Ruthenia & Cossack Immersion Pack

[fr-rein]

There were a few threads and suggesstions for the Ruthenia, Cossacks and the region.
This is a thread to sum up most of (at least recent) suggestions voiced so far for it, scattered among a few threads so that they would be concentrated in ones place. It may refer to some PLC suggestions in context of the region and, if needed, to some of the Russian ones.

I made a compilation of ideas here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...to-ukrainian-region-cossacks-content.1140129/
But in this threads comments, sources and reasoning are more widely provided.


Let me sum up the main ideas and update them:

1) Creating/reforming Zaporozhia and Cossack state mechanics in general (here was one of the ideas).
2) Greek Catholic Church aka Uniate Church.
3) Flavour events, including Khmelnytsky Uprising.
4) Jew estate or another kind of their representation.
5) Election system in PLC (here was quite an interesting suggesstion).
6) Ruthenian expansion in the steppes and settling in regions such as Southern Ukraine, Donbass, Sloboda Ukraine and Kuban.
7) Special Cossack units&NI.
8) Dniester Estuary.
9) The Steppes and Hordes.
10) Small principalities on the Lithuania-Muscovite border and the wars because of switching vassals. Link to the post.
11) Map rework (here).




1. Zaporozhia, Cossack States and their unique mechanics.
I will briefly sum it up.
In the EU4 timeframe the Cossack hosts played a huge role. Often made with people dissatisfied with the social order (runaway serfs, poor peasants, poor/dissatisfied nobles), the hosts played a huge roled in the battles against Steppe Hordes, revolted against authorities and were potentially states (revolts against PLC with emergance of Hetmanate which lasted for a century in different forms and failed revolts against Russian Tsars like Stenka Razin and Pugachev did) and played a huge role in the subsequent colonization of the Steppes and Siberia. For example, (various) Zaporozhia Cossacks and Ruthenian peasants as a result settled in Sloboda Ukraine, Donbass and Kuban, as well as fighting off Tatars, Nogais and etc from there. Cossacks under Yermak were the ones to subjugate Siberian Khans and made possible the expansion of Russia there. Yaik (Ural) Cossacks were the force which was guarding from the Central Asian Steppe hordes and raids.
Their importance isn't that evident in the game at this moment as they protected from something game doesn't show - Tatar (and other horde) raids. Those devastating raids were the main reasons why despite everything the regions bordering Steppes were so underdeveloped - they simply tended to be devastated by the raids. Cossacks were one of the things that helped to attack the Hordes and repel them, as well as raid on their lands themselves.
And, of course, the generic Horde state mechanic is a really weird thing to have for Zaporozhia.
Another point of it would be also altering the way Russia expands, it is weird to see it becoming basically an endgame Russia so early. Probably it would be more correct to redelegate some of the initial power of the expansion to the Cossacks, buffing the Steppe Hordes to counter Russia/Muscovy/PLC/others more, adding more Siberian provinces and the native states there which would be dealt with by Yermak and so on. The very presence of more Cossack hosts would now make not only Muscovy or Russia, but even Novgorod feel a natural need for the Authoritarian suppression and strict control/abandonment/reforming their hosts - which would be a necessary tool for wars and expansion, but at a cost of risking to run into forming new nations/states there if they revolt. It should be pushed for the nations bordering the Steppes to make Cossacks there (although... they didn't spawn because they were allowed to, they did it naturally and were only allowed officially or not later). Right now, it is easy to avoid Cossack troubles even for AI or ignore them as other events or means allow to solve the Siberian expansion and stop Steppe Hordes without too much struggle.
Leaving the link here to the thread with more details. @dayalu suggested quite a few good things there.
P.S. Making ahistorical Cossack Hosts would be great as another way to make client states. Imagine Russia/Ruthenia/someone swimming to North America... and settling there a Cossack Host. Cossack Colony in the New World would be a quite fun achievment - like Cossack States of America (I am serious though)

2. Uniate Church.
It was said before, but it is a huge detail which is missing in the internal politics of the PLC: the spread, often forceful, of the Catholicism. One of the ways it was applied was creating the Uniate Church, basically an Orthodox Church which accepted Catholic supremacy and rites. Since the direct conversion of the common folk (not counting nobles) wasn't spread in Ruthenia and encountered opposition, the creation of Greel Catholic Church as a result of Union of Brest happened. Initially spread in Red Ruthenia and Wolhyn, it was an attempt to sway the local Orthodox Christian majority into the Catholicism which mattered a lot for PLC.
It should be reflected in a way how conversion there works too - with Uniates being more able to convert to their religion while Catholics would face a bigger struggle and minus to conversion. And, with later endgame "bonus" of "annexing" Uniate Church to the Catholicism.
This may look unimportant, especially because the Church would work only on very few provinces historically, but it was a part of a huge religious struggle in the region. People killed because of faith just as ferociously as people did in the rest of Europe, faith was a major drive behind the uprisings that happened. Poland had no easy way to convert people to the "right" (as they perceived) Christianity and they didn't make Ruthenia fully Catholic because they simply couldn't. The Uniate mechanics would be one of the possible means for Poland to promote Catholicism, albeit at the cost of huge dissent - including the possible expansion of Uniate Church into Russia in case PLC takes it.
And in general the religious dynamics for the PLC should matter. Religious struggle was as important as the national and social ones.

3. Flavour events.
As simple as it is - just reflect major events in the local history like Khmelnytsky Uprising since it was like nothing before and was hugely explosive and history-changing. Please.

4. Jews
The issue was raised before, but I would love to repeat it again - the Jews should have a bigger representation in the local history. They weren't just a few traders. They were a numerous people settling in the region, were responsible only to the King and they in general mattered a lot (disliked by many yet providing a lot of money in trade and taxes). Making them a special estate, given that provinces receive more, would be an interesting way for the king to fight traditional estates as Jews, unlike others, would be the most loyal (but worrying for others) ones. It would be a fair point that they don't necessarily have to be an estate and I agree with it, but being a province modifier also doesn't reflect their lasting influence, their huge numbers and the effects they had on the development of PLC - after all, they provided a lot of wealth to it, aiding in the development of the state, including the Ruthenia region, even if people disliked them.

5. PLC election system (and monarchy in general)
While it is not a Ruthenian topic directly, the inner politics of PLC mattered a lot to Ruthenia. It was mentioned in the threads about Polish Content as well as many other ideas here and here recently, one of the users had a good suggestion about it. I won't be delving deeper into it and I hope that the people interested in Poland content and devs will make a good update to the system there.
Why it matters for the Ruthenia? Because of Orhodox nobility. Despite flaws, the very organization of the Polish "parliament" encouraged integration of the major and lesser noble families into the Polish political life, accepting Catholicism and being loyal to them. The fact that Ruthenian nobles stoold with the PLC made it possible and important that common folk looked at the Cossacks and hoped for their support. And it was a reason why Cossacks later as a result became a new national elite and new nobles.

6. Colonization of the Steppes.
An important process which occured in the second half of the EU4 timeframe was about the migration of many Ruthenians from the war-torn lands of Ruthenia to the Sloboda Ukraine, the region we now call Donbass, Southern Ukraine Steppes, Kuban. Those lands were settled by the Cossacks and Ruthenians in the XVII-XVIII centuries and it was important as the reaches of the soil, new trade and generally the shifted cultural makeup of the lands allowed for the expansion of the Russian Empire and for the Ukrainian lands in particular in the future.
Another effect of such an event, except for repeating the natural migration and recreating the supposed natural culture makeup in lategame, would be a removal of the need for the Russia or others to "paint" those territories with their culture, being a small yet nice boost.

7. Special Cossack units&NI.
While unit requests (for something like this) is a selfish part of the proposals, National Ideas for the Cossacks and Ruthenians should be updated.

8. Dniester Estuary.
Yep, the estuary. Given the new border of Yedisan with Southern (coastal) Moldova, I think that it should be present on the map as it wasn't a passable terrain, making an impassable/hardly passable obstacle between Edisanas and Basarabia. It was also a reason why the town of Tighina was important - it was hard to pass Dniester lower because of the estuary and thus why most of the military campaigns went with attacking Tighina (otherwise called Bender/Bendery).

9. The Steppes and Hordes.
There were some threads here and here, and probably other ones I've missed.
But the point is: Hordes should receive a rework. And not just a rework to make them deadlier and more important. I think that in the thread about Russian flavor there were some suggestions, which I'll repost later here.
It is important to make Horde great since without a proper adversary you will never be a hero in the eyes of others. No challenge - no fun!

10. Small principalities on the Lithuania-Muscovite border and the wars because of switching vassals.
Here.

11. Map Rework.
I suggest it here, more details across the thread.

Thanks for attention!

 

[dayalu]

Very well put together. On my end your Jagoldai link led to nothing?

 

[fr-rein]

Very well put together. On my end your Jagoldai link led to nothing?

Fixed - I meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagoldai which was the local horde vassal which broke off from Golden Horde. There is also a very little bit information on Mansura Principality which is mentioned in some sources as a land of Glinski nobles (also of Horde descend). It is also mentioned here but honestly it is yet to be clear which principalities had what kind of autonomy and rule. For the Jagoldai, however, I am sure that they could be organized as vassals along with some Ruthenian/Severian duchies were being integrated in the GDL.

 

[Pepperoner]

1. Zaporozhia, Cossack States and their unique mechanics.
I will briefly sum it up.
In the EU4 timeframe the Cossack hosts played a huge role. Often made with people dissatisfied with the social order (runaway serfs, poor peasants, poor/dissatisfied nobles), the hosts played a huge roled in the battles against Steppe Hordes, revolted against authorities and were potentially states (revolts against PLC with emergance of Hetmanate which lasted for a century in different forms and failed revolts against Russian Tsars like Stenka Razin and Pugachev did) and played a huge role in the subsequent colonization of the Steppes and Siberia. For example, (various) Zaporozhia Cossacks and Ruthenian peasants as a result settled in Sloboda Ukraine, Donbass and Kuban, as well as fighting off Tatars, Nogais and etc from there. Cossacks under Yermak were the ones to subjugate Siberian Khans and made possible the expansion of Russia there. Yaik (Ural) Cossacks were the force which was guarding from the Central Asian Steppe hordes and raids.
Their importance isn't that evident in the game at this moment as they protected from something game doesn't show - Tatar (and other horde) raids. Those devastating raids were the main reasons why despite everything the regions bordering Steppes were so underdeveloped - they simply tended to be devastated by the raids. Cossacks were one of the things that helped to attack the Hordes and repel them, as well as raid on their lands themselves.
And, of course, the generic Horde state mechanic is a really weird thing to have for Zaporozhia.
Another point of it would be also altering the way Russia expands, it is weird to see it becoming basically an endgame Russia so early. Probably it would be more correct to redelegate some of the initial power of the expansion to the Cossacks, buffing the Steppe Hordes to counter Russia/Muscovy/PLC/others more, adding more Siberian provinces and the native states there which would be dealt with by Yermak and so on. The very presence of more Cossack hosts would now make not only Muscovy or Russia, but even Novgorod feel a natural need for the Authoritarian suppression and strict control/abandonment/reforming their hosts - which would be a necessary tool for wars and expansion, but at a cost of risking to run into forming new nations/states there if they revolt. It should be pushed for the nations bordering the Steppes to make Cossacks there (although... they didn't spawn because they were allowed to, they did it naturally and were only allowed officially or not later). Right now, it is easy to avoid Cossack troubles even for AI or ignore them as other events or means allow to solve the Siberian expansion and stop Steppe Hordes without too much struggle.
Leaving the link here to the thread with more details. @dayalu suggested quite a few good things there.
P.S. Making ahistorical Cossack Hosts would be great as another way to make client states. Imagine Russia/Ruthenia/someone swimming to North America... and settling there a Cossack Host. Cossack Colony in the New World would be a quite fun achievment - like Cossack States of America (I am serious though)

As i see they need to buff hordes too, Moscovy always beat them, the main problem for them is PLC and Ottomans. Thats why they can make interactions with Zaporozhia and make it more viable for nations that will interact with Zaporozhia. For example defensive troops as mentioned above. Mb some unique troops with buffs when fight on home land or etc. You can make some mechanics to upgrade those steppe regions sort of colonization or to make some interaction to hordes like raiding coasts but for land and interaction with ZAZ to help you decrease those impact for example like rebellion suppression works now.
Main problems in Zaporozhia as a country:
- Vassal of Lithuania (to break free you need help of Ottomans or Moscovy, Lithuania can convert you to catholic and it sucks)
- Poor provinces (12 development on 3 provinces)
- Weird Cossack Ideas and government interactions:
1. cossacks_insults = {power_projection_from_insults = 1}
What is this?) Can smb give me an example how country like ZAZ can use it properly? For now you have a triple dimension sandwich with Russia, PLC and Ottomans. As for me thats great that you find so iconic moment from ZAZ history, but in game and with implementation when you need to spend prestige it is not viable.
2. zaz_steppe_riders = {# as the ZAZ idea, land attrition} and government military interactions
Seems like you still think that ZAZ is sort of horde, as i know almost of ZAZ army was infantry, and third military interaction in government menu proves that im wrong. This bonus can stay, mb you can just change description on this idea, but government interactions definitely need a change. This idea - cossacks_escaped_serfs, already proves that military interaction is wrong, as you know serf = peasants, and by that logic its hard to have a lot of horses to army that consists of peasants.
- Mission tree. (I think those who design it were too ambitious, left half of that tree is nonsense. You have a 3 province minor that weaker than 95% of all existing countries and all you get is claims, and this claim you can get only after conquest. This idea proves that you must conquer like Alexander (years_of_nationalism = -5). Actually i am speechless.
There are a lot of good things but the whole picture still not bright.

 

[cub298]

As i see they need to buff hordes too, Moscovy always beat them, the main problem for them is PLC and Ottomans. Thats why they can make interactions with Zaporozhia and make it more viable for nations that will interact with Zaporozhia. For example defensive troops as mentioned above. Mb some unique troops with buffs when fight on home land or etc. You can make some mechanics to upgrade those steppe regions sort of colonization or to make some interaction to hordes like raiding coasts but for land and interaction with ZAZ to help you decrease those impact for example like rebellion suppression works now.
Main problems in Zaporozhia as a country:
- Vassal of Lithuania (to break free you need help of Ottomans or Moscovy, Lithuania can convert you to catholic and it sucks)
- Poor provinces (12 development on 3 provinces)
- Weird Cossack Ideas and government interactions:
1. cossacks_insults = {power_projection_from_insults = 1}
What is this?) Can smb give me an example how country like ZAZ can use it properly? For now you have a triple dimension sandwich with Russia, PLC and Ottomans. As for me thats great that you find so iconic moment from ZAZ history, but in game and with implementation when you need to spend prestige it is not viable.
2. zaz_steppe_riders = {# as the ZAZ idea, land attrition} and government military interactions
Seems like you still think that ZAZ is sort of horde, as i know almost of ZAZ army was infantry, and third military interaction in government menu proves that im wrong. This bonus can stay, mb you can just change description on this idea, but government interactions definitely need a change. This idea - cossacks_escaped_serfs, already proves that military interaction is wrong, as you know serf = peasants, and by that logic its hard to have a lot of horses to army that consists of peasants.
- Mission tree. (I think those who design it were too ambitious, left half of that tree is nonsense. You have a 3 province minor that weaker than 95% of all existing countries and all you get is claims, and this claim you can get only after conquest. This idea proves that you must conquer like Alexander (years_of_nationalism = -5). Actually i am speechless.
There are a lot of good things but the whole picture still not bright.

I mean, I prefer Muscovy to beat the hordes at least 3/4 times they go up against each other. If that wasn't the case then it would be not as historical and you would not see Russia as a main power as often. There would be more of a Sweden/Poland superpower. It is also the case that the Russian AI is so bad that they can't even face the Ottomans and not lose to them every single time.

 

[Pepperoner]

I mean, I prefer Muscovy to beat the hordes at least 3/4 times they go up against each other. If that wasn't the case then it would be not as historical and you would not see Russia as a main power as often. There would be more of a Sweden/Poland superpower. It is also the case that the Russian AI is so bad that they can't even face the Ottomans and not lose to them every single time.

I dont see at all that Sweden make some noise, they sometimes cant even declare a war if Moscovy and England supports their independence or just captured by Russia. Sometimes even ottomans intervene in Sweden independence because PLC was in alliance with Denmark. I would like to see cooperation against other religions, for example if PLC have Hungary as a rival and Hungary already lost some wars PLC can become sort of defensive ally to not be eaten next or sort of. Because when Austria lose Empire title, Ottomans just freely eat all that they want with those 3 star generals. But i dont know how it will be displayed on game balance in different regions.

 

[fr-rein]

I shall put priority in the section 11) right now, but it also is important for the 3) (no map suggestions yet).
It is about the Left Bank Ukraine and for now I will focus on one of the major aspects: Tatars. But not the Horde ones (which get addressed in the other posts), but Lipka Tatars and the similar kinds of them - the ones who acknowledged the leadership of Lithuania and Russia. Of course, I do imply that map with Ruthenia needs more provinces.

Spoiler: The map of the Severia with the Tatars I shall reference

I will separate the issues onto paragraphs:

1. Qasim Khanate.
Due to the starting date it doesn't exist. And, while historically correct, the fact is that the reason why it was formed was erased - there is no decisive victory for Kazan that established it and son of the Kazan Khan, Qasim, seemingly doesn't inherit it as a result. It is all left to the player and AI.
The vassal role of Qasim is important at the time as Qasim Khans were used to forge claims and pretenses on Kazan multiple times too. But another option should be possible - for Kazan to use Qasim to bite away a part of Muscovy via missions, be Qasim under Russia directly or as a vassal. Perhaps making a decision/event with Qasim gaining independence in 1452 would be right, with AI normally taking it?

2. Rylsk.
So, about it.
The are fate of the region is closely tied to the Dmitri Shemyaka and his descendants. One of the Rurikids, after his failure to stay as a Muscovy ruler (one of those events which are overlooked in my opinion), his family was granted Rylsk to own it. Why is it important? Because he was a Rurikid and his bloodline hosted pretense on the Russian lands, a potential weapon for the Lithuania.
Another thing is that some half a century later, at the beginning of the XVI century, there was a situation when the border between Muscovy and Lithuania in the Severia was compromised of the small principalities which had a right to switch to the other lord. And it was used back then, result in a few principalities switching their loyalty to Muscovy (for example, in case of Starodub they were given estates in other parts of Muscovy). This caused a massive war (no English link since no article) which caused a few principalities (Starodub, Rylsk and plenty of Severia, and Bely where the latter family was also important to Muscovy-Russia) to rebel and switch.
It is an issue with Grand Duchy of Lithuania - that it is portrayed, like Poland, big and (relatively) stable. It wasn't, and just as Muscovy struggled against hordes and to unify lands of Russia, Lithuania struggled with the incorporation of Ruthenia. And well, obviously the bordering principalities (many of which still retained some degree of independence) were not fully incorporated - naturally, both countries still had part of the territories as vassals. An event with such principalities switching sides would be an important historical thing, a boost to Muscovy in exchange for them feeling less comfortable with wars with GDL and having somewhat boosted up Hordes in the beginning.
So, Rylsk should be a vassal state under GDL. I would advocate for other ones (like Trubchevsk, where was Starodub, and for Severia) to be separate vassals as well perhaps as it would help to portray the dynamics of the region. Another thing would be making Shemyaka nobles more prominent in game events.
Afterthought: would making Starodub as a separate province be too much?

3. Hlinsk.
It is a very interesting case.
Similar to the above, the land was not directly ruled. It was more of a vassal to the GDL, where the Hlinsk nobles ruled.
They were very important for the GDL: not only they were a way to oppose Tatar raids and the Muscovite influence, but they also helped to gather Tatars for GDL (in a manner similar to Lipka Tatars, which could have been a part of them) - the Hlinsk family claimed their descendance from Mamai himself, with his descendants being baptisized as Orthodox in Kiev, and while historically there is only purpoted evidence to that... it is important that both they had Tatars settle on those lands (raising development, mostly as a manpower I would say) and that it was a claim which was counted with at the time, so in EU4 it would make sense for it to be plausible.
The rebellion which occured after the war mentioned above and was a part of the next war between Muscovy and Lithuania. The descendants of the family played an important role in Muscovy and one of their descendants was... yes, Ivan Terrible himself.
Within a context of principalities which were shifting their allegance, it is important to have it featured as a vassal. As a province, it should be a separate province as well.

4. Jagoldai.
Jagoldai (story a bit better told here) was a vassal of the GDL, made by one of the Golden Horde pretenders. Given to him and Tatars to settle, it was located south to Kursk in the territory around of the nowadays Belgorod (which was founded later). Similar to Hlinsk and Rylsk, the land switched allegence to Muscovy as the kniaz of Vyazma, who married the daughter of the founder and thus inherited it, switched allegence to Muscovy and later land became a part of Muscovy in one of those wars (border one aka the one in 1492-1494 I believe). Obviously, I stand by making it another province and a vassal to GDL.

Summary: The lands of Left Bank Ukraine were quite devasted and GDL let Tatars settle there and in other parts of the GDL. While Tatars weren't often that numerous and were assimilated, in case of Ukraine-Ruthenia in particular (Rylsk, Jagoldai, Hlinsk), they did play a role in the development, repelling devastating raids, later in the vassal switching and wars of GDL and Muscovy, where the betraying vassals quite helped Muscovy to take down GDL and take many territories from them. They help to reflect on the history of the region, making it detailed, as well as being a reason to add new provinces to make the bigger states on the Left bank in the future.
I would also like to see some more vassal states in the process of incorporation and switching and Kiev being one of them at the start. It would shift the balance in the region somewhat, but it would also make blobbing as Muscovy less trivial - and yet empowered by an event with such principalities, giving a great foothold for the future war.
I also leave these as a way to stop early Tatar raids in game, making early Lithuania and Muscovy less prone to experience devastating raids. Them starting after the incorporation of such vassals and with a cease of payments to Tatars would be a start for the new era of raids - or at least allowing Hordes regionally to exploit them to the fullest.

P.S. Please make Severian culture, it makes no sense for Severia to have Ryazanian culture.

 

[fr-rein]

I am addressing this thread and a few similar ones pointed out there. And I will make a short list of things that should be done:

1. Create tributary system for hordes.
2. Enable raiding for horde governments.
3. Horde unity should be a thing, the more successful are raids, the more tributaries and the more victories are received, the more Horde is united - otherwise, it should encounter civil wars, splits and so on, breaking apart.
4. Enable Horde migration (for the smaller hordes, especially tribal ones).
5. Exclude Zaporozhie from Hordes, turning it into the other governmental system for Cossacks.

The Hordes should be able to raid and to plunder, somewhat crippling Eastern Europe and distracting from blobbing into Western and Central Europe. Hordes should benefit both from often-used condottieri services (Crimean Khanate) and from tributes paid by potential targets for not getting raided if they want to keep themselves safe. And I don't even mention how drastically raiding would change gameplay in America, where natives would be able to raid colonies as a way to fight them, making the colonisation less trivial.

In the context of Eastern Europe I see it quite simply: Hordes occupy strategic trade nodes, Hordes occupy big amounts of land - and it means that Wild Field and Southern Russia should see more love provinces (and love too). Because right now Central Ukraine + Southern Ukraine is 6 provinces, not counting giant weird Cherkasy and Poltava. Golden Horde provinces in Russia should be divided too since they are painful to look at.

Summary: I think that this and the previous suggestions sum up my idea: give Tatars and Hordes more representation, more power and role, as well as more provinces, make them stronger to play as - and make their defeat even more boosting for the victors. PLC, Russia, Lithuania, others - no matter who defeats the Hordes near them, they would be rewarded well by the new provinces (which, by becoming more numerous, would be more satisfying), they release a big number of resources on other frontiers and become prosperous. Russia, PLC, Lithuania would also face Hordes as a hindrance - because they would raid, backstab and distract those from accomplishing geopolitical goals. And it would stop making the stupid early wars against Khanates so easy and make Russia/Poland at war with Ottomans too early, which also is good for everyone.

P.S. Here is the great role of the Dniester Estuary: being an impassable obstacle, it makes Ottomans lose contact with Lithuania/PLC in Yedisan in case they take the Southern Moldova. So it postpones this kind of conflict to some degree, which is also a good point and which makes Moldova more strategically relevant.

 

[fr-rein]

I've gotta show it one more time and stop complaining about the Dniester Estuary.

Spoiler: Fancy pictures

Main reasons for adding it: it was not really crossable.
It very rarely gets frozen (and not fully, making large crossing hard), despite the shallowness it is always there and it is quite wide - enough for Russian Armies to choose to go to Tighina normally during their campaigns, and in general it was quite hard. Historically there was Ottoman fortress (in Akerman), which made crossing it hard and even in WWII times it was a challenge. The strip of land connecting two sides on the south was way wider before and the strait in the Estuary used to be way wider until the land strip was made there to create a railroad.
In history, because of many reasons, land armies and land trade preferred to pass Dniester near Tighina. It is one of the reasons why the location was important. Some people say that because of it Moldavia should get more provinces and I can see why Tighina province could be split further - it would make sense.

Why do I bring it up? It may seem to be a minor thing, but Tighina was an important city for Ottomans. It was a key to comfortably crossing Dniester as you couldn't do that around the estuary - and that was a precise reason why Ottomans annexed Tighina in XVI century. In-game it is not reflected correctly... since Tighina province is too large. That's a shame!

I hope that this would be a helpful feedback and that something will be done about it. Again, not Ruthenia directly, but I do like to think about adversaries and the future Greater Ruthenia.

P.S. Actually, Tighina should be on the banks of Dniester, not in the field.
P.P.S. Basarabia should be split on the banks of Danube in my opinion... hopefully it will be a thing either within Ruthenia Immersion Pack or Balcans update/DLC.
P.P.P.S. Yes, the estuary really worried me and I had to dedicate a separate post to it.

 

[dayalu]

This would fit great with what you have. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rland-raiding-for-tribal-governments.1114528/

 

[fr-rein]

This would fit great with what you have. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rland-raiding-for-tribal-governments.1114528/

Agreed. I like the Horde raids ideas and feel like Cossacks would benefit immensively from that at least by the virtue of partially shielding from part of the damage.
I will suggest more regarding Cossacks, but later after I test that more. One of the definitive issues is that for now one of the major historical grounds for Cossacks, the Wild Field, is very small in size. There is nothing that would naturally spawn close to the historical Hetmanate as the non-steppe provinces would be uneffected... and given the latest change to Poland (accepting Ruthenian culture) it is barely bound to happen, all while Cossack Uprising faced the Commonwealth in its Golden Age. The game is against that. And probably one of the reasons why is that so is because it doesn't represent the dynamics of the cossack growth - most of cossacks historically were illegals, registered cossacks were a minority at least until the times of Hetmanate and barely anything could stop that until Russian Empire seized all the Steppes.

 

[Theironemperor]

There's a lot of good ideas here.
As it was mentioned above, the main problem with Ruthenia region is that Zaporozhie shouldn't be a Horde and that the state of Zaporozhian Host (Ruthenia or Ukraine) should be represented in the game and not be just an optionally formable nation.

In fact Zaporozhians were not that good with horses. They were good riflemen and they sailed a lot, but they were no good cavalry. Not even to say that they were nothing in common with nomads.

Here's a quote from de Beauplan's "Description of Ukraine" of 1651:
Ukrainian version (I couldn't find English translation):

Spoiler

найбільше вони проявляють спритності та доблесті, так це б'ючись у таборі під прикриттям возів (бо вони дуже влучно стріляють з рушниць, які є їхньою звичною зброєю), обороняючи ці укріплення; вони непогані також на морі, але верхи на конях вони таки не найкращі. Пригадується, і я сам це бачив, як біля двохсот польських вершників змусили тікати 2000 їхніх найкращих воїнів.
Однак правда й те, що сотня цих козаків під прикриттям табору не побоїться і тисячі поляків чи навіть [кількох] тисяч татар. Якби вони були такі ж доблесні верхи, як і на землі, то, гадаю, були б непереможними.

Loose translation: They're the most brave and agile when they're fighting covering behind their wagons (because they shoot very accurately with rifles, which is their usual weapon), defending these fortifications; they are also pretty good on sea, but they're surely not the best on horses. I remember seeing about two hundreds Polish cavalry forced to run 2000 their best warriors.
But that's also true that a hundred of these Cossacks covering behind their wagons won't be afraid of even a thousand of Poles or several thousands of Tatars. If they were that good on horses as they are on feet, I think, they would've been invincible.

So the Zaporozhians couldn't anyhow be good horsemen, let alone nomads.
There's a lot of interesting details about the life of Ukrainians of that time in this book. But it was written in French and it seems it hasn't been ever translated in English.

The best thing to do would be to add them bonuses for sea raids as it was the main source of income to the Zaporozhian Cossacks. All the spring they sharpened their weapons, strengthen their boats and then in summer they went raiding all the Muslim towns and cities on the coastline of Black Sea. They even sacked Constantinople once or twice!
And because of their boats were small they were almost invisible to the big Ottoman galleys, so they raided not only towns but also ships, carried out all the goods and then sank them, as Cossacks didn't know how to navigate those ships. So the Cossacks were such a big power on the Sea, that Ottomans actually were afraid of going there in summer. It even gave birth to the myth about the Cossack submarine! Imagine what they thought when their ships were attacked each time out of nowhere by hundreds of small boats full of Cossacks with rifles shooting at them at a very high rate.
That could give the Cossacks some bonuses for small boats, some trade bonuses and bonuses from sea raids.

 

[fr-rein]

Well, the name says it all. There is also some nice article about it anyway.
Fact is, Jews had a major presence in Eastern Europe thanks to Poland. Beng allowed to settle in the Commonwealth and being responsible to the king directly, they were quite numerous and, unlike in other states of Europe, had more liberty - which even enabled them to do farming as well (although mainly Jews were in urban settlements).
Their numbers were great - in fact, they were comparable with native populations and quite often outnumbering it in some towns and cities. Unlike Armenians or other kind of traders or Jews in other countries, in Commonwealth they were numerous and played a big role in development of science, culture and economics, being one of the strong sides of the PLC. The money and development they brought should not be underestimated - since it were those money and development that made PLC quite rich and more developed than Muscovy/Russia during that period despite the constant inner politics struggles. Many universities and schools in PLC were founded with a help of Jews and Jesuits, which was also a reason why Jews were so important.
Of course, I suggest that Tatar raids would off-balance this, as well as the increased power of magnates and inability to make a "proper" absolutist state. Given that PLC had to fight off Ottomans and Russia - and most of the time did it very successfully until their Golden Age ended - it seems to be quite justified to me. Another thing to offset that would the unrest - especially among the non-primary population, which would trigger rebellions. The uprisings which happened a lot were driven not only by national reasions or the class struggle (since, for example, in Ruthenia Jews often aligned with Poles and nobility in general and despised together with those by local, especially peasants) but also by the religious reasons. Sadly, religious struggle of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe is rather poorly represented.

I see them as a unique estate for Poland, taking a similar place to trade estate with one difference - while burger estate would normally be raising the trade and profit in the city it controls, Jew Estate would be aimed at the development of the smaller towns, which is somewhat in line with what Jews were doing in the Commonwealth. They are also important to the inner politics as an estate able to provide king the most loyal support and wouldn't demand lands and would be actually denying lands to the other estates like Cossacks - and even bringing some development over time. Of course, it is just an idea for it.

Seeing Jews being represented is one of the needed things for representing the religious struggles between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Judaism - and how in one case some religions could live together and some couldn't.

 

[fr-rein]

Disclaimer: I think that Catholicism could win from more work and flavour in general and it would be wonderful. But for now I want to focus on the certain aspects of it in the Eastern Europe.

Poland and later Commonwealth were famous for the religious tolerance. Unlike most of states in that age, Poland survived Reformation nearly without any losses and could even allow itself to interfere in the reformation wars. That was because of unique tolerance Poland had to what is defined in game as Christian heresies - Protestant faiths. Not just that, but it also applied to the Judaism, being one of the reasons why Jews were accepted and welcomed in PLC more than in the other parts of Europe. It extended as far as to tolerant Muslim faith to some degree - in particular for Lipka Tatars. Obviously, it was only inside Poland and didn't apply to the other countries, when they would go to wars against Muslims and Catholics.

What I want to bring up is the Orthodoxy in the Commonwealth and its history and misrepresentation of it.
In GDL Orthodoxy was very tolerated as the majority of the country was Orthodox. And like Ruthenian language, it had quite influential positions in the country - until GDL and Poland united into the Commonwealth.
At first positions of the Orthodox Church weren't really threatened. Despite the increasing influence of Catholic Church, due to the process of Reformation in Europe Catholic Church didn't do anything much about the Orthodox church in Ruthenia - and the Warsaw Confederation was a huge win for the non-Catholic constitutients of the Commonwealth.

But here comes the part which EU4 quite misses.
After the success of Protestant nobles, Commonwealth started live through the process of Counter-Reformation. Influenced by Rome, Jesuits and who knows what else (Poles know and, if they want, they can expand this section) Catholic Church in Poland started to fight back. It wasn't done bloodily like in the rest of the Europe. Rather, it was a slow process of increasing the intolerance to heretics in the Commonwealth. In case of Protestants, it was pushing them away from the political power and restricting their representation... at first, ending with more severe measures later at the time of the Deluge and onwards.
But... of course, Orthodox faith got overlooked in EU4 and the game pretends that everything was more or less fine. It wasn't.

Few decades after the Warsaw Confederation, Union of Brest happened. I do believe that the intentions of it were quite noble - to unite the Orthodox Christianity of Kiev and all Rus' with the Catholic Church, which was still the "main" one after the fall of Byzantium. It was a way to save the Orthodoxy in the realities of Commonwealth and unite faith. As a result of it, the new Church appeared, which united both Orthodox and Latin rites and is a unique merger. It was designed to include all Orthodox eparchies of Ruthenia and be recognized by the Catholicism as a part of it, effectively "protecting" Ruthenia from enforcing Catholicism upon it.
It didn't work out.

While the intentions were noble and productive, the Counter-Reformation side represented by devout Catholics in Poland didn't accept that and was quite unfriendly to the idea. Nobility, which was slowly getting Polonized and, as a part of it, converted to Catholicism, didn't see any need in the Uniate Church as Uniate Church wasn't perceived as neither Orthodox nor Catholic. Orthodox priests, seeing that this would bring them nothing, didn't accept the Uniate Church willingly as well despite some cautious enthusiasm in the beginning.
This was a result of the Counter-Reformation and the increasing influence of Catholicism in Poland. It was also related to the attempts of centralizing Commonwealth around Poland and Poles, with it increasing it power and, of course, with Commonwealth being the Defender of the Faith in the Eastern Europe.

What was the result of the Uniate Church? It became a tool for the Commonwealth and Poland to convert Orthodoxes. The traditional Orthodox faith got outlawed as it had to join Uniate Church or Catholicism. It resulted in some Orthodox Churches being seized regularly, which made population quite hostile to the Commonwealth and brought the increase to the uprisings (including cossack ones). The faith wasn't really popular and was a major tool for bringing Catholicism on the Orthodox lands.

Another part of this, and one of the results of the Counter-Reformation, was the Polonization of the Ruthenian nobility. Access to the state jobs and education were heavily restricted for the non-Catholics in Poland, not without the intervention of Jesuits (which should... be more represented in game overall). For Orthodox nobility it meant only one thing - that they had to convert to Catholicism to keep access to the influencing Poland, getting education and being relevant. At the time of Khmelnytsky Uprising less than a few senators in Sejm were Orthodox and in a few years there were none.

What the convertion of the Ruthenian nobility to Catholicism brought to Commonwealth, Poland and Ruthenia?
The result was that peasants were left with no one to protect them as the Orthodox religion was getting oppressed. There was no justice for them. And with a number of Ruthenians in the Commonwealth being roughly the same or so as the number of Poles the situation was escalating - all until one specific Cossack Uprising became a true disaster. With the emergance of Hetmanate, the Cossack State led by Khmelnytsky, Ruthenian peasants found a new protector for the interests - religion, languages and what can be called national identity. The Cossacks became the new elite of the Ruthenia instead of converted Catholic nobles (at least those who didn't join Khmelnytsky) and they engaged into the ruinous war with Poland, Muscovy, Tatars and Ottomans (not all at one time, but in seried of many wars) for the future. Hetmanate wasn't just any state and it wasn't limited by the steppe lands... but this is a matter of another post.
I hope that it explains the extent of influence Uniate Church and the Counter-Reformation in Poland had in history and in historical events.

Thus I suggest making Uniate Church as a special mechanics for Poland-Commonwealth - the mechanics of the Counter-Reformation movement in Poland to subdue and convert effectively Orthodoxy, especially in case player as a Commonwealth will follow natural for Poland Humanist ideas. It would be important as the Orthodox issue couldn't be left alone - without pressing for Catholicism Orthodox nobility wouldn't be necessarily following Polish interests, thus making it harder to pass decisions in Sejm (in case it gets a rework as I hope ). As well as having a pressure from Jesuits and Catholicism in general, being forced to choose in Commonwealth reality whether to push for diversity and lose more power to nobility of Ruthenia for example, being even more weakened in maintaining Sejm and experiencing sort of HREfication, or to press for more Polonization and meet some hard challenges that would arise from the choices player made.

Right now Uniates are ignored, as well as Khmelnytsky Uprising, and it is quite sad (not as sad as a development and map though). Uniates had a big role in the religious events in Eastern Europe and they and Ruthenian Orthodoxy are bummed compared to all the flavour Protestantism was getting with Reformation mechanics updates. And Khmelnytsky, as the modern language says, "rekt" Commonwealth in its prime and his Hetmanate in different forms survived for decades despite everything and left the lasting impact in history.

As one of many examples how bad tensions got between Poland and Ruthenians-Ukrainians, you can see Koliyivshchyna which was an example of how the religious tolerance ended.

So... I should to sum it up in some specific suggestions here, I suppose:

1. There should be Uniate Church created. The Church, which is alive and well even now, played a huge part in history of Commonwealth and Poland. Gameplay-wise, it would be a way for Humanist Poland to convert Orthodox people.
2. The Tolerance in Poland was dynamic. Game simplifies it, which is a huge drawback and together with having Ruthenian culture as an accepted is completely ahistorical.
3. Generally, Catholicism and Jesuits in Poland, as well as the Polish Counter-Reformation, should get a bigger representation. I hope that in general Catholicism receives some love before this Immersion Pack and this ImPack would just draw the events for Poland in a nice detail, allowing the player to feel the role of Antemurale Christianitatis.
4. Commonwealth needs a special governmental mechanics - similar to Chinese and to the HRE. It would allow to let the Commonwealth better follow its dynamic path and the subsequent deteoriation of tolerance and/or political transformation, as well as other complex processes in the state. It could/should be a boost for Poland too, transforming its gameplay and making it more historical, powerful - and challenging with internal issues. I suggest to put the regulation of Tolerance in here in particular and make it not permanent, but swingable - so that Sejm would react in case some disasters happen.

 

[fr-rein]

Cossacks some bonuses for small boats

I generally agree with you, but I don't really know how to realize boats.
The composition for the cossack army is another story, where you have a great point. I would like to expand on it later, but right now I wanna complain about development would like to bring in some justification for reconsidering current development levels in Ruthenia.

Ruthenian development is a cruel joke.

Spoiler: Why Ruthenian development is a joke and why there is a need for more provinces

I find it kind of find it ridiculous how Ruthenians are now an accepted culture and Orthodox culture is tolerated, with no events whatsoever about the region whatsoever - which is extremely ahistorical to the point where even faraway African and American tribes are better represented in EU4. The biggest thing that could fire is cossack uprising - and only in the steppe territories, which are are Zaporozhia, Kharkov and maybe Yedisan and maybe some other territories Poland/Lithuania/PLC could get. Main Ruthenia is left out of scope.
Judging from the thread here (great maps too) we can see other fun things like Ruthenia having the development level of the Wild Field, being less developed than Tatar steppe, small Irish provinces, Golden Horde, central Anatolia, faraway Ural region, being overall on the level of uninhabitable locations (but less developed than most of steppe holdings for example). I do realize that it doesn't count in Polish update - however it doesn't change the fact that the overall representation of the region is ridiculous (again, Wild Field has same development as main Ruthenia!).
It's just sad
Suggestions for the map will be later. I suggest to solve it with adding more provinces and detail to the region.

 

[Theironemperor]

development levels

The most fertile land in Europe and probably on Earth has less development levels than steppes and swamps? Gee!

John Marshall, an English traveler, wrote in the 18th century that there's "nothing to see between St. Petersburg and Ukraine in Russian Empire" and that Ukraine was one of the most (if not THE most) developed regions in the realm. From that we can suggest that it wasn't as bad under Polish rule for Ukrainians as later (mostly Russian) sources claim it was. If we take a look on Ukrainian poetry of the time of the Khmelnytsky Uprising we can see that one of the main problem for Ukrainians were Jews.
@fr-rein mentioned it before, that Jews were a considerable power in PLC, but even more so, PLC had the most numerous population of Jews on Earth back then. It was basically the largest Jewish state. So you can imagine how Ukrainian peasants were "pleased" by the amounts of Jews coming from Poland after the Lublin treaty.
One of the crucial moments in the Cossack uprisings were massacres of Jews like the one in Uman. So we could make Jews an estate which often demands lands, so it would be one of the reasons for the national unrest among the Ruthenians and the massacres could be represented as events.

 

[fr-rein]

Ukraine was one of the most (if not THE most) developed regions in the realm

I wouldn't be saying it this radically, but certainly Ruthenia was no Wild Field. Another point is how quickly it developed once Tatars were defeated, how Ukrainian culture and population spread on the Steppes (South Ukraine, Donbass, Sloboda Ukraine) and how in general region grew once it got peace.
I do not argue to add more developmet to the existing provinces - in fact I think that some of those are too developed like Kiev for example: at that period of time it wasn't that big compared to the rest of the provinces. It had a cultural importance more than population or actual economics, other unrepresented towns and cities played a similar role in Ukraine at the EU4 timeframe.
So, I would instead add more provinces. It would reflect positively on the density making it quite fair, it would give a space for the historical battlefields, the spread development would both allow to "cheaply" develop Ukraine and make Tatar raids make sense (they raid provinces, making any high development unsustainable despite the terrain that actually favours development). Player has to put some forts in the border region. Ottomans get to delegate hampering of PLC and Russia to Crimean Khanate with raid mechanics. Cossacks in this context become a powerful too to negate some raids and devastation caused by them.
I suggest that raids make PLC/Russia pay tribute to Crimea and, after raids, pay them money for buying back some development (no mana losses in this case) unless the raid was too devastating. In case Russia/PLC ignore the ruined development on their borders (being gamey), it creates the flow of the unsatisfied people - cossacks, which settle their own settlements. You know, cossacks weren't appointed, they were recognized post-factum. It makes more cossacks as an estate, which has to be dealt with or pleased, being a nagging issue for centuries until the wild regions become subdued and Absolutism reaches the needed levels.

Now, I wanna draw maps...

 

[fr-rein]

I expect this one post to get multiple reworks.

Colours may be meh, but I hope that it shows the overall disposition.
​

Here is Ruthenia and some adjusted areas as it is now and the areas I see in scope with Ruthenian changes.
In general I think that most areas are percieved in a right way. On area level I am very grateful for separaing Volyn and Podolia as it was one of the biggest issues. But I do see 2 areas that should be added.

Lower circle - roughly the place for Lower Danube suggested area.
Upper circle - roughly the place for Central Ukraine suggested area.​

I do hope that Balcans do get an update one day and in that context I see making a new area of the Lower Danube(? name is WIP). Another area is a primary interest for me - that is central Ukraine and Zaporozhia rework.

1. Lower Danube (name is WIP)
Historically, the area I propose to make (south of Moldova and part of current Silistria) was a passage for many nomadic people. It is quite diverse, changed the owners multiple times and historically suffered a lot (mostly from countless nomads passing through... or even from Rus' military expeditions to Byzantium).
But for the EU4 what is important is that Dobruja, Budjac and Tighina were under Ottoman control. By any means, the area does deserve to be separate to improve the map quality. It also implies diving Tighina into Tighina itself in the south of Tighina province and to Besarabia (or how else to call it?) on the north. This allows to add one more province to the Moldova region - Cernăuți, which allow to achieve Poland partition borders, add a rather important province and make Moldova bigger and follow history better. It also empowers Moldova in the beginning somewhat and reflects the state of the city in the XV-XVI century, which was quite rich. Not to mention that in the suggested province is Khotyn, an important town which witnessed some history and which was important to Moldova, Romania and was an important fortress. I would even give Khotyn it's own province so that the map borders could be reflected well.
I am aware that the Moldova area this way gets shifted somewhat north, but since we make a new area for the Lower Danube and it incorporates southern Moldova and Dobruja it should be fine.
I hope Bulgaria also receives some love...

2. Central Ukraine (name is WIP)
Yep, the Central Ukraine which is awfully absent from the map. Its absence makes the real life Wild Field non-represented and non-existant. The fact is, (southern) Cherkasy and Zaporozhia were a part of the Wild Field, where it started. These lands were the terrain and home for Cossacks, many fine and famous places were there. The place which was raided a lot, the place which later allowed Ukrainians to become the breadbasket of Europe, the place which was very historical. It should be there.
Zaporozhia should also be a part of it. Instead, Donbas provinces should receive their own focus and new provinces.

So, what area my provinces suggestions? I will draw them roughly for starters. In case of Moldova Iassy would need some rework, but I hope that other people could suggest how to improve the map.

Issues:
0. The Dniester Estuary I mentioned about before. With fracturing Tighina it can be properly represented and play a role it had in real life.
1.. Cernauty. Probably the borders are screwed, but I added them as an example.
2. Tighina, which now can be reflected as a province under direct Ottoman control.
3. Reformed Basarabia, turned into Budjac. Many people already said that the current Basarabia is quite flawed...
4. Dobruja. Can be divided further actually... but it is a work for the Balkan update suggestions. I certainly don't mind it getting divided even more.
5. The rest of ex-Tighina province, which could be Soroca province (or Orhei) as it coincides with those counties.​

So, overall I suggest giving Moldova 4 provinces. Some of them are to be lost to Ottomans as it naturally happened, leaving Moldova with 5 provinces in the Moldova area (Iasy, Cernauty, Suceava, Birlad and Soroca) as I propose it - and later cutting off Cernauty, Tighina and Soroca to Russian Empire. I would rework Birlad, Iasy and Suceava somewhat so that their borders would be neater. One of the map references here. Also this map is important for painting Tighina province, as well as this one and this and this. I would expand Moldova even somewhat by adding Khotyn province.
What is important is to redraw the map the way it allows to exist what is called Bessarabia. It could be possible to add Bessarabia area insteaad of Lower Danube, but in my opinion in-game it would be only bad to Moldova and wouldn't do any good to it.

Central Ukraine Map is WIP.
Rest of additions are WIP.

 

[Theironemperor]

this radically

I understand you, but historical accounts of that time make this rather clear. It is logical if you think about it. Poles actually cared about the development of their lands and it was under Polish rule when Ukrainians had their first higher education institution, the Kyiv Mohyla Academy (which eventually became the first higher education institution in the Russian Empire). The peasants had their rights and were somewhat autonomous, so it also had had a positive influence on the lands. When Ukraine came under Russian rule, the Russian officials were complaining about the amount of autonomy Ukrainian people had even in the 18th century. The Russians saw the Magdeburg Rights, which were granted to many Ukrainian towns by the Polish Crown, as a threat to the limitless power the Tsars were supposed to have over their lands. By the 18th century the Little Russia (an official name of Ukraine in the Russian Empire, as calling it Ukraine was considered separatism) even still had borders with the Great Russia, and Ukrainians were collecting taxes from Russians crossing the border! They still considered themselves to be a separate nation even after being more than a hundred years under direct or indirect (as a vassal) Russian rule.

And I can't agree more on adding more provinces to the region. There are so many towns that were crucial to the history of the region unrepresented in the game.

Oh and the Mazepa events! It had as much historical significance as the Khmelnytsky Uprising. It was a great story for Europeans for like a hundred years from that time.
And the real story of Mazepa, the mentor and the closest friend of Peter I, seeing that his land is to be swallowed by Russia (and other problems like using Cossack forces in Russian wars sending them from their homelands to fight for Tsar in far away lands), turns away from the Tsar and fights for the independence of his land (even knowing that he's going to lose). What a great story! The man who had such an influence on Tsar, who had such a high rank in the Empire, becomes the most hated person in Russia, with Peter upset so much that he orders to burn all the portraits of Mazepa they could find.
Mazepa could be an adviser to the Tsar in the game, later becoming Hetman of Ukraine and then through an event decides to switch sides in the Northern War.

 

[fr-rein]

events!

There are very few events both for Mazepa and Khmelnytsky.

As for the development - I state one fact: the fact that Tatars were conquered, Ottomans expelled and the raids were brought to an end delivered peace. The peace allowed to settle and colonize Wild Field, making a boom in the economy and so on.
Of course, Poland did care too about the region (I disagree about the Academy though, it wasn't their effort but one of the Ruthenian people instead) however the Khmelnytstky Uprising and the Ruin (wars for half a century in Ukraine) brought a huge devastation and also immigration to the Sloboda Ukraine. The real peace was achieved once one country won the whole region.
Many Ruthenian towns were indeed quite developing, although not like the ones in the Poland proper due to the raids.

I've added some provinces to Moldova because I think that it is justified and helps both them and Ruthenia in one ImPack. It is also somewhat easier since Moldova stands somewhat separately from Ruthenia, making it easier to do their provinces. Right now I am trying to do Ukraine... and many many questions arise about what to actually put there.