Russia, A bit too strong?

[nidaros]

Just curious if anyone else think that Russia is a bit too strong.. In my game as Sweden I'm at 1580 more or less, I got a standing army of about 12 000 which is more or less what I can support without going minus each month. I own Sweden, Norway, Finland and Pommerania.

However, I wish to do what Sweden did historically and attack Russia to claim a few provinces (like Viborg which they took from me), but I cannot see how. Russia has more or less the same land tech level as me, and I'm number 8-9 in the world I think. But, in the two provinces bordering my lands (finland) they have 38 000 men standing! 38 000! And about 28 000 of those are cavalry, and they are in a war with Lithuania, so apparantly these are just the troops they can spare to guard the border while they are at war


This cannot be right.. If I recall correctly Russia wasnt that strong in the 1500s

For me it sees like Russia has far too much income, or something.. not sure what.. but seriously.. about 40 000 men guarding the border to me... that seems a bit unbalanced

[MAlexander06]

First of all, they should start to fall back in a few years, given that they're almost certainly fairly narrowminded and are in the Orthodox tech group. And it's always better to wait until a big country is busy in another war before attacking - it seems like the war with Lithuania (and Poland also, I assume) is pretty recently started if they're still garrisoning your border with that many men. A DoW just after they make peace should catch them at their weakest, since it may take awhile to commit all of their forces (Poland especially will bring tens of thousands of men to the front well after the start of the war due to their distance from central Russia).

But the solution if you wanted to fight a war right now is fairly simple - fortify Finland as much as you can, and then allow Russia to flood in. They'll start losing men due to attrition faster than they can replace them. Even better, you can attack them with large armies in your own provinces in the winter. Even if you lose, you'll push them up to maximum attrition and cause them to lose thousands of men. So if/when you do DoW, do it at the start of winter (October or so) for best attritional effect.

Also, a lot of those border guards may be mercenaries, so they'll be significantly easier to defeat than regular troops. The AI tends to hire lots of them during wars to bring their forces well above their normal manpower limits.

And just remember that it was not manpower parity (not even close) that allowed Sweden to defeat Russia historically - it was better training and better strategy. You'll essentially have to adopt the same strategy, because no one is going to beat the Russians with brute force alone.

EDIT: Oh, and the AI tends to put all of its men on its borders. So there likely isn't much behind those huge armies up north.

[nidaros]

Hey, thanks alot for your information.

I'm not sure for how long they have been at war with Lithuania, but you might be right there. Ill just have to see whether or not they start shifting troops around.

When you say fortify Russia I assume you mean to build up large fortresses that takes forever to siege. I could probably do that yes... And attack in winter, I didnt know their attrition reached max if they were attacked during winter... good tips there.
But the AI is following the same rules as the player when it comes to maintanance and manpower right?

Maybe I should just be patient and wait with war until somewhere in the 1600s, then I definetly should be stronger tech and qualitywise compared to them

[tsoky]

In the game I am playing now Kazan', Golden Horde and Crimea conquered nearly all of Russia, and also part of Finland. Muscowy is just 3 provinces.

[MAlexander06]

Yeah, if you look on the terrain map, each province can have mild, normal, or severe winter at certain times during the year. Obviously winter starts earlier and ends later farther north, and is more likely to be severe. Basically, Finland is not a fun place to be from October-April. But then, neither is Russia, so you'll have to watch out for your own troops when you invade - it's not uncommon to see 15% attrition (usually the max) during winter in the north.

Larger fortresses will indeed take quite a bit longer to siege, which means you might get the Russians caught there for multiple winters (assuming you don't kick them out earlier). Two winters (6 months apiece, which is a fair bet in Finland/northern Russia) at 15% attrition for any army will destroy over 85% of its original manpower (that's the minimum possible damage, and will almost never happen unless the country is at 0 manpower) and will destroy 180% of the original manpower if it gets reinforced to full strength every month (maximum possible, which also will almost never happen). Having even the best case happen to two of their armies would likely cripple their ability to fight (from a 40,000 man army, they lose 34,000 in the best case and 72,000 in the worst case), forcing them to try and hold you off with mercenaries. And when you factor in the attrition during the summer and attacks (due to the fact that your troops also count against their support limits), it can almost wipe out the Russian army in its entirety.

The lesson from all of this: beware of General Winter.

EDIT: Yes, the AI must pay maintenance and follows the same manpower limits as the human player, AFAIK. They can't go bankrupt, however, so even if their maintenance is sky high, all it will get them is high inflation.

[klorius]

Originally Posted by tsoky

In the game I am playing now Kazan', Golden Horde and Crimea conquered nearly all of Russia, and also part of Finland. Muscowy is just 3 provinces.

If you start in 1453, the AI almost always screws up the Russian nations. I've yet to see the AI form Russia with either Novgorod or Muscowy.

[TempestDK]

Originally Posted by klorius

If you start in 1453, the AI almost always screws up the Russian nations. I've yet to see the AI form Russia with either Novgorod or Muscowy.

I have seen Muscowy get the Russian nation start event where they inherit Novgorod ...only to be swallowed up by Lithuania a few years later. But Russia never really formed.

[nidaros]

Originally Posted by klorius

If you start in 1453, the AI almost always screws up the Russian nations. I've yet to see the AI form Russia with either Novgorod or Muscowy.

Hey, it fully suceeded to do that in my game, it had formed Russia by more or less the year 1500 :P

[nidaros]

Originally Posted by MAlexander06

Yeah, if you look on the terrain map, each province can have mild, normal, or severe winter at certain times during the year. Obviously winter starts earlier and ends later farther north, and is more likely to be severe. Basically, Finland is not a fun place to be from October-April. But then, neither is Russia, so you'll have to watch out for your own troops when you invade - it's not uncommon to see 15% attrition (usually the max) during winter in the north.

Larger fortresses will indeed take quite a bit longer to siege, which means you might get the Russians caught there for multiple winters (assuming you don't kick them out earlier). Two winters (6 months apiece, which is a fair bet in Finland/northern Russia) at 15% attrition for any army will destroy over 85% of its original manpower (that's the minimum possible damage, and will almost never happen unless the country is at 0 manpower) and will destroy 180% of the original manpower if it gets reinforced to full strength every month (maximum possible, which also will almost never happen). Having even the best case happen to two of their armies would likely cripple their ability to fight (from a 40,000 man army, they lose 34,000 in the best case and 72,000 in the worst case), forcing them to try and hold you off with mercenaries. And when you factor in the attrition during the summer and attacks (due to the fact that your troops also count against their support limits), it can almost wipe out the Russian army in its entirety.

The lesson from all of this: beware of General Winter.

EDIT: Yes, the AI must pay maintenance and follows the same manpower limits as the human player, AFAIK. They can't go bankrupt, however, so even if their maintenance is sky high, all it will get them is high inflation.

Okay, ill try that.. but i hardly think I will be able to kick them out, just did a test and declared war to see what I was up against. Didnt go so well, Im about 3 levels higher than them in land tech right now, they attacked and had about 13 000 soldiers in one province (my province), I attacked them with 12 000 to try to force them out of my land. My army composition was about 9000 inf and 3000 cav. Their army compostion was about 1000 inf and 12 000 cav O_o

Anyway, I attacked their army to see what happened, and those little red numbers over the head of the armies, lets just say those didnt look good, my numbers where in the 300 range and theirs in about 40.
After a few days of fighting I had lost about 6000 men and my moral dropped to 0 and my troops ran away, meanwhile they had lost about 1000 men :P
So I guess im not ready yet, still dont understand why I loose so much when our numbers are so even and my tech level is higher than theirs, it must be because they have so much cavalry. Although they still have the basic cav while I have Maurician Infantry... It seems like I just should have won that battle :-/

I guess I just have to wait until I have an even higher tech level than they do :P

[miloc]

Originally Posted by nidaros

... Although they still have the basic cav while I have Maurician Infantry... It seems like I just should have won that battle :-/

...

I think that Maurician Infantry is not optimal when fighting cavalry-heavy nations, because here shock-defense is most important. Aren't Tercios better in this regard?

EDIT: an excellent thread about these problems: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...6&page=1&pp=20

[nidaros]

Originally Posted by miloc

I think that Maurician Infantry is not optimal when fighting cavalry-heavy nations, because here shock-defense is most important. Aren't Tercios better in this regard?

Hmm, you might be onto something there, didnt really think about it from that perspective.. Ill try that when I get off work.

[N Katsyev]

Also keep in mind that Sweden never fought Russia when Russia was at it's best. Sweden was that little annoying bloke who ran up and punched you in the back of the head while you were fighting three other blokes on the front lawn and your wife was yelling at you. No matter the period of history, Sweden should never (without some massively ahistorical empire) be able to stand toe-to-toe with a Moscovy/Russia of any considerable size.

I'd say wait until Russia is suffering some peasant's war/time of troubles event (I just recently started a game as Russia in 1613, OMG most frustrating thing ever) and capitalize while everyone in the world also attacks them.

[Earl Uhtred]

Nice analogy

[nidaros]

Originally Posted by N Katsyev

Also keep in mind that Sweden never fought Russia when Russia was at it's best. Sweden was that little annoying bloke who ran up and punched you in the back of the head while you were fighting three other blokes on the front lawn and your wife was yelling at you. No matter the period of history, Sweden should never (without some massively ahistorical empire) be able to stand toe-to-toe with a Moscovy/Russia of any considerable size.

I'd say wait until Russia is suffering some peasant's war/time of troubles event (I just recently started a game as Russia in 1613, OMG most frustrating thing ever) and capitalize while everyone in the world also attacks them.

Okay thanks for the tip, but I think you need to read up a bit on swedish military history before making a claim like that.

At the battle of Narva 10 000 swedish soldiers defeated 37 000 russians, Sweden lost 670 men and Russia 15 000

The the battle of Fraustadt 9500 Swedes fought 18 000 Polish, Russians and Saxons, Sweden won loosing 450 men while the others lost 7500 men

At the battle of Holowczyn Sweden fought Russia, 12 500 Swedes fought 40 000 Russians, after the swedish victory 250 Swedes and 5000 Russians lay dead.

There are plenty of examples, of both victories and losses for Sweden, so Im not saying Sweden is unbeatable, your claim that we could never defeat a Russian army toe to toe is pure BS, russians soldiers were not famous for their quality

At the Battle of Fraustadt the Saxons wore red uniforms, the Russian soldiers turned their green cloaks inside out, as they had red lining on the inside they blended in with the saxons to hide their lower quality. When the Swedes attacked they attack over the entire line, and when the swedes realised where the Russians were position they just focused their strength there and the Russian line soon collapsed and they were able to surround the remaining troops :P

[Ahura Mazda]

Sweden was that little annoying bloke who ran up and punched you in the back of the head while you were fighting three other blokes on the front lawn and your wife was yelling at you.

I'd not agree with that, Russia was ciertanly much more powerful, but what made much smaller nations like Sweden beat up Russia so badly, was Russias lack of organisation, Sweden on the other hand, was during the 17th century one of the worlds best lead country with the most advanced army. Peter the great understood this, and thus centralized the adminstration and modernized the army, first after that could Russia use its massive size and population, to instead beat up Sweden

[Duke of Bavaria]

In my game Russia didnt do much until now (1640), they always fight with Kazan and no one wins, then they conquered some swedish Land , but not much, now expanded into Lithuania. As i weakened the Ottomans very much they were able to get some provinces, too, which i always wished they had done by themselves before but never were able to. All in all Russia seems about right in my game (ehich is Nappy with only the change of having the effects of Lucky Nations in eventmodifier not running).

[N Katsyev]

Originally Posted by nidaros

Okay thanks for the tip, but I think you need to read up a bit on swedish military history before making a claim like that.

At the battle of Narva 10 000 swedish soldiers defeated 37 000 russians, Sweden lost 670 men and Russia 15 000

The the battle of Fraustadt 9500 Swedes fought 18 000 Polish, Russians and Saxons, Sweden won loosing 450 men while the others lost 7500 men

At the battle of Holowczyn Sweden fought Russia, 12 500 Swedes fought 40 000 Russians, after the swedish victory 250 Swedes and 5000 Russians lay dead.

There are plenty of examples, of both victories and losses for Sweden, so Im not saying Sweden is unbeatable, your claim that we could never defeat a Russian army toe to toe is pure BS, russians soldiers were not famous for their quality

At the Battle of Fraustadt the Saxons wore red uniforms, the Russian soldiers turned their green cloaks inside out, as they had red lining on the inside they blended in with the saxons to hide their lower quality. When the Swedes attacked they attack over the entire line, and when the swedes realised where the Russians were position they just focused their strength there and the Russian line soon collapsed and they were able to surround the remaining troops :P

Oh I'm not at all questioning the fact that in the 17th century Sweden had general superior battlefield organization and tactics. But the fact of the matter was that they simply didn't have the manpower or resources to capitalize much on that advantage unless Russia was in some way artificially weakened. So one shouldn't expect Sweden in Eu3 to be able to capitalize in such way except in similar situations.

And while not famous for their quality in the 17th century, they certainly became so in the latter part of the 18th century.

EDIT: Oh and I also wasn't saying Sweden couldn't hold the field against a Russian army. I was saying that on a strategic level, Sweden was ultimately in a no-win situation if it was at war one on one with a stable and mobilized Russia.

[Ahura Mazda]

stable and mobilized Russia.

Did that happen at all before Peter the great?

[rybka]

Originally Posted by Ahura Mazda

Did that happen at all before Peter the great?

sure, since 1630ies in many respects russia was much more stable than poland for example

[N Katsyev]

Originally Posted by Ahura Mazda

Did that happen at all before Peter the great?

Definitely. Moscovy had some very powerful streaks in the early and mid 16th century, expanding against all it's neighbors. The Livonian War started out brilliantly, but resulted rather pear shaped as Russia was once again fighting against multiple foes both in the west and on the steppe. And it wasn't too too long after the Time of Troubles that Russia was able to take Smolensk back (with interest).