Russia needs nerf

[Trickrs]

Wut?

In my Ottoman game my Swedish allies clean the floor with Russia so badly I was scared.

 

[aragonFTW]

It is true that Steppe Hordes were better at keeping Russia in check in EU3.
They have fewer ways of "beating" Russia in a war.

While there are tensions between Ming/Japan and Russia in the endgame, I've not seen the AI wipe the floor with them as Russia. They take a few provinces in the Beijing node and get on with colonizing Indonesia. If the game went on longer I would be worried, but usually it isn't a serious problem until the 1800s.

 

[Novacat]

I don't see anything worthwhile in pursuing this discussion. Just wanted to add that I agree with you on Steppe Hordes, they're definitely to weak in the first 50-100 years - apart from that I never found Russia to be more of a threat than any other major and they never manage to beat all the Steppe Hordes either tbh.

I wouldnt say 50-100 years, Crimea was still kicking butt even in the 1600s, it was not until the 1700s that the technological gap finally started to hurt them.

 

[sunsterson]

It seems like russia is more of a boss then France is.

not sure how much i like that.

 

[gaius valerius]

you don't see anything wrong with Russia because you don't play enough powers in the region

Player Sweden isnt an example of "gosh russia not OP" because its NI's are OP in itself along with Player prussia if you gain enough land/money to snowball, you cant argue somethings not OP when you have a powerhouse of your own

In my Prussian game I fought off all of europe with just north germany, beating a large power with these sets of ideas isnt exactly the best example especially since you said russia was behind you in tech which only happens in like 20% of my games with lucky nations on (ironman)


most of my horde/asian/eastern europe games are ruined by russia because they are impossible to beat with stupidly large ammounts of ahistorical manpower early on

Your OP stated any country including Sweden. I can understand that you'd have little chance as a horde/asian nation but let us be honest: other than those of the same tech group... who can they really face at all in this game? Like I've said though, I've seen the AI wipe the Russians more than once. In my Ottoman game I was hoping for the Russians to become my neighbour but they couldn't get past Lithuania and I had nothing to do with that.

 

[brifbates]

It seems like russia is more of a boss then France is.

not sure how much i like that.

You clearly haven't fought the two nations in comparable situations if you think Russia is a tougher fight than France. Russia has a lot of crappy quality army with massive reserves, France doesn't need the reserves (although it has a decent-sized one as well) because its army is vastly better. The only thing wrong with Russia is the lack of a supply system allowing them to pour waves of troops into Asian areas they historically could barely support any presence at all.

 

[sinkingmist]

Just as a thought, but what if the siberian provinces were hit with the following (permanent province) penalties:

1) -x% goods produced (maybe 25-50%?)
2) -manpower%
3) reduced supply limits and/or increased maximum attrition (in addition to existing winter effects), so attempting to cross multiple provinces with a large stack will hit you with massive amounts of attrition (20% max attrition should do that trick).

N.B. all of the above are moddable with currently available modifiers.

 

[Novacat]

The problem you would run into is that Russia would horribly lose wars because the AI is stupid and will gleefully send 400K deathstacks to their deaths in Siberia.

 

[Tamerlan]

Was my first thought. There should be no province with more then one base tax. Production should be reduced as well. If i remember correctly Siberia was not properly exploited until the industrial revolution and the construction of the trans Siberian rail way. Prior to that most of Siberia was restricted by weather. Water ways froze in the winter, and roads where often in very poor shape.

Russia should not be having one of the highest trade incomes in the game from Siberia.

They also drive down Chinese and Asian trade through Siberia, don't they ?

 

[Iki_balam]

The problem you would run into is that Russia would horribly lose wars because the AI is stupid and will gleefully send 400K deathstacks to their deaths in Siberia.

strangely sounds historically accurate, but maybe with dissidents instead of soldiers, but not always!

 

[Pilot00]

Russia as far as I understand, is dependant (speaking for AI) on its formation by Muscovy and its ability to colonise its eastern treck. If those two factors dont comply then at most they are a largish nation, at worse they are an afterthought on the north eastern map.

This opinion comes from my recent 3 games:

Novgorod forms Russia, gets steamrolled by Scandinavia and commonwealth, very little colonisation.

Of the other two, in one England and on the other Portugal decided to play Russia and started colonising from east to west till they met with Muscovy in the middle... That was hilarius.

 

[Novacat]

Novgorod forms Russia, gets steamrolled by Scandinavia and commonwealth, very little colonisation.

Because Novgorod is not programmed to colonise, so it never does colonise.

Of the other two, in one England and on the other Portugal decided to play Russia and started colonising from east to west till they met with Muscovy in the middle... That was hilarius.

This is incredibly stupid, imho. Even as Siberian Sweden its not uncommon for Portugal or Castille to colonise Kamchatka before I could reach it, which results in me having to war them and burn the colony.

 

[Mr Tex]

Yeah them expanding and holding onto an empire from the Baltic to the Pacific is completely ahistoric AND not fun!!! Who ever designed the Russians should be fired for their complete incompetence!!
And on top of all this they give them a ridiculously large amount of manpower and people?? Sense when did the Russians ever have more than 50K soldiers? NERF!!!
(Sarcasm)

Either learn to play the game or just don't play at all, just because the AI is more competent than you does not mean they need to be nerfed just so you can more easily paint the map more easily and never have to worry about a challenge; if you are wanting that the console "cheat" codes are there for you to easily push over any nation who goes to war with you.
I was able to absolutely decimate a Russia expanding into the Siberia with a fully unified India and Persia as the Mughals, which mind you have Muslim tech and Indian units.
So if I can do it as the Mughals in that situation there is no reason why you can't easily do it as a Sweden, France, Austria, Poland-Commonwealth, or Ottomans.

 

[Novacat]

Ah, yes, another generic faceroll response that makes it plainly obvious that they have not read a single bloody post in the thread and are just giving a kneejerk reaction to the OP.

 

[Mr Tex]

Ah, yes, another generic faceroll response that makes it plainly obvious that they have not read a single bloody post in the thread and are just giving a kneejerk reaction to the OP.

I've actually read the entire thread and my opinion still stands why? Because I WAS talking to the OP and not to any of others on this thread mostly for the sake of time and realizing you obviously don't want the Russians to expand and become a powerhouse and instead have them become what they were in EU3, pushovers who have absolutely no hope of surviving.
Are they achieving their size earlier than they historically did? Of course, however, it is hard to balance between a historically sized late game powerhouse while having a historically weak and poor early game
nation.
9 games out of 10 Muscovy forms Russia in the mid 1500's and never starts conquering the hordes until the late 1500's to early 1600's historical? Only slightly, the Russians do not need to be nerfed they are fine
the way they are, my friend decided to change the NI's of Russia mainly the 50% extra force limits and changed it 25% extra force limits and as he predicted they NEVER made it out of the shell of their original
position and were beaten down repeatedly by the Hordes until Lithuania snaked its way into the hordes territory.

If Paradox were to change it so the Russians have the weak game start (Which in my opinion they already do) and become a powerhouse through the later half of the game (which is very hard to do and balance)
, then they should force Spain to become a Empire drowning in debt who is fading from glory in the later half of the game.

 

[lordelenath]

If Paradox were to change it so the Russians have the weak game start (Which in my opinion they already do) and become a powerhouse through the later half of the game (which is very hard to do and balance)
, then they should force Spain to become a Empire drowning in debt who is fading from glory in the later half of the game.

While I don't think Russia is overpowered (as stated several times in this thread), they definitely have one of the best starting positions in 1444. Ottomans and GB (due to the potential PU with France) are probably comparable, although I would still rate Russia's starting position a bit higher. The "highway to Asia" via the steppes has immense potential and they have no competition at all (which is why even AI Russia tends to be strong in every game, while other majors might fail once in a while).

 

[dorimi]

so much whine about nothing

 

[Pilot00]

Because Novgorod is not programmed to colonise, so it never does colonise.



This is incredibly stupid, imho. Even as Siberian Sweden its not uncommon for Portugal or Castille to colonise Kamchatka before I could reach it, which results in me having to war them and burn the colony.

Yep I understand the reasons, but since the game is as is (having alternate paths to forming and expanding nations etc), its completely plausible to happen, so by taking that into consideration Russia has a set of significant drawbacks. And I am not taking into account the provinces necessary for the formation, so all in all not that OP.
Castille, England and France IMHO are way more OP by virtue of: Been western techgroup, been in a place to start colinising immediately, have little in the way of immediate threats.

I've actually read the entire thread and my opinion still stands why? Because I WAS talking to the OP and not to any of others on this thread mostly for the sake of time and realizing you obviously don't want the Russians to expand and become a powerhouse and instead have them become what they were in EU3, pushovers who have absolutely no hope of surviving.
Are they achieving their size earlier than they historically did? Of course, however, it is hard to balance between a historically sized late game powerhouse while having a historically weak and poor early game
nation.
9 games out of 10 Muscovy forms Russia in the mid 1500's and never starts conquering the hordes until the late 1500's to early 1600's historical? Only slightly, the Russians do not need to be nerfed they are fine
the way they are, my friend decided to change the NI's of Russia mainly the 50% extra force limits and changed it 25% extra force limits and as he predicted they NEVER made it out of the shell of their original
position and were beaten down repeatedly by the Hordes until Lithuania snaked its way into the hordes territory.

If Paradox were to change it so the Russians have the weak game start (Which in my opinion they already do) and become a powerhouse through the later half of the game (which is very hard to do and balance)
, then they should force Spain to become a Empire drowning in debt who is fading from glory in the later half of the game.

First of all you are posting on a PUBLIC FORUM, therefore your posted opinion is not for the OP only but for all to see. If you would like to go personal you can go PMs. Disrupting whoever the target is, is generally not welcome (and shouldnt be). We are not here to fight each other.
Second, sarcasm,vitriol and harsh language are generally not the way to make an aguement.
And last but not least, everytime you start a convertation you have to respect the opinions of others, werether they are brilliant or stupid. At least thats what the goverments of the western world say when they butcher the meaning of democracy.

Food for thought.

 

[Novacat]

Yep I understand the reasons, but since the game is as is (having alternate paths to forming and expanding nations etc), its completely plausible to happen, so by taking that into consideration Russia has a set of significant drawbacks. And I am not taking into account the provinces necessary for the formation, so all in all not that OP.
Castille, England and France IMHO are way more OP by virtue of: Been western techgroup, been in a place to start colinising immediately, have little in the way of immediate threats.

Western tech group is not all its cracked up to be, Eastern is very close in infantry stats (which is what matters, cavalry is poop), can use all the western-specific CBs, and unlike Western does not have to worry about third-world countries westernizing off of it.

Castille, England, and France also have large immediate threats, called each other, and Austria/HRE. Western europeans have to tread carefully lest they get targeted by coalitions/alliances from neighboring majors.

Russia, meanwhile, is the only big kid on the block, there are no neighboring majors to check it. Ottomans are the closest but even they are a bit too far, and usually preoccupied with North Africa and Balkans to bother with Russia.

 

[brifbates]

Western tech group is not all its cracked up to be, Eastern is very close in infantry stats (which is what matters, cavalry is poop), can use all the western-specific CBs, and unlike Western does not have to worry about third-world countries westernizing off of it.

Castille, England, and France also have large immediate threats, called each other, and Austria/HRE. Western europeans have to tread carefully lest they get targeted by coalitions/alliances from neighboring majors.

Russia, meanwhile, is the only big kid on the block, there are no neighboring majors to check it. Ottomans are the closest but even they are a bit too far, and usually preoccupied with North Africa and Balkans to bother with Russia.

Western can afford a string of mediocre rulers a heck of a lot better and in the late game has vastly superior units. Also, the western nations listed have significantly stronger military NIs than Russia on top of the superior units.

Against the ai, the 3 nations listed have laughably easy times dealing with the so-called threat of "each other"-England can simply abandon the continent, France can just overpower Spain and England, Spain can make nice with France, eat Portugal, and colonise the rest of the world and Austria/HRE is no immediate threat... On the other hand, an early game Muscovy has the potential to be wrecked if the neighbors decide to go after it instead of each other as they aren't noticeably stronger than their neighbors, particularly when lacking the lucky nation bonus.