Siberia

[Incompetent]

I know this is a bit of a backwater at the moment, but we can still do something with it. A couple of ideas:

1. Siberia is not subject to the 'Claim of XXX' events. I see no reason for this to be the case.

2. At the moment Ukraine gets dibs on almost the whole colonisable area, which is perhaps a bit much. I'd propose the following instead:

- Ukraine, the Golden Horde and the Uzbeks all have the possibility to explore and colonise in the west, depending on which prevails. Siberian access is definitely something to fight over in the West.

- In the East, the coast at least can be colonised early on by Chinese, Koreans and/or Japanese. These colonisers could gradually move inland somewhat later.

- In the middle, we could have a Buriat country. This would be fairly weak (and backward due to extreme isolation), but with the potential to spread outwards by colonisation, and it would act as a roadblock to the colonial efforts of outsiders. Religion could be initially Pagan or Buddhist. When the Ukrainians et al turn up on its borders, it could have events reflecting neutrality, gradual assimilation into the outsiders' empires, or hostility to the outsiders, with raids on their relatively poorly-protected colonies, depending on player choices etc. Whatever happens, it will be important to the expansion strategy of Ukraine, the Uzbeks and the Golden Horde if they get that far east, or to Japan/Korea/some Chinese power if they get that far west. A neutral Buriat which starts Pagan, but which manages to fend off the outsiders, could turn 'Confucian', recognising the durability of its culture and religion (presumably a kind of Shamanism).

 

[MattyG]

Interesting.

The claim system might get easily sidelined, as the corridor is only to provinces wide, so grabbing the first set of provinces will be a lockdown.

Byzantium is also part of the picture. They currently get a lot of conquistadors and its really the only normal use for them. Crush the Horde, crush Sibir and start plundering the gold provinces in that corridor.

We also need to make it mostly dirt poor, except for those gold provinces.

Matty

 

[Incompetent]

The claim system might get easily sidelined, as the corridor is only to provinces wide, so grabbing the first set of provinces will be a lockdown.

Sort of, but we might as well be consistent.

Byzantium is also part of the picture. They currently get a lot of conquistadors and its really the only normal use for them. Crush the Horde, crush Sibir and start plundering the gold provinces in that corridor.

Yes, though they don't get cores to help them along, whereas the other countries I mentioned have cores reaching into Siberia. Looking at the AI, I think Byzantium's conquistadors are headed for Africa, though how they would get there is anyone's guess. The Caliphate also has good enough access in SP. But I don't see either of these countries as major colonisers, as they have far too much to do in their own back yard; perhaps we should reduce their supply of conquistadors/explorers somewhat.

At any rate, we can write events for the most likely colonisers of western Siberia (Ukraine, Golden Horde and possibly Uzbeks depending on what yourworstnightm has planned).

We also need to make it mostly dirt poor, except for those gold provinces.

Matty

That doesn't need to be the case resource-wise - Siberia is very rich in minerals (not just gold), and the Siberian fur trade was lucrative enough. What it does need is a nasty location modifier to convey the difficulty of living there, ie the population of Siberian colonies should tend to go down rather than up if you stop sending colonists to them. Tax values can go down as well, though we could allow the player to pay money to build strategic outposts of moderate tax value (for recruitment purposes) so that they can put down random rebellions in Siberia. After all, there are some cities in real-life Siberia, eg Irkutsk. It should be pointed out that (as far as I can tell) the Siberian corridor represents southern Siberia (on a similar latitude to Britain) which is not quite as unpleasant as northern Siberia. In fact, the southwestern corner of Siberia is good farmland. The northern, virtually uninhabitable bit of Siberia is rightly represented as PTI in EU2.

 

[yourworstnightm]

The uzbeks should be a more wild horse, with not much colonisation interrests, but the chinese and the koreans and so on could very well colonize from the other side, could end interresting.

 

[Incompetent]

The uzbeks should be a more wild horse, with not much colonisation interrests, but the chinese and the koreans and so on could very well colonize from the other side, could end interresting.

I would have thought a nomadic people would be more inclined to colonising new lands, but yes, Ukraine will be the 'standard' colonisers in the West.

I should elaborate on my idea of isolated outposts of moderate tax value. What I mean are events like this:

Siberian outposts (any country)
- triggered by owning Irkutsk (for example)
"Siberia was a vast and extremely sparsely-populated wilderness, and this didn't change much even with the arrival of settlers from outside. But when more established states started to lay claim to these lands, they found it useful to establish outposts in which laws could be administered, soldiers could be housed to subdue the natives and deal with bandits and rebels, and people could gather to trade. While life in these islands of civilisation could not be described as idyllic, it was a lot more comfortable than in the surrounding wilderness, and the outposts soon came to attract most of the immigration to the region."
- Establish an outpost in Irkutsk: -cash, fortress in Irkutsk, population in Irkutsk increases to make it a city, makes Irkutsk a core, +3 (ish) tax value to Irkutsk, -population and -tax value in random provinces (emigration).
- There's no need for that: does nothing.

NB: At the moment, historical outposts are represented by high tax value, which doesn't really make sense as they're usually not 'natural' centres of population. What I'm suggesting is that we drop most of these tax values to about 2, then put in 5-10 'outpost' events so that countries can train some troops in Siberia for putting down rebels etc.

 

[MattyG]

I would have thought a nomadic people would be more inclined to colonising new lands, but yes, Ukraine will be the 'standard' colonisers in the West.

I should elaborate on my idea of isolated outposts of moderate tax value. What I mean are events like this:

Siberian outposts (any country)
- triggered by owning Irkutsk (for example)
"Siberia was a vast and extremely sparsely-populated wilderness, and this didn't change much even with the arrival of settlers from outside. But when more established states started to lay claim to these lands, they found it useful to establish outposts in which laws could be administered, soldiers could be housed to subdue the natives and deal with bandits and rebels, and people could gather to trade. While life in these islands of civilisation could not be described as idyllic, it was a lot more comfortable than in the surrounding wilderness, and the outposts soon came to attract most of the immigration to the region."
- Establish an outpost in Irkutsk: -cash, fortress in Irkutsk, population in Irkutsk increases to make it a city, makes Irkutsk a core, +3 (ish) tax value to Irkutsk, -population and -tax value in random provinces (emigration).
- There's no need for that: does nothing.

NB: At the moment, historical outposts are represented by high tax value, which doesn't really make sense as they're usually not 'natural' centres of population. What I'm suggesting is that we drop most of these tax values to about 2, then put in 5-10 'outpost' events so that countries can train some troops in Siberia for putting down rebels etc.

Incompetent,

This is really well thought out. I actually think its the best idea you have yet of handling a unique situation amongst all of your really good ideas. Well done.

MattyG

 

[MattyG]

Sort of, but we might as well be consistent.



Yes, though they don't get cores to help them along, whereas the other countries I mentioned have cores reaching into Siberia. Looking at the AI, I think Byzantium's conquistadors are headed for Africa, though how they would get there is anyone's guess. The Caliphate also has good enough access in SP. But I don't see either of these countries as major colonisers, as they have far too much to do in their own back yard; perhaps we should reduce their supply of conquistadors/explorers somewhat.

At any rate, we can write events for the most likely colonisers of western Siberia (Ukraine, Golden Horde and possibly Uzbeks depending on what yourworstnightm has planned).



That doesn't need to be the case resource-wise - Siberia is very rich in minerals (not just gold), and the Siberian fur trade was lucrative enough. What it does need is a nasty location modifier to convey the difficulty of living there, ie the population of Siberian colonies should tend to go down rather than up if you stop sending colonists to them. Tax values can go down as well, though we could allow the player to pay money to build strategic outposts of moderate tax value (for recruitment purposes) so that they can put down random rebellions in Siberia. After all, there are some cities in real-life Siberia, eg Irkutsk. It should be pointed out that (as far as I can tell) the Siberian corridor represents southern Siberia (on a similar latitude to Britain) which is not quite as unpleasant as northern Siberia. In fact, the southwestern corner of Siberia is good farmland. The northern, virtually uninhabitable bit of Siberia is rightly represented as PTI in EU2.

Agreed on Byzantium's conquistadors. They can be used to explore toward India as well, if you use them while at war with various countries, although why not just sack the capital and take the maps.

However, for Any country in that region, the gold provinces of Siberia might be pretty lucractive, and a dominant Byzantium would certainly include the Siberian corridor in its expansion plans.

As for the mineral rich provinces in Siberia, is it not a little like those northern Swedish ones? I find it hard to believe that mineral wealth there really was properly explored at the time, that the difficulties of mining remotely were not too great a hurdle and that, in any case, actually shipping the raw materials out of Siberia would simply NOT have happened. Without railways, how would the metals have made it to a production facility? On horseback? It would be worth exploring the history of the region a little. Because if the mineral wealth was not accessed until the 1800s, then those metals and copper regions should be reduced to 'worthless' or perhaps grain or sheep.

Matty

 

[Incompetent]

Agreed on Byzantium's conquistadors. They can be used to explore toward India as well, if you use them while at war with various countries, although why not just sack the capital and take the maps.

However, for Any country in that region, the gold provinces of Siberia might be pretty lucractive, and a dominant Byzantium would certainly include the Siberian corridor in its expansion plans.

As for the mineral rich provinces in Siberia, is it not a little like those northern Swedish ones? I find it hard to believe that mineral wealth there really was properly explored at the time, that the difficulties of mining remotely were not too great a hurdle and that, in any case, actually shipping the raw materials out of Siberia would simply NOT have happened. Without railways, how would the metals have made it to a production facility? On horseback? It would be worth exploring the history of the region a little. Because if the mineral wealth was not accessed until the 1800s, then those metals and copper regions should be reduced to 'worthless' or perhaps grain or sheep.

Matty

I can't find much economic history before 1820, but I'm sure the resources of Siberia were not heavily exploited before the 19th century, as you say. However, this would be true for gold as well. Ideally it should be very hard to set up colonies in Siberia, so that a player will put down more TPs and fewer colonies.

 

[MattyG]

Here's the answer:

http://www.goldminershq.com/VLAD.HTM

Gold went into production starting in 1719.

Given that in EU colonisation and its benefits is on hyper-drive, this will mean that it would start in about 1600.

Accordingly, if we want to simulate the wealth of Siberia as actually, realistically realisable before 1820, then either we have to change the game so we can alter what a province produces mid game (which we can't) or else we remove the mineral wealth from the Siberia corridor, and replace it with events that simulate the start of mineral production by - as in your previsous idea, increasing provincetax in those areas by +10 from about 1700 onwards if the pertinent previsously-gold-province has a city.

MattyG

 

[Incompetent]

Accordingly, if we want to simulate the wealth of Siberia as actually, realistically realisable before 1820, then either we have to change the game so we can alter what a province produces mid game (which we can't) or else we remove the mineral wealth from the Siberia corridor, and replace it with events that simulate the start of mineral production by - as in your previsous idea, increasing provincetax in those areas by +10 from about 1700 onwards if the pertinent previsously-gold-province has a city.

This is an excellent idea, and can be applied to many areas other than Siberia. It should probably be linked to Infra tech, as it's the infrastructure that's lacking in the early part of the game, not the desire for gold, copper etc.

It wasn't just gold that was mined, though, and it sounds like gold output was pretty low until the 19th century:

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0861075.html

"With the decline of the fur trade in the early 18th cent., mining became the chief economic activity in Siberia. The state was the chief entrepreneur, but wealthy private families were also involved. Silver, lead, and copper mining began around 1700; gold mining did not develop until the 1830s."

A compromise solution is to have most provinces produce fur or grain, and a few copper, throughout the game. Copper is valuable in EU2, but not insanely valuable, and it doesn't get the TP bonus that furs do, so hopefully 'copper' will indeed become the most important thing only when the market is flooded with North American furs.

 

[MattyG]

Interesting that the site I accessed had it differently.

"The total output of gold in the Russian Empire between 1719 and 1800 made up 22,491.1 kg. "

Is that very much Gold? I have no idea. It works out to an average of 277.6 kg per year. With this obviously betting greater toward 1800, one might assume that the annual production from 1750 onwards to be about 320 kgs per year.

 

[Imrryran]

If the Ukraine is weakened (less colonizable areas), won't the Eastern Europe be unbalanced ? Maybe it's original position should be strenghtened.

 

[Incompetent]

If the Ukraine is weakened (less colonizable areas), won't the Eastern Europe be unbalanced ? Maybe it's original position should be strenghtened.

Not really - if we reduce its colonisable area, we're making it harder for Ukraine to get overly powerful in the long run, but it does nothing to weaken Ukraine if it's already weak. Ukraine's core zone within Europe is already pretty large. If anything, the problem at the moment is a runaway Ukraine, where it starts slowly but then gets bigger and bigger until it engulfs the rest of the Orthodox world.

What could be an issue, however, is if the Uzbeks start to seriously threaten Ukraine from the East. In SP this probably won't matter, as they'll be unable to coordinate with Ukraine's European rivals, but in MP Ukraine could theoretically get ganged up on by the Uzbeks, the TO, Finland, Hungary and Byzantium. The same goes for most countries in Abe though - if your neighbours all team up against you, you've really messed up your diplomacy! As long as everyone's in this position, we should avoid a collapse in the MP balance of power.

 

[Imrryran]

In SP, an IA-controlled Ukraine has already some problems to expand. It may be worst without a clear siberia.

 

[Incompetent]

In SP, an IA-controlled Ukraine has already some problems to expand. It may be worst without a clear siberia.

Yes and no. In my experience, AI Ukraine often has trouble getting started; but if it gets all the way to Siberia, it's usually large and powerful already, and the Siberian colonies are just icing on the cake. In any case, the AI is unlikely to fill more than a small proportion of Siberia even if it does get free access, so it's not going to lose as much as a colony-mad player Ukraine will. Changes to Siberia won't affect Ukraine's early challenges, namely capturing Kiev, defeating the Golden Horde and opposing the TO's crusade in the North.

 

[Imrryran]

After some thinking and testing I agree with you.

 

[unmerged(55521)]

Agreed on Byzantium's conquistadors. They can be used to explore toward India as well, if you use them while at war with various countries, although why not just sack the capital and take the maps.

However, for Any country in that region, the gold provinces of Siberia might be pretty lucractive, and a dominant Byzantium would certainly include the Siberian corridor in its expansion plans.


Matty

Will there not be too cold for greeks in Siberia?
:rofl:
For me it is unbelievable... I understand that caliphate could send kurds or persians or turks (from east turkey) where is cold winter mountins, but greeks??

 

[Avernite]

Will there not be too cold for greeks in Siberia?
:rofl:
For me it is unbelievable... I understand that caliphate could send kurds or persians or turks (from east turkey) where is cold winter mountins, but greeks??

Ehm, sure. There's mountains in Anatolia, IIRC, not to mention Northern Greece.

Besides, cold has hardly ever stopped people when they could survive and make a profit... :wacko:



Oh, and some on-topic observations: Noone seems to colonise Siberia from the East, for now, I could claim it as Bavaria. Still, the East isn't done yet.

What si more annoying is that I don't see much of any colonisation from the west, possible because the GH allmost never falls completely, thus blocking others from Siberia, but it's too weak to really go expanding itself.

 

[MattyG]

Ehm, sure. There's mountains in Anatolia, IIRC, not to mention Northern Greece.

Besides, cold has hardly ever stopped people when they could survive and make a profit... :wacko:



Oh, and some on-topic observations: Noone seems to colonise Siberia from the East, for now, I could claim it as Bavaria. Still, the East isn't done yet.

What si more annoying is that I don't see much of any colonisation from the west, possible because the GH allmost never falls completely, thus blocking others from Siberia, but it's too weak to really go expanding itself.

This is a matter of poor AI design. We've never rewritten the ais for Byzantium, for example, to encourage it to go there, nor the Ukraine. Likewise China.

Personally, I think that the fewer ai's decide to colonise it, the more realistic it is. Plus, the region is expensive to colonise with relatively little returns: economically it isn't such a good deal for Byzantium or the Caliphate. Although the MP is nice ...