new provinces in Ruthenian(ukrainian) region.

[Rzeczpospolita3Narodów]

Hey guys! i think there very unhistorically provinces, and veeeery big.. So i offer new provinces, not need make all of this, but a half of this would be nice!
Provinces(adm. division of ukraine on 1918):

Spoiler

Cultures:

Spoiler

population in Conmmowealth:

Spoiler

some maps which i hope help for you:

Spoiler

 

[Zerodv]

How so?

If one goes after metrics like population, other area are more heavily represented with less development than Ruthenia. I agree that it should be refined as a region, but not top priority IMO. It definitely doesn´t need more provinces though, only more development.

 

[3ishop]

If one goes after metrics like population, other area are more heavily represented with less development than Ruthenia. I agree that it should be refined as a region, but not top priority IMO. It definitely doesn´t need more provinces though, only more development.

Development doesn't represent population though.

 

[IrReAr]

I suggest decreasing development of provinces like Kiev because the dev of 10 is historically inaccurate it should be like 6-7.Moreover, I think, we need to decrease amount of provinces in that region, so that states look better and to be more accurate with that vast and empty land with barely any people in 1444-1600s it was. Like Tibetian land with huge provinces.

 

[Zerodv]

Maybe yes, maybe not... Maybe India, maybe Africa, maybe Indonesia, maybe Malaya. Too many "maybe". Let's leave alone Eastern European "grand desert" alone and do more important things.

Well that´s what I wanted but is not like I would be opposed to any change after East Asia is done.

BTW you might want to remove some of the suggestions from your signature, they seem to date to 2 year ago and Eastern Europe has been changed since then. And another BTW, what exactly are your provinces suggestions?

 

[AirikrStrife]

I thought the way to go ahead with Ruthenia to make the region more interesting was not more provinces necessarily, but flavor for playing there. I just made this suggestion thread about flavor for Lithuania https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/flavor-for-lithuania.993957/

The thread is very poorly written in terms of what to actually do, since I don't know ho to implement ideas well, but gives a few pointers that could be interesting to work from so I would love to see if people with interests in the region could come up with improvements to my sketchy suggestion

 

[johnleeyx]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_division_of_Ukraine_(1918)

The maps in this thread are a bit more modern than I like,

Please read...

@Zak Preston I understand you want the region to be better represented, but just pointing out people will be more inclined to agree and read requests that aren't outright, in-your face type of demands.

 

[Zak Preston]

I'll try to explain my vision of situation... again:
What we have:

• Huge region of Europe with ~1500 devrlopment (Poland, Lithuania, TO, LO, Steppe Hordes, Caucasus). At first glance ~1500 development is OK, but when we compare tiny Iberia with 550 dev and France with 850 dev to monstrous Lithuania with ~240 dev...
• Too few provinces, meaning that they are extremely large. This results in extremely unfun warfare. I hate playing in Eastern Europe myself. I literally hate.
• Both Poland and Muscovy struggle for with each other for bits of development. Should any side win a couple of wars, and the loser is in death spiral, meanwhile the conflict endured until the end of XVIII century. Both Muscovy and Poland collapse way too fast and the winner is still kinda weak against Ottomans.

What Is my solution:

• Add 50% more provinces to the region in total. Somewhere more, somewhere less. The province size should be roughly on par with ones in Hungary, TO and Poland.
• Total development of the region (whole Eastern Europe) should be increased by ~20-25%. I'd suggest more development to Ruthenia, Muscovy and Novgorod primarily.
• To balance out Muscovy vs Poland conflict, Lithuania may receive +25% LA modifier while it's under Polish union.

What would be the result of my proposals:

• even more poor 1/1/1 or 2/21 provinces
  • - Temples and workshops are less cost-efficient, especially at the beginning
  • - In midgame manufactories + workshops will be the main output of provinces
  • - More provinces in grasslands and farmlands means that the total amount of building slots is dramatically increased.
  • - Developing 1/1/1 or 2/2/1 provinces is still not the best MP distribution, but might be still an option. This may represent the increasing importance of the region.
  • - To defend the lands properly you'll need more forts
• Much more engaging and challenging warfare
• The winner in Eastern Europe should be considerably more powerful than of now and should be a real threat to Ottomans. But the winner should be decided in 3-4 successive wars at least, not in 2.
• And while I don't like Muscovy much, it's NIs are total garbage ATM, Orthodoxy is nowhere near as good as Muslim or Protestant\Reformed.
• The only real problem here is institutions spread: even Poland sometimes has to enforce Renaissance or Colonialism, to say nothing of Muscovy.

P.S. Maps will be later.

 

[Zerodv]

Talking about the area, shouldn´t the 3 provinces in Lithuania where Crimea has a core be Sunni and Crimean Tatar?

 

[AirikrStrife]

Talking about the area, shouldn´t the 3 provinces in Lithuania where Crimea has a core be Sunni and Crimean Tatar?

Yeah I figured that as well. Yedisan was ocnquered by Crimea in 1441

 

[Koramei]

Huge region of Europe with ~1500 devrlopment (Poland, Lithuania, TO, LO, Steppe Hordes, Caucasus). At first glance ~1500 development is OK, but when we compare tiny Iberia with 550 dev and France with 850 dev to monstrous Lithuania with ~240 dev...

I don't wanna sound confrontational, but could you post some population figures for the period? I'm very curious to know what Russian sources say, especially since the book I have- McEvedy and Jones' Atlas of World Population History- I know to be super inaccurate in a few places, and I expect Eastern Europe is one, since it was written during the Cold War, when access to Eastern European historians and archaeology and so on wasn't so easy.

that said, here are its figures:

Which I plugged into a table of it vs a few other places in game:

Sorry if it's a little confusing- pop 1 is from 1500, pop 2 is from 1800.

If the figures in that book are accurate- and I know that's a big if, and I'm very interested in the take on them from the Eastern Europe experts in this thread- but if they are, then Eastern Europe is actually one of the most developed and province-rich parts of the map, with both development and provinces relative to its population ahead of both Iberia and France. In fact, in 1500 France has more people in it than Muscovy, the Baltics and Ruthenia combined, at 15 million vs 12 million. Even in 1800 it's pretty close. (Again, if the figures are accurate for Eastern Europe).

Population isn't the only criteria for development and provinces- from my understanding balance is a bigger one, and I agree that Eastern Europe could well need more development so they can hold against the Ottomans better. But at least according to these figures, "the desert of Eastern Europe" you keep talking about is pretty false...

 

[3ishop]

Population is a small part of what development represents.

 

[DanubianCossak]

I don't wanna sound confrontational, but could you post some population figures for the period? I'm very curious to know what Russian sources say, especially since the book I have- McEvedy and Jones' Atlas of World Population History- I know to be super inaccurate in a few places, and I expect Eastern Europe is one, since it was written during the Cold War, when access to Eastern European historians and archaeology and so on wasn't so easy.

that said, here are its figures:

Which I plugged into a table of it vs a few other places in game:

Sorry if it's a little confusing- pop 1 is from 1500, pop 2 is from 1800.

If the figures in that book are accurate- and I know that's a big if, and I'm very interested in the take on them from the Eastern Europe experts in this thread- but if they are, then Eastern Europe is actually one of the most developed and province-rich parts of the map, with both development and provinces relative to its population ahead of both Iberia and France. In fact, in 1500 France has more people in it than Muscovy, the Baltics and Ruthenia combined, at 15 million vs 12 million. Even in 1800 it's pretty close. (Again, if the figures are accurate for Eastern Europe).

Population isn't the only criteria for development and provinces- from my understanding balance is a bigger one, and I agree that Eastern Europe could well need more development so they can hold against the Ottomans better. But at least according to these figures, "the desert of Eastern Europe" you keep talking about is pretty false...

Population has nothing to do with density of provinces.

Gameplay > all else.

 

[Koramei]

So what do you two think gameplay wise, or for whatever else development represents, justifies the need for "20-25% more development and 50% more provinces" then? I agree population isn't the only thing development represents (although from my understanding it is the most significant part), but Eastern Europe is already on par with the HRE, which is what most people (myself included) have consistently brought up as the most somewhat comically overdeveloped part of the map.

Personally I don't have a horse in this race; in fact, a small buff to Novgorod so Denmark stops eating it every game would be nice, even. I just think a lot of what people are saying in this thread seems to be based on false pretenses- that is, assuming the book's figures are accurate, which they very well might not be.

 

[3ishop]

Varries, naturally smaller provinces are easier to control and govern as in it's all closer together so quicker to get to and impact. So population density is more important than just total pop.

Then the natural wealth of the province, this impacts all 3 dev values. Tax based on income they can make, production based on the ease of production and manpower on it being easier/harder to produce a living. You also then have how wealthy the people actually are.

Then you have infrastructure, both natural and man made. Water ways should directly benefit the development along with any historical big trade routes, good roads and bridges. These would draw trade, encourage people to travel (even to the next village/town) and reduce the time it takes the farmers to get goods to market.

This is global and not just to attack these regions, so if there's a reason other than population I can get behind it.

 

[DanubianCossak]

So what do you two think gameplay wise, or for whatever else development represents, justifies the need for "20-25% more development and 50% more provinces" then? I agree population isn't the only thing development represents (although from my understanding it is the most significant part), but Eastern Europe is already on par with the HRE, which is what most people (myself included) have consistently brought up as the most somewhat comically overdeveloped part of the map.

Personally I don't have a horse in this race; in fact, a small buff to Novgorod so Denmark stops eating it every game would be nice, even. I just think a lot of what people are saying in this thread seems to be based on false pretenses- that is, assuming the book's figures are accurate, which they very well might not be.

I dont have any idea about development whatsoever, you might have a point there.

What i can tell you is that province density is determined by other factors. Central Asia, for example, if we went by population would only have a handful of provinces. I think it makes sense that it doesnt, because the warfare there would utterly suck.

 

[Zak Preston]

@Koramei there isn't much data on Eastern European population in XV-XIX centuries in Soviet sources. But still, there is commons sense: much less relevant (played by players) and populated areas in the world have significantly better provinces layout (for example NA East Coast).

@DanubianCossak this is what I've been trying to say: gameplay in Eastern Europe is dull, the whole Poland-Lithuania vs Muscovy/Russia is usually decided by 1-3 wars (Muscovy or Sweden takes Danzig and PLC says "gg-wp")

 

[Seelmeister]

Large number of OT posts removed.

Just to clarify what is acceptable:

Any user can post suggestions, and any other user can respectfully disagree. What we will not allow is users to join a thread simply to say something like 'no, other areas should be a priority'. If you want to disagree, please do so in a reasoned, calm manner and not simply to derail the thread.

Any questions about this please PM me.

 

[Rzeczpospolita3Narodów]

up

 

[Otto of england]

Keep in mind that, the steppe was very depopulated and devastated economically in this period. Almost constant Tatar raids had basically destroyed the economy of the region and made huge swaths of rich fertile land a virtual wasteland.

The above map is not a great resolution, but it gives a decent idea of the relative density of population.

I can understand adding more Provinces for gameplay reasons, but adding more development than strictly necessary is unrealistic. There is just not enough economic value, or just raw people living in the area to justify it. In fact it wasn't until the 17th century until the members of the Szlachta/Lithuanian Boyars even thought to start claiming land there*. That's how empty and devastated the region was.

Edit: * By this I mean colonizing the empty fields and bringing in serfs to work the region. Even then, it was not a huge influx of people, though it did inflame tensions with the Cossacks.

 

[Rzeczpospolita3Narodów]

Keep in mind that, the steppe was very depopulated and devastated economically in this period. Almost constant Tatar raids had basically destroyed the economy of the region and made huge swaths of rich fertile land a virtual wasteland.

The above map is not a great resolution, but it gives a decent idea of the relative density of population.

I can understand adding more Provinces for gameplay reasons, but adding more development than strictly necessary is unrealistic. There is just not enough economic value, or just raw people living in the area to justify it. In fact it wasn't until the 17th century until the members of the Szlachta/Lithuanian Boyars even thought to start claiming land there*. That's how empty and devastated the region was.

Edit: * By this I mean colonizing the empty fields and bringing in serfs to work the region. Even then, it was not a huge influx of people, though it did inflame tensions with the Cossacks.

and? In asian steppes provinces like in eastern europe. Plus i think need just make system the provinces without development. Exemple with 0-0-0, is will realize the history too, when you big blob, but dont have nothing. But need make the more provinces, is realy make game more interesting, dinamic, and historicaly!!