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!

 

[navaluiki]

Population is not the only factor that defines total development and hordes are the best example: what tax will a khan collect from roughly 50 000 nomads and what will these people produce compared to a 50k-pop city Lebanon? On the other hand, if you settle 50k nomads, the total development of the province shouldn't be too much different (I'd estimate around 50% delta).
Funny enough, but the whole Eastern European (West and East Slavic culture groups) development is pretty in line with historical pop data from Wiki (not the best source, though). I think Paradox employees did make some research on demographics data. It's hard to deny that Eastern Europe had really good reasons to show considerably lower population density than Western Europe and Near East. As a result Eastern European provinces have roughly the same development, but are much larger. This approach is much more simple and easy, requires less research and efforts than adding more 1/1/1 provinces. However this compromises fun factor, aesthetics and historical accuracy.
Having 6 smaller 1/1/1 provinces is better than having 3 larger 2/2/2 ones because:

• more building slots
• more room for tall gameplay (unless in arctic, or tropical jungles/deserts)
• much more immerssive and aestheic feedback from the game
• and finally, much more engaginf and deep warfare

In my opinion, Eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular should keep it's total development roughly the same. but the amount of available provinces should be increased dramatically.

I agree. Actually in my proposed Iberian maps I said I wanted to keep a similar development, but with more provinces. That's basically what they did to the British Isles with Rule Brittania, they almost doubled the amount of provinces there while keeping a similar total development.

 

[fr-rein]

Population is not the only factor that defines total development and hordes are the best example: what tax will a khan collect from roughly 50 000 nomads and what will these people produce compared to a 50k-pop city in Lebanon? On the other hand, if you settle 50k nomads, the total development of the province shouldn't be too much different (I'd estimate around 50% delta).

It is awfully inconsistent however - why Cossacks are not treated as Hordes in that case? I can argue that there were many thousands of Cossacks in Ukraine, so give Ukraine at least the development level of Crimean Khanate province which is surprisingly high! I mean, the only similar level of development you can find in steppe parts of Central Asia and I bet that anyone will agree between the differences in development of these regions.
But speaking calmly, in my opinion Hordes have a bad model in game. Their "development" is a joke in most of cases - since the main bulk of it was the Horde itself, a fluid raiding entity where people, warriors themselves are the threat. EU4 should take somewhat CK2 attitude and transfer horde units to the special Estate and harvest its strength from it. That would also allow to roleplay way better and having Horde settled would be not a mere "click a button" with no real feeling to the consequences of your actions, but you would need to have your Hordes settle which is way harder, unless like Turks you plundered some rich civilization and decided to settle there on verge of your triumph as organization of your Empire transforms.

Funny enough, but the whole Eastern European (West and East Slavic culture groups) development is pretty in line with historical pop data from Wiki (not the best source, though). I think Paradox employees did make some research on demographics data. It's hard to deny that Eastern Europe had really good reasons to show considerably lower population density than Western Europe and Near East.

I agree that it is sort of in line with the population data. I don't argue about the population or development level that much.
As for he lower population density - it is a rather vague definition. In the end, it was a war with Hordes which historically crippled the development in the region (same for Southern Russia) and having it represented with a few provinces... is plain wrong. There is no real explanation to the abysmal Cherkasy province as it is now.

In my opinion, Eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular should keep it's total development roughly the same, but the amount of available provinces should be increased dramatically.

I agree here.
It do think that the development lever can be a bit higher even if we keep in mind that the area is a subject to many constant (nearly yearly) violent raids of Tatars, who plunder the provinces and leave negative debuffs - which would not restrict you from benefits of having more provinces, but also will lower the development cap. And well, just having plundered provinces will be a rather constant debuff to the development of the region, so if my proposed +20 provinces do add more dev than they should, there will be plunder which will keep development and benefits from the increased dev in check, along with ability of Cossacks to be outside of Steppe.

I agree. Actually in my proposed Iberian maps I said I wanted to keep a similar development, but with more provinces. That's basically what they did to the British Isles with Rule Brittania, they almost doubled the amount of provinces there while keeping a similar total development.

I do think that development level is more or less fine. I have plenty of concern with how it is low relative to other provinces, namely to Pontic Steppe and Southern Russia, but the way to deal with it depends on what would be done to Hordes. Relatively to Poland it is correct and correct relative to Muscovy and Novgorod. And to other European powers. It's Hordes which are oddly developed.
And I certainly think that amount of provinces should be expanded.

As for one of the concerns about Ukraine being poor and badly developed I shall address in the next post about Hetmanate in Russian Empire.

 

[Celdur]

South America has a perk of being a New World and important in colonizational dimension.
Another point is that as it is implied from the last DDs, South America will receive a separate update (which is a reason why Brazil in particular won't be getting more content despite Portugal gaining an ability to move to Brazil).
In case of Steppe it is a lot worse - Moldavia, Lithunia, Russia and Poland received updates while Left Bank Ruthenia has lots of issues and Wild Field is just bad. The chances that Wild Field will receive update are rather slim and are tied only to Horde content - and in that case we could expect that little would be reworked for Ruthenia and Cossacks as the focus will be primarily on Hordes.
Well, it doesn't hurt to mention it and hope that changing the region will be considered.

Sure, there is an advantage for SA, but the fact that you highlight Brazil over the Andean region says it all about the real problems that exist for the focus on that continent.

I do agree with you, while there are many people who do like to play hordes, almost nothing has been done to improve the steppe region that spans Eurasia, and Russia recivied an update, but it didn't cover 90% of Russian Empire, just the Muscovy area...

I'm sure the chances of improvement for the region are much, much higher with the development of suggestions you and people like you have made!

 

[fr-rein]

Sure, there is an advantage for SA, but the fact that you highlight Brazil over the Andean region says it all about the real problems that exist for the focus on that continent.

I highlight Brazil because it is involved into the Portugal gameplay as now Portugal gets a chance to move to Brazil. Admittedly, moving to a new country with probably generic NIs is underwhelming (although it may change before the release).

I do agree with you, while there are many people who do like to play hordes, almost nothing has been done to improve the steppe region that spans Eurasia, and Russia recivied an update, but it didn't cover 90% of Russian Empire, just the Muscovy area...

In my opinion, Hordes need to get a separate kind of gameplay - kind of like in CK2. The gameplay for hordes is what should be reworked - and making it way more like CK2 would be much better. I would also love for the colonization to change as well, but it is not a topic of this thread.

I'm sure the chances of improvement for the region are much, much higher with the development of suggestions you and people like you have made!

I... well, I hope so.

 

[fr-rein]

So, historically I mentioned that there existed the Cossack Hetmanate, made by Khmelnytsky. Largely covering Orthodox regions of Commonwealth, it was a regional power which was ruined in the civil war between Right and Left Bank Hetmanates, as well as wars with Poland, Russian and Ottoman Empire (which used a son of Khmelnytsky as a leader to establish their influence in the region). The Left Bank suffered less destruction and it ended up as a vassal of Russia. Both Hetmanates were reunited under Mazepa, who gained influence over Right Bank Cossacks, but later turned his back on Russia and joined Sweden in Northern War, where he and Swedes lost in the Poltava Battle. It existed until 1764 until it was integrated into Russian Empire.

Right now EU4 ignores it. And it is one of a reasons why players feel one thing that is commonly felt about the Ukraine area:
it makes no sense to expand into Ukraine and there is little incentive to do so

Primarily, the reason is the poor development of those provinces and that it is way easier to ahistorically expand into Baltics instead. But another thing is that, well, the game gives us a super stable Poland and taking from it Ruthenia is a poor decision as does little to nothing to weaken the Commonwealth.
So, well, why historically Russia didn't go into Lithuania and take it instead of Ruthenia? The reason is simple - because Ruthenia was largely left to the Hetmanate which became its vassal (I will not mention the bloody events and wars which took place and just skip it to one of the outcomes which is mostly historical).
Not just that - it was Khmelnytsky and Cossacks who played a huge role into securing their own authority and control over most of Ruthenia. Russians didn't need to conquer Ruthenia - instead they already had it as an ally and wrestled themselves into Belarus and not going further because of the war with Swedes who Deluge'd Poland. As a result - player as Russia gets Hetmanate as a vassal and uses them to control Ukraine and even develop the provinces better, later just integrating Hetmanate into Russia
This is a gameplay role of Hetmanate which shouldn't be overlooked. Not to mention that even as a vassal it would play a huge role - if it arises, Poland and Russia would fight over it while Ottoman and Sweden would get a rather powerful opportunity to engage into the region. Hetmanate was one of the big opportunities for the geopolitical changes in the region which everyone used - and a number of new ways people could redo the fierce events following the Khmelnytsky Uprising.

So, as I have suggested before, the Khmelnytsky disaster would be rather "dynamic" and based on the policies of the Commonwealth or other powers controlling Ruthenia. With a low probability for Lithuania and Orthodox countries (unless they mess up with Cossacks), it would grow way faster under the Catholic power, especially one that does not treat Ruthenia well to put it shortly. Commonwealth, unlike other countries, would be able to choose a path of how it would deal with Ruthenia - while making it equal to Poland and Lithuania would be largely avoiding that kind of disaster, it could politically cripple the Commonwealth - especially because of the Sejm's political model, leaving country rather hard to rule. Of course, I hope that Sejm and Polish politics will get a boost.

In short: Hetmanate removes the awkward gameplay in Eastern Europe, where you get two behemoths fighting each other and where Russia has no interest in controlling Ruthenia.
Current Cossack State model doesn't allow to recreate this. It is limited to Steppe only and Cossack estate won't be able to take away other Ruthenia. Besides, Cossack Estate portrays mostly Registered Cossacks and not the likes like Zaporozhia Cossacks or ones from the Khmelnytsky Hetmanate.

 

[fr-rein]

Some points, besides of wiki, are here:

http://resource.history.org.ua/cgi-...2=0&S21P03=ID=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR=0013950

http://resource.history.org.ua/cgi-...2=0&S21P03=ID=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR=0009697

In particular, the books of Dmytro Yavornytsky are especially interesting as they describe many aspects of Cossacks, their organization and daily activities.
In particular, he provides evidence for the fact that Cossacks by no means had the strength in the cavalry. While it was the most elite and well-regarded, the true strength of Cossacks came from infantry and from heavy infantry fire and shock. The way their infantry was operating was regarded as one of the best, contributing to the success in the Hotyn Battle, and the similar principles of fire against the enemy were later employed by other armies, including Sweden army which is regarded as one of the strongest.
But with this book in mind, it is important to remember that it mostly refers to the Lower Zaporozhian Host (Войско Запорожское Низовое/Військо Запорізьке Низове - historical term to separate Hetmanate and the Zaporozhian Host itself) - basically, what is Zaporozhia in EU4. It was a distinct entity from the Hetmanate of Khmelnytsky and despite being with him, later, with the fall of Hetmanate into two, it was an independent thing again and remained as such relatively so until it was abolished in 1775.

Right now EU4 fully ignores the Hetmanate and the Cossacks of that period, despite the fact that the Hetmanate was the one which left the extensive political legacy in the region. It's not right.

Another book focuses on the rivalry between the Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Sadly, Catholicism in EU4 is still rather undetailed. Jesuits with their extensive historical legacy operate only in Iberian countries and the dynamics between Protestantism and Catholicism exists only because of the Reformation rework. Any relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism? Ignored as if it didn't exist, even though Catholics did attempt an active expansion into the Orthodox realms and converting those. Not just that - literally crusader states designated to bring Catholicism to the East still exist at the start date... and yet they regard Orthodox people just alright.

A smaller detail is the Jewish estate I've suggested, which would be fully in line with how Dharma introduced some castes and societies as estates. Having them would be another good detail to the Commonwealth, being one of the perks of that realm - the practice of tolerance towards this community, which brought people loyal to the king who paid good taxes.

 

[fr-rein]

This suggestion may be affected in details by the Balkan rework, but nonetheless the core of it stands.

I suggest adding Dniester trade nod.
Why so? It covers one of the historically important trade routes - the Dniester trade route:

The route along major river paths was important and the trade there quite prospered when the area was controlled by non-Horde forces. Moreover, even Genoese conducted their economic activities there, settling colonies and controlling the castle in the place of Odesa city.

Another major purpose of such hab would be another direction of trade - from Odesa to Kiev. Such a route would help to show the significance of the Odesa in the coming ages... but first, let me show (edited) trade route map (from wiki) (sorry for the insane drawing skill):

Together with map changes I've offered, the region would see more provinces playing in such trade than it is there currently.
I put Moldova, Podolia, Wild Field (central Ukraine south to Kiev, includes primarily Zaporozhia and other new provinces) and Southern Ukraine (I mean the steppe) in this region as one trade zone - because it was a place where the trade route went.
Historically, trade went from Stambul to Romania, going to Bendery and splitting - some of it going to Lviv (especially during the time when Dniester was secured from Horde) and the rest going along Dnieper to Kiev. Obviously, intesiveness of these routes varied (Dniester later lost its value as trade was directed to Kiev) but historically it is obvious that there was trade between Istambul and Kiev - in fact, it was somewhat more important than trade with Crimea. Making the new node would also bring economical life to the region, show its trade perspectives and make incentives for Russia to take over that region - as it would simply make Russia richer. It also boosts Ruthenia as well, making it plausibly richer with taking over South. Not to mention that it would make Poland way more interested in Moldova - being a key point to securing better trade, it would make it way more attractive area for expansion.

The center of new trade would be Odesa (after splitting Yedisan). Starting as Ginestra, being Khajibey later and ending up as Odessa, this province makes most sense for being the Center of Trade and the point of splitting trade routes. It would represent Genoese control over the Dniester trade in XV century, make more reasonable Ottoman control there (as Ottomans controlled that place themselves not just because) and the historical role of the place in the trade. Due to being in the territories split by war, confrontations, Hordes and Cossacks it wouldn't be rich at first (as it happened historically), but securing it would bring benefits to the controllers - just like the trade there was rather beneficial in XV century, adding more wealth to Galicia region.

I would probably even include Halych in that trade zone, but sadly it doesn't seem that we can split areas for trade maps. Another solution (a bit more splitting) would be probably not welcome as the area there is dense enough.
If trade routes in Balkans would be reworked, this suggestion would be changed. However, I think that it should be implemented. After all, right now it seems rather weird that there is no trade between Kiev and Istambul - as that would represent the southern trade routed which Russia coveted to acquire, making it a goal for them to go as far as to acquire the straits. Not to mention how it would be a decent improvement for Poland as well. And finally, it makes sense for the Ottoman Empire to want to monopolize the Black Sea if such trade node exists - to deny Russia and Poland ability to steer trade and acquire more wealth. Since Ottos are mostly always controlling Black Sea, it doesn't make them weaker.

In short - everyone wins from such an addition.

 

[fr-rein]

Because Estates represents actors who hold land within your country. Factions just represents actors with influence in your government. It would be weird for let's say Buccaneers to own land in a pirate republic.

After hearing this, I would like your opinion about the Cossacks and the Cossack Estate.

Register Cossacks of PLC (which pretty much the ones a current Cossack Estate describes), while they did hold land (mostly in Cherkasy province), can't be presented in EU4 - even the simple wiki article plainly states that they were located in Trakhtemyriv (Kaniv, Cherkasy province) and in general Cherkasy province was their main location.

Realistically, a significant part of time Cossacks were outlaws. In the Commonwealth most of Cossacks were out of law, until the Khmelnytsky Uprising and the peace treaties, which besides expanding Register Cossack list from 6000 (was too little) to 40000 (which still was less than Cossacks wanted). And while there is Zaporozhia representing outlaw Cossacks, there is a problem with it - right now Cossacks are limited to the Steppe. However, historically they took over whole Ruthenia and attempted to take power in Moldova and Belarus as well. For example, Treaty of Zboriv shows the extent to which Cossacks under Khmelnytsky gained control, and in reality it was a main portion of land controlled by them. In XVIII century, as vassal of Russia, Hetmanate, control Left Bank Ukraine going as far as to Chernigov and Starodub (currently Trubchevsk in the thread, I've written about it being a mistake earlier).

Currently, it is impossible to recreate such an event. Ruthenians are an accepted culture. Orthodoxy is ahistorically tolerated due to Polish tolerance bonuses which mostly regard Protestantism. Cossacks are represented mostly in Zaporozhia while Register Cossacks aren't represented.
Historical location of Registered Cossacks, Cherkasy province, is not a steppe, and unless Poland conquers Pontic Steppe or some province on the Left Bank of Dnieper and makes there Register Cossacks there would be no Cossacks at all (not to mention the historical inaccuracy of such Cossacks). It is an issue with Wild Field in EU4 - it is simply not present in game as such.

But even if we put outlaw Cossacks to Zaporozhia and leave Register Cossacks as they are now, there is a question of the larger social and historical role of Cossacks for the rest of Ruthenia. After many nobles converted to Catholicism and a lot of nobility/higher classes accepted Polish rule, masses of Orthodox Ruthenians were left without the social protection - their churches were taken away by Catholics, Polish laws and customs enforcing serfdom crawled to the region and no one could protect them, resulting in peasants seeing Cossacks as protectors and during many Cossack Uprisings it was demonstrated by the willingness to join Cossacks. After Khmelnytsky Uprising, it resulted in Hetmanate establishing itself as a state with peasants and people popularly accepting it, having only converted nobles like Vyshnevetsky to fight them (not even Register Cossacks fought other Cossacks).

So, is there any chance for the region getting update and for the Estate getting updates/changes? Will the role of Cossacks be somewhat changed?
Given its definition as of now, it doesn't fully represent the Cossacks (although being very fitting for Cossack Hosts, especially the ones which were recognized).

 

[Theironemperor]

Hey, I've found and recommend you an awesome new book about the history of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhii, a professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard University.
http://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Plokhii_Serhii/The_Gates_of_Europe__A_History_of_Ukraine_anhl.pdf
There are a lot of information on the political situation in the 17th century Ukraine.


The population of Russia in 1640s was 7 million people. Ukraine at the time had somewhat around 3 million.

 

[fr-rein]

Hey, I've found and recommend you an awesome new book about the history of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhii, a professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard University.
http://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Plokhii_Serhii/The_Gates_of_Europe__A_History_of_Ukraine_anhl.pdf
There are a lot of information on the political situation in the 17th century Ukraine.

Thank you for the useful link, although I am not sure if this book could be distributed freely. Just in case link is redacted: the book is Serhii Plokhii, "The Gates of Europe".

Additionally, I would like to share a small link to wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia_Office

It is not much... but a minute of reading may make a reader actually realize that the Hetmanate was pretty much a vassal, a state, and not a part of the green blob.
I dunno if it can convince devs about giving any attention to the region and to the Hetmanate in particular, but at least I hope it is helpful.

 

[fr-rein]

The population of Russia in 1640s was 7 million people. Ukraine at the time had somewhat around 3 million.

Sounds about right if we assume that there were 1-1.5 million Orthodox people in Belarus and around 4 million Orthodox people or more in total in Commonwealth.
However, a huge part of the 3 million of people in Ukraine (Orthodox Ruthenians in Ukraine to be precise) were concentrated in Podolia, Bratslav, Volyn and Red Ruthenia which didn't suffer from devastations.
In Kiev Voivodship (not counting Chernigov voivodship) there was around a million of people. Wild Field started from Bila Tserkva and even Cherkasy were a land on the edge of the Wild Field, with Chyhyryn and river Tiasmyn being the borders of the settled land.
But we also need to remember a few things. First, Left Bank got colonized since XVII century, as a result of devastation and migration from the Right Bank. It had its density drastically increased in the XVIII century, making it decently populated. Secondly, the same goes for the Wild Field and for the Pontic Steppe. Those lands were properly colonized... and really, they definitely shouldn't be the most dense place of the Europe.

Now, today I had one button mechanics in mind to tell.

 

[fr-rein]

Recently, there was a mechanics to do minority expulsion, based on encouraging minority to move out.
It is a fine mechanics and idea. Details aside, it is one of those mechanics which really look quite new. But looking at it, it made me wonder if something in reverse could happen.

My suggestion is: allow ability to "invite" minorities. No, I don't mean overwriting those in their native provinces or something contemporary and controversial.
I mean adding a thing that existed in Russian Empire for example - inviting foreigners to settle in the vast steppes, recently liberated from Hordes. Yes, as you may have noticed, I do dislike Steppes having oddly high level of development. But what I say is that ability to invite Germans to settle on the banks of Volga would increase development of the "poor" provinces a lot.

How would it work:
Lets say we have a province with high development. It is more than... lets say 5/5/5, for starters. It means that the land is developed, that the economic develops and that people have a harder time to get land. It happens. It can be modifiable (province plundered, prospering, Christian, has latest institutions, etc) giving additional bonuses to its "weight" in the list.
And now, there is Russian Empire. Or Grand Cossack Hetmanate. Or a reformed Horde (aka Peter I was suddenly born in Crimea somehow ) and it has some backwater territories it would love to colonize. They should be less than 5/5/5 (for example, not necessarily tied to the other numbers above).
What happens now: Peter I of such a state wants to build a huge and prospering country and he has money. And he is willing to pay people to settle in the new lands and increase the prosperity of the territories. And now he has a few choices:

• Old one: pour MP to develop land. But what kind of wise ruler would do that?
• New one: invite foreigners to settle there.

The new option is historical. In a way, it can be said that USA did that. In a way, you can say that it is a wise ruler encouraging nearby people to settle in his empire from the lands disturbed by war and unrest. In history, Cathrine the Great (Empress of Russian Empire) did that, settling a lot of lands in the former Horde holdings. Thousands of Germans were invited to settle and settled there, leaving a huge trace up to XXth century ethnic cleansings.
So, what happens? You can use gold to buy the development (without reducing it in the province from which the minority is taken). The ability can be limited, but ultimately it would help some countries struggling with development to gain it - especially the ones which like Russia had sparsely populated territories. It applies to many African nations, Hordes, Native Americans and many others.

How does the game benefit from it?
Lets say that you're an African country. Or a Horde. Or some other "backwater" country compared to Europe. No offense.
And you have gold and strength after your struggles to become a better nation, but MP and low development would make you suffer underdevelopment. But... with some gold, you could actually develop yourself faster than it would be possible just from MP.
This said, it would be harder for Fetishist Africans - because there hardly would be other Africans or Fetishists much more developed. But a Christian African kingdom would be encouraged to be Christian as it would have ties with Europe, enabling ability to get minorities.

Why do I think that minorities would result in development?
Because primarily you would invite craftsmen, traders, farmers and other useful people, which would directly boost the economics. So, while their numbers would be small, they would still be substantial in influence.

Isn't such a gold moneysink too dangerous?
There are a few things that can limit it. Like a requirement in lagging behind in institution spread.
Another thing would be it adding you wrong faith/culture on the low-developed land. This would be a double-edged sword - while it would create a naturally "unloyal" province, you would also be able to rewrite "wrong" cultures, like Tatars in the Steppes.

I hope that it is an interesting mechanics to consider.

 

[fr-rein]

No, it's not a major criticism, but rather it involves Cossacks Estate, historical Wild Field definition and the (current) suggested map rework for the Ukraine region - it is not final, but the one which is currently relevant. Terrain mapmode (pre-GC) in thumbnails as a reference:

Now, a "terrain mapmode" for the reworked map (sorry for the messy way it looks like):

Mostly I suggest making nearly all splitted provinces into the terrains which were there - but with some exceptions.

1. Chornyi Lis aka province 29 (translates as "Black Forest") has a wood terrain. It is the southernmost edge of the forestry terrain spead in Ukraine and it includes a few historical forests/woods pointed in the historical maps (when they were much bigger).
2. Chornobyl aka province 36. In all honesty, it should have marshes/woods terrain. I personally stand for marshes as it is a heavily marshed territory, even nowadays after the Soviet de-marshing programs of land improvement. However, given that quite a few marched territories are woods... woods could be fine as well.
3. Chernigov aka province 5. The terrain there is more covered with woods and marches, with fracturing of that area it would be a more approtiate terrain.
4. Trubchevsk aka province 2. Wood terrain while rest of Severia becomes a grassland as it is a more approtiate terrain.
5. Belgorod aka province 14. It's not a wood, it is basically grassland/steppe there, so with a fragmentation of the map I fixed it.
6. Nizhyn aka province 6. Adjusted to the rest of Left Bank Ukraine.
7. Kharkov (aka province 15) and Izum (aka province 19) - adjusted as a steppe.
8. Budjak aka province 50. Steppe terrain for various reasons, including the gameplay ones (like housing Hordes and Cossacks at the different times, as well as having some specific terrain there).

There are a few concerns regarding terrain which I didn't touch and left as it was/left it undecided:

1. Farmalands and grasslands. In particular, I am curious why Left Bank Ukraine has farmland terrain and why Right Bank Ukraine has grassland terrain. While leaving it in place as it is, it is a curious point to discuss.
2. Kiev. Province 35 on my map. Now, you may ask, why am I asking about it? Simple - the location (and city itself) has some peculiar terrain. It is placed on the hills of Dnieper river, had a lot of marshes around it and plenty of forest. Yet... it is also an important city, yes, which is why it is a farmland. But Kiev wasn't really developing during EU4 timeframe - in fact, city to the south of it, Bila Tserkva (34 on my map) developed way more dynamically. I think it may be interesting to question what kind of terrain Kiev could have. Perhaps it could have woods/hill terrain while having bonuses to neglect the development harm? Otherwise, like major cities, it probablly could remain a farmland.
3. Odesa - province 27. The city mostly known as Khajibey, one that I argue being a major city, CoT and such, which wasn't really under Horde control but was under Ottomans. This city (perhaps along with Ochakov) could have farmland terrain for the sake of its strategic value.
4. Western Ukraine. I left it untouched, although I do wonder why it is more woods and not hills there (after all, Carpathian mountains do pass there).
5. Moldova. I am not particularly aware of a proper terrain for them, so I mostly set it aside.

Some sources I've used:

1. Beauplan general map of Ukraine in case of Chornyi Lis. In particular, this piece
2. 
   
   
3. Article about Pinsk Marches. I wish they were kind of more represented instead of being generic woods... but well, not going to argue much with it.
4. Soil map of Ukraine (here http://geomap.land.kiev.ua/soil.html)
5. Forest maps (here https://www.efi.int/knowledge/maps/forest)
6. Map of forests (here http://dklg.kmu.gov.ua/forest/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=33506&cat_id=32867) where you can clearly see the Chornyi Lis area:
7. 
   
   
8. Lastly, the argument for the Chornyi Lis in particular is a historical value I suppose, even if forests didn't have as many woods as some other pretending forests.

I hope that these terrain maps help with the Ukrainian map.
Retroactively, I do think that provinces 31-33 may need to be reorganized, but currently I will keep them as a max version map.

Now, I shall address some historical issues about the terrain:

First of all, I need to note one major thing: in perception of many, Wild Field started south-east to Bila Tserkva (under current borders - south to Kiev). It doesn't mean that the terrain was steppe-like, but it was devastated and/or had little inhabitants while having major Cossack settlers presents. Cherkasy province was a territory where the initial presense of Cossacks was - as it was a land which was quite devastated by the Horde raids and attacks ever since the fall Kievan of Rus. This is a big reason to actually consider Cossacks settling in Steppes only. I've already said that they were also important to the Siberia and Far East colonization, being an avangarde of the siberian frontiers. And Yaik Cossacks did settle in some rougher places near Caspian Sea than the steppe terrain - which also brings up questions.

So I do wonder: do Cossacks have to be "locked" under the Steppe terrain? For example, they did prosper on the grasslands and farmlands of Ukraine after all. A thing to consider when revisiting Cossacks!

P.S. Will gladly expand terrain map and reasonings on Moldova and adjustment reworked regions given a proper feedbacks and suggestions about them.

 

[fr-rein]

Development is good.

But what is development?
Sometimes we see small provinces in Europe being quite rich based simply on population, trade and importance.
Sometimes we see some moderate in size provinces being quite rich in New World because of potential wealth. Or something.
Sometimes we see Hordes having developed provinces... for balance purposes, I suppose.

And in one place we see this:

Take a good look at it. It is a place where the settled territories end and the Hordelands start.
Funny... but as you can see, hordes have way higher tax power, manpower (attached to provinces), trade power.
Dynamical Hordes are represented as great taxpayers and traders. Heck, with their population, they are way more developed than their more settled neighbors. It is wrong.
It is wrong. And it needs a few changes, including a Horde overhaul to a more CK2-like thing, with perhaps moving hordes to estates and gaining power not from the undeveloped(!) steppes, but from the hordes themselves, from the men which always made Hordes.
All this said, it means that I do advocate to redistribute development for Ukraine. I suggest to not touch it much - since with my suggested provinces it'll increase quite a bit. It'll represent the easily growing development of the land as well, with more estates planted there and with cheap development costs (perhaps a few special events, like with a suggested Jews Estate, could help). I don't mention that with a land having quite a few resources there could be great improvements for it in this regard. But again, mostly it would be less developed provinces but on a good terrain.
Surely, bigger and wealthier provinces are more desirable as you don't have to spend as much MP on them. However, isn't it all more the reason to give some less developed territories more means to develop, like with estates developing provinces?

Alright, and the last thing - Kiev. No, it wasn't that developed. I hope that some development from it will go to Bila Tserkva, which was comparable in importance to Kiev at that timeframe. As much as Kiev is nice, it wasn't exactly a big city at that time.

I hope that this info helps a bit, although it is not really anything new. Next topic: resources.

 

[fr-rein]

Current trade mapmode (v.1.27)

Before I procede with talking about new trade goods in region I must say that it always makes me smile how way more grain is produced in Russian woods than in Right Bank Ukraine Or that Ukraine has way more cattle than grain. It is a bit amusing and I don't really know if it'll be addressed in future with some balancing.
Another thing is Iron. I mean... I really don't grasp logics behind its placement. Somehow it is located a lot around Muscovy for example, making it great with a trade power... but I don't really recall much iron/other similar metals there or Moscow being a great iron producer? Main deposits were in Ural after all and it is a fact.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not really accussing but wondering about reasoning for such trade goods and wonder if update should be done to it.

Now, the suggested trade goods map for the updated Ukrainian region map:

Some comments about the map:

• 31-33 province - grain.
• Added iron to provinces 28, 21, 17, 18, 19 as it is naturally deposited there and extracted.
• Added grain to the Right Bank Ukraine.
• retained and added livestock in most of places, put it in Zaporozhia
• added grapes to 34 (Bila Tserkva to make it more valuable in terms of trade as it was historically in that period
• more grapes to Moldavia
• Clothes to Odesa to make it more important as a trade center and give it a potential, as well as reflecting overall trade importance of it. Or in worst case, it can stick to salt.
• Didn't touch Severia for a few reasons
• Belgorod (province 14) received cattle due to terrain reason and because we split it in this map

The things that are debatable and up to change, as well as to consider:

• Severian trade goods. No, really, I don't know where did that iron come from.
• Kiev trade good - is grain really okay? Ruthenia has no real value goods for all game, would it really be okay?..
• Donbass metals - while not all of them are filled with a brink with iron ores, I do think that they deserve to have iron as much as many other provinces in Eastern Europe
• there are other things to possibly change due to balance issues

I hope that while looking at this suggestion, people will pay attention to a very possible and interesting addition of the Dniester trade zone.

Last, but not the least: coal map (marked with black circles)!

It is a no-brainer, it is based on real-life coal basin. The coal basin in Western Ukraine I don't count. I dunno why Kharkov had coal, I kinda retained it. It is really needed to know reasons why some resources are placed the way they are.

A supplemental map for the ores:

In general, regardless of how critically accepted would be this trade goods change/update, I hope that Ukraine will receive a decent trade update.

 

[fr-rein]

A small update containing clearer province map to judge it better.

Spoiler: Details

1 - Starodub. The issue with a province of Trubchevsk was that it was in fact Starodub. And even objectively the Trubchevsk town is outside of the province. The province itself was drawn mostly right on the map, but it being Trubchevsk was a lie. I've split Trubchevsk into a separate province and this should fix the issue for both.
2 - Trubchevsk. It was noted already not only here that currently Trubchevsk is on the territory of Starodub and that actual town is in Severia. I've put it where it should be. Based on maps of Russian Empire's administrative divisions of XVIII centuries which more or less follow historical divisions, I've drawn Trubchevsk. I added Sevsk to it, both of which were outside of Hetmanate, so it should be the best historical solution not breaking other historical boundaries. The map I used for admin divisions is here.
3 - Novgorod-Siversky. Needless to say, an old and important town and a historical province, a heart of Severia essentially.
4 - Hlukhov. Northern capital of Hetmanate, a place which once played a prominent role in the history. A separate administrative and miltary unit under Hetmanate, a place where the Cossack cultured ended and Russia began, being on the boundary of cultures.
5 - Chernigov. Needless to say, an old and important town and a historical region. Southern part of it was split into Nizhyn for historical reasons.
6 - Nizhyn. Not only it is Nizhyn, a fine city of the Hetmanate era, but also the province is a home to other fine towns of Cossack glory, such as Konotop and Baturyn. With a doubt, I've put the province separate to reflect on its historical significance.
7 - Lubny. Combined with Pryluky and separated near-Dnieper part of them into Kremenchuk, grouping local administrative units better.
8 - Pereyaslav. I've split off Pryluky and Zolotonosha from them since the province already catches huge swathes of territory.
9 - Kremenchuk. One of the fine cities of Ukraine, an old town with a Cossack history. I've adjusted to it to be near Dnieper - not only for the sake of drawing map, but because administrative lines there varied a lot. Historically the province would be even on both banks sometimes, but mainly it was along Dnieper, so I followed this reasoning.
10 - Myrhorod. An important town of the Left Bank Ukraine, combined with Hadyach. A place for fateful Cossack gathering, a town famous for its mineral waters... and so on.
11 - Rylsk. Based on many maps, I've split Rylsk from Sumy. Main issue with it was that Rylsk, including Putywl, were outside of Sloboda Ukraine. And in general them having a separate province from the territorially dominant Sumy (which are.... province center right now there) is a right thing. I put Rylsk into the same area as Kursk. Addressed here.
12 - Sumy. Part of the Sloboda Ukraine, together with Okhtyrka formed the northern part of it. I put Sumy as a separate province for a historical reason - it was south to Zasechanaya Cherta, Russian line of fortifications against Tatars and thus sparsely populated until the land was being reclaimed by escaping from wars peasants of Right Bank Ukraine and Cossacks, which were settling the territories of Sloboda Ukraine, part of which Sumy are.
13 - Kursk. Just mentioning it because I've split Belgorod from it.
14 - Belgorod. I've addressed it here. To put it shortly - not only it is a fine city of Belgorod, but also Jagoldai T'ma, essentially Tatar vassals of the Lithuania later turned to Moscow. They are interesting guys and the place, along with Rylsk and others was a subject of wars between Lithuania and Muscovy in the early XVI century. Legacy of Mamai alone is noteworthy and interesting for it and for the dynamics of the province. Same area as Kursk.
15 - Kharkov. I've excluded Okhtyrka from it and some part of Izum regiment. It it based on the regiment administrative divisions of the Sloboda Ukraine.
16 - Poltava. Essentially, stripped it from some parts which belong to other provinces (Myrhorod, Kremenchuk) and limited to the Cossack regiment which was based there.
17 - Oril. The province I mentioned in Donbas rework. To put it shortly - it is left bank part of Ekaterinoslav, administratively coinciding with Pavlograd, Novomoskovsk, Verkhedneprovsk (partially) uezds of Russia empire, as well as limited by geography, adjusted to borders which existed on maps.
18 - Bahmut. A real Bahmut. Addressed here, but in short - Bahmut town is situated in Donbas. I tried to adjust it to historical borders, including Slavo-Serbian ones, but admittedly the line between it and Mariupol is somewhat arbitrary in this version.
19 - Izum. Mostly includes the Izum regiment with a north part of contemporary Luhansk oblast' of Ukraine, including Starobil'sk. Part of the Sloboda Ukraine.
20 - Mariupol.
21 - Kodak. Northern part of the Dnieper river which wasn't actually the part where Cossacks resided. A fortress, built to contain Cossacks and somewhat Tatars. And the future city of Yekaterinoslav (aka Dnepropetrovsk aka Dnipro city). Mostly it is northern right bank part of Ekaterinoslav, roughly having split a province south to it - Zhovti Vody.
22 - Zaporozhia. Essentially, I made Zaporozhia its very own place - which includes the strip of land near Dniepro, a strip including locations of historical homes (Siches) for Zaporozhians.
23 - Yedishkul.
24 - Ingul. It was a bit smaller on most maps, so I adjusted it (but probably drew a bit too southwards now).
25 - Ochakov. A historical fortress of Ochakov, a province which was one of the homes for the Russian fleet.
26 - Yedisan. Here I've split the steppe from from the towns. The north of Odesa region is predominantly agricultural and was always different from the town. Moreover, gameplay-wise I see Yedisan Horde (a split-off horde from Nogais) settling there as they did historically and being another horde to attack PLC and the region.
27 - Odesa. Also known as the fortress of Khajibey and in XV century - Ginetra colony of Genoa. Arguably it is a center of trade from Stambul to Poland and Ruthenia, a path even more important than Crimea which became alive only after Ottomans were no longer sole masters of the Black Sea.
28 - Zhovti Vody. You know that place. Not only it includes the historical location, but also the latter Kryvyi Rih and the future industrious and agricultural riches of it. Logistically, it is aimed for better division in the Wild Steppe and more Steppe for Cossacks.
29 - Chornyi Lis. The forest which marked the location where the Wild Field started, a place where often Tatars were gathering to start their destructive raids. In XVIII century it was a place where was Nova Serbia + I include town and future Elizavetgrad (aka Kirovograd aka Kropyvnytskyj) in this province, as well as adjusted Cossack Sloboda there.
30 - Syni Vody. The westernmost location of the Wild Field, having some historical relevance. I associate it with Bugogard regiment of Cossacks there. Effectively this was a path for Tatars aka the Black Trail, one of the main raid routes. Adjusted to matсh Bugogard palanka of Cossack administrative units. Arguably, Elizavetgrad could be a part of it.
31 - Chyhyryn. The city of Cossack glory, one of the Hetmanate capitals. As well as Cherkasy and other fine towns, it was important source for the Cossack Regiments.
32 - Cherkasy.
33 - Korsun'. Relevant city of the Cossack era. As you saw with Bila Tserkva already, it takes a part of Winnica. It is because of the Zwenyhorodka area, which was disputed between Bratslav and Kiev Voivodships. It remained outside of Ottoman Eyalet. Overall, the area is relevant and should be represented as a separate area.
34 - Bila Tserkva. A relevant and rich town, rivaling Kiev in size and prosperety at the time, the area there deserves a separate province. A border for the Right Bank Ukraine. The borders with Zhytomyr were drawn with lines of Cossack regiments in mind. I also took a part of Zwenyhorodka povet for it.
35 - Kiev. Needless to say, the city always had a special role and relevance in the region even in darkest times. Province borders follow the borders for a century before the partitions happened. Arguably, it should be a hilly province.
36 - Chornobyl. As I've argued, it deserves to be a separate province in size, it was a separate administrative unit under Lithuania and in general it makes sense without Kiev. I didn't touch Mozyr, although in general Polotsk region could use some touches.
37 - Ovruch. Didn't touch it.
38 - Zhytomyr. I took the Bila Tserkva region out of it.
39 - Winnica. Took away Uman' from it.
40 - Uman'. I've corrected southern borders for Podolia. As you can see, Podolia overall grew a bit bigger, so I took liberty to take away Zwenyhorodka and split the increased Bratslav into Bratslav and Uman'. Uman's was a relavant town in the region, with its own history and significance deserving attention. Borders are drawn with Cossack regiments in mind.
41 - Bratslav. Adjusted accordingly.
42 - Podolia. I took Ivangorod from it, following the the border lines after the 1st partition of Poland.
43 - Terebovl. Article about it here. To put it shortly, I decided to make it a separate province. It includes Ivanohorod region of Podolia and the souther-eastern part of Lwow, namely around Terebovl. The town itself is ancient and was a subject to many different countries. I took it away from Red Ruthenia to increase Lwow density, added it to Podolia instead and with that I made it possible to draw partition lines as well. Despite the fact that it is not precisely in line with Polish administrative divisions, they weren't always good or precise anyway and in this one case I consider making it better for the map.
44 - Kolomyja. First of all, Halych was nearly outside of that province. Simply moving borders a bit, we can have Kolomyja (an old trade town) a separate province.
45 - Halych. I decided to simply move Halych there and make it its own province. Without redrawing map it is hard to fix and I am not sure if it is needed.
46 - Lwow. Took away Terebovl from it.
47 - Khotyn. Moldova changes were addressed here, but on this map I take a conservative approach by dividing it in 2 areas and givign +3 provinces there. Khotyn is a relavant and historical place in northern Bessarabia.
48 - Orhei. Addressed here.
49 - Tighina. Addressed here. In short, it was an important Dniester fortress and location to move across it.
50 - Budjac. Addressed here.
51 - Birlad. Addressed here.
52 - Iasy. Addressed here.
53 - Bacau. Addressed here.
54 - Suceava. Addressed here.
55 - Ostrohozhsk. Addressed in Donbas rework, the place should be adjusted to match at least somewhat the real Sloboda Ukraine.

Overall 20 new provinces in Ruthenian region and 3 more in Moldova.
However, I believe that this relatively neglected region deserves these provinces. The density here doesn't even match the one in other immersion packs and I believe that Right Bank Ukraine and Wild Field deserve attention if Haiti can have 8 provinces. And especially poor little Moldova, them having 8 provinces (I argue for 10 though) should be alright.
I have in mind the Tatar Raids mechanics, which would offset the benefits of the more provinces. As for the development, it is currently very unjust. Moreover, I see no reason why some colonies in New World have greater development values than Ruthenia.

I hope that this map will be considered.

Sources used: Hetmanate map, map of Oryol Namestnichestvo with Trubchevsk Uezd, Poland after 1619, Poland in 1635 (Trubchevsk was given away to Russia only in 1645, but the map includes this change already... so it is more correct for 1645), map of Desna river, map of Sloboda Ukraine and partially this map of Hetmanate in 1648 after the Uprising - but in this particular case sources of the map itself are vague, said that they used works of Krykun as a base. Overall it more or less corresponds to the separate wiki articles about separate regiments.

Terrain map:

The main detail I would like to put here is that amount of provinces is justifiable here.
The region doesn't get more detailed than Balkans and Central Russia.
While admittedly Wild Field has multiple provinces, they are necessary for the future raid maneuvering and gameplay in the region. Not to mention its huge development potential.
Another thing is that it actually puts more worth into Moldavia. It is sadly underestimated as a state and while I do know that it would be more detailed than Balkans at the moment... it would also have a rework on other regions of Romania. Right now it is kinda as dense as Bulgaria, so updating density for Moldavia would make sense (given that 2 provinces would be eaten by Ottomans and that later Russian Empire will take away one state, Bessarabia, from Moldavia).

Notably, map doesn't really include Belarus or South Russia. The reason is that I don't have a sufficient knowledge on that area to make it more detailed, so I live it up to others to add/suggest there.

 

[fr-rein]

a small update to the trade, featuring trade mapps according to the aforementioned suggestions:

Here is a basic map for the trade resources that I suggest for the area. It may not be balanced enough, but I hope that it gives a basic idea of what is traded there (mostly nothing changed except for more metal in metal-producing regions).

As for the trade map, I have a conservative version for the Dniester-Odesa trade node:

And a bit expanded one, including Red Ruthenia.
Why do I include Red Ruthenia in there? Because it actually matches with the trade flow of the trade node and it allows Poland to control the nod most of the time. At the same time, in case the nod is annexed by Russian Empire, it is serving trade to Kiev and Russia. Lwow was a part of the Dniester trade route, until the trade fully waned with Russian Empire taking Moldova.
Moldavia also gets a more historical trade, being able to trade with Poland via Dniester. And in case you get a greater Moldavia, it would probably a better nod as well.

The only thing that may be bad about the expanded version relative to the other version is the trade power and riches of Poland node waning a bit. On the other side, Poland gets to redirect a certain part of that to the Poland itself, which should probably compensate it.

The nod is reasonably big and important enough to be separated, as well as making Odesa and Dniester vital to the economics of Ruthenia and Moldavia.

 

[fr-rein]

Zaporozhia basically refers to the "Військо Запорізьке Низове" - about Zaporozhian Sich and the lands which were in its jurisdiction. It was always a special case, being a country of purely Cossacks, a definitely Cossack State from start to the end... with Cossack State government, not being a Horde.

One of the small things would be changing the name for the state (not province). Nothing major, but I suppose that using Zaporozhia instead of Zaporozhie would be more logical and better for the sake of integrity. And no, it's not Ukrainian version (which would be Zaporizhzhya).

An important issue would be about the flag. Right now the one used for Zaporozhia is a Archangel Michael - and indeed, it is the most common symbol used by Cossacks. The problem is that it becomes ahistorical when you have a few Cossack States or Hetmanate around as it was also often used by others. It also wasn't a unique symbol to the Zaporozhia Cossacks - rather than that, it was a symbol often used by Ruthenians in many other different circumstances.

As such, I offer to use another, better fitting flag:

It was a common theme for Cossacks to use local version of cross pattée (more known as a Templar Cross), with celestial bodies put on the flag. Son and moon were commonly met in there in different variations of the flag, and in general it is the most common unique flag for the Zaporozhia, save for Michael which isn't unique to it and directly associated with it.
This is the main version of the Zaporozhia flag. Other version were employed at different times, and other local subdivisions had similar varitions.

Spoiler: Variations of the flags for Zaporozhia

Here are some minor flags, from those captured during the war with Poland:

More notably, the initial banner of Bohdan Khmelnytsky when he led Zaporozhian Cossacks looks like this:

Source here.

The major one source (about Khmelnytsky banner when he led Zaporozhian Cossacks) is here. Paradox stuff can actually check it themselves as it is at Armémuseum, Stockholm, Sweden

Now, about the borders&cores of Zaporozhia and the new map (as it is currently suggested).

Here are the cores of Zaporozhia and the approximate territory for it (depending on the time when it functions, etc).
What does it change? It represents Wild Field way better. PLC doesn't get instability from Cossacks being in Wild Field, instead it actually has a decent reason to keep a Cossack State as a vassal and feed it with Steppe as it kinda was historically. I mean, lets face it, we all realistically know that Wild Field wasn't developed. Giving it away to Cossacks while using them as Ottomans used Crimea would be logical. Since Russia actually also used Zaporozhia (not Hetmanate, but exactly Zaporozhia) in very similar borders and such until integrating it around 1775, it is very decently following the history. And, like many players would say, having historical vassals there holding land would also benefit to the gameplay, especially because it would save efforts and MPs.
With a map rework, the suggested territory would receive a rich flavour for the warfare for major powers (Poland, Lithuania, Commonwealth, Russia, Ottomans) and the minor ones (Crimea, Moldavia, Zaporozhia, Hetmanate, Ruthenia), not to mention other possible contenders (including Genoa if it somehow keeps Ginestra).

The ideas and missions will be in a separate post. Given that there is a need for the Khmelnytsky Disaster as a thing to be fleshed out in suggestion, I would tie some ideas, missions and pathes with it in mind.
Last remark - I talk about current ZAZ tag, but I do not include The Hetmanate tag for it as it is a different formation, which co-existed with Zaporozhia. But more about it will be in a post dedicated to the Hetmanate.

Hopefully, this information will be helpful.

 

[fr-rein]

The Hetmanate is a special case of a state. Right now, it's not present in game, although I would say that it should be.

So, what is The Hetmanate?

Lets start with a name. Being a state of Cossacks (not a national state), it didn't have a specific name for itself other than being referred as the Cossack State, or the Hetman's State, thus it is commonly referred by a later term "Hetmanate" ("Гетьманщина").
This state was a result of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, which resulted in the creation of the Hetmanate encompassing most Orthodox Ruthenians (in this context without Belarusian/Polotskian culture, so it is commonly equalized with Ukrainians, although its not quite correct), having Zaporozhia as a part of it and uniting all Cossacks in fight agains the Commonwealth for their rights, joined by peasants which hoped for the Serfdom abolishment.

It was higher in rank than Zaporozhia. Moreover, it punched way above its weight. Fact is, it could sustain wars against the Commonwealth and Russia for a while, with raising armies as big as 100 000 people. In EU4, it would be even more with its tendency to make armies bigger than they usually were.

Here is the map of The Hetmanate under the rule of Khmelnytsky:

Under the map suggestion it corresponds to the territory:

A few notable things to know would be that later Zaporozhia re-emerged as a separate entity, while The Hetmanate entered into the civil war between the two parts - Left Bank and Right Bank Hetmanates. I will expand on these entities in another post as they were quite dynamic.

Despite the ruin of the time period known in Ukrainian history as The Ruin (roughly 1657-1687), the Right-Bank Hetmanate collapsed in the end. Hetman of the Left-Bank Ukraine, vassal to Russia, Ivan Mazepa united and rebuilt the Left Bank and with a start of the Northern War and defeat of the Commonwealth in the war he occupied the territory of the Right Bank Ukraine, re-uniting both Hetmanates.
Later he joined the Northern War on Sweden side, but he lost. Russia, which didn't recognize his occupation of Right bank, returned it to the Commonwealth and started the integration of The Hetmanate, which under the Malorussian Collegium ended in 1783.

Territories of Hetmanate since Mazepa during various times:

Red - The Hetmanate in its borders under Russia, basically unchanged until the integration.
Orange - Kiev. It was a part of The Hetmanate under Mazepa as a vassal of Russia. After 1708 (Mazepa's rebellion and later defeat) it was ruled directly by Russia.
Green - territories taken by Mazepa from Poland during the Northern war, returned to the Commonwealth after Mazepa's defeat (except for Kiev).
Purple - Bakhmut, gained to Zaporozhia from Crimea during a certain time in XVIII century.
Blue - Zaporozhia. It wasn't under The Hetmanate at that time period and didn't support his rebellion and alliance with Sweden. Integrated in 1775, but instead of a normal integration could be done via a special event.

You could take a look at the wiki, by any standards you could see that The Hetmanate was a separate political entity and not a part of the Russian green blob. It's kind of a sad underrepresentation which doesn't really have much reasons to exist as it kills a lot of flavour. It does look naturally though since Russian Empire in XVIII century is usually shown as one huge blob.

Now, about CoA.
Thankfully, there is an accessible wiki article about the Hetmanate's CoA. In particular, Cossacks predominantly used red colour in heraldry and a few other sources (oral sources, M. Hrushevsky, other existing similar pieces from Cossacks). One of the wiki variants suggests this one, which would be likely to be most fitting for The Hetmanate:

Prototype:

One of the popular reconstructions, albeit not that good for the Hetmanate in my opinion:

I suggest using the "Cossack with a rifle" for the flag of the Hetmanate simply because there was no one uniform flag - but instead this was used as Hetman's insignia.

Gameplay-wise, it would be a big help to both Russia and Ottomans. Depending on who will manage to get control over Hetmanate and set their control in Ruthenia, they would gain a great vassal. In particular, for Russia it would actually make annexation of Ukraine way more attractive as they would get it without having to state the land or pour development into it. For Poland, Hetmanate would be unlikely to be a vassal, unless the Commonwealth will concede to making Ruthenia a third part of it.
And of course, it actually fully brings Cossacks to their historical relevance.

Hopefully, this information will help. I will later tell more about the Left and Right Bank Hetmanates in context of the Khmelnytsky disaster.
Ideas and missions will be suggested seperately.

 

[fr-rein]

The Khmelnytsky Disaster refers to the Khmelnytsky Uprising.

Importance and why it deserves to be a disaster.
To put it simply, this event was far more than a regular Cossack rebellion.
All Cossack rebellions previously were far less organized, fighting for the far more limited goals and were mostly unsuccessful. Moreover, an important thing was that Zaporozhia Cossacks were not the Register Cossacks (aka the officially employed Cossacks) and the previous uprisings were commonly done by the Register Cossacks in the Commonwealth.

What happened during the Khmelnytsky Uprising? The unrest and dissatisfaction reached a tipping point. Problems which Ruthenian Orthodox population encoutered were too much. And probably the last thing that tipped the wages was the fact that Khmelnytsky, who was a loyal noble serving to the King, had his estates pillaged and taken by the local Polish lord.

Khmelnytsky fled to the Zaporozhia, where he was elected as a Hetman, the leader of Sich. Deciding to rebel agains the King and the Commonwealth, he made sure to have an extensive support from Cossacks and managed to ally with Crimean Khanate, gaining a big military force under his lead. He went against the King and, with his preparations, he crushed the armies sent to defeat him like all other previous revolts. Register Cossacks, seeing his success, joined him and recognized him as a Hetman, hoping to expand the Cossack Register (number of the Registered Cossacks). Orthodox priests blessed him in his fight against the encroaching Catholicism. And population, which lost any hope in the nobility which turned catholic and pro-polish/polish, also rallied under him with hopes to cancel the Serfdom. Huge numbers of militias were following his armies.

It wasn't a mere Cossack Uprising. It was a rebellion and a war declared by the Ruthenia to the Commonwealth. It went far beyond the Steppe (which wasn't an active theater of war actually), it was a religious war, a class war and a national war. As it is a matter far beyond cossacks, it is definitely done by the Cossack Disaster.

Thus, it should be a special event, akin to the Dutch Rebellion, but of course done a bit better.

What are the reasons for the event to fire?
I would make a "counter" kind of disaster. I will name some arbitrary numbers to give an example.
Lets say we get a counter to 1000. Each month, a certain thing ticks up to the disaster:

• +1 point monthly per every Ruthenian/Ryazanian province. Statets which have either of these as primary don't get penalties from one of these.
• Catholics get +2 points per every Orthodox province, +1 per every Uniate province, -1 per every Catholic province, +3 per every non-Christian province.
• Orthodox ruler (Russia) gets -1 per every Orthodox province, +1 per every Uniate province, +2 per Catholic/Protestant province, +3 per every Sunni province. Thus, Russia can trigger the event, but it would require some others stimuli to trigger or to conquer a Catholic/Uniate Ruthenia.
• Non-christians get +3 per every Christian province, -1 per every true faith province and 0 from others.
• +200 points at once in case of establishing Uniate Church as it diminishes status of the
• 5 points monthly to the converted provinces (religion/culture).
• +1 point per every Noble and Jew estate established in province.
• +1 point for the clergy estate when country is not Orthodox/Uniate.
• +200 points at once when Zaporozhia is established.
• +1 point per every Zaporozhia province/dev. However, having Zaporozhia reduces issues and point gain from Register Cossacks (Cossack Estate).
• extra points for the Cossack estate events and for the Register Cossack events
• gain/loss of points depending on the personality of Hetman of Register Cossacks (Crown Hetman)
• Lithuania would naturally have a modifier (-2 for example) on the increase of the unrest as long as Orthodoxy still makes a majority in the country.
• extra events and being overly oppressive
• +1 point per every tax/mil dev when Serfdom is there (which is usually present or at least should be)
• extra points per every raid on the Ruthenian lands

The balance and exact numbers are to be changed-edited.
Idea is that, naturally, until Commonwealth happens the gain is rather low unless Poland eats Lithuania manually.
When the Commonwealth happens, most of the counters start to count more actively as Lithuanin "buff" reducing the count of these points expires and Cossacks and Zaporozhia appear. In around 100 years, with Poland creating Uniate Church, denying Cossacks, trying to spread Uniate faith and such, the Disaster would naturally happen.

Natural ways to reduce the count would be:

• conversion to the Uniate faith
• employing Cossacks
• attacking heathen rulers while (enough) Cossacks are employed
• having under direct control Pontic Steppe and Yedisan areas
• conversion to the state culture culture
• defeating Cossack/Orthodox/Ruthenian uprisings

In order to stop the issue, a few solutions are there:

• Release Ruthenia. And well, if you reconquer it the Disaster count will resume. So, not really worth it.
• Include Ruthenia as a full-fledged member of the Commonwealth. A choice with many possible penalties, weaknesses, but opening a new path for the state as a whole.
• Convert it to the true faith. Not fully stopping disaster, but actually making Ruthenia as loyal as Lithuania.

To be edited further. Feel free to criticize/add suggestions.

What will happen in case Disaster fires?
Normally, in case Commonwealth controls Ruthenia, The Hetmanate appears and a war with Poland starts.
ZAZ tags is included in case it exists, if ZAZ is a player - it gets to decide whether they want to become The Hetmanate or not.

In case a few countries control it - they get to decide whether they'll oppose it or not.

• Ottoman Empire will tolerate losing a few provinces to the Hetmanate, seeing it as a possible ally against The Commonwealth and probably Muscovy. Of course, unless the Ottomans control Ruthenia and the rebellion is aimed at them.
• Russian Empire would normally tolerate the rebellion unless it is aimed against them and let go of the provinces. As a compensation, events firing for The Hetmanate becoming Russian vassal would be likely, making it a win for Russian Empire.
• The Commonwealth, the most common victim, wouldn't tolerate the Uprising. Unless it is somehow tolerant, accepted Ruthenia and such, making possible an odd scenario where Russian Empire is the bad guy.

For The Hetmanate, there will be certain choices about allying and seeking help from foreign nations. The weight of the AI The Hetmanate accepting them would depend on the situation on hand.

When the event fires, The Hetmanate gets a formiddable army while noble estates raise their own pro-Polish/etc rebels to counter it and fight against it (like it was in case with Jeremia Vyshnevetsky).

Then, the war starts as a part of this disaster, and a number of smaller wars may occur.

As a follow-up of this war, a few outcomes may happen:

• In case The Commonwealth (or other empire) fully wins, it may restore order and gain a significant against the Orthodox population, as well as removing non-loyal Cossacks.
• In case the war goes indicisively, without The Commonwealth conceding its defeat and revoking claim on The Hetmanate (like restore order... I can't recall which CB is best to use in this case, gonna check it later) and with The Hetmanate not being fully independent (staying as a vassal to Russia for example), it may break down into two + Zaporozhia.
• In case The Hetmanate wins and makes the former overlord acknowledge them, they gain independence, a huge boost and trigger some crisis for the overlord for losing such a big region.
• In case The Hetmanate wins decisively against The Commonwealth and the king of Commonwealth dies, The Hetmanate can push for installing the current Hetman (most likely Khmelnytsky) as a new King. In that case, The Commonwealth reforms with Hetman as a head of it, religion flipped and Kiev becoming a new capital.

Left and Right Bank Hetmanates

To put it shortly, in case The Hetmanate is not defeated, yet fails to achieve victory within a certain period (around 10 years since the start) it may split after loosing faith in the course of action of the current ally.

Historically, it happened as a division of The Hetmanate on the Right Bank and Left Bank groups, with Zaporozhia being released as well. I would naturally suggest making it that way:

• Left Bank Hetmanate would be normally inclined to stay as a vassal/ally of Russia
• Right Bank Hetmanate would be normally inclined to stay as Polish ally/vassal
• Each of these could be dissatisfied with Poland/Russia enough to enter in alliance with Ottomans instead in case they wouldn't make any gains. Normally it would apply to the Right Bank as it failed to negotiate and save itself a good deal with Poland and the distaste for the Catholic Poland made some Hetmans seek an alliance with Ottoman Empire instead.

Each of the Hetmanates (and Zaporozhia too) would have an option to re-assemble (for hetmanates, uniting two of those and securing key territories would be a goal, ZAZ would be optional). It happened under the Hetman Mazepa, however under him The Hetmanate later failed a war against Russia, lost Right Bank to Poland and the control under it only tightened.



This is a rough summary for the way how the Disaster would look like with some alternative outcomes.
To be edited. Hope to hear suggestions, corrections and feedback.