EU4 - Development Diary - 24th of January 2017

[bbqftw]

I. Just. Linked. Battles. That. Were. Won. In. 18th. Century. By. Russia. Against. France. And. Prussia.
And. Show. That. Main. Western. Rival. Has. Better. Ideas. While. Lost. More. Battles. Against. Russia.
And. I. Can. Link. Earlier. Battles. If. You. Want.
I. Hope. If. I. Will. Speak. Word. After. Word. Slowly. You. Will. Understand.
You. Made. Points. With. No. Knowledge. About. Russian. History.

hey man, if prussia can have a set of ideas modeled over a short fraction of their history (1750s) why not russia (1940s)

 

[TheDungen]

I`m at lost, how did you manage to interpret "mostly" as "only"? Language barrier?

Russian fights brought them land in Poland, Baltic, and Black sea(and Siberia but no point discussing those).
Poland was very weak due to internal troubles and devastating wars raging for 50+ years on it`s soil.
Ottomans were clearly in decline.
Sweden, was dog piled by Russia, Denmark, Poland and to a point Prussia, till it succumbed, and was broken.

Surely, it was a good century for Russia, but "superiority" of it`s army clearly was not the reason for their success. Their strength came from economy and internal stability that could maintain decades of war and could allow out-lasting any other power, that saved Russians twice, from Swedes and from Napoleon, unlike, say Poland, that was devastated with wars and internal strife to the point it could no longer field army worthy of note.

Russian army sometimes punched above it`s weight, sometimes it failed, and many wars were just plain inconclusive, because nobody wanted to attack deep into Russia, seeing how that failed on Swedes. But we also must consider that what Russians sent abroad was the best they had, while worse units would stay guarding their wast borders, while same was not true for their foes.

It seems nearly every war Russia fought had their army needing several attempts to break the enemy, with initial fights being either inconclusive or outright bad for them. Then, eventually, Russian reinforcements simply overwhelmed enemy, having both quantity and qualitative edge, being best troops that very large country could muster. Russia committed 3/4 of it`s field line infantry army to 7-years war fighting, and gained basically noting, nor did it break Prussia despite it being surrounded.

Come on, list of 6 battles won over a century is not impressive(note, I`m obviously saying that they are not the only ones won! ), nor is it indicator of great quality of the army. We can quite easily compile equal list for most countries.

What matters is that Russia won without having to commit most of it`s army, and most of the time, never touching internal reserves. That is the indicator of size of the army, strength of economy and logistical limitations.

Well the PLC was pretty much dog piled too, Russia were allied with Sweden when they fought the commonwealth, and allied to the ottomans when they fought the commonwealth. And then when the PLC finally collapsed under the weight of being constantly at war with everyone Russia pretty much stepped in and took over their geopolitical position as the enemy of Sweden and the ottomans, their former allies. The latter who had been severely weakened by constant war with the PLC and Austria. In a similar fashion Russia is allied with Austria after that but then when the ottomans collapse and Prussia/Germany and Austria put their differences aside they turn on them (prior to ww1).
In fact being smart/ruthless with their alliances might be Russia's greatest historical strength.

hey man, if prussia can have a set of ideas modeled over a short fraction of their history (1750s) why not russia (1940s)

Hillarious.

 

[BarskiPatzow]

I`m at lost, how did you manage to interpret "mostly" as "only"? Language barrier?

Russian fights brought them land in Poland, Baltic, and Black sea(and Siberia but no point discussing those).
Poland was very weak due to internal troubles and devastating wars raging for 50+ years on it`s soil.
Ottomans were clearly in decline.
Sweden, was dog piled by Russia, Denmark, Poland and to a point Prussia, till it succumbed, and was broken.

Surely, it was a good century for Russia, but "superiority" of it`s army clearly was not the reason for their success. Their strength came from economy and internal stability that could maintain decades of war and could allow out-lasting any other power, that saved Russians twice, from Swedes and from Napoleon, unlike, say Poland, that was devastated with wars and internal strife to the point it could no longer field army worthy of note.

Russian army sometimes punched above it`s weight, sometimes it failed, and many wars were just plain inconclusive, because nobody wanted to attack deep into Russia, seeing how that failed on Swedes. But we also must consider that what Russians sent abroad was the best they had, while worse units would stay guarding their wast borders, while same was not true for their foes.

It seems nearly every war Russia fought had their army needing several attempts to break the enemy, with initial fights being either inconclusive or outright bad for them. Then, eventually, Russian reinforcements simply overwhelmed enemy, having both quantity and qualitative edge, being best troops that very large country could muster. Russia committed 3/4 of it`s field line infantry army to 7-years war fighting, and gained basically noting, nor did it break Prussia despite it being surrounded.

Come on, list of 6 battles won over a century is not impressive(note, I`m obviously saying that they are not the only ones won! ), nor is it indicator of great quality of the army. We can quite easily compile equal list for most countries.

What matters is that Russia won without having to commit most of it`s army, and most of the time, never touching internal reserves. That is the indicator of size of the army, strength of economy and logistical limitations.

I for one agree that their army wasn't good. I just want to balance them with ottomans in mind. As it is at the moment, Ottomans can field as many, or even more soldiers, not to mention artilery, even when Russia has quantity ideas and Ottos don't. The problem is that Russia has no real economy until you take trade. Example is my current Russia game: I have both more manpower and force limits with quantity ideas and they have only offensive from military group. They have same number of infantry and cavalry but I can't sustain any artillery while they have huge number of it. I just must have trade ideas or maybe economic to have the money to sustaim that army, while they have no problems with humanist and no economic ideas. It will even get worse with less states on start. Russia has no ideas that help with economy besides production bonus and less infantry cost, has no ideas that help with stability and is bound to spend a lot adm mana on coring.

 

[TheDungen]

I for one agree that their army wasn't good. I just want to balance them with ottomans in mind. As it is at the moment, Ottomans can field as many, or even more soldiers, not to mention artilery, even when Russia has quantity ideas and Ottos don't. The problem is that Russia has no real economy until you take trade. Example is my current Russia game: I have both more manpower and force limits with quantity ideas and they have only offensive from military group. They have same number of infantry and cavalry but I can't sustain any artillery while they have huge number of it. I just must have trade ideas or maybe economic to have the money to sustaim that army, while they have no problems with humanist and no economic ideas. It will even get worse with less states on start. Russia has no ideas that help with economy besides production bonus and less infantry cost, has no ideas that help with stability and is bound to spend a lot adm mana on coring.

Russia also has faster institution spread if memory serves me, which saves them money and mana. And let's face it the ottomans are never as strong a they were in history either.

 

[BarskiPatzow]

Russia also has faster institution spread if memory serves me, which saves them money and mana. And let's face it the ottomans are never as strong a they were in history either.

Well, by the time you get that institution spread, you already have the hardest earned institutions. Also, 10% is not that good.

 

[TheDungen]

Well, by the time you get that institution spread, you already have the hardest earned institutions. Also, 10% is not that good.

Does anyone else get more that 10% on institution spread in their NI? Isn't 10% like what some of the italians gets? Granted the italians has much fewer and higher developed provinces.

Edit: No I can't find where else I saw 10% institutions but it wasn't any of the italians.
edit2: It was full plutocratic. Also Russia seems to have 20% institution spread.

 

[mursolini]

Well the PLC was pretty much dog piled too, Russia were allied with Sweden when they fought the commonwealth, and allied to the ottomans when they fought the commonwealth. And then when the PLC finally collapsed under the weight of being constantly at war with everyone Russia pretty much stepped in and took over their geopolitical position as the enemy of Sweden and the ottomans, their former allies. The latter who had been severely weakened by constant war with the PLC and Austria. In a similar fashion Russia is allied with Austria after that but then when the ottomans collapse and Prussia/Germany and Austria put their differences aside they turn on them (prior to ww1).
In fact being smart/ruthless with their alliances might be Russia's greatest historical strength.

Well, Muskowy and PLC fought through the duration of 16 and 17 century. Russia was on the ropes in 1610s, but managed to recover.

I for one agree that their army wasn't good. I just want to balance them with ottomans in mind. As it is at the moment, Ottomans can field as many, or even more soldiers, not to mention artilery, even when Russia has quantity ideas and Ottos don't. The problem is that Russia has no real economy until you take trade. Example is my current Russia game: I have both more manpower and force limits with quantity ideas and they have only offensive from military group. They have same number of infantry and cavalry but I can't sustain any artillery while they have huge number of it. I just must have trade ideas or maybe economic to have the money to sustaim that army, while they have no problems with humanist and no economic ideas. It will even get worse with less states on start. Russia has no ideas that help with economy besides production bonus and less infantry cost, has no ideas that help with stability and is bound to spend a lot adm mana on coring.

Truth to be told, Russia was very, very poor initially, while Ottomans were very rich, having both the good and numerous army.

I mean, there was good reason, why Crimean Khanate was able to raid Russian lands successfully pre-1600s. Russian success, largely came from their expansion to Siberia, thus creating a strong, safe rear from which they could recruit and move people, to slowly push towards black sea, Caucasus, and Baltic.

Ural mountains were instrumental to Russian Economy during Peter Ist time, being the huge center of Russian military production. Russian population sky-rocketed in 17-19 century.

Issue is that game doesn`t adequately reflect regional growth. Well, maybe it will somewhat, with help of devastation.

 

[BarskiPatzow]

Does anyone else get more that 10% on institution spread in their NI? Isn't 10% like what some of the italians gets? Granted the italians has much fewer and higher developed provinces.

Edit: No I can't find where else I saw 10% institutions but it wasn't any of the italians.
edit2: It was full plutocratic. Also Russia seems to have 20% institution spread.

Ye, its 20% but I still don't have it and I almost have printing press, which is biggest problem for Russia.

Well, Muskowy and PLC fought through the duration of 16 and 17 century. Russia was on the ropes in 1610s, but managed to recover.

Truth to be told, Russia was very, very poor initially, while Ottomans were very rich, having both the good and numerous army.

I mean, there was good reason, why Crimean Khanate was able to raid Russian lands successfully pre-1600s. Russian success, largely came from their expansion to Siberia, thus creating a strong, safe rear from which they could recruit and move people, to slowly push towards black sea, Caucasus, and Baltic.

Ural mountains were instrumental to Russian Economy during Peter Ist time, being the huge center of Russian military production. Russian population sky-rocketed in 17-19 century.

Issue is that game doesn`t adequately reflect regional growth. Well, maybe it will somewhat, with help of devastation.

Problem is i Have whole lithuania, perm,crimea, GH, kazan and much of nogai annexed and still lag behind in economy. Ottos didn't even expand much.
There is a problem with them too, they never ever try to expand as much as they could or should. They didn't eat Mumluks yet.

 

[Gamengervi]

Hello everyone, and welcome to yet another Europa Universalis IV development diary. Today we’ll take a deep look into the Age of Revolutions.

This Age starts 10 years after the Enlightenment have been established, which is usually in the first decade of the 18th century.

Rules
Absolutism mechanics are enabled.
French Revolution, Revolution and Liberalism Disasters, can only happen in this Age.

Objectives

1. Have Parliaments
2. Be an Empire Rank Nation, Emperor of HRE or Emperor of China
3. Have a 250 development subject.
4. 125% discipline
5. 50 development capital
6. Own and control 2 institution origins
7. Have a general with 15+ pips.

Abilities

• +3 Artillery Bonus vs Fort
• Force March does not cost MIL
• 20% more ships can fight in combat.
• Remove distance check for coring.
• Artillery does 20% more damage from backrow.
• -25 liberty desire to subjects on same continent
• Liberty_desire_from_subject_development -33%
• Prussia: 20% less fire-damage taken
• Great Britain: 25% cheaper naval maintenance
• Russia: +20 States
• Austria: +5 diplomatic reputation

To clarify:
Artillery Bonus usually goes up to a maximum of +5 when sieging, this can be increased by this ability to +8 in this age.

Backrow artillery does 50% damage normally, this allows them to do 60% damage.

View attachment 233170

Next week, we’ll look into why the Manchu are so awesome..

Oh dear God, they forgot to put 'the' before 'Holy Roman Empire'. Someone please do something before it's too late!

 

[Seelmeister]

Folks, this discussion has generally been civil, please keep it so. Personal insults are against the forum rules, and will be removed.

 

[BarskiPatzow]

hey man, if prussia can have a set of ideas modeled over a short fraction of their history (1750s) why not russia (1940s)

Because it is out of the time frame completely?

 

[TheDungen]

Ye, its 20% but I still don't have it and I almost have printing press, which is biggest problem for Russia.


Problem is i Have whole lithuania, perm,crimea, GH, kazan and much of nogai annexed and still lag behind in economy. Ottos didn't even expand much.
There is a problem with them too, they never ever try to expand as much as they could or should. They didn't eat Mumluks yet.

How about the fact that Russia has two event which give 25% institution spread?

Yeah that is a problem with the ottomans, if they blobed and got themselves into a few coalition war then they might actually get knocked down a few pegs. Not that I have ever seen a coalition against an AI. At least not one that fired a war.

Ural mountains were instrumental to Russian Economy during Peter Ist time, being the huge center of Russian military production. Russian population sky-rocketed in 17-19 century.

Issue is that game doesn`t adequately reflect regional growth. Well, maybe it will somewhat, with help of devastation.

They could add events which give certain provinces in the area a production efficiency bonus like how there is such a modifier on Sweden's copper province and Austria's gold (actually silver but the game treats them the same) province. That said I'm not sure I agree that Russia is under powered right now so in order to give them that other things would have to be given up. I would say simply lose base development on other provinces. As you said Russia is big but not particularly rich. Lower development on their less important provinces would also force the enemy to march through a lot of low development (this is high attrition as I recall it) land to get to more important ones.

Because it is out of the time frame completely?

I think that was the joke.

 

[BarskiPatzow]

How about the fact that Russia has two event which give 25% institution spread?

Yeah that is a problem with the ottomans, if they blobed and got themselves into a few coalition war then they might actually get knocked down a few pegs.


I think that was the joke.

That fact doesn't really change that much, while that's good, institution spread is not the thing that is the problem that much. I'd rather have the money to to chose if i run bigger army or buy the institutions than getting institutions in a shorter amount of time.
Which events are those? When do they fire?

 

[TheDungen]

That fact doesn't really change that much, while that's good, institution spread is not the thing that is the problem that much. I'd rather have the money to to chose if i run bigger army or buy the institutions than getting institutions in a shorter amount of time.
Which events are those? When do they fire?

The Pomjestija Reform
This year is between 1450 and 1550
(If you pick the Novgorodian reform option)

The Reforms of Peter the Great
Year is between 1680 and 1720
(though also
Any neighboring country:
Institution difference (than our country) value is at least 2
)

Like I said I could see the russian uralic provinces getting a permanent modifier like some other important mines, but that would have to be at the expense at something else because Russia aren't weak as presently are.

 

[al.gb]

I mean, there was good reason, why Crimean Khanate was able to raid Russian lands successfully pre-1600s. Russian success, largely came from their expansion to Siberia, thus creating a strong, safe rear from which they could recruit and move people, to slowly push towards black sea, Caucasus, and Baltic.

Man, why are you talking about what you don't know? Crimean Khanate raided on all their neighbors, not only Russia, but also Lithuania and later, PLC greatly suffered by them. It's not a question of poorness or something like that, just the steppe border was impossible to control. In fact, the richer you are, the more they can take.

 

[TheDungen]

Man, why are you talking about what you don't know? Crimean Khanate raided on all their neighbors, not only Russia, but also Lithuania and later, PLC greatly suffered by them. It's not a question of poorness or something like that, just the steppe border was impossible to control. In fact, the richer you are, the more they can take.

He never said they didn't.

 

[al.gb]

He never said they didn't.

It happened because of poorness in Lithuania and PLC?

 

[Tavior]

Russia also has faster institution spread if memory serves me, which saves them money and mana. And let's face it the ottomans are never as strong a they were in history either.

The problem with faster institution is that the start point of institution will take ages, depending on where and PLC adopting it usually, so it doesn't really save MP for AI since the AI isn't that smart about MP.

The player is much smarter and will develop his/her own provinces to force spawn it.

 

[moyang]

Devs decided to not give Poland/PLC another military perk because they already have enough military NI, but it's fine for Prussia? :/

 

[BarskiPatzow]

The Pomjestija Reform
This year is between 1450 and 1550
(If you pick the Novgorodian reform option)

The Reforms of Peter the Great
Year is between 1680 and 1720
(though also
Any neighboring country:
Institution difference (than our country) value is at least 2
)

Like I said I could see the russian uralic provinces getting a permanent modifier like some other important mines, but that would have to be at the expense at something else because Russia aren't weak as presently are.

I almost never see AI do anything with Russia, they can expand until they get in a war with PLC or someone else, first time it happens they start falling apart, since they tend to take economic ideas for some reason and don't get stable. I haven't seen Russia at historical borders, or even close since after the Art of War, they were nerfed a few times directly and a few times indirectly. Now I don't want them to do things like they used to, such as conquering half of Asia without having any allies, but them not getting to pacific is awful. I know Ottomans don't get their historical borders all the time, but hell, they are a lot closer to getting them than Russia is.
Also, for people that are hating Prussian buffs: How many times did AI form Prussia in your games? I almost never see them, and even when I do, they are formed by a wrecked TO.

Devs decided to not give Poland/PLC another military perk because they already have enough military NI, but it's fine for Prussia? :/

When was PLC known for best army in the world?

Edit: wow, I checked now and saw that Ottos took exploration ideas as third choice... Why do things like that happen...?