AGC & EEP: Russia

[Caliga]

red: issues being debated.
yellow: debate closed, but issue not yet implemented.
green: debate closed, issue implemented into mod.
white: miscellaneous notes.

Let's discuss. As things are discussed/decided I will summarize them here (see my AGC: Russia thread for a preview of what I intend to do).

Not sure who was in charge of EEP: Russia before the merger, but I am happy to share management with them or even cede it depending on which one of us has more time to facilitate.

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

SETUP ISSUES:

• 
  [*]Should Suzdal exist in 1419? Who should own Vladimir? Should Perm replace Suzdal? Suzdal will be eliminated, both to free up a tag for use elsewhere, and to help Muscovy grow historically.
  
  
  [*]Should Arkhangelsk be Orthodox or Pagan? Should there be natives in Arkhangelsk, Olonets, Karelia, and/or Kola? Arkhangelsk will be pagan. Karelia, and Kola will have pagan natives.
  
  [*]Should the Russian principalities all be 'Ruthenian' culture? No, Russia keeps Russian culture and does not get Ruthenian.
  
  
  [*]Should there be trans-Ural TPs/colonies owned by Novgorod? We agreed that this needs to be tested.
  
  [*]Should there be trans-Ural paths between provinces; should these be implemented even if trans-Ural TPs/colonies for Novgorod are ultimately decided against? We will also test this to see how the AI behaves.
  
  [*]Should Arkhangelsk province have a port?
  
  [*]Should Russia get Tatar culture and, if so, when?
  

 

[Caliga]

Some initial issues for debate (will be added to first-post summary). Figured focus on setup issues makes sense:

Should Suzdal exist in 1419? Who should own Vladimir?

Should Arkhangelsk be Orthodox or Pagan? Should there be natives in Arkhangelsk, Olonets, Karelia, and/or Kola?

Should the Russian principalities all be 'Ruthenian' culture?

Should there be trans-Ural TPs/colonies owned by Novgorod?

 

[Avernite]

Maybe you could add some reasons why you would want this done..

 

[Sikker]

1: Well, IIRC in the AGC we checked maps from that time and Suzdahl didn't exist - it all belonged to Muscowy. So I say scratch Suzdahl and give Vladimir to Muscowy. - Let a normal revolt (or 2)signify the civil war.

2: Well, again I remember that there was sufficient evidence that Arkhangelsk were Pagan at the time, but since the AI at times chose to convert via missionary rather than just sending a colonist, the idea was abandoned.
About the other colonies, I am fine with those too. I know there was arguments for making them go Pagan and being at 900 inhabitants so they would stay Pagan and Russia (or Novgorod or Sweden or Denmark or Norway or ...) would have to convert through missonary, in order to illustrutate how long they remained 'un-urbanized' or whatever you want to call it. - But as I said, I think it's fine as it is.

3: No.

4: That was tried in the AGC and it was a total disaster. I vote absolutely NO.

 

[wryun]

Originally posted by Sikker
2: Well, again I remember that there was sufficient evidence that Arkhangelsk were Pagan at the time, but since the AI at times chose to convert via missionary rather than just sending a colonist, the idea was abandoned.

If I remember correctly, Johan fixed this behaviour in one of the later betas (i.e. the AI knows never to send a missionary to a colony, but always to colonise).

 

[unmerged(6828)]

We could throw in Perm as a country in the Suzdal province

 

[Caliga]

I don't necessarily want any of them done, but since I'm most familiar with AGC debate on Russia and environs, I wasn't entirely sure how these issues have been debated and/or resolved in the EEP. Besides, I just wanted to get debate started; if I said "AGC & EEP Russia: discuss", that wouldn't have been helpful

Originally posted by Avernite
Maybe you could add some reasons why you would want this done..

 

[Caliga]

1. I'm in favor of that solution, but maybe we should solicit more opinions on it before concluding as such?

2. See later response; I do believe Johan fixed that in a later patch from 1.05. We should definitely try to implement this and see if indeed it's the case.

3. Reasons for making this point? For what it's worth I agree, if only for the reason that assimilation of the Russian & area petty states already tends to happen pretty quickly.

4. Right, I was part of the debate and testing. It is historically accurate, though, so I wonder if our approach was flawed or if there is some other way to implement/simulate. For those not familiar with the AGC testing here, the problem was that Novgorod, ever the perpetual loser in Novgorod vs. Scandinavian bouts, tended to give these trans-Ural TPs to Denmark or Sweden fairly regularly.

Originally posted by Sikker
1: Well, IIRC in the AGC we checked maps from that time and Suzdahl didn't exist - it all belonged to Muscowy. So I say scratch Suzdahl and give Vladimir to Muscowy. - Let a normal revolt (or 2)signify the civil war.

2: Well, again I remember that there was sufficient evidence that Arkhangelsk were Pagan at the time, but since the AI at times chose to convert via missionary rather than just sending a colonist, the idea was abandoned.
About the other colonies, I am fine with those too. I know there was arguments for making them go Pagan and being at 900 inhabitants so they would stay Pagan and Russia (or Novgorod or Sweden or Denmark or Norway or ...) would have to convert through missonary, in order to illustrutate how long they remained 'un-urbanized' or whatever you want to call it. - But as I said, I think it's fine as it is.

3: No.

4: That was tried in the AGC and it was a total disaster. I vote absolutely NO.

 

[Caliga]

Interesting. Do you know more about this that'll help us debate it?

Originally posted by Jacob Oppenheim
We could throw in Perm as a country in the Suzdal province

 

[EUnderhill]

Re Novgorod's TPs: Was the problem with the Scandanavians taking them a problem in the lastest versions, IIRC the AI was supposed to be a bit more sane about what to offer/take. Anyways, I would be willing to do a little testing, could someone suggest who had what and where?

 

[Twoflower]

Couldn't the issue of Novgorod giving the tps to Sweden be fixed by giving Sweden switching ais, with a peaceful one in before 1520, then a more warlike Anti-Danish one, when G2a rises to the throne an extremely effective, anti-Austrian and -Bavarian, ferocity = yes ai, post 1648 an aggressive ai that fights Russia, Denmark and Poland, after the Great Nordic War a more peaceful and perhaps some special AIs for certain events (a Seven Years War AI, a napoleonic wars ai)?
We should test if Sweden still keeps on attacking Novgorod when it has war = 0-5, an empty combat list and is weakened a bit in terms of manpower and taxes in the 15th century.

 

[Caliga]

Yes, I think that'd work. Since AGC was last updated in the 1.05 days, AI switching wasn't used as part of the mod. With AI switching, the problems may well disappear. To have trans-Ural TPs would I think immensely help historicity, because it may allow for Russia to grow eastward without having to smash all of the Central Asian Khans hundreds of years too early, as must happen in the current game.

 

[wryun]

Originally posted by Caliga
Yes, I think that'd work. Since AGC was last updated in the 1.05 days...

You have seen my sig, right?

(ok, it's not much of an update and doesn't have AI switching, but it does run on the 1.07betas)

 

[Caliga]

Yes, and your thread, but as you mention your fix does not address AI switching, so it's not a solution for this specific problem

Originally posted by wryun
You have seen my sig, right?

(ok, it's not much of an update and doesn't have AI switching, but it does run on the 1.07betas)

 

[wryun]

Originally posted by Caliga
Yes, and your thread, but as you mention your fix does not address AI switching, so it's not a solution for this specific problem

Yes, yes, I know... well, could I interest you in posting in the thread? (179 reads, 1 response. Bah.)

 

[Sikker]

Originally posted by Caliga
1. I'm in favor of that solution, but maybe we should solicit more opinions on it before concluding as such?

2. See later response; I do believe Johan fixed that in a later patch from 1.05. We should definitely try to implement this and see if indeed it's the case.

3. Reasons for making this point? For what it's worth I agree, if only for the reason that assimilation of the Russian & area petty states already tends to happen pretty quickly.

4. Right, I was part of the debate and testing. It is historically accurate, though, so I wonder if our approach was flawed or if there is some other way to implement/simulate. For those not familiar with the AGC testing here, the problem was that Novgorod, ever the perpetual loser in Novgorod vs. Scandinavian bouts, tended to give these trans-Ural TPs to Denmark or Sweden fairly regularly.

1: Sure - a bit despotic if we didn't

2: What the hell ... let's give it a go. If for no other reason, at least just to see how it works.

3: It shouldn't be too easy for Russia to control Lithuania in the beginning. However some more shields should be given to Russia thorugh events. IIRC Belgorod isn't even given to Russia as a core province!!!!

4: Novgorod can still loose it to Lithuania. And even is this problem is fixed, we also have to consider how many ressources Muscowy will suddenly start using on these new TPs/colonies once they obtain them. Muscowy shouldn't use all of their ressources clonizing these areas. Especially not with that crazy event taking 200 ducats when Vassily is captured by the Tatars (maybe 200 is a BIT on the expensive side?).
Also if this is done I will insist that a path across the Urals will be made. That is, it should be possible to walk accross the PTI either from Vladimir or (my preferred) Kazan.

 

[Twoflower]

Originally posted by Sikker
1: Sure - a bit despotic if we didn't

I think removing Vladimir is good, for several reasons:
- a stronger Muscovy will be more likely to turn into a strong, historical Russia
- the civil war would probably work better represented as internal struggles with revolts and low stab within Muscovy than as a war between two states. I've seen Suzdal win that conflict and destroy Muscovy too often
- it frees up a tag

2: What the hell ... let's give it a go. If for no other reason, at least just to see how it works.

Certainly worth a try since it would prevent Russia from turning these Russian so easily. Also more historically accurate.

4: Novgorod can still loose it to Lithuania. And even is this problem is fixed, we also have to consider how many ressources Muscowy will suddenly start using on these new TPs/colonies once they obtain them. Muscowy shouldn't use all of their ressources clonizing these areas. Especially not with that crazy event taking 200 ducats when Vassily is captured by the Tatars (maybe 200 is a BIT on the expensive side?).
Also if this is done I will insist that a path across the Urals will be made. That is, it should be possible to walk accross the PTI either from Vladimir or (my preferred) Kazan.

I'd say it's subject to testing. If it turns out to improve the game, implement the tps (and the path across the Urals); if it causes problems constantly, don't.
We should work on giving Novgorod a better chance to survive a bit longer (of course it's tricky: we do want them to be destroyed eventually, but not as quickly as now).

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Most of this seems well reasoned - get rid of Suzdal, pagan seems sensible if difficult to be sure it works well.

I'd be concerned about giving Russia Ruthenian culture. I mean if the Russian minors are all Ruthenian why should we have a Russian culture at all. Surely the point of Ruthenian/Russian is to encourage Russia to consolidate first, and to prevent the Lithuanian provinces from being too lucrative. However, Russia doesn't behave well as is (GC or EEP) and if this can be shown to help I'm all for it.

The map thing is tricky just because most players won't realise that it's possible without some help. But again, if it works it seems to me that it makes a lot of sense.

 

[unmerged(9167)]

It is a bit OT but isn't all of Russian lands vassals of GH? I mean, it was only in the day of Ivan III when he revoked the vassalge. Before that, when any Russian leader visit the Khan, he must feed the horse, and give the tributes to Khan. Even Ivan III did it before he break from GH. Why don't EEp has them that way?

 

[Caliga]

I've yet to see any arguments against killing Suzdal, and in the AGC I don't recall anyone objecting, so it sounds to me like that issue is safe to close. Same goes for Arkhangelsk->Pagan, if indeed later patches have corrected AI behavior.

I'm neutral on the culture issue, but it was heavily debated on the AGC: Russia thread(s), and I thought it was an important-enough issue that it be discussed as part of the merger. Like you, if it helps with historicity then I'm in favor of it even if it introduces a degree of historical unauthenticity--it's not like we're discussing making Russia 'chinese' culture, after all.

I agree with the notion of opening up northerly trans-Ural routes, even if it might confuse players, since I assume it won't bother the AI too much. I'll add it to the list of debate topics.

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Most of this seems well reasoned - get rid of Suzdal, pagan seems sensible if difficult to be sure it works well.

I'd be concerned about giving Russia Ruthenian culture. I mean if the Russian minors are all Ruthenian why should we have a Russian culture at all. Surely the point of Ruthenian/Russian is to encourage Russia to consolidate first, and to prevent the Lithuanian provinces from being too lucrative. However, Russia doesn't behave well as is (GC or EEP) and if this can be shown to help I'm all for it.

The map thing is tricky just because most players won't realise that it's possible without some help. But again, if it works it seems to me that it makes a lot of sense.