Art of the Possible: Backgrounds
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
Yes, the native king is definitely Polonized as you put it to some degree. The degree to which this is the case is something I will leave up to you to decide.
On the question of Ukrainian identity AND the Siberian frontier:
The split of greater Rus' identity to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian ones happened in the 14th-16th centuries, when different parts of what used to be Kievan Rus' became parts of different geopolitical spheres of influence. Princedoms of modern Belarus (lit. old "White Rus") joined the Lithuanian kingdom and later became a part of greater Rzecz Pospolita (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), while modern Western Ukraine (lit. old "the Frontier") was incorporated in the Kingdom of Poland and later also found its way into the Commonwealth. Belarus became the core of the Belorussian ethnicity, while Western Ukraine, also known as Volyn' and Galichina, became the core of the Russenian or Ruthenian ethnicity. Neither really had a chance to form into nations, since they were parts of larger territorial entities.
Meanwhile, the area around Moscow and modern Central Russia was under the Golden Horde's yoke and started to develop in a more despotic society with a relatively rigid Asian structure. The area around Novgorod and Pskov was less affected by the Mongolian influence and preserved the democratic traditions of early Rus, until in the 16th century that tradition was almost entirely annihilated during Ivan the Terrible's repressions. Displaced Novgorodians and Pomors (the White Sea shore Slavic inhabitants), as well as other disgruntled elements of the Muscovite society started to try to escape the Tsars' tyranny in the Eastern, Southern, and South-Eastern wild frontiers of Muscovy, where they came into sometimes violent contact with the Komi and Perm' (Finno-Ugorian people of the Urals), Kazan' and Astrakhan' Khanates (South-East) and the Crimean Khanate (South). These misfits, runaways, and freedom-seekers mixed with the locals and became the foundation of the Cossack sub-ethnicity, which also bore signs of a social strata in a larger Russian society.
The southern Cossacks residing along the Dnieper River formed the so-called Zaporozhian Host, which later got absorbed into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The South-Eastern branch created the Don and Kuban Hosts that later sided with the Russian Tsardom (later another, so called Yaik Host was created in the Northern Transcaspian territory). The Ural-Siberian Cossacks (also known as the Cheldons) pushed farther East into Siberia and clashed with the local Sibir Khanate (a Sunni Muslim Tatar state). They came victorious out that struggle and eventually continued pushing farther east, running away from the Tsars' control and toward an easy loot. Past the Ob River, they came into contact with various Tungussian ethnicities (Yakut, Saha, Evens, Evenks, Buryats, Daurs, Nanai, Orochs, Kamchadals, Chukcha, etc.). Some of them were easily subdued, while some (notoriously, the Chukcha) put a very spirited defense and later had to be assimilated via trade treaties as late as the 18th century. (On a side note, on my father's side, my family belongs to the Cheldon (Siberian Russian) identity.)
As the southern borders between the Commonwealth and the Russian Tsardom stabilized, the Ukrainian identity started to take shape as a combination of the more European Catholic Ruthenians and more independent-minded Levoberezhye ("Left-Bank [of the Dneiper]") Ukrainians. During the Deluge (mid 17th century) and the Great Northern War (early 18th century) there happened some prominent attempts to establish an independent Ukrainian nation, but each time they ended up with more pro-Russian-minded Ukrainians choosing to join Novorossiya or Malorossiya (Ukrainian territories of the Russian Tsardom), while the independence fighters were subdued by the Poles and the Russians.
In EQ's timeline we seem to be standing at the point when a semi-independent Ukrainian state was established as a fit of Polish diplomacy, but a fully developed nation hasn't yet formed. It's somewhat similar to the state of limbo that existed in Ukraine in OTL between 1992 and 2013, i.e. before the Maidan protest and Putin's intervention catalyzed the process of national self-identification.
Sorry for the wall of text, but hope it helps.
The split of greater Rus' identity to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian ones happened in the 14th-16th centuries, when different parts of what used to be Kievan Rus' became parts of different geopolitical spheres of influence. Princedoms of modern Belarus (lit. old "White Rus") joined the Lithuanian kingdom and later became a part of greater Rzecz Pospolita (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), while modern Western Ukraine (lit. old "the Frontier") was incorporated in the Kingdom of Poland and later also found its way into the Commonwealth. Belarus became the core of the Belorussian ethnicity, while Western Ukraine, also known as Volyn' and Galichina, became the core of the Russenian or Ruthenian ethnicity. Neither really had a chance to form into nations, since they were parts of larger territorial entities.
Meanwhile, the area around Moscow and modern Central Russia was under the Golden Horde's yoke and started to develop in a more despotic society with a relatively rigid Asian structure. The area around Novgorod and Pskov was less affected by the Mongolian influence and preserved the democratic traditions of early Rus, until in the 16th century that tradition was almost entirely annihilated during Ivan the Terrible's repressions. Displaced Novgorodians and Pomors (the White Sea shore Slavic inhabitants), as well as other disgruntled elements of the Muscovite society started to try to escape the Tsars' tyranny in the Eastern, Southern, and South-Eastern wild frontiers of Muscovy, where they came into sometimes violent contact with the Komi and Perm' (Finno-Ugorian people of the Urals), Kazan' and Astrakhan' Khanates (South-East) and the Crimean Khanate (South). These misfits, runaways, and freedom-seekers mixed with the locals and became the foundation of the Cossack sub-ethnicity, which also bore signs of a social strata in a larger Russian society.
The southern Cossacks residing along the Dnieper River formed the so-called Zaporozhian Host, which later got absorbed into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The South-Eastern branch created the Don and Kuban Hosts that later sided with the Russian Tsardom (later another, so called Yaik Host was created in the Northern Transcaspian territory). The Ural-Siberian Cossacks (also known as the Cheldons) pushed farther East into Siberia and clashed with the local Sibir Khanate (a Sunni Muslim Tatar state). They came victorious out that struggle and eventually continued pushing farther east, running away from the Tsars' control and toward an easy loot. Past the Ob River, they came into contact with various Tungussian ethnicities (Yakut, Saha, Evens, Evenks, Buryats, Daurs, Nanai, Orochs, Kamchadals, Chukcha, etc.). Some of them were easily subdued, while some (notoriously, the Chukcha) put a very spirited defense and later had to be assimilated via trade treaties as late as the 18th century. (On a side note, on my father's side, my family belongs to the Cheldon (Siberian Russian) identity.)
As the southern borders between the Commonwealth and the Russian Tsardom stabilized, the Ukrainian identity started to take shape as a combination of the more European Catholic Ruthenians and more independent-minded Levoberezhye ("Left-Bank [of the Dneiper]") Ukrainians. During the Deluge (mid 17th century) and the Great Northern War (early 18th century) there happened some prominent attempts to establish an independent Ukrainian nation, but each time they ended up with more pro-Russian-minded Ukrainians choosing to join Novorossiya or Malorossiya (Ukrainian territories of the Russian Tsardom), while the independence fighters were subdued by the Poles and the Russians.
In EQ's timeline we seem to be standing at the point when a semi-independent Ukrainian state was established as a fit of Polish diplomacy, but a fully developed nation hasn't yet formed. It's somewhat similar to the state of limbo that existed in Ukraine in OTL between 1992 and 2013, i.e. before the Maidan protest and Putin's intervention catalyzed the process of national self-identification.
Sorry for the wall of text, but hope it helps.
TheLastJacobite
No Commies
No need to apologize; that was very interesting! 
theDright
King
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 605
Thank you Ahigin that was almost exactly what I was looking for. Normal US education doesn't educate one on Russia very well, and Wikipedia has been uninformative. It seemed that there was nobody there, which had to be impossible considering how full North America was before colonization. I also, through utter neglect on my part, just realized that the upper half of Russia is in the Arctic.
So is Ukraine a good name for the kingdom, or is Ruthenia/Russenia better?
Also, how is Poland organized. Given it was created by Napoleon, is it an absolute monarchy, something like the French state, or is it something like the Polish commonwealth?
So is Ukraine a good name for the kingdom, or is Ruthenia/Russenia better?
Also, how is Poland organized. Given it was created by Napoleon, is it an absolute monarchy, something like the French state, or is it something like the Polish commonwealth?
Terran Empress
Hornet
Wow, Thanks Ahigin, that was really interesting, especially after the small amount of Russian stuff i've seen this week. I was curious exactly what happened to make Russia more Authoritarian after the Rus' more liberal and democratic (relative to the rest of europe) history. As well with the new EU4 expansion, I was curious where the Cossacks came from, so thanks that was really interesting and informative
DuneBear
Warlord
Good read Ahigin. I was going to say, when I initially saw theDright's question, to just ask Ahigin lol.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
This is actually brutal and really cool. I'm looking forward to this/fighting a massive war and crippling myself for my temerity
Thanks everyone for your warm word. Frankly, Russian education (at least, from my personal experience) doesn't usually teach those things either and narrates it from a more Moscow-centric point of view. I did have a good high school history teacher, though, who tried not as much telling the story of a "great empire" being born but rather teaching us to understand how things develop the way they do.
So, I guess, it's time to take a shot for all good high school teachers.
EDIT:
So, I guess, it's time to take a shot for all good high school teachers.
EDIT:
I'd say Ukraine is okay, because, judging by the map, it's a combination of Galichina, Volyn', and Levoberezhye, plus the Crimean peninsula with a big chunk of Crimean Tatar population. Plus, by the time Poland "created" Ukraine, it had probably had a very decent percentage of Russian or Russian-speaking population (at least 30%), with majority of it on the left bank of the Dnieper. So, keep that in mind, too.
Terran Empress
Hornet
Don't really want to take this too off topic, but now i'm curious. What's the difference between Ukraine, Ruthenia, and Russenia?
Russenia/Ruthenia is the same thing. It's the territory of Western Ukraine near the Carpathian Mountains. Ukraine is a bit wider term, encompassing a larger national, ethnic, and geographical entity.
So after not having my notes all weekend, I'm back making progress on the stats and setup. After careful consideration, I decided that it would be best to implement a manpower stat to act as a final barrier to unrealistically sized armies that are a risk under the old system. Now, in Capto Iugulum, manpower was the stat that allowed unrealistically sized armies to occur. Russia's overwhelming manpower was such that his losses each turn were almost made up by each turn's manpower production. Theoretically, he would have had nearly infinite manpower when it came to warfare. The total unit caps I've already discussed are a way to curb that, but on their own, it's not enough, particularly considering the new stat of Army Strength. So to use an example, here's Canada's partial stats:
Canada:
Formal Name: Republic of Canada
Constitutional Republic: President Wilfrid Laurier (Moderate)
Congress: Liberal Party (Liberal)
Dominant Issues
-American Economic Dominance
-Labor Unrest
Economic Points: Bank (Per Turn)
Industrial Capacity: #
Manpower: 5/60
Supplies: # (-6)
Fuel: 5 (-2)
Alert: Peacetime
Army Size: 4 Infantry Divisions, 1 Cavalry Division (5/30)
Army Strength: 100%
Army Doctrine: American Army 1890
Navy: 2 Destroyer Squadrons
Navy Doctrine: Coastal Defense Fleet 1890
Manpower will always be exactly double (or 1.5x, haven't decided yet, have to run the math) of the total division cap and will be used to replenish losses during wartime. Total division cap is already based on RL population distribution. To be exact, manpower now represents the amount of manpower in use by your nation. Therefore, as long as you have divisions active, some of your manpower will be always "in use." During wartime, you can replenish losses using the manpower, in addition to EP and IC per turn losses, and this will count as manpower "in use." When you have used up all of your total manpower, you will be unable to reinforce existing troops and will be at the wrong end of a war of attrition. Similarly, total use of manpower will have a devastating effect on what is left of your economy at that point, and you may even have to let women into factories or some other horrible event like that. Used manpower will remain used until you return to full peacetime status. During peacetime status, manpower usage will drop by 5 manpower points each turn. Obviously, this would drop until it reaches the point where your current amount of divisions already uses it.
Canada:
Formal Name: Republic of Canada
Constitutional Republic: President Wilfrid Laurier (Moderate)
Congress: Liberal Party (Liberal)
Dominant Issues
-American Economic Dominance
-Labor Unrest
Economic Points: Bank (Per Turn)
Industrial Capacity: #
Manpower: 5/60
Supplies: # (-6)
Fuel: 5 (-2)
Alert: Peacetime
Army Size: 4 Infantry Divisions, 1 Cavalry Division (5/30)
Army Strength: 100%
Army Doctrine: American Army 1890
Navy: 2 Destroyer Squadrons
Navy Doctrine: Coastal Defense Fleet 1890
Manpower will always be exactly double (or 1.5x, haven't decided yet, have to run the math) of the total division cap and will be used to replenish losses during wartime. Total division cap is already based on RL population distribution. To be exact, manpower now represents the amount of manpower in use by your nation. Therefore, as long as you have divisions active, some of your manpower will be always "in use." During wartime, you can replenish losses using the manpower, in addition to EP and IC per turn losses, and this will count as manpower "in use." When you have used up all of your total manpower, you will be unable to reinforce existing troops and will be at the wrong end of a war of attrition. Similarly, total use of manpower will have a devastating effect on what is left of your economy at that point, and you may even have to let women into factories or some other horrible event like that. Used manpower will remain used until you return to full peacetime status. During peacetime status, manpower usage will drop by 5 manpower points each turn. Obviously, this would drop until it reaches the point where your current amount of divisions already uses it.
So, if you've exhausted your manpower and your divisions are below 100% strength, you can disband some of your divisions, thus bringing the strength of the remaining ones back to 100%, right?
From the game mechanics point of view, which option is better: more under-strength divisions or less full-strength divisions?
Well, for the first question it would depend on how many divisions you have and how much strength you've lost. If you are at 50% Army Strength and have 100 divisions and disband only one, it sure isn't going to be enough to bump you all the way back up to 100%. On the other hand if you disbanded 50 divisions in that scenario, then yeah, that would be enough to bring you back up to strength, but it wouldn't help your manpower.
I think which option is better is really going to depend upon your strategic needs. All divisions do reinforce automatically to 100% in peacetime, so I'm assuming you're talking during a war. If you need to cover a lot of territory without simply stretching a single division across an entire border (never a good idea), under-strength divisions may be the way to go. Really, the best strategy in a total war would be to hit your division limit ASAP, and then from there use the rest of your manpower in reinforcing the units until you hit the manpower limit, and hope you've won the war before then.
I think which option is better is really going to depend upon your strategic needs. All divisions do reinforce automatically to 100% in peacetime, so I'm assuming you're talking during a war. If you need to cover a lot of territory without simply stretching a single division across an entire border (never a good idea), under-strength divisions may be the way to go. Really, the best strategy in a total war would be to hit your division limit ASAP, and then from there use the rest of your manpower in reinforcing the units until you hit the manpower limit, and hope you've won the war before then.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks.
I'll simplify the question. If you have a relatively narrow frontline that allows a single division or a couple of divisions to fight effectively without being overstretched or too crammed in. Let's say a single 100% division is fighting on that frontline against two 50% divisions (assume they're roughly equal doctrine- and technology wise). Which side, from your point of view, has the advantage?
My natural guess would be that in a straightforward bashing of heads the full strength division would be better, but the two understrength divisions would have an advantage in the war of maneuver. So, more understrength units may be more beneficial to have when the war is fluid. Correct?
That, by the way, leads to another question. Can I simply split my 100% divisions to get twice the number of 50% divisions? (Assuming I stay within my manpower cap.) I think it shouldn't be allowed, since that way the player multiplies his/her number of divisions without paying the price for each of them.
Shadowbound
Incorrugible
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,078
Omg are you saying there's an aspect of the rules where the benefits of choosing one option over another are unclear?
Let the man finish doing stats.
Let the man finish doing stats.
I'd say in a 100% vs. two 50% battle with all other factors being exactly equal (which they never are), the 100% one would probably be better off by virtue of having a single unified chain of command. Anything beyond that is impossible to say, because as I said, all other factors are never equal. What really matters in the developing ruleset is how well you plan your offensive, more than anything else. That is how it should be, rather than just crushing numbers against each other until something breaks. Of course, that's always a possibility, especially if we wind up with a WW1-like scenario of trench warfare.
No, divisions cannot simply be split. The costs in creating divisions are more than just bringing together men and equipment, it's also a matter of infrastructure and organization. Also, that'd be an incredibly cheap exploit, so definitely not.
No, divisions cannot simply be split. The costs in creating divisions are more than just bringing together men and equipment, it's also a matter of infrastructure and organization. Also, that'd be an incredibly cheap exploit, so definitely not.
No, I'm saying I'd be disappointed to see the answer being "such and such is always better." Which was something I was starting to suspect when the new system was announced.
I trust EQ to be able to ignore my questions when they don't really need being answered. I won't take it personal.
So I am actually hoping to get the thread up tonight or tomorrow morning. Still plenty of other setup work to be done, but most of the front page stuff is just about done, so we have the ability to at least get Update 0 diplomacy going and orders for that first update. Just finished doing 1900 Fuel distribution, and that should add a very interesting element to the game, as in 1900 there's only a half dozen oil producing nations.
Similar threads
