Corrections (and some suggestions) for Russia in Civ4

[RCL]

1) They should have really picked another leader than Catherine. Despite Catherine really expanded the empire, it's a bad choice because

a) She never had a 'cult' of her and as such is not very well remembered among common people.

b) She was not actually Russian (she was a German princess that married Russian tsar and ruled after her husband's death). Although we have a long tradition of non-native rulers (from Viking 'knyaz's to Stalin), it's still a strange choice.

Peter I The Great, who modernized and westernized the country (and pop-rushed building his new capital on its western borders) would be a better choice.

2) Russia never had knights. Maybe its UU should replace Knight instead of Cavalry.

3) In real life, a lot of Russian cities began as small Cossack settlements (especially in Siberia and Caucasus). Maybe Cossack unit should have a limited Settler ability? (limited == e.g. it could take 3 Cossack units in stack to build a city).

4) Some of the Russian cities in Civ3 (namely Riga, Tbilisi, Kiev) are now parts of independent countries. I guess Lithuanians, Georgians and Ukrainians get offended by having their capitals listed as Russian cities Think of Washington or New York being presented in game as English cities

Not to mention that Tbilisi and Tiflis is actually two variants of name of the same city.

 

[mastertyguy]

1) For sure, Peter is way better than her, 100% agree!
2) AFAIK, they replace cavalry because they were present at the same time as cavalry.
3) Not sure of that one (meaning "no")
4) Historically, they were important Russian cities, that is why they are there as Russian cities.
Actually, New York IS represented in the game as the 32nd English city

 

[RCL]

mastertyguy:

2) Yeah, but Cossacks actually existed even before the cavalry (I mean cavalry which is presented in game, with rifles as main weapon). And besides, Russia had cavalry regiments apart from Cossacks.

3) Well, I know it'd have a major impact on the game - to allow a military unit create cities. On the other hand, AFAIK Civ4 does not favor large empires, so this ability shouldn't be overwhelming. (And Cossacks appear somewhat late in game).

4) Yeah, I agree about importance. But nowadays world is mad about political correctness And it is a favourite point in the West to accuse Russia on every occasion in having imperial ambitions, so I just decided to take a precaution measures (a bit of OT: I consider that it's normal for every country to want to have as much influence in the world as it can get, why the Western countries still seem to be ganged up against .ru, forcing us to seek allies in the East :/ )

 

[Superkrest]

my beloved mother russia...why cant they have a strong willed typical big mouthed russian ruler? i dunno..i agree one hundred and ten percent.

as far as the cities...they were major cities during russias period of world dominance(the USSR,or CCCP to be correct) so i think its far that they be repersented.

the cossak is kind of a goofy unit...it was powerfull and very formidable in real life..but in the game it just doesnt work... id like to see russia with a special paratrooper unit(they were the first to devolope that type of warfare just never used it like the nazis did

 

[mastertyguy]

For Cossacks: I have no problem were you put them on the civ timeline, I don't know Russian history this much, but for them creating cities, well, a military unit is made of poeple, so every single military unit CAN create a new city, and having only cossacks able to do so is strange.

 

[RCL]

well, a military unit is made of poeple, so every single military unit CAN create a new city, and having only cossacks able to do so is strange.

That's because the difference in nature between Cossacks and other militaries.

Cossacks were not regular military units, it was a class of society in Imperial Russia specially dedicated to waging war (and exploration, to some extent), and units were formed out of it when there was a need. There was no such thing as 'retirement' for Cossacks.

So when Cossack 'unit' (well, it's not really correct to call this formation a 'unit', rather a 'society') was relocated to a new destination, they just took their families and formed a new settlement there.

to quote wikipedia:

Cossacks founded numerous settlements (called stanitsa) and fortresses along troublesome Russian borders (forts Verniy (Almaty, Kazakhstan) in south Central Asia, Grozny in North Caucasus, Fort Alexandrovsk (Fort Shevchenko, Kazakhstan), Krasnovodsk (Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan) stanitsa Novonikolaevskaya (Bautino, Kazakhstan), Blagoveschensk, towns and settlements at Amur and Ussury rivers, just to name a few).

...

In some distant areas, mostly at initial stage of Russian colonization, they also served as a local law enforcement.

Each Cossack settlement alone or in conjunction with neighbouring settlements, formed a military unit(s) and regiments of light cavalry (or mounted infantry) ready to respond a threat in a very short notice.

They had the privileged status (being in a lifetime military service and subject of tax exempt for it) in the Russian Empire and were considered the one of the most loyal to government and Tsar forces.

As such, they really differed a lot from other military units. Usual military of those times consisted of drafted and/or paid citizens who had only served for limited amount of time and rarely had families accompanying them during their service.

 

[Superkrest]

id love the cossacks if they had a larger increase in attack.....and were upgradable. i think the time they show up is true of millitary power in russia, to quote napolean "its easier to kill 6 russians then to occupy one"..shortly there after, napolean was being over run by cossacks and the russian army

 

[Tee Kay]

1) They should have really picked another leader than Catherine. Despite Catherine really expanded the empire, it's a bad choice because

a) She never had a 'cult' of her and as such is not very well remembered among common people.

b) She was not actually Russian (she was a German princess that married Russian tsar and ruled after her husband's death). Although we have a long tradition of non-native rulers (from Viking 'knyaz's to Stalin), it's still a strange choice.

Peter I The Great, who modernized and westernized the country (and pop-rushed building his new capital on its western borders) would be a better choice.

The problem of foreign leaders becoming leaders of another nation is a tricky one. Cleopatra and Catherine are perfect examples. And yes even Stalin is Georgian. The problem is apart from Catherine there's no other female leader of Russia that's widely known. This may be a small problem but considering that of the other civs there's also a few available female leaders they have to even the genders out and Catherine the Great is perfect for that. It's not im saying that Peter I is not a good choice or that catherine is a better choice but it's that all genders are considered equal nowadays and it won't please the other half if all the leaders in the game except Hatshepsut are men.

3) In real life, a lot of Russian cities began as small Cossack settlements (especially in Siberia and Caucasus). Maybe Cossack unit should have a limited Settler ability? (limited == e.g. it could take 3 Cossack units in stack to build a city).

That would be a nice idea, like crusaders in civ3 they can build fortress. I don't see why that can't be apply to cossacks.

4) Some of the Russian cities in Civ3 (namely Riga, Tbilisi, Kiev) are now parts of independent countries. I guess Lithuanians, Georgians and Ukrainians get offended by having their capitals listed as Russian cities Think of Washington or New York being presented in game as English cities

Not to mention that Tbilisi and Tiflis is actually two variants of name of the same city.

These cities are important historically to russia, but yes the other CIS states will be offended. You will notice in Civ3 Conquest that the cities Riga, Tbilisi, Kiev, Kharkov, Minsk etc is no longer present in the Russian city list.
(if i get it right Tiflis was used during Tsarist times and Tbilisi in the USSR and present-day Georgia)

 

[RCL]

(if i get it right Tiflis was used during Tsarist times and Tbilisi in the USSR and present-day Georgia)

Yes, you are right, Tiflis is a 'russified' version which was banned by communists in favor of national Georgian one (they had their 'equality for all nations' campaign).

 

[SonicX]

4) Some of the Russian cities in Civ3 (namely Riga, Tbilisi, Kiev) are now parts of independent countries. I guess Lithuanians, Georgians and Ukrainians get offended by having their capitals listed as Russian cities Think of Washington or New York being presented in game as English cities

I think Lithuanians are going to be more offended that you confused them with Latvia

 

[RCL]

I think Lithuanians are going to be more offended that you confused them with Latvia

Yepp, my bad I should have written "Latvians".

 

[SonicX]

Hehe, not my worries.
I agree with most of your points though, although I don't care about political correctness. If Kyev was important in Russian history, Kyev should be Russian in-game, final.
To put the icing on the cake, Yeltsin ought to be the civ leader.

 

[sealman]

1 - Catherine is a fine choice for the great leader. The best, I don't think so, but nothing is wrong with this choice.
2 - you right, they never hadn Knight's "per se" but then again, neither did the Egyptians, Americans, ect.
3 - Don't get the Cossack military unit confused with the people. However, I will admit that the Cossack troops founded settlements in Imperial Russia. But that can be said for many military troops through history. Many American cities/towns out in the west were first forts, that grew to settlements and then into towns and cities.
4 - If the city was important to a in game civ, than that city should be on the city list. I could live with New York being on the English city list (although it would be rather stupid to have 2 New Yorks) but Washington did not exist while we were under the rule of of the English Crown.

 

[Trade-peror]

Regarding Cossacks founding cities, it would also be a bit of a gameplay inconsistency for Cossacks, which require no citizens from the city to build (presumably!), to then be able to build cities, with the new citizens apparently coming from nowhere. Such a hammers-to-citizens conversion could easily be exploited.

 

[RCL]

Well, that brings us to another aspect - I think that all units should cost citizens from the city and food (and hammers, of course). After all, they don't 'build' people from thin air, they build weaponry and then some part of population goes to serve as a newly formed military unit. Alas, existing scale of population count is too inaccurate for that to be possible (it would probably require that Warrior costed 1/4 of citizen, what doesn't make sense). But it is really unfair now that a city with population 1 can produce warriors endlessly

 

[Trade-peror]

Absolutely. I support multiplying the scale of populations by 4 or 5, and having every unit cost a population head to produce. (Sorry for getting a little off topic though...)

 

[mastertyguy]

But it is totally true. U think that every tile should produce more food, so that you will have specialists. Cause not every body is a farmer.

 

[Trade-peror]

Or that people only eat one food per turn (and depend on something other than just food for growth).

Anyway, Catherine is fine as leader considering Firaxis's concern with gender balance...

 

[Balastulin]

If you put Kyev in, since it's important in Russian history, by that rationale, you should also include Warsaw?

Ouch.

Disclaimer:this poster does not believe Warsaw should be considered part of Russia.

 

[RCL]

Though being a Russian city once (for 123 years), I doubt if Warsaw played key role in Russian history, at least the same one as Kiev or Minsk.

But yes, we're stepping in dangerous grounds because for example Finland and Poland were both parts of Russian Empire till 1917 and some may argue that Warsaw and Helsinki were important enough cities in empire to be included in game

One could go further and remember Russian American lands (Alaska, which was sold to US in second part of XIX century) Russian empire in 1850 spanned from Prussia till Canada and that's a large chunk of land with a lot of cities.

But I think that's too far away history, and it's better to stay politically correct and stick to nowadays cities