As MattyG has pointed out, the cultural situation in the Golden Horde lands (GHL) is complicated, and this isn't reflected at the moment in Interregnum. But I think the problem goes further than that. Judging by the mechanisms of the game, this seems to be the story at the moment:
"In 1419, most the Orthodox Ruthenians (who inhabited almost all the GHL) strained under the brutal yoke of the Muslim Mongol/Altai Golden Horde. But in the early 15th century, they rise up in rebellion, and refuse to be ruled by the Mongols. This gives the opportunity for Ukraine, home to the few Ruthenians who are still free, to march forth under their brilliant leadership and liberate their homeland (which covers 1/4 of Europe) from the evil Mongols."
My problem is not just that this is historically implausible, but it makes for a bad story and bad gameplay. It's the kind of story that would appeal to simple-minded Ukrainian nationalists in the Interregnum universe perhaps, a kind of European version of Manifest Destiny. But it's not the kind of story we want to tell, as it has no choice or nuance, and it's nonsense to have a little country 'inevitably' slaying a giant, even a troubled one.
Instead, I'd suggest something like this, to start with:
1. We sort out the GHL cultures a bit. They don't have to be 100% historical, just get a reasonable picture, rather than painting it all Ruthenian Orthodox ready to be 'liberated' by Ukraine. Does anyone know of a half-decent map of contemporary ethnic groups?
2. We start off with a less powerful Golden Horde, so we're not asking Ukraine to 'slay the dragon'. Since this is Interregnum, we can say that the GH has already started to come apart. So we have a decent-sized Crimea say, and an independent Kazan. These states would initially be loyal vassals of the GH, but...
3. When the GH has its real problems, we don't just give Ukraine a load of cores. Instead we have a maelstrom of overlapping cores, broken vassalage, CBs and bad relations. Sometimes Ukraine will gain control over an area, sometimes Crimea will get it, sometimes the original GH will get it, and so on. Generally there will be competing states in the GHL with overlapping cores for quite some time.
4. If Ukraine goes east, it should fundamentally change its character. It will gain cultures and cores, but probably at the cost of losing some control over its DP sliders and being internally unstable, and it may even drop a tech group. If it goes far enough east, a Muslim Ukraine might even be a possibility.
5. Conversely, there should be something to be said for not going east as Ukraine. A small, homogeneous Ukraine could instead get more opportunity to develop internally, more trade and eventually options for expansion in a different direction, such as into Halych-Volhynia or Moldavia.
"In 1419, most the Orthodox Ruthenians (who inhabited almost all the GHL) strained under the brutal yoke of the Muslim Mongol/Altai Golden Horde. But in the early 15th century, they rise up in rebellion, and refuse to be ruled by the Mongols. This gives the opportunity for Ukraine, home to the few Ruthenians who are still free, to march forth under their brilliant leadership and liberate their homeland (which covers 1/4 of Europe) from the evil Mongols."
My problem is not just that this is historically implausible, but it makes for a bad story and bad gameplay. It's the kind of story that would appeal to simple-minded Ukrainian nationalists in the Interregnum universe perhaps, a kind of European version of Manifest Destiny. But it's not the kind of story we want to tell, as it has no choice or nuance, and it's nonsense to have a little country 'inevitably' slaying a giant, even a troubled one.
Instead, I'd suggest something like this, to start with:
1. We sort out the GHL cultures a bit. They don't have to be 100% historical, just get a reasonable picture, rather than painting it all Ruthenian Orthodox ready to be 'liberated' by Ukraine. Does anyone know of a half-decent map of contemporary ethnic groups?
2. We start off with a less powerful Golden Horde, so we're not asking Ukraine to 'slay the dragon'. Since this is Interregnum, we can say that the GH has already started to come apart. So we have a decent-sized Crimea say, and an independent Kazan. These states would initially be loyal vassals of the GH, but...
3. When the GH has its real problems, we don't just give Ukraine a load of cores. Instead we have a maelstrom of overlapping cores, broken vassalage, CBs and bad relations. Sometimes Ukraine will gain control over an area, sometimes Crimea will get it, sometimes the original GH will get it, and so on. Generally there will be competing states in the GHL with overlapping cores for quite some time.
4. If Ukraine goes east, it should fundamentally change its character. It will gain cultures and cores, but probably at the cost of losing some control over its DP sliders and being internally unstable, and it may even drop a tech group. If it goes far enough east, a Muslim Ukraine might even be a possibility.
5. Conversely, there should be something to be said for not going east as Ukraine. A small, homogeneous Ukraine could instead get more opportunity to develop internally, more trade and eventually options for expansion in a different direction, such as into Halych-Volhynia or Moldavia.
