AGCEEP Russia

[ConjurerDragon]

Not only words and not just overlordship, but at least two centuries of intercommunication.

Sure. Which other countries had too, but interacting with each other like being the vassal of another state or being taxed or having the ruler confirmed by the overlord, does not mean that a country adds another state culture. Muscovy ruled only russian provinces and so should start in 1419 with only russian culture.

Then why do you think the creators of the AGCEEP gave the Tatar culture to the Grand Principality of Moscow?

I assume by mistake. Both vanilla FtG and AGCEEP have events (rulership of the steppe in FtG and Mantle of the Khans in AGCEEP) that adds tatar culture to Russia once Muscovy has eliminated the competition for the throne of the Grand Duke and started to be an Empire. Starting with and then gaining a culture does nothing so my assumption is that MOS should start only with russian and gain it later.

And if you are thinking the way you just described then why did you keep the Tatar Culture for the Principality of Ryazan? Without any historical explanation (in your way), but only in the purpose of balancing its starting position?

Well, having different starting positions is fun when it makes even a bit of sense. Many of the major nations have smaller fringe countries between larger cultural areas (e.g. Lorraine starting with german and french) but I would never give France or Germany the others culture because that would become overpowering. If someone is bored starting as FRA then he might enjoy the more difficult, one-province-minor start as Lorraine that can become France by event and enjoys german culture too.

Or Denmark gaining german culture by event if they have a german king and rule several provinces in Germany.

MOS does not become more interesting by adding tatar from the start. MOS is already the largest and the militarily most powerful of the russian principalities and has the easist starting position of all russian minors to become Russia.
NOV is far less militarily inclined and more a trading republic which enjoys full benefits of it´s ugric provinces.
Pskov and Tver are the hard choice for an experienced player - small OPM´s with only russian culture and not one bonus to them. The underdogs.
And to avoid having Ryazan be simply the 3rd of them it makes both ingame and historical sense to have them have russian and tatar.
Ingame it is only an advantage until they would manage to defeatt and replace MOS - which needs a very good player or a lot of luck - because once they form Russia they would gain tatar anyway just like MOS.
Historically it makese some sense becaus RYA was the first principality that was overrun by the mongols, suffered most by having their capital completely razed (Ryazan is a new city while "old Ryazan" is some 40 kilometres distant from it) and their ruling family almost wiped out in the siege of Ryazan (except a nephew who fled to Vladimir) and had to endure mongol overlordship the longest.

Please, stop thinking that I am not knowing the difference between the core types, lol.
I think that BYZ should have national cores on the lands lost not long before 1419 and claim or casusbelli cores on some more lands lost long before.

So - none. BYZ in 1419 did not lose it´s former provinces a few years ago to the Ottomans. They lost them already to the latin states (e.g. Duchy of Athens) in the 4th crusade), to the serbians (e.g. Stefan Dusans serbian empire who proclaimed himself Emperor of Serbs and Greeks) and the bulgarians. Ruling Egypt or the Levante is ancient history. The Ottomans conquered those provinces from the bulgarians and the serbs, not from BYZ which stayed neutral in several of the ottoman-serb or ottoman-bulgarian wars.

In addition the population is not really greek anymore - since Gallipolli had been given to the turkish auxiliary troops in one of BYZ civil wars, turkish nomad crossed over the straits and started to settle in the european part of former BYZ lands. If those were still BYZ *national* cores then they could take them from TUR and rule them without any problem which would be historical nonsense. A claimcore makes far more sense - they still can declare war and annex the province just like with a national core, but they then will suffer 3% "nationalsim"/rather local resistance, because the population is just as much serb/bulgarian/albanian/turkish as greek.

With the ottomans having made Adrianopel/Edirne (which was the 3rd most important city in the remaining BYZ empire after Byzanz and Thessaloniki) their capital and ruling most of Thrace province, it is questionable if they still deserve a national core on Thrace province.

P. S.
And there is a way to think about the Basileia Romaion without the intention to save it — just letting it perish, but in a historical style and without overnerfing.
And in the Byzantium thread that you just cited the concerns were not discussed. Just a man, who said that 10000 population for 1419 Constantinopolis is a nonsense.
According to a quick calculation (see above) there should be at least 20000 population.

The FtG AGCEEP Byzantium thread is only the continuation of the EU2 AGCEEP Byzantium thread. AGCEEP started to mod for EU2 and continued after FtG was published. The last version for EU2 was 1.58 so anything that was already in 1.58 was discussed in the EU2 AGCEEP threads.

 

[Trmdrg]

Sure. Which other countries had too, but interacting with each other like being the vassal of another state or being taxed or having the ruler confirmed by the overlord, does not mean that a country adds another state culture. Muscovy ruled only russian provinces and so should start in 1419 with only russian culture.


I assume by mistake. Both vanilla FtG and AGCEEP have events (rulership of the steppe in FtG and Mantle of the Khans in AGCEEP) that adds tatar culture to Russia once Muscovy has eliminated the competition for the throne of the Grand Duke and started to be an Empire. Starting with and then gaining a culture does nothing so my assumption is that MOS should start only with russian and gain it later.


Well, having different starting positions is fun when it makes even a bit of sense. Many of the major nations have smaller fringe countries between larger cultural areas (e.g. Lorraine starting with german and french) but I would never give France or Germany the others culture because that would become overpowering. If someone is bored starting as FRA then he might enjoy the more difficult, one-province-minor start as Lorraine that can become France by event and enjoys german culture too.

Or Denmark gaining german culture by event if they have a german king and rule several provinces in Germany.

MOS does not become more interesting by adding tatar from the start. MOS is already the largest and the militarily most powerful of the russian principalities and has the easist starting position of all russian minors to become Russia.
NOV is far less militarily inclined and more a trading republic which enjoys full benefits of it´s ugric provinces.
Pskov and Tver are the hard choice for an experienced player - small OPM´s with only russian culture and not one bonus to them. The underdogs.
And to avoid having Ryazan be simply the 3rd of them it makes both ingame and historical sense to have them have russian and tatar.
Ingame it is only an advantage until they would manage to defeatt and replace MOS - which needs a very good player or a lot of luck - because once they form Russia they would gain tatar anyway just like MOS.
Historically it makese some sense becaus RYA was the first principality that was overrun by the mongols, suffered most by having their capital completely razed (Ryazan is a new city while "old Ryazan" is some 40 kilometres distant from it) and their ruling family almost wiped out in the siege of Ryazan (except a nephew who fled to Vladimir) and had to endure mongol overlordship the longest.


So - none. BYZ in 1419 did not lose it´s former provinces a few years ago to the Ottomans. They lost them already to the latin states (e.g. Duchy of Athens) in the 4th crusade), to the serbians (e.g. Stefan Dusans serbian empire who proclaimed himself Emperor of Serbs and Greeks) and the bulgarians. Ruling Egypt or the Levante is ancient history. The Ottomans conquered those provinces from the bulgarians and the serbs, not from BYZ which stayed neutral in several of the ottoman-serb or ottoman-bulgarian wars.

In addition the population is not really greek anymore - since Gallipolli had been given to the turkish auxiliary troops in one of BYZ civil wars, turkish nomad crossed over the straits and started to settle in the european part of former BYZ lands. If those were still BYZ *national* cores then they could take them from TUR and rule them without any problem which would be historical nonsense. A claimcore makes far more sense - they still can declare war and annex the province just like with a national core, but they then will suffer 3% "nationalsim"/rather local resistance, because the population is just as much serb/bulgarian/albanian/turkish as greek.

With the ottomans having made Adrianopel/Edirne (which was the 3rd most important city in the remaining BYZ empire after Byzanz and Thessaloniki) their capital and ruling most of Thrace province, it is questionable if they still deserve a national core on Thrace province.


The FtG AGCEEP Byzantium thread is only the continuation of the EU2 AGCEEP Byzantium thread. AGCEEP started to mod for EU2 and continued after FtG was published. The last version for EU2 was 1.58 so anything that was already in 1.58 was discussed in the EU2 AGCEEP threads.

Not a new city, bur the already existed Pereyaslavl-Ryazanskiy, not 40, but 50 km, but it does not matter.
The Russians in the Principality of Ryazan just had not bigger Tatar cultural impact than the Russians in the Principality of Moscow had. No matter that Ryazan was little closer or wiped out. Everything else is just changing the starting position without a historical basis just to change it. Just to give poor Ryazan at least something. I think "more interesting" (for you) should not work here, only historicity.
One should or keep the Tatar culture for both (and maybe even give it to the Principality of Tver) or madly take away from both.

P. S. By the way, if somebody wants to improve Russia in AGCEEP in terms of historicity, the one can revise the cultures, religions and citynames of Nothern, Central Russia and Russian steppe. And Sibir also. All that incorrect (anachronistic) Lugansk, Aktyubinsk and others.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Not a new city, bur the already existed Pereyaslavl-Ryazanskiy, not 40, but 50 km, but it does not matter.
The Russians in the Principality of Ryazan just had not bigger Tatar cultural impact than the Russians in the Principality of Moscow had. No matter that Ryazan was little closer or wiped out. Everything else is just changing the starting position without a historical basis just to change it. Just to give poor Ryazan at least something. I think "more interesting" (for you) should not work here, only historicity.
One should or keep the Tatar culture for both (and maybe even give it to the Principality of Tver) or madly take away from both.

Actually it makes only sense for Ryazan and not at all for Muscovy. Ryazan fought first and fell first to the mongols. Muscovy at that time stayed out of the fight despite asked for aid and so they fell later. Which means that Ryazan is the first to fall and the principality with the longest and hardest contact with the mongols.
Everyone else has already enough and can wait until they become Russia.

P. S. By the way, if somebody wants to improve Russia in AGCEEP in terms of historicity, the one can revise the cultures, religions and citynames of Nothern, Central Russia and Russian steppe. And Sibir also. All that incorrect (anachronistic) Lugansk, Aktyubinsk and others.

The citynames in the province screen can be changed. There is a command listed in the commands&triggers list of ThirdAngel

Commands and triggers list

Summary: * Commands * Triggers * Various notes * Cheat codes Orange is for additions in 1.3 betas. Thanks to Havard, chefkoch and MichaelM who, in one way or another, have been helping me with this.

forum.paradoxplaza.com

However the names that are written on the map can not be simply modded by changing text files. Those need a skilled mapmaker to change accurately.
Some, e..g Plus Vltra mod, use a different map for that reason. But as AGCEEP uses the vanilla map there is nothing we can do to change that in this map.

 

[Trmdrg]

Actually it makes only sense for Ryazan and not at all for Muscovy. Ryazan fought first and fell first to the mongols. Muscovy at that time stayed out of the fight despite asked for aid and so they fell later. Which means that Ryazan is the first to fall and the principality with the longest and hardest contact with the mongols.
Everyone else has already enough and can wait until they become Russia.


The citynames in the province screen can be changed. There is a command listed in the commands&triggers list of ThirdAngel

Commands and triggers list

Summary: * Commands * Triggers * Various notes * Cheat codes Orange is for additions in 1.3 betas. Thanks to Havard, chefkoch and MichaelM who, in one way or another, have been helping me with this.

forum.paradoxplaza.com

However the names that are written on the map can not be simply modded by changing text files. Those need a skilled mapmaker to change accurately.
Some, e..g Plus Vltra mod, use a different map for that reason. But as AGCEEP uses the vanilla map there is nothing we can do to change that in this map.

There was no Principality of Moscow at all when the Mongol invasion and dominance began. It was created a little later and gradually absorbed many minor Russian counties of the wide Russian-Tatar cultural exchange zone. Including those, which were in contact with the Tatars no less than the Principality of Ryazan. There was no any significant distinction in Tatar cultural influence on the Ryazanshchina and on the Vladimir-Suzdal lands.

 

[Saint Angelo]

From the pure gameplay perspective something needs to be done because a bump in stab cost, even with all that serfdom, is big for AI Russia. A massive burden that always slows them down.

Trmdrg you seem you'd know, how did Russia actually colonize stuff east of Volga? Were there any actual cities there (aside from Kazan or Astrakhan)? Tatar culture or not, I was thinking what if Russia just got claims on those provinces, and then they moment they tick to core in 30 years event changes culture and religion?

I'm just curious. Honestly, AGCEEP is always strict for the sake of being strict so don't really care, I just wonder if you were to represent spread of Russian/Orthodox over the steppe, is there any way you'd do it? Was always wondering how to do it properly.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

From the pure gameplay perspective something needs to be done because a bump in stab cost, even with all that serfdom, is big for AI Russia. A massive burden that always slows them down.

There is no bump in stab cost for Russia. Muscovy rules only provinces of russian culture and has cores only on russian provinces to lead AI Muscovy to unite the russian earth first. Once AI Muscovy turns into AI Russia they will get cores on the Khanates and tatar culture.

Trmdrg you seem you'd know, how did Russia actually colonize stuff east of Volga? Were there any actual cities there (aside from Kazan or Astrakhan)? Tatar culture or not, I was thinking what if Russia just got claims on those provinces, and then they moment they tick to core in 30 years event changes culture and religion?

There are already events in AGCEEP that turn some tatar cultured provinces to russian. That is for gameplay largely irrelevant as Russia usually at that time has russian and tatar as statecultures.

I'm just curious. Honestly, AGCEEP is always strict for the sake of being strict so don't really care, I just wonder if you were to represent spread of Russian/Orthodox over the steppe, is there any way you'd do it? Was always wondering how to do it properly.

First unite the russian principalities. Stop being a vassal of the Golden Horde at the "Standing at the Ugra" event. Become Russia and get lots of additional cores and tatar culture with several events. Then conquer all the Khanates you have cores on (e.g. Kazan, Astrachan, Sibir) and start colonizing to the Pacific.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

There was no Principality of Moscow at all when the Mongol invasion and dominance began.

Right, it started as a small border fort of the Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal at the outskirts of Rus civilization. It was Vladimir that did not come to Ryazans aid and who fell just a year later.

It was created a little later and gradually absorbed many minor Russian counties of the wide Russian-Tatar cultural exchange zone. Including those, which were in contact with the Tatars no less than the Principality of Ryazan. There was no any significant distinction in Tatar cultural influence on the Ryazanshchina and on the Vladimir-Suzdal lands.

Well, falling a year earlier than anyone else and having the capital not just burned (that was common even for other principalities) but wiped that it was not built up again and the ruling dynasty almost wiped out too, IS different to the other principalities.
It does not make a significant difference ingame however, except as an interesting difference for a player who would try to become Russia as Ryazan.
As all russian principalities can become Russia, and Russia gains tatar culture at the time Russia historically started to actually conquer tatar khanates (and not just put a pro-moscovite khan on the throne of Kazan or vassalize them) there is no need to have it before. Moscovy is already "special" compared to the other russian principalities in that they are the largest and militarily strongest and are the startpoint for beginners who wants to play Russia the first time.

 

[Trmdrg]

From the pure gameplay perspective something needs to be done because a bump in stab cost, even with all that serfdom, is big for AI Russia. A massive burden that always slows them down.

Trmdrg you seem you'd know, how did Russia actually colonize stuff east of Volga? Were there any actual cities there (aside from Kazan or Astrakhan)? Tatar culture or not, I was thinking what if Russia just got claims on those provinces, and then they moment they tick to core in 30 years event changes culture and religion?

I'm just curious. Honestly, AGCEEP is always strict for the sake of being strict so don't really care, I just wonder if you were to represent spread of Russian/Orthodox over the steppe, is there any way you'd do it? Was always wondering how to do it properly.

As for cities to the east of Volga, but not Kazan and Astrakhan, there were interesting pagan principalities in the wide Ural region. Great Perm (Permia), Pelym and a bunch of minor tribal principalities. According to Russian historians, their capital settlements had about 4-6-8 000 people. So, yes, there were cities. I always thought that it will be interesting to wage wars against such pagan principalities in that region in the FTG. The Europa Universalis 2 and naked FTG even have got an embryo of Perm state, but the FTG AGCEEP has no (and does not even have the right culture for them).
Aside from this region I consider the AGCEEP way of representing the Russian colonisation of the East to be Ok. Rough but OK. Narrow path of naked provinces with natives. Too much Terra Incognita to the north and south from this path, but it is also OK. There were peoples, who only paid the Yasak (by the way, the Mongolian word) — a tribute from the indigenous peoples.
As for the Tatar Steppe it may be interesting to trigger the events changing the provinceculture to Russian by the ownerchange and controlchange commands — convert only after some time of owning and controlling (and of course only for the provinces, where the Russian colonisation was historically extensive).

And yes, in the FTG Russia suffers from the stability cost later in the game. Do you think that it is something wrong?

Right, it started as a small border fort of the Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal at the outskirts of Rus civilization. It was Vladimir that did not come to Ryazans aid and who fell just a year later.


Well, falling a year earlier than anyone else and having the capital not just burned (that was common even for other principalities) but wiped that it was not built up again and the ruling dynasty almost wiped out too, IS different to the other principalities.
It does not make a significant difference ingame however, except as an interesting difference for a player who would try to become Russia as Ryazan.
As all russian principalities can become Russia, and Russia gains tatar culture at the time Russia historically started to actually conquer tatar khanates (and not just put a pro-moscovite khan on the throne of Kazan or vassalize them) there is no need to have it before. Moscovy is already "special" compared to the other russian principalities in that they are the largest and militarily strongest and are the startpoint for beginners who wants to play Russia the first time.

The Principality of Moscow has exactly the same rights to have the Tatar culture (as the accepted one in 1419) as the Principality of Ryazan. Only the position of the Novgorod and Pskov republics differs greatly from others in terms of relations with the Tatars and cultural exchange.

I see culture in a more wide sense, but you have spoken so many times about the subjugation of neighboring khanates as a reason, that I should mention the Qasim Khanate as an example of earlier Tatars in Muscovite service. We even have good province for this Khanate in FTG — it has "Novy Nizovoy" as its main city (Kasimov).

By the way, this reminds me a little of famous discussion in Russian historiography of the twentieth century: there were (and are) several authors who even speak that there were no Tatar-Mongol yoke at all, but only mutually beneficial cohabitation and exchange. But I am skeptical, to put it mildly, about this, if anything. It was (and is) only a political order of the modern day when the Russians and Tatars live peacefully together. Of course, there was a yoke. But there was also a powerful cultural exchange by the XVth century.
And I am not a Russian Tatar, if anything. I am Russian Russian.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...

I see culture in a more wide sense, but you have spoken so many times about the subjugation of neighboring khanates as a reason, that I should mention the Qasim Khanate as an example of earlier Tatars in Muscovite service. We even have good province for this Khanate in FTG — it has "Novy Nizovoy" as its main city (Kasimov).

No.
The Quasim Khanate did not exist in 1419 and so can´t be added to the 1419 scenario and can´t be any reason that Moscovy would deserve tatar culture in 1419.
It was established as a vassal of Moscovy 1452 by Vasily II. (who was not even ruling in 1419) by granting the borderlands between MOS and Ryazan principalities to Quasim Khan the son of the Khan of Kazan. MOS later tried to get him on Kazan´s throne as a pro-MOS ruler and the Quasim Khanate served for a while as some sort of semi-independent bufferstate. In game terms it was less than a vassal, as a vassal still can go to war but the exterior politics of Quasim Khanate were determined by MOS.

By the way, this reminds me a little of famous discussion in Russian historiography of the twentieth century: there were (and are) several authors who even speak that there were no Tatar-Mongol yoke at all, but only mutually beneficial cohabitation and exchange. But I am skeptical, to put it mildly, about this, if anything. It was (and is) only a political order of the modern day when the Russians and Tatars live peacefully together. Of course, there was a yoke. But there was also a powerful cultural exchange by the XVth century.
And I am not a Russian Tatar, if anything. I am Russian Russian.

There always will be people who try to falsify history to suit their purposes and agenda. It´s very similar with mongols and China, who instead of admitting that a mongol dynasty ruled China, they rather see the Yuan as a unique chinese dynasty and would add Kublai Khan or in the extreme even Genghis Khan to their national heroes to justify that they annexed "inner" Mongolia...

 

[Trmdrg]

No.
The Quasim Khanate did not exist in 1419 and so can´t be added to the 1419 scenario and can´t be any reason that Moscovy would deserve tatar culture in 1419.
It was established as a vassal of Moscovy 1452 by Vasily II. (who was not even ruling in 1419) by granting the borderlands between MOS and Ryazan principalities to Quasim Khan the son of the Khan of Kazan. MOS later tried to get him on Kazan´s throne as a pro-MOS ruler and the Quasim Khanate served for a while as some sort of semi-independent bufferstate. In game terms it was less than a vassal, as a vassal still can go to war but the exterior politics of Quasim Khanate were determined by MOS.

The sources on the history of the Qasim Khanate are too uncertain and murky. There are two main ways to look at them and therefore at the Qasim Khanate. You mentioned only one of them. The second is that the Qasim Khanate was a full-fledged fragment of the Golden Horde, like Kazan and Astarkhan. So if we stick to the second school, we can actually create a separate state for the Qasim Khanate.
In any case, this is just an example of the earlier Tatars in the service of Moscow. Even if 1452, this is much earlier than the event "Russia claims the mantle of the Khans", which gives the Tatar culture (fires in 1546 — 1600).
I mentioned this only because you spoke about the absence of Tatars under Moscow in that period. As for myself, even if the Qasim Khanate did not exist at all, lol, I see that the Grand Principality of Moscow must have the Tatar culture in 1419. It has no less rights to it than the Principality of Ryazan has. If you want to take it from Moscow, please, take it from Ryazan too. There were no significant difference between the cultures of the Rostov-Suzdal Russians and the Russians of the Ryazanshchina. And by 1419 there was already a powerful cultural exchange with the Great Steppe.
It looks like you just want to nerf Moscow not for a historical reason, but for your vision of the game balance only.

There always will be people who try to falsify history to suit their purposes and agenda. It´s very similar with mongols and China, who instead of admitting that a mongol dynasty ruled China, they rather see the Yuan as a unique chinese dynasty and would add Kublai Khan or in the extreme even Genghis Khan to their national heroes to justify that they annexed "inner" Mongolia...

The Kazakhs write that Genghis Khan was a Kazakh (at least a Turk).
About five years ago I had a conversation with an Azerbaijanian man about history. He insisted not only that the Scythians were Turks, but also that the Sumerians were Turks (sic.). His argument was brilliant — it is obvious to anyone who knows the Turkic languages that the Sumerian language is Turkic.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

The sources on the history of the Qasim Khanate are too uncertain and murky. There are two main ways to look at them and therefore at the Qasim Khanate. You mentioned only one of them. The second is that the Qasim Khanate was a full-fledged fragment of the Golden Horde, like Kazan and Astarkhan. So if we stick to the second school, we can actually create a separate state for the Qasim Khanate.

AGCEEP is a historical mod that tries to allow an as historical as possible play while taking care of game limitations.
If the sources of the Quasim Khanate are "uncertain and murky"as you put it and the two main theories contradict each other, then they will certainly not be added to the game.

Even if the sources would be better and not contradictory the Quasim Khanate was no sovereign state. It was in gameterms less than a vassal of Moscow, as Moscow controlled their foreign politics and who they went to war with. That is ingame better reflected by simply being a province of Moscow than another OPM (one-province-minor) that existed only for a limited time and had no policy of it´s own.

In any case, this is just an example of the earlier Tatars in the service of Moscow. Even if 1452, this is much earlier than the event "Russia claims the mantle of the Khans", which gives the Tatar culture (fires in 1546 — 1600).
I mentioned this only because you spoke about the absence of Tatars under Moscow in that period.

Perhaps I should make that clearer. I did not mean that no people of tatar heritage at all were in the service of Moscow - there certainly were a few in 1419 and in the course of history those became more and more after Moscow united the russian principalities and became Russia and annexed one Khanate after the other when it makes historical and ingame sense to give them tatar culture and at which they already receive tatar culture.

However that is nothing genuine to Moscow. People of different cultures served other states all over Europe. Prince Eugene of Savoy for example was born in Paris, France, was a cousin of the Duke of Saovy but served in the military of Austria. Austria neither receives french nor italian culture for having soldiers or officers recruited from elsewhere. There have been officers in that time who served in the armies of 3 or more different countries in the course of their military carreer.

As for myself, even if the Qasim Khanate did not exist at all, lol,

I did not say that the Quasim Khanate did not exist at all. I pointed out that it does not fulfill the requirements to be added to the AGCEEP mod and play a meaningful role there, just as for example Free Cities.

I see that the Grand Principality of Moscow must have the Tatar culture in 1419. It has no less rights to it than the Principality of Ryazan has. If you want to take it from Moscow, please, take it from Ryazan too.

No. Removing tatar cutlure from Moscow in the 1419 scenario was what I suggested already in 2012 and I did just that, because it was an ingame error - granting them tatar culture by event when they already start with it was contradictionary.

They did historically first go for uniting the russian principalities and have the russian culture and cores to do it. Their expansion into the tatar khanates came later and only then does it make sense for them to gain tatar culture and cores, which they already do.

There were no significant difference between the cultures of the Rostov-Suzdal Russians and the Russians of the Ryazanshchina. And by 1419 there was already a powerful cultural exchange with the Great Steppe.
It looks like you just want to nerf Moscow not for a historical reason, but for your vision of the game balance only.

Moscow does not have any ingame advantage for having tatar culture in 1419 as long as they do not rule provinces of tatar culture. And when they in the historical timeframe conquer the Khanates after becoming Russia they have an event to gain tatar culture - so there is neither a nerf nor any disadvantage to play Moscovy in a historical manner.

If you want to play ahistorical and conquer the Khanates first, feel free to do so - it will just be a bit harder until you gain the event. Any state can conquer and rule provinces of a different culture, as long as you take care of the additional revoltrisk and reduced income.

Game balance is something important too. Anyone may mod their own private game further however they see fit. I myself put a lot of stuff in my own game that would not make it into AGCEEP.

The Kazakhs write that Genghis Khan was a Kazakh (at least a Turk).

If you play a while in the steppes of Asia in AGCEP you will notice that the Kazaks originally were part of the Uzbeks. That was something I first noticed in the game and had never heard before.

About five years ago I had a conversation with an Azerbaijanian man about history. He insisted not only that the Scythians were Turks, but also that the Sumerians were Turks (sic.). His argument was brilliant — it is obvious to anyone who knows the Turkic languages that the Sumerian language is Turkic.

According to some turkish hick even the Hethites were turkish - in an ideological attempt to justifiy their presence in Anatolia while the turks historiclly were still in the far east of asia part of the Gök-Turkish Empire.

 

[Trmdrg]

No. Removing tatar cutlure from Moscow in the 1419 scenario was what I suggested already in 2012 and I did just that, because it was an ingame error - granting them tatar culture by event when they already start with it was contradictionary.

It was not a mistake. At least because there is a string "command = { type = remove_countryculture which = naskapi }" before the next string "command = { type = add_countryculture which = naskapi } #tatar culture" in the event "Russia claims the mantle of the Khans". The author of this event took into account the fact that the country may already have the Tatar culture.

(Though I do not see the point in a line like this. When such event fires, even without "remove_countryculture" the culture is added correctly, no duplicates).

In this case, keeping in mind all your arguments on Moscow, why should Ryazan keep the Tatar culture? Wiping out? Border state? Moscow was in the same contact zone with the Steppe. Game motives? Moscow should not go for early Tatar provinces, but Ryazan can?

According to some turkish hick even the Hethites were turkish - in an ideological attempt to justifiy their presence in Anatolia while the turks historiclly were still in the far east of asia part of the Gök-Turkish Empire.

If you mean the Hittites, then at that time there were no Gok-Turks, only proto-proto-proto-Turks somewhere near the Lena river.
It is not just some Turkish hick who talks such nonsense. There are western broadcasts on popular history on the Russian TV from the "Viasat History" western channel. In one of their broadcasts, they speak of modern Turks as descendants and successors of the Hittites.

 

[luk3Z]

If you are talking about 1419 scenario from AGCEEP I think that Golden Horde should have russian culture as well coz almost all russian principalities was subjected to Tatars. Tatarts conqered them, so why not ? In the contrary - Muscovy didn't conquer any tatar states until 1419. Muscovy after siege of Kazan in 1552 gain some territories, so from that period RUS may have tatar culture. But it is debatable of course (maybe earlier - I see in 1520 scenario RUS have tatar as culture - that actually need some research on that period).

 

[ConjurerDragon]

It was not a mistake. At least because there is a string "command = { type = remove_countryculture which = naskapi }" before the next string "command = { type = add_countryculture which = naskapi } #tatar culture" in the event "Russia claims the mantle of the Khans". The author of this event took into account the fact that the country may already have the Tatar culture.

(Though I do not see the point in a line like this. When such event fires, even without "remove_countryculture" the culture is added correctly, no duplicates).

There is a technical reason to do that as far as I remember which is why you will find the removeculture command in nearly all events where a stateculture is added.
I think it was about the order of the cultures in the display, to make sure that the main culture (russian for MOS) would be listed first and not become second in the list when tatar is added. At least that is done since I can remember already in AGCEEP for EU2.

In this case, keeping in mind all your arguments on Moscow, why should Ryazan keep the Tatar culture? Wiping out? Border state? Moscow was in the same contact zone with the Steppe. Game motives? Moscow should not go for early Tatar provinces, but Ryazan can?

Both can regardless of culture. Having tatar culture gives you no bonus when declaring war or annexing a province for lower BB - only a core does that and both MOS or a very successfull Ryazan gain their cores in the east later after becoming Russia.

As I already explained in an older post when there are several countries that can form a major country (e.g. Brittany --> France, Pommerania --> Poland) then for variety in starting positions we try to give those minors some interesting aspect other than "Ryazan, Novgorod, Pskov, Tver = more difficult to play Mini-MOS". So Novgorod has quite different domestic policies and starts with Ugric culture in addition to Russian and Ryazan with tatar in addition to russian.
So one reason is simply for fun. An AI Ryazan will likely be annexed before it ever makes use of that culture and only a player-Ryazan has a chance to actually annihilate Moscow and become Russia - and at that time will receive the Mantle of the Khans event at which time all russian principalities that form Russia gain tatar anyway. Which means that NOV could be become a Russia with russian, ugric and tatar culture.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

If you are talking about 1419 scenario from AGCEEP I think that Golden Horde should have russian culture as well coz almost all russian principalities was subjected to Tatars. Tatarts conqered them, so why not ? In the contrary - Muscovy didn't conquer any tatar states until 1419.

The tatars or rather mongols of the Golden Horde did conquer the russian principalities and plundered them - but after that they did not actually annex the whole area to rule it directly but only through vassals with inner autonomy.

In other words the russian principalities could do what they wanted (even go to war with each other, the Teutonic Order or Lithuania) as long as they paid their tribute to the Khan on time. He was their liege lord who e.g. decided (for a bribe) who was the next Prince if there were more than one, or who got to become the Grand Prince. And if one of the vassals did not pay in time or showed disrespect or an attitude to break free they raided them into submission again - but even then they never directly ruled them.

One of the reasons might be that the Khans liked to stay in the Steppes with their armies where their horses found lots of land to graze on, while in the russian principalities most of the country was forested and yielded not enough grazing land to maintain a strong cavalry occupation force.

 

[Trmdrg]

As I already explained in an older post when there are several countries that can form a major country (e.g. Brittany --> France, Pommerania --> Poland) then for variety in starting positions we try to give those minors some interesting aspect other than "Ryazan, Novgorod, Pskov, Tver = more difficult to play Mini-MOS". So Novgorod has quite different domestic policies and starts with Ugric culture in addition to Russian and Ryazan with tatar in addition to russian.
So one reason is simply for fun. An AI Ryazan will likely be annexed before it ever makes use of that culture and only a player-Ryazan has a chance to actually annihilate Moscow and become Russia - and at that time will receive the Mantle of the Khans event at which time all russian principalities that form Russia gain tatar anyway. Which means that NOV could be become a Russia with russian, ugric and tatar culture.

I find your decision neither fun nor interesting.

 

[Saint Angelo]

This whole debate, same as AGCEEP at this point, is neither fun nor interesting. Debating a mid-00s mod in 2022 is futile, unless for sport.

Having played so many campaigns on it I'm fairly convinced gameplay was never the main focus, rather its about being "historically accurate" and you can see above how well that usually goes.

A modern solution would be this, remove tatar from all Russian states, and then make a persistent event that awards tatar culture to any Russian minor, or Russia itself, that controls one of the Tatar provinces beyond Volga. Make it available from 1419, as long as you're not Golden Horde's vassal. And then, since it's awarded for in-game performance, and not forum debates, that actually creates some gameplay.

But this is AGCEEP, and its biggest strength will always be long-winded forum threads (very interesting, except they add nothing to the game).

 

[Trmdrg]

This whole debate, same as AGCEEP at this point, is neither fun nor interesting. Debating a mid-00s mod in 2022 is futile, unless for sport.

It is not futile, because ConjurerDragon has recently uploaded his new version of the AGCEEP. 2022. With dubious changes (especially the knownprovinces case).
It is futile, however, because he does not take into account the opinions of others. Does not compromise.
Of course he can do it. No offense. He is a helmsman. But after all this is the AGCEEP.

I find your decision neither fun nor interesting.

Please do not get me wrong. I only meant that fun and interest are too subjective and bad arguments when talking about a historical game.

♫ The wicked games we play... ♫

 

[ConjurerDragon]

It is not futile, because ConjurerDragon has recently uploaded his new version of the AGCEEP. 2022. With dubious changes (especially the knownprovinces case).
It is futile, however, because he does not take into account the opinions of others. Does not compromise.

Oh, I do read everything that is suggested in the threads of AGCEEP. And I do not dismiss any well written suggestion to change something simply out of spite or for my personal preference.

From the deceased website of AGCEEP:

How can I contribute? This is not an elitist club. Anyone is free to participate and contribute as much as he or she wants to. The most basic level of participation is simply reading and posting in threads that you find interesting. If you want to do more, you can either start a new thread covering your preferred focus area (unless one exists already). Playtesting and input is needed, encouraged and appreciated!

There is always the need of people playing the mod, to see if the intricate web of setup and events usually give the wanted results, if some bugs still hide etc.

Of course he can do it. No offense. He is a helmsman. But after all this is the AGCEEP.

Actually the official helmsmen of AGCEEP are (or have been as some got lost in the update of the forum software):

The High Council is a group of frequent contributors that have come together to administrate and lead the mod to perfection.

The members are:
Twoflower
doktarr
Mad King James
ribbon22
Garbon
Sun_Zi_36
Norrefeldt
dharper
YodaMaster
Fodoron
mandead

I just tried to continue a bit where Garbon has left off with 1.59b4 and add some of the leftover suggestions that had not been added.

Please do not get me wrong. I only meant that fun and interest are too subjective and bad arguments when talking about a historical game.

♫ The wicked games we play... ♫

Don´t worry - AGCEEP since EU2 has had literally boatloads of heated discussions, in the heydays involving dozens of interested modders and hobbyhistorians

Now that FtG has become older and many people have gone on to play EU IV (which to me seems like a completely different game with a lot higher system requirements) we just have to make sure that we do not argue in circles with just two people and that we give all new suggestions and discussions enough time (at least a fortnight) as there still are some people who frequent the FtG and AGCEEP forums but not on a daily schedule anymore.