interacted with intermarried with and traded with than language). When you do that you find that the cultural spheres are linked by the seas that the people sailed on. Which places most of sweden in the baltic sphere where denmark and norway end up in the north sea sphere, they are in many ways more similiar to the brittish than they are to the swedish. While sweden aside from language have much much more in common with Finland than with any other nordic country. Hence why the idea of scandinavia that english speakers seems to be so mindlocked into is counterintuitive becuase that's not how the nordics fit together.
You also find some other fascinating things for an example scanian is not a mix of swedish and danish but the last shred of a far older culture separate from both, swedish historian dick harrison actually wrote a book on the subject.
While aside from language western sweden has far more in common with norway and even the brittish than the rest of sweden.
Last edited: