The unique power of Russia civ.
Good old General Winter got replaced by the Power of Hardship. There certainly was a lot of hardship in Russian history. However, with its actual effects, unhappiness from hurrying and drafting applying to your happiest city, I have several points of criticism. First, and shortly, gameplay-wise. As I understand, "happiest city" refers, first of all, to Moscow and, after it, to other older core cities of Central Russia. Actively using this UP will inevitably hinder happiness and growth of Moscow, that should quickly become one of largest cities in Europe, and later, in the World, along with other developed cities of Central Russia, where population of Russia historically concentrated. Also, this UP prioritises building of happiness buildings in Moscow and other cities, instead of building more historically vital buildings (Russia isn't exactly famous for some widespread leisure buildings, like Western European cafés, restaurants, operas etc) and units. Finally, hurrying and drafting are rather specific mechanics, not so universally or historically accurately used, especially by computer player. There are some periods in Russian history that had certain hurrying-like policies, but otherwise it is not something inherent to Russian history. Other point is, atleast as it is (and likely will be), hurrying is tied up with Despotism (that really should be renamed to more neutral and universal term Autocracy). In turn, this leads to how civic system should be in DoC, that is under discussion at the moment (I'll publish my ideas for civic system some time later, maybe in a month). And, finally, that leads us to another important topic…
I hope whoever reads all what is written below will be rewarded atleast with better knowledge of Russian history.
Despotism/Autocracy "civic" and Russian history.
Despite common views and stereotypes, often shared even by part of Russians themselfs (that in turn leads to accepting our current political regime as something
historically inevitable and normal), autocracy is not some inherent characteristic of historical Russian statehood, whose forms of government and regime changed and varied considerably over course of Russian history. For atleast some breaking up of these stereotypes, especially for Westerners, I would recommend
this video (there are some things I disagree with, but generally it is good). History of Russian statehood usually is broken up into several periods (like, Principalities, Tsardom, Empire, Soviet Union and current), so talking about autocracy can be divided into said periods.
With current starting date of 1263, there's least historical reason for Muscovite Russia to start with autocracy. During that time, Muscovy was a feudal monarchy with quite limited monarchical power. Though that period (XIV-early XVth century) saw rise of late feudal monarchies of Muscovy and Lithuania, when previous allodial princely domains of Rus era were gradually replaced by granted land estates with atleast some service expected in return (one of main reason of rise of Muscovy into Russia was its effective establishment of this feudal service system, while Lithuania, with Poland, eventually went into opposite direction with feudal estates again turning into allodial private domains). Development from feudal Muscovite to more centralised Russian monarchy became evident only in second half of XVth century, that is again represented by later starting date.
With suggested 1472 starting date, centralised Russian state (Tsardom) appeared. This period of pre-Peter Russian Tsardom is usually especially affected by stereotypes of "despotic Muscovy", that is quite different from reality. Main source of these stereotypes is the reign of the most famous monarch of this period, Ivan IV the Terrible, with his infamous despotic tendencies. The thing is that Ivan IV actually
broke the system that existed both before and after him, when, during the terrible second half of his reign he tried to gain absolute power atleast in half of Russian Tsardom, establishing oprichnina lands in opposition to zemshchina where previous government-bureaucracy continued to rule, effectively plunging Russia into a civil war (this, in turn, devastated and destabilised Russia and later led to the Time of Troubles). Except for this 20 year period, both before and after Russian Tsardom's form of government is essentially represented by Monarchy civic, as power of the monarchs was limited. First of all, there was
Boyar Duma council, that mostly included aristocrats (along with new bureaucrats) who formerly ruled other Rus principalities and agreed to exchange their feudal souvereignty in small principalities, that were integrated into Muscovite domain, for position in the new Muscovite Russian ruling elite and bureaucracy. One of reasons why Muscovy succeeded was this policy of integration of other Rurikid Rus princes and their domains into new centralised state, where these princes received new ruling positions as boyars. Though losing their previous feudal domains, boyars still represented co-unity of these territories as part of new centralised Russia, and
without consent of the Boyar Duma Muscovite Russian monarch could not declare and set new laws, orders and policies, or declare war and peace. Later, during positive first half of Ivan IV's reign (when he was influenced by wise statesmen instead of personally loyal rascals), proper medieval parliament of the estates emerged -
Zemsky Sobor ("gathering of the land" compare German "Landtag"), where representatives of aristocracy (both hereditary and service), of clergy (Orthodox Church) and of cities (leading influential merchant families) and sometimes even of free peasantry (vast majority of peasants remained personally free and untied to the land in this period) assembled. Zemsky Sobor existed to set consent and agreement between the monarch's state and the land's (country's)
estates, that represented different social groups and interests. Meetings of Zemsky Sobor were less regular than permanent Boyar Duma, but without this parliament's consent Monarch&Boyar Duma could not set most important policies, like promulgating new code of laws.
Zemsky Sobor actually was ruling authority during the end and after the Time of Troubles, when it, with almost full representation of Russian population, chose Michael Theodovich of Romanov boyar family as the new Tsar and Sovereign of Russia. In following decades Zemsky Sobor was assembled and ruled almost permanently as the main legitimasing institute for restored centralised Russian state under new dynasty. In second half of XVIIth century, as new dynasty monarchical power was firmly established, and personal bureaucratic office of the Tsar became more effective than Zemsky Sobor and Boyar Duma, these institutions became more and more formal and honourable than ruling, until they were finally abolished during Peter the Great's reign in early XVIIIth century, just like absolute monarchies supplanted older medieval parliaments in most other European states, like in France.
Russian Empire and definitive turn to absolute monarchy. Peter the Great had done many great reforms. In regards to state system, he ultimately abolished traditional Boyar Council and Zemsky Sobor, replacing them with the Senate, that was composed of few members chosen by monarch. Definitive state apparatus was established with bureaucracy and governors exercising absolute power of the monarch from capital to provinces. Monarch also got absolute power over succession, freely choosing the heir (that theoretically could be whoever, even a peasant. After falling out with and executing his eldest son, Peter the Great died without naming a heir, leading to period of palace coups that dominated most of XVIIIth century. Right after Peter I's death Russian throne passed to his mistress and wife Catherine I, who was daughter of a tavern-keeper from Livonia), ending influence and conflicts between aristocratic families that previously provided wifes for tsars and heirs. While older para-democratic institutes were abolished and monarch got absolute power, that should be understood as final centralisation of state as an universal authority, supplanting older traditional local authorities, like feudal domains and cities. Alongside absolute power, Peter the Great also brought ideas of common good, public welfare and state interest, that served as new ideas of legitimacy (that in decades led to emergence of republicanism in Russia) and augmented older ideas of divine right and dynastic ownership. New absolutist state was very effective for its time, especially enabling huge standing army and fleet, but soon became more and more dominated by new aristocracy that held positions in bureaucracy and military, who effectively turned this imperial state into repressive apparatus that guarded their own interests, especially their landlord rights over land property and serfs.
Thus, there's
much more reason to adopt despotism/autocracy to represent absolutist Russian Empire than any earlier Russian form of statehood. That is, if only despotism/autocracy represents European absolute monarchies of XVIII-XIXth centuries.
If Russian Empire is represented with despotism/autocracy, so definitely should be Prussia, Denmark-Norway and other notably absolute monarchies of the era.
Finally, Soviet state. From its creation,
Soviet state was intended as a democracy, specifically ensuring rule of working majority of people, without domination of private and corporate interests of the minority of owners and companies (as often it was and is in Western liberal democracies). However,
from start Soviet state faced existential threats and need to implement radical reforms, starting from the Civil war, rapid reconstruction after it, rapid bone-breaking collectivisation and industrialisation in 30s, WWII and German invasion, rapid reconstruction after it, new global confrontation of the Cold war with a threat of it turning hot. This all, along with Leninist idea of the party as vanguard of the working class, led to strong centralisation and
concentration of power under Communist party rule, that initially wasn't as undemocratic as it became later. During Stalin power was further consolidated in the Politburo of him and his close associates, over Communist party (ranks of which regularly were purged to ensure "loyalty and effectiveness"), but that was reversed after him, and party elites dominated Soviet state well until its demise. That is,
despotism/autocracy civic fits optimally for Stalinist era, while other periods also can be correctly represented by it. Moreover, that's mostly during Stalinist era that we can see policies similar to Civ's hurrying mechanic. However, it also possible to see Soviet Union with democracy civic, as it nominally was and intended to be.
I hope all this highlightened my point, that
despotism/autocracy, and certain "hurrying" are not something inherent to all of Russian history and do not define Russia "as a civ".
Next I'll write my, rather simple, suggestion for Russian UP.
By all means mull these things over but know that I don't intend to pursue this flight of fancy much further. Also, gameplay wise, all this elaborate map-shuffling might be unnecessary and its just a matter of "fixing" AI Spain's present inclination to go full Leeroy on the first turn possible.
