Finmark, Narvik, Iceland & Muscovy - worth it?

[pgroves]

Another set of Muscovy/Russia -related questions (see my previous two posts for more!)...

As Muscovy in AGCEEP, its pretty easy to grab Finmark, Narvik and Iceland off Norway fairly early on and to send just a single colonist to each to convert to Russian and Orthodox (which is all I ever do to Karelia, which also has a low Base tax value, to avoid making tech costs worse by making it a city). I was wondering if people think its worth bothering, though.

On the one hand, having at least one port near Murmansk is strategically very handy (and having any additional ports helps Muscovy/Russia's low naval support limit) and if Norway's maps have been gained by capturing their capital, then Iceland could be a useful future stop-off point for colonisation of North America from the west.

On the other hand, the colonies are economically almost worthless - increasing them to cities will hurt tech costs, though would possibly be worth doing in Iceland just to be able to build a fort. Also, perhaps more seriously, owning any of these provinces would give Norway (and probably later Denmark) a permanent CB on Muscovy/Russia, which could cause problems later...

On a related note, was wondering about Gotland, which Denmark owns initially - was thinking could be worth grabbing this island, but then releasing it as a vassal and bringing into my alliance, as its strategically in a useful position, but is wrong culture/religion...

What are people's thoughts on the above? Thanks...

 

[unmerged(96838)]

Forget the tech reasons, its just cool to have those colonies.

 

[pgroves]

Forget the tech reasons, its just cool to have those colonies.

Well there is that, I particularly like the thought of having an orthodox Russian Iceland

Also having a port in Finmark means you can block access using a navy (without suffering attrition) to the Russian provinces that border the White Sea, which is definitely useful!

 

[Mats_SX]

Tech wise, prolly not worth it. I don't think you will be able to colonise Siberia AND North America anyway. Unless you're hellbent on doing that, there's really no reason to take those two (or three) provinces. Well, Mega Death got a reason, of course, and it is in fact a good one.

Taking Gotland might be harder than worth it, considering you'll need to overcome the Danish navy.

 

[pgroves]

Tech wise, prolly not worth it. I don't think you will be able to colonise Siberia AND North America anyway. Unless you're hellbent on doing that, there's really no reason to take those two (or three) provinces. Well, Mega Death got a reason, of course, and it is in fact a good one.

I think Finmark (alone) could be worth it, for strategic reasons (port to base out of to protect the provinces that border the white sea etc.), but I guess there's less benefit to the others if not colonising Eastern USA...

Taking Gotland might be harder than worth it, considering you'll need to overcome the Danish navy.

Ah yes, but in my current game am allied to Sweden and the Teutonic Order, which helps, as do my 30 galleys...

 

[likk9922]

Gotland is hard to keep as Russia... its rebels very often, what with the incorrect religion and culture, and Russia's generally low stability. And it's annoying to have to continually send troops in, and totally not worth it economically to station a garrison there. I wouldn't.

Narvik and Finmark ain't all that bad, esp. when fur prices start skyrocketing. Iceland can be nice strategically, but it's debateable whether it's worth it for Russia.

 

[pgroves]

Gotland is hard to keep as Russia... its rebels very often, what with the incorrect religion and culture, and Russia's generally low stability. And it's annoying to have to continually send troops in, and totally not worth it economically to station a garrison there. I wouldn't.

But that's exactly why I was instead suggesting to release it as a vassal and then to bring it into my alliance... Of course, that may not be a brilliant idea either, as it would be a very small country taking up a valuable alliance slot, but having a friendly staging ground in the Baltic could be handy...

Narvik and Finmark ain't all that bad, esp. when fur prices start skyrocketing.

In AGCEEP I think they're all Fish provinces, unfortunately - Narvik with Base Tax 2, Finmark with Base Tax 1...

Iceland can be nice strategically, but it's debateable whether it's worth it for Russia.

Sure, especially as it doesn't even have a fort like the others..

 

[Mats_SX]

Gotland is hard to keep as Russia... its rebels very often, what with the incorrect religion and culture, and Russia's generally low stability. And it's annoying to have to continually send troops in, and totally not worth it economically to station a garrison there. I wouldn't.

He wanted to release it as a vassal.

Narvik and Finmark ain't all that bad, esp. when fur prices start skyrocketing. Iceland can be nice strategically, but it's debateable whether it's worth it for Russia.

They are Fish and Naval Supplies => very poor.

 

[Slavick3000]

Fish and naval supplies increase the naval support limit. Useful for Russia once the time comes for the Great Northern War.
Also, I usually try to take at least a few of the Finnish provinces from Sweden anyways. When the (inevitable) war(s) with Sweden come, those provinces make a great barrier to invasion, as Sweden has to trudge through and besiege those provinces, suffering attrition, which gets even worse in the winter, while I ready my troops for a spring counterattack.
The hard part is dealing with the Danish/Swedish fleet...

 

[Dspencer]

If you're playing russia, then tech factors shouldn't figure into your calculations, unless you're not planning on going east and building an empire...but if that's the case, why play russia?! o

 

[likk9922]

So apparently I ignored the important part and got all of my facts wrong. Sorry. Happens occasionally when you listen to Likk.

Erm... I still don't think Gotland is worth the BB or troops it would take to seige it.

 

[BurningEGO]

So apparently I ignored the important part and got all of my facts wrong. Sorry. Happens occasionally when you listen to Likk.

Erm... I still don't think Gotland is worth the BB or troops it would take to seige it.

You can always take every province by paying only 1 BB. Vassalize and annex the buggers that own it.

And as Russia i frankly tought you knew you would get a lot of non-cultured provinces with a diferent religion then yours, plenty of times. Examples are - polish provinces, baltic provinces, and a lot in the east... It might be costly and not that profitable, but hell, if you are only staying on your cultured provs then you arent going to do much the entire game tbh.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

Another set of Muscovy/Russia -related questions (see my previous two posts for more!)...

As Muscovy in AGCEEP, its pretty easy to grab Finmark, Narvik and Iceland off Norway fairly early on and to send just a single colonist to each to convert to Russian and Orthodox (which is all I ever do to Karelia, which also has a low Base tax value, to avoid making tech costs worse by making it a city). I was wondering if people think its worth bothering, though.

On the one hand, having at least one port near Murmansk is strategically very handy (and having any additional ports helps Muscovy/Russia's low naval support limit) and if Norway's maps have been gained by capturing their capital, then Iceland could be a useful future stop-off point for colonisation of North America from the west.

On the other hand, the colonies are economically almost worthless - increasing them to cities will hurt tech costs, though would possibly be worth doing in Iceland just to be able to build a fort. Also, perhaps more seriously, owning any of these provinces would give Norway (and probably later Denmark) a permanent CB on Muscovy/Russia, which could cause problems later...

On a related note, was wondering about Gotland, which Denmark owns initially - was thinking could be worth grabbing this island, but then releasing it as a vassal and bringing into my alliance, as its strategically in a useful position, but is wrong culture/religion...

What are people's thoughts on the above? Thanks...

that can only be achived with high casualities( due to winter attrition but most important due to sweeden aggressivness level, she will never peace on your terms unless 100ws)

but if get an OPORTUNITY to grab those 2 norway colonies, it is only worth doing so in late 1490's. that is becouse you give the scandinavian alliance a permanent cb against you = they will dow u frequent, however around 1500's their alliance breaks to pieces .
IF still want to get them , just send 1 colonist to each( to save them as your culture/religion) and do not make them full cities until MUCH later on.
muscovy is not a naval nation. it does NOT needs naval support for first 200 years. by doing so you just take resources away from the other economic aspects(MORE important) that you need them for.
i generally COMPLEATLLY IGNORE any sweedish/norway/denemark war for the first 200 years or slo. if they do, just defend the cot, and let them exhaust/siege those western poor russian provinces. after 3-5 years they WILL accept white peace or even give you some money.

 

[unmerged(3931)]

Some observations:

Supposedly European provinces do not change culture when they are colonized even when below the 1000 population city level. I haven't tested this myself; but I have heard reports from those who claimed to test it. It doesn't matter much, you would only get 30% less of one or two ducats anyway, big deal. It is good to grab some colonies; but I wouldn't bother to colonize at all.

Edit: Sorry, colonist still changes culture but culture doesn't change automatically when revolt risk is eliminated.

Provinces with a port and no fort are the easiest to defend. Just keep a galley in port and when enemy troops land on your province the galley begins to leave port. Click the galley and force it to stay in port. That recaptures the province and the stupid AI keeps its troops there anyway. That is great in Iceland where the AI troops will just melt away due to attrition. And Iceland is likely where the AI troops will go because the AI prefers the lowest numbered province with the smallest fort.

In a defensive war Gotland costs only one badboy which is regained if you vassalize. Would be nice to have a vassal, better manpower, more money, military access.

 

[likk9922]

Some observations:

Supposedly European provinces do not change culture when they are colonized even when below the 1000 population city level. I haven't tested this myself; but I have heard reports from those who claimed to test it. It doesn't matter much, you would only get 30% less of one or two ducats anyway, big deal. It is good to grab some colonies; but I wouldn't bother to colonize at all.

Yeah, you can't just wait thirty years for the revoltrisk to die down before the province changes culture. It never will.
But if the population is under 1000, you can always send a colonist...

 

[unmerged(3931)]

Oh right, colonist still works, sorry.

 

[unmerged(103313)]

I actually colonized all of Siberia with full cities, all the way to Kamchatka, by 1630 or so in one of my AGCEEP games. I had 5 merchants in just about every market, as well. And yet, my technology was laughable. I would still win every war on sheer economic power and human waves, of course. Quantity has a quality all its own.

The opposite of Russia is probably Venice: naval based, small, and very advanced technologically. Playing both countries gives a great perspective of the game.

I've begun to seriously consider tax base when colonizing, even though trade profits can be very high with furs, etc. The tax base just seems to carry more weight, though I don't exactly know why. Some countries simply need those base 1-2 colonies to add more weight, like Japan or Portugal, but Russia is just an example of a country that can get possibly too big for its own good. Or, to be more honest, fat.

EDIT: For the situation you mentioned, I would avoid different culture/different religion provinces at all costs, since even having the same culture and religion can hurt Russia due to the aforementioned reasons. Vassalization could be considered, though. I would focus east (not necessarily fully developing Siberia though) and possibly aim for the Western US or East Indies, or perhaps conquering all the Orthodox provinces.

 

[Monkii-sama]

Provinces with a port and no fort are the easiest to defend. Just keep a galley in port and when enemy troops land on your province the galley begins to leave port. Click the galley and force it to stay in port. That recaptures the province and the stupid AI keeps its troops there anyway. That is great in Iceland where the AI troops will just melt away due to attrition. And Iceland is likely where the AI troops will go because the AI prefers the lowest numbered province with the smallest fort.

That's a bit gamey though.

 

[Stoertebecker]

I actually colonized all of Siberia with full cities, all the way to Kamchatka, by 1630 or so in one of my AGCEEP games. I had 5 merchants in just about every market, as well. And yet, my technology was laughable. I would still win every war on sheer economic power and human waves, of course. Quantity has a quality all its own.

The opposite of Russia is probably Venice: naval based, small, and very advanced technologically. Playing both countries gives a great perspective of the game.

I've begun to seriously consider tax base when colonizing, even though trade profits can be very high with furs, etc. The tax base just seems to carry more weight, though I don't exactly know why. Some countries simply need those base 1-2 colonies to add more weight, like Japan or Portugal, but Russia is just an example of a country that can get possibly too big for its own good. Or, to be more honest, fat.

EDIT: For the situation you mentioned, I would avoid different culture/different religion provinces at all costs, since even having the same culture and religion can hurt Russia due to the aforementioned reasons. Vassalization could be considered, though. I would focus east (not necessarily fully developing Siberia though) and possibly aim for the Western US or East Indies, or perhaps conquering all the Orthodox provinces.

With Russia, the best way to get a good techspeed is to have much more than 90 provinces. Of course you could also stay away from Siberia. But then, that would be no real "Russia" game.

Just wait a bit with all the mongol provinces, until you come near to the 90 provinces (take just a corridor to siberia), and of course build some refineries here and there and you should have quite a good techspeed.
Other things to consider are to wait with big landgainings and to higher innovation for a little , until you reached important techs (like trade 3),
Then, with 90 provinces reached mostly by colonizing, you can annex all that belongs to mother Russia and more.

Then you'll definitively have a good techspeed.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Personally I would take Finnmark and Narvik just to have ports at the Arctic Ocean. It's useful to have northern ports during the war if Baltic Sea is blockaded by stronger naval powers. And while Iceland doesn't have monetary value, it has strategic value if you pursuit naval strategy. If that is the case I would take it. If I have naval strategy then I try to take islands like Iceland, Saint Helena etc. to myself because those offer good places for your navies to rest.