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
}

 

[josh127]

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.

I had forgotten about it until this thread, but back when EU4 was first being launched, there was talk about nations that were top priority nations and secondary priority nations in the game. I don't remember who was who, but I think basically the luckies were the top priority, and secondaries were countries like Poland and Bohemia (I would imagine there were a lot more).

At the time the focus was on putting the most time into the type A nations, giving a fair amount of time to type B nations, and I'm not sure if there was a type C or if we were at "everyone else" at that point. However, making sure that Ottomans behaved reasonably was a higher priority back then than worrying about how AQ acted. France and Austria, more important than Savoy or anyone else in the area that got in the way. Chimu, obviously the most important nation in the game.

It would be interesting to know if this still exists. I would imagine it does but the format of the hierarchy has probably changed. It could explain a lot of things as to what takes priority as far historical accuracy and interesting gameplay go, but at the same time I would guess if they just made it public knowledge there would simply be an outcry of "but my favorite country should be more important!"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even the reasoning for "priority nations" seems inconsistent to me based on what happens in-game, but at least it's a potentially recognizable focus. It still doesn't explain why less popular nations that were already in a state of not overperforming (or even underperforming) have been hammered down so fiercely...but only in some cases while others got buffs or much more positive alterations despite low priority.

 

[josh127]

It could explain the less popular nations. If they are lesser priority, they aren't getting as much time being balanced. So a high level view that they are overpowered would generate a nerf without enough testing to see if it goes too far. Similarly, if the top priority in a general balance situation (changing discipline impact as an example) goes toward 10-12 nations, and secondary priority toward 30 other nations, it's reasonable to assume that with the number of nations in the game some of the less popular nations could have an unexpected result (either overly buffed or nerfed).

This is just theory though on something from the game's initial development. There might not even be priorities on nations or regions anymore. Even if there is, it doesn't mean that the system in use is the best or worst approach possible.

 

[net.split]

The problem with this approach is that it creates a very predictable game where the same set of powers tend to arise in the same general way at the same general time. But this is often without the other powers building up properly, so it's trivial for them to run away with the game.

This is boring because it limits replayability. Even if you start somewhere else in the world to try to avoid this, at some point in the timeline the world around you is going to look pretty much the same, and you're going to contend with the same powers for the same reasons in a very similar sort of way. It's difficult to find reason to play past about 150 years into the game's timeline.

 

[Camarada78]

I think the game, besides Ironmode, should have a "Historic Mode". With a very guided gameplay to make it hard (therefore, challenging) to significantly change history. Like if you are Portugal or Spain and start rivalizing each other you would get massive unrest from your nobles, making it very hard to challenge that. If you are England, winning the 100 year war could have major consequences and difficulty to maintain that (french seperatist rebels could spawn like hell there to "enforce History"). If countries are losing a War they are supposed to win at that time period, they could get a Liberum Veto-like decision and get some new troops...

If you are playing "normal mode", these events would not be too frequent to "enforce history" and history would be much more random... and we could actually gain extra points when we "repeat history" with certain country.