Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AGC & EEP: Scandinavia

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Of course... alternatives are nice... :D

We must watch out we dont weaken Sweden to much by all of this however... so playtesting is surely in order.
 
Originally posted by Sute]{h
Of course... alternatives are nice... :D

We must watch out we dont weaken Sweden to much by all of this however... so playtesting is surely in order.
Click to expand...

Yep, of course...

What i was thinking of was an event granting independence to Johan's duchy (but still as a vassal) and then, if the historical path is followed, it is inherited a few years later.
 
Sound good... :)
 
I was thinking: Shields.

Right now Sweden can gain the following shields (in addition to those they have at startup): Vorpommern, Estland, Ingermanland, Skåne and either Jämtland or Gotland.

Personally I'd like to see a shield on maybe Bremen as well (would give a bit of an incentive to go for Germany) and possibBly Livland (Kurland is a bit of an odd one: The province was never controlled by sweden but the city (Riga) was, In this case it's better to leave it alone since it otherwise messes with Couraland).

What I was thinking of was mostly giving a shield on Livland when Poland gets the province from the TO/LO and giving the Vorpommern and Bremen shields in the "Threat to protestantism in Germany".

Denmark should probably have or be able to get a core on Lappland, another possibility might be to give them too a core on Vorpommern or even Mecklenburg if they choose to intervene in the 30YW. (that never happens...)
 
Kexholm?

Originally posted by Arilou
I was thinking: Shields.

Right now Sweden can gain the following shields (in addition to those they have at startup): Vorpommern, Estland, Ingermanland, Skåne and either Jämtland or Gotland.
Click to expand...

How about Kexholm? Sweden got a large part of the EUII area Kexholm in the peace of Stolbova in 1617 and the main city in the region; Kexholm. I have always been wondering why Kexholm isn't treated the same way as Ingermanland? A large part of the area was a part of the autonomic Finnish grandduchy under Russia and indeed part of the Finnish republic untill the end of the II world war, so it seems that the claim to that area was in fact to some extent, after the peace of Stolbova, recognised by the Russians.

And while on the subject, how about a shield for Novgorod on the region of Savolaks, if it isn't there already and for Muscowy if they conquer Novgorod. That area was hotly desputed and the building of the castle Olofsborg by the Swedes in 1475 IIRC did in fact take place on the wong side of the border which had been agreed upon in the peace of Nöteborg in 1323.
 
We've been talking about that earlier, and we didn't agree on anything definite.

Kexholm might also be one, but I recently noticed that Sweden can also get a core on Kurland. (sometime in the 1700's)

Now Kurland is a different thing altogether, because here's where the province map really differs. The city is Riga I believe, whihc was in swedish hands, but the province itself (and the duchy) certainly was not.... Also it's a bit odd that Sweden gets no cores on Livland at all.
 
I don't have access to the game right now so I cannot say for sure, but I think there is a chance for Sweden to get shields on both Livland and Kurland (Courland) in the "Fate of Teutonic Order"-event at least in the paradox version. This just seem to happen very seldom. I'll check the event later today.

The problem with Riga is in my opinion taken care of very well in the EEP 1.4.1 version where the city is situated in Livland and not in Courland. The city should in fact be situated north of the Daugava river which is now the border between Courland and Livland (that is where the old city center and fortress is situated) And so when/if Sweden takes Livland it should also get Riga, as it was historically. On the maps I have seen, the area Sweden had went just a little bit south of the Daugava river, almost as far as the current border between Lithuania and Latvia. There should in my opinion be a very good possibility for Sweden to get a shield on Livland, at some stage (early 17th century?). And now, that the culture in Livland has been changed to ugric in the last paradox beta, the regions historical pro-swedish behaviour is correctly incorporated. Hopefully this change will get into the AGCEEP? Having said this, I'm not entirely sure that it is correct for this area to have the ugric culture.. different language group, different traditions, different folk lore, but hey from Swedens point of view it works fine in game terms:)

I cannot say anything about how correct it is that Sweden can get a shield on Courland. My gut feeling is, that it is a little bit strange, but will check it out.
 
Sweden *cannot* get a shield on Livland. Courland? Yes. Estland? Yes. But not Livland, oddly enough.

Methinks Sweden should get a core (not the province itself which should remain polish) in the Fate of the TO event.
 
In this thread in the bug forum some changes to Norway's DPs have been suggested that seem to make a lot of sense. I'll just quote:

originally posted by hansmaa
Norway should be naval as such, but I'm not sure how naval it should be.

Until the railways were built in Norway in the start of the 19th century, almost all transportation of any kind was by sea.
The reason for this is that Norway is a rather difficult country to traverse, just look at the EU II map... mountains everywhere. Heck, in Norway you find distinctive dialective differences just a fjord away due to the difficulties of transportation over the said mountains.

Norway had no nobility as such, and thus no knights. So I think it would be wrong to give Norway much in the way of cavalry.

During the Viking-ages and onwards, Norway had what was known as "Leidang", a naval home-guard, where the towns had to be able to supply one or more fully manned & supplied warships in case of war.

This home-guard dissapeared over the years, and presumably the nordic rivalieries did away with it altogether as Sweden would attack over land and not from the sea.

Anyway, if you look at the official reason for the split between Norway & Sweden in 1905 was that Sweden didn't take good enough care of Norwegian trade-interests, which was by sea to the west and far east, and that Norway had a rather large fleet compared to it's number of inhabitants in 1914 & 1940 (the start ot the 2 world wars), I'd say that the Norwegian drift was always to go naval...
Click to expand...
originally posted by hansmaa
Just a quick reply regarding the dp-settings.
I think that Norway should be far more naval then it is now; Naval 1 or 2 seems right. However, as all trade was in the hands of the Hansa-league, I'd say that Norway ought to be 9 or 10 Mercantilistic to represent that. In addition, a country so difficult to traverse should be a tad more decentralized.

In addition, I think Norway should go Defensive, even start out more defensive. On the other hand, Norway will get killed easily if they go all defensive as well as go all quantity and no quality due to manpower issues... Someone should look into that
Click to expand...

So, what about giving Norway a value of 2 for land (it is 5 at the moment), 9 mercantilism (from 8), 3 aristocracy (from 7) and 3 offensive (from 5)?
 
A little point for Norway : OK, no feudality in western term. But all the power was in the hands of land owners (the 'Boendr'), who can be largely identified to a form of aristocracy (and this social class existed in viking era too, where it was even more powerful).

So, OK to go for naval (but not so largely : 3 or 4 in my opinion), but keep a high level in aristocracy (the original 8) : boendr were far more a land's aristocracy than a group of merchants.
Viking era was over for a long time, naval orientation of Norway was largely reduced. :)
 
Originally posted by Dobeln
Having said this, I'm not entirely sure that it is correct for this area to have the ugric culture.. different language group, different traditions, different folk lore, but hey from Swedens point of view it works fine in game terms:)
Click to expand...

The debate for it was here.
 
Originally posted by Arilou
Sweden *cannot* get a shield on Livland. Courland? Yes. Estland? Yes. But not Livland, oddly enough.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by what you mean. Are you saying that Sweden does not currently get a shield on Livland in the game or we cannot allow Sweden to get the shield? IMO, Sweden should get shields on Estland and Livland, but not Kurland.
 
Originally posted by Classique
I'm confused by what you mean. Are you saying that Sweden does not currently get a shield on Livland in the game or we cannot allow Sweden to get the shield? IMO, Sweden should get shields on Estland and Livland, but not Kurland.
Click to expand...

I meant that they currently cannot get a shield, though they ought to (agreed that Kurland is wrong)
 
Re: Kexholm?

Originally posted by Dobeln
How about Kexholm? Sweden got a large part of the EUII area Kexholm in the peace of Stolbova in 1617 and the main city in the region; Kexholm. I have always been wondering why Kexholm isn't treated the same way as Ingermanland? A large part of the area was a part of the autonomic Finnish grandduchy under Russia and indeed part of the Finnish republic untill the end of the II world war, so it seems that the claim to that area was in fact to some extent, after the peace of Stolbova, recognised by the Russians.
Click to expand...

That's strange, yes. Especially since Sweden has a shield on Kexholm in the Age of Merc.

I have modified the event "Emperor Charles Philip of Russia":

Code: 
# Emperor Charles Philip of Russia #
event = {
	id = 3230
	random = no
	country = SWE
	name = "EVENTNAME3230"
	desc = "EVENTHIST3230"
	style = 3

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1611 }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1614 }

	action_a ={ # The Prince deserves better
		name = "ACTIONNAME3230A"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = RUS value = 6 }
		command = { type = relation which = RUS value = -150 }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = -100 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 266 } # Kexholm
	}
	action_b ={ # He will make an excellent Czar!
		name = "ACTIONNAME3230B"
		command = { type = relation which = RUS value = 50 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = 50 }
	}
}

What do you think?

Also, I've wondered why Sweden doesn't (in a later event than Gustav Vasa's reforms) gets shields on BOTH Jämtland and Gotland? :confused:

And why the TO/LO can choose not to give Estonia to Sweden?

Anyways, keep up the good work! :)
 
Originally posted by Arilou
Sweden *cannot* get a shield on Livland. Courland? Yes. Estland? Yes. But not Livland, oddly enough.

Methinks Sweden should get a core (not the province itself which should remain polish) in the Fate of the TO event.
Click to expand...

Oh yes they can, look:

Code: 
#The Fate of the Teutonic Order# #Greven#
event = {

	id = 3220					#Triggered by LAT3620#
	random = no
	country = SWE
	name = "EVENTNAME3220"
	desc = "EVENTHIST3220"
	style = 2

	action_a ={					#Accept Agreement#
		name = "ACTIONNAME3220A"
		command = { type = addcore which = 276 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 275 }
		command = { type = relation which = KUR value = 150 }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = 100 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
	}
	action_b ={					#Only Accept your part of the Agreement#
		name = "ACTIONNAME3220B"
		command = { type = addcore which = 282 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 281 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 276 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 275 }
		command = { type = relation which = KUR value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = -100 }
		command = { type = stability value = -2 }
	}
}

You'll notice, in action b, the command that adds the province 282 to Sweden's core provinces. And, the province 282 happens to be... that's right, Livland.
But, this can only happen if the TO/LO chooses 'Polish-Swedish Agreements' (action a) in the event LAT3620.

And, I agree that the city of Livland should be Riga.
 
Re: Re: Kexholm?

Originally posted by G-Klav
That's strange, yes. Especially since Sweden has a shield on Kexholm in the Age of Merc.

I have modified the event "Emperor Charles Philip of Russia":

Code: 
# Emperor Charles Philip of Russia #
event = {
	id = 3230
	random = no
	country = SWE
	name = "EVENTNAME3230"
	desc = "EVENTHIST3230"
	style = 3

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1611 }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1614 }

	action_a ={ # The Prince deserves better
		name = "ACTIONNAME3230A"
		command = { type = casusbelli which = RUS value = 6 }
		command = { type = relation which = RUS value = -150 }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = -100 }
		command = { type = addcore which = 266 } # Kexholm
	}
	action_b ={ # He will make an excellent Czar!
		name = "ACTIONNAME3230B"
		command = { type = relation which = RUS value = 50 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = 50 }
	}
}

What do you think?

Also, I've wondered why Sweden doesn't (in a later event than Gustav Vasa's reforms) gets shields on BOTH Jämtland and Gotland? :confused:

And why the TO/LO can choose not to give Estonia to Sweden?

Anyways, keep up the good work! :)
Click to expand...

Well, Estonia turned to Sweden (rather, Duke John) for protection because the TO was falling apart, a strong TO would probably not go that way.
 
Re: Re: Re: Kexholm?

Originally posted by Arilou
Well, Estonia turned to Sweden (rather, Duke John) for protection because the TO was falling apart, a strong TO would probably not go that way.
Click to expand...

You're right.
But I think that Estonia should go to Sweden either if the TO/LO chooses option a or option b in their event.

But not option c (Die-Hard Independence), which they almost never chooses anyway, so...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kexholm?

Originally posted by G-Klav
You're right.
But I think that Estonia should go to Sweden either if the TO/LO chooses option a or option b in their event.

But not option c (Die-Hard Independence), which they almost never chooses anyway, so...
Click to expand...

The Danes were heavily involved as well, it (they had old claims in the baltic) and it almost lead to war.
 
Finland, as part of Sweden should have some events. There were some revolts, and of course some men like Mikael Agricola, and some other more important events, that aren't involved atleast in vanilla EU.

Ofcourse my events for Bishop of Åbo and Agricola and his works can be used ;)

I was thinking, that two or three finnish provinces would be turned to catholic in the scenario editor, and then in Bishop of Åbo converted to protestant, though that is in about 1550 (when the last catholic bishop of Åbo died, the diosece was divided to two parts ruled by protestant two ordiseusses, atleast my schoolbook says that that was the final blow to the fight against catholicism in Finland)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back