• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 9th of May 2017

Hello everyone and welcome to this developed diary on setup changes in the Greater Russian region!

For the upcoming 1.22 patch we’ve had another look at modern Russia and Belarus. This is a region that has received attention previously but we feel that it was not up to the level of detail we have become accustomed to in other parts of Europe and that it could not properly reflect the lay of the land in the region in 1444.

The Russian Principalities in 1444:

In 1444 Russia was still divided into a number of principalities, in many ways this is the result of the constant interference from the Golden Horde. The Khans had defeated and divided the early Russian principalities and have come to not only exact tribute from the remaining states here, but have also acted as king-makers and guarantors of princely power.
As the game opens however the Golden Horde is going through a rough couple of decades with external pressure and internal struggles, historically ending in its general breakup into a number of much weaker successor states.
The Great Horde in our start date is what remains of the core of the Golden Horde but others, such as Crimea, would in time come to conquer and attempt to usurp their role as the overlord of the Russian states.
What this means for the Russians is that while horde intervention is still a factor in local politics, they have now been given some time to grow and thrive. As one of the main collectors of tribute for the Khans, Muscovy is now in the process of building a strong power base and has already used a combination of bribes and coercion to secure control over land of the minor princes in the region.


eu4_30.jpg


As you can see, in 1.22 we have chosen to greatly expand the number of provinces in this region. This allows for a greater degree of detail in the warfare in this region both between the principalities themselves and between the Russians and the Tatar hordes.
We have also taken the opportunity once again to adjust the development of the Russian region a bit, increasing it slightly to allow the states here to better make their mark upon the world.
In 1.22 one of the things this means is that some of the states we know and love are no longer the same. Ryazan is now a 4 province state and Yarloslavl and Tver are now 2 and 3 provinces respectively.

Muscovy:
First of the Russian principalities we have Muscovy itself. In 1444 this is already the dominant native power and in 1.22 it is the overlord of no less than five smaller principalities. The expanded number of provinces ensures that all is not lost simply from one battle or one siege, there is now room to move around when Kazan, the Great Horde or Lithuania comes knocking.
The greater detail has also allowed us to better show a number of centers of regional importance, giving it more of the historical depth that we have come to expect of other regions where we have overhauled the map.

Among the changes to the setup for Muscovy is also a revision of their ideas. Muscovite Ideas are now separate from those you get for forming Russia and currently look like this:

Muscovite Ideas:

Traditions:
Diplomatic Relations +1
Shock Damage Dealt +10%

1. Gatherers of Tribute: National Tax Income Modifier: +10%
2. Legacy of Dmitriy Donskoi: Yearly Army Tradition: +0.5
3. Seat of Metropolitan Bishop: Missionary Strength +1%, Tolerance of True Faith +1
4. Pomestnoe Voisko: Land Morale +10%
5. Strength of the Boyars: Stability Cost Modifier -20%
6. Zasechnaya Cherta: Fort Maintenance -20%
7. Descendants of the Byzantine Emperors: Diplomatic Reputation +1

Ambition:
Land Force Limit Modifier +33%

The decision to form Russia will in turn give a new set of ideas should you choose to abandon your old Principality ideas.

Russian Ideas:

Traditions:
National Manpower Modifier: +33%
Core-Creation Cost: -10%

Land of the Rus: Aggressive Expansion Impact: -10%
Siberian Frontier: Colonists: +1
Russian Artillery Yard: Artillery Cost: -10%, Artillery Combat Ability +10%
Life-Long Conscription: Land Force Limit Modifier: +50%
Abolish the Mestnichestvo: Yearly Corruption: -0.1
The Table of Ranks: Yearly Army Tradition: +0.25, Advisor Cost: -10%
Broaden the Curriculum of the Cadet Corps: +5% Land Morale, 10% less fire damage received

Ambition:
Yearly Legitimacy: +1

New Playable Countries:
In EU in general and in Russia in particular there’s always a decision to be made of what is to be a province with high autonomy and, what should be a subject state or even independent. Our game enforces strict differences depending on what you pick but in reality it was quite possible in many cases to be somewhere in between.
In the case of Russia in 1444, Muscovy is in possession much land that really belongs to a minor principality that they have somehow acquired (often by simply buying the land from the princes in control of it) or that is ruled by a prince that has moved to the court in Moscow, allowing the Muscovite's to administrate it for him. In 1.22 we have taken another look at how we want the Muscovite lands to be portrayed and added two new vassal tags:

The first is the small state of Rostov, between Tver and Yaroslavl. This principality was in many ways quite firmly under Muscovite control ever since its princes had sold off half of the lands to Moscow, but Rostov would not be integrated entirely until 1474.
Rostov has a long and interesting history and would continue to play an important part in Russian politics every now and then, even as a part of a greater Russian state. We therefore thought it would be an interesting addition to the mix of states you can play in 1444.

Rostov Ideas:

Traditions:
Provincial Trade Power Modifier: +10%
Idea Cost: -10%

Re-Unification of Rostov: Goods Produced Modifier: +10%
Ancient Heritage: Aggressive Expansion Impact: -10%
Ecclesiastical Center: Tolerance of True Faith: +2
Entrepot of Russia: Trade Efficiency: +10%
Rostov Architecture: Construction Cost: -10%
Political Influence: Diplomats: +1
Rostov Enamel: Production Efficiency: +10%

Ambition:
Diplomatic Reputation: +1

The second new state we have added is one in the north, right at the border with Novgorod. The principality of Beloozero was never a metropolis and is long past its glory days in 1444. Ruled by Muscovite princes it would formally be incorporated directly into Muscovy in 1486 and its nobles would mostly make their mark upon the world within the frames of the Russian Empire. It's position is an interesting one however and our game history might unfold differently.

Beloozero Ideas:

Traditions:
Trade Efficiency: +10%
Infantry Combat Ability: +10%

Martial Heritage: Cavalry Cost: -10%
Monastic Traditions: Yearly Prestige: +1
Strengthen Local Lineages: Yearly Legitimacy: +1
Northern Trade: Domestic Trade Power: +25%
Officers of Beloozero: Yearly Army Tradition +0.5
Boreal Warfare: Attrition for Enemies: +1
Scientific Patronage: Technology Cost: -5%

Ambition:
Goods Produced Modifier +10%

Novgorod:

eu4_28.jpg


In the far north we have broken up some of Novgorod’s bigger provinces. Novgorod's domains always presented something of a difficulty to portray in that many of these locations had little in terms of population, yet contributed to the overall wealth of the Republic.
It also gives Novgorod some much needed strategic depth when fighting Muscovy to the south.

Lithuania:

eu4_31.jpg


Lithuania has long been a region in need of greater detail. In 1.22 we have broken up and reshaped many of their provinces, especially in the northeast. When adding new provinces we have tried to accommodate important regional centers, the internal administrative divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth as well as the gradual expansion of Muscovy and later Russia into Belarus and the Ukraine.
As this was a highly contested region for much of the period covered by the game this should should hopefully make the region a lot more interesting to play in. It should also allow for a more engaging conquest for strong neighboring states...

That was all for today!
Next week’s developer diary will be written by Johan and may or may not touch on more things that could impact the region...
 
Last edited:
So in effective your 200k become 152k manpool (divide by 1.75 and multiple by 1.33).
I get where you're coming from, but the math is (as usual with Paradox games) far from that simple. All the %-modifiers on manpower are additive.

Let's look at one of my manpower powerhouse provinces:
russian manpower.jpg

The modifier is 333%. Note that I'm not at the Patriarch Authority cap, but I did have the first of the Enserf the Peasants events fire. With the new national ideas I would be getting a modifier of 42% less, i.e. 291%, so we're looking at roughly a 12.6% decrease. In real terms that means I would be getting 8,002 manpower instead of 9,157

Yes, I've cherrypicked a province with both the Boyars estate and Training Fields and I'll happily concede that the overall effect will be more than 12.6%. But it won't even come close to the 25% average impact you're claiming. A province without Boyars and buildings would see a 19.7% decrease. The worse provinces and non-accepted cultures are usually the ones without state cores, and 75% local autonomy applies multiplicatively, so those provinces don't really matter in the over-all picture very much.

And like I said - I could do with 25% less rather easily. As it is now, the Quantity idea group is absolute over-kill for Russia. The change would make Quantity at least worth considering.
 
Ironically russia in 1.22 is currently OP as hell, with annexing Ottomans by 1650s.

Judging power on ideasets is a bit wromg.
 
The max PA manpower is 33% so.

Going with that same province (taking out 10% enserfed peasants). I recalculated that you would get 9047.5 and with the new 1.22 it would become 7865.

So the loss is about 23.17% without enserfed peasant. With enserfed peasant the loss is 22.68% from 9322.5 down to 8140.

You also have the extra 10% manpower recovery per month to consider as well. 1.22 doesn't have any while 1.21 does. Working from that. We can use the manpower recovery formula to figure how many manpower we won't gain.

9322.5 * (1 + .1 + .2 from happy nobility estate)/120 = 100.99 but let call it 101. With 1.22 it would be 8140 * ( 1 + .2 ) /120 = 81.4 lets call it 81. You lose roughly 20 man a month from that same province.

Ironically russia in 1.22 is currently OP as hell, with annexing Ottomans by 1650s.

Judging power on ideasets is a bit wromg.

Can you show us AI doing that? Just cause I am curious! I often see them failing to even get as far as break down PLC border depending on RNG.

Edit: I just realized one more thing. I am currently fighting against a super-Ottoman empire that has 2k total development + quality + quantity fully unlocked as Novgorod formed Russia. I kept old Novgorod idea sure but I am going for frozen trade and it is quite painful to wage war against ottoman as 1k total development filthy rich Russia. At least I can afford to spam merc then drain them of manpower but they just keep coming on and on.

It is just pathetic. I even manage to push them back from two wars (second actually broke truce from first war) and they manage to wage 2 other wars to take land elsewhere despite pushing them to 10 WE and force them to hire 70 mercs of their own.
 
Last edited:
I normally see Russia defeat P-L/PLC quickly and blob as well.

Ironically russia in 1.22 is currently OP as hell, with annexing Ottomans by 1650s.

Judging power on ideasets is a bit wromg.

Reminds me also - someone in the thread earlier complained that sometimes the Ottomans were too friendly with Russia. There was no law of nature requiring the Ottomans and Russia to hate each other throughout the period. Rapprochement as a policy should be possible for the Turks and Russia, with the result that Poland gets eaten alive.

People here are complaining a lot about balance, when perhaps what's needed is a twitchier diplomacy, where the Turks would support the Poles or the Russians depending on who is weaker. I've begun to think that the rival system is either far too inflexible or too generous in giving every country three rivals to choose from - or both. The dislike of the AI towards switching alliances seems to be contributing to death spirals.
 
Going with that same province (taking out 10% enserfed peasants). I recalculated that you would get 9047.5 and with the new 1.22 it would become 7865.

So the loss is about 23.17% without enserfed peasant. With enserfed peasant the loss is 22.68% from 9322.5 down to 8140.
Your absolute numbers are correct, but your relative decrease calculation is very obviously wrong.
If I start at 9,050 and go down to 7,850, I lose 1,200. A loss of 1,200 is ~13.3% of 9,050, not 23%. I don't know how you arrive at that number. ~4 times 1.2k does obviously not make 9k.

Agreed on the manpower recovery. It's an additional factor I have not considered. I still don't think it would change the game significantly for me. The Serf events go up to 25%, I could take an advisor for manpower or manpower recovery, I could take Quantity for +50% manpower and +20% recovery - there is so much room for player decisions increasing the manpower more than the national ideas and the huge Eastern Slavic cultural union provide. I completely concede that the changes will be noticable. But I still don't think they will gimp Russia so much that it warrants a thread full of complaints.
 
I'm pretty happy with the new Russian ideas. People are drawing comparisons to PLC and real life, but remember it took an apocalyptic Swedish invasion, a mass Cossack revolt, and deep-seated Constitutional problems in order to firmly establish Russia as the superior military power to Poland.

Poland was pretty strong and Russia was pretty weak for a lot of this period. Poland's key weaknesses at this point were institutional (while Peter the Great was busy radically transforming the Russian state), religious in the form of angry Orthodox Ukrainians (Russia's treatment of Islam stands out as the more successful policy here) and strategic (ie Poland was in the middle, Russia on the periphery). Two of these three are circumstantial and not questions of fundamental "balance". It should probably take PLC being in a weak position for Russia to have a good go at cracking the nut.

It took 25 years of war, 22 years of Tatar raids, 6 countries (Crimea, Ottomans, Poland, Sweden, Lithuania) to bring down Russia to...draw. Really, so weak state.
And then succession crisis, severe famine, Swedish invasion, Polish invasion, number of rebellions didn't kill Russia. Yeah, super weak.
Taking 1/3 of Lithuania in 1503? Totally weak.
If you know nothing about countries history - pls read about it.


Ironically russia in 1.22 is currently OP as hell, with annexing Ottomans by 1650s.

Judging power on ideasets is a bit wromg.

Also judging by mp successfulness, some ai games and, well, logic.
Again, ideas are good cause they give you srong sides to play on and correspond with achievements of country (at least as I see it). Current Russian set is inferior to Muscovy and pretty strange in choice (really, life conscript...like my country didn't do anything except sending zergwaves for whole its history). Inferior to Poland is ok, cause "Poland is awesome", so no question here (this is why polish peasants are better in fighting than professional army). But earlier feudal state...
And logic behind ideas is, again, strange... Reform to have bigger army? Morale boost. Reform to have more manpower? FL size. Gathering of Rus lands? Less aggressive expansion on ALL lands.
Same as logic behind "you are now Russia and your troops fight worser", as it seen atm and was raised by some posters, is strange.
I hope that unique government will be only for Russian Idea Set. so there WILL be point to take Russian ideas.
 
I normally see Russia defeat P-L/PLC quickly and blob as well.



Reminds me also - someone in the thread earlier complained that sometimes the Ottomans were too friendly with Russia. There was no law of nature requiring the Ottomans and Russia to hate each other throughout the period. Rapprochement as a policy should be possible for the Turks and Russia, with the result that Poland gets eaten alive.

People here are complaining a lot about balance, when perhaps what's needed is a twitchier diplomacy, where the Turks would support the Poles or the Russians depending on who is weaker. I've begun to think that the rival system is either far too inflexible or too generous in giving every country three rivals to choose from - or both. The dislike of the AI towards switching alliances seems to be contributing to death spirals.

The thing is that sometimes the rival systems makes no sense, Castile and Aragon end up rivaling each other because they share borders but were historically close and the same with Poland and Hungary.

Or other times its just odd, like if Poland eats Crimea and the Great Horde then the idea of Russia allying with the Ottomans make sense, but if the Ottomans as in most games owns most or part of Crimea it will Aly with Russia because Muscovy rivaled poland even though Russia owns cores on Crimea.

Heck sometimes the best move is just to never pick rivals and eat the pp loss.
 
Ironically russia in 1.22 is currently OP as hell, with annexing Ottomans by 1650s.

Judging power on ideasets is a bit wromg.
But that's all we have to go off of. Is it OP because of events and new features or simply province count? Because the lack on any decent military ideas leaves a fairly significant handicap that can only really be covered by the above mentioned events, government, or features. Guessing the new units?
 
Ukrainian (Ruthenian) lands' development in EU4 timeframe
How it was in short version:
  • After the Mongol-Tartar invasion the lands of Kievan Rus’ were in devastation and decline
  • The territories called “Dyke Pole” (or “Wild Field\Wild Steppe”) were overrun by aggressive Tartars that raided deep into Ruthenian lands for slaves and loot.
  • Cossacks’ rebellions, especially National-Liberation war, led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky has taken millions of lives, setting back region’s development significantly
  • Russo-Polish wars didn’t add prosperity and population either
  • With gradual decline of Crimean Khanate the prosperity and population of neighboring lands grew proportionally
  • And only after Crimean Khanate’s lands subjugation by Russian Empire, Wild Steppe has stopped being wild and has experienced a huge population boom.

The main misconception about provinces density, size and shape in Ukrainian lands in EU4 is caused by maps like this:
Polska_1386_-_1434.png


1024px-The_density_of_the_urban_network_per_voivodeship_of_Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth_ca._1650_%28Eng%29.png


Indeed, by 1444 the region is depicted more or less correctly (however still ugly, pardon me), but current provinces layout does not cover region’s development in future.

To make region more enjoyable, a lot more provinces (even 1\1\1 if needed) should be added.
Their development may be increased by DHE or decisions when all nearby hordes are annexed.


Provinces that may be added:

eu4_31.jpg


429463659.jpg


With addition of some of listed above provinces the Ukrainian\Ruthenian region should be on par with Hungary, Poland and reworked Muscovy. Provinces’ development is a matter of rebalancing, but in my opinion, Lithuania in it’s current state is a complete peace of garbage and requires some tweaks desperately.
Another issue that would be resolved by adding lots of provinces to Ruthenia is extremely dull and boring warfare: in mid-late a player could line up his stacks from literally Baltic coast to Black Sea coast with full lstacks just because of the shape and size of provinces. To do so you need around 300-360k force limit with 30k stacks. IMO this is completely absurd =)
With those changes Moldavia and Crimean Khanate would look rather ugly, so they might also enjoy some more provinces.


Sources:
https://www.edmaps.com/html/ukraine.html
 
Last edited:
Your absolute numbers are correct, but your relative decrease calculation is very obviously wrong.
If I start at 9,050 and go down to 7,850, I lose 1,200. A loss of 1,200 is ~13.3% of 9,050, not 23%. I don't know how you arrive at that number. ~4 times 1.2k does obviously not make 9k.

Agreed on the manpower recovery. It's an additional factor I have not considered. I still don't think it would change the game significantly for me. The Serf events go up to 25%, I could take an advisor for manpower or manpower recovery, I could take Quantity for +50% manpower and +20% recovery - there is so much room for player decisions increasing the manpower more than the national ideas and the huge Eastern Slavic cultural union provide. I completely concede that the changes will be noticable. But I still don't think they will gimp Russia so much that it warrants a thread full of complaints.

Ahh I see what I did wrong.

I add somehow a 10% to everything due to rounding oops.

Personally I would have gone with quality.
 
Reminds me also - someone in the thread earlier complained that sometimes the Ottomans were too friendly with Russia. There was no law of nature requiring the Ottomans and Russia to hate each other throughout the period. Rapprochement as a policy should be possible for the Turks and Russia, with the result that Poland gets eaten alive.
Does Georgaphy count as law of nature?

Bosphorus->Black Sea->Dniepr/Don water ways connected huge land mass and were imensly important. Russia/PLC having those land would threaten huge swaths of Turkish lands, while Turks posessing Bosphorus was a huge bumper in trade for Poland/Russia, Turkish vassals raiding region for slaves to sell in Turkey, was not allowing Russians/Poles to just ignore the situation.

There was a good reason for region seeing almost constant warfare for hundreds of years, it was very important logistically, and allowed looting/slave trade/or just trade on massive scale to whoever controlled it. Also due to advantages of naval transportation, it was massively more expencive for people who lost controll over chokepoints to defend their land, which forced attempts to take over chokes like for of Azov over and over again.
People here are complaining a lot about balance, when perhaps what's needed is a twitchier diplomacy, where the Turks would support the Poles or the Russians depending on who is weaker. I've begun to think that the rival system is either far too inflexible or too generous in giving every country three rivals to choose from - or both. The dislike of the AI towards switching alliances seems to be contributing to death spirals.
Well, IRL Poland was destroyed and Ottomans couldn`t do a thing.
 
Since we are in the region again, perhaps something can be done with the hordes, right now they are way too weak.

Some suggestions:
1) Muscovy didn't lift the Yoke until 1480 (I think), so at 1444 definitely should be a GOL tributary
2) Perhaps a CB could be implemented where in a war with nomads you can select certain steppe provinces (not any other type) to become empty for colonization rather than annexed. This would be rather more accurate than what usually happens now in the game when Muscovy converts millions of Turkic nomads who actually remain Muslim to this day
3) Perhaps also nomads can be allowed to raid like they do in CK2 so that they can potentially screw up the new settlements. This would give a chaotic and total war feeling to the region that is presently missing

Of course, these are very difficult to implement, but seriously, please make the hordes stronger, right now Muscowy walzes through to have a border with the Timurids like it's a walk in the park, and it clearly shouldn't.

On a side note, concerning the PLC: historically, the reason Muscovy was so successful in the wars with Lithuania in the end of the XV c. was that Lithuania did not call in Poland. In fact, there are numerous cases when a country was at war with another country, and at the same time having a PU with a third country that wasn't at war with the latter. Maybe it's time to tweak a little the PU mechanic to allow such a thing? I mean look at the Kalmar Union, it's not like Sweden was a subject of Denmark, they had much more independence than that.