• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by Caliga
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.

I like this idea too. If the player can't understand, well too bad;) I mean, this does make a lot of sense.
 
Not to mention it corrects what's probably the single biggest hindrance to proper growth for Russia in the game :)

Originally posted by Garbon
I like this idea too. If the player can't understand, well too bad;) I mean, this does make a lot of sense.
 
Please forgive me of asking again, could you answer my previous question? Was this subject addressed before?
 
Originally posted by Zhai
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?

Not ALL of the Russian lands were vassals. The Golden Horde never went any further north that Muscowy (which made Tver, Pskov, and Novgorod excempt). Muscowy, Ryazan, and Suzdahl (who will now be removed) are all vassals of GH in the EEP.

It is true that one can easily break it without much fear of retaliation. This HAS been discussed (in the AGC at least), but no solution to the problem were found. The idea was to make GH very powerful in the beginning (so powerful you didn't want to piss them off), but still not so powerful (and aggressive) that they would end up with all of Lithuania or The Ottoman Empire or whatever and become a superpower again. - As said no agreement could be reached.
 
Originally posted by 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.

There should be no Russian culture at all at the beginning of the game so that Muscovy should start with Ruthenian one. But once this feature is ahistorically introduced I would stick to him. Ruthenian and Russian are different culture and Russia should not have the former.

Suzdal may definitely go as few nasty events about civil war might work better way. I honestly don't have idea how the breakdown of Suzdal was connected to civil war in Muscovy in first half of 15th in these events (there was more a family conflict and Suzdal just like some other lands was usually given to other memebers of the family to rule) but several other events for Muscovy/Russia seems stange at least and they need to be corrected.

I'm not sure about these northern TP's of Novgorod since the beginning. Firstly because Archangielsk province stands for Novogrodian expansion in the area, secondly because it will be abused.
 
I'm sorry, are you saying there should be Russian culture, or there shouldn't be? Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying but I can't see which side of the fence you are on. :)

Yes, since nobody has objected to Suzdal going, and now a number are in favor of killing it (including me), let's get rid of it. Debate closed for that issue.

...and I agree that the trans-Ural issue needs to be definitely debated some more. I'm still in favor of it if in fact we can make it behave correctly, but I'm skeptical we'll be able to do so.

Originally posted by vilkouak
There should be no Russian culture at all at the beginning of the game so that Muscovy should start with Ruthenian one. But once this feature is ahistorically introduced I would stick to him. Ruthenian and Russian are different culture and Russia should not have the former.

Suzdal may definitely go as few nasty events about civil war might work better way. I honestly don't have idea how the breakdown of Suzdal was connected to civil war in Muscovy in first half of 15th in these events (there was more a family conflict and Suzdal just like some other lands was usually given to other memebers of the family to rule) but several other events for Muscovy/Russia seems stange at least and they need to be corrected.

I'm not sure about these northern TP's of Novgorod since the beginning. Firstly because Archangielsk province stands for Novogrodian expansion in the area, secondly because it will be abused.
 
Personally I can't see what there is to discuss about the Ural crossing.
Paradox has made an area PTI that was fully known (and inhabited) in 1419 (well the Urals that is).
Russia had mining towns in the Urals at least as early as the 16th century.

Of course one should be able to cross, and invade Siberia from the north if that is ones wishes.

The only problem is how to do it. I have no clue, but I remember in the AGC that someone said it wouldn't be much of a problem (was it MKJ himself?).

Not only am I in favour of a path across the Urals, I think it is an absolut must for basic realism!
 
It's simply a case of editing a file where it says which provinces are adjacent to each other: You can make eg. Novgorod adjacent to Kansai if you wish :)
 
Originally posted by Arilou
It's simply a case of editing a file where it says which provinces are adjacent to each other: You can make eg. Novgorod adjacent to Kansai if you wish :)

Well, there it is then. Now let's discuss which provinces should be adjacent.
My personal favourite would be Kazan->Igrim (there is one province between Igrim and Tobolsk (Tobolsk being the capitol of Sibir).
Kazan because it would mean there would be a slight time limit before Muscowy can't cross over - though this might not be a problem as the AI can be changed to actually use the crossing when the time is right.
Igrim because it shouldn't have direct acces to Sibir in order to prevent too early wars. Russia gets 2 conquestadors so early that they can't use them (if they follow the CB-given expansion plan) and they can now be used to find Sibir (and the remaining behind-Ural-provinces). - This would also give a human player a bit more to do as Russia (as if there wasn't enough to do already :D).

Well, that is my suggestion - please discuss.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's very easy to hack the files to make this happen, and I don't believe any kind of AI adjustments are necessary because the AI should begin using this paths like they were there all along.

I think it's clear that a Kazan->someplace else path needs to exist, the question is just... Kazan to where?

I think another obvious one is Arkhangelsk->?

There also probably ought to be a ?->Tobolsk path, to help an AI Russia conquer Sibir easily (unless for some reason we think Sibir shouldn't be easy to conquer).
 
Russia (and Novgorod) didn't have THAT much business there before before the 16th century which is why I don't think putting Arkhangelsk as a walkthrough province is a good idea. If we only put one in Kazan it would take some time for Russia to start messing around in that back yard. Of course for realism there should be one in Arkhangelsk too ... but what are we aiming for?
 
Yes, good point. I guess what it comes down to is this: if we decide to put trans-Ural TPs in for Novgorod at start, it makes some sense to have a link between Arkhangelsk and, say, 1581 (Obdorsk) and/or 1583 (Berezov).

If we decide not to put in those TPs at start, then I think it makes alot of sense to not build those links.

I think getting this sorted will take a fair degree of testing to see how the AI behaves (if that isn't already too obvious).
 
I think we also need to take into consideration how likely it is for the player to abuse the setup as well. I mean I know that the player can always abuse any situation but I'd think we'd want to mitigate this.

OT: You live in Marlborough Mass? I didn't think anyone else lived in this 'nice' little city.
 
Originally posted by mnorrefeldt
FYI: Crook will remove his material on Russia. It therefore needs to be revised to see what we want to redo, and submit again. Messy business, but that is life

He can't do that. He has donated it to the EEP project. That's it and that's final. Not his. Everybody's.
 
Originally posted by mnorrefeldt
We could fight about it, but we won't.

Yes, our hands are effectively bound unless we want to break the bonds of decency and respect. So although it'll be tedious, its best if we just re-code everything that is to be removed.
 
Yes, Marlborough, Mass. You're probably my next store neighbor or something. Well, in that case, you'd probably be Brazilian... are you? ;)

Originally posted by Garbon
I think we also need to take into consideration how likely it is for the player to abuse the setup as well. I mean I know that the player can always abuse any situation but I'd think we'd want to mitigate this.

OT: You live in Marlborough Mass? I didn't think anyone else lived in this 'nice' little city.
 
Cool, hope you didn't take my comment to be racist--in fact, many of my Brazilian neighbors are very nice, I eat at Brazilian restaurants in town fairly often, and Brazilian women are usually pretty easy on the eyes. :)

Originally posted by Garbon
Although likely :p , I'm not Brazilian though I do have a great-aunt that lives in Brazil :D