• 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:
These new ideas feel mid-tier at best. Russia is meant to be one of the competing major powers of Europe. To be honest, I'd prefer less feature bloat to compensate for weak idea sets (lulz Black Army of Hungary), and instead have properly balanced ideas/development/decisions/events with features that fit into the playstyle/theme of the nations (Ottoman dynasty and Manchu banners were done well in my opinion).
 
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.

Any patriot can easily reel off a list of examples in which their chosen country came up on top of unfavourable odds. Another way of looking at what you've described would be to portray Russia as a chronically weak state for at least half of the game due to the factors you mention (weak institutions and succession mechanisms, overpopulation etc) that was at once both saved and cursed by its vast geography. Importantly, you don't consider whether rather than Russia being strong, Lithuania had recently become much weaker relative to Russia by 1503.

What is important is A) thinking carefully about the historiographical assumptions we are all making when we use the word "balance" B) separating out the long term structural factors that really underpin "balance" through time from short-term successes.

There was a reason it took 300 more years for Russia to destroy the Polish state after your 'draw', and the fact that this only really occurs in that last 150-100 years suggests something changed around 1650 where Russian and Polish power begins to diverge. This is really what the game should be thinking about with regards to this question - what has to go wrong for powerful states like Poland to collapse?

None of this is meant as a criticism of Russia per se - by all means they were successful at adapting to a changing situation.

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:


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
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

Ruthenia is the missing piece of the puzzle really - and this point about the Wild Fields being unproductive until they are settled by a non-tribal power is really key imho.

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.
Sure, because the leaders of both states chose to approach it that way - probably sensibly. I'm just saying, all of the actors in the regions had multiple options, and the rival system is restricting those options in key ways. There were many years in which Turkey and Russia were not at war, and not just because they were busy or resting.
 
Sure, because the leaders of both states chose to approach it that way - probably sensibly. I'm just saying, all of the actors in the regions had multiple options, and the rival system is restricting those options in key ways.
What would be other realistic options, desides the bigger outside threat temporarily stoping war ore resource exhaustion?

I mean, yes, rivalries could be more dynamic, but that doesn`t remove the obvious conflict of interests that should flare tensions as soon as an opening presents itself.
There were many years in which Turkey and Russia were not at war, and not just because they were busy or resting.
Which years are we talking about exactly?
 
Ruthenia is the missing piece of the puzzle really - and this point about the Wild Fields being unproductive until they are settled by a non-tribal power is really key imho.

It's really hard to balance Ruthenia:
give lots of provinces and too much development, and we will have behemoth Lithuania that kills Muscovy and hordes with one punch
or in current setup Lithuania is so backwards, weak and unstable, that it can be completely annexed in 3 wars by Muscovy without breaking a sweat.

IMO the middle ground is to give more provinces to the whole PLC-Orders-Russia triangle and balance their development by DHE or decisions.
 
Formables should, at the very least, present a reward within idea sets. Hell, Muscovy -> Russia sounds like Italy -> Roman Empire; your new ideas are not worth it and you do it for the permaclaims/empire rank ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Didn't read the entire thread, but truly the Russian ideas seem worse than pretty much every other idea set in the region. I can only imagine a situation where people would willingly swap national ideas as Muscovy or any of the other Russian states if they were unaware of what ideas they would be getting in the Russian ideas.
 
These new ideas feel mid-tier at best. Russia is meant to be one of the competing major powers of Europe. To be honest, I'd prefer less feature bloat to compensate for weak idea sets (lulz Black Army of Hungary), and instead have properly balanced ideas/development/decisions/events with features that fit into the playstyle/theme of the nations (Ottoman dynasty and Manchu banners were done well in my opinion).
Both Ottoman and Manchu features are just "straight up broken" from a power perspective though.
 
УРАААААААААА!!!!!!
upd. I think it would be a good addition to make a "veche republic" for Novgorod. And in general, diversify the gameplay for this country. It would be nice to see something special, except the provinces and new countries. And by the way. At first it was formed "Russian tsardom," and only then "Russia" was formed. So, you obviously have something to add.
 
Last edited:
My shark-jumping sense is tingling again.

MORE special mechanics that only apply to a small subset of countries? Yeah, I understand that's "realistic", but the game is already pretty darn hard for average people to grok a typical country they would want to play; to have so many special mechanics just jacks up the learning curve and pushes away even more potential players. Then you go and also throw in tons of new provinces, basically making regions even MORE powerful and hard to wield (and expensive), while doing nothing to temper the additional power and required effort (and cost).

This is not a new feeling.

It's okay to think something is really neat and want to talk about it. It's another to have 2000 sets of special rules to cover 2000 cultures, especially when there is already lots of stuff you've already got that needs to be refined or that doesn't really work well, like States. Don't forget: gameplay trumps excessive detail every time.
Special mechanics are cool to people of the region, as they'll want to play their nation as close as past rulers had to and they'll appreciate the custom detail. They will enter green regardless of nation, so theyll become proficient at theirs, then what you say applies, they perhaps like the game and move to a different region of the world, and bam! nothing works the same.

Then you find out if they are core players (will buy dlc) or just playing for curiosity, as a dev you were already paid the admission though. I think it is good, but there needs to be a focus on UI design so it teaches green players the basics fast and pretty. If you can be succesful at that then you'll hook more. I agree on the bloating of mechanics that will eventually force EUV for it can't be "cleaned up" :p, it does happen to every long lived software though.
 
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.

Castile and Aragon weren't rivals? I'm sure that would have been consolation to John II of Aragon when the Catalans asked Henry IV of Castile to become their ruler...
 
Castile and Aragon weren't rivals? I'm sure that would have been consolation to John II of Aragon when the Catalans asked Henry IV of Castile to become their ruler...

Then why did the game have them with the historical friends buff before?

I mean if there was realism the binding of dynasties event should only be able to fire if there is a royal marriage between the two, correct?

Which means Castile and Aragon would rarely form a PU because they in general rival each other.

As another poster stated maybe Rivalary should be more dynamic and nuanced.

Like a Rivalry should have a scale like trust.

So maybe royal marriages dont start as being locked out but can be if things escalate enough, and maybe allainces are locked out but if you dont go to war long enough and maintain a royal marriage/help your rival you can eventually get relations strong enough to form Alliances, ie Russia did ally with Poland against the Ottomans. And with enough effort end the rivalry with no cost/power projection cost.
 
Last edited:
Oh lord, this is dangerously venturing into another Poland/Russia historical discussion.

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

Judging power on ideasets is a bit wromg.

Well, but even so, why is Russia's set worse than Muscovy's? I know it can be changed yet, it just that the logic applied here seems... off.
 
Oh lord, this is dangerously venturing into another Poland/Russia historical discussion.



Well, but even so, why is Russia's set worse than Muscovy's? I know it can be changed yet, it just that the logic applied here seems... off.

I agree that artillerycost and institution sprad is not good enough.
 
I agree that artillerycost and institution sprad is not good enough.
About your earlier post mentioning Russia being OP as hell despite their idea set. If they are buffed through the roof via goverment, religion, culture modifiers, events or any combination of all above, wouldn't that just result in other nations with far better ideas be better at being Russia (forming it) than Russia itself? Like Poland or Prussia forming Russia, and enjoying those OP bonuses (to balance out mediocre Russian Ideas).