Kazani Conquest of Moscovy (1438-1445)

[Chlodio]

I believe that relationship between Kazan and Moscovy in 1444 would be best portrayed by a war, that was started in 1438 by Olug Moxammat who advanced Moscovy forcing Vasily II to flee Moscow, but Olug was forced to retreat, because his army refused to continue advancing, it doesn't seem there was any kind of treaty between two rulers.

And in 1445 Kazani continued advancing and take Nizhny Novgorod, but Vasily II managed to defeat them in a battle, after that he returned to Moscow, but Kazani had started to besiege Nizhny Novgorod again. Later he fought against Kazani again, but was defeated ans imprisoned. War resulted creation of Qasim Khanate and paying for ransom.

When I start game as Moscovy in 1444 one of first thing I do is to declare war against Novgorod, thought in 1444 Moscovy shouldn't be able to attack against Novgorod using their full strength, because they had to deal with Kazan.

name = "Kazani Conquest of Moscovy"
war_goal = {
	type = take_province_tribal_feud
	casus_belli = cb_tribal_feud
}

1438.1.1 = {
	add_attacker = KAZ
	add_defender = MOS
	add_defender = PRM
	add_defender = YAR
	add_defender = PSK
}

1445.6.6 = {
	rem_attacker = KAZ
	rem_defender = MOS
	rem_defender = PRM
	rem_defender = YAR
	rem_defender = PSK
}

 

[zerosius]

Im no Expert on this Timeperiod, but i guess it would make sense for such a war to be portrayed in the game.
Certanly would make for a different and quite interesting Gameplay Experience when playing Muscovy

 

[BFTeixeira]

Im no Expert on this Timeperiod, but i guess it would make sense for such a war to be portrayed in the game.
Certanly would make for a different and quite interesting Gameplay Experience when playing Muscovy

I think there's always room for improvement. By some sources, it's debatable that by 1444 the Byzantines where a Ottoman vassal.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Im no Expert on this Timeperiod, but i guess it would make sense for such a war to be portrayed in the game.
Certanly would make for a different and quite interesting Gameplay Experience when playing Muscovy

What about the experience when playing as Kazan?

That war is winnable as either side. Muscovy is a day 0 target for Kazan in SP.

 

[PiriReis]

Its seems the Georgia was at war with Qara Qoyunlu as well?

 

[raspel]

I support this suggestion. What about adding also the Muscovite Civil War? This can make Moscow start challenging.

 

[Chlodio]

I support this suggestion. What about adding also the Muscovite Civil War? This can make Moscow start challenging.

Should Dmitry Shemyakahave have pretender army in 1444? If so where it should be?

 

[Sousuke123]

Should Dmitry Shemyakahave have pretender army in 1444? If so where it should be?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Shemyaka most valid place should be Moscow with some decent army so they wouldn't be crushed on a day 1

The two men maintained an uneasy peace for much of the next decade until 1445, when Vasily II was taken prisoner by Olug Moxammat after the Muscovite forces were surprised by the Tatar prince outside Suzdal, Shemyaka seized Moscow, had the recently released Vasily blinded and proclaimed himself the Grand Prince of Vladimir. He could claim this by right of lateral inheritance since his father had sat on the throne. (A prince was excluded from the succession (izgoi) if his father had not sat on the throne before him.) Shemyaka's lack of support among the Muscovite boyars forced him, however, to leave the city for Lake Chukhloma, but he continued to press his claim to the grand princely throne.

 

[raspel]

The story about relations between Dmitry Shemyaka and Vasily II can be much better representated with CK II game mechanics. In EU IV, I think, it can be simplified as pretender rebels, who sometimes (when Dmitry seizes Grand Prince throne) take control on Moscow.

 

[Wizzington]

I'd rather not add any more starting wars, it messes too much with the balance even if it is historical.

 

[net.split]

What balance?

Not being snarky here - EU games, with their historical focus, are inherently unbalanced at start. Every single nation has its own unique difficulty level, with starting wars being only one component of that.

If starting wars are uniquely problematic because countries at their initial state can't handle war, then all starting wars should be removed (and maybe even put a time limit before you're allowed to declare war so the AI can run appropriate cycles or whatever it is that needs to happen). If starting wars mess with a region's historical outcome, then the involved nations' starting conditions should probably be reviewed to permit expected results (see: Albania). If starting wars are seen as simply not fun for some people, add a checkbox option that automatically disables all starting wars when selected.

Otherwise it's weird to say "these starting wars are ok, but that one's no good." Especially in this case, where this particular starting war can make interesting nations like Novgorod both follow history better and likely be more enjoyable to play at the game's start (Novgorod was actually my first choice upon playing EU4... it was not a good first choice).

 

[Wizzington]

The 'balance' I refer to is how games tend to develop, for example Russia forming in most games (but not all). While EU is inherently unbalanced, I spent a *lot* of time tuning things during EU4's development to ensure that certain historical things would have a decent chance to happen, and messing with that for the sake of adding another starting war is not in the cards.

 

[Druplesnubb]

I think this might actually help the balance of the game. I've heard a lot of people complain that Muscovy is too weak in the latest patch, rarely growing to its historical size. Adding an easy to win war against a weaker enemy at the start might help with this.

 

[BFTeixeira]

I think this might actually help the balance of the game. I've heard a lot of people complain that Muscovy is too weak in the latest patch, rarely growing to its historical size. Adding an easy to win war against a weaker enemy at the start might help with this.

Easier than Novgorod? Muscovy has it easy unless PLC or Sweden/Denmark go for Muscovy land early in the game.

 

[net.split]

Well, it's good mod territory then (although trivial to just do yourself, especially since the OP helpfully provided some script).

I'd be curious to see what effects it would have in the first 50 years or so of the game. Maybe someone with a beefy computer could try this and run a couple dozen observer games to see what the effects are?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The 'balance' I refer to is how games tend to develop, for example Russia forming in most games (but not all). While EU is inherently unbalanced, I spent a *lot* of time tuning things during EU4's development to ensure that certain historical things would have a decent chance to happen, and messing with that for the sake of adding another starting war is not in the cards.

But only some historical things would have a decent chance.

Not other historical things.

This is why somehow PLC is lucky while Manchu --> Qing is not, despite Qing's impact on history and in the time period .

The real question is, why are some things treated with such hand-holding, but not other things? The way the game handles Burgundy borders on the absurd from this perspective, especially when you consider the Qing example or even Aq Qoyunlu. Which "historical" things need to have a decent chance, while other historical things don't need virtually any chance to happen? What criteria determines whether it is important for something historical to happen in-game? When you start talking about balance versus history, it feels like you're being arbitrary and arguing at cross-purposes at the same time. Some of the historical outcomes were pretty improbable, including some of the ones the game shoehorns in.

Taking steps to ensure a historic Prussia or Netherlands but not a historic Qing is a great example of that.

Where is the "balance" then? You necessarily can't have it, because you are cherry picking which "historic" outcomes you want to see in the first place. "Balance" in this context is a term that is no more than an illusory distraction. You might as well have said "we want to see Russia more often than not and the game mechanics don't support this starting war allowing it". There is no plausible "balance" here on historic or other grounds, and I don't see the point of having any pretense in that regard. "Russia is popular, so we hold their hand" is the reality, similar for nations like Poland, Brandenburg (lol @ Prussian starting ideas ), Byzantium, and France.

The impression is that because much of the player base doesn't give a crap about nations like Aq Qoyunlu which conquered Timurids (unlike the rebel destruction so many rookie players beg to happen), the game doesn't even make a passing effort to have that happen, despite complaints about Timurid blobs lol. That's fine, but it makes any pretense of balance ring hollow.

 

[Druplesnubb]

Also, could you explain how the Oirats steamrolling everyone with their god general and becoming a massive blob for the rest of the game fits into this historical balance?

 

[josh127]

The 'balance' I refer to is how games tend to develop, for example Russia forming in most games (but not all). While EU is inherently unbalanced, I spent a *lot* of time tuning things during EU4's development to ensure that certain historical things would have a decent chance to happen, and messing with that for the sake of adding another starting war is not in the cards.

Reading the comments in this thread, it just reminds me that game balance is one of the most talked about parts of this game. How about an "Arumba Response" style video discussing the Paradox vision for balance? Some of the things that could be covered would be the overall view, how different regions are balanced against each other, single player vs multiplayer (not that that EVER comes up in discussions), how different points in the timeline are considered toward balance, and some examples and myths about balance. It might even be something where a post in the main forum could kick it off asking for questions from the community. While you may not be able to address everything, it should at least give a clear idea of where the community concerns lie.

I know you've addressed balance in a lot of threads, but there's no authoritative place for people to look back to as to what Paradox's vision for balance in the game is.

Just an idea.

 

[in heaven]

Yeah i agree, if devs wants to Russia to follow its real life path and become a big blob, why dont we see historical Qing? Why does one country follow its historical path and other (both playing important role) doesn't?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah i agree, if devs wants to Russia to follow its real life path and become a big blob, why dont we see historical Qing? Why does one country follow its historical path and other (both playing important role) doesn't?

It's the same thing with Great Britain, Mughals, Savoy, Songhai, USA (lol), decline of Spain, partition of Poland, Bengal, and to a lesser extent even nations like Taungu.

These nations either don't happen or perform nothing at all like history, and many of them have nowhere near a "decent" chance to happen. I'm not saying the game should railroad USA (I actually don't care that I almost never see it because its circumstances don't consistently exist), but in a game that railroads the inheritance or Iberian wedding which can fire even if they're mortal enemies that have literally taken significant land off each other, it's just not a plausible thing to say that this stuff is for balance and "some stuff to happen like history" at the same time.

The game rather overtly cherry picks which aspects of history it wants to follow, in some cases to the point of forcing improbable outcomes to happen with frequency. That is not balance. That is effectively creating some "beginner nations" and maybe to lower the variability of outcomes on the map because even if Burgundy conquers 6 provinces off France and has an heir, it can all just go back in an instant.

This is also why putting the reform requirement on Mughals for example is so annoying. On the one hand, you have nations like Castile and Poland getting extra-special decisions that bypass normal game mechanics and instantly integrate territory with power starts capable of far outperforming history in player hands and rarely in AI hands. Even without the reform requirement, AI Timurids rarely even formed Mughals and almost never managed the kind of territory they had historically, regardless of location.

There's really no viable way to describe the treatment of "form Spain diplomatically" and "form Mughal nation" as "balanced"; these mechanics are logically inconsistent with each other and you can't use "balance from a historical perspective" and still put both in their current form in the game. One gets a decision that bypasses several game mechanics to make the game as easy as possible, the other gets extra hoops, both to accomplish a historical outcome by a major historical player in the time period!

That can certainly be explained, but not with "balance". That's catering some starts to beginners. It's better to just be honest about that design IMO. It's the same thing for Russia. If you want Muscovy --> Russia to be comparatively easy and for beginners to see Russia a lot when not playing it because people recognize it, isn't it easier to just say that?