[Religion and Revolution]: Adding Another European Nation

3) Sweden, on the other hand, had a colony (New Sweden) which is more appropriate for what Colonization models for the most part (settler colony, etc.), and which could conceivably have had a revolution had it lasted.

Even when ignoring Greenland, Denmark was much more successful in the New World and also over a longer time, than Sweden. :)
(Denmark had colonies in the Caribbean.)
 
I guess to be better to include not exactly Denmark, but Kalmar Union as an union of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It would be much more correct at least at the beginning of colonization period (1492). As a variant "Realm of Denmark–Norway".
Spoiler :
The Kalmar Union (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish: Kalmarunionen Latin: Unio Calmariensis) is a historiographical term meaning a series of personal unions (1397–1523) that united the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway (with Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and, prior to their annexation by Scotland in 1471, Shetland and Orkney), and Sweden (including Finland) under a single monarch, though intermittently and with a population fewer than 3 million.

The countries had not technically given up their sovereignty or even their independence, but in practice, they were not autonomous, the common monarch holding sovereignty and, in practice, leading foreign policy; diverging interests (especially the Swedish nobility's dissatisfaction over the dominant role played by Denmark and Holstein) gave rise to a conflict that would hamper the union in several intervals from the 1430s until its breakup in 1523 when Gustav Vasa became king of Sweden.

Norway and its overseas dependencies continued to remain a part of the realm of Denmark–Norway under the Oldenburg dynasty for several centuries after the dissolution (until 1814).

I'd like also to return to my old proposal concerning new civilizations:

Each main civilization must have own coefficient of "Liberty Bell production".

Now each main civilization produces Liberty Bells at the same rate. It means each young founded civilization (New England, etc) try to be independent as soon as possible. This is a wrong and too simplified point of view.

Some civilizations are growing in size and their Kings were very happy, they supported new territories of their Kingdoms by money, send supporting military forces, etc.

Unfortunately this very important moment is absent in CivIVColonization.

Please, remember that to win the WOI is only one of possible options to play.
 
I guess to be better to include not exactly Denmark, but Kalmar Union as an union of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

I don't really like the suggestion "Kalmar Union". :dunno:

First almost nobody (not being Scandinavian or really deep into histroy) has heard of the term "Kalmar Union".
And also, as you have said too, it broke up very soon after New World has been discovered. (About 30 years later.)

Denmark-Norway would be fine for me. :)

I'd like also to return to my old proposal concerning new civilizations:

That suggestion is absolutely too heavy for my taste. :(
 
I don't really like the suggestion "Kalmar Union". :dunno:

First almost nobody (not being Scandinavian or really deep into histroy) has heard of the term "Kalmar Union".
And also, as you have said too, it broke up very soon after New World has been discovered. (About 30 years later.)

Denmark-Norway would be fine for me. :)

Ok, maybe "Denmark-Norway Realm" or even better "Commonwealth of the Scandinavian Realm"

Det Skandinaviske Riksfællegsskap (the Commonwealth of the Scandinavian Realm, henceforth the SR) is a multi-national state composed of independent national states in personal union with the Oldenburg monarchy residing in Køpenhavn (Copenhagen), Denmark.
Details here.

First almost nobody has heard of .....

This is one of the most interesting part of modding. You all the time find a new information and share your knowledge with the players.
 
I'd agree it makes sense for history and balance to include a Scandinavian power of some kind, which specific one to include is a tough question. There were certainly a lot of political shifts and groupings between them across history, a good compromise to satisfy everyone could be to use Scandinavia and Scandinavian Colonies.
 
Hi guys,

I'm still in favor of having Denmark as the sixth nation.

Sweden: Granted they had colonies in North America, but only from 1638-1655, and a colony in the Caribbean from 1785-1878. Despite their European status, their presence in North America was limited and very short, and their possesion within the Caribbean was gained after the WOI.

Kalmar Union: Few people have ever heard of it and it was all but dissolved by the mid 1520's. Not much of a contender by anyone's standards.

Russia: Their colonial presence starts in 1732, only 51 years before the WOI concluded, and their first colony in Alaska was not founded until 1784, a year after the WOI ended.

Prussia/Brandenburg: Held two colonial possessions in the Caribbean. One was leased from 1685-1780 from the Danish West India Company, the other was annexed from 1689-93, then returned to the Danes. Again not much of a contender.

Denmark: Inherited the claims to Greenland, through its merge with the Kingdom of Norway, although no previous European settlement in Greenland existed beyond the 15th Century, and Danish colonies in Greenland would not emerge again until the 1720's. In the Caribbean, Denmark held several possessions in the present day US Virgin Islands from 1672-1917.

So I think Denmark is the strongest contender for a sixth nation. Granted, not a European powerhouse, but a larger and longer colonial power than the other contenders listed above.

Personally I don't like the names of "Denmark-Norway Realm" or "Commonwealth of the Scandinavian Realm". Historically the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway, would be more accurate, or The Kindom of Danmark-Norge.
 
So Denmark it is?

As for the name "Denmark-Norway", I think simply calling it "Denmark" would be better, as that's a more concise, practical name to use, and because it was practice to call personal unions simply by the name of the major partner (for instance, when Spain and Portugal were joined in personal union, that union was often referred to simply as "Spain" or the "Spanish Empire"; likewise the agglomerate of Habsburg territories was often called simply "Austria").
 
So Denmark it is?

As for the name "Denmark-Norway", I think simply calling it "Denmark" would be better, as that's a more concise, practical name to use, and because it was practice to call personal unions simply by the name of the major partner (for instance, when Spain and Portugal were joined in personal union, that union was often referred to simply as "Spain" or the "Spanish Empire"; likewise the agglomerate of Habsburg territories was often called simply "Austria").

Plus I think we use adjective forms as well - i.e. not only Netherlands nation, but land is referred to as Dutch.

So keeping it to one country - i.e. Denmark and Danish - makes it simpler, rather than a composite Danish-Norwegian adjective or whatever.
 
Hi guys,

I'm still in favor of having Denmark as the sixth nation.

Kalmar Union: Few people have ever heard of it and it was all but dissolved by the mid 1520's. Not much of a contender by anyone's standards.

Great! At least all team members already know something about "Kalmar Union" :)

As for the name "Denmark-Norway", I think simply calling it "Denmark" would be better, as that's a more concise, practical name to use, and because it was practice to call personal unions simply by the name of the major partner (for instance, when Spain and Portugal were joined in personal union, that union was often referred to simply as "Spain" or the "Spanish Empire"; likewise the agglomerate of Habsburg territories was often called simply "Austria").

I agree, let's call next European power as "Denmark". We can explain the name "Denmark" in the CivPedia, where we could mention both historically correct names as "Kalmar Union" and "Denmark-Norway Realm". It's very easy to do and every player could read this (new for many of them) information.
 
I agree, let's call next European power as "Denmark". We can explain the name "Denmark" in the CivPedia, where we could mention both historically correct names as "Kalmar Union" and "Denmark-Norway Realm". It's very easy to do and every player could read this (new for many of them) information.

Great. :)
I think we have a decision. :thumbsup:

We will add Denmark as 6th Major European Nation.
(We could consider "Minor European Nations" / "Latecomers" in later releases.)

And as KJ suggest, we could do some more explanation in Colopedia.

Considering work distribution:

@colonialfan:
Would you collect all necessary Data (Leaders incl. King, Citynames, Generals, Texts, ...) ?
Also some suggestion about "style" of the Leaders you suggest (peaceful / aggressive, expansive / protective, ...) based on history would be great.

@Robert:
Could you make some suggestion about Traits then (once we have the Leaders) ?

@KJ:
Would you be willing to work on graphics (Flags, UnitArtStyles, ...) ?
Also, it would be great, if you could search for Leaderhead-Graphics - incl. King - (in other mods) and upload the ones you find to SVN.

--------------

Once we have the Leaderheads and all necessary data, I will integrate Denmark in our mod, so you can work on improving it. :goodjob:
 
Great. :)

But we should have 2 Leaders for Colonies like with all the other Europeans. (So we still need one more.)
And of course also graphics for King.

I used Jens Munk in "1492: GC. Resourse Pack". Some details about Jens Munk you can read here, the Leaderhead there is in my mod.
 
@team:

Maybe we could give the Danish Colonies a CivTrait, that is related to Ships and "Storms and Weather" ? :think:
(Robert wanted to have something like that and they have a very long tradition as "seafarers".)

It should be relatively equal in power to the other civilization traits, of course.
 
@colonialfan:
Would you collect all necessary Data (Leaders incl. King, Citynames, Generals, Texts, ...) ?
Also some suggestion about "style" of the Leaders you suggest (peaceful / aggressive, expansive / protective, ...) based on history would be great.

Will do. I think Modular United Mods already has some of the basic info. I'll see what they have and add/amend where necessary.
 
What about the following trait:

Seafaring
+1 Food production the central city plot of coastal cities
Docks, Drydocks and Shipyards 50% faster to build
+1 movement to naval units (or perhaps make them start with the Navigation I promotion)

Is that too powerful?
 
Seafaring
+1 Food production the central city plot of coastal cities
Docks, Drydocks and Shipyards 50% faster to build
+1 movement to naval units (or perhaps make them start with the Navigation I promotion)

Is that too powerful?

I think it is much too powerful. :)

This would be enough to my opinion as Civilization Trait for Danish Colonies:

Seafaring
* +1 movement for Naval units

We could however create a new Leader Trait and give it to one of the Danish Leaders:

Shipbuilder
* -25% Hammers and Tools for Docks, Drydocks, Shipyards and Naval Ports
 
This would be enough to my opinion as Civilization Trait for Danish Colonies:

Seafaring
* +1 movement for Naval units

We could however create a new Leader Trait and give it to one of the Danish Leaders:

Shipbuilder
* -25% Hammers and Tools for Docks, Drydocks, Shipyards and Naval Ports
Great ! This would actually fit more Jens Munk if I'm correct.
About Hans Egede, we should probably find a new trait (another one) or give him the enterprising trait, since he did some missioning (among Inuits).
What do you think ?
 
Top Bottom