• 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.

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 5th of July 2022

Welcome to our next Development Diary for Europa Universalis IV! The majority of the new content for the upcoming DLC has been revealed so far and all that is missing are two nations - one of them is an island nation which almost never sees the light of day.
gotland.png
Prior to 1.34 Gotland was a province occupied by a rebel stack led by the Danish ex-king Eric of Pomerania. This has changed now and Gotland is selectable at the start of the game with Eric as its ruler.

Originally a commercial center situated in the crossroads between the merchants of Russia and Germany, Visby has quite an interesting history during the century prior to the beginning of the game. Home to privateers such as the Victual Brothers and the bastion of a former Danish King, Gotland ended up being the guarantee of peace between the Teutonic Knights and the monarchs of Denmark. Coupled with a fresh new mission tree, its very own great project and unique new paths to explore, Gotland will offer a fascinating playthrough.

As Gotland was a member of the Hansa, the hideout of the ex-king Eric and a base of operation of Eric’s piracy, the fate of Gotland is quite open-ended (though, in 99% of games Gotland will probably end up as territory of Denmark or Sweden as these two countries still have their core on Gotland).

The content for Gotland is intended to reflect the possibilities Gotland’s history could have gone and as such when you start as Gotland you get the following event instantly:
erics_claim_event.png

erics_claim_event_second_choice.png

When you select the second choice you get a follow-up event:
fate_of_republic_of_gotland_event.png

fate_of_republic_of_gotland_event_second_option.png
Of course the claims of Eric won’t make much sense when he dies before pressing them against Denmark. If you select the monarchy path of your missions and Eric finds himself buried with the head first in the mudflat then you get an event which allows you to change your direction (this only triggers when you picked the monarchy missions though):
lost_claims_of_eric.png

lost_claims_of_eric_second_option.png

But what are these missions even about? Let’s start taking a look at them, starting with the monarchy missions:
gotland_monarchy_missions.png
As your goal is to become Denmark, the monarchy missions of Gotland are a little bit shorter, but will help you with your ambition.
“Dynastic Relations” for example gives you 10k manpower per nation which has the same dynasty as you and has at least 100 opinion of you. As you start with the Gryf dynasty you can get 20k manpower rather easily from Stettin and Wolgast - if you manage to finish the mission before they annex each other.
Meanwhile, “The Enemy of My Enemy” makes alliances with rivals or enemies of Denmark easier.
The biggest supporter would be the HRE however. “The Emperor’s Treasury” is mission which allows you to make a deal with the Emperor upon reaching 100 opinion of him:
a_deal_with_the_emperor.png

Naturally, this event triggers an interaction with the Emperor:
a_deal_with_the_emperor_2.png

Of course you can accept or reject these conditions:
a_deal_with_the_emperor_3.png
Taking the help of the Emperor will have consequences. If you ever manage to get Holstein or Slesvig then you get confronted with an event which reminds you of your end of the deal:
return_of_holstein.png

return_of_holstein_2.png
Of course you are free to ignore your promise, but this will result into a diplomatic escalation of the situation:
holstein_or_war.png
Of course the event for the ultimatum has a proper title which is a homage to a different demand of German territory in history:
holstein_or_war_got.png

holstein_or_war_got_2.png
As Eric was voted out by the nobles of Norway and Sweden it is only natural that you want to get on Norway and Sweden’s good sides - either through diplomacy (they have 100 opinion of you) or through espionage (you have 50 spy network in their overlord).
loyalty_events.png
The main focus of the monarchy missions is your war with Denmark. “War for the Crown” which is doable after getting any kind of cb against Denmark will give you a restoration of Personal Union casus belli against Denmark as well as 10% Land and Naval Morale for 25 years.
“Take over Sjaelland” which can be achieved by occupying the capital of Denmark (in this case it is Sjaelland) will trigger the following event:
sjaelland_occupation.png
If you manage to get 50 War Score against Denmark, control the Danish capital and be at war with Denmark for 3 years you can complete the mission “Execute the Wrong King” which will end the war immediately in your favor:
execution_event.png
Of course these missions are all completable if you manage to win the war against Denmark on your own and get them under a personal union before. In that case the events will not fire, but their rewards are given directly by the missions themselves.
Also, if Norway or Sweden are independent then you gain a PU cb against either of them in this event.

As soon you have the Kalmar Union under your control you can complete the mission “Back in Control” and get the following event:
reformation_of_denmark.png
From this point forward you are then playing as Denmark, though with a slightly easier time with Sweden.

But not everybody wants to play “Denmark with extra steps” and so you can choose to become a republic instead.
gotland_trade_republican_missions.png
Your mission tree is tailored to become the dominant trade power of the Baltic Sea, rivaling the likes of Lübeck or Riga.
As it has become a little bit of an unofficial tradition for this DLC, so does Gotland too have a way to join the HRE with the “Imperial Protection” mission. The claims of the mission tree are few and mostly focused on the Baltic coast of Germany as well as the lands of Denmark and Novgorod.
Real highlights of this mission tree are +25% Permanent Ship Trade Power from the mission “Compete with the Hansa”, as well as +25 Trade Power in the English Channel until the end of the campaign from “Channel’s Trade”.
“Gutnish Trade Fleet”, “Strong Mercantilism” and “Gotland’s Trade Empire” have dynamic rewards which depend on which faction is currently at power:
dynamic_mission_rewards.png

“Gotland’s Trade Empire” has of course the most impactful reward of all three of them:
flexible_reward.png

flexible_reward_decisions.png

But what if you don’t want to make your ducats the honest way through trade and commercial? What if you want to embrace the historical roleplay of Eric, the king who became a pirate? For that there is the last and biggest mission tree of Gotland which explores this path.
gotland_pirate_missions.png
The Gotland AI will always take the Pirate missions as historically Eric of Pomerania was living the pirate life on Gotland until he eventually died.
The pirate missions are divided into three greater branches and some miscellaneous missions which are adopted from the generic Pirate missions and slightly adjusted for the North Sea.
Starting from the left to right, the missions starting with “Gotlander Pirate Fleet” are your conquest and exploration missions, handling Denmark and, of course, the Caribbean. When you complete the mission “Pirates of the Caribbean” you get the option to move your capital in to the new world through an event:
place_in_the_sun.png
Meanwhile, the mission “The Worst Pirate” gives the following rewards if you own or have a subject own Tortuga:
art_of_insults.png
The missions branching from “Reach the Mediterranean” are all about raiding and looting certain places of importance such as Rome and its Curia coffers, or Venice and its arsenal. “Pirate versus Berber” on the other hand is more of a mission for all those who played in the Mediterranean and had to suffer under the Berbers.
Each one of these three missions rewards you with an unique event which is of narrative nature. But they also contain strong rewards which are fitting to the text. Here is the event “The Raid of the Venetian Arsenal” which is the reward of the mission “Raid the Arsenal”:
raid_of_venice.png

I will come back to the “Legendary Pirate” personality later.

“Terror of the Baltics” and the followup missions are about, well, raiding the Baltic Sea, but also “liberating” Lübeck, Danzig and Riga from their owners and incorporating them into your pirate republic. Each mission gives their respective city the following reward:
free_pirate_port.png
“The Pirate Haven” is the finisher of these missions and is completed when you own at least 10 provinces which are either centers of trade or have a river estuary. Finishing it gives you a reward which mirrors the Merchant Republic dynamic mission reward:
dynamic_pirate_rewards.png
Finally a few words for the remaining missions:
“A Pirate Federation” works exactly like the generic pirate mission. “Global Piracy” requires you to privateer in at least 10 different trade nodes of the world and gives you extra privateer efficiency of 33% until the end of the game. “Scourge of the North Sea” requires you to privateer in the North Sea and the English Channel while “Loot London” and “Loot the Low Countries” are rather self-explanatory. All of these missions reward you with good chunks of money.
“Renowned Pirate King” is a special version of the “Renowned Buccaneer” mission of the generic Pirate mission. But it is worth mentioning that both missions have received an additional bonus in its reward:
renowned_buccaneer.png
The “Legendary Pirate” is a new ruler personality which can be gained through either mission rewards - as it was the case in Gotland’s mission tree - or by winning against an enemy who is above your own weight. Also, all historical pirates have the “Legendary Pirate” personality.
legendary_pirate.png

It goes without saying that the Legendary Pirate is part of the free update and not locked behind the newest DLC.
Speaking of free content: monarchies and republics received new government reforms, and so did the Pirate Republics some new reforms to play with too! I will list the tiers where a new reform has been added or an old Pirate reform has been adjusted and will highlight them.
Tier 2:
pirate_republics_tier_2.png

Tier 4 (they are all new):
pirate_republics_tier_4.png

Tier 7 (they are all new):
pirate_republics_tier_7.png

Tier 8:
pirate_republics_tier_8.png

Tier 10 (the first three are generic Republican reforms, hence their theme is not quite fitting for Pirates):
pirate_republics_tier_10.png

Tier 11 (the first three are generic Republican reforms, hence their theme is not quite fitting for Pirates):
pirate_republics_tier_11.png

Tier 12:
pirate_republics_tier_12.png
Next to the pirate government reforms we also have added some new naval doctrines. In the development diary for Denmark we presented you some of the new naval doctrines and you gave us ideas for new additions of naval doctrines. While not all were able to make the cut for 1.34, some of your suggestions have been implemented!
For Venetian countries
venetian_naval_doctrine.png

For Korean (or Snocized-Korean) countries
korean_naval_doctrine.png

For Japanese countries
japanese_naval_doctrine.png

For Lower Saxon countries (in that case it is mostly relevant for Lübeck):
lower_saxon_naval_doctrine.png

It goes without saying that the icons for the Naval Doctrines are placeholder.

Last but not least we also did some balance changes regarding the navy to make them (and their ideas) a little bit more impactful.
Blockaded provinces now receive +0.25 Monthly Devastation and -50% Local Trade Power additionally to the +20% Local Ship and Regiment recruitment time.
Additionally, blockading a country’s ports not only increases +0.10 Monthly War Exhaustion but also -75% Global Trade Power and -75% Trade Steering, scaled by proportion of (core, state) development blockades.

1.33 buffed the Maritime Ideas and Naval ideas and while we are happy with Maritime ideas for now, the Naval ideas are still lackluster in their usage. They do their purpose which is buffing the navy, but due to how EU4 works naval battles are rarely of big concern and as such the Naval Ideas have a too high opportunity cost.
So we have decided to give a secondary role to Naval ideas which is rewarding your land conflict if you have naval dominance by giving the fourth idea “Naval Glory” +1 Blockade Impact on Siege additionally to the Yearly Navy Tradition. The +10% Ship Durability has been moved from the bonus of the ideas group to the sixth idea, “Oak Forests for Ships” (the +20% Heavy Ship Combat Ability remains) while the bonus now has -100% Naval Barrage cost next to the +15% Ship Disengagement Chance.
The Naval/Maritime policy “The Naval Supremacy Act” now gives +1 Blockade Impact on Siege instead of +50% Privateer Efficiency. The +50% Blockade Efficiency remains unaffected here.

Finally one quick Quality of Life addition to the game:
detach_special_units.png
That was it for today! Next week @PDX Big Boss will present the final country which receives content from this DLC. Little hint: it is NOT a nation you can select when you start the game.

With that being said I wish you all a nice week!
 

Attachments

  • gotland_pirate_missions.png
    gotland_pirate_missions.png
    490,6 KB · Views: 0
  • 90Like
  • 35Love
  • 13
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Keep in mind that Persia has been a land full of scholars writing down what happened for....a very long time.
My native Sweden on the other hand has had.....less historians.

We do know that real progress on converting the Sami didnt really take off until the freaking 17th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_the_Sámi_people#:~:text=The Christian church is hostile,and use its economic resources.

This religious map is thus complete fabrication.

View attachment 856962


Romuva should be in atleast one province, that much is certain based on when the Lithuanians converted. The Sami religion would survive for over two hundred years:

"They were however silently allowed to practice Sámi shamanism in private until the second half of the 17th-century, when Swedish authorities forced them to abandon their religion, burning their Sámi drums, banning the joik singing and forcing them to subject to the doctrine of the church both in public and private."

As for Norse, yeah that one is harder. It is very difficult to say if any region still kept a majority Norse among "common people". Keep in mind that Sweden absolutly did not defacto control those northern provinces in 1444. One or two Norse provinces would not be completly unrealisitic.

They dont need to do anything super flavor for the three lost religions. But they already exist in game and atleast 2 of them did still exist.

Say no to Catholic historical 1444 revisionism!
Now to be clear, I only disagreed with the Zoroastrian comparison since Zoroastrianism in this period is a lot more concrete. I wasn't trying to make some statement about how the map is accurate and the period was populated by all-knowing nation-states. I totally agree many regions of the map are way too well defined for the period and I do see justification for having pagan religions on the map/revivalist options the player can take.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
@Ogele @Johan
Fix the Name. It is Gulland if you're a Dane, and only Swedes refer to it as "Gotland."

Yes, I know - Paradox is HQd in Sweden, but the whole perspective of this particular "Gulland" nation is based on a Dane's starting position, not the outside-looking-in Swedish perspective. Call it what the King of Gulland would refer to it as - based on his own heritage and language.

This also helps form a thematic break from the old "Gotland" we've always seen on the map as just another province. Simply put: if it's the province, it's Gotland (to stay consistent since EU4 was developed). If it's the island nation, it is Gulland (to break away as a Danish ruled nation-state).
Shouldn't it rather be "Gutland", its name in the Gutnish language that was still very much alive and the main language of the island in 1444?

(Or if you're going by Erik's actual heritage, it would be Gotlaand, the island's name in his native Low German).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Shouldn't it rather be "Gutland", its name in the Gutnish language that was still very much alive and the main language of the island in 1444?

(Or if you're going by Erik's actual heritage, it would be Gotlaand, the island's name in his native Low German).
The English name for the island is ”Gotland”. Why isn’t Sweden Sverige or Denmark Danmark in the game?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The English name for the island is ”Gotland”. Why isn’t Sweden Sverige or Denmark Danmark in the game?
I was replying - not entirely seriously - to a post that suggested using the Danish name as the country name. You're of course correct that the game uses modern English names for country names, and that that standard shouldn't be abandoned here :)
However, what about, as a nice little nod to the Gutnish language, using "Gutland" as dynamic province name if Gotland owns the province? (Dynamic province names can be tag-specific)
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Have you considered giving naval ideas some non naval bonuses, say to trade or diplomacy? Having naval ideas could for example, eliminate distance penalties for the ai acceptance of diplomatic proposals. The idea being that a naval power is always "closer" and more present globaly than a strictly land power.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
The problem with northern Scandinavia, Finnish pagans and Sami is simply that the current map is simplified for gameplay and balance and historically the northernmost regions weren't under the control of either the Scandinavian nations or Novgorod. To be more accurate they should be uncolonized pagan provinces, but I guess that Paradox never made it that way out of fear of stuff like Spanish Lappland coming into existence.
 
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Shouldn't it rather be "Gutland", its name in the Gutnish language that was still very much alive and the main language of the island in 1444?

(Or if you're going by Erik's actual heritage, it would be Gotlaand, the island's name in his native Low German).
You make a good point, admittedly. I'm drawing out to the macro here - as the progression of this "alternate history" for this new nation results in forming INTO the Denmark pathway, which then begs the question of its origin. If we're taking a look at the entire timeline for this would-be nation dominating the region and then becoming Denmark, the Danish King who starts all of this, and the Tag of Denmark that bookends the culmination of it, would then argue for a Danish perspective of the going name as Gulland.

I think what we/most would agree on - let's get "Gotland" OFF the table as the name of the new Nation-State. Something/anything other than "Gotland" please, because you want a distinction between the long-standing "Gotland" Province, in contrast to the new Island Nation (whatever it be named).
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Should Gotland have a Gutnish culture in the game? Should it be a one province exception like Cornish and Gothic?
I'm not sure about that, especially considering that culture is more than just language in EU4.
If you wanted to, you could probably justify the separate culture - based on its own language, but also its special regional identity as a relatively isolated island, the legal system with the landsting and the large influence of the Hansa in Visby. Personally, I like those neat small cultures that reflect regional identities and small languages that many people may not even be aware of, but I'm not sure if there would be drawbacks for gameplay/game balance here.
This is, however, a separate discussion from just using the Gutnish name of the island as a province name :)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The question that is surely on everyone's minds - what happens to the extra-awesome and in no way ahistorical Gotland namelist?
What do you know about a beautiful place named Jan Mayen? :D
 
  • 7Haha
Reactions:
Anyone know why paradox seem so terrified of the very real and still existing religions at the time: Romuva in the baltics, Suomenusko in Finland/Sapmi and Norse holdouts in northern Scandinavia?

It seems very, very odd to completly ignore these religions and pretend that some areas were 100% catholic, or even majority catholic. If Zoreastranism gets to be a holdout in Persia nearly 800 years after the Muslim invasions there, these 3 religions should be giving similar holdout status.

And while you are at it, stop pretending that the Ioninan Greeks dont exist in 1444
Keep in mind that Persia has been a land full of scholars writing down what happened for....a very long time.
My native Sweden on the other hand has had.....less historians.

We do know that real progress on converting the Sami didnt really take off until the freaking 17th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_the_Sámi_people#:~:text=The Christian church is hostile,and use its economic resources.

This religious map is thus complete fabrication.

View attachment 856962


Romuva should be in atleast one province, that much is certain based on when the Lithuanians converted. The Sami religion would survive for over two hundred years:

"They were however silently allowed to practice Sámi shamanism in private until the second half of the 17th-century, when Swedish authorities forced them to abandon their religion, burning their Sámi drums, banning the joik singing and forcing them to subject to the doctrine of the church both in public and private."

As for Norse, yeah that one is harder. It is very difficult to say if any region still kept a majority Norse among "common people". Keep in mind that Sweden absolutly did not defacto control those northern provinces in 1444. One or two Norse provinces would not be completly unrealisitic.

They dont need to do anything super flavor for the three lost religions. But they already exist in game and atleast 2 of them did still exist.

Say no to Catholic historical 1444 revisionism!
I think the sarcastic and nasty language is not necessary if you want to discuss the historical background of the ancient religions in the region. And, in fact, a well-founded position over them would be much more welcomed if phrased properly, which is not the case.

There is no solid ground to add Norse, Romuva, or Suomenusko religions to a province in 1444, as they were not followed by a majority of the population by this time. Of course, there were ancient rituals being followed by some folks here and there, with more or less intensity, as that was a thing even in Italy, but we do not think adding them in the game setup makes sense.

Another completely different thing is the Sámi people. We have been thinking about how to properly portray them in-game, although we had to discard some initial ideas regarding them, such as 'emptying' the northernmost provinces of Scandinavia, as that could have some undesired effects on the game balance (as Russia colonizing them instead of Sweden). We have covered them in the Swedish mission tree, and they also have received some more content.

So, if you have a proper suggestion for them (e.g.: 'make all provinces of Sami culture of animist religion in 1444'), that can be discussed. But, terming the things as you've done in these posts, doesn't make a defensible point for your case, to be honest.
@Ogele has consistently ignored the communities questions about this topic over the past many weeks. I think at this point it’s clear Paradox Tinto doesn’t have any interested in listening the the community, I mean they won’t even give us the courtesy of a response. It’s unfortunate but this game has really gone down hill since the new studio picked it up. I only hope for Eu5 they give it to a more competent studio that respected their player base enough to answer some simple questions.
I'm drawing a red line on this comment, as it's not fair on the Tinto team. We've actively been trying to be very responsive and transparent with the community since last year, on the 1.32, 1.33, and 1.34 development cycles. Furthermore, we've welcomed and implemented a lot of suggestions made by the community not only in past DDs, but also in the 1.33 Open Beta process, and we'll continue to do so in the future.

And, specifically, @Ogele has been reading and listening to the community since his very first DD, which was the Mali one, overcoming the controversy, and trying to improve the content he creates, taking into account the feedback he receives from the community - which is one of the reasons that make him a great dev.

Overall, we try to read and respond to as many comments as possible in each development cycle, but we can't answer everything. As I have stated on other DDs, this is a two-way relationship, and we deem respect from the community as long as we're open to it.
 
  • 34
  • 5Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the sarcastic and nasty language is not necessary if you want to discuss the historical background of the ancient religions in the region. And, in fact, a well-founded position over them would be much more welcomed if phrased properly, which is not the case.

There is no solid ground to add Norse, Romuva, or Suomenusko religions to a province in 1444, as they were not followed by a majority of the population by this time. Of course, there were ancient rituals being followed by some folks here and there, with more or less intensity, as that was a thing even in Italy, but we do not think adding them in the game setup makes sense.

Another completely different thing is the Sámi people. We have been thinking about how to properly portray them in-game, although we had to discard some initial ideas regarding them, such as 'emptying' the northernmost provinces of Scandinavia, as that could have some undesired effects on the game balance (as Russia colonizing them instead of Sweden). We have covered them in the Swedish mission tree, and they also have received some more content.

So, if you have a proper suggestion for them (e.g.: 'make all provinces of Sami culture of animist religion in 1444'), that can be discussed. But, terming the things as you've done in these posts, doesn't make a defensible point for your case, to be honest.

I'm drawing a red line on this comment, as it's not fair on the Tinto team. We've actively been trying to be very responsive and transparent with the community since last year, on the 1.32, 1.33, and 1.34 development cycles. Furthermore, we've welcomed and implemented a lot of suggestions made by the community not only in past DDs, but also in the 1.33 Open Beta process, and we'll continue to do so in the future.

And, specifically, @Ogele has been reading and listening to the community since his very first DD, which was the Mali one, overcoming the controversy, and trying to improve the content he creates, taking into account the feedback he receives from the community - which is one of the reasons that make him a great dev.

Overall, we try to read and respond to as many comments as possible in each development cycle, but we can't answer everything. As I have stated on other DDs, this is a two-way relationship, and we deem respect from the community as long as we're open to it.

The issue with open communication is always that you'll have a few people that spoil things for everyone. Being anonymous just brings it out in people. That said, I think I can say that a vast vast majority of your players appreciates the open feedback and communication.

My point being, don't let a few bad actors spoil something for everyone.

Harsher moderation by separate mods may be in order if it creates a healthier environment.
 
  • 8
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I think the sarcastic and nasty language is not necessary if you want to discuss the historical background of the ancient religions in the region. And, in fact, a well-founded position over them would be much more welcomed if phrased properly, which is not the case.

There is no solid ground to add Norse, Romuva, or Suomenusko religions to a province in 1444, as they were not followed by a majority of the population by this time. Of course, there were ancient rituals being followed by some folks here and there, with more or less intensity, as that was a thing even in Italy, but we do not think adding them in the game setup makes sense.

Another completely different thing is the Sámi people. We have been thinking about how to properly portray them in-game, although we had to discard some initial ideas regarding them, such as 'emptying' the northernmost provinces of Scandinavia, as that could have some undesired effects on the game balance (as Russia colonizing them instead of Sweden). We have covered them in the Swedish mission tree, and they also have received some more content.

So, if you have a proper suggestion for them (e.g.: 'make all provinces of Sami culture of animist religion in 1444'), that can be discussed. But, terming the things as you've done in these posts, doesn't make a defensible point for your case, to be honest.

I'm drawing a red line on this comment, as it's not fair on the Tinto team. We've actively been trying to be very responsive and transparent with the community since last year, on the 1.32, 1.33, and 1.34 development cycles. Furthermore, we've welcomed and implemented a lot of suggestions made by the community not only in past DDs, but also in the 1.33 Open Beta process, and we'll continue to do so in the future.

And, specifically, @Ogele has been reading and listening to the community since his very first DD, which was the Mali one, overcoming the controversy, and trying to improve the content he creates, taking into account the feedback he receives from the community - which is one of the reasons that make him a great dev.

Overall, we try to read and respond to as many comments as possible in each development cycle, but we can't answer everything. As I have stated on other DDs, this is a two-way relationship, and we deem respect from the community as long as we're open to it.

First, thank you for engaging in discussion on the state of northern religion.

People are frustrated on this topic because there is room for interesting variation in gameplay and some people feel stonewalled due to so many dev diaries without a proper discussion on the matter with the devs.

I am no historian myself, but we both agree that northern Sweden should not be portrayed as 100% catholic. It is disrespectful to the Sami people and others to historically misrepresent them.

I understand that northern Scandinavia is a tricky area to implement, is a fairly minor area in terms of the game and that historical sources are few. But the region deserves better.

Ive done some light reading on te topic of there 3 religions. This page states that paganism was going strong among the peasants (the majority) so Romuva was very probably majority in atleast one province in 1444: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Lithuania

"Ethnic Lithuanian nobles were the main converts to Catholicism, but paganism remained strong among the peasantry. Pagan customs prevailed for a long time among the common people of Lithuania and were covertly practiced. There had been no prosecution of priests and adherents of the old faith. However, by the 17th century, following the Counter-Reformation (1545-1648), the Roman Catholic faith had essentially taken precedence over earlier pagan beliefs."

What religion the nobility followed should not neccesarily dictate what religion the province followed.

As for Norse, yes I cannot find any hitorical evidence for a majority of it anywhere. An event or decision for it would be welcome by many in the community though. This patch is including absurd alternative history (Holy Horde Teutons?? Gotland raiding Venice??). Why must Norse revival be such a taboo?

Here is a map of Sami extention that should not be catholic majority in 1444. Some mix of animist, Tengri, Suomenusko? (And maybe even a Norse province?)

1657299421323.png
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 5
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Cool! Do Iceland next. And Finland and Karelia.