Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 7th of February 2023 - Russia

[MacroWarrior]

The Streltsy demand payment mechanism should be used for Jannisarries, too. They also demand extra payment from every new ruler.

They already demand additional payment when a new ruler comes, but irl there were other reasons for additional payment which became a weight on the state، a great battle won, a good event happened and etc. so I agree, they can expand onto that.

 

[fr-rein]

Please change """"Liberate"""" Ruthenia. Just title & modify flavour text.

It's inappropriate.

And in fact it's inconsistent in tone with "Annex Carpathians", "Invade Novgorod", "Subjugate Kazan", "March into Caucasus", "Conquest of Finland" and such.

In fact, the narrative of "liberation" is built on the Pereyaslav treaty with Ukrainian Cossacks, so if EU4 has no Cossacks to re-enact this (and no, they don't appear in most games) then no such event could occur.

A good title would be "Seize Ruthenia". I believe it doesn't contradict the idea of mission or has strong bias.

 

[BukowksiFan]

Good job ! New team is really showing their difference in quality!

 

[Port.Sacral]

Please change """"Liberate"""" Ruthenia. Just title & modify flavour text.

It's inappropriate.

And in fact it's inconsistent in tone with "Annex Carpathians", "Invade Novgorod", "Subjugate Kazan", "March into Caucasus", "Conquest of Finland" and such.

In fact, the narrative of "liberation" is built on the Pereyaslav treaty with Ukrainian Cossacks, so if EU4 has no Cossacks to re-enact this (and no, they don't appear in most games) then no such event could occur.

A good title would be "Seize Ruthenia". I believe it doesn't contradict the idea of mission or has strong bias.

I understand your opinion, but the game does not reflect modern day politics. In the start of the game Ruthenia is mainly part of Lithuania, a Nation that's not based on the Kievan Rus. And before that it was part of the Mongol Empire. Because of that the term liberate makes sense, it's the liberation of the original russian homeland Kiev from mongol and lithuanian rule.

Edit: Not to mention that the ruling dynasty in Moscovy and later in Russia until the Romanovs were the Rurikids, this dynasty was the ruling dynasty of the Kievan Rus from it's beginning to it's end. Because of that the Term liberate is even personally correct for Moscovy and Russia.

 

[fr-rein]

I understand your opinion, but the game does not reflect modern day politics. In the start of the game Ruthenia is mainly part of Lithuania, a Nation that's not based on the Kievan Rus. And before that it was part of the Mongol Empire. Because of that the term liberate makes sense, it's the liberation of the original russian homeland Kiev from mongol and lithuanian rule.

I am not talking about modern politics and if I did I wouldn't be polite, I really think devs act in poor faith in this regard.

The point is that what you say only makes sense from the nationalism (XIX century concept, modern politics) point of view. Russian Empire at that time didn't have legal claims on Ruthenia but only loose ones.

Ruthenian elites were, in fact, Polonised even and largely didn't stay with Russia or remained Polonised after the entirety of the region was annexed. So they don't add legitimacy to that idea either.

The "liberation" narrative literally comes after the Treaty of Pereyaslav, where the Cossacks who led a popular revolt joined sides with the Russian Empire. The narrative of the popular will wanting the "Reunification" and "liberation" is quite literally based on that factor.

EU4 doesn't have historical Cossack events. In the gameplay, you would just annex the region as any other regular conquest.

So there is no basis to employ the historiographical "liberation" narrative when all that would happen would be a mere conquest.

By employing such a narrative while, well, denying Ruthenian/Cossack/Ukrainian history appearing in game, it takes an extreme tilt to the historical interpretation. Because official Russian historiography before, well, latest political events, doesn't/didn't build a narrative of "Ruthenia/Ukraine was liberated because it is a permanent claim/holy land/Russian because Kievan Rus".

In fact even the current Russian President literally wrote that basis is on the Pereyaslav Treaty and not claims from Kievan Rus like you said. Even Soviets and Russian Emperors did.

The "modern politics" doesn't have much to do with it. "Modern politics" is using the war as a cover to ignore the arguments and questions.

 

[Testeria]

Ironically, you're both correct and wrong. As a historian, the fact that this source plagarized another, is a huge hit to its creditability and the talk page on the article goes into more depth than we can here, but it does provide a nice (if biased) starting point for deeper research. I would start here and try and find a better, less questionable source that provides equal, if not more, information. Clearly modern politics is going to taint this discussion on whether Ruthenian and Belorusian should be absorbed into a unified Russian culture. However, the facts are clear that a Ruthenian/Ukrainian ethnogenesis begins around the end of the 18th century and begins to pick up pace throughout the 19th century. Any "Seperatists" that revolted prior to this were usually motivated by religious tensions between Ruthenians and Poles. Meaning that Ruthenia should not become a part of the unified Russian culture, but Russia should get a reward/decision that provides a culture conversion cost reduction as an effort to Russify the region. There is also the problem in that the culture system in EU4 is wonky and difficult to understand. This makes determining which culture Ruthenia should be because Ruthenia, and to a lesser, extent Belyorusia, both had Russified elites overseeing local peasants. This what makes EU4 culture system so difficult, because it never was easy to understand what it represents (does it represent the local majority culture, or the elite's culture) as we've had conflicting answers as to what does the culture system represent.

This is what I wanted to say but lacked writing skills. Also in XV-XVIII c. Belarusian and Ukrainian elites were Polonized, not Russified - and this is should be covered by a similar "discount" for converting culture as well. I even suspect if player could create and expand the country of Ruthenia, it should have discounts to "ruthenization" of Muscovy as well.

Also considering events of early XVII c. it would be really nice if we could PU Muscovy/Russia as Poland with some missions. This really hits well with the way that PLC was expanded: boyars strived for the same freedom as PLC nobles had.

Thanks for Your input.

 

[Port.Sacral]

I am not talking about modern politics and if I did I wouldn't be polite, I really think devs act in poor faith in this regard.

The point is that what you say only makes sense from the nationalism (XIX century concept, modern politics) point of view. Russian Empire at that time didn't have legal claims on Ruthenia but only loose ones.

Ruthenian elites were, in fact, Polonised even and largely didn't stay with Russia or remained Polonised after the entirety of the region was annexed. So they don't add legitimacy to that idea either.

The "liberation" narrative literally comes after the Treaty of Pereyaslav, where the Cossacks who led a popular revolt joined sides with the Russian Empire. The narrative of the popular will wanting the "Reunification" and "liberation" is quite literally based on that factor.

EU4 doesn't have historical Cossack events. In the gameplay, you would just annex the region as any other regular conquest.

So there is no basis to employ the historiographical "liberation" narrative when all that would happen would be a mere conquest.

By employing such a narrative while, well, denying Ruthenian/Cossack/Ukrainian history appearing in game, it takes an extreme tilt to the historical interpretation. Because official Russian historiography before, well, latest political events, doesn't/didn't build a narrative of "Ruthenia/Ukraine was liberated because it is a permanent claim/holy land/Russian because Kievan Rus".

In fact even the current Russian President literally wrote that basis is on the Pereyaslav Treaty and not claims from Kievan Rus like you said. Even Soviets and Russian Emperors did.

The "modern politics" doesn't have much to do with it. "Modern politics" is using the war as a cover to ignore the arguments and questions.

I didn't want to insult you. If I did, I'm sorry. Nevertheless, the Rurikids lost their land to the Mongols, and then to the Lithuanians and were forced to flee to Vladimir and Moscow. The wish to take back their rightful Land in Kiev makes sense to me. And sure, gameplaywise it would be a normal war with conquest, but it's an historical game, at least historically based. War was considered a normal part of politics in the middle ages and the early modern period.

 

[Cuke]

So there is no basis to employ the historiographical "liberation" narrative when all that would happen would be a mere conquest.

But it was other way round, wasn't it. The Rurikovich dynasty claimed well into 1500s that Kievan Rus was and had been the land of the forefathers. Conversely, the Lithuanians kept replying no, stuff that, we grabbed everything fair and square by the right of conquest.
So, in short, the idea of 'liberation' has been valid for at least a century during the timeframe of EU4.

 

[fr-rein]

I didn't want to insult you. If I did, I'm sorry. Nevertheless, the Rurikids lost their land to the Mongols, and then to the Lithuanians and were forced to flee to Vladimir and Moscow. The wish to take back their rightful Land in Kiev makes sense to me. And sure, gameplaywise it would be a normal war with conquest, but it's an historical game, at least historically based. War was considered a normal part of politics in the middle ages and the early modern period.

There is nothing personal about you. Disagreement is natural.

That said, please think for a minute how "liberation" claim could work for monarchies. It is either reclaiming lost titles (and Muscovy-Russia had no claim on Ruthenia from that point of view; a lot of nobility had descended of married with Rurikids branches and they were like House of Capets - too loose to create a sensible claim) or ending an occupation.

There is a reason why "liberation" is employed only to Ruthenia in Russian historiography, not to Belarus (a very close example) or anyone else. And that reason was and is the Pereyaslav Treaty.

Hence why such wording of mission (which wouldn't be achieved or legitimized in a way resembling historical) isn't neutral but would be very marginal interpretation even for the mainstream Russian history.

And my argument is pretty much refers to the rest of missions too. Their wording isn't resembling it, especially Carpathians (a region that was a part of Kievan Rus too, heh).

"Seize Ruthenia" hence is a rather neutral alternative that doesn't create implications and allows to keep the "liberate Ruthenia" viewpoint to players sharing it, not contradicting it.

But it was other way round, wasn't it. The Rurikovich dynasty claimed well into 1500s that Kievan Rus was and had been the land of the forefathers. Conversely, the Lithuanians kept replying no, stuff that, we grabbed everything fair and square by the right of conquest.
So, in short, the idea of 'liberation' has been valid for at least a century during the timeframe of EU4.

And there were many more other Rurikids. The Moscow Branch, for reference, was not in line for inheriting the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv.

The claim is very loose, it's as good as a descendant of House of Capets claiming French throne.

This doesn't mean that there was no claim. There certainly was. But it has nothing to do with the matter of "liberation". As I said extensively before, the usage of "liberation" is extensively linked to the Cossacks and the Treaty of Pereyaslav.

Having such a narrative in mission while quite literally erasing one party out of that event is a straight up bad.

Hence why I presume that it's a good chance to ask to not do such thing to get rid of a poor wording.

 

[Cuke]

This doesn't mean that there was no claim. There certainly was. But it has nothing to do with the matter of "liberation".

Fair enough, I'm not arguing about the strength of claims. But the Muscovite claim was most certainly about 'liberation' of the lands of the forefathers, conquered by pesky neighbours.
If you agree that there was a claim, then what was the nature of that claim?

As I said extensively before, the usage of "liberation" is extensively linked to the Cossacks and the Treaty of Pereyaslav.

Conversely, as I'm telling you now, the idea of 'liberation' has been put into diplomatic use waaay earlier, more than a century before the Treaty of Pereyaslav.

It is either reclaiming lost titles (and Muscovy-Russia had no claim on Ruthenia from that point of view)

That's the thing: Muscovy did go out and claimed vast lands on this particular basis. I think this is the point where our opinions start to diverge.

 

[Port.Sacral]

There is nothing personal about you. Disagreement is natural.

That said, please think for a minute how "liberation" claim could work for monarchies. It is either reclaiming lost titles (and Muscovy-Russia had no claim on Ruthenia from that point of view; a lot of nobility had descended of married with Rurikids branches and they were like House of Capets - too loose to create a sensible claim) or ending an occupation.

There is a reason why "liberation" is employed only to Ruthenia in Russian historiography, not to Belarus (a very close example) or anyone else. And that reason was and is the Pereyaslav Treaty.

Hence why such wording of mission (which wouldn't be achieved or legitimized in a way resembling historical) isn't neutral but would be very marginal interpretation even for the mainstream Russian history.

And my argument is pretty much refers to the rest of missions too. Their wording isn't resembling it, especially Carpathians (a region that was a part of Kievan Rus too, heh).

"Seize Ruthenia" hence is a rather neutral alternative that doesn't create implications and allows to keep the "liberate Ruthenia" viewpoint to players sharing it, not contradicting it.



And there were many more other Rurikids. The Moscow Branch, for reference, was not in line for inheriting the title of Grand Duke of Kyiv.

The claim is very loose, it's as good as a descendant of House of Capets claiming French throne.

This doesn't mean that there was no claim. There certainly was. But it has nothing to do with the matter of "liberation". As I said extensively before, the usage of "liberation" is extensively linked to the Cossacks and the Treaty of Pereyaslav.

Having such a narrative in mission while quite literally erasing one party out of that event is a straight up bad.

Hence why I presume that it's a good chance to ask to not do such thing to get rid of a poor wording.

The Moscow line of the Rurikids was founded by Daniel of Moscow, the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, who was Prince of Kiev. It's true that he did not inherit Kiev, but the lines of the Rurikids which had more claim on Kiev died out till 1444, at least they are not present in the game. Therefore (in the game, possibly not historically), the Moscow Rurikids have the strongest claim on the old Kievan Realm. And even if not, Kiev was under foreign rule. To take it back under the rule of Rus descendants is in my opinion a liberation from the foreign rule of the Lithuanians. They maybe have not called it a liberation themselves, or maybe they did. But regardless what they called it or not, it makes perfectly sense to call it a liberation in-game.

 

[Testeria]

Please change """"Liberate"""" Ruthenia. Just title & modify flavour text.

It's inappropriate.

And in fact it's inconsistent in tone with "Annex Carpathians", "Invade Novgorod", "Subjugate Kazan", "March into Caucasus", "Conquest of Finland" and such.

In fact, the narrative of "liberation" is built on the Pereyaslav treaty with Ukrainian Cossacks, so if EU4 has no Cossacks to re-enact this (and no, they don't appear in most games) then no such event could occur.

A good title would be "Seize Ruthenia". I believe it doesn't contradict the idea of mission or has strong bias.

Good catch! Yes, there was no "liberation" at all.

 

[fr-rein]

Fair enough, I'm not arguing about the strength of claims. But the Muscovite claim was most certainly about 'liberation' of the lands of the forefathers, conquered by pesky neighbours.
If you agree that there was a claim, then what was the nature of that claim?

Conversely, as I'm telling you now, the idea of 'liberation' has been put into diplomatic use waaay earlier, more than a century before the Treaty of Pereyaslav.

That's the thing: Muscovy did go out and claimed vast lands on this particular basis. I think this is the point where our opinions start to diverge.

You are actually replacing the "gathering Rus lands" with "liberation". The contemporary narrative was the "gathering of Rus lands", with Moscow princes called as "gatherers of Rus lands" ("собиратель земли русской"). The other similar in meaning narrative was "Reunification".

The "Liberation" narrative explicitly is more of XIX century historiography, minor and supporting until XX century. In XX century USSR actually changed emphasis in history and highlighted the narrative of the "liberation" as being a popular will of Cossacks under Khmelnytskyi signed in the Pereyaslav Treaty.

These two things are quite different and mixing them up is ahistorical and, ahem, obviously too "modern politics". And superficial.

Hence why I hope this explanation helps to see the reasonable difference. Mind you, I mainly refer to Russian historiography primarily in this case.

The Moscow line of the Rurikids was founded by Daniel of Moscow, the youngest son of Alexander Nevsky, who was Prince of Kiev. It's true that he did not inherit Kiev, but the links of the Rurikids which had more claim on Kiev died out till 1444, at least they are not present in the game. Therefore (in the game, possibly not historically), the Moscow Rurikids have the strongest claim on the old Kievan Realm. And even if not, Kiev was under foreign rule. To take it back under the rule of Rus descendants is in my opinion a liberation from the foreign rule of the Lithuanians. They maybe have not called it a liberation themselves, or maybe they did. But regardless what they called it or not, it makes perfectly sense to call it a liberation in-game.

I mean, we agree about strength of the claim already.

For the rest, a part of reply above refers to the historical accounts of the perception of that event. Because there is a narrative difference between the Reunification and Liberation.

Good catch! Yes, there was no "liberation" at all.

I understand that it's a copy from the old mission tree but still a good opportunity to change it subtly.

 

[Port.Sacral]

You are actually replacing the "gathering Rus lands" with "liberation". The contemporary narrative was the "gathering of Rus lands", with Moscow princes called as "gatherers of Rus lands" ("собиратель земли русской"). The other similar in meaning narrative was "Reunification".

The "Liberation" narrative explicitly is more of XIX century historiography, minor and supporting until XX century. In XX century USSR actually changed emphasis in history and highlighted the narrative of the "liberation" as being a popular will of Cossacks under Khmelnytskyi signed in the Pereyaslav Treaty.

These two things are quite different and mixing them up is ahistorical and, ahem, obviously too "modern politics". And superficial.

Hence why I hope this explanation helps to see the reasonable difference. Mind you, I mainly refer to Russian historiography primarily in this case.



I mean, we agree about strength of the claim already.

For the rest, a part of reply above refers to the historical accounts of the perception of that event. Because there is a narrative difference between the Reunification and Liberation.



I understand that it's a copy from the old mission tree but still a good opportunity to change it subtly.

Well, Reunification sounds even better than liberation. We have an agreement, I think.

 

[fr-rein]

Well, Reunification sounds even better than liberation. We have an agreement, I think.

Not quite because this was rather employed to the entire bunch of missions (Reunification of Rus) so it was also a bunch of other claims, including Carpathians and Novgorod (which were... invaded, even in mission names, hence why I referenced the mismatching tone of narratives).

Hence why Seizing Ruthenia is best. It doesn't narratively exclude future event of Pereyaslav Treaty nor exclude a reality of probably a casual war with PLC/Ottomans and the annexation.

The way it happens can be open, rather than applying the term "liberation" in dubious circumstances when Player is expected to do a war of aggression.

Not to mention that the fluff text will write odes about gathering/reunification of Rus lands if the writing is updated too.

 

[agonistes]

What happens if you delete all strelsy, pick 'don't pay', then re-recruit them?

 

[Rullino]

And you can get this land for very small amount of ae and in few wars by taking few provinces and releasing Ruthenian and Bielorussian tags as vassals and reconquering their cores.

True, but you can also release Mazovia if you manage to get at least one of their cores, which is doable for the Teutonic Order, IDK about others.

 

[FishieFan]

Yeah, I thought this was supposed to be covered by the Institution system itself. Russia is big and far from Western Europe, but it has to interact with potentially more modern Poland and Sweden and thus it has problems with institutions and technology. Why do you need a special modernization mechanic for Russia if the general one makes more sense?

Anyone thats ever played eu4 knows institutions dont work properly

As Russia, I almost never conquered ruthenia, because it's just not worth it when you can conquer Poland with much better goods and trade note, so I would like something to be done about it.

Same culture group same religion land is good to conquer, especially when upstream of your main node

 

[agonistes]

Anyone thats ever played eu4 knows institutions dont work properly

Same culture group same religion land is good to conquer, especially when upstream of your main node

That second post you quote could be sarcasm. Maybe.

 

[Oporto]

Could you please consider changing second-tier unit skin back to generic eastern-european (with Streltsy look) for Muscovy-Russia?

The current one (intoduced with the Third Rome DLC, If I Remember correctly) is better off for the look in colonial regions (especially in Siberia), considering that Russia doesn't have any colonial skins like France and Spain.

And the generic eastern-european look better be changed into the old polish skin. It's weird to see eastern-european mercenary armies to wield berdyches and russian-type muskets.

And also, Streltsy, as a special unit, should be of red colour, while main russian troops should retain green-colored uniforms.

At the very least, Streltsy special units should use this type of skin, mentioned earlier. Although if French Musketeers will use it's current tier-2 skin but have a different colour, why not make the same for tier-2 Muscovy-Russia?