Legit Russia is [expletive deleted] terrible

[Pilot00]

....if....if i were a dev, a cm or sth like that, i would not even read this thread, just delete....

^implying that devs take most of the threads seriously.

Russia didn't really come into it's own until the Napoleonic Wars, which is right at the end of the game. They only just barely held off the Swedes and the Commonwealth in previous centuries, and were only able to overcome them after Peter and Catherine's very significant reforms. Their most significant expansion periods into Eastern Europe and Asia didn't happen until after the game's time frame. So I see no reason why Russia should be buffed. As some previous posters have stated, Russia has a lot of advantages, and a skilled player should have almost no problems with them; they're currently very viable as is.

You post as if the Commonwealth and Sweden at that time, were insignificant little countries.... The very fact that they held out against them and become stronger after their politico-economic-social reforms means a lot.

 

[Ricox]

Spends a thousand hours on the game... still doesn't know how to win as Russia.

Weak.

 

[hitchens]

Spends a thousand hours on the game... still doesn't know how to win as Russia.

Weak.

 

[UlrichVonBaden]

You post as if the Commonwealth and Sweden at that time, were insignificant little countries.... The very fact that they held out against them and become stronger after their politico-economic-social reforms means a lot.

Oh, no not at all! I was attempting to imply that the Russians aren't pretty little daisies just waiting to be stepped on. Both the PLC and Swedes had the potential to spell the end of Russia in some alternate universe-- the fact that they didn't is fairly impressive. Be that as it may, during this time period Russia wasn't quite on equal footing or better footing than say the Ottomans until nearly the end of the game. So western expansion (or southern expansion) should be somewhat of a challenge for a player.

 

[nicechinos]

Oh, no not at all! I was attempting to imply that the Russians aren't pretty little daisies just waiting to be stepped on. Both the PLC and Swedes had the potential to spell the end of Russia in some alternate universe-- the fact that they didn't is fairly impressive. Be that as it may, during this time period Russia wasn't quite on equal footing or better footing than say the Ottomans until nearly the end of the game. So western expansion (or southern expansion) should be somewhat of a challenge for a player.

Russia has much worse starting base tax compared to PLC or the Ottoman Empire so this relative starting weakness is somewhat modeled into the game.

"Be that as it may, during this time period Russia wasn't quite on equal footing or better footing"
That depends on how you define "equal footing" and "the end of the game". If you define it by 1650 (Kmelnitskiy uprising; PLC was never the same again after that) it is fine by me. Which should be followed by the Northern War (1700-1725; Swedish Empire was defeated into second tier European power by Russia). It was the very same Swedish Emprie which occupied the half of HRE during TYW so it was a force to be reckoned with.
The game is loosely based on history. Times of Troubles is incorporated into the game while Khmelnytskiy uprising is not (while it could easily be; rebels wanting to defect to Russia with total forces equal to PLC's forcelimit). PLC most of the time survives and thrives with no rebels/ government problems which is very far from any sort of historical truth.

"In the 16th century, no single person or small group dared to hold up proceedings, but, from the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse." "In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms where held, out of which about a third failed to pass any legislation, mostly due to liberum veto. The expression Polish parliament in many European languages originated from this apparent paralysis."
Does this mean PLC needs 50% LA in their provinces in the second half of the game? Probably so.

Times of troubles was quite bad (but that's the only time period when "the fact that they didn't is fairly impressive)" but most of the PLC's post 1650 history was quite bad too. On a side note Austrians could not defeat Ottomans on their own (siege of Wien anyone?) while they can do that in the game. Austrians can also miraculously hold off French while IRL, you know... Grayskin was not possible IRL and yet it forms almost every game in 1.8 without player intervention when Catholics win the war (or if it doesn't start at all which also happens often). That's all (except for Grayskin) has gameplay design reasons rather than historical accuracy considerations.

EU4 is a fantasy game. Its main problem is that the balance of powers does not change between different time periods. Corresponding events (such as national decline for Sweden) are mostly very weak in terms of their impact and unit pips differences between broad tech groups do poor job as well (except Ottoman decline probably). The nations are balanced around some average strength for the time period (and it tends to weigh 1825 more heavily for obvious reasons) so there is little value in comparing Russia's state in 1598-1613 to its "intrinsic" strength. It's a very brief period on time in the context of 1444-1825 scale. In that terms PLC is much more of a total miss for PDX because PLC ceased to exist and there were rather small chances to avoid this.

1 Russo-Turkish War (1568–70) Ottoman military defeat
2 Russo-Turkish War (1676–81) Ottoman victory
3 Russo-Turkish War (1686–1700) Russian victory
4 Russo-Turkish War (1710–11) Ottoman victory
5 Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39) Concession favoring Russians and Austrians
6 Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) Russian victory
7 Russo-Turkish War (1787–92) Russian victory
8 Russo-Turkish War (1806–12) Russian victory
9 Russo-Turkish War (1828–29) Russian victory

That said balance is mostly fine (for a human). AI is quite bad but not only for Muscovy but also for France and Ottomans. But that's yesterday news. Any skilled player can defeat France with Theodoro or occupy Russia which was absolutely impossible IRL (past times of troubles). AI blobs were much more exciting to compete with in 1.7.

 

[Meridian235]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/search.php?searchid=4677856

Let's play "find the useful post"

Hint: not happening.

 

[Azraeil]

Your wars seem quite historical: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Muscovite_War_(1605–18)

Ikr!

 

[Artyom87]

In SP ottomans are only a threat pre 1600 as they dont expand well. The polish are a much bigger threat

In MP, I'd imagine the ottos would be like 10 times better than Russia. The blobbing potential for ottos is tremendous and nobody is there to give you any sort of resistance. You even get the best allies in your region such as qara and timmies

By 1550 ottos can blob to get double the tax-value of provinces as russia could get.

All Muscovy has going for it is novgorod, kazan, and golden horde

I have never played MP but I would never want to be muscovy when theres a good ottoman player (ofcourse diplomacy wins)

 

[frolix42]

I find Muscovy rather easy to play as, but I've played it a lot. The Commonwealth is powerful, it is extraordinarily helpful to break Poland's PU over Lithuania before it can enact the form Commonwealth decision. If you ally Denmark or Austria, you will be stronger than Poland + Lithuania. If Poland has a PU over Lithuania, it won't be able to get many more allies as it starts with 2 vassals. As Muscovy your strength is your land, which is particularly favorable in causing enemies to take attrition. Peace out your enemy's allies as soon as they will accept a white peace. After a 10 year war with you, Poland won't have any manpower and other nations (Hungary, Austria, Brandenburg or Denmark) will probably attack Poland. So in order to break the Commonwealth before it forms, plan on a very long war with Poland/Lithuania in order to drive Poland's prestige into the negative.

Once the Poland-Lith PU is broken, later on you can wage another war against Lithuania using the same tactics.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

Russia didn't really come into it's own until the Napoleonic Wars, which is right at the end of the game. They only just barely held off the Swedes and the Commonwealth in previous centuries, and were only able to overcome them after Peter and Catherine's very significant reforms. Their most significant expansion periods into Eastern Europe and Asia didn't happen until after the game's time frame. So I see no reason why Russia should be buffed. As some previous posters have stated, Russia has a lot of advantages, and a skilled player should have almost no problems with them; they're currently very viable as is.

Mmm, into their own during the Napoleonic era like at the battle of Bordino? They *only* lost *Moscow*, and mostly because Napoleon lost his nerve instead of pressing his advantages and crushing them totally.

The Russian's biggest advantages have been the winter and having opposing, stronger armies with better leadership making strategic mistakes giving the Russians a 2nd chance without which they would have otherwise perished as a nation on multiple occasions throughout history.

[humor alert]
Russia has yet to ever have come into its own militarily *or* economically. For Pet's sake, even *Sweden* has a higher per capita GDP than Russia. Russia was a super power and yet it's still less productive per person than *Sweden*

And what do the Swedes do for their high per capita GDP? Video games with bugs in them!

 

[frolix42]

Mmm, into their own during the Napoleonic era like at the battle of Bordino? They *only* lost *Moscow*, and mostly because Napoleon lost his nerve instead of pressing his advantages and crushing them totally.

Seems to me like Napoleon in 1812 realized if he tried to "press his advantage", his Grande Armée would be lost entirely.

[humor alert]
Russia has yet to ever have come into its own militarily *or* economically. For Pet's sake, even *Sweden* has a higher per capita GDP than Russia. Russia was a super power and yet it's still less productive per person than *Sweden*

And what do the Swedes do for their high per capita GDP? Video games with bugs in them!

Can't tell if you're being silly in an attempt to be funny. You're not funny so you fail either way. GDP per capita has nothing to do with which nation is a superpower. Or is Luxembourg a superpower?

 

[Artyom87]

Mmm, into their own during the Napoleonic era like at the battle of Bordino? They *only* lost *Moscow*, and mostly because Napoleon lost his nerve instead of pressing his advantages and crushing them totally.

The Russian's biggest advantages have been the winter and having opposing, stronger armies with better leadership making strategic mistakes giving the Russians a 2nd chance without which they would have otherwise perished as a nation on multiple occasions throughout history.

[humor alert]
Russia has yet to ever have come into its own militarily *or* economically. For Pet's sake, even *Sweden* has a higher per capita GDP than Russia. Russia was a super power and yet it's still less productive per person than *Sweden*

And what do the Swedes do for their high per capita GDP? Video games with bugs in them!

lol what a fail. you have no idea what you are talking about do you?

and the winter story is so old and its only an opinion that supposedly the slightly colder weather destroyed the greatest army in Europe. Its not even that cold in Moscow...

I know why US is failing in Middle east- its too hot. And vietnam went terrible because it was too humid and rainy

 

[Illianor123]

Saw the name of the thread, correctly guessed the poster.

Your thread is pretty much "My country is weaker than another country's starting position. This is a unacceptable. Buff MY country." The starting position are fine, there have been threads saying Muscovy starts too strong relative to history and that it's hold on its land in 1444 was more tenuous than portrayed in the game.

Also if you can manage rebels in 1.8 then you have bigger issues.

 

[nicechinos]

that it's hold on its land in 1444 was more tenuous than portrayed in the game.

Also if you can manage rebels in 1.8 then you have bigger issues.

This would be true for most states in the timeline. For some states even more than for Muscovy (PLC again, anyone).

 

[oblio-]

Ikr!

Acronyms are bad

Russia has much worse starting base tax compared to PLC or the Ottoman Empire so this relative starting weakness is somewhat modeled into the game.

"Be that as it may, during this time period Russia wasn't quite on equal footing or better footing"
That depends on how you define "equal footing" and "the end of the game". If you define it by 1650 (Kmelnitskiy uprising; PLC was never the same again after that) it is fine by me. Which should be followed by the Northern War (1700-1725; Swedish Empire was defeated into second tier European power by Russia). It was the very same Swedish Emprie which occupied the half of HRE during TYW so it was a force to be reckoned with.
The game is loosely based on history. Times of Troubles is incorporated into the game while Khmelnytskiy uprising is not (while it could easily be; rebels wanting to defect to Russia with total forces equal to PLC's forcelimit). PLC most of the time survives and thrives with no rebels/ government problems which is very far from any sort of historical truth.

"In the 16th century, no single person or small group dared to hold up proceedings, but, from the second half of the 17th century, the liberum veto was used to virtually paralyze the Sejm, and brought the Commonwealth to the brink of collapse." "In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms where held, out of which about a third failed to pass any legislation, mostly due to liberum veto. The expression Polish parliament in many European languages originated from this apparent paralysis."
Does this mean PLC needs 50% LA in their provinces in the second half of the game? Probably so.

Times of troubles was quite bad (but that's the only time period when "the fact that they didn't is fairly impressive)" but most of the PLC's post 1650 history was quite bad too. On a side note Austrians could not defeat Ottomans on their own (siege of Wien anyone?) while they can do that in the game. Austrians can also miraculously hold off French while IRL, you know... Grayskin was not possible IRL and yet it forms almost every game in 1.8 without player intervention when Catholics win the war (or if it doesn't start at all which also happens often). That's all (except for Grayskin) has gameplay design reasons rather than historical accuracy considerations.

EU4 is a fantasy game. Its main problem is that the balance of powers does not change between different time periods. Corresponding events (such as national decline for Sweden) are mostly very weak in terms of their impact and unit pips differences between broad tech groups do poor job as well (except Ottoman decline probably). The nations are balanced around some average strength for the time period (and it tends to weigh 1825 more heavily for obvious reasons) so there is little value in comparing Russia's state in 1598-1613 to its "intrinsic" strength. It's a very brief period on time in the context of 1444-1825 scale. In that terms PLC is much more of a total miss for PDX because PLC ceased to exist and there were rather small chances to avoid this.

1 Russo-Turkish War (1568–70) Ottoman military defeat
2 Russo-Turkish War (1676–81) Ottoman victory
3 Russo-Turkish War (1686–1700) Russian victory
4 Russo-Turkish War (1710–11) Ottoman victory
5 Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39) Concession favoring Russians and Austrians
6 Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) Russian victory
7 Russo-Turkish War (1787–92) Russian victory
8 Russo-Turkish War (1806–12) Russian victory
9 Russo-Turkish War (1828–29) Russian victory

That said balance is mostly fine (for a human). AI is quite bad but not only for Muscovy but also for France and Ottomans. But that's yesterday news. Any skilled player can defeat France with Theodoro or occupy Russia which was absolutely impossible IRL (past times of troubles). AI blobs were much more exciting to compete with in 1.7.

They said that there's a new "disaster" system coming in 1.9, replacing Time of Troubles & co. While this won't probably fix the "blobs are too stable" problem, they might make things more interesting - and they might include such a "disaster" for Poland >1600. Of course, this is pure speculation since the devs haven't provided any details (except for "disasters are coming!").

 

[hitchens]

GDP per capita has nothing to do with which nation is a superpower.

Actually it has. A super power needs a strong middle class, like the US traditionally *has* had. The reason China is not a super power is because it has a large part of its population living in sub-saharan poverty.

 

[nicechinos]

Actually it has. A super power needs a strong middle class, like the US traditionally *has* had. The reason China is not a super power is because it has a large part of its population living in sub-saharan poverty.

You could hardly apply "middle class" definition to most of (if no all) EU4 timeline. GDP per capita is also a thing of 20th century the earliest. One can easily prove that China is superpower while Qatar, Luxembourg and Hong Kong (Brunei, Kuwait, Norway) are not. GDP per capita does not define "power" status of a country.

 

[rohirrimelf]

I think the OP is eather Russian or did not like it nerfed. Russia never was a real superpower so nothing needs to be changed.

 

[nicechinos]

I think the OP is eather Russian or did not like it nerfed. Russia never was a real superpower so nothing needs to be changed.

Superpower is not an applicable term for EU4 timeline. So in that sense it wasn't. It was a "great power".
"The term "great power" was first used to represent the most important powers in Europe during the post-Napoleonic era. The "Great Powers" - then the Austrian Empire, France, Prussia, Russia, and the British Empire - constituted the "Concert of Europe" and claimed the right to joint enforcement of the postwar treaties."

 

[Ultrix Prime]

Seems to me like Napoleon in 1812 realized if he tried to "press his advantage", his Grande Armée would be lost entirely.

You're simply wrong. He failed to commit about 30,000 troops that would have crushed them outright. Learn some history rather than "seeming" things.

Can't tell if you're being silly in an attempt to be funny. You're not funny so you fail either way. GDP per capita has nothing to do with which nation is a superpower. Or is Luxembourg a superpower?

The words [humor alert] indicated precisely that.

Per capita GDP is ultimately what won the Cold War. Aside from the US being able before and to the current day, out spend every other nation in the world *combined* on military spending, it was also a key element to the downfall of the Soviet Union due to the systems inability to create prosperity and thus a basic standard of living equal to what was considered *poor* in western countries. This in turn meant that while the US was, and still does, spend more on its military it also became the world's pre-eminent economic power as well, while the USSR further stagnated over time.

Per capita gpd is one of the key elements when combined with their population, and thus size, to a country's ability to compete militarily, economically and thus diplomatically.

And thus, yes, if the country of Luxembourg had a populations of >300,000,000 people with its current GDP [not reasonable, but since you brought it up], then you can be guaranteed it would, if it chose, easily become the world's economic and military power and have the corresponding influence that would go with that level of economic *power*.

It is economic power that ultimately won the Cold War, not military, and per capita gdp was at the very core of why the US ultimately succeeded and the USSR ultimately failed.

So as snide and rude as your comment was, it shows an incredibly amount of ignorance along side the arrogance therein.

Added to ignore list. Thanks for showing me that feature! Bye.