That sounds really nice from someone who has nickname RussainBias
Russia needs nerf
- Thread starter TingJonKi
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I think its more cute that the Russophiles are having such a rabid reaction to the mere -suggestion- that the Hordes and Chinese could perhaps use a buff. Im not even suggesting a Russia nerf, but rather buffing the Hordes/Chinese into less than pushovers.
I don't see a problem with buffing the Asian states because they really are too much pushovers for every European state (not just Russia). However, throughout this thread you (and others) have also flipped to the argument that Russia/Siberia needs nerfs for no reason other than they actually regularly take advantage of the fact that Asia is a bunch of pushovers without considering how any such nerfs will affect the balance of power in Europe. That is a position I have a major problem with since I personally think the balance of power in Europe is fairly good and results in generally plausible outcomes (absent player intervention obviously).
You might be getting me confused for someone else... I never suggested nerfs at all to Russia and I have argued against nerfing Siberian basetax. The only nerf that I can agree to would be to increase native aggressiveness/ferocity in the Siberian provinces in order to slow the Russians down.
That's not accurate. My point about nerfing Russia's Siberian provinces is that they provide too much manpower relative to what is historically accurate. Even to this day, their agricultural climate there is incompatible with what is necessary to sustain a large manpower pool. Case in point, China's grain yield is literally TEN times greater than Russia's TOTAL grain yield (including Siberia combined). Even today, Russia's 6.6 million square miles can only manage ~59 million tons of grain a year, while China's 3.7 million square miles manages ~600 million tons of grain a year. I think this shows that even with modern agriculture technology, there is inherently a hard limit on the maximum possible agricultural yields of different geographic regions. Furthermore, agriculture in Siberia did not really develop until the post EU4 mid-18th to early-19th centuries (during which it grew from 1.4 million tons a year to over 7 million tons).
In short, the only nerf I think Siberia needs is a manpower nerf. Maybe 1/2 or 1/4 of what it is now. I mean, let's be real here. It's freaking Siberia, not the Garden of Eden. It's not exactly the best place in the world for agriculture.
Last edited:
I think the real problem (in Eastern Europe) lies with the incompetence of the Lithuanian and Polish AI. I've watched them keep large stacks of troops in their territory immobile while at war with the Russians.
Playing as Sweden, I've had no issues with Russia. Their troop quality is terrible and they can be defeated rather easily.
Playing as Sweden, I've had no issues with Russia. Their troop quality is terrible and they can be defeated rather easily.
Oh really? That certainly reads as at least an indirect call to nerf Russia although I suppose you will argue that you mean tame them by boosting their neighbors instead, right?
Gameplay/balance > historical accuracy is a recurring theme in development decisions made by PI over the years. So this falls under the "nerf Russia without regard to European balance" category. Historical accuracy would stop the Russian doomstacks in China problem in a heartbeat with a supply system that has said stacks dying en masse but it isn't in the game. A lot of things in the game are less than historically accurate due to either the added complexity of properly reflecting them or being completely anomalous occurences that defy accurate inclusion (for example: OE absorbtion of Mameluks).
.png){kind=avatar}
The current game dynamics in the Russian region is both ahistorical and bad gameplay, though. Unless you think the same thing happening over and over constitutes good gameplay, I guess. It's so predictable that I've completely standardized my way of dealing with the area, right down to knowing exactly when I need to be there and how to take them in the shortest amount of time, because it's the exact same motions every single time.
That would be the logical argument. Remember that a buff to hordes/china would be an indirect nerf to Russia.
Well it all seems to boil down to the division between determinists and simlationists.
Determinists say: Russia was a powerhouse in 1821(which has to be proven btw)->do whatever you want to make evry game end as such.
People less interested about seeing history repeat herself over and over again say 'do whatever you want (either change russian ideas or, better still, buff chinese and steppe tech groups) to add more dynamicism and unpredictability in Siberia.
Determinists say: Russia was a powerhouse in 1821(which has to be proven btw)->do whatever you want to make evry game end as such.
People less interested about seeing history repeat herself over and over again say 'do whatever you want (either change russian ideas or, better still, buff chinese and steppe tech groups) to add more dynamicism and unpredictability in Siberia.
Why aren't Lithuania/PLC and Novgorod historical friends, anyway? I thought that alliance was what kept Novgorod independent for a long time, and only when the Lithuanians failed to come did Muscovy conquer them.
Except Russia pushing into China was hardly historical even in 1821. Remember the treaty of Nerchinsk, Russia had essentially signed a Chinese dictat.
Then you have Manchus and Timurids whom are performing so badly they are not even forming their historical nations of Qing and Mughals.
and the Steppe Hordes were not completely obsolete by 1500, the Crimeans were still giving Russia problems even in the 1600s.
What's the problem with hordes losing to Russia/muscovy then?
I'm kinda agreeing with Pilot00's argument here. Check on Russian expansion, are you saying that the steppe hordes in central siberia succeeded in that role well perhaps?
Because if that's the case, how the hell did Russia manage to expand in the first place? You do realise sir, that Russia is the largest country in the world measured in land area. Clearly there was a winner, and a loser, in the battle over the control of the steppes. It was not about checks and balances of power. (perhaps it could be said, it wasn't really about balance of power, there was more like a power vacuum, regarding Russia and the taming of the Siberian lands.)
What do you exactly supposedly want the hordes to be? (or become into)
Russians were encroaching into the horde lands already in 1580s. Pacific coast was reached in 1639 by the Russians. That's within one generation. Clearly Russia did manage to expand her territory, it was not simply a navigational exercise about what was out there in the east.
Clearly the Siberian horde did not exactly speaking win the conflict. Yet I will admit, Manchus could perhaps use a buff since they became the new Chinese dynasty. Overall I don't really care too much about this thing (had a raelly exhausting day), if you wanna buff the national ideas of the hordes, sure, I could see how it would make for a nicer and more rewarding mid-late game. I admit that several other nations get pretty buff national ideas too so why not buff timurids etc... (those Japanese buffs ermigawd!)
Horde modernization sounds like a rough deal, I can see how that would be the case. I had an annoying westernixation as Russia during time of troubles,, since I didnt know any better ( I jsut wanted to have tech lead over those filthy ottomans blobbers and defeat them thoroughly in the next war)
Out of intrest, if Russian national ideas would be changed, how would you guys do it then? Consider if you will, also that Pol+lith, and Sweden are also strong regional powerblocs which can really put a hurt on Muscovy. Not to mention Ottomans which can just kill Russia early on if they so much as wheeze or sneeze into the general North-eastern direction from Ottoman empire (towards Russia)
I don't disagree with this view at all. I personally would love to see more realistic limitations on army sizes in remote areas as it would address a lot of problems in the game, not just Russian doomstacks in China. The horde mechanics certainly need work across the board, colonization is poorly modeled, etc.. Of course all of these would take time/money to address, not to mention adding complexity that may be beyond what the devs find acceptable.
Speaking as someone who loves playing Muscovy, and has run through over 50 games as them, I can see the reasoning behind a slight reduction in base tax for the Siberian provinces. They provide a little too much in the way of manpower and force-limits than is historically accurate, especially if you load up on temples and whatnot. Right now the average base tax is 2.. and this could probably be scaled back to 1.5-1.7. It's supposed to be some of the worst (and least populated) land on the planet (and it still largely is), yet it's rated better than Finland. It also comes with plenty of highly productive Gold mines. It's not terribly imbalancing as it stands, and certainly it's not the reason behind Muscovy becoming as strong as it does, but could it be adjusted downward a bit? Sure - that's warranted.
I do wish there was a better mechanic in place, however, that would simulate provinces growing in population and wealth over time, and ideas that aid in province development. Colonies growing to strong provinces in a number of decades makes much more sense than a colony developing into a major province overnight.
I do wish there was a better mechanic in place, however, that would simulate provinces growing in population and wealth over time, and ideas that aid in province development. Colonies growing to strong provinces in a number of decades makes much more sense than a colony developing into a major province overnight.
The problem is that Russians are dominating by 1500, nearly 100 years before they historically started to dominate the hordes.
Here is what I am asking.
- Buff Manchu national ideas
- Buff Timurids national ideas
- Give Hordes some unit type upgrades
- Optional: Give Reformed Hordes some nice NIs
The main reason Hordes are having such trouble is that, since they have no unit type upgrades, their units become matched by Europeans by Tech 5, and obsolete by Tech 8 or so. Once you hit Tech 12 and get muskets then hordes become easy stackwipes, even if the Hordes do manage to overcome their +75% tech penalty and get some fairly high technology.
The 'Optional' bit is basically for those whom like to play hordes other than Timurids or Manchus, and is rather irrellevant to AI vs AI balance.
You seem to have missed the central point of my post, which is in the very first sentence, and then replied to some other, imaginary central point. I don't know what that point is you're replying to here, but it's not mine.
So yes, Russia should often form from Muscovy. Often, not always, and they shouldn't always do it around the same time. If it always happens the same way at the same time, then something is not configured right, and that's exactly what's going on with Russia in 1.3.x. We can argue till we're hoarse as to whether the solution to is best done in the form of a Russian nerf, Horde buff, or some third option, and then till we're hoarse again about the exact details of those solutions, but determinism is boring, and Russia currently achieves their historical conquests a century early, which screws up global geopolitics in general.
Yup, I agree with this one, wasnt like this back in the EU I, II or III days... hmm... Russian westernization online ;-)
Last edited:
You are somehow terribly wrong in what determinism and simulationism is.
I am determinists and simlationists. So for me it would be "If player did not interfered and simulation would operated with enough information, the simulation should happen as close as possible to real history".
The problem is that you reject the player involvement in your thinking, because the continuation is:
"However, when player make decision, game should react as historically as possible (or as plausible) to given decision and model them."
Probability and statistics is just mean to simulate or infere things with non complete information.
- Status