Russian troops, or Eastern troops as a whole, a bit stronger than they should be?

[lordelenath]

That guy was talking about the WWI and I'm pretty much sure it was after 1821, if my terrible books are not wrong. Also, I don't care about Ottoman tech group being defeatable but we both know Russians are a bit overpowered with their doomstacks and that's what I'm talking about.

I don't agree at all and I really don't understand the sentiment. As stated before, there're definitely nations having issues with Russia (e.g. Manchu, Ming, Hordes), but that's not because it's Russia, it's because they have crappy units and tech groups. If 100k Frenchmen would get to Ming, they would beat them up just as well as 300k Russians - it just doesn't happen because Russia has a land connection and French does not.

Anyway, especially as the Ottomans you shouldn't be having any serious problems with Russia whatsoever. You get a nice 10% discipline, you have +30% morale if you go pious and you get the Ghazi NI. Overall that gives you stronger armies (until mid-late game if you're not westernized) and about the same potential manpower. I really don't see a problem at all with Russia if you're playing the Ottomans (or any other major tbh).

 

[Straigthtsilver]

Also, to get this thread back on topic, I can say from my current game as Russia that the Ottomans are definitely not underpowered. As of 1570, the Ottomans (who annexed Crimean through PU) currently boast more than 100,000 manpower and have been roflstomping everyone around them, including me in one war that I wasn't prepared for.

 

[Novacat]

Also, to get this thread back on topic, I can say from my current game as Russia that the Ottomans are definitely not overpowered. As of 1570, the Ottomans (who annexed Crimean through PU) currently boast more than 100,000 manpower and have been roflstomping everyone around them, including me in one war that I wasn't prepared for.

funny thing is, my Siberian Sweden game also had a strong Ottomans whom I ended up in war with (along with England and a bunch of Indian states) and I ended up thrashing them badly, and that was while I was in the middle of reorganizing my military and thus I only had one 70K deathstack to defend myself with. After I assembled 4 70K deathstacks I had nothing to fear, I was certain I could take on all of the world and win.

The problem with Russia is not Russia itself, but rather that Russia gets an easy road (and land connection) into Asia whom has pitiful troops and even worse NIs. There really needs to be some eastern powerblocs (like Manchu/Qing and Timurids/Mughals) to counterbalance the Russians or else the Russians run roughshod over everyone there.

 

[lordelenath]

I would prefer to improve the hordes tbh, since those historically contained Russia and are very badly represented right now anyway.

 

[SerFishy]

I don't agree at all and I really don't understand the sentiment. As stated before, there're definitely nations having issues with Russia (e.g. Manchu, Ming, Hordes), but that's not because it's Russia, it's because they have crappy units and tech groups. If 100k Frenchmen would get to Ming, they would beat them up just as well as 300k Russians - it just doesn't happen because Russia has a land connection and French does not.

Anyway, especially as the Ottomans you shouldn't be having any serious problems with Russia whatsoever. You get a nice 10% discipline, you have +30% morale if you go pious and you get the Ghazi NI. Overall that gives you stronger armies (until mid-late game if you're not westernized) and about the same potential manpower. I really don't see a problem at all with Russia if you're playing the Ottomans (or any other major tbh).

And you got the issue with Russians! Real life Russia could become a major power because Hordes were really crappy. But it got defeated even by Manchu in 1600s, with a 15k RL doomstack storming its castle and stuff. It is supposed to be a defensive hell, with replenishing manpower and winter but not an offensive nightmare with decent bearstacks. It is supposed to be consisting of mostly soldiers with horde origins and poor discipline up until 1600s - 1650s so that it won't be able to bring doomstacks everywhere.

So, Hordes ARE supposed to have probems in early game and midgame but Manchu, Ming and Ottomans should not be the hardly-defending side but the easily holding off and even profiting side, according to the history. Russians are not supposed to be the Mongols, that's why.

 

[lordelenath]

No, hordes shouldn't be that weak in the early game, the decline shouldn't start earlier than ~1550 I'd say. Anyway, we probably won't come to terms since I don't find Russia to be overpowered even in it's current state.

 

[FearTheAmish]

No, hordes shouldn't be that weak in the early game, the decline shouldn't start earlier than ~1550 I'd say. Anyway, we probably won't come to terms since I don't find Russia to be overpowered even in it's current state.

Same i think its like France... Leave it alone and it becomes scarier and scarier longer you put it off. But if there is say a strong Sweden/Scandinavia or Lithuania/PLC then it gets absolutely roflstomped. It's just most games its allowed to sit and just become bigger and bigger and scarier and scarier.

 

[Novacat]

Same i think its like France... Leave it alone and it becomes scarier and scarier longer you put it off. But if there is say a strong Sweden/Scandinavia or Lithuania/PLC then it gets absolutely roflstomped. It's just most games its allowed to sit and just become bigger and bigger and scarier and scarier.

The thing is, France is ultimately contained by Castille, England, and HRE. Russia has Sweden and Lithuania (neither of which are as powerful as Castile/England/HRE) on its western front and absolutly nothing on its eastern. At the bare minimum there should be Manchus stopping Russia's eastward expansion and Timurids stopping Russia's southward expansion.

 

[FearTheAmish]

The thing is, France is ultimately contained by Castille, England, and HRE. Russia has Sweden and Lithuania (neither of which are as powerful as Castile/England/HRE) on its western front and absolutly nothing on its eastern. At the bare minimum there should be Manchus stopping Russia's eastward expansion and Timurids stopping Russia's southward expansion.

Yes i agree France has more "constraints" but i don't think nerfing the nation is the solution. Nor do i think buffing the hordes is also maybe some sort of NI required to move a certain distance into Siberia similar to life rating in Vicky2.

 

[Novacat]

Yes i agree France has more "constraints" but i don't think nerfing the nation is the solution. Nor do i think buffing the hordes is also maybe some sort of NI required to move a certain distance into Siberia similar to life rating in Vicky2.

Why shouldnt the hordes be buffed? Your forgetting that the Hordes have absolutly the worst units in the game at the moment, they are curbstomped by every tech group by tech 9-12 (including Native American/Subsaharan) which is easily achievable by 1500. This is historically inaccurate. Then you have the Manchus and Timurids whom were very successful in EU4's timeframe yet they are given mediocre (at best) NIs, compared to Russia, Prussia, Ottomans, etc. whom are given absolutly sublime NIs.

 

[Loke]

Yea, Russia needs to be nerfed for the game to be more true to history.

 

[Dakilla TM]

To be perfectly honest, this entire thread just looks like OP being butthurt that the Ottoman techgroup's units aren't undefeatable gods for the entire timeline.

^ This. Seriously guys, eastern units will crush ottoman units as the game goes, so why is there a complaint? If anything needs to be changed is Russia's massive manpower, other than that I see this as someone crying that the Ottomans should have unbeatable demi-gods as soldiers. What's next? Complain that Russia beats Sub-Saharan units too easily?

 

[FearTheAmish]

Why shouldnt the hordes be buffed? Your forgetting that the Hordes have absolutly the worst units in the game at the moment, they are curbstomped by every tech group by tech 9-12 (including Native American/Subsaharan) which is easily achievable by 1500. This is historically inaccurate. Then you have the Manchus and Timurids whom were very successful in EU4's timeframe yet they are given mediocre (at best) NIs, compared to Russia, Prussia, Ottomans, etc. whom are given absolutly sublime NIs.

Eh... got any evidence of that? because from my knowledge only Mongol faction that actually got stronger instead of just waning and then disappearing was the Mughals and they do the same thing later in this timeline.

 

[Novacat]

Eh... got any evidence of that? because from my knowledge only Mongol faction that actually got stronger instead of just waning and then disappearing was the Mughals and they do the same thing later in this timeline.

Russian conquest of Siberia did not start until the late 1500s/early 1600s, and Crimean Khanate was still kicking the Russians around during the 1600s as well.

 

[SerFishy]

Russian conquest of Siberia did not start until the late 1500s/early 1600s, and Crimean Khanate was still kicking the Russians around during the 1600s as well.

Don't forget the Manchu, they were kicking the Russians as well.

 

[Novacat]

Don't forget the Manchu, they were kicking the Russians as well.

Semi-correct, by the time the Russians made contact with the Manchus the Manchus had already conquered China and became Qing. Though the Manchus certainly need much better NIs.

 

[Straigthtsilver]

Don't forget the Manchu, they were kicking the Russians as well.

"Kicking" in this case meaning some minor border skirmishes and then a treaty defining the borders between Russia and Qing China. Take note, this all happened well after Russia had reached the Pacific Ocean and the Manchu had stopped being nomads.

Russian conquest of Siberia did not start until the late 1500s/early 1600s, and Crimean Khanate was still kicking the Russians around during the 1600s as well.

"Kicking" in this case meaning launching occasional raids to take slaves in the 'Wild Fields' of eastern Ukraine/southern Russia.

The history of Russia past the 15th century is one of continual expansion at the expense of the neighbouring hordes. Only the intercession of the Ottoman Empire stopped the Crimean Khanate from collapsing, and the other eastern hordes (who weren't so fortunate) were crushed with relatively little difficulty.

 

[Novacat]

"Kicking" in this case meaning some minor border skirmishes and then a treaty defining the borders between Russia and Qing China. Take note, this all happened well after Russia had reached the Pacific Ocean

The Russians initially attempted to claim some of Manchus ancestral homelands in the Amur, their forts were eventually sieged and removed by the Manchus, and then forced the Russians to make peace on their terms. The Russians, on their part, wanted to avoid a war with China, especially since the result would be a closing down of trans-siberian trade which was the only reason Russia's forays into Siberia were profitable to begin with.

"Kicking" in this case meaning launching occasional raids to take slaves in the 'Wild Fields' of eastern Ukraine/southern Russia.

So the sacking of Moscow in 1571 never happened? There is also the Crimean campaigns in 1687 and 1689 that failed spectacularly

 

[FearTheAmish]

"Kicking" in this case meaning some minor border skirmishes and then a treaty defining the borders between Russia and Qing China. Take note, this all happened well after Russia had reached the Pacific Ocean and the Manchu had stopped being nomads.




"Kicking" in this case meaning launching occasional raids to take slaves in the 'Wild Fields' of eastern Ukraine/southern Russia.

The history of Russia past the 15th century is one of continual expansion at the expense of the neighbouring hordes. Only the intercession of the Ottoman Empire stopped the Crimean Khanate from collapsing, and the other eastern hordes (who weren't so fortunate) were crushed with relatively little difficulty.

This i saw something awhile ago in a book i was reading stating from 1500 Muscovy/Russia expanded its owned land by between 20%-300% every year except during the Time of Troubles were it hit a small recession then gained its 300% increase under Peter the Great.

 

[Straigthtsilver]

The Russians initially attempted to claim some of Manchus ancestral homelands in the Amur, their forts were eventually sieged and removed by the Manchus, and then forced the Russians to make peace on their terms. The Russians, on their part, wanted to avoid a war with China, especially since the result would be a closing down of trans-siberian trade which was the only reason Russia's forays into Siberia were profitable to begin with.

Exactly, it was nowhere near a full-scale war of the sort that would be represented in EUIV. I agree that the Chinese techgroup needs to be massively buffed, but that doesn't mean they should be able to defeat a Western or even Eastern power in direct combat.

So the sacking of Moscow in 1571 never happened?

The sacking was fundamentally just an episode in a raiding war. Moscow was not captured and handed over to the Crimean Khan. The Tatars were not interested in seizing and settling Russian land, unlike the Russians who did precisely that.

The hordes are weak because they need to be weak. If they were strong and capable of destroying Russia well into the 16th century, then we'd just be back to the EUIII scenario where Russia formed once every blue moon and Asia remains either uncolonized or under nomad rule.