Union of Kalmar

[Incompetent]

So, that could be option 1 for the ai, to drop Norway and pursue the Hansa by forging an anti=piracy alliance with the Order and Finland. Option 2 could be to press Norway in the hopes that gaining the western side of the Sund and Scandinavia might allow for trade to rely less on the Baltic, rendering the pirates less of an imposition, and forcing the Hansa to accept that Kalmar is just too large to challenge militarily. Finally, option 3 would be to mend the rift with the League. The League would get tax free shipping through the Sund in exchange for fighting against the Vitalians.

Yes, that sounds pretty much spot on. The option the player would want to choose is probably: temporary truce with Norway to fight the pirates, and then when they've been dealt with, turn around and attack Norway. The truce with Norway wouldn't necessarily involve losing cores, we'd just change the Kalmar AI so it doesn't attack Norway as readily, and improve KAL-NOR relations (they'd still deteriorate over time though).

My idea for what's going on in Sweden is that a majority of nobles do actually back Kalmar, and as a result the rebels were defeated in mainland Sweden. (Maybe we could have an event to generate a period of revolts in Sweden early on in the game, representing a later attempt by anti-Danish forces to seize control - it's possible the rebels will win, as SWE is a revolter tag, but if Sweden doesn't form 'naturally' in such a situation, we can assume the pro-Kalmar forces have won.) However, they got control of Finland province, and teamed up with the mercenaries on Gotland, who are fanatically anti-Danish (ordinary Gotlanders don't like Denmark too much either, as they are freer under the current arrangement).

Finland doesn't want a resurgent Sweden, but above all they want to play the balance of power game and make sure no-one gets too strong. That means that while they won't ally with the pirates, they'll be reluctant to move too strongly against them in case it puts Kalmar in too powerful a position. However, if Kalmar has done badly in Norway or against the Hansa, they won't seem as threatening, and in any case the Finns don't want Hanseatic dominance either. So generally speaking the Finns will back the weaker side, within reason, or stay out altogether.

The TO isn't too interested in the whole Baltic squabbling and has better things to do early on, though like everyone they find the pirates a bit of a nuisance. However, they have quite good relations with the Hansa, so they have the best chance of persuading the Hansa to distance themselves from Gotland. (They also might be able to threaten the Hansa heartland if it comes to that, as Mecklenburg isn't very far from Prussia.) Later on the TO has growing trade aspirations of its own, but in the 15th century it's very land focused, with its main aims being to finish off Poland and to consolidate the controlling position of Catholic Germans inside its current territory (which includes a lot of land that was until recently ruled by the pagan Liths). So their role in a Baltic conflict is likely to be more behind the scenes, or possibly along the southern shore, but they're unlikely to be in a position to attack places in or north of the sea.

 

[panther-anthro]

I still find this WAY TO SIMILAR to the OTL. Sure, there are some good ideas in here, and the like, but I'd like to point out several things. Norway: Does not like Scotland, historically they fought the scots, and took their territories, why on earth, would they ever become a vassal of the scots, let alone help them?

First: Whose idea was it to have Norway have an identical collapse in the 14th century, that it had in the OTL? Norway was HUGE by the time the hundred year war began, it owned Finland, Orkney, Isle of Mann, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, Denmark was weaker then Schleiswig-Holstein, and I don't see why we are following the OTL and saying Denmark has followed an identiacal route up til the point of the union being a success. I understand the vitalian thing is nice and all, but what justification was there, to utterly destroy the Norweigan state, and make it Scotland's 'slave'. Norway has drastically low manpower, and income. I don't see why a much stronger Norway has not been purposed, and now that we know we are going to have a formable Britannia, and Albion, why can we not turn Scotland's focus away from Norway, and make Norway a more formidable, and playable nation on it's own.

I'll admit to being very biased in favor of Norway. I'm 25% Norweigan, and Norweigan nobility by descent, even if my family is only the hereditary rulers of the small island of Kupervic. Regardless, I greatly value my hereditary claim to having pride in my Norse heritage. I find it insulting that Norway has been destroyed in such a manner, the rest of the world has drastically altered from the OTL, and Norway has grown weaker, not stronger, because of it. Instead the OTL main ruler of Scandinavia is the ruler, Denmark. I find this absurd, that Denmark is actually stronger then in the OTL!

 

[MattyG]

I still find this WAY TO SIMILAR to the OTL. Sure, there are some good ideas in here, and the like, but I'd like to point out several things. Norway: Does not like Scotland, historically they fought the scots, and took their territories, why on earth, would they ever become a vassal of the scots, let alone help them?

This is an alternative hsitory.

First: Whose idea was it to have Norway have an identical collapse in the 14th century, that it had in the OTL?

TheArchduke

Norway was HUGE by the time the hundred year war began, it owned Finland, Orkney, Isle of Mann, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, Denmark was weaker then Schleiswig-Holstein, and I don't see why we are following the OTL and saying Denmark has followed an identiacal route up til the point of the union being a success. I understand the vitalian thing is nice and all, but what justification was there, to utterly destroy the Norweigan state, and make it Scotland's 'slave'.

That part can be rewritten.

Norway has drastically low manpower, and income.

You mean in Interregnum, or in RL, or both.

I don't see why a much stronger Norway has not been purposed, and now that we know we are going to have a formable Britannia, and Albion, why can we not turn Scotland's focus away from Norway, and make Norway a more formidable, and playable nation on it's own.

Sure.

I'll admit to being very biased in favor of Norway. I'm 25% Norweigan, and Norweigan nobility by descent, even if my family is only the hereditary rulers of the small island of Kupervic.

Everyone has a aprt they cherish and want to see flourish. A lot f Polish players are like that in the AGCEEP forum. Will you be Duke of Kupervic?

Regardless, I greatly value my hereditary claim to having pride in my Norse heritage. I find it insulting that Norway has been destroyed in such a manner, the rest of the world has drastically altered from the OTL, and Norway has grown weaker, not stronger, because of it. Instead the OTL main ruler of Scandinavia is the ruler, Denmark. I find this absurd, that Denmark is actually stronger then in the OTL!

The Kalmar storyline is going to stay. It is very cool and the Vitalians and the intrigue are great.

However, making more of Norway is a great idea.

 

[panther-anthro]

I have no issue with the Vitalians, or the Kalmar, I have issues with Norway being partitioned, and made into nothingness, and having a gigantic collapse. The great plague was what destroyed Norway, and it happens after things are suppoused to have changed. Mainly, I'd like to see Norway control more territory in Scandanavia, and possibly a foothold in Northern Scotland, if the new map has Mann, or Orkney *or both!*, then Norway should own those. I think Norway, and Scotland should have an involvement, but inheriting Norway, that's way to out there if you ask me. I should probably go find a map of how powerful Norway was in 1337, just to show that Norway 'was' the most powerful Scandinavian nation, I can understand a minor version of the great plague weakening Norway in this timeline, but I'd like to see Norway in control of more of Sweden, most likely northern Sweden. Also, I'm sure Vinland has been mentioned before several times, but the fact remains that Vinland remained in contact with Iceland up until the year 1400, the colony had remains, and we know it existed. I'm not suggesting we let Norway have a head start on colonizing 'Canada', but is there really any other power who is likely to colonize that region? I think that Vinland as an incentive for Norweigan colonization of the New World, and conflict over the Swedish territories between Kalmar, and Norway would be quite feasible.

Note: I'm the only living male heir to Kupervic, mind you it's a county, and a fishing island at that, you can look it up if you want. But, my family still owns the island, and governs it.