Why do Ottomans start with Anatolian cores?
- Thread starter Frungy78
- 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.
I believe it is to have Sweden concentrate on Denmark which is historical. After all over ~1000 years we had something like 50 wars---and Skåneland most often was what was being fought over. So I don't disagree with those cores; though I think Denmark should have a core on Småland to further intensify the rivalry. After all it wasn't just Sweden who was the attacker and we did hold Småland at least a few times as far as I remember---and at least tried grabbing it.
Sweden occupied them sure, but didn't own them.Scania being Swedish cores might reflect the fact that it was owned by Magnus of Sweden until 1360 which is somewhat close to EUIV start.
- 1
- 1
Wikipedia tells me that in 1332, Magnus IV of Sweden effectively bought Scania from the King of Denmark. It was subsequently taken by the King of Denmark by force of arms 28 years later.
That sure looks to me like Sweden owned Scania less than 150 years before game start, and thus its core on Scania is completely legitimate.
- 2
- 1
It was pawned to Germans who later sold the pawn to the Swedish king; something they weren't allowed to as far as I remember. And either way being pawned doesn't equal sold. But it is true that the Danish king didn't pay in the pawn, but just took it back.
Given the many frequent Danish/Swedish wars every province held by either Denmark or Sweden after ~800 won't have its core expired. So following that you should also give Denmark cores on Småland, Göteborg (not a province though) and Dalsland; as far as I remember both Göteborg and Dalsland are located in Värmland so perhaps a Danish core on Värmland?
Also while you can get a core quickly in game 28 years aren't enough to gain it in reality; the population didn't like Swedish rule. And when deciding who gets which cores you should use a longer coring time which fits more historically. But as mentioned they are fine to make sure Denmark and Sweden will be locked in perpetual fighting.
Historically a lot of Scandinavia could go different ways. The problem is that it stinks for the game. Sweden and Denmark were rivals and bashed heads frequently, but border change was not sudden and dramatic other than one time in the mid 17th.
Basically, ever had a game where Sweden gets free but takes a hit doing so, and Denmark maintains dominance? They VERY gradually tend to push in; taking a province here and there, bullying them around, knocking out Finland, undoing conquests. But what happens in a more normal circumstance if Sweden is dominant? They straight up gobble down on Denmark/Norway because they have 6 cores to eat, they never throw a bone to allies... because they have those 6 cores to eat first. Norway's 1bt land often becomes the peace deal filler too, so they end up owning chunks early and then wanting to finish that job.
When I remove Swedish cores, my experience is that Sweden still wars the shit out of Denmark, BUT they don't stick to just trying to eat Norway and Denmark. Without those cores, they are liable to eat Muscovy or Novgorod land, take Baltic provinces, and otherwise expand outward, sooner - it makes for a better game since Sweden is actually pushing outward and involved (and no less ambitious I find), just like Denmark who is superior but lost the union will push into other places such as northern Germany and the Baltics without completely piledriving directly into Sweden; only a little bit.
Basically, ever had a game where Sweden gets free but takes a hit doing so, and Denmark maintains dominance? They VERY gradually tend to push in; taking a province here and there, bullying them around, knocking out Finland, undoing conquests. But what happens in a more normal circumstance if Sweden is dominant? They straight up gobble down on Denmark/Norway because they have 6 cores to eat, they never throw a bone to allies... because they have those 6 cores to eat first. Norway's 1bt land often becomes the peace deal filler too, so they end up owning chunks early and then wanting to finish that job.
When I remove Swedish cores, my experience is that Sweden still wars the shit out of Denmark, BUT they don't stick to just trying to eat Norway and Denmark. Without those cores, they are liable to eat Muscovy or Novgorod land, take Baltic provinces, and otherwise expand outward, sooner - it makes for a better game since Sweden is actually pushing outward and involved (and no less ambitious I find), just like Denmark who is superior but lost the union will push into other places such as northern Germany and the Baltics without completely piledriving directly into Sweden; only a little bit.
- 1
- 1
I'm 100% sure the change will be reverted at some point because despite ahistorical cores and gold mines Castile still underperforms af.
- 4
- 2
That's because, well, the AI is bad at cooperating with itself, so it inevitably has a hard time containing La Blobbe.
What happened to Denmark??I'm 100% sure the change will be reverted at some point because despite ahistorical cores and gold mines Castile still underperforms af.
On the contrary, I don't think Castile is meant to (nor usually does) equal France. Their success is not contingent on them being able to slug it out and end up on top.
Their success relies on them not being pummeled by France. This is doable when they have a stable peninsula and a sprawling overseas empire; they can survive being shattered at home because they are rich enough to recover and strong enough to go years only to give away the wargoal, maybe 2 provinces if France really pushes it, and that's the end of it. This is not doable when Iberia is at war with itself; A Castile fighting Aragon into any kind of a near-stalemate, anything other than obliterating their eastern border really, leaves them too weak to resist France pushing through their Basque land and often right down into their heart. A Castile vs Portugal war usually removes Castile's navy (thanks England) and ends with them in debt even if they win. I see this all the time when they are called in on opposite sides, though in this case Castile might win at sea, and either way it leaves them wide open to France.
So, basically, what I'm saying is that if Spain is stable at home, they can either repel France or at least keep the damages to a minimum. If Spain is in local turmoil, or is Castile & Aragon hostile with each other and not united Spain, pretty soon it's renamed Southern France.
- 4
I'm 100% sure the change will be reverted at some point because despite ahistorical cores and gold mines Castile still underperforms af.
This of course ignores those games where Castile/France ally, or France gets ganked by Burgundy/Castile and then Austria & friends decide to pile on, or games where France and Austria ally, or any of the 3 main players there winds up getting another in a PU.
France dies outright sometimes, though it's uncommon. It's also uncommon for Castile to do so. France generally will not attack Castile unless it allies Austria and winds up in colonial spats...Castile/Austria are allies instead sometimes and that's ruinous to French incursions basically anywhere.
I'm 100% sure the change will be reverted at some point because despite ahistorical cores and gold mines Castile still underperforms af.
Truly underperforming country
- 1
- 1
I've never, ever, not once, seen the AI come close to pulling this off. Typical game is nothing from Burgundy, no Milan, no Philippines, and a fraction of that new world, in exchange for a little chunk out of Siberia and maybe 4 or so at most north African provinces.
- 8
I've never, ever, not once, seen the AI come close to pulling this off. Typical game is nothing from Burgundy, no Milan, no Philippines, and a fraction of that new world, in exchange for a little chunk out of Siberia and maybe 4 or so at most north African provinces.
Their cores have absolutely, positively nothing to do with that reality in any way whatsoever.
With the amount of land that begins the game uncolonized there is nothing they can do to cover it all in 100 years, and let's not pretend the NDNHE inheritance not firing in their favor is a basis for them keeping cores they never had lol. They were insanely lucky in the historical sense, getting Iberian wedding, the combined Charles V crap, and catching Inca in a state of civil war.
If you look at their AI-controlled 1821 position and compare it to reality, they are often ahead...a lot more than you can say about major players in this period, including Mughals, Qing, Ottomans, Russia, Great Britain, and even France (France only occasionally manages to go "Napoleon" on anything).
Let's stop playing pretend. Spain has hand holding in spades with or without those fake cores.
- 3
I've never, ever, not once, seen the AI come close to pulling this off. Typical game is nothing from Burgundy, no Milan, no Philippines, and a fraction of that new world, in exchange for a little chunk out of Siberia and maybe 4 or so at most north African provinces.
In my run Spain and Portugal pretend they are each other. Spain colonized Brazil but Portugal Peru, Argentina and Chile. Besides Spanish Low Countries most of a time will never happen since there is no event that will give them land from Austria if BI happened so unless Austria has been reduced to exempt them from BI then it's a no go.
Side note: remember that historically, the attachment of the Netherlands to the Spanish crown was a simple matter of dynastic good fortune (all Trastamaras further up the succession than Joanna predeceased her, and her husband Philip's parents were the Emperor and the Burgundian heiress), so should not be included in considerations of their performance.
- 2