How would you design Russia?

Xandinho

Deity
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
2,318
Location
Brazil
Well, it seems that threads like this have proliferated around here. As Civ7 might be on its way, so people want to know how their favorite civs can be designed.
Let's discuss Russia now.

For Civ7, I'd like a less religious Russia, however some cultural bonuses may remain. Maybe Russia should get some trade route bonus on its unique abiltiy? Expansion bonuses also make sense.
Give us Kremlin as a unique fortification. Cossack must remain a unique cavalry. And give us Ivan the Terrible and Catherine as leaders, please.

What do you think?
 
I'd like to see a Rus'-focused Russia led by either Alexander Nevsky or Ivan III that's a mixture of expansion, trade, and faith. Also how about a Streltsy UU to change things up?

I do love the current Russian design and wouldn't mind seeing Civ6 Russia's faith-and-culture design inherited by Civ7 Byzantium.
 
RUSSIA

LEADER
Nikita Khrushchev


Industrial giant and Military Engineering Super Power. The Soviet Union reached powerful heights during the Khrushchev Era. Post WWII Russia recovered from the War to evolve into a legit Super power. 1957 saw Russia reach Space with Sputnik in 1957. Russian Industry flourished under Khrushchev. Agriculture and The Arts also were emphasized. As well as Science. Most impressive was the might of the Soviet Military Industry.

Unique Buildings.

The Kremlin, Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, Industrial Academy, KGB Headquarters

Unique Units.
T-64 Battle Tank, Mig-17 Fighter Jet, Mi24 Attack helicopter
 
Last edited:
1. Civ6 Russia is a contradictory in one self--have Laura (Greek origin of the term Lavra) in place of Holy Sites BUT led by the most progressive leader who tossed out much of the old Orthodox - based traditions.
2. If they want to keep Laura. i'd like 'em to have either religious or repressive leader (Ivan III or IV)
BUT Personally Laura was as 'misleading' as Wat in Civ5. Laura itself actually originated from Old Byzantium and should belong to the latter.
3.
This would be my design for Russia

Russia Leader: Ivan III
Unique Unit 1: Streltsy
Unique Unit 2: T2 tank
Unique Infrastructure: Pogost
Yeh. I like Streltsy a UU (Replaces Pike&Shot)
But what is Pogost actually?
4. Cossacks are mis-represented in all Civ games. In their heyday they're lancers and not carabiniers. and as distinct unit they existed in 16th Century, NOT indstrial era (which they became no less different to any other 'cavalry'.
How will you represent Cossacks if they shouldn't be Russian UU Anymore?
5. More interesting UU is a giant Missile Cruiser "Kirov Class", representing Cold war era Soviet naval doctrines. The commission of Kirov Class compelled US Navy to reintroduce aged Battleships (Iowa class to be specific, the last Battleships to serve in any navy worldwide) with technologies of 80s including various missile battery and AEGIS systems!!!!!!
 
But what is Pogost actually?

It's a traveling inn similar to a caravanserai, but usually with a church built into it.

Like Zaarin said, its like travelling hub with a church. Its like market and religious district combined. Pogost is like small rural community with a mechanic of trading community alongside with religious elements. Krepost would be other choice for unique infrastructure but I think its more belong to Bulgaria rather than Russia

1. Civ6 Russia is a contradictory in one self--have Laura (Greek origin of the term Lavra) in place of Holy Sites BUT led by the most progressive leader who tossed out much of the old Orthodox - based traditions.
2. If they want to keep Laura. i'd like 'em to have either religious or repressive leader (Ivan III or IV)
BUT Personally Laura was as 'misleading' as Wat in Civ5. Laura itself actually originated from Old Byzantium and should belong to the latter.
4. Cossacks are mis-represented in all Civ games. In their heyday they're lancers and not carabiniers. and as distinct unit they existed in 16th Century, NOT indstrial era (which they became no less different to any other 'cavalry'.
How will you represent Cossacks if they shouldn't be Russian UU Anymore?

For your first statement, I agree with you Lavra shouldnt be unique infrastructure if Peter I leading Russia or making Russia being progressive scientific civ
For your second statement, I agree with you about that, If Lavra is unique infrastructure it should be Muscovite leader, Kievan Rus leader or other principalities leaders.
For your third statement, I already answer about Pogost on the top of this post.
For your fourth statement, there are more unique cavalries for Russia besides Cossack such as Druzhina which will be medieval cavlary unique unit, and Life Guard cavalry or Chevalier Guard which is Industrial era cavalry unit.
For your fifth statement, that an interesting Cold War unit for Russia but I rather put T2 tank as modern Russian unique unit as its more iconic to represent modern Russia.
 
Last edited:
It's a traveling inn similar to a caravanserai, but usually with a church built into it.

Yes and no. The word pogost (погост) has changed meanings several times and in several places since it first appeared sometime before the 9th century CE. Originally they appear to have been small communities that supported 'coaching inns' or waystations for traveling church officials or princes, which when they were on the edge of the Russian territory also served as trading centers.
By the end of the 10th century CE the word began to refer to official territorial districts, ranging from a few dozen villages to hundreds of locales covering hundreds of square kilometers of territory. The last 'administrative' pogosty were disbanded in 1775, and since then the word refers to church parishes and, in the countryside, any settlement that contains a church and a graveyard or just an isolated rural church with no settlement.
The word has also been 'borrowed' into Latvian and Finnish, in both cases meaning a small rural administrative district or community.

So, Old Russian/Muscovite it could have a function for Trade and Religious spread, Grand Duchy of Muscovy and Russia it could be a mechanic for spreading Russian control (a form of Territory Bombing?) and/or Religion.

Steltsy is certainly an 'iconic' Russian unit, but not associated with Ivan III: the first of them were formed by Ivan IV in 1550 CE as the first regularly organized professional infantry in Russia, armed with matchlock muskets, 'bearded' (berdische) axes as pole-arms and so a Pike and Shot unit - and, by the way, just 20 years after the first Tercios, so very contemporary with other Pike and Shot units.
 
Yes and no. The word pogost (погост) has changed meanings several times and in several places since it first appeared sometime before the 9th century CE. Originally they appear to have been small communities that supported 'coaching inns' or waystations for traveling church officials or princes, which when they were on the edge of the Russian territory also served as trading centers.
By the end of the 10th century CE the word began to refer to official territorial districts, ranging from a few dozen villages to hundreds of locales covering hundreds of square kilometers of territory. The last 'administrative' pogosty were disbanded in 1775, and since then the word refers to church parishes and, in the countryside, any settlement that contains a church and a graveyard or just an isolated rural church with no settlement.
The word has also been 'borrowed' into Latvian and Finnish, in both cases meaning a small rural administrative district or community.

So, Old Russian/Muscovite it could have a function for Trade and Religious spread, Grand Duchy of Muscovy and Russia it could be a mechanic for spreading Russian control (a form of Territory Bombing?) and/or Religion.
Indeed, but in context as a UI for a Rus'-centric Russia I think the "inn and church" definition is the one we're shooting for. I was struggling to think of unique infrastructure myself, but I think it works perfectly for my concept of Civ7 Russia as trade-and-religion focused. I'd see the Pogost as a unique market that increases the Faith value and religious spread of trade routes. Give it +1 Housing just because.

Steltsy is certainly an 'iconic' Russian unit, but not associated with Ivan III: the first of them were formed by Ivan IV in 1550 CE as the first regularly organized professional infantry in Russia, armed with matchlock muskets, 'bearded' (berdische) axes as pole-arms and so a Pike and Shot unit - and, by the way, just 20 years after the first Tercios, so very contemporary with other Pike and Shot units.
Whether we choose a Cossack or a Strelets, it's post Rus' so I was just shooting for something different than "the usual."
 
The big question here is how to handle the Soviet Union? Is it a part of Russia or is "Communism" an element of change that can be given to any Civ to drastically alter their set-up in the Industrial Era? Or is it a civ on their own (I'd like that). Impossible to answer without knowing the set-up of the new civilization game.

Which is by the way true for all these threads. I'd much rather have a general change in how civs are built than just a redesign of the current civs. For me, a good indicator would be if the civ doesn't resemble its Civ6 design. Simple as that :) So yeah, go Soviet Union! :)
 
The big question here is how to handle the Soviet Union?
Don't? But if you must, it's a separate civ from Russia; breaking cultural continuity is central to the Communist ideology, a process visible in both Soviet Russia and the PRC. Honestly, though, I'd consider it a waste of a civ slot. It lasted less than a century, and it was a miserable less than a century for everyone involved.
 
The big question here is how to handle the Soviet Union? Is it a part of Russia or is "Communism" an element of change that can be given to any Civ to drastically alter their set-up in the Industrial Era? Or is it a civ on their own (I'd like that). Impossible to answer without knowing the set-up of the new civilization game.

Which is by the way true for all these threads. I'd much rather have a general change in how civs are built than just a redesign of the current civs. For me, a good indicator would be if the civ doesn't resemble its Civ6 design. Simple as that :) So yeah, go Soviet Union! :)
I think it would be exciting to bring some Cold War Drama to the game. That's why I suggest Khrushchev(a counter to Eisenhower for America) for leader. When the American U2 spyplane was taken down. It was Khrushchev who said "We'll kick you so hard, you won't know your own name". The Soviet Union rose from the ashes of WWII. To absolute Superpower. The West held it's breath when Sputnik took flight. The Soviet industry produced some of the more impressive Tanks, Planes, and Submarines of the time. And the Whole World held it's breath when Russia placed nukes in Cuba in response American nukes in Turkey. So let's bring the Cold War back to life. To the brink of extinction. And Mutual Assured Destruction. Missiles away.
 
Don't? But if you must, it's a separate civ from Russia; breaking cultural continuity is central to the Communist ideology, a process visible in both Soviet Russia and the PRC. Honestly, though, I'd consider it a waste of a civ slot. It lasted less than a century, and it was a miserable less than a century for everyone involved.

Let's not forget that neither Marx nor any of the other early Communists ever expected Russia to become a Communist State - they were aimed at Britain or Germany, because they assumed that the progression would be Feudal - Industrial - Communist - Utopia and Russia was about as far from being Industrial as any European nation of the late 19th century.
The fact is that there were strong Communist/Socialist movements and/or Revolutions after WWI in virtually every continental European state, and (briefly) a Bavarian Communist State as a result of revolution right after the war: in many ways, the Russian Soviet state was a fluke, brought on as much by the utter incompetence of the Russian Imperial State and the historical accident of having semi-professional Revolutionaries on hand in 1917 as by any Guaranteed Ideological Progress.

IF we want to bring back Ideologies (which I think are a necessary part of the Late Game, post-Industrial World) then Fascism or Communism are things that should happen to your Civ: IF the game gives the gamer a choice in the matter, it also has to show that there are strong negatives to each choice as well as positives, and there are Alternatives.
Just for instance, extrapolating from the industrial progress made in Imperial Russia between 1905 and 1913, a Non-Communist Russia would have been the same major industrial power in 1941 that the USSR was: Stalin simply got there in spite of the disruption of the Revolution and Civil War (which, among other things, removed a large percentage of the engineers and management personnel from the country) and by slaughtering at least 20,000,000 of his own people in the process. You want to go that route, be my guest, but it's not the only route available.

So, I don't think a specifically Fascist or Communist Civ is a requirement for Civ VII. Aside from the loathsome nature of most of the resulting Leaders, it strait-jackets the depiction of late game Ideologies, which should, IMHO, combine the features of Governments and Religions from the early/mid game: the fact that virtually all the Ideological movements included the same kind of 'spread' of their movement that earlier religious movements displayed is telling, and should be in the game in some way. The big difference (at least from Religion as practiced in Civ VI) is that more than one Civ can adopt the same Ideology - but perhaps with different aspects to their form of the Ideology based on already-adopted Civics or Social Policies . . .
 
So I definitely wouldn't mind having some aspects of Soviet Russia, maybe just relegated to the leader Lenin. At least he's the only one I would personally consider
At least I think he could be interesting especially around an ideology mechanic. Though I'd also want Tsarist Russia under Catherine as well. Both can be considered cultural leaders but just with different ways of spreading it. :shifty:

Civ abilty: Land of the Rus- Could focus on the trade aspects and expansion.

UB: Kremlin- I know people hate unique walls but I'd like to see the kremlins in game and I don't know how else to implement them. They should gain massive amounts of tourism late game. :p

UU: Honestly do not care if Cossacks come again, or another unit. Maybe the T-34 could be a nod to Soviet Russia at least? :dunno:
 
I think the only compelling reason for Soviet representation are to have some 20th century UUs. I mean is a heavy load that all the great powers from recent times have, since they have way more interesting options.

For me the "four 20th century bigs" are America, Russia (Soviet), Germany and Japan. They were more powerfull this time than on the previous centuries (like UK and France were on 18th and 19th century).

I know tanks are a big thing in Russia, but still I would like Russia to have the IL-2 Sturmovik as a dedicated tank-hunter plane, while Germany could have the Pz-VI Tiger as UU. :mischief:
 
If expansion is the name of the game in Civilization. The Soviet expansion post WWII was very impressive. And their influence on other proud nations(namely China) cannot be overlooked. It was a time of 1upsmanship. The US exploded an A-bomb, then Russia exploded theirs. US introduced the H-bomb(which we need in Civilization), the Soviets answered with their own. No doubt this was an intense Era. It even alarmed a war-hawk in Churchill. If nothing else. We can have a Cold War Scenario. But that kind of intense drama belongs in this game. That in itself should justify Cold War Era leaders for both America(Ike) and Russia(Khrushchev). Press the button. let'em fly.
 
I think the only compelling reason for Soviet representation are to have some 20th century UUs. I mean is a heavy load that all the great powers from recent times have, since they have way more interesting options.

For me the "four 20th century bigs" are America, Russia (Soviet), Germany and Japan. They were more powerfull this time than on the previous centuries (like UK and France were on 18th and 19th century).

I know tanks are a big thing in Russia, but still I would like Russia to have the IL-2 Sturmovik as a dedicated tank-hunter plane, while Germany could have the Pz-VI Tiger as UU. :mischief:

We can get 20th century UUs without being stuck with 20th century Leaders or "Civs" that are simply ephemeral end notes to Civilizations going back 800 (Russia) to 2500 (China) years.

In fact, being able to change UUs would be a 'cheap' (compared to changing Leaders with all their voice-acted, animated requirements) way to provide variations and 'upgrades' to Civs.
Russia, for example, could have:
Druzhina Heavy Cavalry UU - Medieval
Streltsi Pike and Shot UU - Renaissance/Early Modern
Unicorn Howitzer UU - Industrial
Alternative: Cossack Lancers UU
Ilya Mourometz Heavy Bomber UU - Modern
IL-2 Anti-tank Aircraft UU - Atomic
Alternative: T-34 Medium Tank UU
Alternative: Katyusha Rocket Artillery UU
T-64 Main Battle Tank ('Modern Armor') UU - Information
Alternative: Mi-24 Attack Helicopter UU
 
^
1. What made Druzhina superior or equivalent to Euro Knights?
2. Are Licornes a good siege gun actually?
3. Cossacks should be EARLY MODERN lancers and not Industrial Era actually. yet did NOT upgrade to Cavalry but into later mobile units. (so to fully exert their raider combat capabilities)
4. Why no Kirov Class Missle Battlecruiser which compelled US Navy to bring back obsolete assets--Iowa Class Battleships--for upgrades with contemporary systems (AEGIS too?) to meet them? did US Navy really believed that Kirovs would outreach any American Carrier based Battlefleet projection ranges so they decided to bring back BBs (for the last time)?
 
^
1. What made Druzhina superior or equivalent to Euro Knights?
2. Are Licornes a good siege gun actually?
3. Cossacks should be EARLY MODERN lancers and not Industrial Era actually. yet did NOT upgrade to Cavalry but into later mobile units. (so to fully exert their raider combat capabilities)
4. Why no Kirov Class Missle Battlecruiser which compelled US Navy to bring back obsolete assets--Iowa Class Battleships--for upgrades with contemporary systems (AEGIS too?) to meet them? did US Navy really believed that Kirovs would outreach any American Carrier based Battlefleet projection ranges so they decided to bring back BBs (for the last time)?

1. The Druzhina, especially under Dmitrii Donskoy at Kulikovo (one of the three great Field Battles in Russian history) used the bow as well as the lance, and armored horse archers are a rare breed indeed, and worth a UU.
2. The Licornes came in sizes from about 8 pound to 80 pound size, but the 80 pound (2 pood in Old Russian measurement) was abandoned as too heavy to move easily, and the bulk of the licornes manufactured and in service in the Seven Years' War (224 out of 280) were in the Field Artillery organization and 8, 10 or 20 pound types. What made them really unique was that they had barrels almost as long as a cannon but powder charges like a howitzer and so could 'lob' shells like a howitzer OR fire short range direct fire like a cannon.
3. Cossacks used the lance from the Early Modern through the Industrial Eras, but what makes them unique with it is that they were practically the only European cavalry using the lance in the 18th century until the Polish State was re-established during the Napoleonic Wars. That makes them a really Unique early Industrial Era lancer.
4. Russia has always been a land power, and the Russian and Soviet Armies were and are the 'Senior Service" in the country. That's why I didn't include a warship in the UU list: it was bad enough that 3 out of 10 were aircraft, but I justified that to myself by the fact that 2 of the 3 were specifically ground support aircraft that were both (IL-2 and Mi-24) nicknamed "flying tanks".
 
Top Bottom