Ruthenian starting tag when?

[Theironemperor]

Name: Principality of Kyiv.
Ruler: Knyaz Olelko.
Diplomacy: Vassal of Lithuania, with claims over the Orthodox lands of the Duchy.
Political background: ten years before the start, there was a major civil war in Lithuania, virtually splitting the country into two. With the Orthodox population even proclaiming Švitrigaila a Grand Duke of Rus. The rebels were suppressed, and later, the Principality of Kyiv was incorporated into Lithuania. Before that, the Olelkovich family ruled there, right during the timeframe of the early game.

Pros:
* more flavour to Eastern Europe.
* More interesting gameplay and prehistory for Lithuania.
* A Ruthenian playable tag from the start.

Cons:
* there are none!

 

[Flammifleure]

Byz is a medium level start.

Medium-level for those who can conquer the world with a OPM, maybe. : p For mere mortals Byzantium is still very hard, though a bit easier now with Epirus providing an easy target for expansion. It's certainly doable, even for me, but;

I'm pretty sure Kiev would be easier. Following the suggestions, it might not be Lithuania's only vassal and certainly wouldn't be a OPM. And being the wrong religion isn't a big deterrent to supporting independence, unless it's changed -- I recall getting the Ottomans to support my independence as Nitra against Hungary, and I sure as hay wasn't Sunni. Muscovy having full diplo slots would be more of an issue, but likely still doable. I'd bet they'd be more willing to support Kiev than ally a struggling Byzantium. : p

And anyway, it isn't just about playing as Kiev, but making the game more historical and giving Lithuania/Ruthenia more flavour.

Kyiv is how say it in Ukrainian, Kiev is in russian

"Kiev" has also been the spelling in English, and it's the current spelling in-game for the country tag. I also think it's easier/more intuitive for Anglophones to say. I'm favour of leaving it that way, though if the devs would prefer to change it to Kyiv I would understand.

The city itself I'd be in favour of spelling Kyiv. The province, as @Theironemperor suggested, would be dynamic, meaning it would be Kyiv in Ruthenian hands, Kiev in Russian hands, and so on.

It is okay to have harder starts.

Exactly!

 

[Theironemperor]

More interesting details about the events related to the Duchy of Kyiv in the 15th century.

Spoiler: Source

From Lost Kingdom: The Quest for Empire and the Making of the Russian Nation

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

When Algirdas took Kiev from its Russian rulers, he turned Kiev into an appandage under his son Vladimir. Skirgaila took away Kiev from Vladimir and gave him Slutsk instead. Then eventually son of Vladimir, Olelko, took Kiev and after his death Lithuanian king took away the hereditary rights of Olelkovich family. Semyons mother was Anastasia Vasiliyevna, daughter of Vasiliy I of Moscow, and Semyon was Orthodox and he did try convincing Moscow into helping him, even recognizing Moscow as the protector of Orthodox Christianity in Lithuanian kingdom. Nothing came out of the negotiations and after Semyon died, Kiev was took away from the family and turned into Polish Vojevodstvo.

Appandages like this are considered part of the state under conventional EU4 mapmaking, not a vassal. Olelko was grandson of the man that subjugated Kiev and his son Semyon was one of candidates on the Lithuanian throne. There can be some potential if it was connected to wider overhaul of Lithuanian starting position, though, as there is a brief window for Muscowy to intervene against Lithuania and take Kiev from them.

Also its not just OPM, the family held Slutsk as well which is a province in Belarus.

 

[fr-rein]

Appandages like this are considered part of the state under conventional EU4 mapmaking, not a vassal. Olelko was grandson of the man that subjugated Kiev and his son Semyon was one of candidates on the Lithuanian throne. There can be some potential if it was connected to wider overhaul of Lithuanian starting position, though, as there is a brief window for Muscowy to intervene against Lithuania and take Kiev from them.

The overhaul of Lithuanian starting position is a necessity.

Also, the context you missed is why Kyiv principality was a thing as a distinct entity: it was one of the outcomes of the Civil War in 1430s, which actually was the result of Catholic-Orthodox rivalry. And it wasn't ended on the whim either: it was revoked by Casimir IV after he managed to restore power of Lithuania (devastated by wars in early XV century, including inheritance wars and civil war).

It is an absolutely justified principality in EU4 because it's existence was political (concession to Orthodox opposition in Lithuania after the civil war), hampered integration of Lithuania with Poland (so Kyiv and Mansura and Volhyn and smaller principalities had to be annexed), prevents the absolutely ahistorical relatively casual conversion to Orthodoxy by Lithuania (like, seriously, it is pretty ahistorical and is as plausible as Spain going Sunni), gives more reasonable challenge than 1-2 missions for Lithuania to "subjugate Ruthenia". It's also important to prevent some early wars with southern neighbors too in all honesty: Lithuania wouldn't really pay much attention to the south for a while because Kyiv principality was already poorly controlled. And of course, with Moscow start rebalanced, it could postpone the wars of Lithuania and Muscovy to the late XV century as oppossed to relatively early wars.

But in all honesty, the biggest joke is to argue that Grand Duchy of Lithuania was basically THE biggest centralized state after China. It's simply not correct no matter how you look at it.

 

[Omogoy]

I'll just repost here a great map made by someone else in this thread. It deals very well with the problem of Lithuania being too unified at the start, compared to other European states.

Jagoldai and Mansur are Tatar names. Jagoldai lived in 1444, and Mansur lived earlier, in 1444 their descendants lived - the princes Glinsky (Mamai), of which the leader bore the Slavic name Boris, that is, the ruling dynasty was Christianized in order to please their overlord.
The Zaporizhian Sich is not mentioned in 1444, so they must be removed and replaced by the Tatar population. The Zaporizhyan Sich can be created as a colonial nation later, they, that is, the Zaporizhyan Cossacks, will have Tatar titles and language. Their hairstyle, the forelock, which is called aidar in Turkic, is the sign of Tengri. The name Cossack itself is not a Slavic name, but a Turkic name, meaning a free person without an aristocracy.

 

[Loganplayseu4]

The Zaporizhian Sich is not mentioned in 1444, so they must be removed and replaced by the Tatar population. The Zaporizhyan Sich can be created as a colonial nation later, they, that is, the Zaporizhyan Cossacks, will have Tatar titles and language. Their hairstyle, the forelock, which is called aidar in Turkic, is the sign of Tengri. The name Cossack itself is not a Slavic name, but a Turkic name, meaning a free person without an aristocracy.

The map itself doesn't even have the Zaporizhian Sich on it as a country; it has it as uncolonized land representing the Wild Fields.
You are right that the Zaporizhian Sich wasn't a thing in 1444, but the Wild Fields sure were.

 

[Theironemperor]

the Zaporizhyan Cossacks, will have Tatar titles and language. Their hairstyle, the forelock, which is called aidar in Turkic, is the sign of Tengri. The name Cossack itself is not a Slavic name, but a Turkic name, meaning a free person without an aristocracy.

Well, that's a bit of an overstretch here, now. It's already a mess that they're having a nomadic culture in the game right now. Them having Tatar language would be some kind of an alternative history.
The Cossacks had had a kind of a rule of who can join them. That person had to be free, had to speak Ruthenian and had to be of Orthodox faith. And the very reason they were so invaluable for Lithuania, and later both Poland and Muscovy, is the fact that they were protecting the vast areas populated with Ruthenian peasants. Protecting from the very Tatars you're trying to portray them as.
Otherwise, I understand why you would assume that. A lot of their culture was shaped in the spirit of the Polish Sarmatism, that is, imitating the appearance of the Iranian tribes, who were once living in the Northern Pontic Steppe. You see, the Polish nobility at the time considered themselves to be descendent from those Sarmatians, hence being of another heritage from the Polish peasantry.

Now, to the topic. As, @Loganplayseu4 pointed out, the place is intended to be an uncolonized lands at the game start. Which would be a) historically right, b) way more fun for Eastern European nations. Those lands were almost completely unpopulated, as living there virtually equaled being enslaved by Tatars sooner or later.
So it would be cool to have those lands as uncolonized, with a high chance of "natives uprising", hence making it pretty hard to colonize at first. Later, by the end of the 15th century an event triggers those lands to be settled by Zaporozhian Sich (with possible variations of being a vassal to whatever Christian nation is nearby).

 

[Omogoy]

Well, that's a bit of an overstretch here, now. It's already a mess that they're having a nomadic culture in the game right now. Them having Tatar language would be some kind of an alternative history.
The Cossacks had had a kind of a rule of who can join them. That person had to be free, had to speak Ruthenian and had to be of Orthodox faith. And the very reason they were so invaluable for Lithuania, and later both Poland and Muscovy, is the fact that they were protecting the vast areas populated with Ruthenian peasants. Protecting from the very Tatars you're trying to portray them as.
Otherwise, I understand why you would assume that. A lot of their culture was shaped in the spirit of the Polish Sarmatism, that is, imitating the appearance of the Iranian tribes, who were once living in the Northern Pontic Steppe. You see, the Polish nobility at the time considered themselves to be descendent from those Sarmatians, hence being of another heritage from the Polish peasantry.

Now, to the topic. As, @Loganplayseu4 pointed out, the place is intended to be an uncolonized lands at the game start. Which would be a) historically right, b) way more fun for Eastern European nations. Those lands were almost completely unpopulated, as living there virtually equaled being enslaved by Tatars sooner or later.
So it would be cool to have those lands as uncolonized, with a high chance of "natives uprising", hence making it pretty hard to colonize at first. Later, by the end of the 15th century an event triggers those lands to be settled by Zaporozhian Sich (with possible variations of being a vassal to whatever Christian nation is nearby).

Not Polish Sarmatism. Half of the words of the Cossacks consists of Turkic words. The word kosh itself means a nomad camp, ataman, esaul - these are all Tatar titles. I talked about clothes, they had Tatar clothes, cavalry style too.
This region was part of the nomadic Tatars. But the region was devastated by wars: they were a warpath: the troops of Temir-Kutlug invaded there, defeating Vytautas in the Battle of Vorskla in 1399, Edigei invaded there in 1419, who laid siege to Kyiv, the troops of Said-Ahmad invaded there in the 1430s, who took the side of the Orthodox against the Catholics in the Lithuanian Civil War. The moving armies along the way plundered everything around, devastated in search of provisions.
Nevertheless, Tatars lived there. The Lithuanian prince pursued the Tatar policy. That is, he erected the Tatar khans he liked from the territory of Lithuania.

 

[Theironemperor]

Half of the words of the Cossacks consists of Turkic words

Yes, these are called borrowings. Come on, are we really going to argue about it here in all seriousness? Zaporozhian Cossacks were mostly Ruthenian. Obviously they were influenced by their closest neighbors - the Crimean Tartars. Especially in the military aspect. But that doesn't make them Tatars.
I'm thankful to you for valuable information about the Crimean Tatar leaders and their deeds in the region.
I just think that it's a really great idea of having the Wild Fields represented in the game.

• Just uncolonized land, with some "natives" (read Turkic people) living there.
• With Crimean Tatars raiding the neighboring Orthodox lands, taking slaves.
• With a possibility of Zaporozhian Sich emerging in the land, if it's still uncolonized by the end of the 15th century.
• With a possibility of Zaporozhian Sich emerging, if it's colonized by a Christian nation, with low local development. An event similar to the New Providence one, with a decision of either registering the Cossacks into the regular army (+Manpower, -Nobility loyalty) or crushing the Cossack autonomy, giving a casus belli on them.

Now writing this, I suddenly realize how much can be done for the region to make it so much more fun and flavorful. All the events that went down over those centuries there could make for so many interesting missions and events.
The Uniate Church (which is really a disgrace it's still not in the game).
The Cossack raids on the Crimean and Ottoman costal cities (even Constantinople!).
The small crappy Cossack boats (chaikas), which still inspired fear in the Ottoman sailors, with Ottoman galleys being systematically attacked by the Cossacks on sea.
I mean, there's so much cool content that is missing out of the game, with the Ruthenia region being just.. provinces to paint in your color. Just like when the game just came out. Okay, I should probably make a separate thread about it.

 

[Omogoy]

Yes, these are called borrowings. Come on, are we really going to argue about it here in all seriousness? Zaporozhian Cossacks were mostly Ruthenian. Obviously they were influenced by their closest neighbors - the Crimean Tartars. Especially in the military aspect. But that doesn't make them Tatars.
I'm thankful to you for valuable information about the Crimean Tatar leaders and their deeds in the region.
I just think that it's a really great idea of having the Wild Fields represented in the game.

• Just uncolonized land, with some "natives" (read Turkic people) living there.
• With Crimean Tatars raiding the neighboring Orthodox lands, taking slaves.
• With a possibility of Zaporozhian Sich emerging in the land, if it's still uncolonized by the end of the 15th century.
• With a possibility of Zaporozhian Sich emerging, if it's colonized by a Christian nation, with low local development. An event similar to the New Providence one, with a decision of either registering the Cossacks into the regular army (+Manpower, -Nobility loyalty) or crushing the Cossack autonomy, giving a casus belli on them.

Now writing this, I suddenly realize how much can be done for the region to make it so much more fun and flavorful. All the events that went down over those centuries there could make for so many interesting missions and events.
The Uniate Church (which is really a disgrace it's still not in the game).
The Cossack raids on the Crimean and Ottoman costal cities (even Constantinople!).
The small crappy Cossack boats (chaikas), which still inspired fear in the Ottoman sailors, with Ottoman galleys being systematically attacked by the Cossacks on sea.
I mean, there's so much cool content that is missing out of the game, with the Ruthenia region being just.. provinces to paint in your color. Just like when the game just came out. Okay, I should probably make a separate thread about it.

The lands marked by the Wild Field were generally inhabited. The number of Tatars there is estimated at 200 thousand people. There were quite large Tatar armed forces used by Lithuania. Designate this region as Lipka, Khan Haci I Giray hails from this area.
Okay, there is the Mansur region where the aristocracy has become Christian. Make it an area for the formation of Rusyns based on a mixture of Slavs and Tatars.

The Lipka region is the base for the invasion of numerous Lithuanian Tatars in Desht-i-Kipchak, in particular in the Crimea. In 1442, Khan Haci I Girayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacı_I_Giray, the founder of the Crimean Khanate, once again invaded from there. Take into account that there were many such intrusions before him.

 

[Omogoy]

Lithuanian Tatar Lipka. XVII century. Reconstruction of Gorelik M.V.

 

[Theironemperor]

Any progress with the tag?
I see new tags being added in dev diaries, just to make some nations more fun. (Hey, average no-new-tags fans, so it's not that straining on the engine to add new tags, now is it?)
And there's no even a need to actually add a new tag here, as Kyiv is already there.

 

[Loganplayseu4]

Any progress with the tag?
I see new tags being added in dev diaries, just to make some nations more fun. (Hey, average no-new-tags fans, so it's not that straining on the engine to add new tags, now is it?)
And there's no even a need to actually add a new tag here, as Kyiv is already there.

Given that they aren't updating Lithuania again in 1.35 (confirmed by the DLC announcement), and given as we just had a Lithuania update, I don't think they'll more accurately represent the Ruthenian situation in 1444.

 

[Eliseon]

Being a vassal under Lithuania, or even Poland when they PU the first, is nontheles easy in our Kiev case.
It is very common for vassals in the areas of Eastern Europe and Balkans to get support, not only from Moscovy or other powers, but also from the Ottomans. And we all know that when you get support of the Ottomans, the game becomes a joke. Vassal gameplay is about patiance, not difficulty (except if you play Beloozero or Naxos )

 

[oldmole]

I have played a few campaigns starting as lithuania to release and play as Zaporozhye in to Ruthenian it is super fun and yes a bit of a challenge to deal with ottomans. I would love a mission tree for Zaporozhye and Ruthenian or any new flavor in that part of the game