Some flavor for Russia

[Mortheim]

Hello! Welcome to my thread with suggestions for Russia now and Russian minors later! Feel free to add something useful or ask questions!


Last update: New trade goods.

Next Update: ???

After Next Update: ???


CONTENT:

0) Make Third Rome Great Again:
0.1) Alternative Parliament and Horde Rulership;
0.2) Additional ideas for changes;

1) Artillery in Tsardom of Russia

2) Oprichnina:
2.1) Oprichnina as disaster and first part of information about Oprichnina;

3) Suggestion about ideas for Russia and Duchies.
3.1) Another attempt;

4) (Bad) Idea for Orthodox Mecahnic based on leader-traits system in Rights of Man.

5) Streltsy:
5.1) Infromation about Streltsy;
5.2) Starting information about modifiers for Streltsy;
5.3) Modifiers related to streltsy and first description;

6) Important figures:
6.1) Sophia Palaiologos - wife of Ivan III;
6.2) Aloiso the new - architect;
6.3) Stroganov Dynasty;
6.4) Ivan Grozniy:
a) relatives and death of father;

7) Changes to map:
7.1) Opochka, Rusa and Velikie Luki;
7.2) Solovetsky Monastery;
7.3) Yuriev-Polskiy, Pereyaslavl-Zalesskiy and other unpronouncing Russian cities jk: and Dmitrov.
7.4) Neighbours:
a) Kazan;
b) Great Horde;
c) North Great Horde;
d) South Great Horde;
e) Crimea;
7.5) Alternative Trade Goods;
7.5.1) Map of Mineral Riches for European Part of Russia, middle of 19th century;

8) German Quarters;

9) Time of Troubles;

10) Moscow Civil War;

11) Zasechnaya Cherta;
11.1) Some information;
11.2) Bolshaya Zasechnaya Cherta;

12) Missions:
12.1) Some information on Integrationa of Principalities;
12.2) Mission Tree for Muscovy/Russia;
12.3) Train of thought;

13) Rulers (short):
13.1) Vasiliy II has low stats;
13.2) Why Ivan III has underrated stats;

 

[Celdur]

Mortheim great work keep this up, i never knew this threat existed but i've been a "fan" of the Russian region since early last year slowly dispelling the cloud of propaganda and myth that is fed to us in the west and would just like to give you props for doing so much research and sharing it with the community while also helping PDX flesh out the region.

 

[Mortheim]

Mortheim great work keep this up, i never knew this threat existed but i've been a "fan" of the Russian region since early last year slowly dispelling the cloud of propaganda and myth that is fed to us in the west and would just like to give you props for doing so much research and sharing it with the community while also helping PDX flesh out the region.

Thank you for kind words.
There is a lot of problems regarding history of Russia. One of them is USSR - it changed perception on history a lot. And some others fell to the old rumors. Most people don't know that Paul I was capable ruler. Same for Nicholas I. And how Catherine "the Great" really crippled country. A lot of people ignore achievements of Vasiliy II and Ivan III, and see Ivan IV only as insane ruler. But, even in Russia, most people think that Paul I was bad (yes, ending war with Prussia was bad), while Catherine II was good (allowed nobles not to serve for land, destroying old system fully and didn't do anything to replace it). It is really hard for ordinary people to find out about this. And we have access to outstanding works regarding our history. And nearly all of those works aren't translated (USSR heritage).

 

[Celdur]

Its a similar issue with Peruvian history, most of it is in Castillian (Spanish) and not translated, so the English world only reads what other's talk about the region but not the people directly from the region itself in most cases. And let me tell you, you are going deep by mentioning the Russian rulers, most people have no idea other than Catherine, Peter... and you can stop counting. Not to mention the history of the colonization of what is now southern Russia or Siberia.

What fascinantes me about Russia is its mentality and geographic location, its worldview if you will, badly misunderstood and underrated by most people (not saying i understand it perfectly or anything but at least i try to empathize). The "hate" began initially because of the religious split, then negative propaganda by your neighbours and the fact that the West feels threatened by "big Russia".

Its hard to put into words, but the mentality switch from always thinking from a western european point-of-view (which is the mentality all South Americans inherit, they are our mother countries afterall) to thinking from the "east" taking that "new" perspective to judge and value the world and its geopolitical situation was very refreshing and made clear a lot of decisions undertaken by the Russian people and its governments throughout history, it also started to highlight the massive bias the West has in most if its media when it comes to Russia, even if trying to be scientific and impartial about it, many books and documentaries try to low-key downplay Russia mascarading as impartial.

As an example, there is this myth that persists about Russia being a house of cards, rotten in the inside and always very close to breaking up, filled with poor and wretched people...somehow this idea is kept alive and in the back of everyones mind, when it could not be further from the truth, or at least there is no historical evidence for it, the country may have internal turmoil (which country doesn't) but its always being united and probably always will and yes, it may not be as rich as western europe but its still quite prosperous compared to most of the world.

To bring it all back to a game perspective, this all results in the usual tropes, Russia, Big nondescript provinces, a game-army where the main strenght is its numbers, and somehow challenged technologically even if their armies where one of the best in the world, only matched or surpassed, sometimes, at specific times, by the very best Western Europe had to offer... and even then they where not far behind.


Well i think i went on a rant here, but i'm assuming you are native Russian and i would really enjoy reading your thoughts about any of the points i mentioned or bring some new ones. To finish, have you ever tried to think like a Western European and try to understand the world from *that* point of view?

 

[Mortheim]

snip

Wow. You are so nice <3

I think biggest problem is - West doesn't understand that Russia, with all its strangeness and isolationism, is Western country. And, well, while our mentality is somewhat different due to position and relations, it is still Western mentality. Seeing Russia as some strange mix of east despotims and western culture is wrong, despite there is ground for this. Neither tsars, nor nobles considered themselves closer to hordes. For them ties with Europe were much more important than another steppe territory. And, well, one of the reasons why Russia was so obsessed with Baltic is that it would give much easier time to communicate with West. But, for its neighbors like Poland and Livonians, it was unacceptable to have pretty centralized and somewhat rich state with most recent technologies and ideas. And, well, thanks to sources of those two countries that Muscovy/Russia was known for zerg-like armies even before WWII (where it is also questionable representation but, at least, closer to reality).
Just to get perception compare numbers from Livonian Source and Russian Source regarding Battle near Tirzen. Livonians claim there were 130000 russians, while Russian sources claim that there were 2500 russians. I would come from the far end and started with estimated maximum for Ottoman army, which is considered to be 100000 men in 16th century. The population of Porta was ~20 million people, population of Russia was ~6 million. Then, we have sources from different Prikazy (analog of ministries) which provides us number for Livonian front of 40000 men. Is it a lot? Well, it isn't, cause a lot of those people were Pososhnie Ludi - conscripts (were used in 16-17th century) who performed auxiliary functions (repairing, building and other similar defensive/support functions). In Livonian War estimated number of them is ~12000 (fun fact - every 5th citizen and 6th peasant amongst Posohnie Ludi had their own firearms). So, pure military forces were ~28000. Is it big army? No, not at all. And we have sources from that time in form of different books from Prikazy (ministries).

Interesting thing of that period is that urban population was encouraged to have at least two weapons - pischal and bear spear, while rural population was encouraged to have at least bardiche and, if they had an opportunity, firearms.

Oh, man, i drifted a lot xD But, as you said, mostly it comes from western perception and, with close degree, inside opinion. As follower of Bakunin, i think that any government is rotten.

PS: i never thought that i'm not thinking as European lol. I can say that i have some difference, but then again - compare french and german mentality (so far, yet so close).

 

[Mortheim]

At the moment i'm working at pretty big article about Ivan IV and Oprichnina for one public in VK. I was inconsistent and official historiography was poisoning my mind. I will transalte most important parts of it so people, who have (like me not long time age) real no knowledge about Ivan IV would be able to see how and what happened. I hope that i will do it by Thursday, but not sure.

Small fact: official historiography often claims, that Oprichniki fight in small numbers in Battle near Molodi because they got used to looting and plundering peasants. That is huge, huge lie. Whole number of Oprichniks were 6000 (this includes not only people who were part of Oprichnina, but, also, streltsy from oprichnaya territory). Size of Russian army in battle of Molodi was ~25k. Sources claim that "there was 1 regiment of Oprichnina against 5 regiments of Zemshina". Sorry, but this means, that ~4k from 25k army were from Oprichnina. And it is practically ALL forces that Oprichnina could field. And, another funniest thing is that on of the heroes of this battle (some authors claim that he won this battle) was Voivode (military leader) of Oprichnina. Yes, one of the best generals in Russia at that time belonged to Oprichnina.

 

[Celdur]

Sorry, i have been really busy and not had the time to give you a proper post!

I agree that Russia is part of the Western World, and, of course your mentality is European, but within that grouping there are clear differences and the main difference is the geopolitical POV of Western Europe vis a vis Russia, and that was my main point. Europe in general is a bunch of small but densely populated countries and Russia is the opposite of that, it only makes sense that people from those regions would develop different worldviews, even if both are western.

About the zerg-like characteristics of the Russian troops, yeah, its all propaganda, France had more population than Russia even during Napoleonic times and yet there is no image of the French army being strong -only- because of its numbers.

In fact, as you mentioned Russia didn't have a large population even though it controlled a large territory, however it still managed to field decent armies and fight off the western powers and, specially, the Ottomans. Now, probably because of the tiny populations of Russia's european neighbours and the size of Russia's territory its very easy to propagate the idea that Russian armies are just a mass of men pushing forward. But the Myth will continue to be propagated unless something is done in the media to change it, which is why i congratulate you on your efforts! Russia deserves its fair share and i personally despise propaganda and "easy truths". Don't get me started about the insane ignorance of the contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Nazi Germany, 95% of Westerners don't know anything about it.

Now, i was wondering, do you have statistics about Russian population growth during the EUIV time frame? both Russian and any territory that would become part of the Russian Empire in the future, for example, when was Ukraine repopulated exactly? how did it change from a depopulated frontierland to a very heavily populated region even reaching 30 million during WW1? but when did it reached even 10 million? was all growth during the XIXth century? and if so, then it definetly grew much faster than Russia in general, didn't it?

 

[Mortheim]

I agree that Russia is part of the Western World, and, of course your mentality is European, but within that grouping there are clear differences and the main difference is the geopolitical POV of Western Europe vis a vis Russia, and that was my main point. Europe in general is a bunch of small but densely populated countries and Russia is the opposite of that, it only makes sense that people from those regions would develop different worldviews, even if both are western.

Main differences come from religion (but you really won't notice) and hard life. As it is known - Russians don't love to smile, cause it is considered something intimate or personal. Tbh it is hard to tell, because with whom should i compare? Europe doesn't have one culture also.

In fact, as you mentioned Russia didn't have a large population even though it controlled a large territory, however it still managed to field decent armies and fight off the western powers and, specially, the Ottomans.

Yeah. It had pretty good draft system. Pomestja reform created huge army for Russia and people were gathered from different fortresses for war (streltsy, for example, had garrison duties during peace time).

Don't get me started about the insane ignorance of the contribution of the Soviet Union to the defeat of Nazi Germany, 95% of Westerners don't know anything about it.

It is same here. We have myth that West Front was useless and West didn't help at all. Like, wuuuut. Denying effort of different countries in WWII is so f**ked up.

Now, i was wondering, do you have statistics about Russian population growth during the EUIV time frame? both Russian and any territory that would become part of the Russian Empire in the future, for example, when was Ukraine repopulated exactly? how did it change from a depopulated frontierland to a very heavily populated region even reaching 30 million during WW1? but when did it reached even 10 million? was all growth during the XIXth century? and if so, then it definetly grew much faster than Russia in general, didn't it?

Spoiler: Population of Russia through centuries

End of 16th century ~5mil
1640 ~7mil
1670 ~11mil
1719 ~15mil
1742 ~16mil
1762 ~19mil
1782 ~28mil
1796 ~36mil
1812 ~41mil

Southern part of Ukraine (known as Novorossiya) was colonized during late 18th and part of 19th century.
Whole Russia had population boom in second half of 19th century: in 1851 population of Russia was 69mil and by 1897 it became 129mil. By 1914 it was 166mil.

 

[Mortheim]

It is good idea to add special place for cavalry to deploy in battle which will be used by cavalry on high roll to encircle or flank enemy.
Cavalry will be able to "hide" there from damage if enemy doesn't have cav or doesn't take full combat width.
If enemy doesn't have enough cavalry in opposing spot, then cav can attack second row.
This deployment rows will be less numerous than standard (i think at top tech it will be 8, but can be improved by flanking bonus). Maybe those points can depend on overall width and, while you can have a lot during early game, later you will be able to use less.
It will make cavalry somewhat usable in late game (hope not plainly OP) and will make flanking modifier more useful (for example, most nomads will be able to use 6 units for such deployment instead of 4 like most nations).

 

[Mortheim]

Okay, i have some time for my small project I think that one of the most interesting subjects of history of any country is rulers, that were considered bad and have bad rep in a lot of sources. Often, those sources were written AFTER death of aforementioned rulers.
And, with this post, i want to start new series about most controversial Russian rulers (in EU4 period ofc) and why they are not so controversial. You would learn why you should be sent to Siberia for calling Catherine II "Great". And that Paul I wasn't as bad as sources paint him to be.


This is why i wanted to start with one of the most controversial Russian rulers. Though, his achievements are often overlooked. He took lands from church, reformed army, hated old nobility and wanted easier access to the Baltic Sea. Yes, we will start with Ivan IV "Grozny". Feel free to ask questions after reading first part about him!

To understand why he became such a controversial person, we must learn about his ancestry and childhood.
Please, note, that most of his accomplishments are heavily tied to achievements of his predecessors, mainly - Ivan III the Great. You won't find a lot about his rule, while for Muscovy and, in future, Russia it will be really important. And I can write whole article about poor Vasiliy II, who is often considered terrible ruler.

But today is the day of Ivan IV, who was first son of Vasiliy III and was eldest of two siblings.
His mother, Elena Glinski, descended from House of Glinski, that raised a rebellion and, after loss, they went into exile in Moscow. Elena was well-educated, courteous and ambitious. Sources calimed that they trace their ancestry to Mamai, though those claims appeared after death of last member of this house. And another thing - House of Glisnki wasn't considered noble house and, well, Vasiliy III violated tradition and rules marrying Elena.
Grandma on the paternal side was Sophia Palaiologina. Another smart, well-educated woman, who was experienced schemer.
Maternal grandmother was from Serbian house of Jakšić. They fought Ottomans before and after Serbia was annexed. Ivan IV conquered several other Muslim states, so his ancestor might be proud of him.
His grandpa on the paternal side was Ivan III, who was founder of Russian state (conquest of 1/3 of Lithuania, integration of Novgorod, centralization of the state etc.).
His father, Vasiliy III, wasn't as remarkable as grandad, but under his rule Smolensk was taken and centralization continued. And he was first Russian ruler to be called Emperor of Rus in official treaty with another country (HRE).
Maternal grandpa was Vasiliy Glinski and there is nothing interesting about him.

Ancestors of Ivan IV were from different countries and houses. Not-so-noble Lithuanian "tatars" Glinski, Serbian nobles who fought Ottomans, Byzantine princess which was niece of last emperor. Hard to tell how that affected Ivan IV, but I would like to believe that he inherited some traits from all the ancestors. Though one thing we can say for certain - ruling family wasn't healthy. Kurbski claim, that Ivan's younger brother, Yuri, was "insane". And Rurikovichi married between different branches a lot.

I will shed some light on childhood of Ivan IV now.
His father died in 1533 and Grozny was just 3 yo at that moment. The situation is pretty shaky: his mother considered by most "not noble enough" and you have younger brother. But Vasiliy was dying long enough to make last preparations. In his last will, Vasiliy named Ivan as Grand Knyaz and appointed "few boyars" as regent council. Elen Glinski received "widow's lot" - lands to live without need until her death.

So, what about those "few boyars"? Traditionally, in Duchy of Moscow 3-4 of closest boyars were appointed as executors of knyaz's last will. Vasiliy appointed his brother, Andrew of Staritsa (remember this name for later) and few others, who are not worth mentioning, along with some other advisors who weren't part of Boyar Duma + Mikhail Glinski. Of course, nobles weren't happy about not-so-noble Glinski and requested Vasiliy to appoint some of their relatives as exutors. Dying knyaz accepted and regent council became big. In charge of it were seven boyars, including knyaz of Staritsa.

Boyar Duma also visited Vasiliy on deathbed and he asked them to raise his son properly. His very last instuctions regarding personal matter he discussed only with his two closest advisors and Mikhail Glinski.

The plan of Vasiliy was simple and great - balance Boyar Duma with Seven Boyars (Semiboyarshina) so there won't be troubles with decentralization when Ivan becomes the ruler. Unfortunately, this wouldn't happen. Why? I will tell you about this in the next part

Spoiler: Reconstruction of Elena Glinski's appearance by S. Nikitin using forensic facial approximation

To the contents.

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

As the two of you are pointing out that in the West most of the history is distorted to fit the Western Narrative. I recently this spring wrote an essay for the International Baccalaureate on whether Mexatas was a fascist or not. In my conclusion I brought up the fact that many sources that I needed were insane amount of Googling into the French and Greek to find the sources. Just a question, do you feel like that if the "Hidden Histories" or the history of the people that aren't taught in school or secondary or even college, is hindering common understanding?

 

[Celdur]

In short, yes. Specially in English, which, since it has become a common language its spreading Britan's and USA's biases all over the world.

 

[Mortheim]

Just a question, do you feel like that if the "Hidden Histories" or the history of the people that aren't taught in school or secondary or even college, is hindering common understanding?

"History is written by the victors" so our own historical books are biased. And, because of that, we can't truly learn what happened in our history and even more so in history of the others.

I think the best example would be USA and USSR during Cold War. In both countries history lessons were tools to shape young people and to show them who is their true enemy. Both countries lied to their citizens and shared the information that helped to prove their point. I could write long text about how after fall of USSR Russia wanted to be part of western world, but stayed outsider, so, in time, sh*t hit the fan, as could be expected. Because you either include country fully into the system, or get another rival. But this is too political for my taste.

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

"History is written by the victors" so our own historical books are biased. And, because of that, we can't truly learn what happened in our history and even more so in history of the others.

I think the best example would be USA and USSR during Cold War. In both countries history lessons were tools to shape young people and to show them who is their true enemy. Both countries lied to their citizens and shared the information that helped to prove their point. I could write long text about how after fall of USSR Russia wanted to be part of western world, but stayed outsider, so, in time, sh*t hit the fan, as could be expected. Because you either include country fully into the system, or get another rival. But this is too political for my taste.

Thanks!

 

[Celdur]

"History is written by the victors" so our own historical books are biased. And, because of that, we can't truly learn what happened in our history and even more so in history of the others.

I think the best example would be USA and USSR during Cold War. In both countries history lessons were tools to shape young people and to show them who is their true enemy. Both countries lied to their citizens and shared the information that helped to prove their point. I could write long text about how after fall of USSR Russia wanted to be part of western world, but stayed outsider, so, in time, sh*t hit the fan, as could be expected. Because you either include country fully into the system, or get another rival. But this is too political for my taste.

From my analysis of living under western propaganda for my whole life but also being on the "periphery" of the West, you guys are viewed as "potentially too strong" by the Western powers and not far enough away unlike the USA which is an ocean away but remember the USA had no army until WW2 really, so it was no threat and both Britain and France managed to pull the USA into fighting their wars. Now, the only country in the world with continental resources at its disposal other than the USA is Russia and that is a threat that can not be ignored, even cut off from world trade, Russia can still survive pretty well and it can not be manipulated. Okey, that's part of it, the other part is the quality of life of the average Russian, historically much below that of western Europe, and when you started to grow and modernized your economy WW1 and the Communism happened, so only now is Russia able to grow and develop a good quality of life for its citizens however tha bad propaganda is still there. And the image of Russia in the 90's was horrendous, when the first wave of mass media informed global opinion. I think the World Cup has helped tremedously to show a positive side of Russia, clean cities, moderatly ordered, wealthy and developed, well organized and welcoming people.

So, from the USA point of view, why should it share world power with anyone? they defeated the USSR and now they have to deal with China, but they can handle that by sea power, but at least China is a massive economic power, Russia's economy is smaller than Brazil's (although larger in PPP) not just a little bit bigger than Mexico's however you guys are able to put out a massive and modern military, more or less equal in technology to the USA plus the nukes.

I think as Russia continues to develop, and grows its economy to the size it should be, both for its population and massive natural resources, its global image will continue to improve and thus able to counter the western narrative about Russia and its contributions to the world.

 

[Mortheim]

Today, at night, in 1918 last Emperor of Russian empire, alongside his family and servants, were shoot. Last resort that severed all ties with monarchy for better or worse.
Revolutions are bloody.

 

[Mortheim]

Yeah, you are right, except for:

why should it share world power with anyone

For long time Russia wanted to be part of "the western world" not as a leader, but as a partner. Maybe important, but not at the same level as US. But, after some time, even our government understood that most western politicians still consider Russia as threat and foe (NATO bases won't lie). So, our gov decided to follow their own strategy, that is of "besieged fortress". I think most people of my age and younger don't believe in it and Crimea seemed to us a bit overkill, but now we can see Cold War rhetorics all over again and, you know, it is scarry. FIFA might help, but trying to build bridges with current US president undermines this effort. Now people going all nuts about Russia as foe/threat and puppet Trump. And considering internal situation in US looking for external enemy is good idea, (here I assume that people don't see difference between USSR and Russia) especially if this enemy is known and propaganda showed him as threat for nearly a century.
I think we better continue discussion in private, if you want

 

[Celdur]

"the western world" will never accept Russia, its too big, to menacing and too much of a threat overall. And its too easy to trick the populace with the "russian menace" to let it go. The only way forward for Russia, in my eyes is to develop its nation, people and standard of living, its the only way to not be percieved as a threat anymore. Also, there is and has always been a plan by French, British and US officials to never allow a German-Russian alliance, mixing the German tech and efficiency genius with Russian resources and pragmatism is the last thing they want.

As i said, there is nothing to gain for the countries already in power by letting Russia enjoy the full benefits of world trade, it would be much better for them if you just collapsed into many smaller "european sized" nations.

 

[Mortheim]

So, I, at last, have some time, but not for Grozny. This time I want to talk about GOVERNMENT REFORMS.

This new mechanic in Dharma is shiny and nice. So there is no chance I would miss such opportunity to add something interesting to Russia

I WANT TO REMIND THAT THIS IS JUST FIRST THOUGHTS AND FIRST DRAFT.

But first I would like to offer idea, which would make Streltsy less OP and more historically accurate. They don't increase stability cost, but decrease size of your garrisons (with -75% if all of your army consists of Streltsy). Now, that troops aren't "free" - they are gathered from you garrisons across country.

Government reforms start with:
Power Structure which provides us with unique government. Good. But I would change Principality a bit - instead of -1 unrest gave them +1 diplomat.
Next goes Noble Privileges, where I would add 2 options for Russian culture: Strengthen the Boyars (production bonus or stability cost would be nice, maybe +1 diplo policy slot) and Service Class People (mil bonus, i would assume AT increase or manpower or 1 free mil policy). Here you choose between relying on bigger land holders, going with "old blood" or relying on "new blood", which will get land in exchange for service.
Third one is Bureaucracy and, in our case, you will have one unique choice: Establish Prikazy (I would give it advisor discount or multiple smaller bonuses, which will increase power of table of ranks: -10% advisor cost, +0.75 AT and -10% land attrition)
Now we are at The Administrative Cadre. Not sure if i would add anything, because Prikazy covers this.
The next point is Deliberative Assembly. Maybe there could be Zemskiy Sobor, but not sure if it is needed.
Now we are approaching the last reform with Absolutism&Constitutionalism which would allow nation with Russian culture choose one interesting thing (iа this is even possible): Reformation of the Army (it will either give you western units or change Streltsy to Imperial/Laib Guard with stronger bonuses).
And last but not least is Separation of Power, that is fine as it is.

 

[Mingmung]

@Mortheim What's your view on the provincial setup of Russia right now? Excluding the provinces under control of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the southern Hordes. So, Muscovy, Novgorod, the other minor principalities, etc. (essentially the focus of Third Rome).

Recent provincial updates taken into account and relative to the rest of the EU4-world, of course.

 

[Mortheim]

What's your view on the provincial setup of Russia right now?

It is great! I might do some changes to fort placements and estates control over territories. The main issue with my ideas is that they assume that Lithuania, Crimea, Nogai and Golden Horde will also get more provinces.
What would I improve:
There is no Pereyaslavl-Zalesskiy! One of the richest and most important cities in the 15-16th centuries.
Odoyev is one province instead of, at least, two or maybe even three!
Dmitrov might be a good province to add - this will allow area of Moscow to have more provinces and buffer province between Moscow and Tver.
I would also split some bigger provinces in 2 or 3.
Create Shuya province from several (Starodub, Suzdal, Kostroma and Galich). It is also pretty important, because it was domain of princes of Shuysky (important family for Russian history).

And even more, so I have to stop. There is always room for improvement, but is it really needed? I would like to add more detail to Russian and Ruthenian region to represent population centers, vast scarcely populated lands and later population growth.