Traits for Finland

[Elsilhe]

Originally posted by aaminion00
...militaristic, not because you're a war-like people, but ones who seem to excel at it again and again whenever you get into one.

Yes, this is what I meant in a nutshell.

Originally posted by aaglo
- Seafaring: Finland is one of the major cruiser builders in the world (but the trait benefit +1 move in sea does not represent this much). Also one of the major tar (needed for wooden ships) producers during 1600-1800
- Commercial: Nokia (and earlier furs & tar), Santa claus.

The Seafaring trait is one I still won't accept. While we were leading naval suppliers in the past centuries, none of those supplied ships was our own. And today, it's pretty same - Finland builds many ships, but they all go to the foreigns.

However, this support that second trait, Commercial, you suggested. As I said in my post, it might also be commercial if you want to take a different point of view. And I think this is pretty good point of view, so I'll give my support to the Commercial trait too. In the end it will be the modder's choice.

One thing I want to point out, a thing that is very common when deciding traits to the civs (I have noted this many times in my own mods). Don't think the traits as and adjectives describing the modded civilization - think of what the traits will do in the game! For example, the Seafaring gives +1 sea movement bonus - what the heck is that to do with tar industry and export? Especially when those exporters were Dutch and German merchant fleets! As I said, this is a very common mistake, and has made many civs in my mods to be re-thought.

Cheers,
Elsilhe

 

[Drift]

Originally posted by mrtn
To continue the Agricultural debate, I'd say, to put it bluntly, that the Finnish weren't farmers because they were agricultural, they were farmers because they were too poor to be anything else.

Yes, it is true. However, I'm not sure whether that is what is under debate here. After all, circumstances have their effect on each civ and their characteristics. Finns were an agrarian society because they were poor, but that doesn't change the fact that they were an agrarian society. Were Mongols warriors because they were militaristic or because their circumstances favored it?

Originally posted by aaminion00
I say militaristic scientific. Scientific for the above mentioned and militaristic, not because you're a war-like people, but ones who seem to excel at it again and again whenever you get into one.

I'm still firm about scientific describing Finland badly. Even the current scientific research done here doesn't differ much from other modern nations. And before the WW2 we were a backwards agrarian society. Even the mentioned molotov cocktail was first used in Spanish Civil War. It did get its name from Finns though.

Militaristic. Still no. Doing well in wars doesn't in my opinion justify us being militaristic.

Originally posted by aaglo
- Seafaring: Finland is one of the major cruiser builders in the world (but the trait benefit +1 move in sea does not represent this much). Also one of the major tar (needed for wooden ships) producers during 1600-1800
- Commercial: Nokia (and earlier furs & tar), Santa claus
- Religious: well, every culture in history are somehow religious, and finns aren't an exception. We have our own heathen believes

Seafaring means in my opinion that the nation has been known as great sailers.

Commercial... Nokia, fur and tar? Aaglo, please... One cellular industry giant + trading furs and tar gets us in the same league with England?

Religious. Yes, like the rest of the world, Finns have been religious. But where is the fervor of belief required for the trait? Where is the society built on religion? Every civ could be religious if common practice of religion was enough for the trait.


I accept that Industrious isn't the best of traits for Finland either. After all, in addition to increased production it should represent well developed road network and such. That is definitely not the case with Finland. This is pretty difficult. I still stand beside the Agr, Ind combo, but others are possible, they just require a different point of view.

 

[aaglo]

Drift, you can add paper to the commercial stuff too.

Export and import has allways been important in Finland (export of fur&tar&paper&ships&cellular_phones, import of various foodstuffs since growth season is quite short in Finland).

So ignore the seafaring...

My choises would still be Militaristic & Commercial

 

[Exel]

Okay, so let's do this one more time.

Finland cannot be rated commercial just because of the history of the last 20 years! And even today Finland is no major exporter of goods besides mobile phones, cruise ships and paper (and to some extent military equipment). Oh and btw, all the Nordic countries including Finland are far from the levels of economical liberalism of USA and UK for example.

The industrial capacity of Finland is nowhere near of that of the USA or Germany - as examples - even in relation to the population. And the industrialization of the country really started only after WW2.

When it comes to religion the Finns are actually one of the most moderate people in the world. There is no religious fanaticism in Finland - or have we ever fought a war for religion?

We have fought many wars, but only two international wars in our own name, and only one of those was offensive in nature. We may have produced fine warriors in our history - from hakkapeliittas to the soldiers of WW2 - but that's hardly enough to warrant a militaristic status. Still, this trait would be my second-best option (ie. for non-Conquests mod).

Expansionist and seafaring: Obviously no.

So the remaining traits are Scientific and Agricultural, and both of those suite Finland just fine. Agriculture has been very significiant for us throughout our history, and it still is. The climate and the terrain are the factors that have limited our agricultural production, nothing else. And as I said, if played on a real map, those will limit our growth in the game as well. If played on a random map, however, then I see no reason why our agriculture couldn't be much much more productive. Our scientific achievements speak for themselves. I don't mean to sound nosy, but it's a fact that for a nation of this size we have accomplished a lot.

 

[Lusikka755]

I fully agree with Exel. Scientific and Agricultural are the best for Finland.

So now, who would like to make Urho Kekkonen-leaderhead??

 

[Ville]

How about commercial, because it has lower corruption and Finland had the lowest corruption in the world few years ago IIRC

 

[Exel]

Imo commercial would give too big income bonus, as Finland has never been a significiant trade country (if compared to eg. England). But lower corruption would be very suitable.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Exel

True it may be, but with the same logic the existence of America and India is highly questionable as well. But, the duration of a nations independence isn't always (hardly ever actually) the duration of the culture. Finland has been independent only since 1917 as you pointed out, but that doesn't mean that the Finnish civilization hadn't been here longer.

By the same logic, the existence of America in the game is questionable if we ignore the modern history of America. No-one, to my knowledge, has suggested we do that, while Ville did say we weren't talking about modern Finland.

I still find the notion of Finland as Agricultural pretty fantastic, but shall happily admit there's good arguments against all traits.

Re: Sweden being militaristic if it were in the game: It's of course prefectly appropriate, since Sweden indeed was among the most heavily militarized states of Europe during much of the early modern period, but it's at the same time ironic, since we've not been at war since 1814, which must be a world record or close to it.

 

[Exel]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
-- we've not been at war since 1814, which must be a world record or close to it.

That's only because you're surrounded by nations like Finland, Norway and Denmark who will do the fighting for you.

 

[Lucky The Fox]

So now, who would like to make Urho Kekkonen-leaderhead??

Actually I'm working on one already, but considering my modeling skills I'll probably be able to release it around 2050...

Anyway, I'd probably choose Industrial/Commercial combo, it's least bad of all possibilities in my opinion.

we've not been at war since 1814, which must be a world record or close to it.

Just when you lost us to Russia... What a coincidence...

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by Lucky The Fox
...we've not been at war since 1814, which must be a world record or close to it.

Just when you lost us to Russia... What a coincidence...

No, this is when we gained Norway from the Danes. We lost Finland a couple of years earlier.

 

[Ville]

I think it was in 1721 when you lost Finland.

I think Sweden and Finland should be united again. Just think what kind of ice hockey team we'd have.
j/k

 

[Lucky The Fox]

Whoops. Looks like I messed up centuries pretty badly there. Stayed up little too late I guess.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Sweden lost Finland in 1809, as I wrote in an earlier post. What we lost in 1721 was Livonia, Estonia, Ingria and a piece of northern Germany.

In 1814, as mrtn said, we had a mini-war over Norway. A bit earlier the same year, we participated in the Coalition against Napoleon.

 

[Exel]

Actually Sweden lost Finland already in 1808. In the peace treaty of 1809 it was just made official.

To Lucky the Fox: Would you care explaining why industrial/commercial combo is the best choice in your opinion? I find it as one of the worst alternatives...

 

[The Last Conformist]

While it's true that the Russians gained de facto control of the Finnish territory already in 1808, it's normal usage to date territorial losses to when they were made official. Postwar political borders rarely correspond exactly to the line of control at cease-fire anyway.

(Sometimes, they're almost mirrored; in the peace of 1658, Denmark ceded Scania, Halland and Blekinge to Sweden, which were at the time still under Danish control, while it got to keep Jutland and Sealand, which were occupied by the Swedish army!)

 

[Ville]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Sweden lost Finland in 1809, as I wrote in an earlier post. What we lost in 1721 was Livonia, Estonia, Ingria and a piece of northern Germany.

It actually was 1809 Where did I get that 1721

 

[Exel]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
While it's true that the Russians gained de facto control of the Finnish territory already in 1808, it's normal usage to date territorial losses to when they were made official. Postwar political borders rarely correspond exactly to the line of control at cease-fire anyway.

Yes, but it this particular case the cease fire border remained unaltered through the peace treaty. On the other hand, the cease fire was rather nominal in this case anyway; it didn't stop the Russians from launching their military expedition into Swedish soil.

 

[HuckFinn]

Sorry to revive an old thread, but Industrious/Religious it is.

That is the classic Finnish archetype. Work hard and Fear the Lord.

Also, most posters here are mixing the terms Industrious and Industrial. They are two totally different things. Learn English please.

 

[Exel]

Originally posted by HuckFinn
Sorry to revive an old thread, but Industrious/Religious it is.

That is the classic Finnish archetype. Work hard and Fear the Lord.

It is not just the terms that matter. You must consider their effects as well. And the effects of Industrous and Religious really aren't characteristic for Finland.