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]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

Some points, besides of wiki, are here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short - everyone wins from such an addition.

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that it is an interesting mechanics to consider.

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some sources I've used:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

Development is good.

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

And in one place we see this:

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

Current trade mapmode (v.1.27)

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

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

Some comments about the map:

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

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

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

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

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

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

A supplemental map for the ores:

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

Spoiler: Details

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

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

I hope that this map will be considered.

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

Terrain map:

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: Variations of the flags for Zaporozhia

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

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

Source here.

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, this information will be helpful.

 

[fr-rein]

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

So, what is The Hetmanate?

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

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

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

Under the map suggestion it corresponds to the territory:

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

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

Territories of Hetmanate since Mazepa during various times:

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

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

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

Prototype:

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

The Khmelnytsky Disaster refers to the Khmelnytsky Uprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural ways to reduce the count would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left and Right Bank Hetmanates

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

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

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

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



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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

Obviously, the Hetmanate is an exception to this rule.

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

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

So, please fix that mistake.

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

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

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

Here are some historical examples (recreation):

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

Ideas
----

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

Flag:

Foundation of Podolia

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

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

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

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

Active politics... and fall of the duchy

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

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

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

Ideas

Spoiler: Ideas under spoiler

Traditions
-10% development cost

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

Podolia riches
+10% production efficiency

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

Legacy of Gedimin
+0.5 prestige

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

Constant warfare
+10% infantry combat ability

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

Kamianets
+25% fort defense

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

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

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

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

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

Register Cossacks
+15% cavalry combat ability

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

Franciscan Missionaries
+1.5% conversion strength

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

Ambition
+10% tax modifier

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

What are these lines:

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

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

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

 

[fr-rein]

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

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

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

Spoiler: map

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

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

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

Atlas and images for the region attached.