Muscowy/Russia's a joke. How do you counter it?

[unmerged(38985)]

They can expand like madmen and no-one cares. Just took 4 provinces from Kazan, and Lithuania (with borders, only Muscowy in between it and Kazan) gets MINUS THREE (-3) aggressive expansion penalty vs it. You try to do the same somewhere else and you get -50 AE vs everyone close. I'm so sick and tired of every game being the same; 100K armies for Muscowy in early 1500's when others are trying to survive with 20-30K.

These expansive guys need to be hated just like in real history. And no, it's not historical. Someone else from the area could have expanded just as well. It doesn't have to be Moskova every single time

After the rant part, how do you counter these guys if you play with a country that has to be concerned with them? I had good allies with Sweden in the beginning: Poland+Lithuania+Crimea but eventually they will all get away from you. Total idiots, btw, leaving themselves vulnerable and starting to hate a good beneficial neighbour instead.

 

[Dustman]

Counter? It's hard. Slaughter their main stacks and run few sieges along your border with mercs. When their new armies come, shadow them, and kill if possible. Look for good allies, like Ottos. But if they got lvl 7 NI and Defensive/Offensive already, it's prolly too late

 

[ozonns]

Mostly i think it is because of Nomand weakness, they are litterary fighting just another nomands and get eaten by Muscowy, Ottomans, Timurids etc... sometimes Timurids can survive for a good time, but they are usualy weak in mid game because of rebels poping up from each corner.
One thing is to cut them of from colonising east, you could do that as soon as possible by vasalizing Perm - that would be hard if they are Muscowy vassals or quaranteed by them,but if you do that, even if Perm is already eaten by Muscowy if you are able you should liberate them and try to vassalize them yourself, Muscowy will strugle into fights with west nations, eat a bit and at some point of game would not be a big problem, it is easier to do early in game when National ideas of Muscowy has not yet unlocked esp. unit costs and attrition.

btw. if you get Perm and eventualy anex them you can expand/colonise yourself to east, up to Chine :laugh:

 

[lordelenath]

The important part is to reign them in early. Normally I try to vassalize Novgorod as early as possible (if they still exist, wait until they've been cut to size by Muscovy, declare war and vassalize - if they don't, declare war, take one province with Novgorod core and release as vassal), making Russia return all their cores in the following wars and feeding them new provinces. Russia is a lot weaker without their western part. Keeping them from colonizing Siberia is probably even better, but might be very tough/almost impossible as a European country.

It might also be a possibility to guarantee one or two hordes, although I haven't tried that yet and probably never will, since I always have way too many diplomatic relations anyway.

 

[lucaluca]

it all belongs to mother russia tbh

 

[unmerged(38985)]

it all belongs to mother russia tbh

Yeah. It's very unlikely to accidentally program a country to be extremely overpowered and ruling the whole world.

 

[VI Imre]

1. Annex Russian minors as Teutonic Order before their expansion to Siberia
2. Colonise Siberia and annex the hordes
3. Resettle everything to Prussian
???
4. Profit! Enjoy the extra 'P' instead of just Russia and Russian and post map on the forums

Well, that's actually what I will try in my next game. But not before 1.3 comes out.

 

[Isaios]

Enjoy the extra 'P' [...] and post map on the forums

P is for Pictory?

 

[Murmeldjuret]

The problem is more due to russia being modelled as a western state, and pretty much functions as a HRE OPM in many regards. The problem is 3-fold.

1. Russia was an empire, and on most fronts faced barbarians, they did not declare war, they simply got raided, with any army that could hunt down the raiders unable to catch them. It took hundreds of years before the russians slowly converted the asian frontier to civilization. The process is far from done in the opening of Victoria games. The nomads are not too weak, but they dont have any good CBs. They should have a Raid! CB that lets them raid provinces for gold, and then simply call off the war, giving Russia a CB "Put down Barbarians". In the great northern war, Russia could only commit portions of its massive army to actually fighting the war, as moving forces from other fronts would lead to raids, revolts, and instability.

2. Russia recruited far less more disciplined units to fight, and should have a reduction to morale. As an eastern power they have less morale from tech, but a westernised Russia is next to unstoppable, easily able to drain a coalition out of manpower and armies. They should have a morale/discipline malus from their quite insane NI, imo the strongest in the game.

3. Russia still moved by levies (like in CK2). They have to merge the many units that pop up all over their massive and slow to move in country. The term mobilize comes from the Russians desire to assemble a fighting force during the Crimean war. Which is after EUs timeline. In EU's timeline they should have lower force limits, while still having endless manpower, as even when "fully mobilized", Russia still had not gathered all its forces.

In total: the main problem is that Russia can commit its entire armed forces to fighting in any spot that it needs. It would take a massive effort and drain on stability to fight a prolonged war outside Russia, let alone in western Europe. A 150k Russian doomstack fighting France in the Pyrenees is ludicrous, but in the game not unlikely.

This all being said, Russia does usually not expand as much as it did historically, and usually fails to reach Caucasus, devour Lithania, let alone annex Poland, barring whacky PUs. Russia until the 1700s did not do much in Western Europe, having many and large problems at home, and in the 1700s, it did more often expand its own borders than involve itself in wars over small provinces in HRE. They ally to easily, and answer all calls for arms.

 

[Isaios]

Good points, particularily about the ridiculous mobility of doomstacks. Could linking the distance your army can travel to colonial range be an idea?

 

[Carolus Rex]

In my last game as Sweden, Muscovy/Russia was insufferable from 1500 and onwards. Totally OP, crushing everything with doomstacks, reaching their 1800 borders 300 years too soon. From 1600-ish you basically had a cold war between the Spanish and Russian alliances, and they'd meet in the middle (Austria/Germany/Poland) to duke it out with 19th century size armies.

 

[LiberiusX]

The problem is more due to russia being modelled as a western state, and pretty much functions as a HRE OPM in many regards. The problem is 3-fold.

1. Russia was an empire, and on most fronts faced barbarians, they did not declare war, they simply got raided, with any army that could hunt down the raiders unable to catch them. It took hundreds of years before the russians slowly converted the asian frontier to civilization. The process is far from done in the opening of Victoria games. The nomads are not too weak, but they dont have any good CBs. They should have a Raid! CB that lets them raid provinces for gold, and then simply call off the war, giving Russia a CB "Put down Barbarians". In the great northern war, Russia could only commit portions of its massive army to actually fighting the war, as moving forces from other fronts would lead to raids, revolts, and instability.

2. Russia recruited far less more disciplined units to fight, and should have a reduction to morale. As an eastern power they have less morale from tech, but a westernised Russia is next to unstoppable, easily able to drain a coalition out of manpower and armies. They should have a morale/discipline malus from their quite insane NI, imo the strongest in the game.

3. Russia still moved by levies (like in CK2). They have to merge the many units that pop up all over their massive and slow to move in country. The term mobilize comes from the Russians desire to assemble a fighting force during the Crimean war. Which is after EUs timeline. In EU's timeline they should have lower force limits, while still having endless manpower, as even when "fully mobilized", Russia still had not gathered all its forces.

In total: the main problem is that Russia can commit its entire armed forces to fighting in any spot that it needs. It would take a massive effort and drain on stability to fight a prolonged war outside Russia, let alone in western Europe. A 150k Russian doomstack fighting France in the Pyrenees is ludicrous, but in the game not unlikely.

This all being said, Russia does usually not expand as much as it did historically, and usually fails to reach Caucasus, devour Lithania, let alone annex Poland, barring whacky PUs. Russia until the 1700s did not do much in Western Europe, having many and large problems at home, and in the 1700s, it did more often expand its own borders than involve itself in wars over small provinces in HRE. They ally to easily, and answer all calls for arms.

Excellent points. I particularly like the point about force limits.

Good points, particularily about the ridiculous mobility of doomstacks. Could linking the distance your army can travel to colonial range be an idea?

This is becoming my opinion as well. However, military access/allies/owned provinces should be the starting point for calculating distance.

 

[Zagys]

The problem is that Russia's NIs are a little too good and should be reduced.

 

[spyroware1]

I will add that the Siberian provinces have 'legacy' history files that do not account for the current national ideas bonuses. This happens to everyone but it's particularly annoying with Russia. Every province has 2 or 3 basetax (a moment of silence for Albania's 1 basetax) or much more if it reprepsents a fort from the late 1700s or something. This is indeed a joke, the place was just an endless forest that was barely populated, no cities, no real roads, no tax capacity whatsoever :/

 

[unmerged(652342)]

The problem is more due to russia being modelled as a western state, and pretty much functions as a HRE OPM in many regards. The problem is 3-fold.

1. Russia was an empire, and on most fronts faced barbarians, they did not declare war, they simply got raided, with any army that could hunt down the raiders unable to catch them. It took hundreds of years before the russians slowly converted the asian frontier to civilization. The process is far from done in the opening of Victoria games. The nomads are not too weak, but they dont have any good CBs. They should have a Raid! CB that lets them raid provinces for gold, and then simply call off the war, giving Russia a CB "Put down Barbarians". In the great northern war, Russia could only commit portions of its massive army to actually fighting the war, as moving forces from other fronts would lead to raids, revolts, and instability.

2. Russia recruited far less more disciplined units to fight, and should have a reduction to morale. As an eastern power they have less morale from tech, but a westernised Russia is next to unstoppable, easily able to drain a coalition out of manpower and armies. They should have a morale/discipline malus from their quite insane NI, imo the strongest in the game.

3. Russia still moved by levies (like in CK2). They have to merge the many units that pop up all over their massive and slow to move in country. The term mobilize comes from the Russians desire to assemble a fighting force during the Crimean war. Which is after EUs timeline. In EU's timeline they should have lower force limits, while still having endless manpower, as even when "fully mobilized", Russia still had not gathered all its forces.

In total: the main problem is that Russia can commit its entire armed forces to fighting in any spot that it needs. It would take a massive effort and drain on stability to fight a prolonged war outside Russia, let alone in western Europe. A 150k Russian doomstack fighting France in the Pyrenees is ludicrous, but in the game not unlikely.

- interesting points indeed. I have come up with rebalanced russian NI's based on your and other swedes "knowledge" of Russia:

Tradition: +10% tech cost; +25% manpower
Ambition: +100% manpower
Puny russians - -20% discipline; infantry cost - 25%
Russian cowards - -20% morale; land forcelimits modifier +25%
Crazy Ivans: - +25% stability cost; +3 revoltrisk; +25% manpower
Occupiers of Siberia: auto-exploration of all territory adjacent to owned home territory; +1 colonist; auto +20 AE when Russia colonizes province
Russian economy: -10% taxes; -20% production
Russian hordes: +100% manpower; -25% infantry cost ;-20% discipline;-20% morale
Russia cant into anything: -10% taxes; +10% tech cost; +25% stability cost; +3 revoltrisk

This all being said, Russia does usually not expand as much as it did historically, and usually fails to reach Caucasus, devour Lithania, let alone annex Poland, barring whacky PUs. Russia until the 1700s did not do much in Western Europe, having many and large problems at home, and in the 1700s, it did more often expand its own borders than involve itself in wars over small provinces in HRE. They ally to easily, and answer all calls for arms.

- flawless logic - Russia OP even when it cant reach their historic borders... Marvelous.

In my last game as Sweden, Muscovy/Russia was insufferable from 1500 and onwards. Totally OP, crushing everything with doomstacks, reaching their 1800 borders 300 years too soon. From 1600-ish you basically had a cold war between the Spanish and Russian alliances, and they'd meet in the middle (Austria/Germany/Poland) to duke it out with 19th century size armies.

- and of course you see this happening every game. And of course the only country with 200k+ armies are Russia, France, Spain, HRE and Ottos never come close to russian numbers... And of course WW1 style warfare are totally OP Russia fault and not wacky Pdox game balance... Wonderful.

The problem is that Russia's NIs are a little too good and should be reduced.

- And other countries NI's and starting conditions are perfectly balanced... Wunderbar.

 

[Murmeldjuret]

Please use arguments instead of calling all my points incorrect. I am open to arguments or historical discussion, but to outright ridicule my points is unfair.

- flawless logic - Russia OP even when it cant reach their historic borders... Marvelous.

I should have clarified that point, Im sorry. The reason Russia expands so poorly imo is that it is so eager to ally with other nations in Europe instead of ignoring everything west of Poland-Lithaunia. It should not commit its armed forces to its ally Austria over some fight with France for a single province on the western side of HRE. No nation had the capabality of sending an army so far, let alone in hostile territory. Hell, Spain had trouble fielding its army in Portugal. Russia should be very reclusive as the game starts, growing into the unstoppable imperial juggernaut we all know and love at the end of the game. And even then, Napoleon had a bigger and better army, but he was no match for General winter and scorched earth.
Atm, any alliance war with Russia on a side is going to lead a to Russia sending its entire armed forces to the fray wherever that may be. But its not fighting nomads and expanding its own borders.

 

[PanH]

- flawless logic - Russia OP even when it cant reach their historic borders... Marvelous.

That's not really relevant. E.g., if you do the exile thing and recreate the 'USA', you'll be extremely strong, more than it was historically at that time. OPness has nothing to do with historical borders.
The main issue with Russia is that they have too much manpower with too cheap infantry. Russia didn't have as much manpower in real life as it has in game in the 1500, but the game doesn't really model pop growth, so yeah.
Muscovy has also a really good starting position (but that's probably because Novgorod is too weak).

 

[Lwantssugar]

Yes even Muscovy is too overpowered, in my game I guess they never bothered to take the needed provinces from Lithuania, but they otherwise stretch to the Pacific and is unstoppable. As the Mughal empire and owner of most of India with maxed quantity and offensive my own manpower is nothing to laugh at, however, even fully westernized and a single military tech behind I can't beat any double digit Muscovy stacks without at least 4 to 1 odds and I'll still take horrific casualties. I even got the Ottomans, Crimea, and Hedjaz which owned 75% of the Arabian peninsula it is impossible

 

[unmerged(807119)]

I think that paradox-team made a good job in developing "Mother Russia" as a World Power. They did a good a job but they hurried to give Russia an advantage a century earlier! After all, Ivan the Terrible came to power after 100 years EU4 begin!

They can expand like madmen and no-one cares. Just took 4 provinces from Kazan, and Lithuania (with borders, only Muscowy in between it and Kazan) gets MINUS THREE (-3) aggressive expansion penalty vs it. You try to do the same somewhere else and you get -50 AE vs everyone close. I'm so sick and tired of every game being the same; 100K armies for Muscowy in early 1500's when others are trying to survive with 20-30K.

These expansive guys need to be hated just like in real history. And no, it's not historical. Someone else from the area could have expanded just as well. It doesn't have to be Moskova every single time

After the rant part, how do you counter these guys if you play with a country that has to be concerned with them? I had good allies with Sweden in the beginning: Poland+Lithuania+Crimea but eventually they will all get away from you. Total idiots, btw, leaving themselves vulnerable and starting to hate a good beneficial neighbour instead.

 

[unmerged(652342)]

Please use arguments instead of calling all my points incorrect. I am open to arguments or historical discussion, but to outright ridicule my points is unfair.

- my main argument - ITS A FREAKING GAME AND NOT HISTORY SIMULATOR, all your suggestions are based around presumption that Russia is one and only "history offender" and thats major BS.

I should have clarified that point, Im sorry. The reason Russia expands so poorly imo is that it is so eager to ally with other nations in Europe instead of ignoring everything west of Poland-Lithaunia.It should not commit its armed forces to its ally Austria over some fight with France for a single province on the western side of HRE.

- as i said earlier - it is a Pdox wacky balance and AI choices, Russia have nothing to do with this.

No nation had the capabality of sending an army so far, let alone in hostile territory. Hell, Spain had trouble fielding its army in Portugal.

- ingame or in reality?:glare:

Russia should be very reclusive as the game starts, growing into the unstoppable imperial juggernaut we all know and love at the end of the game.

- you can say exact this about any ahistoric national behavior ingame, so again Russia have nothing to do with Pdox gamedesign.

And even then, Napoleon had a bigger and better army, but he was no match for General winter and scorched earth.

- i dont know why you decided to bring "winter generals" and "scorched earths" to discuss but no army in the world could stand against Grande Armée in that time.

Atm, any alliance war with Russia on a side is going to lead a to Russia sending its entire armed forces to the fray wherever that may be. But its not fighting nomads and expanding its own borders.

- and agian you can say exactly the same in regards of any any big european nation. For example: in my current game Spain and France have much bigger armies than Russia.

That's not really relevant. E.g., if you do the exile thing and recreate the 'USA', you'll be extremely strong, more than it was historically at that time. OPness has nothing to do with historical borders.

- France OP? Ottos OP? England OP? Austria OP? HRE OP? Spain OP? Swedes and Prussian elite mooks OP? About what "historically at that time" you saying in GAME about PLAUSIBLE history where RNG can be major deciding factor?

The main issue with Russia is that they have too much manpower with too cheap infantry. Russia didn't have as much manpower in real life as it has in game in the 1500, but the game doesn't really model pop growth, so yeah.

- NO nation in game have their "historical" numbers.

Muscovy has also a really good starting position (but that's probably because Novgorod is too weak).

- in comparison to what, historical losers like hordes, Ragusa or other minors?

I think that paradox-team made a good job in developing "Mother Russia" as a World Power. They did a good a job but they hurried to give Russia an advantage a century earlier! After all, Ivan the Terrible came to power after 100 years EU4 begin!

- how is historical Ivan IV The Formidable relevant to ingame Russia?