Muscovy have been majorly nerfed

[nicechinos]

Trashy +0.5 military tradition? I would take that on a lot of nations who have none of that, to be honest.

Not that many. There are 17 nations with core-creation cost cut modifiers (not counting the group ideas, so minus hordes, theocracies, Anatolian Beyliks, and client states. Even with those groups in, it's around 40 or so, I think, which is still a very low percentage of nations in the game), and Muscovy sits around the middle of that list in terms of "how strong is this." It's also a monarch point saver that saves the most important point type, so it's still really strong.



I don't see what use Muscovy would have for a navy. Navies don't win wars in this game.



Technically the +0.5 military tradition is a quality boost. It affects land morale, morale recovery, manpower recovery, siege ability, and general rolls.



What is this supposed to be about?



Nah. Culture conversion has some pretty nice effects, especially with the new rebel mechanics. Granted it's probably more relevant in multiplayer games, but it's still pretty alright.

That doesn't mean Muscovy won't have to fight Ottomans or Austrians or Swedes (very OP) or Poland (very OP as well). It certainly would. The balancing argument hardly works here. Do you remember how well Austria fought IRL? If not brave little Polen Austria would have been under heavy Turkish influence.
That's a quote of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Victor_Marie_Moreau who said that about Suvorov's Italian adventures. So there is little historical relevance in Austria having any sort of quality buff and Russia not. Why does Sweden gets tons of buffing events and Russia can not have one tiny combat ability/ naval forcelimit? Navies win wars, you are very much mistaken. Especially in AOW where WE is truly punishing. Baltics and Black seas are the places for Russian navy. Any objections to that?

 

[nicechinos]

Well, there's quite a bit of information, links, and unanswered questions from me and others regarding horde lands in my thread about it and you didn't exactly have a strong showing there. What Russia did to those people was brutal, but then the original horde conquest of those territories was also brutal, and such behavior was common in the timeframe pretty much everywhere it was possible. The brutal treatment of populations in the steppes is not particularly different than what Spain did to the Americas, or what the USA did to the NA tribes for example, but nor should it be pretended that it didn't happen.

What didn't happen, however, was simply kicking out a few horse archers and building cities. There were already cities, and horde infantry used guns too. If anything, the flagrant ignorance showcased with regards to the hordes and Russian expansion ironically sells the accomplishments of Russia in this timeframe short, and the Russian NI's misrepresent what actually happened, that Russia relied more on quality than "waves of bodies and attrition only" in this period, in many cases adapting the tactics of the hordes they fought and improving on them over time.

The hordes are a joke in this game compared to reality. In real life, they gave Russia hell, but Russia won over time (a success no other nation attained, for centuries). I'm not sure how a "Russian nationalist" is okay with the representation of this feat being a walkover joke when it was actually a difficult accomplishment that other eastern Europeans repeatedly failed to manage, but it certainly is "silly".

It's very different to Americas. Americas saw extermination of tens of millions (somewhat like 50) of natives. Russian conquest of Siberia was limited to the highest estimate of 200 th. What proportions are Indians in US?

"Indigenous peoples of the Americas, particularly Native Americans, made up 0.8% of the population in 2008, numbering 2.4 million."
Only Tatars and Bashkirs are 5 mln in Russia and much higher proportionally than in US (5%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia Please do me a favor and count all of them.

Do you have any evidence about horde tactics and throwing bodies as early as Kazani conquest for example? Does look like horde tactics to me
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Взятие_Казани#mediaviewer/File:Русское_осадное_орудие_XVI_века.jpg

 

[1alexey]

How are you going to convert the hordes culturally and religiously without the religious NI?

Stack conversion bonus, as usual.

Not.
Now Muscovy get eated from every neighbour it's a givent constant.
In every-single-game i've played with 1.8 (6 games with many different nations)

Muscowy/Russia was not that strong militarily before 18 century, it is perfectly plausible for them to lose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's very different to Americas. Americas saw extermination of tens of millions (somewhat like 50) of natives. Russian conquest of Siberia was limited to the highest estimate of 200 th. What proportions are Indians in US?

Accuracy question of census data aside, my point is that this treatment was not fundamentally different (IE it was commonplace to kill and replace the population to a heavy extent). Non-Russians are a pretty small minority in those areas too, and Russia didn't have the "advantage" of killing untold numbers of people with disease. If you want to make a case that the USA was more brutal, I don't care enough to refute it as it wouldn't surprise me if it's true...I know US history much better than I know Russian and our treatment of the native population was spectacularly cruel and dishonest.

That's not the point I was trying to make though. I was simply trying to dispel the absurd notion that the steppes were just "colonized" after kicking out a few nomadic tribes and building cities. If anything, even the defeated steppe nations put up a significantly better fight, which isn't surprising given they had more contact for technology diffusion and more infrastructure in place to use it than did the NA natives. The steppe nations were also significantly more inclined to go on raids into Russia, Lithuania, and others and take slaves and wealth. They were no angels (nobody is really, but they were less so than the NA tribes). These are all points in favor of making the hordes significantly stronger relative to Russia right now, which runs counter to the points made by the poster I was trying to refute. I'd also argue that in turn Russia's ideas should be more time-period sensible and their incentive into Eastern Europe tweaked in compensation.

Right now, Russia overperforms anachronistically in the East and underperforms significantly in the West.

 

[nicechinos]

Accuracy question of census data aside, my point is that this treatment was not fundamentally different (IE it was commonplace to kill and replace the population to a heavy extent). Non-Russians are a pretty small minority in those areas too, and Russia didn't have the "advantage" of killing untold numbers of people with disease. If you want to make a case that the USA was more brutal, I don't care enough to refute it as it wouldn't surprise me if it's true...I know US history much better than I know Russian and our treatment of the native population was spectacularly cruel and dishonest.

That's not the point I was trying to make though. I was simply trying to dispel the absurd notion that the steppes were just "colonized" after kicking out a few nomadic tribes and building cities. If anything, even the defeated steppe nations put up a significantly better fight, which isn't surprising given they had more contact for technology diffusion and more infrastructure in place to use it than did the NA natives. The steppe nations were also significantly more inclined to go on raids into Russia, Lithuania, and others and take slaves and wealth. They were no angels (nobody is really, but they were less so than the NA tribes). These are all points in favor of making the hordes significantly stronger relative to Russia right now, which runs counter to the points made by the poster I was trying to refute. I'd also argue that in turn Russia's ideas should be more time-period sensible and their incentive into Eastern Europe tweaked in compensation.

Right now, Russia overperforms anachronistically in the East and underperforms significantly in the West.

Kazan and Astrakhan didn't put a good fight at all. Even Ottoman intervention didn't save Astrakhan (700 out of 30,000 joint force returned to Crimea held Azov after Astrakhani raid). There was only one Horde which did it and it was Crimea - vassal of Ottomans. Kazan conquest saw casualties of below 20 th on Russian side and more than 150 th on the Kazani side. Does this suggest hordes need buffing?
The balance of victories between Ottoman Empire and Russia is 6 of 8 for Russia although there was only one war when Ottomans were shining and that was 1568-1570 catastrophic Astrakhani raid.
Hordes didn't employ traditional warfare in 16th century, hit and run was their favorite. They were difficult to engage and steppes were great. Golden Horde didn't have that many European (or Russsian if you don't mind) cities after Timur burnt these to the ground.

As I previously suggested you are looking in the wrong direction to nerfing Russia. Hordes are not the way to go. I'm glad Pdx understand this. There is huge difference between 14th and 15th century in this region. Centralization is a key word.

 

[nicechinos]

Stack conversion bonus, as usual.

Muscowy/Russia was not that strong militarily before 18 century, it is perfectly plausible for them to lose.

I wouldn't ask for sample size study this time (outside Times of Troubles time period). I'll just ask one question:
Poland/ Lithuania ceased to exist as independent nations in 18th century. Still Poland have amazingly OP ideas. Does that bother you or is it for balance sake?

 

[HerrStarr]

Stack conversion bonus, as usual.

Muscowy/Russia was not that strong militarily before 18 century, it is perfectly plausible for them to lose.

So we have to play a game based on history were russia NEVER born and spain/portugal ALWAYS colonize siberia? This would be fun if happens 1 or 2 games out of 10, not ALWAYS.
Always it's just ridiculous and for me, and many others, a game-breaking issue.
I will no longer play 'till a couple of patches because it's boring when "alternate" history it's always the same so de facto it's not alternate but the actual in-game history who never changes
Who cares, i threw from the window 20 euros but football manager come out tomorrow so i have something to pass my time

 

[herrmarisa]

Well, there's quite a bit of information, links, and unanswered questions from me and others regarding horde lands in my thread about it and you didn't exactly have a strong showing there. What Russia did to those people was brutal, but then the original horde conquest of those territories was also brutal, and such behavior was common in the timeframe pretty much everywhere it was possible. The brutal treatment of populations in the steppes is not particularly different than what Spain did to the Americas, or what the USA did to the NA tribes for example, but nor should it be pretended that it didn't happen.

What didn't happen, however, was simply kicking out a few horse archers and building cities. There were already cities, and horde infantry used guns too. If anything, the flagrant ignorance showcased with regards to the hordes and Russian expansion ironically sells the accomplishments of Russia in this timeframe short, and the Russian NI's misrepresent what actually happened, that Russia relied more on quality than "waves of bodies and attrition only" in this period, in many cases adapting the tactics of the hordes they fought and improving on them over time.

The hordes are a joke in this game compared to reality. In real life, they gave Russia hell, but Russia won over time (a success no other nation attained, for centuries). I'm not sure how a "Russian nationalist" is okay with the representation of this feat being a walkover joke when it was actually a difficult accomplishment that other eastern Europeans repeatedly failed to manage, but it certainly is "silly".

I see your point. I'm pretty sure I never mentioned hordes being a pawn for Russia to expand to, neither did I claim their inferiority in some way. But Russia indeed did expand into horde lands by building new cities and repopulating the areas. The "genocide" you talk about was a feature of Catherine's rule.

Also, Kazan is not really a horde but a real state deriving from the Volga Bulgaria. It was well developed and had some rich cities. I have no idea why it's treated as a horde in game.

That doesn't mean Muscovy won't have to fight Ottomans or Austrians or Swedes (very OP) or Poland (very OP as well). It certainly would. The balancing argument hardly works here. Do you remember how well Austria fought IRL? If not brave little Polen Austria would have been under heavy Turkish influence.
That's a quote of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Victor_Marie_Moreau who said that about Suvorov's Italian adventures. So there is little historical relevance in Austria having any sort of quality buff and Russia not. Why does Sweden gets tons of buffing events and Russia can not have one tiny combat ability/ naval forcelimit? Navies win wars, you are very much mistaken. Especially in AOW where WE is truly punishing. Baltics and Black seas are the places for Russian navy. Any objections to that?

I think some quality permanent modifier representing the Suvorov's military reforms would be sweet. For some reason Paradox expects me to pretend that my army is a bunch of brain dead idiots who breed like rabbits and are resistant to cold.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Kazan and Astrakhan didn't put a good fight at all. Even Ottoman intervention didn't save Astrakhan (700 out of 30,000 joint force returned to Crimea held Azov after Astrakhani raid). There was only one Horde which did it and it was Crimea

1. Kazan's capitol fell in 1550ish. They raided Muscovy several times in this period and were not a 1 war opponent.
2. Kazakh survived past 1821
3. Oirat survived until lategame
4. Russia didn't have the supply lines to manage an actual war with Qing, which they might have won otherwise at expense of exposing western border.
5. Crimea was only a "vassal" of the Ottomans briefly; for much of this period they were independent in every sense of the word/game term.
6. Muscovy was paying tribute to the hordes at the start of this period.

"Traditional warfare" isn't the only way to fight or win wars. The US sure as heck didn't win that way (they'd have been massacred had they tried it), they won by stalling out until the war got too expensive and GB felt it had bigger problems with issues much closer to home.

Hordes are routinely conquered much earlier than what happened in history and Russia frequently has a free run into easy money in China. That doesn't serve a historical purpose, and it's hard to see what gameplay balance purpose it serves.

The "genocide" you talk about was a feature of Catherine's rule.

Perhaps it was more featured then, but genocide was pretty darn common throughout the period. I'm not singling Russia out in this regard though.

I think some quality permanent modifier representing the Suvorov's military reforms would be sweet. For some reason Paradox expects me to pretend that my army is a bunch of brain dead idiots who breed like rabbits and are resistant to cold.

Yeah, this is somewhat perplexing until you realize that they have these kinds of biased representations in multiple areas. It doesn't make it right though. At least they're a decent NI set, even if they don't fit what happened. It could be worse and you could have wound up with both unrealistic AND terrible ideas ^_^.

 

[nicechinos]

Accuracy question of census data aside, my point is that this treatment was not fundamentally different (IE it was commonplace to kill and replace the population to a heavy extent). Non-Russians are a pretty small minority in those areas too, and Russia didn't have the "advantage" of killing untold numbers of people with disease. If you want to make a case that the USA was more brutal, I don't care enough to refute it as it wouldn't surprise me if it's true...I know US history much better than I know Russian and our treatment of the native population was spectacularly cruel and dishonest.

That's not the point I was trying to make though. I was simply trying to dispel the absurd notion that the steppes were just "colonized" after kicking out a few nomadic tribes and building cities. If anything, even the defeated steppe nations put up a significantly better fight, which isn't surprising given they had more contact for technology diffusion and more infrastructure in place to use it than did the NA natives. The steppe nations were also significantly more inclined to go on raids into Russia, Lithuania, and others and take slaves and wealth. They were no angels (nobody is really, but they were less so than the NA tribes). These are all points in favor of making the hordes significantly stronger relative to Russia right now, which runs counter to the points made by the poster I was trying to refute. I'd also argue that in turn Russia's ideas should be more time-period sensible and their incentive into Eastern Europe tweaked in compensation.

Right now, Russia overperforms anachronistically in the East and underperforms significantly in the West.

On minorities. Have you ever been in Yakut village? Traditional one? Are expecting the same demographics in taiga as in modern city with central heating and canalization?

Have you ever heard about Simeon Bekbulatovich?

 

[Novacat]

It's very different to Americas. Americas saw extermination of tens of millions (somewhat like 50) of natives. Russian conquest of Siberia was limited to the highest estimate of 200 th. What proportions are Indians in US?

The ~50m estimate of Native Americans spanned across the whole New World, and a vast majority of those lived in Mesoamerica and South America. Population estimates of Native Americans in North America was anywhere from 2.1 million to 18 million. Probably the truth is somewhere closer in the middle, about 7-ish million.

Also, the Native Americans were largely decimated by plagues as opposed to brutality, since the Native Americans, unlike the Steppe tribes, had no immunity to European/Asian diseases.

source

Kazan and Astrakhan didn't put a good fight at all. Even Ottoman intervention didn't save Astrakhan (700 out of 30,000 joint force returned to Crimea held Azov after Astrakhani raid). There was only one Horde which did it and it was Crimea - vassal of Ottomans. Kazan conquest saw casualties of below 20 th on Russian side and more than 150 th on the Kazani side. Does this suggest hordes need buffing?

Nope. What suggests hordes need buffing are the Russians in India and China. On top of that while you did have failed horde states, you also had horde states that survived Russia past the end date of 1820

What also suggests hordes need buffing is the fact they get no unit upgrades in spite of the fact that North American natives, whom never advanced out of the stone age, can remain unreformed and still get unit upgrades all the way to 1820.

 

[nicechinos]

2. Is wrong to speak about "Kazakh".There were three tribes, the smaller was protectorated by Russia in 1730 as the tribe asked for it. In 1740 middle tribe was protectorated. Only "senior" remained independent until 1821 because Russia had no interest in these lands back then. If you ever have been to Southern Kazakhstan you would probably know why. Speaking about Russia non-interest - one example. Persia ceded Gilan, Mazandran, Astarabad to Rusisia after 1732 war. However, the next ruler of Russia saw "no long-tem potential" in these lands and gave them to Persia back.
5. Crimea officially became vassal of Ottomans in 1478. In 1774 after another Russian-Ottoman war it was proclaimed independent and in 1783 was annexed bu Russia. Brief vassalage on a universe timescale, indeed.
6. Is wrong. I stated this already and you didn't rebuff this with any evidence except "Trashcovy". You pretended that you didn't see this. Give me numbers and respectable sources this time or do not mention this again.
On other survivors:
Do you seriously think that Russia was able to occupy all Eastern Prussia during seven years war, defeat French in Italy, defeat Ottomans multiple times, build fleet from scratch and remove Swedes from OP pantheon (1700-1721), defeat Persia but was not able to conquer Oirat as it put good fight? Does it appear logical?

 

[nicechinos]

What also suggests hordes need buffing is the fact they get no unit upgrades in spite of the fact that North American natives, whom never advanced out of the stone age, can remain unreformed and still get unit upgrades all the way to 1820.

Fine by me with 1/2 BT provinces.

 

[nicechinos]

The ~50m estimate of Native Americans spanned across the whole New World, and a vast majority of those lived in Mesoamerica and South America. Population estimates of Native Americans in North America was anywhere from 2.1 million to 18 million. Probably the truth is somewhere closer in the middle, about 7-ish million.

Also, the Native Americans were largely decimated by plagues as opposed to brutality, since the Native Americans, unlike the Steppe tribes, had no immunity to European/Asian diseases.

source



Nope. What suggests hordes need buffing are the Russians in India and China. On top of that while you did have failed horde states, you also had horde states that survived Russia past the end date of 1820

What also suggests hordes need buffing is the fact they get no unit upgrades in spite of the fact that North American natives, whom never advanced out of the stone age, can remain unreformed and still get unit upgrades all the way to 1820.

Russia in Persia is historical in 1732 already, Russia in Afghanistan is historical as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
I don't understand why is that a problem.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do you seriously think that Russia was able to occupy all Eastern Prussia during seven years war, defeat French in Italy, defeat Ottomans multiple times, remove Swedes from OP pantheon (1700-1721), defeat Persia but was not able to conquer Oirat as it put good fight? Does it appear logical?

I believe that sending enough troops and supplies to the Oirat front before railroads made it practical would have sapped their ability to occupy Prussia, or defeat France/Ottomans/Sweden to the extent that they'd have lost, and that doing so in a timeframe outside of those wars would have exposed their western, more valuable land needlessly.

Crimea was not a vassal of the Ottomans for 300 years lol.

I didn't notice you refuting the tributary thing. What post #? I'll go back and read it. While Russia doesn't bother me too much in the game (unless I have to deal with large rebellions in Siberia, which rank among the least fun things in the game), I hade the 1444 Muscovy strength and expansion speed.

 

[nicechinos]

I believe that sending enough troops and supplies to the Oirat front before railroads made it practical would have sapped their ability to occupy Prussia, or defeat France/Ottomans/Sweden to the extent that they'd have lost, and that doing so in a timeframe outside of those wars would have exposed their western, more valuable land needlessly.

Crimea was not a vassal of the Ottomans for 300 years lol.

I didn't notice you refuting the tributary thing. What post #? I'll go back and read it. While Russia doesn't bother me too much in the game (unless I have to deal with large rebellions in Siberia, which rank among the least fun things in the game), I hade the 1444 Muscovy strength and expansion speed.

Would love to see a source of your knowledge about Crimea.

From Wiki:
Ottoman forces under Gedik Ahmet Pasha conquered all of the Crimean peninsula and joined it to the khanate in 1475. During the 16th and 17th centuries, it was an important center of slave trade. In 1774, it was released as a nationally independent state following the Russo-Turkish Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, and formally annexed by the Russian Empire in 1783, becoming the Taurida Governorate.

So you do admit that hordes are dead end and Russia's own limitations allowed them to survive?

"While Russia doesn't bother me too much in the game, I hade the 1444 Muscovy strength and expansion speed."

That's that. Thank you. That's not a historical thing in your case.

 

[HMatsunaga54]

Not really, it's probably bad luck. You really have to hope that either Poland and Lithuania fight each or the Ottomans don't ally Crimea or the Golden Horde. The Hordes are nothing on their own having to fight an enemy who can match you in force limits and outmatch you in tech is the worst. Lithuania even alone can be a pain. Also keep your vassals they help and I usually go with a military idea first, manpower is only low if you keep throwing troops in constant wars

 

[oblio-]

- your post was second in mentioned thread and you personally did not hesitated to claim that herrmarisa is nationalist. And herrmarisa's topic was not a flamebait to begin with.

I'd argue that even this topic is "flame-bait". In this case the topic has an extravagant title ("Muscovy majorly nerfed").
In the case of the other topic the premise was that Muscovy colonized the completely empty horde regions, which was not true. Actually for most of the game's period the Russian colonist numbers were not that huge since Russia itself didn't have a large population (especially compared to regions with a high population such as France and China). At some point I said that even today 15% of Russians are not of European origin (after huge population changes, none favoring these groups) and that was quickly brushed aside with comments about Goebbels (really?).

I wouldn't ask for sample size study this time (outside Times of Troubles time period). I'll just ask one question:
Poland/ Lithuania ceased to exist as independent nations in 18th century. Still Poland have amazingly OP ideas. Does that bother you or is it for balance sake?

Well, it kind of bothers me, my guess is that the ideas are for balance purposes.
Poland is smack in the middle of EU4, surrounded by Sweden, Austria, Ottomans, Hungary, etc. If it would be too weak it would be divided by 1500. Plus, what happened to Poland was not some sort of set trajectory, at the start of the game it could be argued that Poland was one of the strongest country in the world and with a concerted effort at centralizing the country (such as the one done by France), Poland would have remained a great power.
I agree that Muscovy's ideas could use some tweaking. Paradox has been hesitant to do it, though, because all of Muscovy's Eastern neighbors are food after 1600...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's that. Thank you. That's not a historical thing in your case.

I was telling you the reason I call them Trashcovy, not attempting to provide a historical basis for calling them Trashcovy ^_^.

 

[nicechinos]

I'd argue that even this topic is "flame-bait". In this case the topic has an extravagant title ("Muscovy majorly nerfed").
In the case of the other topic the premise was that Muscovy colonized the completely empty horde regions, which was not true. Actually for most of the game's period the Russian colonist numbers were not that huge since Russia itself didn't have a large population (especially compared to regions with a high population such as France and China). At some point I said that even today 15% of Russians are not of European origin (after huge population changes, none favoring these groups) and that was quickly brushed aside with comments about Goebbels (really?).


Well, it kind of bothers me, my guess is that the ideas are for balance purposes.
Poland is smack in the middle of EU4, surrounded by Sweden, Austria, Ottomans, Hungary, etc. If it would be too weak it would be divided by 1500. Plus, what happened to Poland was not some sort of set trajectory, at the start of the game it could be argued that Poland was one of the strongest country in the world and with a concerted effort at centralizing the country (such as the one done by France), Poland would have remained a great power.
I agree that Muscovy's ideas could use some tweaking. Paradox has been hesitant to do it, though, because all of Muscovy's Eastern neighbors are food after 1600...

I'd agree with that. But Poland's downfall starts as early 1648 (Khmelnitskiy uprising) and after that it was a set trajectory and they didn't do well in second half of EU4 timeframe.