Idea to buff Russian economy

[vaLor-]

It is universally agreed upon that the Russian AI never comes close to its historical extent during EU4's timeframe. So after playing Novgorod a couple months back I found an issue with Russia's trade economy: You don't benefit from your western territories. With the way that trade works in EU4, you want to have 1 node where all of your trade flows into, in order to max out your trade power modifiers from transferring to your home node. However, as you will end up conquering into the baltic sea and krakov nodes in reaching your historic boundaries, you will not be able to wire this trade back into the novgorod node.

My suggestion to improve the Russian AI's economy while retaining historical accuracy (as it is quite obvious the Russian empire benefitted from these territories) is to switch the baltic sea from flowing out of the novgorod node to flowing into the novgorod node. This would in turn allow Russia to build a formidable trade empire that allows it to benefit from its more western territories.

The current trade situaton. I suggest making the baltic sea flow into novgorod.

Notably this would end up nerfing Sweden playthroughs in their initial trade (assuming immediate expansion into the novgorod node) but this can in turn be solved by placing a trade city in the lubeck node and transferring trade.

What do you guys think?

EDIT due to people misunderstanding my post, I don't mean to suggest that the trade node setup is the reason why the Russian AI fails. I'm posting this because I feel it would be an improvement to the current system, and would make westward expansion as Russia worthwhile.

 

[vaLor-]

Didn't think about it initially, but this would also make going for "Third Rome" a worthwhile venture economically (rather than just going down the astrakhan node as a player would).

 

[Vin55]

Its not about economics the west is trash and congress poland is just left out. The problem is petter hordes, plus ottomans on roids pushing into ukraine. Russia is too slow in killing novgorod and forms russia to late as tech ten is needed and in new tech system and op cardinals russia is late to embrace institutions.

 

[leefnmajors]

If you want the Baltic trade, just move your main node into the Baltic or use a second merchant. It's not a hard node to control as most people in Lubeck have their merchants inland, so all you have to do is subdue Sweden and Poland/Prussia which... is the whole goal of westward expansion.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

The problem isn't that Russia is weak. The problem is the AI is terrible at managing Russia's situation. A human player playing Muscovy would utilize its AI vassals to create stacks that will attack Novgorod and the hordes, then attempt to carpet siege. The AI however, will almost never stack vassal armies. Additionally, the human player would not have 5k-6k stacks while the enemy has 10k-14k stacks. A player would doomstack, stackwipe and carpet siege. If the supply limit didn't allow for a doomstack, you'd have two roughly equal sized armies moving together to form a doomstack during battle, then separate again.

For the AI however, the vassals all try to carpet siege, inevitably getting wiped, and Muscovy takes greater losses than it should because it has these random 5k and 6k stacks that also get stackwiped. The AI then rebuilds these units, and because it is prosecuting the war so ineffectively, drags on the war and draws itself into further debt. Add onto that the AIs insistence that it 100% every participant in the war, and you get even longer wars, with more losses (because the AI never groups up its armies to achieve one objective and so after it sieges the capital of Uzbek it marches back down the Crimea, letting Uzbek get its capital back before capitulating, and the war drags on). If the AI used these mini-stacks to get the vassals to attach to, they would make sense. As is however, its absolutely baffling why Russia, and other lesser majors keep these mini stacks around when they main stacks aren't even close to the supply limit.

Also, Muscovy's AI has no chill whatsoever. It will just keep declaring wars without cooldown periods, leaving it constantly out of manpower and in debt, and it often takes very little land, leaving it weak.

Lastly, the Black Sea breaks the AI. No AI can seem to handle the existence of the Black Sea, and this ultimately favors the Ottomans because it has the biggest stacks and best trained stacks in the game. This largely comes down to the military access mechanics being completely and utterly broken by design. And thus instead of this war being fought in the Caucus region, it ends up being primarily fought in Lithuanian controlled Belarus and Ukraine.

The best fixes for Russia, and the game in general, are to make vassals and minors attach by default, get the AI to stop moving its armies independently when each stack is weaker than the opposing stacks, and revert back to the old military access system while making military access harder to come by.

 

[vaLor-]

If you want the Baltic trade, just move your main node into the Baltic or use a second merchant. It's not a hard node to control as most people in Lubeck have their merchants inland, so all you have to do is subdue Sweden and Poland/Prussia which... is the whole goal of westward expansion.

You missed the point, im referring to AI here. The mention of Swedish strategy change I mentioned is only particularly relevant as a player (as sweden did not occupy very much land east of the baltic sea node historically)

The problem isn't that Russia is weak. The problem is the AI is terrible at managing Russia's situation. A human player playing Muscovy would utilize its AI vassals to create stacks that will attack Novgorod and the hordes, then attempt to carpet siege. The AI however, will almost never stack vassal armies. Additionally, the human player would not have 5k-6k stacks while the enemy has 10k-14k stacks. A player would doomstack, stackwipe and carpet siege. If the supply limit didn't allow for a doomstack, you'd have two roughly equal sized armies moving together to form a doomstack during battle, then separate again.

For the AI however, the vassals all try to carpet siege, inevitably getting wiped, and Muscovy takes greater losses than it should because it has these random 5k and 6k stacks that also get stackwiped. The AI then rebuilds these units, and because it is prosecuting the war so ineffectively, drags on the war and draws itself into further debt. Add onto that the AIs insistence that it 100% every participant in the war, and you get even longer wars, with more losses (because the AI never groups up its armies to achieve one objective and so after it sieges the capital of Uzbek it marches back down the Crimea, letting Uzbek get its capital back before capitulating, and the war drags on). If the AI used these mini-stacks to get the vassals to attach to, they would make sense. As is however, its absolutely baffling why Russia, and other lesser majors keep these mini stacks around when they main stacks aren't even close to the supply limit.

Also, Muscovy's AI has no chill whatsoever. It will just keep declaring wars without cooldown periods, leaving it constantly out of manpower and in debt, and it often takes very little land, leaving it weak.

Lastly, the Black Sea breaks the AI. No AI can seem to handle the existence of the Black Sea, and this ultimately favors the Ottomans because it has the biggest stacks and best trained stacks in the game. This largely comes down to the military access mechanics being completely and utterly broken by design. And thus instead of this war being fought in the Caucus region, it ends up being primarily fought in Lithuanian controlled Belarus and Ukraine.

The best fixes for Russia, and the game in general, are to make vassals and minors attach by default, get the AI to stop moving its armies independently when each stack is weaker than the opposing stacks, and revert back to the old military access system while making military access harder to come by.

While I agree, I still believe that even if this were to be fixed, that a successful Russian AI wouldn't look westwards to increase its power base, as it is simply inferior to expanding downstream(as it will benefit from downstream trade, trade companies giving merchants giving trade steering = $$$). I'm not in opposition to your suggestions though.

 

[st360]

Most of the times, Russia doesn't reach its historical borders because the Ottomans ahistoricaly expand their borders into them. And that cant be helped since the Ottomans aren't allowed to be nerfed because blobbers want a endboss when they get bored of playing by 1470.

 

[MagentaPhoenix]

I don't really feel that Russia's economy needs a boost at all. Even under the AI, if they manage to survive initially and build a decent country out of the starting situation, they tend to be moderately wealthy. Under the guidance of a human player, Russia can stack manufactories and become obscenely rich astonishingly quickly.

It's true that the AI is bad at forming Russia, largely because of the Ottomans or because they underestimate alliance chains when attacking hordes, but the proposed change wouldn't address this.

 

[vaLor-]

I made the mistake of not proclaiming in big text when I posted the thread that this isn't supposed to fix all of Russia's issues. It seems that people's strong opinions about the topic of Russian balance(in relation to the Ottomans) has lead them to voice said opinion, regardless of the subject matter.

Now people enter the thread and will align with the popular opinion, which also does not relate to the post.

 

[iClipse]

Meanwhile, every time I played Russia, I found its economy one of its strong suits. From diplo tech 14 (but starting at mil tech 11) they can have an absolutely massive trade economy, while also controlling the outflow. White sea is always 99% yours and Baltic is easy to conquer, making Novgorod as close to an endnode as you can get, and you can make the entirety of Asia flow into it, including Beijing, Persia and India.

Russia's biggest problem is the Ottoman's who shouldn't blob in their territory early.

 

[TheWalttu]

Having the Baltic to flow to Novgorod for just the sake of buffing Russia seems artificial and doesn't really represent the historical flow of profits.

The 1.33 beta introduces great improvements to the AI budgeting, but larger nations still somehow fail to build up economically. It has been bothering me for years how inadept the builder AI is when it comes to buildings, which is still a relevant issue. In a recent 1.33 observer run I noticed following cases:
- France has a nice surplus budget, but proceeds to spams farm estates like a madman without building workshops or temples with significantly higher profit rate.
- Iberians decided that only trade buildings were worth of constructing, leaving the entire peninsula devoid of any construction effort for ~100 years.
These issues are magnified in countries like Russia which have a lot of provinces to build, but fail to capitalize the potential. Smaller nations with less options to spend the money seem to be doing much better though.
Luckily, Paradox has been on a spree when it comes to improving the AI in the last patches, so they might be working on the builder AI as well.

 

[currylambchop]

Russia is so annoying every game, they ally the ottomans.

 

[vaLor-]

Meanwhile, every time I played Russia, I found its economy one of its strong suits. From diplo tech 14 (but starting at mil tech 11) they can have an absolutely massive trade economy, while also controlling the outflow. White sea is always 99% yours and Baltic is easy to conquer, making Novgorod as close to an endnode as you can get, and you can make the entirety of Asia flow into it, including Beijing, Persia and India.

Russia's biggest problem is the Ottoman's who shouldn't blob in their territory early.

I agree with your post, as everything you mentioned was in mine.

Having the Baltic to flow to Novgorod for just the sake of buffing Russia seems artificial and doesn't really represent the historical flow of profits.

What was the historical flow of profits then? Were finland, sweden, the livonian order and the teutons historically siphoning trade from the russian principalities? Or were the baltic territories the benefactors of annexation by Russia? Either way it makes little sense.

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

Muscovy/Russia are one of my favourite tags in the game.

I think they face four issues:

1) They should never ally Ryazan, because this blocks them from forming Russia.
2) Hordes, and this has always been the case, seem to pull insane diplomacy. Kazan can ally Uzbek, Chagati, Crimea and Transoxiana.
3) The Ottomans getting Crimea for free (which never happened in real history) means they'll invariably expand into areas that Russia should be expanding.
4) Muscovy's limited Governing Capacity from being a Duchy should go imo. I get the historical reason why it's done but it really limits their ability to snowball, to the point they never reach their historical borders once Russia is formed. Everyone else just gets bigger whilst they're stuck behind Duchy rank.

 

[TheWalttu]

I agree with your post, as everything you mentioned was in mine.


What was the historical flow of profits then? Were finland, sweden, the livonian order and the teutons historically siphoning trade from the russian principalities? Or were the baltic territories the benefactors of annexation by Russia? Either way it makes little sense

The Hansa and later the Dutch did dominate the Baltic region economically, and were the ones to reek up the profits from the trade (for the greater majority of the period, including the trade with Russia) because of their shipping abilities, so in game terms Novgorod "flowed" to Lübeck through the Baltic.

While the current arrangement makes sense historically, tradeflow being hardcoded is mostly annoying in game and the frustration of not being able to profit fully from conquered land is real.

4) Muscovy's limited Governing Capacity from being a Duchy should go imo. I get the historical reason why it's done but it really limits their ability to snowball, to the point they never reach their historical borders once Russia is formed. Everyone else just gets bigger whilst they're stuck behind Duchy rank.

This. Russian principalities should have the possibility to be elevated into Kingdom rank and Muscovy should start as one, and maybe even Novgorod too.
Muscovy even used to be a kingdom before Third Rome, and trading the rank for +100 gov cap is Lithuania Grand "Fixed" Duchy levels of stupid, albeit Russians at least got shiny buttons in the deal.

 

[NIborGER]

Russia is fine as is and is seemingly helped a lot by patch 1.33. They form on regular base and expand a lot. Any buff to it will hurt plc and sweden who already struggle to compete. Furthermore in player hands russia is extremely strong and one of the best tags in MP if you know what you do (aka realizing that russia gains its power from building a solid eco base and not so much extra manpower)

 

[NIborGER]

This. Russian principalities should have the possibility to be elevated into Kingdom rank and Muscovy should start as one, and maybe even Novgorod too.
Muscovy even used to be a kingdom before Third Rome, and trading the rank for +100 gov cap is Lithuania Grand "Fixed" Duchy levels of stupid, albeit Russians at least got shiny buttons in the deal.

If you go by history there is nothing wrong about muscovy not expanding harder. Till 1540 muscovy annexed novgorod, tver and smolensk (a level of expansion that eu4 usually does) and actually was a vassal/tributary of the golden horde for the first few decades of the game.

 

[Brynjar]

I made the mistake of not proclaiming in big text when I posted the thread that this isn't supposed to fix all of Russia's issues.

Your biggest mistake was to start this thread by claiming that it is universally agreed tha Russia never comes close to their historical extent during the EU4 timeframe. Using the words 'universally agreed', 'never' and the very subjective 'come close' in the same sentence without even specifying which parts of the world you never see Russia own wasn't a very good idea. You can't expect people to guess what you actually mean, especially not when you start with something that is straight up false. I have seen huge AI Russia, a Russia I would consider to be close to its historical extent, although very rarely. The main reason for it being so rare is the Ottomans. Even increasing the Russian income by 50% most likely wouldn't solve that issue, and we would still end up not seeing Russia reaching its historical extent in most games.

Instead of actually wanting to address the big issue for Russia, you want to change the baltic trade to something that would be less historical accurate than the current situation for the majority of the game's timeline.

My suggestion to improve the Russian AI's economy while retaining historical accuracy (as it is quite obvious the Russian empire benefitted from these territories) is to switch the baltic sea from flowing out of the novgorod node to flowing into the novgorod node.

It would also make the trade flow in the wrong direction for the majority of the game's timeline. Most campaigns proably ends even before the Russian empire was a thing.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

You missed the point, im referring to AI here. The mention of Swedish strategy change I mentioned is only particularly relevant as a player (as sweden did not occupy very much land east of the baltic sea node historically)

While I agree, I still believe that even if this were to be fixed, that a successful Russian AI wouldn't look westwards to increase its power base, as it is simply inferior to expanding downstream(as it will benefit from downstream trade, trade companies giving merchants giving trade steering = $$$). I'm not in opposition to your suggestions though.

Russia does move westward though. If Russia can get out of its start, and not get dogpiled by the Ottomans, it will attack into the Baltics, into Belarus and Ukraine, and into Finland. Russia can beat a formed Scandinavia, and often makes its way into Sweden. The problem is it doesn't get big on enough occasions due to the aforementioned problems, and b) the when it does get it never fixes its economy.

The problems with Russia and almost every other AI, aren't due to game mechanics or the need for buffs, but for the AI to actually modestly competent.

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

If you go by history there is nothing wrong about muscovy not expanding harder. Till 1540 muscovy annexed novgorod, tver and smolensk (a level of expansion that eu4 usually does) and actually was a vassal/tributary of the golden horde for the first few decades of the game.

That's not the point.

The point is that Muscovy will sit around until the mid 1500s doing nothing whilst everyone else around them gets stronger. Russia is always meant to be a late-bloomer in this game but at least half the time they don't bloom at all.

Getting game balance right is very hard, I fully admit that, and all we can really go by is anecdotal evidence. However, I put more time into this game than I should, and I haven't seen a truly scary Russia since 1.30. If I do, it's because I helped them out a lot.