Why did they create the Kingdom of Sápmi?

[Shebaloso]

So, what was the reasoning for creating this entirely fictional kingdom? As if the elective gavelkind bullshit was not enough, the devs thought it cool to put ANOTHER kingdom in the region to screw the Norse even more?

I truly didn't understand it. I've NEVER seem a Scandinavian Empire form, be it either christian or germanic, and yet the argument was that it would delay the unification of Scandinavian kingdoms? If anything it actually makes it easier to unify sweden and norway. And why was that a problem in the first place? The ONLY thing that actually makes me remember that the Norse exist in the game is the constant raiding. Other than that, i've never been nor have seen anyone be threatened by them. I don't see the issue here.

Again, do any of you have any idea about what motivated such implausible and immersion breaking change?

 

[aono]

I can't say for devs, but for me it was extremly ridiculus to see 8th century vikings just entering and colonising northen Lappland. So Sweden, Finnish and Norway kings having Lappmarken as de-jure territory was immersion breaking for me, and I love CK2++ included such de-jure kingdom.
Not as it helps a lot though - conquest CB is here, but it's better.

 

[Tatterhood]

I can't say for devs, but for me it was extremly ridiculus to see 8th century vikings just entering and colonising northen Lappland. So Sweden, Finnish and Norway kings having Lappmarken as de-jure territory was immersion breaking for me, and I love CK2++ included such de-jure kingdom.
Not as it helps a lot though - conquest CB is here, but it's better.

The Plus version doesn't really stop them from conquering it way too early though, since once you form Norway/Sweden/Finland you get to claim the associated northern parts as de jure territory anyway.

But yeah I think it's just to stop Lapland from getting conquered way too early, plus challenge mode for anyone who wants to actually try and form it.

 

[Shebaloso]

I can't say for devs, but for me it was extremly ridiculus to see 8th century vikings just entering and colonising northen Lappland. So Sweden, Finnish and Norway kings having Lappmarken as de-jure territory was immersion breaking for me, and I love CK2++ included such de-jure kingdom.
Not as it helps a lot though - conquest CB is here, but it's better.

Well, but do the norse in your games actually manage to reliably expand north and form any kingdoms?? In mine the only glimmer of hope for that is right at the start with Harald or Bjorn, who actually manage to unite a few duchies. I think i've only seen svitjod form one time in dozens of playthroughs.

And i don't think the conquest cb truly matters though, as all it would do is provide your secondary heirs with another free kingdom upon inheritance

 

[Robert II]

Screw the norse even more?

This is Sarcasm. I'm wondering what he's on about with screw the norse even more when they've been given more time and effort than they should have.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Well, but do the norse in your games actually manage to reliably expand north and form any kingdoms?? In mine the only glimmer of hope for that is right at the start with Harald or Bjorn, who actually manage to unite a few duchies. I think i've only seen svitjod form one time in dozens of playthroughs.

And i don't think the conquest cb truly matters though, as all it would do is provide your secondary heirs with another free kingdom upon inheritance

One time in a dozen playthroughs sounds just right, considering Karlings and their efforts to keep the realm intact (or not.)

In my first Reaper's Due as Zunists they actually formed HRE. Not Francia with what they have, full HRE with Saxony and Italy. They are crazy powerful and I am so glad I picked a game in Persia to see it.

 

[theKing1988]

Screw the norse even more?

Have you been living under a rock or are you being ironic?

The Norse, screwed? :lol:

 

[Robert II]

Have you been living under a rock or are you being ironic?

The Norse, screwed? :lol:

Ironic. The devs are norse Fanboys.

 

[Darkgamma]

Tbh they never should've included those new and ahistorical, non-Roman empires. Who thought Hispania was a good idea?

 

[thevmag]

So, someone explain it to me. Why did the northern lands not get taken for the longest time?
I'm assuming it's merely a lack of interest, as a raider/trader society would have no incentive to take the effort to conquer someplace harsh in environment and poor in exploitable resources.

Is it any more unreasonable for an AI norseman to think "I need manpower, let's conscript those guys up North" than it is for him to think "You know what, I wanna absorb those Baltic peoples" or "England seems like a good place to set up a tax haven"?

 

[Ternega]

Tbh they never should've included those new and ahistorical, non-Roman empires. Who thought Hispania was a good idea?

A lot of players like having goals, I too dislike the de jure empires affair, but given that you need 80% to form I don't see it as an issue, since by that time it's fairly obvious that you are in charge of the region.

 

[aono]

Well, but do the norse in your games actually manage to reliably expand north and form any kingdoms??

Yes, they do. I'm playing with a mod, but this mod is cosmetic only - it added some custom flags and localisations. Sorry, forgot to say about trade routes, they are added too.
My current game, Sweden:

My current game, Denmark:

Norway, Finland and Sampi was created by me, because I started in Finland, I take claim on Kola by marriage (and then elective gavelkind happened; by the way, it was VERY helpful), and Norway was partly eaten by me, partly by Sweden.
That's about "any kingdoms" part (and it's really wasn't RD improvement - I'm playing Finns every new addon, so I'm looking at). Expanding to north is some slowed with RD, because before Sampi AI had priority to get de-jure locations. Now he is going there only when he hasn't better options, such as Saxony, and even with this I needed to run for a Lappland and Vasterbotten before Sweden came.

 

[aono]

Tbh they never should've included those new and ahistorical, non-Roman empires. Who thought Hispania was a good idea?

By the way, I believe it should be good optional rule. Especially with custom empires from Charlemagne.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

Tbh they never should've included those new and ahistorical, non-Roman empires. Who thought Hispania was a good idea?

Those ahistorical empires are merely a design choice to "softly" direct the AI.
If it were up to me, I would remove all fantasy de jure empires. Also, I would remove all fantasy kingdoms in relation to starting dates. For example, having a de jure Sweden, Lithuania, Poland, Russia in Charlemagne start date is very much a fanatsy for that time date.

So, someone explain it to me. Why did the northern lands not get taken for the longest time?

It should already be evident in the gameplay. Taking them is just not worth it. Norse would instead make them into tributaries and that's it.[/QUOTE]

 

[thevmag]

It should already be evident in the gameplay. Taking them is just not worth it. Norse would instead make them into tributaries and that's it.

That tells me A reason why not to invade north, but not a reason why it should never happen. Tributes are nice and give you taxes and troops, sure, but you cannot develop them to fully strengthen your realm. From a strategic perspective, taking over an easy pushover with a lot of land to turn into a military machine while you raid and build up wealth elsewhere is sound. What I was asking is what historic reasons there were for that region going relatively untouched.

 

[tywinzo]

Unless I'm mistaken, this part of Sweden wasn't subjugated by the kings until like 14th century. And even then it was only controlled via trade. It would be equally fictional to call it a part of Sweden..

 

[aono]

What I was asking is what historic reasons there were for that region going relatively untouched.

http://www.holiday-weather.com/lapland/forecast/ - it's warm earliest automn now, and we are in climatic optimum (better that Medieval Warm Period). Mostly it's subarctic lands with swamps and frozen land.
It's beatuful, sure, but to live there?..

 

[theKing1988]

And with Medieval transportation it wasn't exactly easy to transport in foodstuffs for people to live off. So the land could only sustain a small amount of people.

 

[aono]

And with Medieval transportation it wasn't exactly easy to transport in foodstuffs for people to live off. So the land could only sustain a small amount of people.

...and even if you can move enough food there, question is why? You need some tech even to find, not to mention to exploit natural resourses there.
So nobody was in hurry.

 

[Shebaloso]

Have you been living under a rock or are you being ironic?

The Norse, screwed? :lol:

Are you kidding me? Sure, if you play as a norse there is no problem at all. Elective gavelkind is indeed a nuissance, but can be dealt with with relative ease. But AI norse/germanic? They are almost literally non existant. They don't expand at all, they are never strong enough to do a county conquest (let alone invasions), i've seen them form sweden ONE time, and NEVER have i seen them form an empire. The few lucky times they get a ruler young enough to try and unify the local region, it's only up to the point of having enough land but not enough money/piety to create the title. And BAM. Elective gavelkind hits and makes them return to the beginning. In what way are they strong??