Never played the Timurid Empire or China, have you
I know, I know. You probably meant the worst events of the countries typically played in MP, but it didn't come out like that.
-
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.
I know, I know. You probably meant the worst events of the countries typically played in MP, but it didn't come out like that.
I'll agree with you on the Ottoman part, but what bad events does Russia have? Russia can still be strong if picked up late; Spain and OE cannot be corrected as easily.
Try playing Russia in the Age of Revolution Scenario.
"Oh Wow, this is fun...Politics Politics...What...Revolts? Bleh. Excuse me guys while I put down +12 revolts in all of my provinces for the next 20 years." Which roughly equates, in RL time, to about forever.
"Oh Wow, this is fun...Politics Politics...What...Revolts? Bleh. Excuse me guys while I put down +12 revolts in all of my provinces for the next 20 years." Which roughly equates, in RL time, to about forever.
hmm, well, maybe i exaggerated the russian events... i can`t think of much else than civil wars for muscovy and novgorod in the 15th century, opritchina terror in the 16th, all those serfdom-increasing events in the 17th century as well as time of the troubles.... well, not much maybe compared to ottomans but a bit more than sweden or austria i guess....
indeed, i haven`t play timurs nor china. for timur u can still chose ahistorically iirc though....
anyway, i that case my definition of world was based on europe... (and yes, in mp only noobs chose china... )
indeed, i haven`t play timurs nor china. for timur u can still chose ahistorically iirc though....
anyway, i that case my definition of world was based on europe...
(and yes, in mp only noobs chose china... )
In a serious game, that isn't specifically set in the Far East, if someone has the gall (and there has actually been 2 or 3) to actually REALLY want to play China, even though everyone is in Europe...They get the boot. And I never play with them again.
And in a Far East game, China is just too powerful. Until the seventeenth century, that is
But playing China when the other players are in Europe does sound more like a SP experience and pretty bloody silly.
I'm currently playing an Asian MP game, where the nations involved in the beginning were Gujarat, Mysore, Dai Viet, and Nippon. A very interesting game, though interplayer wars are scarce due to the lack of manpower in the far east. (Though the 0,25 per Siberian province does add up
) Of course, that makes WE the more powerful as well, with losses of troops to rebels and the nations only having very few CB shields.Sigh. I wish that the culture modifier to manpower was different, or that the Far East had higher manpower values. As is, it is hard to make it as interesting as Europe.
Yes, it does seem a bit silly, considering that wars in the Far East often had triple the participants of their European counterparts until the 19th century.
So in conclusion I find this thread saying that Russia will NOT get to powerful in the end if played by a human from the beginning but it will not have much western contact at start. Well if there are a Swedish and an Ottomn player that would be enough contact in my opinion and I would allow Russia to be played from the start in 1419.
The conclusion is that Russia is not much different to play than any other European mayor. That is probably only if u start with a 1492 scenario or later. In 1419 gc I think that a Swedisch player will have a hughe advantage when he decides to start on Russian lands early.