Europa Universalis IV Developer Diary 10 - It all belongs to Mother Russia...
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
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.
Something is missing from this DD...The announcement of next weeks' DD!
Intresting national ideas for Russia, I'm sure their bonusses won't be overpowered within the game.
Intresting national ideas for Russia, I'm sure their bonusses won't be overpowered within the game.
Okay, you aren't up to date on EU3 at all, which would explain why you've been saying so many strange things. Since the Summer, the 5.2 beta patches completely changed the way manpower and force limits are calculated. I suggest you get up to speed before talking about balancing in the future.
super diary! i'm too for some kind of assimilation of tatars. Or better to say - colonization. Because russians just colonize along volga river f.e. After Kazan and Astrakhan fell. Nijni novgorod, saratov, simbirsk, samara, and tzaritzyn later... all those major cities there(and province names in eu terms) was just founded by russians as military or trade ouposts, those cities was not somehow converted, they just werent exist.
Tatars had their only like-capital in Sarai, but even it until very late times was nothing more then horde aul, with horses and stables, buildings there was mostly constructed by foreigners, greeks, asian and european traders.
And on black siol of ukraina was same situation with colonizing and not assimilating territories, when crimean khanate lost.
And in siberia actually.
Nomadic people when beaten just took their scarb and driving away(or fight again).
The only major converated/assimilated cities was kazan and astrakhan, and it can be seen perfectly on every ethnic map of todays russia. Even some crimeans left on south after Stalins "fun". Kazan tatars, and in Astrakhan, and thats it, no where else.
sorry for spelling
Tatars had their only like-capital in Sarai, but even it until very late times was nothing more then horde aul, with horses and stables, buildings there was mostly constructed by foreigners, greeks, asian and european traders.
And on black siol of ukraina was same situation with colonizing and not assimilating territories, when crimean khanate lost.
And in siberia actually.
Nomadic people when beaten just took their scarb and driving away(or fight again).
The only major converated/assimilated cities was kazan and astrakhan, and it can be seen perfectly on every ethnic map of todays russia. Even some crimeans left on south after Stalins "fun". Kazan tatars, and in Astrakhan, and thats it, no where else.
sorry for spelling
Bad at tennis? Andy murray just won gold at the olympics and won the US open? And I was only joking obviously I know there won't be Scottish ideas, even though we've had so many great ones :'( deep fried mars bars anyone?
Couldn't agree more. Every one of these updates has provided a view of a more and more simplifed, constricted experience for gamers. States should start out with a particular identity, but change as you command them over time; that's the selling point of the franchise, after all. Yeah, it should be easier to field a Russian army than, say, a Portugese one ... but only if you haven't worked at changing the inherent identiy of the state. These national ideas and perks are very silly. What if my British Empire exists mostly in reconquered France; doesn't that mean that I can't maximize my potential, since most my ideas have naval consequences? What if I become a Swedish trading empire; aren't thee perks mostly unrelated to trade for this state? No, no. I think I'll just stick to EU3. I'm liking the trade development, I could care less how pretty it looks, but these increasingly unmalleable expressions of state identities is too scripted a gaming experience ... and that's definitely gonna cramp the "anything goes, but realistically" draw ... which is my main interest anyway. Looking more and more like ... pass.
If most countries are getting an ~30% boost from their country ideas anyway, then Russia's benefit doesn't seem that extreme. Then again, Russia also has that massive manpower bonus.
My question is, why isn't this being handled by Russia's size? The endless hordes that spring to mind when one thinks of Russian history didn't exist because Russians have that much of an advantage at turning peasants into infantry, but because they had so damn many peasants. I'd have much preferred an idea series focused on unique aspects of Russian culture and political and social organization, not on fulfilling an expectation that should naturally fulfill itself once you have one political entity ruling everything from the Baltic to the Caspian.
However, this looks like the kind of thing that is easily modded. And it's the fact that one can easily resolve most design disagreements by spending a few minutes in the text files that makes me love Paradox games.
My question is, why isn't this being handled by Russia's size? The endless hordes that spring to mind when one thinks of Russian history didn't exist because Russians have that much of an advantage at turning peasants into infantry, but because they had so damn many peasants. I'd have much preferred an idea series focused on unique aspects of Russian culture and political and social organization, not on fulfilling an expectation that should naturally fulfill itself once you have one political entity ruling everything from the Baltic to the Caspian.
However, this looks like the kind of thing that is easily modded. And it's the fact that one can easily resolve most design disagreements by spending a few minutes in the text files that makes me love Paradox games.
The thing is, most of the time, these countries should follow a path that naturally syncs with their pre-set ideas, which, at least in theory, are dictated by their geographic position and pre-game history. So, taking the country away from the logical path of development that the ideas are meant to model should of course lead to a mismatch between the benefits of the ideas and the strategic direction of your nation, because those ideas represented the natural strategic advantages of your nation that you have chosen to ignore.
Of course, in practice the ideas will include a degree of historical determinism as well as natural historical advantages, and these I'm not too fond of. However, some of these will be necessary to encourage plausible and likely historical outcomes that would otherwise be difficult to model in a game. As for the rest, if the country-specific ideas are anything like the normal ideas in EUIII, you can completely change them by simply altering a few lines of text.
I hope Novgorod gets its own thing, a Russian republic was one of my favorite things to do in EU3.
Wanna get a glips of Europa Universalis IV gameplay?
Developer Walkthrough live at Gamespot!
http://www.gamespot.com/europa-univ...universalis-iv-developer-walkthrough-6399827/
Developer Walkthrough live at Gamespot!
http://www.gamespot.com/europa-univ...universalis-iv-developer-walkthrough-6399827/
Wanna get a glips of Europa Universalis IV gameplay?
Developer Walkthrough live at Gamespot!
http://www.gamespot.com/europa-univ...universalis-iv-developer-walkthrough-6399827/
Yes, thats the sh-i mean stuff we need!
Anyway a big <3 for 30ish% steppes and 60ish% desert on the island of Crete XD
I'm a huge fan of Russian history, so it's great to see effort being put into them.
Question to Paradox:
Why so many Russian decisions are focused around cheap infantry and extra manpower? Russia is not unique at that, and, frankly, the fact that the Russian generals were almost always liberal with soldiers' lives doesn't mean Russia had significantly more manpower compared to other countries of its size (hard to find one now, but not so in EU timeframe).
The reasons behind Russia's large armies:
1. Territory. Not the largest around and historic army size comparisons reflect it. Russia outnumbers smaller countries (Sweden, Teutonic Order), is more or less on equal terms with Poland-Lithuania and is outnumbered by the Ottomans.
2. Serfs = easy draft (more manpower) + cheaper enrollment (obvious). Serfs are not unique to Russia. Russian cheap infantry is not culture specific.
3. EU2 and EU3 tradition and religion settings would better explain the other reasons behind Russian cheap infantry and expanded manpower. Again, something that is not unique to Russia and something that shouldn't be pre-determined by unique Russian ideas.
Sigh. For what it's worth, I do support unique national ideas, but these make little sense to me. Mods shall help, I imagine.
Why so many Russian decisions are focused around cheap infantry and extra manpower? Russia is not unique at that, and, frankly, the fact that the Russian generals were almost always liberal with soldiers' lives doesn't mean Russia had significantly more manpower compared to other countries of its size (hard to find one now, but not so in EU timeframe).
The reasons behind Russia's large armies:
1. Territory. Not the largest around and historic army size comparisons reflect it. Russia outnumbers smaller countries (Sweden, Teutonic Order), is more or less on equal terms with Poland-Lithuania and is outnumbered by the Ottomans.
2. Serfs = easy draft (more manpower) + cheaper enrollment (obvious). Serfs are not unique to Russia. Russian cheap infantry is not culture specific.
3. EU2 and EU3 tradition and religion settings would better explain the other reasons behind Russian cheap infantry and expanded manpower. Again, something that is not unique to Russia and something that shouldn't be pre-determined by unique Russian ideas.
Sigh. For what it's worth, I do support unique national ideas, but these make little sense to me. Mods shall help, I imagine.
