Yeah, you have right, its almost impossible to get the all countries to follow a historical correct path. What i want to see after IGC is the "IGC" versions of 1617 and 1700 campaigns.....
-
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.
Yeah, you have right, its almost impossible to get the all countries to follow a historical correct path. What i want to see after IGC is the "IGC" versions of 1617 and 1700 campaigns.....
Have I ever stated that it wasn't true? I don't see it a good enough reason to cut leaders from Russia, though.
Exactly my point. That's the only time when Russia has more generals.
I wouldn't call it nonsense. I played Sweden, it's hard the first 10 years, just don't go to Russia, take care of Denmark. I didn't notice anything particularly hard about it in the first 50-60 years. I absorbed most of Denmark. Then your good leaders show up. I played Denmark as well. Hard, but very manageable.
Like, any examples? I am sorry you took my joke seriously. Next time I will always be serious. I promise. And besides, why take everything so personally?
This is REALLY nice of you, I suppose. I invested quite a bit of time into it by doing research; I suppose I have a lot of free time on my hands to do something I don't use. No, shouldn't use, according to you. Well, my goal is to help to IMPROVE the GC, and I found the changes you (not personally) made to a leader file are QUESTIONABLE . I stated my opinion, yet I am being accused of all kind of sins. So, apparently stating a negative opinion is equivalent to whining?
Russia has to have more leaders because it's supposed to be a great empire. It's ridiculous, if Russia would have less leaders than some minor. At the moment, Russia barely has 2 at a time.
Besides, knowing how AI uses them, I doubt that cutting leaders will achieve anything.
Hartmann:
I understand what you're trying to achieve. Unfortunately, I disagree with your method of depriving one nation of their leaders, and giving other tons of generals. We might as well get rid of all Russian leaders, because Russia is indeed very strong. Yet, I don't think if we want to achieve anything remotely close to what happened historically, we should do it at the expense of cutting one's nations leaders. Russia never had any CB on Sweden until later on, so Russia wouldn't attack Sweden. Sweden shouldn't attack Russia early on too.
One thing is to tinker with province supply levels, which I think is a more honest way to deal with the situation.
So, restore those leaders. A historical event file should provide a better way to weakening Russia.
Cheers, and don't take everything so personally......
Crook
Last edited:
Nobody is ever satisfied. This is the basic nature of humans. Add to this the inherently subjective issues in history that we discuss vis a vis the IGC and it becomes worse. How many history books are there that cover this period? Thousands? Tens of thousands? And all of them interpret this history in a different way.
I think that Hartmann and Doomdark have done an excellent job of balancing historical facts and gameplay to improve the Grand Campaign greatly. To form a consensus on these changes has been the greatest challenge for them I imagine. Most changes are thoroughly discussed in the Scenario forum and opinions are expressed and encouraged if not always heeded.
I think this level of passionate outcry for a GAME is a bit inappropriate. If you don't like a change then by all means change it back. I for one could have fun with EU if it was decided that Autria and Turkey would be swapped.
I think that Hartmann and Doomdark have done an excellent job of balancing historical facts and gameplay to improve the Grand Campaign greatly. To form a consensus on these changes has been the greatest challenge for them I imagine. Most changes are thoroughly discussed in the Scenario forum and opinions are expressed and encouraged if not always heeded.
I think this level of passionate outcry for a GAME is a bit inappropriate. If you don't like a change then by all means change it back. I for one could have fun with EU if it was decided that Autria and Turkey would be swapped.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your method of depriving one nation of their leaders, and giving other tons of generals. We might as well get rid of all Russian leaders, because Russia is indeed very strong.
From this I can´t help but think that it´s actually You who takes this personally. Don´t forget that Tanone added many new leaders to the Russian file for the IGC in the first place. As I told You, I had sent him the file with the commented out leaders and mostly followed his suggestions when he replied.
I didn´t count them leaders now, but even after the commenting out of 10 of them, Russia has about 60 leaders and Sweden about 50 (that´s why I think Your reaction on this specific topic is really a bit extreme, especially as I came to know You as a very objective person ...)
Yet, I don't think if we want to achieve anything remotely close to what happened historically, we should do it at the expense of cutting one's nations leaders.
That´s why I always stated, that it´s a *temporal* solution. The leaders are still in the file with unused IDs and everyone can put them back as easily as picking his nose. Maybe the easiest solution would be if the the IGCConfig could provide an option "enhanced Russian leaderfile" or so.
Cheers, and don't take everything so personally......
I confess, I´m not feeling very cheerful at the moment.
Hartmann
From this I can´t help but think that it´s actually You who takes this personally. Don´t forget that Tanone added many new leaders to the Russian file for the IGC in the first place. As I told You, I had sent him the file with the commented out leaders and mostly followed his suggestions when he replied.
I didn´t count them leaders now, but even after the commenting out of 10 of them, Russia has about 60 leaders and Sweden about 50 (that´s why I think Your reaction on this specific topic is really a bit extreme, especially as I came to know You as a very objective person ...)
Yet, I don't think if we want to achieve anything remotely close to what happened historically, we should do it at the expense of cutting one's nations leaders.
That´s why I always stated, that it´s a *temporal* solution. The leaders are still in the file with unused IDs and everyone can put them back as easily as picking his nose. Maybe the easiest solution would be if the the IGCConfig could provide an option "enhanced Russian leaderfile" or so.
Cheers, and don't take everything so personally......
I confess, I´m not feeling very cheerful at the moment.
Hartmann
Crook,
At the end of such a negative post, "Somehow, I see Doomie's hand in here......" simply cannot be constituted as a joke; it is a direct attack on my objectivity.
You are avoiding the issue. You accused us (implied: me) of having made the Swedish "monster" into a "supermonster". We all know that all of the major nations are pretty easy to play... so? Do you perhaps think Russia is suddenly extremely challenging for a human player?
Stating a negative opinion is perfectly ok as long as it comes in the form of polite suggestions. Please remember that in the future, and if you want to accuse me of something you are welcome to send me an e-mail.
Now this is more in the form of a civilized discussion. Let me begin by saying that I would love to have the Russian leaders back. The more the merrier, and we will certainly strive to find alternative solutions.
You argue that Russia is supposed to be a great empire. Here is the core of our disagreement I think, for while I agree that Russia was certainly powerful back in 1492 it was hardly a superpower. Case in point: it was consistently unable to defeat "some minor" like Sweden in the 16th (and 17th) century. We have only cut Russian leaders in the 16th century (and one in the 17th), which, in this light, is pretty reasonable IMO. Most importantly, Russia still performs well in our tests.
Although I might have agreed with you a couple of months ago that leaders don't make much difference to the AI, the new Russian leaders did have a clear effect in our numerous test runs. The effect was most obvious with Sweden, which was consistently demolished by Russia in 2.0f. I cannot even fathom how you could conceive of Sweden in EU as a "monster".
Now, the new Swedish leaders all deserve being added, just as the new Russian leaders did. No new leaders were of course added to the 18th century (when Sweden was a weak and beaten nation). Stats can always be debated however. In addition to the new leaders, the Swedish leader file has been cleared of numerous errors, and some insignificant or fictional leaders have been removed or replaced.
In conclusion, I really don't get your problem with Sweden, but I would like to hear you explain it (in a polite way).
At the end of such a negative post, "Somehow, I see Doomie's hand in here......" simply cannot be constituted as a joke; it is a direct attack on my objectivity.
You are avoiding the issue. You accused us (implied: me) of having made the Swedish "monster" into a "supermonster". We all know that all of the major nations are pretty easy to play... so? Do you perhaps think Russia is suddenly extremely challenging for a human player?
Stating a negative opinion is perfectly ok as long as it comes in the form of polite suggestions. Please remember that in the future, and if you want to accuse me of something you are welcome to send me an e-mail.
Now this is more in the form of a civilized discussion. Let me begin by saying that I would love to have the Russian leaders back. The more the merrier, and we will certainly strive to find alternative solutions.
You argue that Russia is supposed to be a great empire. Here is the core of our disagreement I think, for while I agree that Russia was certainly powerful back in 1492 it was hardly a superpower. Case in point: it was consistently unable to defeat "some minor" like Sweden in the 16th (and 17th) century. We have only cut Russian leaders in the 16th century (and one in the 17th), which, in this light, is pretty reasonable IMO. Most importantly, Russia still performs well in our tests.
Although I might have agreed with you a couple of months ago that leaders don't make much difference to the AI, the new Russian leaders did have a clear effect in our numerous test runs. The effect was most obvious with Sweden, which was consistently demolished by Russia in 2.0f. I cannot even fathom how you could conceive of Sweden in EU as a "monster".
Now, the new Swedish leaders all deserve being added, just as the new Russian leaders did. No new leaders were of course added to the 18th century (when Sweden was a weak and beaten nation). Stats can always be debated however. In addition to the new leaders, the Swedish leader file has been cleared of numerous errors, and some insignificant or fictional leaders have been removed or replaced.
In conclusion, I really don't get your problem with Sweden, but I would like to hear you explain it (in a polite way).
Last edited:
Hartmann:
My point was (and still is) there is no need to cut the number of Russian generals, you could have added Swedish ones, the thing I was suggesting long time ago, but you warned me about Swedish historians, so I never did. The question isn't about the number of leaders, but rather the number of leaders per specific time period. As I pointed earlier, the period of 1521-1575 has 10 Swedish generals vs. 5 Russian. Poland in my leader file has 10 generals for the same time frame. So, I personally don't see the imbalance in here. If Russia gets attacked by both Poland and Sweden at the same time, she most likely will be crushed. If we do the same analysis for 1600s, you'll see that Sweden holds an advantage there as well. Poland does too.
In the games I played, Russia rarely gets very far past Karelia in Sweden, and quite often loses Pskov to Poland. The problem is Swedish AI, which is not built right to be aggressive, because when it does, it lacks the resources (just like real life). Could have Sweden be overrun by Russians historically? There is no question about it. Did it happen? No. But Russia rarely showed any interest in sparsely populated provinces anyway. Why should they do it in the game?
All I tried to say we can achieve the historical balance without depriving the nations of their HISTORICAL leaders for the sake of the gameplay. There are other ways to deal with the situation, like modifying provinces. I think if you would've brought it up in the forum as a potential problem (Sweden's impotence), people, including myself, would be happy to help you to work it out without sacrificing the leaders.
Crook
My point was (and still is) there is no need to cut the number of Russian generals, you could have added Swedish ones, the thing I was suggesting long time ago, but you warned me about Swedish historians, so I never did. The question isn't about the number of leaders, but rather the number of leaders per specific time period. As I pointed earlier, the period of 1521-1575 has 10 Swedish generals vs. 5 Russian. Poland in my leader file has 10 generals for the same time frame. So, I personally don't see the imbalance in here. If Russia gets attacked by both Poland and Sweden at the same time, she most likely will be crushed. If we do the same analysis for 1600s, you'll see that Sweden holds an advantage there as well. Poland does too.
In the games I played, Russia rarely gets very far past Karelia in Sweden, and quite often loses Pskov to Poland. The problem is Swedish AI, which is not built right to be aggressive, because when it does, it lacks the resources (just like real life). Could have Sweden be overrun by Russians historically? There is no question about it. Did it happen? No. But Russia rarely showed any interest in sparsely populated provinces anyway. Why should they do it in the game?
All I tried to say we can achieve the historical balance without depriving the nations of their HISTORICAL leaders for the sake of the gameplay. There are other ways to deal with the situation, like modifying provinces. I think if you would've brought it up in the forum as a potential problem (Sweden's impotence), people, including myself, would be happy to help you to work it out without sacrificing the leaders.
Crook
Crook:
I remember from "A History of Russia" that Russia and Sweden did go to war in the 1490's - IIRC, Russia lost. I don't agree that the Russian CB on Sweden should be delayed until later. When I get home tonight, I will scan the book for more detail.
Also, I think that Russia showed interest in ownership of Finnish/Swedish lands. The czars were not only involved in defensive wars with Sweden. Also, Russian expansion into the steppes to the east of Kiev casts some doubt on your claim that Russia was not interested in acquiring sparsely populated lands.
Best regards.
I remember from "A History of Russia" that Russia and Sweden did go to war in the 1490's - IIRC, Russia lost. I don't agree that the Russian CB on Sweden should be delayed until later. When I get home tonight, I will scan the book for more detail.
Also, I think that Russia showed interest in ownership of Finnish/Swedish lands. The czars were not only involved in defensive wars with Sweden. Also, Russian expansion into the steppes to the east of Kiev casts some doubt on your claim that Russia was not interested in acquiring sparsely populated lands.
Best regards.
The war of 1496 was a combined Danish/Russian excursion into Sweden. Russia didn't really lose the war, the siege of Vyborg was unsuccesful and for economical reasons czar decided to recall the army. As far as Russian interests concerned, they never really extended beyond Ingermanland and Karelia. All the wars that were fought consequently, were for the Baltic ports in Livonia and Ingermanland. The first real Russo-swedish war was during the time of troubles, and only because Vladislav (future king of Poland) was a ruler (nominal) of Russia, and Poland was at war with Sweden at that point.
Cheers
Crook
My point was (and still is) there is no need to cut the number of Russian generals
As a first step in that direction, please send me Your enhanced Polish leader file. Of course we *then* have to test and eventually make sure that the balance regarding Turkey, Austria etc. is retained. I never changed it, because it was Sapura´s file.
, you could have added Swedish ones, the thing I was suggesting long time ago, but you warned me about Swedish historians, so I never did.
Yes, we were cautious. But it turned out that the original designers had balanced the numbers with respect to a less populated Russian file (I again mention, that the IGC has *added* generals for Russia and when the first people noticed that I was getting emails from people complaining!)
I think if you would've brought it up in the forum as a potential problem (Sweden's impotence), people, including myself, would be happy to help you to work it out without sacrificing the leaders.
If I would have known what trouble I would get into, I surely would have posted. But on the other hand I cannot see any fault on my side here. First I contacted the maker of the file himself. Secondly, we cannot and will not ask for permission for everything we do on the board. I correspond with many people through the board and mail about various issues. E.g. You and me also exchange emails and I often implement some things we talked about without posting on the board about it.
Frankly, I did not expect such a heavy reaction on this change, but maybe that was naive. On the other hand You´re still the only one who posted that this change of the Russian file is such a big deal. Remember that the first post in this thread was about how Russia is too strong?
Now I suggest two things:
1) You and Doomie sort it out (I suggest email)
2) We go back to business.
Hartmann
As a first step in that direction, please send me Your enhanced Polish leader file. Of course we *then* have to test and eventually make sure that the balance regarding Turkey, Austria etc. is retained. I never changed it, because it was Sapura´s file.
, you could have added Swedish ones, the thing I was suggesting long time ago, but you warned me about Swedish historians, so I never did.
Yes, we were cautious. But it turned out that the original designers had balanced the numbers with respect to a less populated Russian file (I again mention, that the IGC has *added* generals for Russia and when the first people noticed that I was getting emails from people complaining!)
I think if you would've brought it up in the forum as a potential problem (Sweden's impotence), people, including myself, would be happy to help you to work it out without sacrificing the leaders.
If I would have known what trouble I would get into, I surely would have posted. But on the other hand I cannot see any fault on my side here. First I contacted the maker of the file himself. Secondly, we cannot and will not ask for permission for everything we do on the board. I correspond with many people through the board and mail about various issues. E.g. You and me also exchange emails and I often implement some things we talked about without posting on the board about it.
Frankly, I did not expect such a heavy reaction on this change, but maybe that was naive. On the other hand You´re still the only one who posted that this change of the Russian file is such a big deal. Remember that the first post in this thread was about how Russia is too strong?
Now I suggest two things:
1) You and Doomie sort it out (I suggest email)
2) We go back to business.
Hartmann
Doomie,
I never had any problem with adding more Swedish generals, I was the one who actually volunteered to do that but was warned by Hartmann about Swedish historians who discussed this a lot (see leaders... thread).
However, I oppose to cutting historical leaders of one nation because some other nation doesn't perform well. Denmark doesn't do anything and in a lot of games they control Sweden as a vassal well in 17 century. The problem is AI, that wasn't programed right to play Sweden and Denmark the way they should, and a constant bouncing state gift which ups their relationships constantly. I played both of them, and I never had any problem. Just don't touch Russia in the beginning.
Russia wasn't a superpower in 1492 (and I never said that), but it was a really big force. Russia's interests always were in Ukraine, though, and that's what precipitated a series of wars against Poland. Sweden wasn't even in the picture yet. Later wars were results of the same Russian drive to Baltics (Livonia), and never really Finland.
However, Russia did emerge as a superpower after Peter I, and stayed that way for a long time. In real life, Russia never was interested in Finland, if Russian AI decides that it wants it anyway, there is nothing you can do.
The reason for Russian defeats in 16 c was a political situation in Russia, which completely demoralized the army. Russia was thrown into turmoil, so it's not really an issue, how many leaders Russia had, it's that there were very little troops that wanted to fight. If AI was smart, it would invade Russia right at that moment, I am pretty sure Sweden can get 2-3 provinces just like that, because Russia wouldn't have any place to raise troops. So, would cutting Russian leaders achieve?
Another thing to consider is the number of generals for a specific time period.
1521-1575 as a period of Russian thrust to Baltics.
Russia has 5 generals, Sweden has 10
Poland in my leader file has 10 for the same time period. Imagine Russia would have to fight both Poland and Sweden at the same time?
Very likely, it will be a staggering defeat for Russia. In addition, we are not talking about super Russian generals, Swedish generals are generally better. In 1600 Swedish generals are monsters, while Russian are average. And besides, there are still more Swedish generals for that time period. Remind you also, that I think only 1 of Russian generals has a siege rating, compared to about 10 in Swedish file.
Russia was a huge country. Having 1(!) commander for the whole country from Baltics to Pacific Ocean seems like a strange idea to me, do you think it depicts reality well?
In game terms, I rarely see Russia do anything significant in Finland, more often than not, they don't go beyond Karelia at all. The wars against Poland are rarely successful too, and quite often Poland captures Pskov from Russia. I don't know if this has something to do with the fact that I play one of the countries nearby (like Denmark). So, I am testing the game now in 2.0k(M)(playing Naples) with all the leaders for Russia, Sweden and Poland. To tell you the truth I'll be really surprised if Russia will gobble Sweden.
You're right that there is a problem with Sweden, but, hey, it's AI and not the leaders. Humans would achieve a lot more (I know I did).
As for the tone of my post......... It meant to be sarcastic, and not bitter, sorry though, I didn't know that you would take it that seriously.
Cheers
Crook
I never had any problem with adding more Swedish generals, I was the one who actually volunteered to do that but was warned by Hartmann about Swedish historians who discussed this a lot (see leaders... thread).
However, I oppose to cutting historical leaders of one nation because some other nation doesn't perform well. Denmark doesn't do anything and in a lot of games they control Sweden as a vassal well in 17 century. The problem is AI, that wasn't programed right to play Sweden and Denmark the way they should, and a constant bouncing state gift which ups their relationships constantly. I played both of them, and I never had any problem. Just don't touch Russia in the beginning.
Russia wasn't a superpower in 1492 (and I never said that), but it was a really big force. Russia's interests always were in Ukraine, though, and that's what precipitated a series of wars against Poland. Sweden wasn't even in the picture yet. Later wars were results of the same Russian drive to Baltics (Livonia), and never really Finland.
However, Russia did emerge as a superpower after Peter I, and stayed that way for a long time. In real life, Russia never was interested in Finland, if Russian AI decides that it wants it anyway, there is nothing you can do.
The reason for Russian defeats in 16 c was a political situation in Russia, which completely demoralized the army. Russia was thrown into turmoil, so it's not really an issue, how many leaders Russia had, it's that there were very little troops that wanted to fight. If AI was smart, it would invade Russia right at that moment, I am pretty sure Sweden can get 2-3 provinces just like that, because Russia wouldn't have any place to raise troops. So, would cutting Russian leaders achieve?
Another thing to consider is the number of generals for a specific time period.
1521-1575 as a period of Russian thrust to Baltics.
Russia has 5 generals, Sweden has 10
Poland in my leader file has 10 for the same time period. Imagine Russia would have to fight both Poland and Sweden at the same time?
Very likely, it will be a staggering defeat for Russia. In addition, we are not talking about super Russian generals, Swedish generals are generally better. In 1600 Swedish generals are monsters, while Russian are average. And besides, there are still more Swedish generals for that time period. Remind you also, that I think only 1 of Russian generals has a siege rating, compared to about 10 in Swedish file.
Russia was a huge country. Having 1(!) commander for the whole country from Baltics to Pacific Ocean seems like a strange idea to me, do you think it depicts reality well?
In game terms, I rarely see Russia do anything significant in Finland, more often than not, they don't go beyond Karelia at all. The wars against Poland are rarely successful too, and quite often Poland captures Pskov from Russia. I don't know if this has something to do with the fact that I play one of the countries nearby (like Denmark). So, I am testing the game now in 2.0k(M)(playing Naples) with all the leaders for Russia, Sweden and Poland. To tell you the truth I'll be really surprised if Russia will gobble Sweden.
You're right that there is a problem with Sweden, but, hey, it's AI and not the leaders. Humans would achieve a lot more (I know I did).
As for the tone of my post......... It meant to be sarcastic, and not bitter, sorry though, I didn't know that you would take it that seriously.
Cheers
Crook
Very well Crook, apology accepted.
Trust me, I will always attempt to keep the game balance in the IGC historical. For example, there is important work to be done for Denmark now that Sweden has some new leaders... and we would like to have the new Russian leaders back. (In regard to the Swedish siege specialists: Note the number of leaders with siege values in the new Russian leader file.) Also, I hope you don't blame us for removing Russian leaders just because your own personal Polish leader file contains more leaders.
I sense that there are many issues we could go on arguing about; pre 17th century Swedish-Russian wars (yes, they were wars), the "Swedish monster" you referred to, etc. Perhaps it would be for the best if we let them drop though.
Trust me, I will always attempt to keep the game balance in the IGC historical. For example, there is important work to be done for Denmark now that Sweden has some new leaders... and we would like to have the new Russian leaders back. (In regard to the Swedish siege specialists: Note the number of leaders with siege values in the new Russian leader file.) Also, I hope you don't blame us for removing Russian leaders just because your own personal Polish leader file contains more leaders.
I sense that there are many issues we could go on arguing about; pre 17th century Swedish-Russian wars (yes, they were wars
), the "Swedish monster" you referred to, etc. Perhaps it would be for the best if we let them drop though. 
Hi all,
Hartmann & Doomdark: I for one will always try to remember one thing; this is YOUR project not ours! i will suggest stuff, but you can put in what ever you like cause it's yours. and i'll like it!
Actually, i was talking with a friend who holds dual Doctorates in Russian history & the History of the Moscow Mathematical society, and he said "most Russian Czars, with the exceptions of Peter, Catherine and Alexander, were not all that Charismatic and they generally maintained one or at most two favorites as generals and they would not trust anyone else with their armies." also "Russia was a society with NO middle class, there was an extremely small section of society represented in the officer corps."
Also, the G.D. of Moscow had a population of around 7m in 1492, 11m in 1600, and 14m in 1700. Swedens population was (including Finland) maybe 900,000 in 1492, 1.2m in 1600, and 1.8m in 1700.
Yet with these population figures Sweden consistently beat Russia till very late in this period....hmmm... do you think Russian leadership was often pretty mediocre? Or that Swedish leadership was inspired?
one thing the game has wrong, but will never change because of play balance, is the tax values of Finnish provinces. Finnland had maybe 125,000 people in 1492, 150,000 in 1600, and 200,000 in 1700.
Michael
Hartmann & Doomdark: I for one will always try to remember one thing; this is YOUR project not ours! i will suggest stuff, but you can put in what ever you like cause it's yours. and i'll like it!
Actually, i was talking with a friend who holds dual Doctorates in Russian history & the History of the Moscow Mathematical society, and he said "most Russian Czars, with the exceptions of Peter, Catherine and Alexander, were not all that Charismatic and they generally maintained one or at most two favorites as generals and they would not trust anyone else with their armies." also "Russia was a society with NO middle class, there was an extremely small section of society represented in the officer corps."
Also, the G.D. of Moscow had a population of around 7m in 1492, 11m in 1600, and 14m in 1700. Swedens population was (including Finland) maybe 900,000 in 1492, 1.2m in 1600, and 1.8m in 1700.
Yet with these population figures Sweden consistently beat Russia till very late in this period....hmmm... do you think Russian leadership was often pretty mediocre? Or that Swedish leadership was inspired?
one thing the game has wrong, but will never change because of play balance, is the tax values of Finnish provinces. Finnland had maybe 125,000 people in 1492, 150,000 in 1600, and 200,000 in 1700.
Michael
I didn't know such thing existed
Not entirely true. Ivan III and Vasili III definitely don't fit in here. Besides, we are not talking about a general being a chief commander.
If we're talking about early 1600s, that's not surprising, Sweden had better generals in that time period, plus Russia was in turmoil, or slowly getting out of it. Morale of Russian army was also an issue. If we're talking about the early stages of Northern War, this is not surprising either, Russia didn't have a regular army until 1699-1700, troops were commanded by foreigners who were not trusted by soldiers. For that matter, Swedes were beating others too, and not only Russians.
Regarding Russia
I just started my first game with the IGC revision 2.0k and I'm playing as Russia.
I just wanted to double-check something. Russia starts with Medievel (0) land technology at the beginning of the campaign. Is this intentional? I also noticed that the beginning land technology of several majors (france, poland, russia) is below what is quoted in the Readme file.
Cheers.
I just started my first game with the IGC revision 2.0k and I'm playing as Russia.
I just wanted to double-check something. Russia starts with Medievel (0) land technology at the beginning of the campaign. Is this intentional? I also noticed that the beginning land technology of several majors (france, poland, russia) is below what is quoted in the Readme file.
Cheers.
Re: Regarding Russia
Hmm, this shouldn´t be. Maybe when we tried various settings with patch 1.09beta we forgot to reset them later.
Hartmann
Hmm, this shouldn´t be. Maybe when we tried various settings with patch 1.09beta we forgot to reset them later.
Hartmann
Sorry Crook, Sweden fought many other wars with Russia. In the period 1492-1699 Sweden fought no less than six outright wars with Russia, which were all either Swedish wins or stalemates. That's two thirds of the game period...
A quick summary:
1493-1497: Union King Hans entices Ivan III to start a war against Sweden under Chancellor Sten Sture. Ivan wants to adjust the borders of the Peace of Nöteborg from 1323. The war is a pretty chaotic affair, with the usual numerical superiority of the Russians. The staunch defense of the fortresses Viborg and Olofsborg, aided by the mysterious "Blast of Viborg", scares the Russian troops under Ivan III away and the borders of the Peace of Nöteborg are reaffirmed.
1554-1557: Border conflicts escalate into fullblown war with Russian forces numbering around 54000 marching on Viborg, including a force of Tatars under the Astrakhan Prince Kaibula. The Russians are again beaten soundly by grossly outnumbered Swedes, with the decisive battle raging near Viborg.
1570-1595: Sweden, Denmark and Russia duke it out for control of Estonia and Ingermanland. It is a long and bitter affair with cities changing hands every year. Sweden eventually triumphs and gains control of the entire Estonia (when the Order collapsed the province was divided between the three nations) and parts of Ingermanland at the Peace of Teusina.
1609-1610: Swedish intervention in the Time of Troubles. Initially successful attempt at installing a Swedish-friendly Russian Czar fizzles due to low morale among the troops and Polish intervention. The Swedes withdraw to Novgorod but remain determined to gain something out of the whole debacle.
1611-1617: What started out as a dynastic intervention becomes a pure war of aggression. The new king Gustavus Adolphus realizes how important it is to have natural borders with Russia and campaigns to gain Ingermanland, Karelia and/or possibly Kola and "Far Karelia". Jakob De La Gardie and Evert Horn seize all Russian forts and cities in Ingermanland and retake Novgorod, but the siege of Pskov fails and the half-hearted attempts to take Kola likewise. Sweden gains Karelia and Ingermanland in the peace.
1656-1661: The Russians try to take advantage of Sweden's wars with Denmark and Poland. Battles are fought along the entire border, but the attempt fails and peace is again signed in 1661.
Indeed, but the other enemies were considered much more dangerous. Denmark won several wars, and the Poles at least won many decisive battles. Indeed, Charles XII had such a low opinion of his Russian foe that he completely underestimated the tenacity and determination of Peter I.
Not a real war. Russian hands were tied in Lithuania, a small (by Russian measures
) army under Danilo Schenya was besieging Viborg from Aug to Dec 1495 to help Denmark. Surely, Russia wouldn't go to war for nothing, as it was promised (maybe) some lands in Finland by Hans. The sige was unsuccessful, and Russian army withdrew. In 1496 Russian army under Cheliadnin and Patrikeev was sent to harass Swedes by plundering, in the process they destroyed a small Swedish detachment (the only battle of the war) and plundered a number of Finnish settlements, including Olofsborg. Russian army again withdrew, before Swedes could achieve anything. In retaliation, Swedes launched an attack on Ivangorod, and burned it down. A new Russian army was prepared and was on its way, when the coup d'etat in Kazan forced Ivan to reconsider his plans. Truce was concluded in Novgorod, and Hans was elected king of Sweden. However, he failed to deliver the promised lands to Ivan. BTW, Ivan III was a rare coward and his only presence in army was in 1480 during the "standing on Ugra".Livonian war. Czar Ivan IV probably starts suffering from his insanity, as noone in his right mind would put a Tatarian prince to conduct a siege (Shah Ali commanded the main Russian army).
Medicine Man
I'll double-check my own files, Hartmann. I accidentally installed the IGC revision 2.0g prior to patching, installing and configuring IGC 2.0k. It is entirely possible that I have somehow left an out-dated file in use.
Cheers.
I'll double-check my own files, Hartmann. I accidentally installed the IGC revision 2.0g prior to patching, installing and configuring IGC 2.0k. It is entirely possible that I have somehow left an out-dated file in use.
Cheers.
Something is amiss
Hartmann,
I'm home and have had a chance to check the inc file for IGC 2.0k. Russia's starting technology levels are 1 infra/1 trade/2 stab/0 navy/0 land. France's starting technology levels are 0 infra/0 trade/1 stab/1 land/1 navy. Poland seems fine, with 2s in stability and land tech and 1s elsewhere. These values are straight from the zip file I downloaded from Doomdark's site. Is this correct? Please advise.
Cheers.
Hartmann,
I'm home and have had a chance to check the inc file for IGC 2.0k. Russia's starting technology levels are 1 infra/1 trade/2 stab/0 navy/0 land. France's starting technology levels are 0 infra/0 trade/1 stab/1 land/1 navy. Poland seems fine, with 2s in stability and land tech and 1s elsewhere. These values are straight from the zip file I downloaded from Doomdark's site. Is this correct? Please advise.
Cheers.