Talking about Russia in 1.8...
well, america DID buy alaska from russia. :|
How about an event chain to westernise Russia?
- Thread starter Casus_Belli
- 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.
well, america DID buy alaska from russia. :|
i do not WANT to proclaim victory
i do not CARE about 'victory'
i WANT you to understand and for ME to undestand YOU
I'm sorry. I don't think it's possible. Moreover, I don't think it's necessary. I don't have anything against you personally but I hate having pointless discussions and I'm afraid that was one of them.
The thing is that EU4 is just a much more simplified simulation of history on a grand scale with a significant share of abstraction. You either like the way Pdx abstracts things or not. I tend to like that's why I'm playing game. The only way to say if the game is adequately balanced is to play the game. If AI nations live up to their historic borders that's fine. If not - something needs to be buffed/nerfed (like Siberian Iberia). Discussing very murky topics like we did (Was Russia westernised [in EU4 sense] or not during Crimean War?) requires debating on the edges of game design, history, logic and philosophy. I can not afford to get so much invested in the game.
Sincerely, get well soon. Sweden is OP, no joking.
Well, they were forced to sell. Russian Empress (?) was considering that if they did not sell Alyaska to USA it would be annexed by GB.
Well, Russian California is also historical on a smaller scale. Fort Ross, anyone?
OK, can we stop discussing Crimean War now? Like Napoleon's fate, and, I dunno, WW2, the real lesson to learn from there is that Coalition system is OP.
Empress in question:
Empress in question:
They've started a bit too far from Alaska, and they have a lot of free space to colonize further. Also you cant even remotely compare total continental military power of any major colonizers to Russia in EU4. And unlike any other European colonizer, Russia has much easier access to NA West Coast.
I'm saving popcorn to watch how the things will do further =))
i am not swedish ._. i am icelandic.
the point of this thread is what made me make my point... the idea that russia should get absolute westernization event... i was just saying, no... because it could be argued that even after the time period they were often fell behind. not saying they cant westernize... just saying that an absolute event wouldnt be much point
as someone else has put westernization process was based around russian reforms int he first place. i was just stating that it is a possibility, not a absolute, for a reason. the only thing which derail me from my goal was 2 things
1. first you thought i was make a joke about ukraine-russia thing happening in real life contemporary situation ( and i was not..had not even though of that, but if anything i will say that is a testament to the level of development russia has that ther eis not in 2014 a coalition war over russian expansionism in crimea that happened 150 years ago.)
2. you ask for citation on what i was saying about crimean war... and then ignore it and confuse me deeply in your intentions...
Last edited:
i only meant that them colonising alaska is a reasonable eventuality
I did say I'm sorry for misunderstanding your first post. However, these jokes fly around everywhere suggesting generalization that Russia is a steppe horde taking it to the extreme. Fellow American did this in the thread. I hope you do understand me. The majority of my acquaintances hate Putin and his buddies and hate all this Ukrainian thing. I encountered only one supporter of Crimea annexation and she was in her 60s.
I didn't ignore you links. My point is that debating this sort of abstract concepts is useless (unless someone has a very strong case) because the game abstracts the things too simplistically therefore direct comparison and cross-analysis is neither possible or required. Does Sweden's loss in Great Northern War suggest that it was behind in mil and dip tech? God only knows. Pyotr did an amazing invention of galley marine squads which was ahead of its time (galley combat ability anyone?).
We have our differences. That's that. White peace?
Last edited:
From my point of view, Russia was never completely western until late Soviet Union, but it should be able to perform more or less on par with western powers in terms of military after Peter the Great during EU4 timeframe (e.g. beating Friedrich the great couple of times during 7 years war, Italian campaign of Suvorov etc.) , so we should separate military westernization and administrative one. In the same time Russia generally should be far less efficient in terms of collecting taxes and production (until possible modernization)
, but it should be able to perform more or less on par with western powers in terms of military after Peter the Great during EU4 timeframe (e.g. beating Friedrich the great couple of times during 7 years war, Italian campaign of Suvorov etc.) , so we should separate military westernization and administrative one. In the same time Russia generally should be far less efficient in terms of collecting taxes and production (until possible modernization)From my point of view, Russia was never completely western until late Soviet Union
It's is already in the game believe. Just compare European provinces BT (Hansa, wtf?) and Russia's. So is the trade. Novgorod is basically useless trade node after Pdx removed demand-supply system. Fur sucks these days.
OK, can we stop discussing Crimean War now? Like Napoleon's fate, and, I dunno, WW2, the real lesson to learn from there is that Coalition system is OP.
Empress in question:
LOL,my bad
))) Fact checking is supreme. Ekorovin, I should add to the friends.
It's one of the worst religion to me. The potential bonuses it provides come with a hudge drawback.
Yeah, it is. Unfortunately. Orthodox does need to be buffed.
-33% Tax Income
Tax income loss (Desyatina) in manageable IMHO. You get missionary strength and unrest reduction which are huge. MP bonus is nice as well. I think it's reasonably balanced. But if not what would you add to it?
You get +33% Manpower, -3 Revolt Risk, and -33% Local Tax in true faith provinces. Revolt risk in true faith is almost useless. Manpower and Local Tax are only relevant resources in the early game, by late game you are usually drowning in both. Overall, the bonuses are bad compared, to, say, Catholicism, Protestantisim, and Reformed which can either improve your military, save monarch points, provide tangible bonuses, or a combination of the three.
Why would you want more manpower if you can't sustain your army in the first hand? I personnaly only increase authority when I have a load of provinces to convert, though the shame is that it takes a long while to go either side of the slider unlike piety so in the end I just sit at 0 authority (0 bonus...).
During my last game, which was interrupted by patch, I had 22-25 of trade value in Novgorod by 1610s (as Novgorod), while Hansa had ~40, but I ain't opened Samarkand yet, so I had to use 1 trader at Archangelsk to collect, and I ain't started trade Trade ideas, so, I believe, it is still pretty decent.
Also, I find it pretty ridiculous, that ottomans has disciple bonus, while Russia doesn't. Since it rather goes against of what I know about Russia-ottos wars
The problem with Russia-Otto wars s that there was so many of them you can find evidence supporting whatever you want