Hmmm, I guess the big question then is "Does the state religion in the info screen refer to the majority religion or the state-sponsored/sanctioned religion?" Hell, I'd be interested to know what role religion has at all in game terms.
-
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 Lord Durham
Excellent work, Sytass. (Not that I expected anything less.)
Thanks, LD.
It's good to have you here. As for the collapse of Russia: their domestic reforms (esp. social reforms) are... well, non-existant, unlike in other countries during the era. Add to that high taxes to keep the state's coffers fillled for the war.... and things get messy. Also note, that by December 1917 occasional uprisings start to take place in France, too, in my game. War Exhaustion also plays a role.
EDIT: sorry, I read your post too quickly. Still I think that it is just as it should that domestic discontent is the crucial factor that forces countries to sue for peace. In RL the Russians weren't beaten on the battlefield in 1905 nor 1917, but since they were facing internal collapse they had to give in. The Germans weren't beaten by november 1918 either but they knew that if they tried to continue the revolution would soon erupt.
It was Sytass himself who said that this peace event doesn't kick in untill 20% of Russian territory is enemy or rebel controlled.
Given that the Russians still didn't make peace in time to be able to crush the revolution one wonders if the percentage should be even lower
As far as I could tell there were no events forcing that many rebels, it was just that Russian social policies where not up to par with the others. If even France is having problems with the rebels in the AAR I think it's only realistic that Russia faces severe problems with discontent.
The only small worry I see is that the AI might need to be tweaked a little so that it didn't put so much resources into the military but tried to keep the population happy too. Sytass seems to be able to handle the balance of bullets vs butter better than the AI.
Cheers, Hakkapeliitta
Last edited:
It does seem that Russia is falling apart even when it is winning the war. I can't make any real conclusions about this without playing the game but possibly revolt risk should be lowered as long as you are gaining ground (that is not based on what you are holding but based on how much you have captured say the last three months), kind of like gaining +1 stability in EUII when annexing a country. This might lead to some odd results of people beeing forced to invade Siberia to keep domestic stability up but that could be fixed by only allowing old world majors to gain stability by taking European lands. Same for US that it only helps them to take north American lands that would interest the populace. So basically only stability for taking land where you have your capitol (with a special modification for Turkey and central America).
But if the Germans would have had a sudden breakthrough in the front two days before they historically surrendered, don't you think there would have been more popular support for the war? Who would advocate giving up when you are advancing ten miles per day into enemy territory... well if the situation at home is really desperate people still would start demanding a new govenrment but winning should help lower revolt risk at home.
In the case of the AAR, as long as the Russians were gaining ground the support at home should be easy to maintain but once they get stuck or lose their rate of advance support for the war should start to falter. For the Germans, the support for the war should be easier to maintain as long as they are advancing at some front. Being stuck in the middle of France without any hope of winning should not be a great morale booster but taking town after town would make for great headlines.
*edit-have to start proof-reading my posts*
In the case of the AAR, as long as the Russians were gaining ground the support at home should be easy to maintain but once they get stuck or lose their rate of advance support for the war should start to falter. For the Germans, the support for the war should be easier to maintain as long as they are advancing at some front. Being stuck in the middle of France without any hope of winning should not be a great morale booster but taking town after town would make for great headlines.
*edit-have to start proof-reading my posts*
Last edited:
Hum! Ho!
The Russian-Turkish border is wrong!
On the screenies the province of Kars and the one to the west already belong to Turkey. However, they had been lost to Russia in 1878 and were only recovered in 1920.
Depending on what the province south of Kars is meant to represent (the whole are looks a little distorted) it should also belong to Russia in 1914, the border ran halfway between Ardahan and Kars.
The Russian-Turkish border is wrong!
On the screenies the province of Kars and the one to the west already belong to Turkey. However, they had been lost to Russia in 1878 and were only recovered in 1920.
Depending on what the province south of Kars is meant to represent (the whole are looks a little distorted) it should also belong to Russia in 1914, the border ran halfway between Ardahan and Kars.
Hmmm...
We had the not quite realistic Brest-Litovsk thingy and now this! I'd say this game has an anti-Russian bias! Those guys at Paradox are a bunch of Russophobes!!! :rofl:
The problem is, it had been making headlines for years, and after four years of constant war, most people (except for the diehard armchair warriors) really didn't give a damn about the headlines any more. If you'd believe what the newspapers said between 1914 and 1918 you'd think they would have won the war three times over.
You can in many ways compare the situation of Russia in the AAR with Germany's situation in October 1918. They were still deep inside enemy territory, but on the retreat. They had only shortly before won great victories, but the confidence of the people has evaporated all too quickly. They still had large armies in the field - however what had been enthusiastic 20-year old volunteers and confident reservists in 1914 were by now 18-year olds drafted off the school benches and the last reserve of 30+ and 40+ year olds who had not been drafted in the years before because they were either 'indispensible' or just unfit.
To boil down my proposal:
When at war the computer has a three-month memory of the number of provinces lost or gained (perhaps they could be weighted by tax value or population or something, that can be decided later). This would be recalculated every month. The bigger the difference in the number of provinces gained over the number lost, the greater morale boost you would be given. When the war is run to a standstill, the bonus would dissipate over the course of the three months. In EUII terms, a morale boost means a negative bonus to revolt risk, I don't know how it is expressed in Victoria terms (yet).
If the country is in a really bad shape, you have already carted off the last of the senior citizens to charge across the trenches, the lowered revolt risk is not going to save you. If you are just hanging in the balance at the home front, victories abroad would save you, or keep you hanging in there until you could sign a good treaty and return in triumph to deal with the malcontents.
So that the Kaiser doesn't save his government by gobbling up worthless provinces in the Sahara, the system needs to be weighted or only used for territorial gains on the home continent (perhaps use the same criteria as colonial war versus regular war for which parts of the world count).
Even if the newspapers have been printing 'overly optimistic' news all along, you are going to have an easier time making it believable when you have actual victories to present. A picture of the Kaiser drinking beer at the foot of the Eiffel tower is going to be more believable than a picture of the Kaiser at home saying he has captured Paris (or is about to).
Dear AlexanderG!
Well, I'm afraid this AAR outcome is more realistic for Russian situation then your reasoning. Russia is rather "defense-minding" country & Russians according to history fight better on their own territory. Examples:
1. You told us - Austria didn't surrender losing to Russia her "3 capitals". Well, the same thing was for Prussia losing around 75% of their territory for Russia in Seven-Years war & Frederick the Great didn't ask Russia to make Peace - Russian ruler asked him - try guess why? Why Prussia didn't surrender? Why Russia make "White Peace" pretty fast?
First answer is - German population was... they didn't like Russian attitude to occupied populace - then Russians need to garrison taken Prussian cities pretty heavy as a rule. It wasn't "silent resistance" on Peasant/"commoner" level famous Phisosopher Immanuil Kant didn't succumb to really hard pressure in asking to join "Konigsberg occupation magistrate" preferring rather long (but mild) imprisonment with librarian occupation for taken in custody. It means - Prussian majority wasn't happy with Russian occupants as national entity then Friedrich didn't make peace negotiations at all.
Second answer is - victorious Russia in mid-XVIII century was on brink of collapse. If you check Russian History more closely - you'll find out about a series of mutinee swept around this country in form of "Salt, Copper" & most gross - "Cholera Mutinee" in Moscow with "Peasant War of Pougachev as result". I'm far from spaeking - Russia was on brink of great Civil War in mid XVIII century, but all processes are resembled processes of XX century.
2. From another point of view - all "glorious Russian wars" (against Swedish King Karl XII, Napoleon, Hitler, or - various Polish/Lithuanian invaders in EU2 timespan) began from big territorial losses for our country, but instead of seeds of dissent we've got a real hard & harsh flame of Patriotism/Nationalism supported by preaching of jealous & fanatical "Orthodox Religious Order of Muscovy" (named so by some Russian historians).
3. All lost wars of Russia were on her national borders without significant Russian inhabitants & Russian majority saw them as "not ours war" - this description belong to various Azov rackets of early Romanovs, European & Caspian war-tripping of Peter the Great, Seven-Years War, early Napoleonic wars, Crimean war, Russia-Japan war & Afghanistan story if you like the parallel. All these wars rised really gruesome seeds of discontent in Russian population with rather long periods of national disturbance after them.
A. Are you wonder if Communist system broke apart - rather unexpectedly, egh? What do you say if I tell you - reason was in unpopular & unfruitful war in Afghanistan? Do you agree with next statement - Communist system had some faults & unsuccessful military efforts in Afghan broke spine of Russian Red Colossus?
B. Are you wonder if Czarist system broke apart - rather unexpectedly, egh? What do you say if I tell you - reason was in unpopular & unfruitful Fisrt World War against Germany? Do you agree with next statement - Czarist system had some faults & unsuccessful military efforts in lost Poland broke spine of Russian White Colossus?
Then - if Russia lost her territory very heavy in Campaign 1914-1915, then we could get the same scenario as - with Karl XII, Hitler, or Napoleon. But - according AAR she was winning - then we've got another Crimean war/Seven Years War/WWI/Suvorov March through Alps scenario. It's - simple. It's - SO SIMPLE.
Russian "Great" wars never was about - territory, or monetary gains - our country has territory enough & any spoils of war never reached common Russian soldier ;0. It was about common people attitude to this war & they like to fight only in case of mortal danger to all dears for them. It's - SO SIMPLE.
Brgds, Alex Bash.
P.S. By the way Russia lost her cause not in mythical counter-offensive in 1917. She lost bloom of her Nation & Officer Corps in Victory of so named "Brousilov Assault" of 1916. Do you know - any honest Officer didn't like "to shake hand" with this general & he got nickname as "Butcher". It was a main reason for him to convert on Red side under first available moment. Do you know... 15-16 years youth of nobility had to take command in Russian Army after this Brusilov "success". Soldier masse went out of control from these unexperienced hands - pretty fast - it became dawn of chaos - Revolution occured half year after that...
Well, I'm afraid this AAR outcome is more realistic for Russian situation then your reasoning. Russia is rather "defense-minding" country & Russians according to history fight better on their own territory. Examples:
1. You told us - Austria didn't surrender losing to Russia her "3 capitals". Well, the same thing was for Prussia losing around 75% of their territory for Russia in Seven-Years war & Frederick the Great didn't ask Russia to make Peace - Russian ruler asked him - try guess why? Why Prussia didn't surrender? Why Russia make "White Peace" pretty fast?
First answer is - German population was... they didn't like Russian attitude to occupied populace - then Russians need to garrison taken Prussian cities pretty heavy as a rule. It wasn't "silent resistance" on Peasant/"commoner" level famous Phisosopher Immanuil Kant didn't succumb to really hard pressure in asking to join "Konigsberg occupation magistrate" preferring rather long (but mild) imprisonment with librarian occupation for taken in custody. It means - Prussian majority wasn't happy with Russian occupants as national entity then Friedrich didn't make peace negotiations at all.
Second answer is - victorious Russia in mid-XVIII century was on brink of collapse. If you check Russian History more closely - you'll find out about a series of mutinee swept around this country in form of "Salt, Copper" & most gross - "Cholera Mutinee" in Moscow with "Peasant War of Pougachev as result". I'm far from spaeking - Russia was on brink of great Civil War in mid XVIII century, but all processes are resembled processes of XX century.
2. From another point of view - all "glorious Russian wars" (against Swedish King Karl XII, Napoleon, Hitler, or - various Polish/Lithuanian invaders in EU2 timespan) began from big territorial losses for our country, but instead of seeds of dissent we've got a real hard & harsh flame of Patriotism/Nationalism supported by preaching of jealous & fanatical "Orthodox Religious Order of Muscovy" (named so by some Russian historians).
3. All lost wars of Russia were on her national borders without significant Russian inhabitants & Russian majority saw them as "not ours war" - this description belong to various Azov rackets of early Romanovs, European & Caspian war-tripping of Peter the Great, Seven-Years War, early Napoleonic wars, Crimean war, Russia-Japan war & Afghanistan story if you like the parallel. All these wars rised really gruesome seeds of discontent in Russian population with rather long periods of national disturbance after them.
A. Are you wonder if Communist system broke apart - rather unexpectedly, egh? What do you say if I tell you - reason was in unpopular & unfruitful war in Afghanistan? Do you agree with next statement - Communist system had some faults & unsuccessful military efforts in Afghan broke spine of Russian Red Colossus?
B. Are you wonder if Czarist system broke apart - rather unexpectedly, egh? What do you say if I tell you - reason was in unpopular & unfruitful Fisrt World War against Germany? Do you agree with next statement - Czarist system had some faults & unsuccessful military efforts in lost Poland broke spine of Russian White Colossus?
Then - if Russia lost her territory very heavy in Campaign 1914-1915, then we could get the same scenario as - with Karl XII, Hitler, or Napoleon. But - according AAR she was winning - then we've got another Crimean war/Seven Years War/WWI/Suvorov March through Alps scenario. It's - simple. It's - SO SIMPLE.
Russian "Great" wars never was about - territory, or monetary gains - our country has territory enough & any spoils of war never reached common Russian soldier ;0. It was about common people attitude to this war & they like to fight only in case of mortal danger to all dears for them. It's - SO SIMPLE.
Brgds, Alex Bash.
P.S. By the way Russia lost her cause not in mythical counter-offensive in 1917. She lost bloom of her Nation & Officer Corps in Victory of so named "Brousilov Assault" of 1916. Do you know - any honest Officer didn't like "to shake hand" with this general & he got nickname as "Butcher". It was a main reason for him to convert on Red side under first available moment. Do you know... 15-16 years youth of nobility had to take command in Russian Army after this Brusilov "success". Soldier masse went out of control from these unexperienced hands - pretty fast - it became dawn of chaos - Revolution occured half year after that
...
I hope the Russian Revolution, to the extent of the government falling to those insufferable Communists isn't hard-coded, as someone else a few posts back suggested?
I guess it wouldn't be impossible for Lenin to get to Russia via other ways than Germany?
Why Trotzky must be in control? First Revolution was led by Oktjabrist (Conservator) Guchkov , Kadet (Constitutional -Democrat) Miljukov & Liberal Rodzjanko. First Election after that won by slight margin Labourer Party led by Kerensky (he wasn't prime-minister of Czar cabinet at all
. Bolsheviks came to power after 8 months after (they came into Elections of 1917 - after Czar overthrowing in glorious... 5th place with 8% of people support! . Times was shifted after unsuccessful coup-d-etat led by General Kornilov in summer of 1917 - when all liberals "run to left" screaming "save us from Conservators!" - with Kerensky as leading screamer: it's sad irony but Kerensky himself asked "Red Workers Brigades" led by Trotzky & Antonov-Ovseenko to patrol St.Peterburg from "royalist elements" . It was his own death sentence but he didn't realize it in that moment. More then that - Lenin didn't grab reins of Power till mid-November due to fact - "Red Sailors & Soldiers" was led by Trotsky, but "Red Workers Brigades" by Antonov-Ovseenko. Then - if Lenin still out in Switzerland - I assume it's still... some formally Liberal country with token "voted government" & heavy peasants revolts & tight bunch of Red & White hard-liners plotting bloody fighting between them in St.Peterburg & Moscow.Maybe Red faction is already led by Trotzky, maybe it's Antonov-Ovseenko, maybe it's Zinovjev, maybe - Kamenev. Stalin is still on his way from Siberia, Khrouschev is completely unsignificant very young man.
Maybe White faction led by Kornilov, maybe - by Kaledin, maybe - by Kolchak... Most interesting thing is - all these "White" leaders were strongly against Czar as well as "Red" leaders till spring of 1918
. By the way Supreme Leader of White Cause - Admiral Kolchak was strong supporter of Constitutional Democracy Party & was considered by "super-White-hardliner" as "Red" as Lenin himself . Oh, it was really messy situation in Russia of that times.... By the way next Elections in 1918 won Social-Revolution Party led by Vinogradova & Savinkov, but Bolsheviks lost again .I'm not sure if - Russia led by Trotzky or any "Bolshies" leader in this stage of game - at all.
Brgds< Alex Bash
Last edited:
This is very true - you've studied. That's also very different from living there, knowing the people. Even Stalin could not break everyone's neck, though tried.
Bash, I think you are immensely right about the causes of the revolution. Anyone thinking it's a bit too hardcoded should reread his first one.
I don't know a whole lot of Russian history, as it was never what I studied, but that post presented a really interesting perspective on things, particularly given it was through Russian eyes.
I don't know a whole lot of Russian history, as it was never what I studied, but that post presented a really interesting perspective on things, particularly given it was through Russian eyes.