Many thanks for the info
Yes, i see the problem to make a correct representation of these provinces. Indeed Ducal Prussia is baltic if i don´t recall wrong.
-
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.
Many thanks for the info
Yes, i see the problem to make a correct representation of these provinces. Indeed Ducal Prussia is baltic if i don´t recall wrong.
@Smirfy
Good analyses but you are right it may hamper the balance too much. Trade 3 is definitely too much cause it is very expensive level so it may boost Poland way ahead others. I personally think that Poland should start with trade 2 and infra 1. Poland was very good in trade in 1350's - 1380's in general (it is called golden age of Polish trade) (classical CoT in Lvov was created). Then shifted more to become producer of basic goods while leave profits from trade to agents. The tendency eneded with elimination of Poland as trade power later. [/B][/QUOTE]
I was basing this on 1492
Good analyses but you are right it may hamper the balance too much. Trade 3 is definitely too much cause it is very expensive level so it may boost Poland way ahead others. I personally think that Poland should start with trade 2 and infra 1. Poland was very good in trade in 1350's - 1380's in general (it is called golden age of Polish trade) (classical CoT in Lvov was created). Then shifted more to become producer of basic goods while leave profits from trade to agents. The tendency eneded with elimination of Poland as trade power later. [/B][/QUOTE]
I was basing this on 1492
Re: Re: Poland orthodox tech?Huh.
These are estimation from Ukrainian historician i read - he just estimated number of Poles by adding servicemen (czeladz) which of course also take part in battle, while not being usually
Well, when Polish _regular_ army faced Swedes, it was comparable force. If not regular, well, then we have Ujscie etc.
Yes it IS but fact is that in land technology was ahead of Western Europe sometimes, and signs of backwardness weren't appearing before half of XVII century. Xenophoby became problem after the Deluge, when Poland faced war with almost all of its neighbours.
And then of course we had constant wars, including Northern War which, as some said, was as devastating as the Deluge. (In the Deluge Pland in percentage lost more population than in WWII!)
And after all, decline of Poland was not inevitable. Some here say that union with Lithuania contributed much to it and that's true (see Jasienica books where he summarised nice arguments for that) but up to end of XVI century Poland had great potential (including possibility of turning protestant: after all, there was real project of national church, expelling clergy from parliament etc, and most of Sejm was protestant, including greatest Polish politician Siennicki!)
a.d.danilecki "szopen"
Originally posted by Woreczko
Well don`t take it offensive
1) I doubt a little in this figures. No, I don`t know exact numbers, but I would guess that there were no more than 40k men at Beresteczko and Warszawa, about 4k at Chocim and 10k on average during most campaigns (not counting non-combatants, like whores, merchants, smiths, etc.) Still, if you provide trustfull sources, I shall call this off
These are estimation from Ukrainian historician i read - he just estimated number of Poles by adding servicemen (czeladz) which of course also take part in battle, while not being usually
2) Yeah, Poles faced western armies and had their butt seriously kicked a few times also, like during Potop 1655 AD
Well, when Polish _regular_ army faced Swedes, it was comparable force. If not regular, well, then we have Ujscie etc.
Yes it IS but fact is that in land technology was ahead of Western Europe sometimes, and signs of backwardness weren't appearing before half of XVII century. Xenophoby became problem after the Deluge, when Poland faced war with almost all of its neighbours.
And then of course we had constant wars, including Northern War which, as some said, was as devastating as the Deluge. (In the Deluge Pland in percentage lost more population than in WWII!)
And after all, decline of Poland was not inevitable. Some here say that union with Lithuania contributed much to it and that's true (see Jasienica books where he summarised nice arguments for that) but up to end of XVI century Poland had great potential (including possibility of turning protestant: after all, there was real project of national church, expelling clergy from parliament etc, and most of Sejm was protestant, including greatest Polish politician Siennicki!)
a.d.danilecki "szopen"
Re: well well well
Polish law was introduced in Red Rus around 1420 or 1430 IIRC.
I think you aremistaken thinking that Poland was oppressing Rusins at breakfast, torturing them at lunch and lynching them at dinner.
Actually many Poles were entering Cossack armies, sometimes leading it, and during Chmielnicki uprising mabny Poles were fighting in his army.
Moreover, almost every time up to 1660 Cossacks were important part of Polish army, however you have to remember that all light cavalry of ruthenian or no origin was also sometimes called "Cossacks".
You have to also remmeber union of Hadziacz, which, if would happen decade earlier, would prevent all rebellion.
First Uprising of Cossacks was lead by Polish nobleman and was crushed by Ruthenian magnate.
a.d.danilecki "szopen"
Polish law was introduced in Red Rus around 1420 or 1430 IIRC.
I think you aremistaken thinking that Poland was oppressing Rusins at breakfast, torturing them at lunch and lynching them at dinner.
Actually many Poles were entering Cossack armies, sometimes leading it, and during Chmielnicki uprising mabny Poles were fighting in his army.
Moreover, almost every time up to 1660 Cossacks were important part of Polish army, however you have to remember that all light cavalry of ruthenian or no origin was also sometimes called "Cossacks".
You have to also remmeber union of Hadziacz, which, if would happen decade earlier, would prevent all rebellion.
Well, After UoL literally trhousands of Polish peasants escaped to Ukraine. In Masovia whole villages were emptied. They quickly assimilated, but i would say that vast amount of "Ukrainians" in origin had thei trace in Poland...
First Uprising of Cossacks was lead by Polish nobleman and was crushed by Ruthenian magnate.
a.d.danilecki "szopen"
Re: Re: Re: Latest patch
Quite sure about numbers. First we've got written sources about regulars, then opinions of people like Chodkiewicz, Koniecpolski and others. The newest analyses even lower Polish forces at Chocim in 1621 to 35-37k while Cossacks are counted above 40k. There are reliable sources about cossacks as long as they were "registered" ones.
Originally posted by Woreczko
Because I have a trust in your knowledge, I`m calling off my ignorant post, as I`ve promised.
However are you sure about those figures? Were blind portions, non existent companions (pocztowi), companions who are only servants, etc. taken into account? And how did they count irregular Cossacks?
Quite sure about numbers. First we've got written sources about regulars, then opinions of people like Chodkiewicz, Koniecpolski and others. The newest analyses even lower Polish forces at Chocim in 1621 to 35-37k while Cossacks are counted above 40k. There are reliable sources about cossacks as long as they were "registered" ones.
Yes, low manpower as most of Ukraine was unpopulated for a long time ( . Basically these provs should start poor with low manpower and then get some nice events increasing both (1530's is a good start point for these events). That way Poland would start with Ruthenian culture only to lose most of well developing ukrainian provs to ukrainian culture later.
That's rihgt that Cossacks are not simluated in the game and without this problem with ruthenian culture is very hard to solve.
I think that best is Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 to let Poland lose ukrainian and Union of Hadziacz, 1657 to regain it.
Agree that decreases are severe or rather these events are unbalanced cause player will always choose some revolts to keep taxes.
Re: Re: Re: Poland orthodox tech?Huh.
1. I've said before I think the "technology" issue is a red herring, a blind alley. What can be said is that up to middle 17th century Poland won more battles than she lost. Reason for this is a combination of organisation, tactics, technology and terrain. Just because a battle is won does not necessarily mean that the army had better technology.
2. This is also something I have a problem with - the main argument for boosting Poland's performance in the game is that her real life performance up to the Deluge was better than is shown in the game. By the same logic Poland should also be swallowed up in most games by Russia, Austria and Prussia before 1800. I'd prefer to see a much looser set of constraints on the countries in the game which is why I think that threads like this can lead to too much determinism in the game.
After getting Latin technology, more manpower, more tax income and better stats for Orthodox tech after the union I'd have thought we should take a pause to see how good Poland is right now. Arguing for Ruthenian culture seems a little premature right now
1. I've said before I think the "technology" issue is a red herring, a blind alley. What can be said is that up to middle 17th century Poland won more battles than she lost. Reason for this is a combination of organisation, tactics, technology and terrain. Just because a battle is won does not necessarily mean that the army had better technology.
2. This is also something I have a problem with - the main argument for boosting Poland's performance in the game is that her real life performance up to the Deluge was better than is shown in the game. By the same logic Poland should also be swallowed up in most games by Russia, Austria and Prussia before 1800. I'd prefer to see a much looser set of constraints on the countries in the game which is why I think that threads like this can lead to too much determinism in the game.
After getting Latin technology, more manpower, more tax income and better stats for Orthodox tech after the union I'd have thought we should take a pause to see how good Poland is right now. Arguing for Ruthenian culture seems a little premature right now
Well, interesting things come out when one compare Poland with Lithuania. I belive that Poland was a more influencial part of union. Yet I feel that in game Lithuania is more powerful (of course, I'm not taking possible inheritance into account).
1. Cultures
Here Poland is a little better, but only after the Union.
2. Leaders
Definitely Poland owns Lithuania here.
3. Technology
A slight Polish adventage, till the Union event at last.
So far it seems that Poland is better, but:
4. Religion
Lithuania has some very good conversion events. Besides Poland got a event forcing it to Catholic, which isn't neccesary good thing.
5.Events
And now everyting is clear. Lithuanian events are mostly beneficial, some greatly. And Polish are... Well, we all now. I hate especially "Ending the stagnation". You can have all DP sliders in not-stagnant position, be a real power, and then...
Sliders completely messed, neighours get CB etc...
So my overall impression is that: if you don't want to be loser in MP, take Lithuania, not Poland. Sure you won't inherit anything, but you can cripple Russia in no time, go for 3 nearby CoTs, and (if you fancy) annex Poland (diplo or force) without trouble.
1. Cultures
Here Poland is a little better, but only after the Union.
2. Leaders
Definitely Poland owns Lithuania here.
3. Technology
A slight Polish adventage, till the Union event at last.
So far it seems that Poland is better, but:
4. Religion
Lithuania has some very good conversion events. Besides Poland got a event forcing it to Catholic, which isn't neccesary good thing.
5.Events
And now everyting is clear. Lithuanian events are mostly beneficial, some greatly. And Polish are... Well, we all now. I hate especially "Ending the stagnation". You can have all DP sliders in not-stagnant position, be a real power, and then...
Sliders completely messed, neighours get CB etc...
So my overall impression is that: if you don't want to be loser in MP, take Lithuania, not Poland. Sure you won't inherit anything, but you can cripple Russia in no time, go for 3 nearby CoTs, and (if you fancy) annex Poland (diplo or force) without trouble.
Does this make anyone else want to cry?
Its like saying one would be better off playing Bohemia or Hungary than Austria, because Austria is so totally crippled. Good post Creature, I think it points out pretty well what has been argued for so long, Poland's weakness. If people are thinking this way - something is wrong.
There has been a lot of technical discussion about Polish strengths and weaknesses, and finally a comparison with Lithuania. It strikes me that it is vital for Poland to achieve union with Lithuania with Poland as the dominant partner for Poland to sustain a great-power status, and it should be unlikely that Lithuania subsume Poland. Perhaps the trick lies in the events as much as in the setup?
As for 1419, GC Poland, i'm thinking there really should be an addition to an existing event that vassalizes Lithuania. Elsewise without ahistorical expansion, its impossible to reach the point in 1492 where Lithuania is a vassal of Poland. I don't play GC very much, but i'd imagine this to be a kind of issue. I suppose one could try to militarily vassalize Lith... but that's a whole lot of resources to be spending on something that shouldn't need to be done that way.
Last edited:
Ah, such dynamic province model would be extremely good, but it won't happen in EU II. Simulating its with events is big no-no, as they are country-tied and can lead to weird results.
If there were a bonus to the largest producer of a good, this would probably benefit Poland-Lithuania (grain production, higher support limit) as well as initially strengthening the Golden Horde (metals), delaying Muscovy's expansion until they have united the Russian principalities. Could this be factored into the debate about Poland's relative strength?
Apart from that, I agree that the Baltic CoT should be in Danzig from the start.
Apart from that, I agree that the Baltic CoT should be in Danzig from the start.
I think its fine in Kurland from the start, but with events, especially post 1450, it should move to Danzig.
where did u make this up?
cossacks serving in army lead by polish leaders?
ukrane depopulated?
pretty sure ukraine was pretty heavily populated.
even after the hordes were thru kiev and other regions
still had big populous. after russia got crippled
and the ukranian nobles joined poland/lith
for protection they still held everything. it was just the
later conversion to catholisism and the attempt to
convert the populous into catholisism that created
all those uprising and the eventual loss of ukraine.
*plz do not bs how the bishops accepted catholic
overlordship* that was the main reason it happened
they went back and said that catholics are taking over
churches and orthodox ukranians will have to convert.
polish cavalry was called that it wasnt called cossacks.
the uprising with 100+ k cossack/tatar forces roamed
thru poland pillaginging it until it was stoped ... it didnt
get destroyed they lost some men it broke up and they
went back from whence they came. while poland had
1/3 rd of its country under flames/pillaged
and about 1/7 - 1/8th
of its population dead.
Whats all this bs about pland defeating ottomans and
saving austria ? Ottomans went back because suleyman died
they had to burry him. Its the same thing that happened
when genghis died his armies took his body and went
back to burry him. At most poland got a stalemate but
they got out of austria because suley droped dead
main reason ...
I see no balance in this thread just kssin each others azes.
cossacks serving in army lead by polish leaders?
ukrane depopulated?
pretty sure ukraine was pretty heavily populated.
even after the hordes were thru kiev and other regions
still had big populous. after russia got crippled
and the ukranian nobles joined poland/lith
for protection they still held everything. it was just the
later conversion to catholisism and the attempt to
convert the populous into catholisism that created
all those uprising and the eventual loss of ukraine.
*plz do not bs how the bishops accepted catholic
overlordship* that was the main reason it happened
they went back and said that catholics are taking over
churches and orthodox ukranians will have to convert.
polish cavalry was called that it wasnt called cossacks.
the uprising with 100+ k cossack/tatar forces roamed
thru poland pillaginging it until it was stoped ... it didnt
get destroyed they lost some men it broke up and they
went back from whence they came. while poland had
1/3 rd of its country under flames/pillaged
and about 1/7 - 1/8th
of its population dead.
Whats all this bs about pland defeating ottomans and
saving austria ? Ottomans went back because suleyman died
they had to burry him. Its the same thing that happened
when genghis died his armies took his body and went
back to burry him. At most poland got a stalemate but
they got out of austria because suley droped dead
main reason ...
I see no balance in this thread just kssin each others azes.
Re: where did u make this up?
Poland actually saved Austria in the 1640's, having a brain cramp right now and can't come up with the date. Suley was just a memory by then. So i'm not entirely sure what you are talking about there. The Poles then went on an invasion of the Ottoman Empire, but failed to achieve the decisive victory necessary to crush it, despite numerous victories. In the end however, this whole thing actually damaged Poland to the point of no return in some ways, while Austria was the true one gaining from Poland's military achievements of the time... Then only to backstab her later on.
On a lighter note, i've started a thread in the Bug Reporting forum looking to repair some pretty major core province inconsistencies... http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80432
Poland actually saved Austria in the 1640's, having a brain cramp right now and can't come up with the date. Suley was just a memory by then. So i'm not entirely sure what you are talking about there. The Poles then went on an invasion of the Ottoman Empire, but failed to achieve the decisive victory necessary to crush it, despite numerous victories. In the end however, this whole thing actually damaged Poland to the point of no return in some ways, while Austria was the true one gaining from Poland's military achievements of the time... Then only to backstab her later on.
On a lighter note, i've started a thread in the Bug Reporting forum looking to repair some pretty major core province inconsistencies... http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80432
Re: where did u make this up?
First, learn to spell. Second, learn some about history. Third, how come you are unbanned?
maur
i made a mistake with ottos i gues
but pretty sure everything else i said did happen.
i know u want ruthenian added but "i" make a better
case with russia to get mongol then u to get ruthenian.
if poland does ger ruthenian culture and russia doenst it
a bit idiotic that kiev was once the seat of great bishop of all
russia. And also that they agree to be converted etc...
by accepting annexation... this is basicly crackpipe dreams.
i made a mistake with ottos i gues
but pretty sure everything else i said did happen.
i know u want ruthenian added but "i" make a better
case with russia to get mongol then u to get ruthenian.
if poland does ger ruthenian culture and russia doenst it
a bit idiotic that kiev was once the seat of great bishop of all
russia. And also that they agree to be converted etc...
by accepting annexation... this is basicly crackpipe dreams.
Re: Re: where did u make this up?
Let's be careful with the rules please.
Originally posted by DarthMaur
First, learn to spell. Second, learn some about history. Third, how come you are unbanned?
Let's be careful with the rules please.