I think they have quite a bit of ugly events to try to simulate that.
Muscovy only has Time of Troubles and I think that you can completely avoid it with 2 stability. Poland AFAIK can't avoid those events.
Muscovy have been majorly nerfed
- Thread starter Gigawot
- 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.
Muscovy only has Time of Troubles and I think that you can completely avoid it with 2 stability. Poland AFAIK can't avoid those events.
I think the main problem with Russian balance in the game's current state is that a ludicrously powerful PLC beats them into dust if they so much as look at Europe whilst China's armies melt into pudding before the 60,000 men based from Vladivostok that Russia is keeping supplied with dark wizardry.
Muscovy is still uber easy to play, but it is inconsistent when AI plays it. I don't mind that, but I wish western Europe was Inconsistent too.
Adding HoI-like supply lines would fix that. But I don't think it'd be fun in any way. So I'm okay with Russia overwhelming China due to dark wizardry.
While muscovy has certainly been nerfed, it is not excessive. You could say most states were nerfed because the new mechanics affect them all and makes conquest and colonization more difficult. I have been playing with religious ideas first to provide a blanket source of stability and convert new territories to lower unrest (and the awesome causus belli). The issue with muscovy is that it needs a break somewhere as it often has bigger neighbors or neighbors allied with long term enemies. The hordes unify more easily now (Kazan almost always was vassalized and annexed in my games) and often ally the timurids or the ottomans. If you can get break through the hordes and start converting them, muscovy pulls ahead in the long run. Going to China takes longer, but that's not necessarily a bad thing gameplay wise. Also, in 1.7 I relied on those extra monarch points from power projection to help core and culture convert provinces, but now it is much harder to get above 50 points without wasting a war on humiliating. At least now you can actually westernize if you want to. It might seem like a waste of diplo points, but culture converting is your friend as muscovy/russia. Humanist ideas won't get your accepted culture down to accept most of the small cultures you'd conquer anyway.
No point in Quality idea sets. Just chase down the enemy mainstack with one, two, three, four of your stacks, while you use your other 1 bilion FL to carpet siege.
Tons of nations is entirely wrong. Look into the wiki, check how many nations have the same potential as Russia with coring reduction. Italy and OE.
Naval/ Galley combat is garbage, when # win over anything.
You're trolling, no ?
Regarding Ottoman-Crimean relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate#Ottoman-Crimean_relationship):
Regarding paying tributes:
Source: http://www.amazon.com/Russias-Steppe-Frontier-Colonial-1500-1800/dp/0253217709 According to the book they also paid tributes to all other bordering hordes.
*Bulgaria -10%
Dai Viet -10%
Ethiopia -10%
Italy -25%
Karaman -20%
Mughals -25%
Naxos -10%
Ottomans -33%
Ryazan -15%
Tarascan -15%
Taungu -15%
Anatolian beiliks -20%
Divine -10%
Hordes -25%
Maratha -10%
What was your point again? Ottomans or Italy are probably the largest nations on planet.
I am not trolling, are you? I'm not very interested in tons of other nations.
"in Quality idea sets. Just chase down the enemy mainstack with one, two, three, four of your stacks, while you use your other 1 bilion FL to carpet siege."
Sure, general sir. Except that there are battle width, maneuver and attrition. What a stupid limitations, indeed.
"In 1475, the Ottomans imprisoned Meñli I Giray for three years for having resisted the invasion. After returning from captivity in Constantinople, he accepted the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. " Technically it was a vassalage with a varying degree of independence, right?
There are no numbers or references in this text to understand if that is a fact and not guesstimates of the author. It's impossible to get a clue if it was regular enough or significant to be incorporated into the game. "Notwithstanding Moskow's rhetorical exercises, the Russian government (LOL, Russia not Muscovy) was acutely aware that as long as Russia's military force remained ineffective against the Crimea ("why didn't he state when and where? Like Astrakhan expedition which saw 700 survivors out of joint Crimean-Ottoman 30k force"), peace there could only be purchased ("from an ally which plundered Lithuania and gave present from looted Kievan churches to Muscovy's rulers?."
Sounds very neutral and well researched (something that Elista U. graduate would write). I hope that I finally found the sources of all these stereotypes. Easy historical reading for an untrained mind. Doesn't sound like Niall Ferguson to me.
That's is also ridiculously ignorant to state on this subject because Crimea was Muscovy's key ally against Golden Horde. Would you like some references?
I went through the treaty. Given that treaty of Karlowitz was between Austria, Poland and Venice on one side and Ottomans on the other it's somewhat strange that there would be specific reference to tributary payable by Muscovy (that's a big LOL indeed). I didn't find it. Please provide a reference to a number page which contains it.
All that is said about Crimea and is repeated several times that Crimeans should behave well and if not be persecuted.
Last edited:
"Plus, even today a large number of Russians are of Tatar (or other Asian) origins."
This is what you said precisely. Stop trying to excuse yourself in a different thread.
He misworded it. No biggie. It wouldn't have been a problem if ethnic Russians and Russian citizens were two different words as in Russia.
It's not a matter of fun. Fun is giving a baby a rattle. A good game requires interesting mechanics. Interesting in that they require the player to make meaningful decisions. At the moment, moving soldiers across distances is fairly trivial, regardless of terrain or climate or distance. This is why we have France marching doomstacks down the middle of Africa, where in reality Europeans died en masse on the African coast well into the nineteenth century. This is also why in EU4 Russia can march sixty thousand soldiers across Afghanistan and into India, or across Siberia and into China. In reality, Siberia was indefensible and the Russians knew this, and they were more interested in setting up trade and establishing a border than in pointless wars on the back-end of the world. At the moment there's no interesting decision involved when expanding where it concerns defensibility and troop movement.
Ideally, we'd have a supply mechanic of some sort. Perhaps implement supply depots -- each country gets one at the start, and the count increases with tech level. Or make them expensive buildings, like the current Embassies and such. As an army moves away from its nearest supply depot, its supply decreases until it falls below the limit necessary to support the army. Replace the current provincial supply limit with a consumable forage limit; an undersupplied army, operating beyond its supply train, will eat down the provincial forage until it's consumed. Then it will starve.
I would go further and give each county an infrastructure index, which slowly increases over time but which can be boosted using diplo points. Higher infrastructure means faster troop movement. Link supply to movement speed rather than raw distance, and infrastructure becomes very important to sustaining expansion. The player then has to choose between investing in the supply chain necessary to sustain further expansion or risking getting bogged down in a war he can't win.
And of these nations OE is the only one who have the same expansion potential right of the bat. Italy too, once formed.
Indeed, if you regenerate 3k per month you can just give a big fu to attrition and all the other limitations. Just assault every fort and chase down every stack until you wipe them. There is no math involved if the player outnumbers an enemy three times. Your losses dont matter. Just throw bodies at them until they are buried.
What are you doing as Russia ? Trying to be the big strategist? Outmaneuver the AI ?
Use the advantage you have - bottomless manpower.
Thanks for geography lesson, mate. Much appreciated. How often do you see Russia taking Central Asia? Is Central Asia that far from India? Rivalry between Russia and GB was caused by GB fears that Russia would make it into India eventually.
How do you find this a problem and not Siberian Iberia or Canada?
Loving all the discussion about russian history and Russia's NIs, but none of that is at all relevant to the topic at hand.
The OP thinks that Russia has been considerably nerfed by v1.8, citing:
1) An inability to gain alliances
2) Required to take humanism to survive
3) Inability to get below 50% LA in most of its provinces (even with humanism)
4) Siberia colonization isn't worth much anymore.
5) Perhaps falling behind in MIL tech? ("Having to go humanist to survive is BS, i needed military techs but again i cant" is confusing since MIL tech is unrelated to an ADM idea group).
As far as I can tell:
1) Player error
2) Player error, survivability does not require humanism even if rebels have changed in v1.8
3) Player error, not hard to keep LA down. To the extent it exists on non-colonies, all countries are hit by the change, so no relative nerf to Russia
4) Nerf, but not sure how relevant to a Russian player's success. How much BT is affected by this?
5) Player error
OP has been unconscionably nasty in his responses to anyone who insinuates that some of what he's experiencing is a result of how he plays,
If he wanted helpful advice, "help with russia" or some variant would have been an appropriate thread title. Instead, he posted something arrogant ("If I have a problem with russia, it can't be my fault, must be a nerf) and baiting. In an attempt to be helpful, let's try to identify the major issue:
Yes, you do want revolts every 20 years. Well, you don't want them, but having them isn't really an issue. Get over the psychological barrier against rebels. 0-25% LA and occasional revolts > 75% LA and no revolts
The OP thinks that Russia has been considerably nerfed by v1.8, citing:
1) An inability to gain alliances
2) Required to take humanism to survive
3) Inability to get below 50% LA in most of its provinces (even with humanism)
4) Siberia colonization isn't worth much anymore.
5) Perhaps falling behind in MIL tech? ("Having to go humanist to survive is BS, i needed military techs but again i cant" is confusing since MIL tech is unrelated to an ADM idea group).
As far as I can tell:
1) Player error
2) Player error, survivability does not require humanism even if rebels have changed in v1.8
3) Player error, not hard to keep LA down. To the extent it exists on non-colonies, all countries are hit by the change, so no relative nerf to Russia
4) Nerf, but not sure how relevant to a Russian player's success. How much BT is affected by this?
5) Player error
OP has been unconscionably nasty in his responses to anyone who insinuates that some of what he's experiencing is a result of how he plays,
If he wanted helpful advice, "help with russia" or some variant would have been an appropriate thread title. Instead, he posted something arrogant ("If I have a problem with russia, it can't be my fault, must be a nerf) and baiting. In an attempt to be helpful, let's try to identify the major issue:
Yes, you do want revolts every 20 years. Well, you don't want them, but having them isn't really an issue. Get over the psychological barrier against rebels. 0-25% LA and occasional revolts > 75% LA and no revolts
And how is that wrong? According to current statistics ~15% of Russians are descendants of non-Europeans. That's more than 20 million people! You tried to paper over them saying that they are some fringe group and basically said that besides 100 guys on horses the entire Steppe was empty and colonized by Russia. Which is obviously not true, as presented.
1. Colonization can and has happened for other reasons than "empty space". Using it to have a population majority in a certain region was common throughout history (it's happening even today in some places).
2. The fact that you have a special sensibility about the whole Tatar issue is frankly, not my problem. I didn't even think of the whole WW2 argument while writing (nor do I have an agenda about this as I think the other guys were just as bad
).When saying something, always keep in mind the context: 1444-1821. For example I'm actually using contemporary population statistics because there's no credible way to deny them and also considering the history of the region, the only way that percentage could have gone is down, thus further proving my point of "Steppes =/= completely empty regions".
Last edited:
muscovy is also pretty weak in my teutonic game, forcelimits of just 30 even though they have novgorod, a good chunk of the hordes and started colonizing (forcelimits did increase after they got their forcelimit NI, but still pretty meh)