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!

 

[fr-rein]

The thing is simple. I just suggest to make it an event where after some number raids and earning a certain (low) amount of Khmelnytsky Disaster points there would be an event about appearance of Zaporozhia in game. First Sich appearead around late XV century (since 1470-s - Tomakivka Sich) and nothing really changed after that, Zaporozhia was always a wild field under the Cossacks essentially.
Of course, historically it appears in 1555, related to the construction of Khortytsia fortress. However, it was already there prior to it. Given that the appearance of Zaporozhia would actually pretty much benefit Lithunia and Poland by shielding them somewhat from the Crimea, allowing Zaporozhia to become a state would be benefitial. And, of course, the event would be optional - king could refuse it and suffer from having quite big steppe territory in his holding.

Right now, of course, it is irrelevant on the current map, so of course I suggest it with map changes in mind.

 

[Theironemperor]

I'd like to make a point about the name.

It was officially called "Zaporozhian Host". Common people would refer to it as Ukraine or, sometimes, Ruthenia (Rus), which was more of an archaic and romantic way to call the former territory of Rus. Later the Kyivan Orthodox clergy came up with the idea of the All-Russian Nation, which was supposed to be a supernation consisting of Little Russians (Ukrainians), Greater Russians (Russians) and White Russians (Belorusians). It was important for Ukrainians to be a titular nation of the Russian Tsardom and later the All-Russian Empire (it was the official name), having all the same rights and privileges of Russians, and not just a vassalized people. Ironically, later the Russians will use this idea in their numerous attempts to assimilate Ukrainians.
As for "Hetmanate" it is not a name of the state, it's just a type of government, ruled by Hetman. So the Hetmanate should be the type of government and not the name.
The name should be either Ukraine or Ruthenia. Zaporozhia would be too confusing.


And I also suggest adding the Kiev Principality at the start, as it would add flavor to the region and being fully historical.
It would also make it possible to play for a Ruthenian nation.

The first Sich could also be now made with the pirate republic mechanics, as they were pretty similar.


Oh, and I don't understand why isn't Russia a Tatar vassal at the beginning. Didn't they manage to get rid of the Tatar rule only by 1480 (paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate till the 17th century)?

 

[fr-rein]

It was officially called "Zaporozhian Host".

It is rather a problem with name of Cossack States (with Sich Rada government), which is easily solved by adding "Host" to it. Like it is with Revolutionary republics - just name new Cossack States "XXX Host". "Zaporozhia Host", or with some random names - "Azov Host", "Basarabia Host", etc. Will post about it separately to devs, it is actually a good thing and (hopefully) won't take much to implement.

As for "Hetmanate" it is not a name of the state, it's just a type of government, ruled by Hetman. So the Hetmanate should be the type of government and not the name.

While you're correct, you're not right.
As a society, The Hetmanate was a special snowflake. It is one of a few stratocracies in the world. It was different from Zaporozhia Host simply by the virtue of actually handling civilian affairs - something that Zaporozhia never really did in real life. And yet, it was far more different from the Ruthenia - like Sparta would be different from Greece.

The issue with a name is that The Hetmanate state didn't have any official name. So it is applied retroactively for this reason.
In a way, you could think of it as of the peak perfomance of a usual Cossack Host, when it evolves from into a stratocratic state. So, The Hetmanate definitely deserves their own tag for this very reason, being a very special snowflake.

From my point of view, you would have a following link: Zaporozhia => The Hetmanate (can appear separately from Zaporozhia and absorb it when the Khmelnytsky Uprising triggers) => Ruthenia (can be formed by The Hetmanate). This would not equalize the Cossacks as Ruthenians/Ukrainians directly, but give you a way to form the state if you wish for it.
About Ruthenia-Ukraine name issue - I think that it can remain Ruthenia. I mean, Ukraine is a name that was applied in the later part of EU4 and since all cultures around are Polotskian, Muscovite, Novgorodian, Ryazanian (which really should be Severian) having Ukrainian culture would be out of place, as well as Ukraine for Ruthenians.

The first Sich could also be now made with the pirate republic mechanics, as they were pretty similar.

There is a Sich Rada government already. Thankfully, Cossack states have quite some fluff to them. It can be made even better, but pirates are definitely not relevant in this case.

Oh, and I don't understand why isn't Russia a Tatar vassal at the beginning. Didn't they manage to get rid of the Tatar rule only by 1480 (paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate till the 17th century)?

They were only paying tribute to the Tatars to not get raided in the EU4 timeframe (including the start date, yes). Since the raid system is yet to be present in the game, there is no kind of tribute Russia and others pay. But if there was a raiding system, Russia and Crimea would be able to make a tribute agreement which would have Russia paying gold to Crimea monthly to not get raided which would be historical. And, of course, it applies to other raiders and nations that are within raiding range.

 

[Sanguine Caesar]

"Hetmanate" it is not a name of the state, it's just a type of government, ruled by Hetman.

Same thing goes for the Palatinate, which is already in-game and people don't seem to have a problem with it. If they wanted to they could have called it the Rhine, but that doesn't really work so they went with the Palatinate. So applying the same logic to the Hetmanate seems reasonable enough.

Also I would just like to say that this is a great thread @fr-rein!

 

[Theironemperor]

by adding "Host

You see, "Host" could refer both to Sich and to the Hetmanate, which could be pretty confusing. Other Cossack Hosts were simply Sich's, not being an actual state, but rather a political formation as the Zaporozhian Sich was.

It was different from Zaporozhia Host

See, here you refer to the Zaporozhian Sich as Zaporozhian Host.
The Hetmanate IS Zaporozhian Host. Zaporozhia is Zaporozhian Sich. They always confuse these, but Sich's and the Hetmanate which is for some reason translated as Host are very different things, as you mentioned.

like Sparta would be different from Greece

Hold on there. Sparta is different from Greece, because Sparta was a city state, which was a part of Greek culture, but wasn't at the time a part of a unified Greece.
The Hetmanate on the other hand was Ruthenia proper. How different could it be from Ruthenia if Hetmanate basically united all the Ruthenian-Ukrainian people into one state, effectively creating the Ukrainian nation (as other Ruthenians who remained under the rule of Lithuania became Belarusians). So I don't see how is Hetmanate different from Ruthenia if we talk about nations. But I get your point in Ruthenia being another state with monarchic government, some kind of a "true Rus successor" as it is already pictured in the game.

The Hetmanate state didn't have any official name

But it had. In all the official documentation it was called "Zaporozhian Host" (Войсько Запорозьке), sometimes even "Ukraine".

the Cossacks as Ruthenians/Ukrainians

But they considered themselves as such.

having Ukrainian culture would be out of place

I don't argue with that. Ruthenian culture is perfect for that matter. What I argue about is if the name "Ukraine" can apply for the Hetmanate. I think it can.

They were only paying tribute

They were paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate, but before 1480 they were a formal vassal to the Tatars. It's not just tribute, the Great Principality of Moscow was a Tatar vassal.

 

[fr-rein]

You see, "Host" could refer both to Sich and to the Hetmanate, which could be pretty confusing. Other Cossack Hosts were simply Sich's, not being an actual state, but rather a political formation as the Zaporozhian Sich was.

No.
Other than Don Cossacks into way later period of time, all Hosts were similar. Except for the Hetmanate, which was unique in a fact that it didn't base itself around Sich Host. Unlike other hosts, it was a full-fledged stratocracy born out of wars.

The Hetmanate IS Zaporozhian Host. Zaporozhia is Zaporozhian Sich. They always confuse these, but Sich's and the Hetmanate which is for some reason translated as Host are very different things, as you mentioned.

No.
You see, Hetmanate and Zaporozhia were divided again around 60-70s of XVII century during the time of Ruin and didn't reunite. You can check it yourself - there were effectively 2-3 entities, (Right and Left Bank) Hetmanate(s) and Zaporozhia. Although, of course, the Hetmanate would be containing Zaporozhia in case it succeeds.

Hold on there. Sparta is different from Greece, because Sparta was a city state, which was a part of Greek culture, but wasn't at the time a part of a unified Greece.
The Hetmanate on the other hand was Ruthenia proper. How different could it be from Ruthenia if Hetmanate basically united all the Ruthenian-Ukrainian people into one state, effectively creating the Ukrainian nation (as other Ruthenians who remained under the rule of Lithuania became Belarusians). So I don't see how is Hetmanate different from Ruthenia if we talk about nations. But I get your point in Ruthenia being another state with monarchic government, some kind of a "true Rus successor" as it is already pictured in the game.

No, the main point isn't about regional differences. It is about the state organization and circumstances.
The Hetmanate, even unlike Sich which was a military group first due to the obstacles, became a full-fledged stratocracy. To put it bluntly, it was a military junta with elections among military, which had ideals and missions different from the Ruthenia/Ukraine.

But it had. In all the official documentation it was called "Zaporozhian Host" (Войсько Запорозьке), sometimes even "Ukraine".

I don't argue with that. Ruthenian culture is perfect for that matter. What I argue about is if the name "Ukraine" can apply for the Hetmanate. I think it can.

You're confusing it with the Zaporozhia Host.
For the Hetmanate, which existed till 1783 with a capital in Hkukhiv, there wasn't an official/consistent name. Which is a reason why name is applied to it retroactively. In a bit similar way this name (under the variation "Second Hetmanate") is applied to the Ukrainian State of Skoropadsky, which fell 100 years ago with a mistake for a few days.

They were paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate, but before 1480 they were a formal vassal to the Tatars. It's not just tribute, the Great Principality of Moscow was a Tatar vassal.

It was basically tribute. At that time it remained simply a formality.
Rather than this, I prefer to look after the Raid mechanics. Making the South and the Steppes a way harder place to approach would make the challenges for many countries better, as well as stopping Russia from blobbing to India easily.

Also I would just like to say that this is a great thread @fr-rein!

Thank you. Hopefully it will be useful. I am rather wary about the map changes and probably Moldavia is too detailed... but well, there is hardly any reason to suggest less without a feedback.

I would like to work on suggesting some missions for the Hetmanate next, but my circumstances hold me back from working productively about it. The missions are really tedious to make somehow.

 

[Theironemperor]

Hosts were similar

You're confusing it with the Zaporozhia Host

Ok, we seem to disagree on what was called Zaporozhian Host.
Wikipedia says, quote "The official name of the Cossack Hetmanate was Zaporizhian Host (Військо Запорозьке, Viys’kо Zaporoz’kе).[12] The historiographicterm Hetmanate (Гетьманщина, Het’manshchyna, "Hetman state") was coined in the late 19th century,[13] deriving from the word hetman, the title of the general of the Zaporizhian Army".
So Hetmanate is the Zaporozhian Host. It was its official name in all the documents and official correspondence.

Hetmanate and Zaporozhia were divided again around 60-70s of XVII century during the time of Ruin and didn't reunite

That's true, but I'm talking about naming. Zaporozhia is Zaporozhian Sich. Hetmanate is Zaporozhian Host ("The Zaporozhian Army" as it was the sovereign of the state).

It was basically tribute. At that time it remained simply a formality

Well, Wikipedia lists Muscovy as the Horde's vassal till 1480.
It continued to pay tribute to Crimean Khanate, but yes, it wasn't a vassal of Crimea, just a tributary state. Which is already a thing in the game, so it could be done through the tribute mechanics.

 

[fr-rein]

So Hetmanate is the Zaporozhian Host. It was its official name in all the documents and official correspondence.

That's true, but I'm talking about naming. Zaporozhia is Zaporozhian Sich. Hetmanate is Zaporozhian Host ("The Zaporozhian Army" as it was the sovereign of the state).

The key point is to differentiate two states.
While The Hetmanate was called Zaporozhia Host at some point, it failed to have Zaporozhia for the most of the time. Plus the differences between them are big.

Adding "Host" to the name is kind of like with "Revolutionary". Not the best/historical thing, but quite reflecting the general spirit of the thing.

What I really wonder... is adding some kind of special achievement for Cossacks. Like creating a Cossack Host in South Africa and/or North America. Or even more curious, reform to that for the nations on the steppe terrain. PLC alone could try it in some runs.
I am not sure how to make it, so I leave it as an idea.
Another idea for The Hetmanate would be capturing Warsaw, Moscow and Stambul at once while controlling Kiev.

 

[Theironemperor]

failed to have Zaporozhia for the most of the time

Well, yeah, but they still were called "Zaporozhians" despite not having Zaporizhia. It's always like that with names. So it's not a problem.

creating a Cossack Host

It is dope, but it should be rather called Sich. By "Host" we refer to "The Cossack Army", which is basically a country. So probably Sich is what you could create anywhere.

capturing Warsaw, Moscow and Stambul

That's just great!


I see some possible missions like the Treaty of Hadyach, an alliance with Sweden (it was one of the options when the Cossacks were choosing whom to align to).

And yeah, when Ukraine joins Russia, it should start the religious reformation. It was a major thing in the Russian history, when Ukrainian clergy tried to reform the Russian Orthodoxy, causing the split in Russia between the old believers and the new reformed ones.
So it could also be a mission.

 

[fr-rein]

Well, yeah, but they still were called "Zaporozhians" despite not having Zaporizhia. It's always like that with names. So it's not a problem.

Still, historiography says "The Hetmanate".
And even in-game, having two same tags would be wrong. Changing an already present Hetmanate idea and a few more other things would be much easier.

It is dope, but it should be rather called Sich. By "Host" we refer to "The Cossack Army", which is basically a country. So probably Sich is what you could create anywhere.

Yes. And well, since in EU4 Zaporozhia and others would be countries, using Host on them would be great.

I see some possible missions like the Treaty of Hadyach, an alliance with Sweden (it was one of the options when the Cossacks were choosing whom to align to).

Alliance with Sweden could be included, but shouldn't be railroaded. I would probably cover it in "finding Ally" kind of mission. Maybe an event or two could happen, but not necessarily to not make the game too railroaded.

And yeah, when Ukraine joins Russia, it should start the religious reformation. It was a major thing in the Russian history, when Ukrainian clergy tried to reform the Russian Orthodoxy, causing the split in Russia between the old believers and the new reformed ones.
So it could also be a mission.

Hardly.
Or rather, it is not exactly Ukrainian content. Russia directly annexed Kiev after Mazepa, but even before that there were many influences after mostly unifying Eastern European Orthodoxy and abolishing the independence of Kiev Metropoly (it is currently a political topic, so not prying into it further).
The way it could be established would be adding another mission for the Russia after "The Land of Churches" reflecting on Russian Patriarchy fully controlling the Eastern European Orthodox people and being the only authority over it. It could add religious bonuses or something, helping Russia, and historically reflect on this event.

Generally, Patriarchy and such could use more love probably... but these are mostly spontaneous thoughts.

 

[fr-rein]

I suggest minor changes to Zaporozhia ideas: swap leader bonus with the national unrest reduction. And rename the latter from "The Hetmanate" to "Kurin traditions" - referring to the specific social organization of the Host.
Perhaps a further rework due to changes is needed, but overall I don't think that it needs to be changed radically.
Additionally, unlike others, Zaporozhia is able to gain army professionalism with raiding upon unlocking "Steppe Raiders" idea, showing how it accumulated experience and professionalism in a small land. How much professionalism is gained is up to balance.

As for The Hetmanate ideas, I suggest the following:
Tradition: +50% manpower modifier.
Reasoning: due to being effectively a stratocracy, where most of the time only Cossack and peasant class existed, many preferred military service to get free. Historically, The Hetmanate managed to wield huge armies too. Thus, even in the land ruined by decades of war they gathered significant armies. Given that EU4 army scaling is off... it is kind of needed.

Serdyuky: +15% infantry combat ability.
The legacy of the Cossacks.
Bluntly speaking, it reflects their power despite lacking cannons, cavalry (yes, they lacked despite the mythos) and general lack of things.

The Hetmanate rule: +2 tolerance of the true faith.
Reasoning: unlike with Zaporozhia, the Hetmanate didn't see the peace from religious conflicts. However, many considered it to be the defender of the faith and thus little rebellions against The Hetmanate by the Orthodox peasants.

Cossack Legends: +15% to morale.
The reason to it is simple. While Cossacks generally excelled at military, they don't get ahistorical bonuses. Discipline is too much for them for example. However, their morale was one of the highest, so it is fitting to put it into game.

Polk Regiments: Instead of Refill Garisson, The Hetmanate can construct "Kurin" building, which would decrease cost of army construction by -15%.
For vanilla, it would be... around -7.5% construction on global.

Kobzars: -10% to diplo tech spendings.
The Kobzars were travelling folk bards, spreading the news, legends, oral culture and development. I think that the most "cultural" thing for them would be the reducal of diplo cost as the Cossacks would spend a lot in peace deals alone.

Kyiv Clergy: +2% to the conversion strength.
The reason is simple. Kiev was a host to the many religious clergy and philosophers. The very presence of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy is a thing as it was home to the education of many clergy. Basically, it was Kievan clergy that not only influenced PLC and The Hetmanate, but also left a trace on the Russia in religious life.

Pysars: +5% national tax modifier.
An idea I would give them to reflect the state of bureaucracy of The Hetmanate, which was mainly attached to maintainance and tax collection.

Ambition: -15% local development cost.
Generally speaking, they get it for the desire to improve things during the bad times. Many churches were built, quite a few cities were repopulated and even Sloboda Ukraine (which was outside of their jurisdiction) was settled, as well as Southern Ukraine later. We all know about Potyomkin's efforts and how he build a fleet, but underestimating simple serfs and population in general should not be a thing.


These are (not) final ideas. I wanted to work on missions, but first I will compile it to devs and will tag them. Stay... tuned.

 

[fr-rein]

There are a few things I should correct.
The connection of Dniester trade was significant. Needless to say, the trade moving along Dniester and Dnieper down to Mediterranean was huge, as well as grain exports. It was a major source of income for Gazaria (aka Genoese colonies in a region).

This said, the most correct way for trade to flow would be from Lviv and Kyiv to Odesa. From Lviv down to Dniester it moved, going later to Stambul and Europe. Same applied to the Kyiv export and the riches of Pontic Steppes. It makes sense due to the trade demands in Ottoman-Russia wars and the fact that trade was dead due to steering.
The changed map for it will come later.

The Genoa had a lot of claim in these lands... their trade empire, if willing, could mission all of Moldavia. I will probably leave the changes to Genoa to @Van Kasten, passing the info I have. In the changed map, they would have claims to all current Basarabia, Odesa, Tighina and Orhei. Probably more as the Dniester trade and factories grew importance for them in XV century.

The map change about Yedisan should be the same. For Odesa, there is a number of settlements which justify it: Genoa had Mauro Neo, Ginestra, Seretacia, a bit further (near Ochakov province) was Flor-de-lis and Borbarese... and near the Dnieper estuary (Ingul province) was Illice (Lerici).
Side note: near Mariupol there was a colony of Palastra, a name to keep in consideration for province names (as well as others).
On the site of future Odesa there was also a settlement known under names Khadjibei, Hajibey, Khacdjibei, Hacıbey, Hocabey, Gadzhibei, Chadžibėjus, Hacıbey, Codjabey, Kachybey, Kotsiubey, Kotsiubiiv. It was likely to have traded with Genoese and it probably a Tatar settlement first, which was layer known as Lithuanian Kotsiubey. With peasants resettled there, the settlement played a big role in steppe colonization and participated in trade until it was captured by Ottomans and fell into decline. After conquered by Russia, the city of Odessa arose there. Not surprisingly, wars related to trade and economic passage occurred, only supporting the idea of that trade flow being significant.

But what about trade again?
Basarabia (mouthes of Dniester and Dnieper) was a huge trade province, with a big importance under Genoese who had colonies all over the place and presence there until Caffa was conquered. Ginestra-Odesa was also a huge trade hub standing near Dniester and accepting inland trade flowing from Ruthenia and Red Ruthenia.

Apologies for the initially not correct suggestion about trade. I shall repost map soon, but overall we can see that the trade in the region was significant and enough to justify separating it and adding for Odessa a special province to separate it from the steppe itself.
Some more data is available to XIV century, but it would not be interesting to the main game.
As sources I've used:

• THE COLONIES OF GENOA IN THE BLACK SEA REGION: EVOLUTION AND TRANSFORMATION, BY EVGENY A. KHVALKOV
• Гавриленко О. Л., Сівальньов О. М., Цибулькін В. В. Г 12 Генуезька спадщина на теренах України: етнодержавознавчий вимір / О. А. Гавриленко, О. М. Сівальньов, В. В. Цибулькін; Ред. О. М. Парфенюк.- Харків : «Точка», 2017.- 260 с. ISBN 978-617-669-209-6
• VICTOR SPINEI: LA GENÈSE DES VILLES DU SUD-EST DE LA MOLDAVIE ET LES RAPPORTS COMMERCIAUX DES XlIIe-XIVe SIÈCLES

Last note: I will once again overlook Oril province (adjusting more to the Pavlograd administrative division, adding a but more on the northeast of a province) and put a list of names for some languages on the suggested provinces. If possible, I will try to mod the map. And Merry Xmas.

 

[fr-rein]

Naming
The thing was mentioned above, but I will dublicate it to make a separate point.

"Zaporozhia Host", "Azov Host", "Basarabia Host", "Kharkov Host", "Ural Host"
Please give to Cossack States the "Host" part. As of now, they truly sound... not well. But a simple and historical addition of it to the name would give states a nice flavour and a distinction from the other states, both in nature and in naming at least.

It is really implementable - it is done for the "Revolutionary" countries anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem for the Cossack States either. A simple yet good addition to the breakaway Cossack states.

Obviously, the Hetmanate is an exception to this rule.

Ruler title
Simple. Most of Hosts were ruled by Otamans. Not by Hetmans.
For the Don Cossacks and many Russian Cossacks it was the case actually. There were 2 exceptions:

• The Hetmanate, which I argue to be a different kind of republic.
• Zaporozhia, which actually stopped having a Hetman (which used to be appointed by PLC, being their military title) after seceding from Hetmanate in 1660s. They had their Koshovyi Otoman as a leader.

So, please fix that mistake.

Flags
The issue here is that they are random.
I have already addressed my issue with a Cossack flag - while for example for Zaporozhia Michael was the main one, many had different ones or unique local variations.

Nonetheless, for the breakaway Cossack States those still followed a number of rules.

1. The central element was a regular or Templar Cross or the absence of it. For the random factor, it can be switched to other religions symbols if the Cossack State follows another religion. No more Aztec Pyramid or Confucian symbol for Basarabia Host.
2. On many flags moon used to be a common secondary symbol. Aside from symbolizing a celestial body, legends say that in some cases it was put on flags and some churches to avoid Muslims desacrating them. It is still present in a few small old churches. Another secondary symbol was sun. I suggest a simple rule here: obligatory moon with Muslim neighbor and obligatory sun in America. Both can be present or, in some case, there can be none of these.
3. Stars as other celestial bodies were also commonly presented.
4. Background shape - in examples below.
5. I would personally avoid inserting other regional symbols to avoid another failure, but it can be done. Just not ANY random.
6. Main colours: red, white, light blue. Secondary: yellow, black. Not green, purple or brown.

Here are some historical examples (recreation):

More examples can be found elsewhere or at least in flag suggestion for Zaporozhia.

Ideas
----

Factions
As it is said, currently Cossacks are denied internal politics at this moment of time.
From one point of view, it is understandable that internal politics of Cossacks is a big issue for others, especially because often it was related to the foreign politics. Another fact is that, as devs stated, the whole Host gets Cossacks estate bonus.
But here comes an OBJECTION!

Other nations also get quite huge buffs simply for the government form! Not to mention that the simplification of the Sich internal politics as of a mere balagan is unacceptable. A lot decision were carried on, there were different social factions and different movements existed within the realm, especially in Hetmanate and Zaporozhia. Let me suggest a few factions.

1. Starshyna. Movement of the Cossacks that got lands, estates and eventually "settled down", becoming a new aristocracy. They were especially prominent within the Russian Empire because it granted them full noble rights and more upon the integration of the Hetmanate. Historically, these Cossacks aimed for the legalizing their newfound wealth and influence, becoming a faction gravitating to the transformation of the Cossack State to the more regular kind. Suggested bonuses: increased stability and tax.
   
2. Hetman's people. An autocratic faction of the most union for people, one which struggles for the strong grasp of Hetman on the affairs within the realm. Allows to harness military and diplomatic bonuses as he is able to command the gruesome Cossack power and use it as a fully coordinated group if he is reigning and has the support.
3. Polky. When regiments of Cossacks, their own settlements express their will through their representatives (military commanders). It reduces the development cost, republican tradition, restores manpower and increases raiding capabilities.

This would add to the poor Cossack States quite some flavour at least and moderately increase their playability. They also do not need to have the full bonus from Estate. In history, Cossacks mostly relied on the infantry and only ones employed by PLC or sometimes Russia had enough wealth to use cavalry.

Conclusion: these things that are needed for the breakaway Cossack States to function properly. Sure, they had some events, but overall the experience is very barebone and honestly you can see how they look ahistorical a lot of time not only by historical development, but by ideas, flags, name or title. I hope that these fixes will be considered and will help to fix these states.

 

[fr-rein]

Haidamakas
Groups of rebels, ex-Cossacks, bandits and just angry peasants operating in the Right Bank Ukraine in XVIII century till 1830-s.
A rather significant and dissatisfied group, they were a major source of unrest and tensions in the territories, resulting in a few major uprisings.
A historical event or flavour representing these rebellions would be rather welcome. It can be also used for ideas in game.

Koliyivshchyna
The most huge anti-polish rebellion shortly before partitions.
Ended up with rebels trying to seize control in a Right Bank Ukraine, occupation of many important towns and lands, slaughter of many people associated with Polish government - nobility, Catholics and Uniates, Jews. The biggest rebellion in Ukraine in XVIII century, it was stopped by joint efforts of PLC and Russian Empire.
What I suggest is adding an event about triggering such an uprising as we got quite a few uprisings like this. In case they succeed, they can form their new Cossack State on those territories.

Cossack State Ideas
As I suggested previously, I suggest some ideas for cossack states. I will list a few below in no particular order:

- decreased raiding cooldown
- corruption decrease
- boat summon (chaikas) for raids
- increased passive manpower recovery

Constitution of Pylyp Orlik
Pacta et Constitutiones legum libertatumque Exercitus Zaporoviensis or also known as Pacts and Constitutions of Rights and Freedoms of the Zaporizhian Host, it was an important document and part of evolution of the Cossack Hetmanate state.
Planned as a state-regulating document after victory in Northern war, it never was realized as Hetman Mazepa lost the war and was deposed. It was not a proper constitution, however it was a document regulating some important aspects of hetman rule and letting it become more civil -oriented and kept in check.
It can be an event letting Hetmanate to increase level of their bureaucracy, government and pass reforms. Just mentioning because it is kinda relevant.

 

[fr-rein]

In this one peace I would like to justify a case for one more tag in the area – Podolia.

As we know know, the area is rather poor on tags and playable and releasable countries overall. It is a result of a few factors – that many potential regional tags were too small, a game design decision (like for Odoyev which encompasses a few duchies at once), general focus of last major updates majorly focusing on Muscovy and Poland and the lack of details in the region. However, it is justifiable to add a new tag there by density.

Short info in English can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Podolia

Flag:

Foundation of Podolia

Overall, the territory was quite sparsely populated in the start of XIV century. Nomadic intrusions and later Mongol Invasion prevented significant centers and towns grow up in the region, information about them is quite scarce.

However, that changed with the expansion of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In particular, the most prominent role in this had brothers Koriatovichs. Members of the noble houses of Lithuania, sons of Koriat, who was the son of Grand Duke Gedimin, they initially had their holdings and titles in Volhynia as dukes/principals. And since 1340-s they started to settle holdings in lowlans which got the name “Podolia” (roughly have a similar meaning). The region, which was formally under Galich-Volhynia Kingdom, was not that much populated and using the start of war between Lithuania and Poland over the legacy of Galich-Volhynia and the division of its land. They used the opportunity to seize the control of the land and holding there defacto, starting to build up towns and develop the region under Lithuanian protection.

The fate of the duchy was decided in 1363. Following the Battle at Blue Waters, Lithuania repelled the Horde further into Steppe and cemented its control over the region. As a reward to the Brothers Koriatovichs, who lost the control of their Volhynia titles after the war with Poland, they were granted a duchy title and given Podolia to rule – by which it means future Podolia and Bratslav Voivodships.

The main holdings were situated in Podolia province of EU4, with capital in Kamianets. There was a quite intensive development, protected by the rest from nomad aggression and lack of conflicts on the territory of Podolia. Koriatovichs introduced Franciscans to this area and built churches for them, the whole duchy was built up as a new seat of power for them.

Active politics... and fall of the duchy

It wasn’t until 1380s when the duchy became a subject of Civil Wars in Great Duchy of Lithuanian. The duchy itself was a subject to switches of allegiances – at some point it switched loyalty to Hungary, then to Poland and later participated in the civil war of 1390s in Lithuania – and lost. As a result, Koriatovichs lost the power and the duchy was given to one of the Lithuanian commanders in 1403, remaining its autonomal ducal status until 1434, when after the end of the war with Poland EU4’s Podolia province went to the Poland. The duchy was disbanded then, 10 years before the start of EU4.

Koriatovichs survived, however. One of the brothers, Konstantin, founded a new family – Czartoryski, the famous future princely house in Poland and became an extremely influential person. Family was following Orthodoxy too until XVII century, thus it is extremely eligible to be a leader of an independent Podolia Duchy if it ever re-emerged.

This is why it should be added (really)
Given how recently the duchy existed, the fact that it had autonomous structure very recently, that the descendants of the rulers of it still lived, that it was a rather curious entity and simply quite big in a zone where there are too little tags, it is more than justified in my opinion to add such tag to introduce some more regionality to the region.

Ideas

Spoiler: Ideas under spoiler

Traditions
-10% development cost

Explanation: as the land was built with development ambition, the development buff is most suitable.

Podolia riches
+10% production efficiency

As the lands Podolia are fertile and full with traders from other countries, we can produce more than usual to increase our trade and prosperity and to develop the land.

Legacy of Gedimin
+0.5 prestige

As our state is descended from the Gedimins blood, we shall continue his legacy and expand our influence and origin to the world.

Constant warfare
+10% infantry combat ability

We’ve always faced the raiding parties of Hordes, uprisings and many wars. Our warriors are never relaxing and more ready for battles, increasing their battle capabilities.

Kamianets
+25% fort defense

We’ve repelled many enemies. They often tried to use our land as a gateway to attack, but our forts constantly resisted their invasions. For whatever lands we protect, they shall not pass.

Explanation: based on many fortresses in region – Kamianets, Bar and perhaps Khotyn. They resisted huge Ottoman armies and served as a main stronghold preventing the invasion to the Poland from the Steppes and Ruthenia.

Religious tolerance
+1.5/1 tolerance to heretics
+1.5/1 tolerance to heathens

We’re a home to many religions and religious minorities. But we don’t allow the religious tensions play a major role in our life, setting it aside for a rather peaceful coexistence.

Explanation: despite having a lot of Catholics, Orthodox and Jews, the land remained rather tolerant to them with an exception of Cossack unrests invading here. Furthemore, quite a few old churches used Sunni moons in decoration to prevent themselves from being burnt down by the raiders.

Register Cossacks
+15% cavalry combat ability

By hiring the registered Cossacks we can prevent unrests and increase the power of our army.

Franciscan Missionaries
+1.5% conversion strength

By giving a long and lasting support to this order, we can expect to have a bigger success at bringing our population to the light of the true faith.

Ambition
+10% tax modifier

Explanation: the endgame is the prosperity of the region which, despite all setbacks, war and such increased rapidly.

Hopefully this information will help and the addition of a new regional tag could be considered.

 

[fr-rein]

I want to add some specific graphic information about base map lines to the game, which really need to be considered.

What are these lines:

• Orange - a border after Austria annexing the region. Not quite correct here, but featured better in this thread about fixing Moldavia.
• Pink - a natural border, Dniester, and a border between two parts of the region. Moreover, served as a line between provinces in real life as well. The area should consider these.
• Green - the border between Austrian and Russian Empires, a minor divergence due to following more historical Podolia province shape.
• Red - southeastern Polish birder before first partition. Very ignored, sadly. For Kiev, Yedisan and Cherkasy these lines could fix a lot.
• Pink - kind of reminder that normally the border with Crimea went kinda more to the South.
• Brown - territory often included to PLC, controlled by Cossacks and following some rivers on another bank.
• Dark Red - disputed part between Bratslav and Kiev voivodships. Zvenigohorod lands were a disputed peace between the two and since they are big and barely fleshed out provinces, they could be used to reform Cherkasy and Bila Tserkva.
• Salad-Yellow - borders of Hetmanate on a Left Bank for 100 years.
• Yellow - borders of Izum on Sloboda Ukraine. Area itself, sadly, is ahistorically misshapen as of now.
• Black - borders for Jagoldai, partially outer borders of Lithuania and a better shape for Belgorod province.
• Blue - fixed borders for Trubchevsk/Sevsk province. Technically, could be added a tag core there too.

Dynamic names
I want show this thread to you.
It has the most of needed info. I will just list below a few more provinces that were added recently:
4532 Iasy - Yasy (Яси)
4530 Birlad - Byrlad (Бирлад)
4540 Winnica - Vinnytsia (Вінниця)
4541 Drohobycz - Drohobych (Дрогобич)
4542 Lubnie - Lubny (Лубни)
4545 Sluck - Slutsk (Слуцьк)

Sadly, the dynamic names were overlooked during Cossack Update and regional one, but hopefully they can be added in future.

 

[fr-rein]

A certain set of issues that I must address.
I was already somewhat addressed in this thread but in reality the problem is complex.

Lets take a look at the administrative map of the region circa 1600s:

Red lines of different thickness contitute borders (administrative and outer).
Black circles mark cities of interest - Halych, Lwow, Drohobych and Peremyshl.
Blue line - an additional navigation mark, the major river of Dniester.
Green lines - EU4 borders after Poland Update.
EU4 map to compare:

Spoiler: map

I can't add much more. All Lwow neighborhood is included in the Peremyshl province. Moreover, even Drohobych looks visiually off the province it constitutes, on its fringe at best if we count it some distortion. But in that case... Halych is in a Drohobych province. And Lwow province is without Lwow and its area.

Okay, it is funny and such, but it is obvously not how borders should be. It's bluntly bad. And it should be corrected by a real rework.

I shall prepare some material for the region later, based on the atlas of administrative divisions in 1600s for Ruthenian areas. Perhaps I will go over western Ukraine and other regions again, now looking at the atlas in disposal to adjust borders. It just hurts to see this region as """updated""" in this way.

Atlas and images for the region attached.

 

[fr-rein]

Here we have a historical map:

I have applied the historical borders and the river borders.

Apparently the Dniester river was shifted northwards. It may be an issue of map projection or distortion. Or perhaps it was somewhat overlooked. If you look at the river in Podolia, it should be in place where the river Dnipro makes a turn north-west, about the same height where the city of Dnipro is located.

As a result, some borders would be distorted if that the case. Given that historical map and Google Map give about the same result, we can conclude that the Dniester river is somewhat warped there. Moreover, some other borders look more crude or not quite as they should be.

On this map, green and purple are the administrative borders. Using them, I would like to propose you an optimal division for Ruthenia (historical too):

1) Belz shifted, but still intanct
2) Peremyshl shifted
3) Drohobycz slightly shifted
4) Halych expanded to include itself and area of Trembowla
5) Bratslav is expanded by adjusting right borders.
6) ceded Uman from Bratslav
7) Kiev recieves borders from Perputual Piece, given cities importance it can be judged to be a relatively small province
8) ceded Chornobyl from Kiev, making it inherit most of Kiev province
9) ceded Bila Tserkva province in historical borders
10) Cherkasy receive historical borders
11) Wild Field becomes larger, allowing to cede more territory there according to maps suggested in previous versions

Conclusion: Uman, Chornobyl, Bila Tserkva added as province. Uman is optional. Chornobyl can be expanded by taking some part of Mozyr there, which actually was a part of it, doing justice to both Mozyr and Chornobyl.

Latter map, with yellow borders, is cruder, but for an easier graphical demostration of readjusted borders.

Note: the map is likely to have some distortions. I can't fully say for how it should be applied precisely. But it should be rather helpful for readjusting map and fixing some things.
There are additional maps and the png overlay of provinces there, including the correct city positions and name overlays. It is in attachents. It may be interesting for @Mingmung as it contains all city positions (including some secondary cities) on the map and the possible issue with Dniester river.

This may mean that the polish part of the map may need a certain readjustment, depending on my mistake as I do not fully account the map projection.

Anyway, I hope that this information is interesting and relevant for the map makers and will help in a future work with a region. If anyone cares about this map.
Borders which I suggested outside of this part of the map still apply. Final readjusted map post for Ruthenia may come later as a compilation, although I would like to know if this projection is correct and if the issue with Dniester is real.

 

[JosephConrad]

I'd love for Cossacks and Hordes to have the ability to raid .

 

[jrgen3]

Apparently the Dniester river was shifted northwards. It may be an issue of map projection or distortion. Or perhaps it was somewhat overlooked. If you look at the river in Podolia, it should be in place where the river Dnipro makes a turn north-west, about the same height where the city of Dnipro is located.

As a result, some borders would be distorted if that the case. Given that historical map and Google Map give about the same result, we can conclude that the Dniester river is somewhat warped there. Moreover, some other borders look more crude or not quite as they should be.

Anyway, I hope that this information is interesting and relevant for the map makers and will help in a future work with a region. If anyone cares about this map.
Borders which I suggested outside of this part of the map still apply. Final readjusted map post for Ruthenia may come later as a compilation, although I would like to know if this projection is correct and if the issue with Dniester is real.

One of the problems here is that you are looking at three different kinds of map projections.

Spoiler: Details, if interested

The first one appears to be conic. That means that you project earth onto a cone placed over it, and then flatten the cone by cutting it along the side. It would look something like this before cropping it to only show the Ukraine [note: It might not be that exact projection (Lambert Conformal Conic), but the basic idea behind the other conic projections is the same].
Google Maps uses a globe now, so I believe the screenshot would essentially be a map in an azimuthal map projection; basically an "as seen from space" projection, like the map in the UN logo.
EUIV uses a cylindrical map projection (earth is projected onto a cylinder which is then flattened). To be more exact, EUIV uses a modified Miller cylindrical projection, which is a "less extreme" version of the Mercator projection. In the Ukraine area (and most of Europe in general), you can use a mostly unmodified miller cylindrical projection, as the only difference in that area is that Paradox has added a bit of extra space between Asia and the Americas. This means that you'll have to scale a map in the miller cylindrical projection horizontally by a tiny amount to get a perfect fit. If I recall correctly, it's approximately 0.5%.

These are inherently different and cannot be used interchangeably without re-projecting them.

Another problem is that you are assuming that the Dnepr is correct. It is not. Neither is the Dniestr. Nor the Danube, or the Elbe, or any other river in the game. They're all* wrong. Sometimes by as much as 3 or maybe 4 pixels in arbitrary directions. The Dnepr is about 2 or 3 pixels too low at the point you are interested in, while the Dniestr is actually a bit more accurate. The point on the Dniestr that should be the same height as the Dnepr is where the river you drew on the map intersects with the border between Iasi and Tighina, just before it does that northward jump.

*There might be some that are correct, but I have not found any.