• 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.
Greetings!

Once again we will scour the tomes in our cartographer’s office! In the last DD we visited the Baltics, in this one we’re heading further up north – to the land of the Finns, a land of a thousand lakes and bear-gods.

As for Finland, the main reason for us doing a map update was the poor definition in the area. Anyone who has moved armies in the region knows that the pathing, at the best of times, can be quite strange – with armies often taking massive detours to reach their destination. The main contributing factor to this was the massive size of the provinces, and that they were connected to each other in illogical ways. As you can see, almost all provinces in the area have been cut up rather significantly (its rather subtle, but what constitutes ‘Pohjanmaa’ in the new image is actually three Counties). The average power of the area has not gone up significantly though, with most Counties containing at most two holdings (some even contain only one). What has gone up though is the enjoyment while playing in the area!

FinlandComparison.png

Credit, once again, goes to [Arthur-PDX]!

Code:
- Map Update to Finland
    - 8 new provinces in Finland, improving mobility and spread noticeably in the area
    - 2 new duchies in Finland (Ostrobothnia and Savonia)
    - 1 new province in Lapland, in the duchy of Kola

Please note that the time between Dev Diaries will be irregular, as we’re very early in the development cycle.
 
Wait so are this and the baltic touch up in now or are these part of the new dlc/the free bits of the new dlc update?

Map changes can't be in a DLC technically.
Every change on the map is allways free patch stuff.
 
I have to ask now that the Finland changes are going to be a thing ( theorized about it with a friend of mine when baltics DD came out ) will Finland, Estonia and Lapland still be a part of Scandinavian Empire or will they form their own de jure Empire? Or will Estonia become part of Wendish or Russian Empires now that Ingria seems to become a part of some other duchy, possibly pskov which is a part of Rus, thus separating Estonia from the rest of Fenno-Scandia.

Unless you guys lied to us about Estonia being a 2 duchy kingdom and Pskov becomes a part of Estonia ;P
 
I have to ask now that the Finland changes are going to be a thing ( theorized about it with a friend of mine when baltics DD came out ) will Finland, Estonia and Lapland still be a part of Scandinavian Empire or will they form their own de jure Empire? Or will Estonia become part of Wendish or Russian Empires now that Ingria seems to become a part of some other duchy, possibly pskov which is a part of Rus, thus separating Estonia from the rest of Fenno-Scandia.

Unless you guys lied to us about Estonia being a 2 duchy kingdom and Pskov becomes a part of Estonia ;P

Estonia is part of the Wendish Empire, the other two are part of Scandinavia.
 
I have to ask now that the Finland changes are going to be a thing ( theorized about it with a friend of mine when baltics DD came out ) will Finland, Estonia and Lapland still be a part of Scandinavian Empire or will they form their own de jure Empire? Or will Estonia become part of Wendish or Russian Empires now that Ingria seems to become a part of some other duchy, possibly pskov which is a part of Rus, thus separating Estonia from the rest of Fenno-Scandia.

Unless you guys lied to us about Estonia being a 2 duchy kingdom and Pskov becomes a part of Estonia ;P
I still think Ingria should belong to either Estonia and Finland when the game begins the slavs have just moved into the area Quite frankly k_rus gets way to much dejure already.

Estonia is part of the Wendish Empire, the other two are part of Scandinavia.
Seems an odd choice to split the fennougric peoples between three diffrent empires. Wouldn't it be better to have Estonia in Scandianvia too? Perhaps dump some of the ugric provinces in Russia into a separate kingdom too.
 
I still think Ingria should belong to either Estonia and Finland when the game begins the slavs have just moved into the area Quite frankly k_rus gets way to much dejure already.


Seems an odd choice to split the fennougric peoples between three diffrent empires. Wouldn't it be better to have Estonia in Scandianvia too? Perhaps dump some of the ugric provinces in Russia into a separate kingdom too.
Are you really asking Scandinavians whether Estonia can into nordic?
 
Are you really asking Scandinavians whether Estonia can into nordic?
No I am nordic person admitting they can. It's not perfect but it's better than sorting them with poles and Lithuanians. The heavy hitters in the nordic empire, Sweden Denmark and Finland all have some tie to estonia.
 
Last edited:
Having Ingria as a tributary or vassal in earlier starts would be closest to the weird status of those lands as relating to the slavic nations of the region.
Erm... they are vassals. County-level Finnic vassals of the Novgorod duchy which has Slavic majority but ruled, remind ya, by Norse konungs. What's wrong with that?
 
Will the older provinces with less than 7 holdings be completed too? If i recall correctly there were a few in Africa too.
I think they did that in the patch after the patch after reapers due. I remember I had to redo my entire modded landed titles file because they fixed it.
 
I think they did that in the patch after the patch after reapers due. I remember I had to redo my entire modded landed titles file because they fixed it.

I recall that they missed some provinces in 2.7x, but not sure if maybe that got finally fixed in 2.8.
 
No I am nordic person admitting they can. It's not perfect but it's better than sorting them with poles and Lithuanians. The heavy hitters in the nordic empire, Sweden Denmark and Finland all have some tie to estonia.
I think, that if Finns can, Estonians should too, as well.
 
Here are my two cents regarding the Counties and Duchies of Finland.

I think it was more than just two cents...

As you clearly have some deep knowledge on these issues, I would appreciate your thought on following:

- Wouldn't it make sense to split Karelian isthmus along the Vuoksi, i.e. have western isthmus (Viipuri) control all of Suomenlahti coast, and eastern isthmus (Käkisalmi) control all of Laatokka coast, with Neva forming southern border for both? Sortavala would be sacrificed to achieve this. Both Viipuri and Käkisalmi were created on points controlling trade between the large lake areas of Eastern Finland, with Viipuri controlling to the Baltics and Käkisalmi to the eastern trade routes through Ladoga. So in my opinion it would make sense from "strategic" point of view, even though the waterways don't have in game the significance they held in real life.

I think this would make sense gamewise, too, as the tension was east-west already before the Swedes came along. So: Viipuri from Saimaa to Baltic, Käkisalmi from Saimaa to Ladoga, Ingria from Ladoga to Baltic.

- Finland was sparsely populated during the era. Like has been noted earlier, many of the counties in the new map were purely wilderness areas, with no significant permanent settlement. At least Kuopio, Joensuu, Laukaa and Kajaani are such provinces in the new map. While I understand the will to make Finland more interesting area to play, this is anachronistic to the point where it feels disturbing. Would it make more sense to have something more similar to nomad province settlement mechanic?

- Even Pohjanmaa could be such a province, as IIRC the whole area was depopulated sometime during the 700's. I recall some historian saying that there was a Viena Karelian trade post / fort at the same spot, where Swedes would later build what would become Oulu.

- Should the same be true even for Uusimaa (a name which should definitely be changed), as there too could be various contenders for permanent settlement of the coastal areas? Or do you think there was enough population on the interior to warrant a permanently settled province at game start?

I know this goes against the current trend, where game balance is more important than historical accuracy, but I really think there should some other way of compromising than the current one that makes Finland anachronistically large in area, with counties at places where no permanent settlement existed during medieval age.
 
I think it was more than just two cents...

As you clearly have some deep knowledge on these issues, I would appreciate your thought on following:

- Wouldn't it make sense to split Karelian isthmus along the Vuoksi, i.e. have western isthmus (Viipuri) control all of Suomenlahti coast, and eastern isthmus (Käkisalmi) control all of Laatokka coast, with Neva forming southern border for both? Sortavala would be sacrificed to achieve this. Both Viipuri and Käkisalmi were created on points controlling trade between the large lake areas of Eastern Finland, with Viipuri controlling to the Baltics and Käkisalmi to the eastern trade routes through Ladoga. So in my opinion it would make sense from "strategic" point of view, even though the waterways don't have in game the significance they held in real life.

I think this would make sense gamewise, too, as the tension was east-west already before the Swedes came along. So: Viipuri from Saimaa to Baltic, Käkisalmi from Saimaa to Ladoga, Ingria from Ladoga to Baltic.

- Finland was sparsely populated during the era. Like has been noted earlier, many of the counties in the new map were purely wilderness areas, with no significant permanent settlement. At least Kuopio, Joensuu, Laukaa and Kajaani are such provinces in the new map. While I understand the will to make Finland more interesting area to play, this is anachronistic to the point where it feels disturbing. Would it make more sense to have something more similar to nomad province settlement mechanic?

- Even Pohjanmaa could be such a province, as IIRC the whole area was depopulated sometime during the 700's. I recall some historian saying that there was a Viena Karelian trade post / fort at the same spot, where Swedes would later build what would become Oulu.

- Should the same be true even for Uusimaa (a name which should definitely be changed), as there too could be various contenders for permanent settlement of the coastal areas? Or do you think there was enough population on the interior to warrant a permanently settled province at game start?

I know this goes against the current trend, where game balance is more important than historical accuracy, but I really think there should some other way of compromising than the current one that makes Finland anachronistically large in area, with counties at places where no permanent settlement existed during medieval age.
Maybe they should add more to other places too. So it keeps the same level of accurateness...
 
Well it's been said before, to make an area somewhat playable it needs a certain province density.
That said I would love to see tribal being able to hold empty provinces similarly to nomads.
 
Well it's been said before, to make an area somewhat playable it needs a certain province density.
That said I would love to see tribal being able to hold empty provinces similarly to nomads.

I don't think area's playability should be preferred over accuracy in this type of game. For most of the game's timeframe this area was not "playable".Why should it be in game?

What I would enjoy is the kind of tension that could be created through void of power that was reality during the time period, and how hard it was to permanently gain a foothold over those areas. Maybe trade posts could be allowed for feudal and MR players, which over longer period could be developed into a permanent settlement, and could be destroyed by hostile players?