• Victoria 3 - Sign up now!

    The journey begins, sign up now and get a special in-game item when the game is released.


  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning
  • Crusader Kings II Expansion Subscription

    Subscribe to the CK II Expansion and enjoy unlimited access to 13 major expansions and more!


unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Aetius said:
Bash, we can fix the projection in Russia. There is no reason to keep the freaky old one. Its a relic from the board game.

Are you realizing - if we'll do it - just one VERY SMALL by Russian standards "Perm" province must be a bit bigger then whole France with all French provinces ;)? Are you realizing - Modern "Moscow region" is bigger then whole "Benilux" bunch of countries?! Are you sure if you like to make - absolute exact presentation of real Russian provinces in Paradox chart?!!
Are you sure?! ;)
Are you aware that real distance between Moscow and St.Peterburg has more length then absolute majority of European countries have in widest part?

Pls, answer just one question - will this step be any improvement for EU2 GAME-mechanism? If not - why would we be sweeting for some quite weird achievment which wil definitely cripple whole game mechanismus??

Dixi.
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
If you look at the alternative it gets more difficult to ignore the problem. Kazan is roughly north of the Caspian, Perm is North East of Kazan IRL. Kazan AFAIK blocked access to Perm to the Russians. Perm in turn provided access to Sibir (via the Tavda and Tura rivers etc). If you look at the current map (as proposed) there is a huge gap that needs to be jumped by provinces anyway. The Provinces themselves don't have to be completely represented since we can assume the surrounding PTI (in the cases its motivated) belongs to the the official province. The only area that needs representation in the Transurals and Siberia are the river areas after all.
As for western Russia it needs to match up with the surrounding areas anyway so the provinces will be huge whatever you do.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Aetius said:
If you look at the alternative it gets more difficult to ignore the problem. Kazan is roughly north of the Caspian, Perm is North East of Kazan IRL. Kazan AFAIK blocked access to Perm to the Russians. Perm in turn provided access to Sibir (via the Tavda and Tura rivers etc). If you look at the current map (as proposed) there is a huge gap that needs to be jumped by provinces anyway. The Provinces themselves don't have to be completely represented since we can assume the surrounding PTI (in the cases its motivated) belongs to the the official province. The only area that needs representation in the Transurals and Siberia are the river areas after all.
As for western Russia it needs to match up with the surrounding areas anyway so the provinces will be huge whatever you do.

I'm not backer of Almoravid' proposition - if you are wondering. One big province instead of Vjatka/Perm/Ural small bits would be more right call for game purposes. This huge province would encircle rather small "kazan" province from north side. No one new "small province would be needed for this representation. In other hand - time for crossing of this huge province must be pretty long - 1,5 month for pure Cavalry for example. This province must have Iron for resource and its economy value must be tremendous (like 11-13 ducati). More then that - this province must start from complete bits - as "colony" of Novgorod with least possible - 100 population and more than that it must start as "invisible" for all other countries with notable exception of Novgorod himself; Muscovy and Khanate of Siberia.
Huge economic value push Novgorod to spend a lot of resources for raising local population and Muscovy - for stealing this juicy fruit from Novgorod. Any agression from Siberia to this region would be punished by Muscovy - immediately and Muscovy came into Obj Valley in sensible XV-XVI century and so on.
Whole Obj Valley mustn't have more then 3 (three!) provinces - if you like you can yield a couple or - better 1 (just one!) province for Khanate of Sibir out of Obj Valley. Khanate of Sibir must get not more then 3 and better - just 2 provinces as maximum - Capital (center is Tobolsk) in South (Lower) Obj region and Second somewhere - in south from it - not in Valley. Biggest thing in this configuration must be - Muscovy/Russia must get access to South Obj (Tobolsk) province from Trans-Ural corridor, but only possible access to "Second Sibir" province must be through "South Obj" province itself or around it - through "not known yet" eastern lands. Then Muscovy/Russia will chop out "Second Sibir" province just after getting first Russian conquistador/explorer, who "open road" to "Second Sibir" province and - successfulk colonization of this "bridge province". Other way is - through all these shitty southern khanates - of course. Sibir will be get downed by Russia when it'd become OPS (One-Province State) in early XVI century - and Russia start her historical "big run to Pacific".
Where do you find any small provinces between Viatka and South Obj (Tobolsk) - I can't see. Fantastic distances - yes; huge attrition while crossing these huge provinces - definitely yes; big amount of provinces - NO!

Dixi.
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
I am not 100% certain of how exactly the Novgorodan control of the Zavolochye spread out, but we could have areas that are centered on/beside the rivers. In this case perhaps Kholmogory from the Onega to the Dvina. Then Archangelsk from the Dvina to the northern part of the Pechora. Then Pustozersk from the Pechora to the Urals. Obdorsk could then be from the Urals to around the bay of the Ob. South of Obdorsk you can have Berezov that follows the Ob to Tobolsk. Tobolsk would strech from the Tobol-Tavda area in the south to north of the Ob-Irtysh area. South of Tobolsk you can have Tyumen on the Tura river. Obdorsk and Berezov would be Sibir trade posts (perhaps with the addition of Surgut on the Ob to the east). Tyumen and Tobolsk would be regular provinces. I see no reason to model the Khanti principalities like Pelym, Konda, Lapin etc.
To these we can add Verkhoturye, Solikamsk, Cherdyn and Ust-Vym. These are either colonizable or part of the Novogorodian Zavolochye with trade posts.
I am not sure about what can be done with the area between the Vyatka and the Kama rivers. Perhaps some sort of Kazan tradeposts? Kazan itself needs to be split since the principle towns are on opposite sides of the Volga. Essentially the Kazan provinces would be Kazan and Bolgary. I am not sure about the Udmurts or Baskirs.
The area south of the Urals wasn't annexed until sometime in the 18th century so it would need to be well defened I suppose
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Aetius said:
I am not 100% certain of how exactly the Novgorodan control of the Zavolochye spread out, but we could have areas that are centered on/beside the rivers. In this case perhaps Kholmogory from the Onega to the Dvina. Then Archangelsk from the Dvina to the northern part of the Pechora. Then Pustozersk from the Pechora to the Urals. Obdorsk could then be from the Urals to around the bay of the Ob. South of Obdorsk you can have Berezov that follows the Ob to Tobolsk. Tobolsk would strech from the Tobol-Tavda area in the south to north of the Ob-Irtysh area. South of Tobolsk you can have Tyumen on the Tura river. Obdorsk and Berezov would be Sibir trade posts (perhaps with the addition of Surgut on the Ob to the east). Tyumen and Tobolsk would be regular provinces. I see no reason to model the Khanti principalities like Pelym, Konda, Lapin etc.
To these we can add Verkhoturye, Solikamsk, Cherdyn and Ust-Vym. These are either colonizable or part of the Novogorodian Zavolochye with trade posts.
I am not sure about what can be done with the area between the Vyatka and the Kama rivers. Perhaps some sort of Kazan tradeposts? Kazan itself needs to be split since the principle towns are on opposite sides of the Volga. Essentially the Kazan provinces would be Kazan and Bolgary. I am not sure about the Udmurts or Baskirs.
The area south of the Urals wasn't annexed until sometime in the 18th century so it would need to be well defened I suppose

Excuse me for bothering - what for this MAGNITUDE of shitty provinces in Northern Russia?
Did you play in EU2 for Russia/Muscovy (preferably vanilla)? Are you aware biggest Russian problem (for human player or AI - no difference) in EU2 GAME?!

All your propositions is DEATH WARRANT for Russia - do you realize it?!

If you like to cripple game-Russia - you've made your point, if you like to show your knowledge in Russian history - you showed it; if you are really so ... - I'm really sorry for continuing this discussion.

Dixi.

P.S. Your initial proposition was about making Paradox chart in Russian departament as more recognisable with quite smart remark about "wrong placement of Perm province". Now you are start talking about Tavda river and such - it seems you just dropping your own ideas as soon as this idea start to "leaking water". Do you still like to create "real Russian map" - by the way?!
Or do you like to - just speak about some smart things - like direction of Tavda River-flow?!

Yep, I'm really angry now.
Huh?!
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
I am not trying to ruin Russia. I am just trying to make it a bit better.

As its now the area along the Ob/Irtysh has about same number of provinces as the area around the Volga. Do you really think that makes a lot of sense? Don't you think it would be better using some of the Sibirian provinces in the west?

Most of the population in Russia in the West, and most of the Siberian population is in South Western Siberia. It makes more sense to try and move some provinces that used to be in what is now Khanty-Mansia and Yamalia to areas that are a bit more populated to the south or west. The total number of Khantis etc was like 50 000 in the 16th century, I see little reason to give them 10 provinces. Better to move 5 or 6 to the Urals and west of the Urals. It would also improve the map for a second reason...

My second major problem with the current map is that the route of colonisation goes through the area where the Kazaks live and the Russian didn't expand into that area until sometime in the 18th century. So if we want to represent history the Russians won't be able to colonise Okhotsk without a risky route that passes the Kazakhs and the Nogai.

If we look at the "real" route of Sibirian colonization there was no risk from the Kazakhs or the Nogai, only the Sibirian Khanate which was basically destroyed between 1585 and the early 17th century. For this to be possible the Russians need to have a northern route (along the route of province I described in the previous post). The Russians continued along the Ob, Yenisei, Ket, different Tunguska rivers, Lena, Angara, Maya etc until they reached the Baikal and Okhotsk. They founded Okhotsk in 1646 only 61 years after Yermak attacked Sibir. All of this was driven by the desire for sable furs. At no time does this route depend on going past the Kazakhs.
 

almoravid

I ignore U
51 Badges
Sep 8, 2003
1.271
133
Visit site
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
chegitz said:
What would anyone think about making parts of the Caucausus PTI? Much of the region, during the game period, was part of no organized state.
Positive. Parts (dots) of it have to be PTI. But we have to do it in intelligent manner so that it represents the impassable parts.
Bash said:
Russian map had to be done in last moment - after all her neighbours map will be done
True, that is why I avoided to draw provinces on the polish border. Still we have to contemplate a general direction of how it should look to not end up with an awful map. I think we can have two provinces for Vyatka and Perm. They would have a century to expand! Vyatka would be rather poor, while Perm would be as rich as you proposed to. Ob valley should have one province north of Sibir, called "Ob valley" and Sibir should be a three-provincer IMO. The entire corridor should be changed in the matter of every 4-6 provinces=1 province.
Bash said:
I'm not backer of Almoravid' proposition
Then propose something of yours, I know my proposition is not perfect at all. By now it is the only proposition :)


...


Do we really need Onega? Can't we have one, big Lukomor'ye in the north, plus one Scandinavian province besides Kexholm?
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
This is extremely skewed but anyway to illustate what I meant for the north of Russia (using the map provided by almoravid plus a map I skewed in using MS paint)
NorthRussia.JPG


1 Kola
2 Karelia
3 Olonets
4 Kholmogory
5 Arkhangelsk
6 Pustozersk
7 Obdorsk
8 Berezov
9 Tobolsk
10 Tyumen (too far south though)
11 Verkhoturye
12 Solikamsk
13 Cherdyn (too far north)
14 Ust-Vym
15 Ustyug
16 Vologda
17 Novgorod
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Aetius said:
This is extremely skewed but anyway to illustate what I meant for the north of Russia (using the map provided by almoravid plus a map I skewed in using MS paint)
NorthRussia.JPG


1 Kola
2 Karelia
3 Olonets
4 Kholmogory
5 Arkhangelsk
6 Pustozersk
7 Obdorsk
8 Berezov
9 Tobolsk
10 Tyumen (too far south though)
11 Verkhoturye
12 Solikamsk
13 Cherdyn (too far north)
14 Ust-Vym
15 Ustyug
16 Vologda
17 Novgorod

OK. Let's check in your proposition, taking in mind two most important issues -

1) Muscovy/Russia playability as result of our modding. Only way for this is DECREASING whole number of Russian provinces. Russian core-lands is rather important in game sense due to their influence onto course of Napoleon or Polish Invasions - then we would like to keep them rather intact. It means we MUST decimate:
A) Russian North provinces;
B) Russian Volga provinces;
c) Russian Steppe provinces.

2) General direction of High AGC/EEP Council which determine necessity of inclusion of any new province in game by its historical/game influence. In other words - if some region/province made huge impact on Real History it must be in game, if it's not - then it's must drop out.
It means:
A) Nifty by its territory "Holland" province/region influed whole course of World History in 1419-1819 timespan in big way - then it must be IN;
B) Huge Yakut ASSR region of modern Russian Federation, which is roughly equal by its territory to WHOLE EUROPE (from Nordcap to Gibraltar - anyway) had absolutely nil influence on World History in 1419-1819 timespan - then Yakutia must be OUT.

Fine.

Let's check in your proposition in accordance with this two principles.

1) Kola. What's reason for inclusion of this province in Game?
Did Russia spend a lot of resources trying to colonize these lands? Did Russian enemies tried to steal this province from Russia in any determinate way? (One-two robbing raids is quite lame excuse for clogging up Russian economical engine by shitty lands - I'm afraid. Kola must go. 1 is OUT. Land transferred to big "3" province.
2) Karelia. The same questions as above.
Yep, this region had more activities, but not enough - anyway for our purposes. 2 province is OUT. Land transferred to big "3" province. "Karelia" Name must be IN.
3) Olonetz. Do you realize - Olonetz is historical Capital of Karelia? If we start to go by your/Paradox method of naming provinces we would get one province of "France" in France territory and another - "Paris" somewhere around of "France" province ;).
Your proposition is in the same league - like "Alice in Wonderland" statements - like - London is Capital of Paris, Paris is Capital of Rome, Rome is Capital of... etc.
"1" "2" "3" provinces must be melted in one big entity with "Karelia" name and Olonetz as Capital of Karelia. Give this big province some ridiculous time for crossing - like 2 or 2,5 month for Cavalry and you wil "freeze" any possible military activity in this huge Region for good - like in real History.
Dixi.

4) Kholmogory and 5) Arkhangelsk - weird names without any game purposes in mind while creation these provinces. I would prefer to have just one big province in these lands with "Vjatka" name and PTI from latitudal mid-section of combined 4 and 5 provinces to North from mid-section. If we've got universal understanding of bad idea of Russian (or any other fleet in White Sea, then - close White Sea shores by PTI zone.
In other way - while you've got open seashore in these lands - you will get the same FAQ - why do you haven't port in Arkhangelsk? For making this question impossible - Scandinavian peninsula must hit upper edge of chart making White Sea as "closed lake" - and whole issue would be completely dropped. But if you can't have any port in Arkhangelsk - any purpose of having "Kholmogory"/"Kargopol"/"Arkhangelsk" provinces are dropped as well. Hide them in PTI and forget about them for good. OUT.

16) Southern part of "4" as well as "15" must go to "Vologda" (16) province.

14) Southern part of "5" and whole "14" province must be one unity with "Vjatka" name. Forget about North Dvina presentation in AGC/EEP mod - if you like to make Russian player life harder - include it, if not - drop it for good - there wouldn't any big fightings in these lands between any Powers, then purpose of this River is mysterious.

17) Novgorod province. Fine.

6) 11) 12) and 13) provinces are huge mountainous/forest country which had rather universal for Russian annales name - "Greater Barmia" or "Perm". Mind you modern "Perm region" of modern Russian Federation is just nifty bit of this whole huge unity. For realizing this - pls, check in modern Geology terms: "Permian geological epoch" received its name by geological finding in this region. Most funny thing is - absolute majority of "Permian" geological sites/founding/sediments are situated OUT of modern "Perm region" of modern Russian Federation. Reason is - all these geological discoveries was made in previous centuries when "Perm" name was applied to whole - big local region. If you like to check this situation yourself - check in please - Whole Komi SSR Permian region and lesser modern national SSRs lands here was considered as "Greater Barmia" in end of XVIII century. Little hint: "permians" are Ugric people - part of modern "Komi" nationality, then whole bunch of local Ugric guys - like Komi-zyrans, Udmurts, Mariy, Mordva and so on - was considered as "permians" by Russian administration as "whole community" with lesser (more fine) definitions as "mordvins" or "udmurts".
Yep, 6) 11) 12) and 13) is one huge "Perm" entity.

7) and 8) is Upper Obj or more exact - "Obskaya Guba" province with capital in Berezov.

9) I would vote for ancient name for this province - "Sibir". Plain and -exact ;). Capital is Tobolsk of course.

10) "Ural" or "Kamenny Poyas" or "Upper Obj" will do with Omsk as Capital.

It means I've got only 8 provinces - where you saw 17 and Paradoxes made 22-24.

It's my point of view.

Dixi
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
Having only 8 provinces leads to some different problems. I'll touch on the game related ones only.
First of all it means that there is no buffer zone between Sibir proper, Kazan proper and Russia. Your "greater" Perm region contains both Sibir, Kazan and Novogorodian Trade posts from the start. There is also the problem of the distance travelled if the large province is used: it will be a short cut to the area to the south. Also the Sibir, Nogai etc could use it in the opposite direction. You also have the "compensation" for the loss of the provinces Siberia to consider.
I haven't looked at the Kola-Karelia area (since I was trying to illustrate what I meant in my "DEATH WARRANT for Russia" post), so I just kept the provinces in for references. If you combine Kola, Karelia and Olonets into one province the Swedes can reach Novogorod from Österbotten with one step, the Danes can do something equivalent from Norway, something that makes a Russian defense in depth difficult.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Aetius said:
Having only 8 provinces leads to some different problems. I'll touch on the game related ones only.
First of all it means that there is no buffer zone between Sibir proper, Kazan proper and Russia. Your "greater" Perm region contains both Sibir, Kazan and Novogorodian Trade posts from the start. There is also the problem of the distance travelled if the large province is used: it will be a short cut to the area to the south. Also the Sibir, Nogai etc could use it in the opposite direction. You also have the "compensation" for the loss of the provinces Siberia to consider.
I haven't looked at the Kola-Karelia area (since I was trying to illustrate what I meant in my "DEATH WARRANT for Russia" post), so I just kept the provinces in for references. If you combine Kola, Karelia and Olonets into one province the Swedes can reach Novogorod from Österbotten with one step, the Danes can do something equivalent from Norway, something that makes a Russian defense in depth difficult.

I'm afraid you didn't read my previous posts at all.

If you spend around 2 month as Cavalry for getting into Perm region and 2 month for gettin out of it - your attrition loss would be tremendous. The same story for "big Karelia" region. If you are wondering - these times are sensible and historical - it took around of 2 month for Swedes to came into northern Karelian realms for raiding and the same time for getting out. This problem shortened possible "raiding period" for Scandinavians to only rather short summer' months time-period. As soon as these provinces were protected by simplest possible Fortresses - all raidings stopped. Reason was - you can't make successful sieging in these lands in local harsh winters - at all. This problem was universal for any warring sides in these latitudes - Russian, Sibir, Nogai (I wonder - what sources do you use for speaking about Nogai tribes (inhabitabnts of Black sea shores for raiding White Sea shorelasnds?!) or Swedes.
I told you - Russian army withour artillery went more then one month Moscow Kremlin to Tver stronghold in XIV century - then - all crossings in Russia must "eat up" more times then marching in Western Europe. As soon as you start to realize - distance between Moscow and St.Peterburg is roughly equal to distance between Paris and Toulouse - in worse road conditions - you would need to make 5-6 provinces between Moscow and Ingermanland provinces for getting the same time period for marching. It means - if you like to get the same (universal) times for crossing Europe and use some minimal times like crossing between Buxelles and Luxembourg, only european part of Russia would need around 500 different provinces. It's quite stupid idea - and if you are pretending - whole Russian North from Kola to Polar Ural could be crossed in one year in XV century (it is direct result of your another "smart" remark) - you don't realize Russian geography at all.
Main problem in fighting with Russia wasn't "strategical depth" of Russian territory. It was - logistic problems, absence of proviant for invader and huge attrition for any aggressor. And then - as soon as enemy army would be weakened enough - Russian Army came into the picture. ;)

Dixi.

P.S. I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion with you "in friendly manner" due to my big fright for being banned for next really rude answer. Then I won't answer you any more.

Inability to understand - you can't invent 500 provinces for "Russian "core-lands" for getting the same time for crossing them like in case of Brussel-Luxembourg - then you must make crosing times unequal for different Earth regions - is enough for stopping any discussion.
 

Ges

Captain
7 Badges
Oct 23, 2003
312
0
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
Bash said:
The same story for "big Karelia" region. If you are wondering - these times are sensible and historical - it took around of 2 month for Swedes to came into northern Karelian realms for raiding and the same time for getting out. This problem shortened possible "raiding period" for Scandinavians to only rather short summer' months time-period.

If I have understand correctly all warring happened in Karelia in Winter times - 'til modern times. Seriously speaking the whole northern warfare (between Sweden and Russia) is hard to model with EU2 since all warfare north of Olavinlinna castle/Olofsborg was guerrilla war between Karelian and Finnish peasants - and no "real organised army" really entered those sparsely populated forests.

I believe that good thing for Karelia would be 3 provinces. 1) Kexholm 2) Olonets (named Karelia) and 3) Kola - the now Karelia named province (1470) should be divided between Kola and Olonets. Also there have been some talk in scandinavia map thread about dividing Nyland to form Viborg province - which became Russian historically in 1721.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Ges said:
If I have understand correctly all warring happened in Karelia in Winter times - 'til modern times. Seriously speaking the whole northern warfare (between Sweden and Russia) is hard to model with EU2 since all warfare north of Olavinlinna castle/Olofsborg was guerrilla war between Karelian and Finnish peasants - and no "real organised army" really entered those sparsely populated forests.

I believe that good thing for Karelia would be 3 provinces. 1) Kexholm 2) Olonets (named Karelia) and 3) Kola - the now Karelia named province (1470) should be divided between Kola and Olonets. Also there have been some talk in scandinavia map thread about dividing Nyland to form Viborg province - which became Russian historically in 1721.

Sure thing. It would be nice thing to make Russian chart as divided as possible, but if we start to make all lands where "was guerrilla war between Karelian and Finnish peasants - and no "real organised army" really entered those sparsely populated forests." we can create Russian map with 100 different provinces. If you will insist on creating different provinces for Kola and Karelia - we would get reasons enough for creation Hanty, Mansy, Permian, Zyrian and so on - MAGNITUDE of quite weird and halb-forgotten lands in Russian NORTH only. Are you sure if you like to see - MAGNITUDE of different trees, but can't see some rather plain and simple FOREST behind them.
My vote is for just one Karelia province with Olonetz capital - Kola in any form must go OUT.

But Kexholm region (in any form) is another issue. It's quite important province for some fighting or political bargaining around in all northern issues
between Russia and Sweden/Finland in our mutual past.
It seems - you didn't realize one subtle thing in my (and Almoravid) previous statements.
We stated - our Western neighbors must determine boundaries of their national provinces then we will add Russian provinces to resulting picture, because we can hide any chart inconsistencies in Russian territory better, then they are able to do in Polish, German or Scandinavian lands.
Our Polish neighbors started to do their "Polish" chart with inclusion of all Byelorussian/Ukrainian/Moldavian/Baltic and Western Russian lands without any negotiation or simle talk with our part of Forum. Fine. We've got in new times with rather broad sense of political acknowledgement and perception.
Let them - but let's make some partial notice (for Russian audience - especially)...

Then I've got rather definite attitude and understanding - Sweden/Finnish part of our community started to make their part of new chart WITH INCLUSION of... Kexholm province as minimum - without any negotiations with our part of Forum. Well, your statement is showing me - I was wrong.
My great apologise for rather hasty impressions about your attitude for this part of our mutual border.
Well, it means - some of our neigbors are Poles and some of them are not.

Sure thing - we need special province of Kexholm in West Karelia and I appreciate your notice about it. (But I made my scetchy thing without any lands which would discussed in your part of Forum.)

Dixi.

Sincerely yours Bash.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
Ges said:
If I have understand correctly all warring happened in Karelia in Winter times - 'til modern times. Seriously speaking the whole northern warfare (between Sweden and Russia) is hard to model with EU2 since all warfare north of Olavinlinna castle/Olofsborg was guerrilla war between Karelian and Finnish peasants - and no "real organised army" really entered those sparsely populated forests.

Oh, one small thing just dropped from my attention. In whole XV century Swedish vogts were quite busy for helping Konig Kristian in fighting against Hanseatic Union, then all border issues in these nordlands were dropped, but as soon as Scandinavians stop stalking enemies in Holstein/Meklenburg region they started to probe dying Novgorodian strenght in these realms. I'm not sure about "regular army", but couple of raids in end of XV century was lead by Swedish vogts definitely.
If you like to name Swedish vogts and their personal guard as "Finnish peasants" it is your right, but I wonder...
Yep, as soon as these lands dropped in Muscovy/Russian lands any official raids (led by local vogts - anyway) stopped, then I would agree with you - it were just peasant guerilla from that moment, but we've got some definite moment in our mutual history, when invading Scandinavians weren't just plain peasants ;).
Oh, another issue - I've got strange impression like - northern part of Botnik Gulf of Baltic Sea is frozen in winter. According to Russian annales of Novgorodian origin any official invasion (oK, - half-official - led by local vogts) started from moment when some small fleet of local warlords dropped Swedish troops in some part of Finnish shore and whole party started to ride into landmass. More then that - all warspoils of this raiding was collected on ships/boats and carried from Finnish to Swedish shores as soon as possible - in the same year of raiding. Then I've got an impression - they were SUMMER raids.
Oh, maybe I'm wrong and winter in this part of Botnik Gulf is so long - then raid started in May and finished in August was "winter raid", but my knowledge in local climatic paradoxes is quite limited ;).
Yep, as soon as these lands came to Muscovy/Russia all warfare became to be plain guerilla and this form of fighting is characteristical for winter times. Peasants used to work in summertime, but rather idle in winters ;).

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
By the way - by checking NW Russian affairs a bit closer, I would prefer to make Kexholm region to lenghten a bit to south - till Viipuri (Vyborg).
Yep, these lands were contested in XV century and previously, but I've got an opinion - we would like to see on this land from XVIII century affairs perspective - not for more earlier approach (both neighboring sides) would happy to divert their colonization/faith conversion activity to somewhere else region - not to these poor inhabitant forests.
Yep, this land would be protestant as result, but what the heck - it remains to be protestant till 1819 from Russian point of view.
Big reward in this presentation would be releasing another province number for using it somewhere else.
Yep, Kexholm province with Viipuri/Vyborg capital is quite sensible thing.

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash.

P.S. By the way I've got PM asking about capital for "big Permian" region.
It is - quite tricky business, because "Greater Barmia" in Muyscovitan times wasn't plain administrative structure - rather bunch of state-owned iron mines - this and that. But in start of XVIII century - "Greater Barmia" started to be governed by direct order of Peter the Great - by merchants of Demidov family from... ehm, there wasn't name for their capital yet :(.
This name appeared in second half of XVIII century in form of "EKATERINBURG" and sad irony of this name is - "EKATERINBURG" ("Iron heart of Russian Empire"/"Russian Armory") was considered as capital of "Ural" province.
Big reason for this conversion was - the same land till end of XVII century was named by common name for local inhabitants, but later it start to be named after most important geografic feature of this lands - Ural Mountains. This thing reflected most important shifting of governmental priorities in local affairs - government was interested in inhabitants initially (population taxes), but in starategical resources later (resource tolls). Then "Greater Barmia/Perm" of early times IS THE SAME economical-geography object as "Ural province" of later times.
Ehm... My last statement isn't quite correct of course - center of economical values of these lands shifted to more mountainous area in whole course of Russian history, but in game terms "Perm" = "Ural".

By the way - every time in vanilla game of EU2 I wondered - where is "Ekaterinburg" - most important industrial center of Russian Empire of XVIII century situated?
It must be on WEST slopes of Ural mountains on metamorphic anteclyse of Ural Metamorphic geology province - there is sediment syneclise in Eastern slopes of Ural Mountains - then Iron (any metamorphic resources) excavation to East from Ural Mountains Ridge is impossible (yet), but huge thickness of sediment syneclise there is best possible thing for "oil linse - traps". Then there are a lot of Iron mines to West from Ural mountain Ridge and a lot of Oil wells to East from the same ridge.
In geology terms - huge Asian plate in Ural region met European plate and make some spectacular crashing - with huge metamorphic opening (Iron) to West, and huge sediment drop (Oil) to East.
Alas, whole most important for Russian Empire development region is in PTI in vanilla game, then everyone can start asking - where was situated much needed Iron resources for Russia' military development.
In Kazan? Pfui, Kazan region is very important Oil producer.
In Vladimir?! Oh, Vladimir region is most important grainstore "Zalesje" - fields.
In Ufa?! C'mon - Ufa (Baskiria) is just plain steppes with livestock raising and a lot of factories in cities, which proceeds metemorphic goods from neighbouring Ural mountains. (Bashkiria - like any Muslim region of Russian Federation - has excessive population, when all Ural' provinces with orthodox majority - have deficient population numbers - then a lot of raw resources is taken from Ural' regions to human excessive Baskiria for processing. But it is modern situation - there was reverse population picture till October Revolution. Situation presented in EU2 terms with Ufa-Bashkiria holding - GOLD resources and a lot of population is pretty laughable).

Well, summing up this story - "Perm" province of XV-XVII century is the same thing as "Ural" province of XVIII-XIX centuries.
Capital of this thing must be - "Ekaterinburg" eventually, but its initial name can be... I don't know yet.

Dixi.
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
Verkhoturye was the first town founded by the Russian in the area that is now Ekaterinburg's Oblast (i.e. Sverdlovsk) in 1598 (then you have places like Turinsk in 1600 and Irbinsk in 1633), Ekaterinburg wasn't founded until 1723 AFAIK. If you expand the Urals area: Ufa was founded in 1574, Kotelnich in 1143, Viatka in 1374, Solikamsk in 1430, Cherdyn in 1451.
If you check the link for maps above you can see the main cities during the late 16th century/early 17th century.
 

almoravid

I ignore U
51 Badges
Sep 8, 2003
1.271
133
Visit site
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
I agree Bash. The fewer provinces we have in the North and in Siberia, the better for Russian gameplay. We need quite numerous provinces in 1419 Muscovy (5 at very least) because it should be diploannexing some princedoms and have manpower enough to keep Lithuania at bay, but the north should stay real small. How many people from Kondinsk fought in the army 1419-1819? Not too many, percentually. Compare it to any province we have in the European part. Truth is, Siberia had some financial and prestige impact on Russia, but the gross of manufacturing, agriculture, population and whatsoever always was in the west. IMO, the part east of Ural+the unhabitable north should have as many/less provinces then the part of Russia with population density of more then a man/10skm. In 1618, Russia should not have many more provinces then Ottoman Empire, and fewer then Spain.

Put Arkhangelsk into terra incognita, you say? It's bad gameplaywise as Novgorod won't have contact to it's tradeposts in the east. On the other hand it is justifiable historically, as Vasily I. did cut their routes via Beloozero-Viatka. IMO, let's just make White Sea a lake by moving Scandinavia north, perhaps even discarding Finnmark/North Cape (if Scandinavians allow us). The Brits won't be discovering Kholmogory, but it is bearable compared to strategic disadvantages of an invasion, and in game, we can't properly represent this trade route anyway. One large, poor, hardly passable Lukomorie is the way to go. I agree we should call all of Russian Scandinavia 'Karelia', although I doubt we can make the army march through it that slow. AFAIK, there is either normal or 'slow' movement, which adds several days to traveling times and is used to simulate movement over rivers. These two provinces would have tax rate of 1, MP of 0, be colonies but have fortresses to prevent quick conquest. Movement anywhere would be considered as over the river.
 

WiSK

Major
3 Badges
Apr 30, 2002
602
0
  • Cities in Motion
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • 500k Club
almoravid said:
One large, poor, hardly passable Lukomorie is the way to go. I agree we should call all of Russian Scandinavia 'Karelia', although I doubt we can make the army march through it that slow. AFAIK, there is either normal or 'slow' movement, which adds several days to traveling times and is used to simulate movement over rivers.
There is also a size multiplier in province.csv which can be used to delay movement of troops.
 

unmerged(13006)

Captain
Dec 21, 2002
333
0
Visit site
almoravid said:
The fewer provinces we have in the North and in Siberia, the better for Russian gameplay. We need quite numerous provinces in 1419 Muscovy (5 at very least) because it should be diploannexing some princedoms and have manpower enough to keep Lithuania at bay, but the north should stay real small.

Fine. Then let's start to shape our Motherland on Paradox' chart, taking in mind - we would make just sketchy thing which would interact with all possible decisions of our Western neighbors.

If we started to do it from northern side, let's do it from North to South.

Then first country:
A) Novgorod.
First of all - let's return to your objection.

almoravid said:
Put Arkhangelsk into terra incognita, you say? It's bad gameplaywise as Novgorod won't have contact to it's tradeposts in the east. On the other hand it is justifiable historically, as Vasily I. did cut their routes via Beloozero-Viatka. IMO, let's just make White Sea a lake by moving Scandinavia north, perhaps even discarding Finnmark/North Cape (if Scandinavians allow us).

Agreed - Lukomorje is IN, if "Viatka" in 1419 belong to Muscovy, Novgorod need some method for reaching "Obskaya Guba" province for its trade factories. By the way - maybe "Obskaya Guba" is quite long and weird name? Maybe some like - "Mangazea" would be more aestetic?

In any case - let's start to shape Novgorodian realms for 1419 situation:
1) Karelia - Olonetz.
2) Kexholm - Vyborg.
3) Ingermanland - Narva or Ivan-Gorod (Russians would see one name - europeans - another). Later name of Ingermanland would be switched to St.Petersburg.
4) Novgorod - Novgorod :).
5) Lukomorje - Kargopol or Kholmogory.
6) Obskaja Guba or Mangazea - Berezov.

B) Muscovy. Then we need to make some rather tough decisions in this quarter - I'd like to include so many entities ... Oh, well...

Let's start from North:
1) Vologda - Vologda.
2) Vjatka - Vjatka :).
3) Jaroslavl - Jaroslavl (under Vologda - to N from Moscow).
4) Zalesje - Vladimir (to NE from Moscow).
5) Nizhgorod - Nizhgorod (debatable thing - if Nighgorod is Moscow Neighbour? I'm not so sure about it but it would be so - for simplicity purposes - to East side of Moscow).
I'm not sure about south border of Muscovy - I would like to make something like Tula/Serpukhov in South direction and something like Kolomna on SE direction, but these lands inclusion is quite debatable - they were important in time - just before our time period, but to 1419 struggle for them came to end - Moscow win, but if we start to make alternative history - Rjazan first concern was crushing Kolomna ASAP, and Lithuanians used to try to fight Tula/Serpukhov fortresses. Eh-m... Let's put them aside temporarily for latest discussions.
Another big issue is Rostov placement. It was quite important city province for XV century, but it was gobbled by quick growing Jaroslavl principality pretty fast. Then I would prefer to keep just Jaroslavl for game purposes, but Rostov is quite fine and pretty (and very old!) city. Well, let's put it aside - for the moment.
Then - we finished tailoring Muscovy realms. Let's start to shape small things.
C) Pskov - Pskov :).
D) Tver - Tver :) (Important notice - I would like to extent Novgorodian border a bit to South in this region for meeting... ehm... Muscovy - I'm afraid.)
We've got 2 ugly alternatives in these realms - either Tver is making direct contact with Lithuania and it is bad thing, or Novgorod is making direct contact with Moscow and it is - equally bad. What about some solomonic decision - some token small unnamed lake on the chart - four different states: Novgorod, Tver, Lithuania and Muscovy came to its nifty shores, but can't make mutual border with criss-crossing neighbor?
Then Novgorod has common border with Tver and Lithuania; Tver - with Novgorod and Muscovy; Muscovy - with Tver and Lithuania and Lithuania - with Moscow and Novgorod. I've mean - Fate of Tver is just Muscovy-Novgorodian political issue, but Muscvovy can't make direct fighting with Novgorod - then Tver is their private battle-ground or warring sides must go rather long way - around east borders of Tver principality ;).
E) Ryazan - Ryazan ;).

Well, it's starting point for discussion - as soon as we coime to common ground about these realms - let's go to Horde' and Lithuanian' temporarily ;) held (for 1419) lands.

Dixi.

Sincerely yours, Bash.

P.S. By the way - let's make "Perm" province - unexplored in 1419 scenario. Nobody knows yet about her existence. We need some rather "sitting duck" around for first Russian explorers in end of XV century and don't like to give away this fabulously rich land for any Khanes - don't we? ;)

The Brits won't be discovering Kholmogory, but it is bearable compared to strategic disadvantages of an invasion, and in game, we can't properly represent this trade route anyway. One large, poor, hardly passable Lukomorie is the way to go. I agree we should call all of Russian Scandinavia 'Karelia', although I doubt we can make the army march through it that slow. AFAIK, there is either normal or 'slow' movement, which adds several days to traveling times and is used to simulate movement over rivers. These two provinces would have tax rate of 1, MP of 0, be colonies but have fortresses to prevent quick conquest. Movement anywhere would be considered as over the river.
 

unmerged(6881)

Lt. General
Dec 17, 2001
1.590
0
Visit site
Hello,

British discovers on the North can be always simulated by events so no need for White Seas/Archangielsk inclusion, that's right.

1419 scenario lasts up to 1820 so provinces like "Perm"/"Ural" with "Jekaterinburg" should be in. The province may be poor and unsettled on the start. Tatars don't have colonial AI so they should not move any colonists there. Muscovy may do that but it will give her only big and poor province. Events in 17th and 18th cen. can boost the provincetax and population of it.

Salve,

Vv