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]

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

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

I will separate the issues onto paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

Spoiler: Fancy pictures

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

I expect this one post to get multiple reworks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

After some thoughts, I could even suggest these borders:

Here Moldova is divided in 3 areas, which at the start are mostly under its control, reflecting the powerful status it once had. Please pay attention to the Dniester Estuary, it is one of the justifications to having Tighina as suggested.
However, South will be lost to Ottomans, Khotyn will be swapping owners a lot, Bessarabia area will be lost to Russian Empire and Suceava with Cernauty will belong to Austrian Empire, making Moldova end up like it would be historically.

1 - Dobruja.
2. Budjac.
3. Tighina.
4. Orhei.
5. Soroca.
6. Hotin
7. Cernauti.
8. Suceava.
9. Iasy.
x. Bacau
y. Birlad

Red line - Austrian Empire border.
Green line - border of Ukraine, which separates Cernauty and Hotin.
Blue line - historical Besarabia, ceded to Russian Empire.
Purple line - borders of Silistrian Eyalat.
​

Overall, the province density is actually justified. Moldova doesn't get too dense - its density becomes similar to Transilvania, which is more or less justified.
Khotyn, a strategic fortress and important city in Moldovan-Romanian culture and in the history of these lands, once a direct holding of Ottoman Empire, is a separate province.
Tighina is transformed into a strategic province it once was and by that it can be actually ceded to Ottomans.
Dobruja fixes a lot of things. If needed, it can be split further.
Budjac gets historical look and doesn't cross Danube anymore.
Suceava and Cernauty represent more Moldova Highlands.
Besarabia becomes a new area, which can be taken awaylike it was in reality.
Borders of Iasy and other entities are somewhat fixed.

The map is still quite flawed, however it fixes a lot of things and bring Khotyn the strategic importance it had in particular.

The areas can be somewhat redifined depending on adding a province to Dobruja or not. Cernauty could be added to Moldova area instead of Bessarabia.

The separation of Dobruja and suggested Lower Danube (name WIP) area is done for example.
The map illustrates the alternative definition of Moldova and Bessarabia regions.​

"Lower Danube" could be defined better of course, but it is mostly ouf of scope for my region. And certainly I hope that Balkans will receive love as well, I am not planning on having big Moldova while Bulgaria is so big and blocky.
Why do I suggest making so fractured Moldova in the end? To show that it was quite strong for it during its time, but being on the crossroads it had many powerful armies march through it and fight on it and over it, tearing it in the end. The sad story of Moldovan partition does deserve some attention.

Overall, it means increasing number of provinces in Moldova... from 5 to 10. In case you find number of provinces excessive... Orhei and Soroca could be united, as well as Bacau in Birlad, which means an increas from 5 to 8 (not counting what can be done to that Dobruja part as suggested on the latest map). I find it to be a relatively fair increase to Moldova, given that Ottomans are very likely to break their way in Moldova and take away Tighina and Budjak, making Moldova 8-provinced (or 6-provinced in case of small increas). Given that Moldavia was still a target of Tatar raids and that Khotyn was often targeted by Poland, Cossacks, Ottomans and Russians in wars... it is a very fair number of provinces for it in my opinion.

EDIT: Mingmung posted way better borders for Suceava and fixes for the towns in the Moldavia area. Also adding a link to the maps of Ottoman Empire to justify making Tighina separate.

 

[fr-rein]

Spoiler: Warning

this post is edited fairly often to keep the overall structure of the map suggestions. If you liked it before and now don't then please unlike immediately.

Based on earlier posts, I want to combine the suggestions for the Ruthenia... and try to integrate them into one
map.
For the Right bank Ukraine I see these provinces as the ones that should exist. Names and borders are a subject of dispute, but each of them deserves to exist.
This is a crude map for them.

Spoiler: MAP v.01

1 - 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.
2 - 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.
3 - Bila Tserkva. A relevant and rich town, rivaling Kiev in size and prosperety at the time, the area there deserves a separate province. The borders are WIP (probably should be shifted westwars).
4 - Cherkasy.
5 - 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.
6 - 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.
7 - Syni Vody. The westernmost location of the Wild Field, having some historical relevance. I associate it with Bugogard regiment of Cossacks there.
8 - Chyhyryn. The city of Cossack glory, one of the Hetmanate capitals.
9 - 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 Krukiv and future Elizavetgrad (aka Kirovograd aka Kropyvnytskyj) in this province.
10 - Ingul. Yes, that's right, I would simply put Ingul province there.
11 - Kodak. Northern part of the Dniepr 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). I include the historical location of Zhovti Vody in there.
12 - Zaporozhia. Borders are very WIP.
13 - Kremenchuk. The important town of the Left Bank Ukraine, back then and still now.
14 - Oril. The province I mentioned in Donbass 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.
15 - WIP province, presumably Myrhorod. a note to myself to keep it in mind when going to Left Bank Ukraine, Severia and Sloboda Ukraine.
16 - Odesa. Also known as the fortress of Khajibey and in XV century - Ginetra colony of Genoa. Arguably it is a center of trade, which was irrelevant due to low dev in the region and grew relevant with the development of the region.
17 - Ochakiv. Why not make it separate?
18 - Poltava.

As for the areas:
A - Podolia. A bit changed borders.
B - Wild Field. Introduced it to return the historical relevance of the place and to justly empower Cossacks in the region. The biggest issue for it atm is that Wild Field was said to start from the south from Bila Tserkva, but for obvious reason it would be a too big area.
C - Right Bank Ukraine. Not including Bila Tserkva in it in this version, although it would make sense. One of the notable places, ruined utterly during 2nd half of XVII century, the home region for the Hetmanate of the Right Bank Ukraine.

In general I kept a relatively fair province density, which isn't even as much as Anatolia has.
Added provinces: 2 in Kiev region, 2 in new Right Bank region, 1 in Podolia, 3 in new Wild Field region, 1 in Donbass (exluding the unshown changes), 2 in the Left Bank Ukraine, 1 in the Pontic Steppe.
Overall 13 new provinces.
It means increasing current number province in affected areas from 16 to 29. It isn't that much even for the whole region, being far away from the newest densities or even from the density in America. And I see it counterbalanced with Raid Mechanics for Tatars, making development there more troublesome.

Spoiler: MAP v.02

1 - 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.
2 - 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.
3 - Bila Tserkva. A relevant and rich town, rivaling Kiev in size and prosperety at the time, the area there deserves a separate province. The borders are WIP (probably should be shifted westwars).
4 - Cherkasy.
5 - 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.
6 - 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.
7 - 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.
8 - Chyhyryn. The city of Cossack glory, one of the Hetmanate capitals.
9 - 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.
10 - Zhovti Vody. You know that place. The idea was to give the centre of Wild Field some own place. Borders are rough right now.
11 - Kodak. Northern part of the Dniepr 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). I include the historical location of Zhovti Vody in there.
12 - Zaporozhia. Borders are very WIP. But the idea was to separate Siches themselves, which were near river, from the Wild Field itself.
13 - Kremenchuk. The important town of the Left Bank Ukraine, back then and still now.
14 - Oril. The province I mentioned in Donbass rework.
15 - WIP province, presumably Myrhorod. a note to myself to keep it in mind when going to Left Bank Ukraine, Severia and Sloboda Ukraine.
16 - Odesa. Also known as the fortress of Khajibey and in XV century - Ginetra colony of Genoa. Arguably it is a center of trade, which was irrelevant due to low dev in the region and grew relevant with the development of the region. The question is what to do with Yedisan... since it is a bit too big and includes Ochakiv.
17 - Ingul. It was a bit smaller on most maps...
18 - Poltava.

As for the areas:
A - Podolia. A bit changed borders.
B - Wild Field. Introduced it to return the historical relevance of the place and to justly empower Cossacks in the region. The biggest issue for it atm is that Wild Field was said to start from the south from Bila Tserkva, but for obvious reason it would be a too big area.
C - Right Bank Ukraine. One of the notable places, ruined utterly during 2nd half of XVII century, the home region for the Hetmanate of the Right Bank Ukraine.


In general I kept a relatively fair province density, which isn't even as much as Anatolia has.
Added provinces: 1 in Kiev region, 3 in new Right Bank region, 1 in Podolia, 3 in new Wild Field region, 1 in Donbass (exluding the unshown changes), 2 in the Left Bank Ukraine, 1 in the Pontic Steppe.
Overall 13 new provinces.
It means increasing current number province in affected areas from 16 to 29. It isn't that much even for the whole region, being far away from the newest densities or even from the density in America. And I see it counterbalanced with Raid Mechanics for Tatars, making development there more troublesome.

Spoiler: MAP v.03

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.

Edits count: 10.

 

[fr-rein]

I've decided to take some time and show a few issues with borders as they are.
Let me start.

Spoiler: Small demonstration of overall issues.

Lets take a look at the map of Hetmanate in 1751 (inaccurate... but still illustrative enough for us). Here is how it looks in-game:

White line - Hetmanate.
Grey line - Zaporozhian Host.​

It is drawn as closely as possible. And here are the issues with it:

1 - Hetmanate, 3 - Zaporozhian Host. Both were separate entities at the time.
​

I will point to the most obvious problem (4) - the map does a poor job of portraying Wild Field. It is obvious and even if we suggest that map is incorrect to some degree, we can easily see that making Wild Field reduced to Cherkasy, Yedisan and Ingul is just wrong.

A smaller problem is with Severia province (will be addressed with another map) and Rylsk. For Rylsk the issue is simple - it should be split in two. Southern part of Rylsk, contemporary Sumy, were a part of Sloboda Ukraine. Not just that, but Sumy and Okhtyrka were big enough to host their own cossack regiments in XVII-XVIII centuries, Okhtyrka was big enough to rival Kharkiv at the time. Moreover, these lands were south to the Zasechnaya Cherta - the defense line which basically marked the beginning of the Wild Field. Sloboda Ukraine as a region became possible and was later essentially colonized by Ruthenians/Ukrainians precisely because it was also a Wild Field.
Also another big issue is about borders of Severia and Starodub - but more on it later.

Spoiler: Severia. Many wrongs here.

This is simple - the borders should be different there.
First of all, there are two towns - Starodub and Trubchevsk. Both were separate principalities once upon a time. Both were subjects of wars in the early XV century, with rulers switching to the Muscovy/Russia. And later in history both were reconquered by PLC. Trubchevsk was gifted to Russia around 1645 and ever since remained a Russian town. Starodub, however, was a part of Poland and later a part of Hetmanate, being a home to Cossack regiments and one of the Cossack and Ruthenian locations. And... they are one province for some reason, reflecting poorly the borders and the history in that very location. It is sad, very sad!

Another thing would be Severia area. It is wrong.
For starters, lets look at Rylsk province and the Rylsk town. Rylsk town is located on Psyol river - but it is wrong, it is located on one of the rivers which flow into Desna. The town is simply mislocated, being placed where Sumy are - but as I said above, Sumy and the region were an entirely different place culturally and ethnically, being a part of the Sloboda Ukraine.
Next problem is with north-eastern border of Severia province. While it may make sense for the older borders, it is wrong for the later border of Hetmanate. The border of Hetmanate lasted for a century there, leaving a lasting cultural and political impact and defining those territories.

Map of Hetmanate.

The conlusion here is simple. In my opinion, Starodub should be split from Trubchevsk while north-easternn-most part of Severia province should be given a bit to the reduced Trubchevsk, following the idea of historical maps.

Leave Putywl and Rylsk together... and give are south to Putywl it is own separate province. This way we suddenly achieve two goals - not only we make better and more historical borders, which also make Sumy region way more accurate, but we also capture Hlinsk which has its own role in the XV-XVI centuries. Add to this Jagoldai in the Kursk and suddenly the north-eastern Ruthenia becomes a way better and accurate place.

The crude map to reflect on these changes is here (but I do not account Hlukhiv which I wish to add or other borders for Chernihiv, the map is WIP)

1 - Starodub
2 - Trubchevsk
3 - Severia updated
4 - Rylsk updated
5 - Kursk update
6 - Hlinsk (Sumy)
7 - Jagoldai (later Belgorod)

The hard part in drawing for me is Trubchevsk here, but I hope that others could help with that.
I would personally add Hlukhiv province because of the towns and province importance, move Chernihiv borders a bit more to the town of Nizhyn and have it a bit smaller and enjoy the rework of Severia.

Spoiler: Central Ukraine

It is simple. It is empty and unrepresented, even though it was a part of the Hetmanate and Cossack playground. Moreover, in the latter part of the EU4 timeframe it was colonized and in particular Russian Empire tried to create New Serbia there (link, link, link, link, link) which is interesting in itself. Moreover, multiple issues come from the Wild Field being a blob of a few provinces, making it virtually unrepresented. For example, Cherkasy compromised multiply important towns which were quite tied to the Cossack history. Podolia area doesn't show some important provinces. Even Zaporozhia province itself is wrong - it includes a few other relevant provinces.
It is important not only for Cossacks, but for the Hordes too.
In context of it I should also mention Slavo-Serbia, which created a distinct character for the Norther Donbass in particular.

I will dedicate a separate paragraph to the new map of Central Ukraine and the new region.

Spoiler: Donbass region

It is simple. First of all, lets take a look at the territory of Don Cossack Host. To put it shortly, it was east to the Kalmius river and made a different region.
(2)Next, there is a Slavo-Serbia I've mentioned. Disregarding Serbs, it compromises a different province in terms of development and culture from others, with Bakhmut standing there for a while.
(4) Mariupol (known for Cossacks as Domakha - their post in the region) should obviously stay.
The western part of the Mansura, what is also called Ekaterinoslav, should be Pavlograd.
Ekaterinoslav city was mostly on the other bank of the Dnipro river and it was founded near Kodak fortress - which was an important fortress, aimed to suppress any possible Cossack revolts and pacify Cossacks.

Spoiler: Rework for the southern border

This a major a trouble.
I did some research on the borders for the sake of correctness. And I've found some quite important inconsistencies.
The major one is the southern border of Cherkasy. I already expressed my detaste for the province size and now I can argue against it effectively by these maps:

Here is the river map of Ukraine. Obviously, to a certain degree it is not the same as it was in XV-XVIII centuries, but for the rivers mentioned it is precise. The rivers on the map are:
1 - Synyukha
2 - Velyka Vys
3 - Tiasmyn
4 - Psel (which is as I suspect makes the border of Poltava and Lubny in game)
5 - Vorskla (the major river in the area - but I am not sure if it is the on the Left Bank Ukraine as it looks somewhat off to me).
The rivers Synyukha, Velyka Vys and partially Tiasmyn (estuary of the river) were the rivers that determined the borders between Russian Empire and the PLC in XVIII century (source for maps here and here).

Here red is the historical border effectively since 1667 and until 1793.
Another source is provided by the English map of Poland prior to partitions.

Blue lines stand for the rivers I've mentioned (Synyukha, Verkhnya Vys, Tiasmyn). Red lines stand for the actual border.
This concludes one important fact: the shape of Cherkasy province southern borders is, generally, correct - but it is significantly way too pushed to south, eating a huge chunk of the Wild Field.
In game I would crudely draw it this way:

This map shows how this fix makes a huge difference for the region, especially in context of the Wild Field and Cossacks.

Conclusion: the border should be redrawn and pushed to the north. The space freed up as a result of it could be effectively utilized for the Wild Field - as the territory south to the fixed Cherkassy border was effectively the border of the Wild Field.
I hope that this information helped and that it'll be useful. Getting the borders right is a task of extreme importance for the update of Ruthenia.

Spoiler: Northern Kiev

Needless to say, we all know what is located north to Kiev - Chornobyl. And needless to say that it had a history before being blown up with a nuclear plant. Lets take a look at it.
The town was a separate powiat from Owrucz at some point of time. With a bunch of other towns, northern Kiev territory of Chornobyl was a core of what was Owrucz powiat. We can argue the relevancy of Chornobyl being a separate province and whether devs should add a nuclear easter egg event or not, but I have another additional point to look at.
As a result of peace treaty between Russia and the Commonwealth, the border between them lied around Kiev. Southern border was basically on Stugna river, which is correctly represented. However.... the northern border was on the Irpin' river.

The international borders, stable for a century here, and the yellow line being the North of Kiev, lying on the Irpin' river.

Again, these are the river maps for Ukraine.
6 - Stuhna river.
7 - Irpin' river.

Bonus point: the city of Kyiv is located more to the south. It is still south to the Desna river (the big one on the Left Bank) - after all the expansion the city had. It is considerably more to the south, around the red spot I've marked.
This is how the borders should look for Kiev. The city was one of the most important ones in the Eastern Europe and despite the declined economical importance it was one of the key locations. It deserves to be a separate entity, with Chornobyl being turned into a separate province instead. Historically, Chornobyl was a part of the Owrucz powiat later, but I think that it would be a too big province - so rationally Chornobyl should be simply split from Kiev.

Oh, and while I am at it - the northern border for Chornobyl is also not right. Why? Because the part of it should be on the Pripiat river, opposed to how it is right now in game. It is not a major issue, but simply a rational fix. Map link here.

The fix is simple. Mozyr province should be strictly north to the Pripiat. Instead, provinces south to Pripiat should be readjusted and consume those territories. A possible fix to the province lines regarding Pripiat river and the referenced locations may be needed by increasing the territory of Turov for example.
This point isn't exactly right and needs a revisit.

I hope that these fixes will be helpful.

Spoiler: Southern borders of Podolia

Once again, we shall fight for the right borders. This time the border issue is between Bratslav and Yedisan.
Lets take a look at the town of Balta. You probably had no idea, but it was one not a single town but instead two different settlements in two different countries - PLC and Ottoman Empire, being on their borders until Russian Empire took the Ottomans part and did the 2nd partition of Poland.

Obviously, this means that Northern Yedisan in particular need a revisit for their borders, as well as Podolia
The map here isn't entirely correct - as cossack holdings were actually limited by rivers South Buh and Synyukha on the west.

But again, lets return to Balta and relative positions.

First two screenshots from Google Maps belong to the small town of Balta. Why do I bring up this town? It is because it is surely was included in Poland on the border and judging from relative position it should be situated a bit more to the south.

For example, this is a location of Bratslav for comparison.

To finish drawing the border, I shall use the argument I've used plenty already - rivers!
The border lying... yes, on the river. Kodyma river to be precise.

8 - Kodyma river
9 - the I-don't-name-of-that-river-but-I-am-frankly-sure-that-it-was-another-border-river river

The location of the river relatively to the Southern Buh (which is in game) shows that actually the southern border of Podolia is inaccurate and should be shifted southwards. Not to mention that part of Yedisan province should be actually split to the Wild Field to make the borders better.
A crude example of how it would look on the game map:

As you can see this map including fix for Cherkasy, you can actually see how Wild Field was inclduded in the other regions. Not just that - we can see that Bratslav and Winnica provinces are rather big. Naturally, they could and should be split further - as well as Cherkasy. One of the arguments would be that Zvenyhorodka is a part of Winnica, while in reality it was one of the three parts of Bratslav voivodship. Not just that: it was often contexted between Kyiv and Bratslav voivodships and during the Cossack Uprising it was a part of Korsun' regiments - because the territory defacto is a part of near-Dnieper Right Bank Ukraine. I don't reflect this border on the map yet as this one is not factual but political and somewhat arbitrary one.

In short - the border between Bratslav and Yedisan should be moved a bit to the south.

Spoiler: Desna river

It is plain wrong. It must be fixed. There is a good map for reference here, although I doubt that there is much need to say about it. Take a look at some maps too (like here or here, near Smolensk).
Regardless of which changes you make, not fixing Desna river in game is plain awful.
Changing Desna river is essential to making right historical borders after all, with the river drawn wrong it makes Trubchevsk merge into Starodub which is plain bad.

Lastly, just a common sense thing - Wild Field in the game is non-existent. Addressed in the further post.

 

[fr-rein]

Today I would like to present the issues about the Donbass region - and how I suggest to rework that.

1. Zaporozhia should be outside of the region. I suggest moving it to the Wild Field region (to be suggested later) as at the time Zaporozhia was the Wild Field and Donbass was a bit too distant, being another area in most of records.
2. Mansur province names are wrong. Katerinoslav and Kodak, referring to the modern city of Dnipro (aka Dnepropetrovsk), are plain wrong names - since that city was on the other side of the Dnipro bank than the province. And I am not sure why is that place called Mansura.
3. Western and Eastern Mansura should be split roughly along Bakhmutka river as they had a different history. Ostrogozhsk should be a separate province. Arguments for these will be below.
4. Geographical fixes and border adjustments, including giving Kharkiv a proper position on the map.

This is a crude illustration for the proposals. I am sorry for drawing so crudely.

1 - Pavlograd (alternatively Oril).These lands, roughly, were listed as a part of PLC on many maps, yet they aren't properly represented. Not just that - but they also are different from the rest.
2 - Mansura. Just have it different. Perhaps borders could be slightly readjusted. I hope that borders won't be on the other bank of Siversky Donets again as they shouldn't really be. The name should be changed to Bahmut.
5 - Mariupol. Aside from Pavlograd change it should be the same.
4 - Kharkov. It needs quite a lot of adjustment, but the core idea this time was to move borders to properly incorporate Izum and maybe adjust them a bit better for game purposes.
3 - Ostrogozhsk, a historical territory where Cossacks settled.

For Pavlograd the reason for adding it is obvious - lack of it on the map creates somewhat wrong borders. Not to mention that it includes quite a few territories from Poltava province and serves as a transit territory in the Wild Field as it history was. The borders are roughly drawn by rivers, marking the territory:

10 - Oril river
11 - Molochna river
12 - Vovcha river
River Molochna (11 on the map) was a river that is one of the historical lines, which divided Russia and Crimean Khanate at some point. It was likely to be a south-eastern border of the Kiev voivodship in the PLC.
Vovcha river - effectively the river that goes where most of the borders involving this part of the Left Bank went. It also was an important transit river used for transportation and sea raiding for Cossacks. On that river a future Pavlograd was established later.
Oril river - coincides with the later administrative divisions of Russian Empire on the north of that area.

While the northern Oril border is a later thing, it makes sense for such a province. It is not even that big and has a purpose for itself.
It also somewhat coincides with territorial divisions of Cossacks there. I do not think that, however, following them closely in that area would be right and which is why I consider later Imperial administrative divisions, as well as geography - it gives some space to change those borders and a discussion about them.
Effectively, it allows to make Donbass a bit more divided and separate Donbass region from the Dnipro area part, which was somewhat different and too difrerent to be called one province. It also makes sense to have 3 provinces in Donbass area as it roughly corresponds with 3 Cossack units which existed there - meaning that the area overall should be fine and normally given to Cossacks as it historically was, at least until Crimea is "rekt" and there is no need in being shielded from raids.

As for Mansur:
First of all, it should be called Bahmut as the town and fortress of Bahmut is located there, not in that other province
Second, I argue that it should be on the borders of Siversky Donets river:

Historically, borders were often following that river and in XVIII century Russia, finally subjugating the southern frontier, used this river as a fortification against Tatars. Quite a few reinforced towns appeared near it and on the other side there were slobodas - (ukrainian) cossack settlements designed to fight against Tatars, which existed until the fall of Crimea, disbandment of Hetmanate and they were reintegrated into other structures within Russia. However, they left the impact of making the Sloboda Ukraine region and populated it with Ukrainians.
The part where Pavlograd, Kharkov and Mansura meet is debatable, sure. But I leave it mostly to the game mapping and how people consider it best to do.

Lastly, Ostrogozsk.

Article about them.
I couldn't find accessible English article yet, sadly, but for now I shall just point out that there were a few of them. Kharkov + Izum are represented more or less within Kharkov province and I wrote about Sumy (which are within Rylsk atm) already, I consider them deserving to be separate.
As for Ostrogozsk - it is a province rooughly between Voronezh and Bahmut.
Now, I may be not quite right and maybe I misrember something, but Bahmut in game is not Ostrogozsk. I dunno what it should be and if so I will leave this suggestion to make the province there.


Overall - I suggest readjusting a border or two, adding one to Donbass and one near Sloboda Ukraine, not even making those lands as tightly packed with provinces as for example Anatolia. I think that it is a reasonable increase and a more reasonable density for the land there.

UPDATE: looking at the DD from 22nd October... do you think it would be justifiable to add even more provinces? I mean, look at America now...

 

[fr-rein]

I will start with one accepted fact - that Wild Field, generally, was defined loosely and it was rather huge, including and not limited to the Pontic Steppe. Yet no one sees it in EU4. At all.

I base my proposal for this region on the map I've made (currently the crude 2.0 version).

The regions I plan to include in the Wild Field are B and C., which are Wild Field and Right Bank Ukraine areas respectively.
Before I proceed with explanations on these areas, I will make a quick rundown on the changed area borders (full reasoning was a part of other posts, including this one).

• Podolia area border. It was changed to include Zwenyhorodka powiet in the Right Bank Ukraine. Historically, Zwenyhorodka was a flip powiet between Bratslav and Kiev and during Cossack rule it was a part of Korsun' regiment.
• Area border in Cherkasy. I've addressed it extensively, but it all comes down to the fact that it was simply a plain wrong border - internationally, economically, historically. I fixed it, explained fully here.
• Southern area border in Ingul. I made it closer to the real historical border that existed there.
• Northern Right Bank Ukraine border. It includes Bila Tserkva (important town as big as Kiev at the time turned into province under my proposal), turned as a Right Bank Ukraine as it historically is. The border between Bila Tserkva and Zhytomyr is somewhat arbitrary at this moment.

Right Bank Ukraine (a counterpart to the Left Bank) is an area that was a home to the Cossack Hetmanate and later to the Right Bank part of Hetmanate (it's not reflected in game though, they don't exist there... yet). During the Tatar and Mongol raids and the destruction of Kiev Rus', the area was devastated and depopulated, only to be resettled and rebuilt starting with Lithuanian rule. It grew and restored in XVI-XVII centuries (still suffering from Tatar raids however), but during the second half of XVII century it was utterly ruined and devastated, with a lot of population fleeing to the Sloboda Ukraine and settling there, expanding there Ukrainian presence.

Let me explain about the provinces of the Right Bank Ukraine.

Bila Tserkva.
3 on the map, wiki link. An ancient town originating from the town of Yuriev, it was ruined at one point and nearly nothing of it remained - but only the white cathedral of it remained. This is why the town is known as "White Church" (Bila Tserkva) nowadays, gaining its new name upon the revival. It was one of the richer towns of the Right Bank Ukraine, one after which the broad definition of the Wild Field started, one that historically was on the path of the Tatar raids to the north and which got assaulted multiple times because of it. A home to one of the Cossack regiments, a key point in Ukraine and a strategic point that was always targeted by Poles, Cossacks and Ottomans. Currently it is referred to Zhytomyr for the reason unknown.

Cherkasy.
4 on the map. Needless to say, it is one of the famous towns and places in the Ukraine. Along with Kaniv, Obukhiv and a few other towns it was one of the heartlands of the Hetmanate.

Korsun'.
5 on the map. Wiki link. Another fine town and home to Cossack regiments, together with Zwenyhodka it represents the other part of the Righ Bank Ukraine and its Cossack heartland. Province was devasted and ruined in the XVII century - and basically did not fully recover afterwards, which is why it is not widely known. Historical battle of Korsun' happened there.

Chyhyryn.
8 on the map. Wiki link. Initially a depopulated area of the Wild Field, it was settled and developed by the runaway serfs and the oppressed Ruthenians. Always a home to the freedom-loving people, it was a place where quite a few rebellions happened - which in the end resulted in Khmelnytsky Uprising (Khmelnytsky himself was a sotnik of the Chyhyryn, making it a historical place). Later the town was elavated in status, becoming the capital for the Hetmanate until the full fall of the Right Bank Hetmanate and the towns utter destruction.

Wild Field.
The name says it all. In my version, I limit it at the territory where the influence of Cossacks was mostly extended, with a few regular settlements, where was no permanent Tatar presence and where the rule of Poland was very weak. The steppe, home to the brave and freedom-loving ones.

Chornyi Lis.
9 on the map, wiki link here. Essentially, the start of the Wild Field. It was a forest (the name means Black Forest) and generally barely populated territory that was on the path of Tatar Raids. It includes the later New Serbia territory and the future Elizavetgrad (modern Kropyvnytskyi, formerly Kirovograd) as a part of it to show its later development. The Krukiv settlement was near Dnieper river, marking the north-eastern border. Behind this territory was the unforgiving steppe.

Syni Vody.
7 on the map. A place for the medieval battle between Tatars and Lithuanians (link), named as such after a local river making the western border of the province - Syniukha. For this territory I included the central part of the Wild Field. Territorially it is mostly steppe. Effectively a regular path for the infamous Black Trail which Tatars used to raid and devasted Ruthenia for centuries. Territorially I somewhat adjusted it to include most of the Bugogard palanka under Zaporozhian Cossacks in XVIII century. Later it was mostly Olviopol' povet.
Arguably, Syni Vody and Chornyi Lis could be somewhat changed around Elizavetgrad as it could be a part of either province, somewhat changing its historical name and role but leaving most of the provinces and justifications of their existance intact.

Zhovti Vody.
10 on the map. Somewhat rough borders. The part of the Wild Field west to the locations of historical Cossack Siches. The sight of one of the first significant battles of Khmelnytsky Uprising - battle of Zhovti Vody. It includes the future Kryvyi Rih. The region boomed greatly during the industrialization as it was a home to the large amount of metal.

Zaporozhia.
12 on the map. I limited the area to the banks of the Dnieper river where most of the Siches were located. The area in itself is a site of historical significance... and much later a home to Zaporozhia city itself.

Kodak.
11 on the map. The area for the Kodak, where the historical fortress of Kodak was located, aimed to suppress Cossacks. Later on that place Ekaterinoslav (modern Dnipro (formerly Dnepropetrovsk) city) was found, becoming a hearland for the new lands and the colonized Wild Field.


Summary: I hope that it gives a good understanding for the proposed changes for the Wild Field in general. The reason why these provinces should be added is to increase the role of the Cossacks in EU4 as right now they do not spawn in the Ukraine as they should, they never do. It would also play a huge role for the Khmelnytsky Uprising and add some weight and meaning to it. Not to mention that together with Tatar Raids mechanics it would simply make arguable addition of these provinces, keeping them not overdeloped as they should be while raids keep happening.

Overall, it is 9 provinces turned from roughly 2. As someone said in last DD (23rd October) Haiti is 8 provinces - so it should be okay for Ukraine and the relavant pages of Eastern European history to have this number of provinces. Right?..

 

[fr-rein]

Aside from a few minor things, it looks about right.
However, I would like to bring a case of adding two provinces there, as well as considering some case specific for Hordes.
Map (WIP):

1 - Khajibey (Odesa)
2 - Ochakiv (Ozu)
3 - Khajibey.
4 - Ingul
Yedishkul stays the same.

Why do I bring up redoing these provinces? Because of the relevant reasons for them to exist.

Khajibey.
1 on the map, roughly. Currently known as Odesa, one of the biggest port cities on the Black Sea and the host of many trade routes.
At the beginning of the game it was one of the trade colonies of Genoa known as Ginestra. In the western Black Sea multiple genoese colonies existed (map):

In particular, they were quite present in the region of the Dniester river. With this in mind, this province could actually represent the extensive genoese presence in the region - and its fate would be to fall most likely.
After that, the place was ran over by Tatars and Ottomans. The fort of Khajibey arouse and was present - but rather backwater as the trade did not move a lot there at that time period due to the constant raids, devastation of the area around and so on.
Later on it was taken by Russian Empire and turned into a proper city, which gave a huge trade boost for the Eastern Europe as it was a great permant access to the World trade.
Because of it, and also because Dniester trade route was long present in history, I argue to make it also a CoT (with Stambul-Odesa, Odesa-Krakov and Odesa-Kiev routes).

Ochakov.
2 on the map, also known as Özü. Strategic holding in the Pontic Steppe, a key to the movements of armies in it and a key to the naval supremacy of the Ottoman Empire on the Black Sea.

Yedisan.
3 on the map.
For Yedisan being listed as a separate province there is a reason. It is that Yedisan was a home to the Yedisan Horde of Nogai's, being... well, what you could call a relatively small "pet Horde" of the Ottomans in the steppes of Yedisan. Not to mention the sheer size of the region.
In this case it can optionally stay as a part of Ochakov. However, in that case the strategic value of Ochakov doesn't become as apparent... which is wrong.

Ingul stays as it is, aside from previously mentioned border change.

 

[fr-rein]

Areas:
a - Severia
b - Left Bank Ukraine
c - Sloboda Ukraine
d - Donbas
Provinces:
1 - Starodub
2 - Trubchevsk
3 - Novgorod-Siverskyi
4 - Hlukhiv
5 - Chernigov
6 - Nizhyn
7 - Lubny
8 - Pereyaslav
9 - Kremenchuk
10 - Myrhorod
11 - Rylsk
12 - Sumy
13 - Kursk
14 - Belgorod
15 - Kharkiv
16 - Poltava
17 - Oril
18 - Bahmut
19 - Izum
20 - Mariupol

Warning: Desna river looks a bit off and it should be probably fixed a bit... I addressed it here.
I've doubled the number of provinces in this area. With Tatar raid mechanics (which, hopefully, would be present) it is fully justified and is only twice as much as on Haiti.
I shall proceed with the explanations now for areas and provinces.

Rylsk
11 on the map. 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) is a right thing. I put Rylsk into the same area as Kursk. Addressed here.

Trubchevsk
2 on the map. 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. The map I used is here.

Kursk
13 on the map. Split Belgorod from it.

Belgorod
14 on the map. 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. Same area as Kursk.

Severia Area
I've modified this area somewhat by exluding Trubchevsk and Rylsk, consolidating it around the territories which were a part of PLC and later Hetmanate mostly, as well as being switch territories. New areas were added to it, corresponding to the different administrative and Cossack divisions.

Starodub
1 on the map. It was drawn mostly right on the map, but it being Trubchevsk was a lie. Now, with Trubchevsk given its own province, the justice is served.

Hlukhov
4 on the map. 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.

Novgorod-Siversky
3 on the map. Needless to say, an old and important town and a historical region.

Chernigov
5 on the map. Needless to say, an old and important town and a historical region. Southern part of it was split.

Nizhyn
6 on the map. 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.

Left Bank Ukraine
I've redifined some provinces and added some weight to them. All the provinces are mostly corresponding to the Hetmanate administrative divisions (one of a few regiment per province).

Pereyaslav
8 on the map. I've split off Pryluky and Zolotonosha from them.

Lubny
7 on the map. Combined with Pryluky and separated near-Dnieper part of them.

Myrhorod
An important town of the Left Bank Ukraine, combined with Hadyach.

Poltava
16 on the map, tooks some bits of it to other provinces and limited it to Poltava regiment only.

Kremenchuk
9 on the map. One of the fine cities of Ukraine, an old town with a Cossack history. I've adjusted to it near-Dnieper provinces in my case for gameplay and for relative proximity.

Sloboda Ukraine
I have excluded Kursk and Voronezh from it. Instead, I put attention to other places. More info was previously in the thread, here in particular. Remarkably, the idea of this region is that it was south from Zasechnaya cherta of Muscovy, so it was rather empty for a while. Cossacks and peasants from the devastated Right Bank Ukraine were allowed to settle there. They formed "slobodas" (settlements), which is a reason why the region is called Slobozhanschyna (Sloboda Ukraine).

Sumy
12 on the map. Part of the Sloboda Ukraine, together with Okhtyrka formed the northern part of it.

Kharkov
15 on the map. I have excluded Okhtyrka from it and the Izum regiment part.

Izum
19 on the map. Mostly includes the Izum regiment with a north part of contemporary Luhansk oblast' of Ukraine, including Starobil'sk.

"Bahmut"
Ideally I see that province as Ostrohozsk. I am not sure about provinces (and right now I do not recall what it is in game or what it should be).

Donbass
Adressed here. Mostly fixed borders. With inclusion of Ostrohozhsk in Sloboda Ukraine I can actually argue for including in the region Tyn and Azov provinces as they formed somewhat one space back then. Since the provinces match previous ones in the previous maps, I shall exclude my explanation of them this time.

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.

Conclusion: I hope that these suggestions for the map correction will be useful to people and especially to devs. These are needed to reflect the weight and impact of the Hetmanate, Cossacks, add depth to Ruthenia and its history, as well as increase its role to somewhat more accurate. Right now it is fully excluded from the game defacto and bringing map changes is the first step to bring the proper flavour and events for Ruthenia and Cossacks.

 

[fr-rein]

Well, here is the article.
To sum it up, right now the game only represents Zaporozhian Host.

What is a Cossack Hetmanate? It is a state established by Khmelnytsky during the uprising. It formed more than simple steppe territories - in fact, in 1649 it got most of Ruthenia under its command and for half a century Ruthenia, along with neighbors, entered in a period of massive wars (including the civil one). The state existed in different form for a century, leaving a deep cultural impact and being a reason why Cossacks are a part of modern Ukrainian natural identity.

What happened? Ever since Union of Lublin and later with Union of Brest Orthodox population of the Commonwealth was effectively discriminated. People who didn't convert to Uniate Church (the Orthodoxy following Catholicism to put it shortly) had their temples seized and could see Catholics taking them away. This resulted in the fact that Ruthenian nobles integrated a few generations in the Polish culture and faith - but leaving serfs, the peasant population, alone with no protection. As a result, more and more people converted to Cossacks who were free and not oppressed. As a result, tensions grew.

Right now Poland has Ruthenian culture as accepted and is supertolerant to Orthodoxy... which is objectively wrong. It is a reason why I suggest introducing Uniate Church as intermediate one between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - a way for humanist Poland to convert the Orthodox population. Giving a special modifier for Orthodoxy would also allow to see the troubles and issues with faith in the region, being way more useful for Poland and Catholic countries in general than for example Anglican church currently is.

I also can say that Ruthenian culture was not treated on par with Lithuanian or even German... but well, the way game works I do not have too many objections to it. Alternatively, there could be separated a culture of Western Ukraine (Galicians) but it would be perhaps a bit too overstretching.

So, with these issues in mind, being social (serfs being dissatisfied), religious (Orthodoxy vs Catholicism), national (Ruthenian culture and language having little representation or place to take), political (nearly no political representation before the Uprising), cossack (Cossacks wanted to have the register of Cossacks expanded, which was a reason for the multiple uprisings with Khmelnytsky one culminating in great disaster for the Commonwealth) and many others... it happened and resulted in emergence of Hetmanate.

Hetmanate was essentially the state of Cossacks. But it was specific compared to the Zaporozhia and distinct from it. First of all, unlike in game, they were present far and wide - from Starodub to Uman, from Ovruch to Poltava, not limited to steppe terrain.
In this state, Cossacks essentially did a social revolution, destroying the rule of local nobles, fighting them bloodily. Serfs followed them as it meant destruction of the Serfdom as institution for them, this was a reason why so many followed Cossacks, joined them and why Cossack armies had not only Cossack regulars but also huge peasant militias following them. Even a bloody destruction and Ruin didn't end them, despite the great devastation, and even Russian Imperial government kept Hetmanate around until 1764 and the Zaporozhia Host until 1775 - and gave noble ranks and land to many Cossacks to earn their loyalty, unlike the Commonwealth, thus learning from the earlier mistakes done by the neighbor.

Thus I argue for the introduction of the Cossack Hetmanate as it was (including it partitioning on Right bank one and Left Bank one, later reunited under Mazepa) in history, being an actual special tag. Khmelnytsky disaster also should be a special event for the Commonwealth - like the separation of Northern Italy from HRE.
How do I see this event?

1. Reform the Polish gameplay and make a Sejm that matters and actually blocks or indeed makes it harder to pass decisions, settles the army limit on the king and makes local nobility a pain in the ass.
2. As a result, you can see a natural desire of the king to make Commonwealth more united and homogenous - thus passing treaty of Brest and not making Ruthenia a 3rd part of the Commonwealth.
3. Thus, the disaster tickles with every peasant/religious/cossack uprising, more Cossacks, events and some special decisions.
4. When it hits 100% the Disaster occurs and Hetmanate establishes itself, starting a civil war in Poland with an entity which would require extended rights and as a result not only deny efforts of converting that land, but will also reduce economy (no more serfdom), will make Cossacks registered (thus draining budget) and will make Ruthenian presence in the Sejm - making it even harder to handle, being a major drawback.
5. The disaster can be averted either by somehow succeeding with making Ruthenia Polish (cultural convertion, religious convertion, etc - being hard thing to do) or by making it a third part of the Commonwealth (with the issues I described above, natural to Commonwealth, and in worst case threatening to separation of each state).
6. This applies to other Eastern slavic cultures in Commonwealth, but the base of rebellion will be defined by the historical borders of the emerged Hetmanate. Hetmanate will aim to free all Eastern Slavic and Orthodox territories of Poland, receiving positive modifiers in a war.

This is my suggestion for an event like this. As for the Hetmanate - I think that without a doubt proper special tags should exist.
After all, there was Cossacks DLC and it ignored these things at all. The fact that Cossacks are limited by the Steppe terrain only makes it worse for them, making cossack states (siches) right now simply at the level of Zaporozhia at most. Which is wrong.

The history of Hetmanate is of utmost importance to the region. The Hetmanate, and separately Zaporozhia Cossack Host, were a great thing and in Russian Cossack tradition it mattered a lot, with many of those Cossacks later serving in Don Cossack Host and other Russian Imperial Cossack formations, leaving a great trace on the identity of Kuban region of Russia.

Overall, it was addressed before, but I don't think that it ever got a proper feedback before.

 

[fr-rein]

It's simple.
Right now it is simply depicted as "cavalry army" - and that would be not right.
In fact, Cossacks were very skilled horsemen indeed, but in reality they lacked equipment and horses for this.
Thus, mostly they were focused in infantry. Historically rifles made it possible for, in particular, Muscovy to gain an advantage over Tatars and their cavalry, making infantry way more able to fight it. The same applied to Cossacks.
Cossacks used shock infantry formations and were very effective as an infantry. In fact, they were effectively the most effective regiments in the Commonwealth, with most experience and constant training from their regular skirmishes with Tatars. It was a reason why a lot of famous Polish regints were recruited from Cossack elements - including the famous Lisowczycy (but, notably, while being recruited from Cossack-like elements they were distinct from cossacks). In game, however, Cossacks do not have the edge in the military as they should have.
The fact that Cossacks do not have good infantry is awfully sad. Moreover, their infantry isn't special and all in all the depiction of them is quite wrong. It is not that relevant for the Cossack Estate itself, which is mostly referring to Register Cossacks. Instead, in case of introducing Hetmanate or even in Zaporozhia's cases it is a big misinterpretation, leaving the Cossacks rather weak as a result.

 

[fr-rein]

I have two suggestions for the estate mechanics.

1. Hordes could use "Horde" estate. In real life, many hordes weren't fully united and there were smaller hordes orbiting around bigger ones. Now, in most cases Hordes live in the plains and steppes. They weren't usually developing countryside or doing other silly things - since it would mean Horde settling down. Right now Horde can do it because there is nothing stopping it from investing in Eastern Poland. But what if Hordes were encouraged to keep more "hordish" playstyle, included but not limited to sustaining groups of smaller hordes, represented via estates? This way, for example, Crimean Khanate would be interested to develop capital but give Yedisan to the smaller hordes. I also see Horde estate tied on the Horde unity, it being important for the estate, as well as regular and healthy raiding.
2. Groups within estates. What do I mean: right now estates are mostly generic clergy, cossacks, burghers, aristocracy. In most cases we are fine without getting into details. But... lets say we look at Poland and at Magnates, aristocracy so powerful that it owned effectively entire province or territories close to that. For Poland having such entities would be a great thing as they would play a great role in (improved) Sejm and internal politics. Or, for example, have separate Cossack Hosts which would make sense for Russia for example (having Don, Terek, Far East, Siberian, Yaik and other Hosts during different periods of time) as well as ability to relocate separate hosts and manage relations with them differently, as well as giving different tasks. Or, as I have suggested, in case of Hordes it would mean making Horde Estates tied to separate Hordes. For example, Crimean Khanate could have a group of Nogais in Yedisan as a "vassal" horde, which such an estate would reflect correctly. For burghers such a thing would be a Free City kind of deal - often undesirable unless given to barely developed territories. For Aristocracy it would be great because it would allow Poland to promote general to a powerful Aristocrat and try to tip balance of power in Sejm. All in all, it is introducing internal politics for the bigger nations and even possibility for spawning new nations out of such rebellious estate (and not touching "general" or other "named" parts of the respective estate). So, Don Cossacks could in theory break free all while Yaik Cossacks would stay loyal to the Tsar.

This mainly concerns Cossacks and Hordes, but ideally it would be working with any country and estate. Just naturally limited to bigger countries mostly. Or, for example, in case you integrate some vassal you could have an option to integrate him as a priveleged Aristocrat - making cheaper/quicker integration, but leaving them privileged with an estate and giving them ability to influence your internal politics as a powerful aristocrat.

Edit: for the groups of estates showing us magnates... I think that this mechanics could also apply to some less-than-a-vassal subjects within big countries. For example, there were quite a few principalities under GDL which could be under this representation. Their disloyalty and switching to Muscovy like at the end of XV century and the ensuing wars could help greatly with dynamics in the region.

 

[fr-rein]

1. Union of Brest.
Union of Brest was the major decision of Poland and Commonwealth.
In short, it was about integrating Ruthenian Orthodox (aka Greek) Church into Catholic one. As a result of this Union, Poland made Orthodox priests turn into Catholic side, thus making even those who were previously Orthodox formally under the Catholic jurisdiction - under the Greek Orthodox Church. The Church, which has only a few similar ones in Middle East and other places, united Catholic and Orthodox rites under the Pope. The main purpose of it was to convert Orthodox population into the Catholic side by a "soft force" - as this Church not only was the successor of the Orthodoxy in Rus' (starting for the bapticizing of Rus in Kiev) and the oldest one, but also legally the only Orthodox Church in the Commonwealth.
Partially the plan succeeded, especially in Red Ruthenia and Volyn. The Church had a support from the state and Orthodox Churches were taken into that Church or turned into Catholic ones. However, this Church didn't get the needed support - Polish nobility had no interest to it, Jesuits and other purists weren't keen of it and Ruthenian nobility either held it in disdain or converted directly into Catholicism, leaving the spread of the Church up to the state.

Historically, the Church survived through all storms and exists nowadays. Its area was and is primarily Western Ukraine as it didn't get further due to Ruthenian resistance and later the Khmelnytsky Uprising - and after partitions Russian Empire did its best to destroy it, replacing with Orthodoxy, leaving it intact only on the territories of Habsburgs. However, I've argued previously about the importance of such a Church and of attempts of Catholicism to unite Christianity. What if Poland took Moscow and conquered Russia? What if the Catholic powers got the ground for spreading the Greek Catholic Church and turning Orthodox provinces into Greek Catholic? And, of course, with making Greek Catholics prevail over Orthodox Church there could be done some final kind of Union, integrating the remnants of Orthodoxy into Greek Catholics and Greek Catholics into Catholicism proper. Wouldn't it be fun to have the actually historical counterpart to CKII event, where you could make Catholicism absorb Orthodoxy? If you can win against Protestants then why not?

And in general I wish Catholicism to receive more love.

There also was another similar event - Union of Uzhgorod - which was a Hungarian version of Union of Brest, establishing Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church.
Which probably would mean that any Catholic power could try to convert Orthodox Churches into Greek Catholic ones.

The main idea of such mechanics would be the bonuses to conversion, less unrest and other perks encouraging such an "indirect" conversion, as well as much stronger missionary speed and/or other perks.

2. Restoration of the Orthodox Church in Ruthenia.
The situation after the Union of Brest was rather dire for the Orthodox population.
However, in the 1620s the Cossack Hetman, famous Petro-Konashevych Sahaidachny, managed to get help from the Constantinople Patriarch and restore the Orthodoxy in Ruthenia, having Job Boretsky as the first Metropolitan of Kiev, Galicia and all Rus. It marked the opposition efforts to the Greek Catholic Church and greatly reinforced positions of Orthodox Church and Cossacks in Commonwealth, especially among Ruthenian population.
Personally, I envision it as a part of the greater Khmelnytsky Disaster event, where it would be one of the points of no returns.
It is also important for Cossacks too, as it marked their strengths and influences (the battle of Khotyn alone showed how important and strong Cossacks could be).
Another thing is that Petro Sahaidachny was a very loyal Hetman to Commonwealth despite all the disagreements. His actions and time would be one of the defining in the relationships of Cossacks and the Commonwealth.

3. Foundation of the Sich.
Historically Cossacks existed before, dating as far as to the start of XVI century. However, it is Baida Vyshevetsky who is considered as a founder of the Siches to come and the one who made the decisive foundation of the Cossack legacy. His personal charisma led to him gathering Cossacks under him, building a fortress for themselves and organizing as a military organization.

4. Moldova Expeditions.
It may sound strange to you, but historically Cossacks were quite involved with Moldova.
There is a whole (non-English) wiki article about multiple attempts of Cossacks to establish themselves in Moldova, with Hetmans trying to take over it. These events were major, especially for Moldavia, and played quite some role in its history. It mattered for Cossacks too - in Moldavia after the ultimate defeat died elder son of Khmelnytsky, Tymosh, who was designated as a heir. His younger brother, Yurii, was not as capable and certainly not in the time when the crisis was ongoing, weakening the Cossack leadership afterwards.

5. Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
As I was saying, the opposition to the Polish influence in Ruthenia was quite formiddable and growing as the Catholicism agenda was pushed.
In 1632 effectively appeared Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. The role of this institution, organized by the Ruthenian Orthodox elite, is hard to underestimate. It was the first such institution of the Eastern Slavic group and became a school to many people there - effectively becoming a mother to Russian universities later, as well as giving education to many prominent people of that era (with even Lomonosov studying in there at some point). List of people who studied there (warning: mixed with some contemporary people) shows the relevance of the Academy, with many Hetmans coming from there. This institution played a huge role in the religious and cultural life of the Eastern Europe, being one of the pillars of it in XVII-XVIII centuries and the successors still play a huge role in the religious life.
Notably, the institution wasn't a proper university despite everything - or rather it was quite focused on the religious and cultural education, being a humanitarian academy first and foremost.
The appearance of such institution should be shown in game as it played a key role in history.

---
I do not include most of Uprisings as they could fit in the current rebelling and model of Cossacks, as long as the presence of Cossacks in Steppe only will be reconsidered.

To be expanded. If you can suggest other major events involving Ruthenia then please reply.

 

[fr-rein]

I have previously argued about the absolute misinterpretation of Counter-Reformation in Poland and how Polish high Tolerance and having Ruthenians as Accepted Cultures twists history in a weird way - like as if saying that Ottoman Empire is a good friend and ally to Balkan nations.
In particular, the main issue here is faith. Right now Poland is very tolerant, but that's simply not right as the Counter-Reformation in Poland, Jesuit influence and Catholicism expansion led to the high tensions compared to the bloody bath of Reformation.

But let me show another part of this dynamics.
Orthodox Brotherhoods wouldn't be a thing that you would normally pay attention to.
However, these were a major pillar of the Ruthenian and Orthodox in Commonwealth. They were saving Orthodox faith and customs (and by extension Ruthenian ones) and opposing Polish Counter-Reformation in the Commonwealth. These brotherhoods were keeping faith and language safe, greatly opposing Catholicisation and convertion - which is a reason why Poland attempted to promote Uniate Church which tried to integrate Orthodox churches and faithful into itself and succeeded for the most part in Red Ruthenia and Volyn.

Their existance alone was a major obstacle to the Polish religious and cultural expansion and integration of Ruthenia. Even when Poland did convert most of magnates and nobility to its faith, the fact that there were such brotherhoods kept by common people didn't let the culture and faith die, becoming a fundament for the following Khmelnytsky Uprising and the Cossack wars, as well as a fundament for the Cossack Hetmanate.

It is a thing that shouldn't be overlooked as overlooking such few things made the current place and role of Ruthenia in EU4 twisted and wrong. Poland gets bonuses to religious tolerance and less problems with Ukraine, national rebellions aren't a thing. Cossacks are limited to Zaporozhia and the Hetmanate (map of it at the peak):

is absolutely ignored. The role of Cossacks in Ruthenia is absolutely ignored. Their presence in Ruthenia is ignored.
The Khmelnytsky Uprising is limited now to the "pretenders" regular uprising in the history map - which doesn't make sense and is not really possible either, fully twisting the history. The problems of Orthodox faith and Catholic-Orthodox conflict are ignored - instead, because Poland was known to be tolerant to Protestants it is by extension is tolerant to Orthodoxy. A sad ahistorical logics.
And it is not a problem of just Ruthenia - hey, it is a problem for Poland and Commonwealth as well. It is a poor design that a nation known for its aspirations on the East is very, very poor on the interactions with the said East, with Orthodoxy and even with its own Orthodox land.

So, back to the Orthodox Brotherhoods, this event or perhaps a modificator would be a thing increasing conversion costs for the religious and cultural convertion for Catholicism. This could be also a thing making the game for Uniate Church - as it would not suffer such penalties in conversion and make a groundwork for a Poland which would aim to convert Orthodox East to its own faith. However, in case of Cossack Hetmanate/Russia/other Orthodox nations were to retake the provinces from Uniates, the Orthodox faith would be restored.
The existance and function of such Orthodox Brotherhoods would vary from being "negative" to Commonwealth to even useful ones - with Uniate Brootherhoods appearing in the converted lands, providing some bonuses to compensate for economic disadvantage of conversion, approximating the income and other stats from Uniate Church provinces closer to proper Catholic ones. In case of Commonwealth reforming into the Commonwealth of Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia all Orthodox and Ruthenian provinces would become effectively unconvertable, but Orthodox Brotherhoods would no longer be negative or even useful for economics.

 

[fr-rein]

Well, this is a fairly huge point which will be tied to a few other suggestions.

I have already argued that Tatar Raids should be implemented for the nomads, Horde governments are just that kind of people. It is a huge improvement in the gameplay, it balances Colonization of Siberia without significantly debuffing Russia and adds a lot of gameplay to the Pontic Steppe and the regions beyond it.

Another point was said here that Hordes could be reorganized using estates. In short, a Horde is way more like an estate rather than province - it's not really interested or invested into developing province but instead is about sustaining their numbers and sufficient amount of pastures (yes, still kinda like in CK2) with an exception of an already established cities and agricultural regions they subdued (unless they don't, well, ruin it and turn into pastures I guess). Making Hordes groups (like separate Clans) would also hugely boost the importance of Horde Unity, Horde gameplay (raids, successful wars) and would generally establish a great inner politics for them, with a possibility of clans/hordes splitting-feuding, uniting and with ability for some powers (like Ottoman Empire) to host Hordes within their realm - for example like it happened on the fringe with Budjak Horde and others. Obviously, a normal centralized state would interact with Hordes in a more negative way - since Hordes could raid a state itself, they would normally be not welcome, unless settled on fringe and used for outside raids - kinda like it happened historically.

But here is my idea for the Steppes: make Steppes not inhabited by default. Or rather, these provinces are colonized, but in most cases without a culture and with a modifier "unsettled".
Why do I argue for that?
Because most of the Steppes were indeed uninhabited. They were organized as Hordes, migrating all around - for example see Kalmyks. The settled areas were few, mostly subdued cities and traditionally developed territories and Horde capitals. This is a reason why for example the Pontic Steppe is mostly not Tatar in ethnical composition and wasn't like that - because the most of territories were sort of like pastures.
How would it work for Hordes? Easy, they benefit from such territories more by having more pastures but having the development limited and undevelopable by default (however... for Hordes, some kind of "Horde Dev" could exist, being relevant to mil dev and representing the Horde Army). Hordes could settle down, at a cost of losing their Horde status, and one of such examples would be Ottoman Empire. Hordes settling down would mean becoming a settled proper state or an attempt of Hordes to try another way. Or, as an estate, they could be forced to settle or move by the state which is developed - like Russia did with some Hordes within its territory.

Why do I suggest to make Hordes work in such a way? Because it would allow to realistically see the development of the Steppe, avoid awkward development of Steppes compared to other regions, make sense for Hordes to raid developed neighbors and not each other and lastly - make the colonization of the Steppe.

Steppe Colonization.
Historically, Pontic Steppe was settled by Ruthenian and Russian people mostly. It happened in a few ways - one of them was inviting immigrants from Right Bank Ukraine (harshly suffering from wars and raids), another - inviting immigrants from Germany, another - by resettling Pontic Greeks of Crimea to Mariupol area, another - by building up Cossack Estate on the south, letting it settle the area of Souther Russia.
This is a huge chunk of history that is somewhat ignored and not represented. It would also allow a better game for Hordes - since a Horde migrating to the West, India or China would basically free up the space for other Hordes spawning or migrating or expanding. Not to mention that this way, by remodelling Steppe colonization, we can make a dev of those territories rise instead of being always somewhat semi-decent which is a really odd situation.