My suggestions for the new RFCDoC

Historical victory goals for Russia civ.
In new RFCDoC historical goals of Russia changed slightly, with old nukes&space goal altered and merged with the communist one (obviously it represents Soviet Union, but is kinda ambigous now as a goal: is it diplomatic, or is it scientific goal? Obviously, it's both, but I hope you got the point). New goal of building 3 Orthodox cathdedrals an wonders by 1550 was added, that certainly isn't very compatible with 1472/1480 starter date I propose, but still a normal goal. Besides, even though nice and realistic, it is somewhat generic. Moreover, I just realised, that having atleast 9 cities with churches, and cathedrals, by 1550, isn't really fitting between historicity and gameplay (it suggests already controlling a significant empire, with churches and cathedral built, but in 1550 Russian Tsardom, that effectively appeared just more than 50 years ago, still was limited to Central and Northern Russia, not had conquered (and built churches in) Volga, Siberian or steppe regions).
Ago had I started to think about optimal Russian historical goals and now had formulated them clearly. Two of them are based on existing ones (that in turn are based on original RFC).

1. All roads lead to Third Rome: control continuous empire between ports on Arctic, Baltic, Black, Caspian and Pacific seas by 1720, and connect them all to your capital with railroads by 1920.
This goal is refreshed first goal (10 cities in SIberia by 1720 and railroad to a Siberian port by 1920 (kinda disappointingly, Obdorsk counts as such)). I pondered several names ("endless lands", "warm seas", "land between the seas") for this goal, until this one came to my mind. It sounds "catchy", being a pun on famous saying about Roman infrastructure (actually, this applies even more to Russian road and railway system being very centered on Moscow, check a map) and famous imperial claims of Moscow as the Third (and last!) Rome.
Instead of "historically ambiguos" settling of 10 cities in Siberia (there never was such specific policy, Siberia was colonised somewhat "chaotically opportunistic" before XIXth century), there historically was well formulated goal of getting access to seas (especially by Peter the Great and Catherine II). Specific main cities and historical background can be named for each of the seas.
Obviously, the earliest and most easily achievable is access to Arctic (specifically, White) sea by founding (or flipping at spawn, if Rus founds it) Kholmogory->Arkhangelsk city, as there are no other civs to contest these cold waters and Russia for centuries had access to this sea.
Access to Baltic sea was famously gained by Peter the Great by epic victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War in 1700s-1710s (but long before him, in mid XVIth century, Ivan the Terrible attempted to do the same during Livonian war). Most likely the target city on Baltic would be Riga (historical capital and main city of the region), but in 1700 AD founding of Saint-Petersburg (the only coastal city plot in Russian core area) becomes possible with Ingrian marsh disappearing, so this might be a reason to found it (but by this time Riga should likely be conquered, but who knows. St. Petersburg, thus, provides nice reserve opportunity).
Total access to Black sea, including Crimea and all vast steppes north of it, was famously secured after series of victorious wars over Ottoman Empire in 1760-80s during reign of Catherine II the Great. But long before that there were purposeful attempts to secure atleast some port on Black sea. Most notably, port fortress-city of Azov was besieged, taken and returned to Ottomans several times in XVIIth century, while first military victory of Peter the Great was taking of this city in 1696, though he had to return it in 1711, after unsuccessful pursuit into Modlavia to get beaten Swedish King Charles XII from Ottomans. Alongside attempts to gain Azov, there were also several campaigns into Crimea in XVII-XVIIIth centuries, before Catherine II. All in all, new map allows for all 3 key northern Black sea port cities of Azov->Rostov-na-Donu, Crimea (Chersonessos/Sevastopol) and Akkerman/Hajjibey->Odessa. All of these city plots should have cities founded and controlled long before, by Greeks (who established here the earliest cities in future territory of Russia), Byzantines, Turks/Khazars, and Ottomans.
Access to Caspian sea, that allowed trade with Persia, was gained in 1550s after famous conquest of Astrakhan Khanate (that followed that of Kazan) by not-yet-terrible Ivan IV. Obviously, the target city here is Astrakhan, that thereafter served as main trading hub with Middle East and Central Asia for centuries. Astrakhan will be founded and controlled long before (as Atil, Saqsin and Hajjitarkhan), by Turks, possibly Khazars, Mongols or as independent city, serving as main city of Pontic-Caspian steppe nomads.
Finally, acces to Pacific (specifically, Okhotsk) sea. When company of cossack explorers, after years of exploration of Siberian taiga by rivers, suddenly reached not-yet-named-so Okhotsk sea in 1639, they must have been got really suprised. By 1650 Okhotsk ostrog was established, that in XVIIIth century grew into a small, but very important, port town, main Pacific port Russia had until mid XIXth century. Beside Okhotsk, in mid XVIIIth century Petropavlovsk ostrog was build in Kamchatka, that later grew to main Russian port on Pacific ocean (Vladivostok is on the sea of Japan). Moreover, in XVII century cossack explores tried to establish Russian control over Amur river, but were defeated by Qing forces and Russian expansion here was stopped by treaty of Nerchinsk of 1689, until Russia gained lands north of Amur in 1858 and coast of sea of Japan in 1860 by thretening intervening into the second Opium war against Qing. So, player can also try to actually establish control over Amur in XVIIth century, and found Nikolaevsk-na-Amure in its mouth way earlier than it was in reality.
Securing all that, especially continuous territory to Okhotsk sea, would be quite challenging by 1720, but still possible with the UP I suggested. Alternatively, this date might be changed to 1820, by that time all of these sea accesses were firmly secured, but such late date makes pursuing the goal both less interesting both gameplay-wise and historically.
To secure continuos connection with Okhotsk, Russia should found dozen of cities, most of them were founded in late XVI-XVIIth centuries and many grew to be major cities today. That include most of, from west to east: Tyumen/Tobolsk, Obdorsk, Surgut, Narym, Mangazeya, Turukhansk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk, Ilimsk/Bratsk, Irkutsk, Kirensk, Vitim/Lensk/Olëkminsk, Yakutsk >>> Okhotsk. Along with these cities, east of Baikal and south of Stanovoy mountain range Verkhneudinsk (Ulan-Ude), Chita, Nerchinsk (only Chita or Nerchinsk are likely to be found ingame) and Albazin were founded. Later, in southern Siberia on border with Kazakh steppe also were founded major cities of Omsk and, very later Novonikolaevsk->Novosibrsk. In territories along the Amur river and coast in XIXth century were founded Blagoveshchensk, Khabarovsk, Nikolaevsk-na-Amure and Vladivostok. That is, this is near full list of important cities that can/should be founded in Asian part of Russia, and current map already sets places for almost all of them.
For the second part of the goal, all sea port cities should be connected to the capital by railroads. Historically, Pacific port city for that was Vladivostok.

2. Gendarme of Europe: make sure that all European civilizations are Christian monarchies and that there are no non-European civilizations cities in Europe in 1850.
This goal represents gradual rise of Russian Empire in XVIIIth-early XIXth centuries to position of hegemonic European power it gained after Napoleon wars, as leading conservative (along with Austria and Prussia, as three leaders of the Holy Alliance) military and political power. Phrase "gendarme of Europe" was famously applied to Nicholas I and Russian Empire during his reign (regarding policy actually started by Alexander I, so his leaderhead kinda fits well here), with both usual negative and more positive connotations represented by this historical goal.
This hegemony can be compared to influence that United States had (and has) globally after WWII ("global policeman"), in the sense of accepted leading dominant power that interferes in regional politics to prevent spread of revolutionary (communist) ideas and keep established order (in favour of established powers, including itself). In case of hegemonic Russian Empire of the period, these revolutionary ideas were secularism, liberalism and democracy. During this period, Russian Empire enjoyed a level of acceptance and prestige among conservatively-minded Europeans (who were in majority after "French revolutionary horrors" and Napoleonic wars, that were conflicts of unprecedented scale and destruction and in 1820-40s generally were regarded as result of abolishment of divine appointed French monarchy, and later rise of certain "megalomaniac Corsican usurper"). However, from 1840s this prestige (as liberal and progressive ideas again started to gain broad acceptance), influence and hegemony started to fade away, until "gendarme of Europe" was decisively defeated in the Crimean war in 1853-56, that openly showed problems and need for reform in Russia itself. Still, neither before nor after Russia hadn't held such accepted European hegemony (Soviet Union after WWII did held similar hegemony, but it lacked such prestige and general acceptance among other leading countries and their peoples). During this period, Russian Empire directly suppressed Polish uprising against union with Russia in 1830-31, and, most notably, suppressed Hungarian republican revolution in 1849 by helping Austrians, while indirectly it supported most of conservative and counterrevolutionary powers in Europe, especially by determining several European congresses.
Gameplaywise, this conservative hegemony is represented by need to ensure that in 1850 all European civilizations have Monarchy (or, if it represents European absolute monarchies, Despotism/Autocracy, but it should be noted, that it also represents revolutionary autocracies, most notably, Napoleonic France) as their government civic. That is, no European civ runs Democracy, Republic or other government civic. And that all have one of three Christianities (Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestantism) as their state religion, regardless of religion civic. That is, no European civ runs Secularism or other civic that removes state religion. Regarding other civics, there remains freedom for both European civs and Russia herself, as preserving monarchies and Christianity were key points, while economy and inner politics (unless they turn against religion and monarchy) were generally regarded as sovereign affairs (even constitutional monarchies of this period were notoriously conservative). So, if some European civ (talking to you, France) decides to switch to some newly researched Democracy, Russia player should pursue them to switch back to Monarchy. If needed, by use of force.
Personally, I'm not fond of this conservative hegemony, because Russia missed crucial time to reform in this period (in my opinion, this determines all Russian history, notoriously dark and brutal, thereafter, to this day. Though, ingame there will be enough room for reform while keeping Monarchy), as this leading conservative position after victory over Napoleon let Russian elites think that everything is fine and reforms are unneeded (and should be supressed), while Western European countries, even if conservatism became leading in this time, were already set up towards progressive path by enourmous changes revolutionary and Napoleonic France brought.

Second part has more positive side, kind of. While "gendarme of Europe" is not usually used as such (not sure, but Nicholas I could had used it as such, positively, only to get mocked by progressives), it also can mean guard, or protector, of Europe, not only from inner revolutions, but also from outer threats. As such, this part of the goal for most part represents Russian policies towards Ottoman Empire, trying to use protection of Ottoman Christian peoples as pretext for gradual demise of it as great power. This represents numerous Russian-Ottoman wars of XVIIIth-XIXth century, that led, alongside growing Russian territory, to autonomy and later independence of Moldavia&Wallachia (later unified to Rumania), Serbia, Bulgaria (outside of this goal timeline) and, most notoriously, independence of Greece (alongside support by Britain and France). Moreover, taking of Constantinople and securing direct access to Mediterranean through the Straits was ultimate goal of the policy towards Ottoman Empire since Catherine II. During Crimean war Russia was steadily approaching towards this goal by defeating Ottomans, until France and Britain intervened on side of Ottomans to prevent its total defeat and to not let Russia get the Straits (and to end its hegemonic status). Thus, the goal represents "ideal" Russian triumph of this policy towards Ottoman Empire.
Gameplaywise, this ensures wars with Ottoman civ (but also Moors keeping Cordoba ahistorically long or some non-European wanderunits capturing cities in Europe). Ottomans normally set firm control over Balkans and become a major military power, so this goal would be challenging and interesting. Moreover, in many games, both on the old map and the new, Ottomans tend to become particularly successful, expanding deeply into Central Europe. So, "clearing up" of overexpansive Ottomans is another element of this goal, with liberated cities being returned to Austria or even Poland. Also, Greece can be helped to be resurrected by liberating its cities.

3. From peasants to space: be first to complete First Satellite, Man in Space and International Space Station projects (or just any 3-4 space projects) and control 40 ICBMs and 30 satellites (open date or by/in 1990).
This goal is refreshed nukes&space goals from old RFC and DoC. This scientific (with hint of high-tech military) goal represents great progress and scientific contributions/gains (with space exploration and nuclear science usually seen as the most important) made by Russia and specifically Soviet Union in XXth century.
The name represents unprecedented social progress Russia had during Soviet period, with vast majority of Russian population being illiterate peasants (who not long ago were total serfs and still were used as enormous free unfree uneducated workforce by landlords and emerging capitalism) in early XXth century, who just in matter of decades of deliberate Soviet policies became literate workers, engineers and scientists (and, locally, artists, but, sadly, not statesmen), who turned agrarian peasant Russia into modern industrial nation with global leadership in science, that won hardest war in human history, reconstructed itself and went to explore cosmic space and atomic particles (before new generations forgot what country was before and started to see the social progress and welfare as granted, with party elites and many others deciding to become capitalists and new national(ist) leaders). The name is inspired by quote of ambigous authorship, that is commonly attributed to Churchill acknowledging progress during Stalin's rule: "he got a/the country with sokha (a primitive type of plough used by Russian peasants from middle ages all the way to XXth century, that became a symbol of Russian backwardness) and left it with nuclear bomb".
Gameplaywise, as Russia starts late (especially with 1472/1480 start date) its last goal should extent well into late XXth century. This goal, in contrast to previous conservative one, requires investing in scientific research and development, without specifically tying it with communist civics (Central Planning+Egalitarianism+Secularism) as it isn't really needed. Human player will be encouraged to switch to communist civics for bonuses, particularly science, they provide to ensure faster completion of the goal, as well as possible historical roleplaying. While computer player will switch to communist civics due to late Russia civ leader(s) (Stalin, who likes Central Planning, and, it would be nice to see, Lenin (there are two great LHs for him, and he was much more iconic and truly popular leader than Stalin), who should like Egalitarianism).

If a specifically communist goal is needed, I would make it separate, something like that:
Workers of the world, unite!: make sure that communist (Central Planning+Egalitarianism+Secularism) civs control 50-80% of global production, food and "commerce" yields, or are more advanced, or all top 5 civs are communist, by/in 1990 or open date.
1990, not 1970, should be final date for Soviet related goals, as this year, even though Perestroika reforms already started, is usually regarded as last year of Soviet Union and its social system before they got rapidly destroyed in 1991 onwards.
 
So, putting all together, Russia civilization info looks like this:

The Russians
Leaders
(current+[maybe] needed): Ivan III Vasilievich (not his terrible grandson!), (Alexis Mikhailovich), Peter I Alexeevich, Catherine II, Alexander I Pavlovich, (Alexander II Nikolaevich), (Vladimir Lenin), Joseph Stalin.
Starting year: 1472
(or 1480)
Unique units: Cossack (Pistoleer, +25% strength outside own territory, River Combat, ignores terrain movement cost), Strelets (Arquebusier, City Garrison I, +25 defence against cavalry), and maybe Red Army Infantry (Infantry, quarter less cost, +15% strength (attack+defence) and +15% defence inside own territory)
Unique building: Ostrog (Jail, -30% maintenance cost, +25% defence (ex. gunpowder units, no bombardment defence), +4 production in cities on tundra)
Unique power: The Power of Gathering the Lands: Acquiring new unclaimed land tiles costs half/quarter of its culture cost, cities can expand to fourth culture ring.
Historical Victory goals:
All roads lead to Third Rome: Control continuous territory between ports on Arctic, Baltic, Black, Caspian and Pacific seas by 1720 AD, and connect them all to your capital with railroads by 1920 AD.
Gendarme of Europe: Make sure all European civilizations are Christian monarchies and that there are no non-European civilizations cities in Europe in 1850 AD.
From peasants to space: Be first to complete First Satellite, Man in Space and International Space Station projects and control 40 ICBMs and 30 satellites
(by/in 1990 AD or open date).
 
Last edited:
Additional suggestion-notes for Eastern Europe & Russia.

There should be two more regions in Eastern Europe.
Generally, current Eastern European regions are identified well: Ruthenia covers mostly lands of Rus (and some other, that it really shouldn't cover), Pontic steppe covers vast Pontic-Caspian steppes of Southern Russia and Ukraine, European Arctic is basically what is traditionally called Pomorye in Russian and Baltics covers Baltic states. Considering that some places have more regions for better clarity (especially, United States and Canada), and because there are religion-spread and historical reasons, I suggest defining two more regions in Eastern Europe:

1. Divide Ruthenia region into Ruthenia (West Rus) and Great Rus(sia), with Ruthenia covering Belarus and northern-western half of Ukraine (lands that became part of Poland-Lithuania and for which name Ruthenia is usually used historiographically), while Great Rus(sia) covers what is Russian core area with some additional areas (basically all what is not intended for regions around). Besides obvious historical reasons, there's ingame religion-spread one: while both Ruthenia and Great Rus are core areas for Orthodoxy, they are different in regards to Judaism, which in one way or another should be encouraged to spread in Ruthenia (this region, along with Poland, hosted largest Jewish population for centuries), but not Great Rus (which historically hadn't had large Jewish population with Russian government deliberately setting restrictions for Jews to move here from lands to the west). Besides Judaism, there's also difference regarding other branches of Christianity: Ruthenia should be more open for Catholicism (as periphery) to represent both Uniate Greek Catholic Church(es) (basically, Orthodoxy recognising primacy of Pope) that was organised and supported during Poland-Lithuania era, along with sizable Catholic Polish minority, while Great Rus should be closed to Catholicism, but likely should have Protestantism as minority representing numerous Lutheran German (and other) communities that appeared (often encouraged by government) from XVIIth century and in XVIII-early XXth centuries were present in basically all major cities here (Ruthenia also can have Protestantism as minority). Regarding Islam in these regions… in both there were some Muslim Tatar minorities, but both in Central Russia and in Poland-Lithuania Muslims were either discouraged or prohibited setting communities and building mosques (with some notable, but very local exceptions), so I think Islam shouldn't be even a minority in these two regions.

2. Volga region (known in Russian as Povolzhye) out of eastern part of Pontic Steppe region (with its part east of Ural river being attached to Central Asian Steppe region), some tiles of current Ruthenia region, and possible some south-western tiles of Urals region. It should spread around middle and lower Volga river between Don and Sura rivers to west and Ural river to east, from Kazan to Astrakhan. This region should be main region of Islam in Eastern Europe, probably being historical region for it (while Pontic steppe may remain periphery), representing sizable Muslim Tatar, Bashkir and Kazakh populations and historical Turkic khanates that converted to Islam and dominated the region. Orthodoxy also should have this region as historical to represent its later Orthodox Russian colonisation and predominant religion. Other religions should not have any representation in this region, probably except Judaism for one notable historical empire where part of the elite converted to Judaism.
Spoiler Suggested regions of Ruthenia, Great Rus and Volga :

1734307957472.png


Another note is about civilization names.

Historiographic names should be avoided in favour of historical ones. Speaking concretically, name Ruthenia should be avoided as a name for the Rus civ, as Ruthenia strictly speaking refers primarily to lands of western Rus that became part of Poland-Lithuania in later centuries, in contrast to north-eastern Rus that became the core of Russia, all of that after intended timespan of ingame Rus civ, that historically represents both of these parts of the Rus. The civ's short name should be just Rus.
While using Ruthenia as the short name of the Rus civ should be avoided, using Ruthenian as adjective is acceptable, due to absence of universally accepted adjective. Traditionally, "Old, Ancient or Kievan Russian" were used, or even most neutral Old East Slavic (usually used for the language of Rus), but neither is satisfactory due to various reasons (using "Russian", among other problems, would simply create unwanted confusion). Some propose quite ugly looking "Rus'ian" or somewhat breaking English orthographic conventions "Rusian". Other acceptable adjective is noun-adjective Rus', that I personally prefer more.

(Below is somewhat off-topic and can be skipped, but If you are still confused why there's so much controversy over adjectives of East Slavs, this maybe will help)
Actually, there's a perfect adjective for Rus that I devised some years ago, and I'm still quite puzzled why it wasn't devised before me (or perhaps made public?) - "Russish". You might notice, that it is absolutely analogous to words already used in other Germanic languages: German and Dutch russisch and Scandinavian russisk. "Russish" transfers meaning of the adjective from Rus in its language: русьскъ, русьскыи (rusĭskŭ, rusĭskyj) and its modern Russian continuation русский (russkij "[ethnic Slavic] Russian", "of Rus", sometimes also encompassing other East Slavs (Ukrainians and Belarussians, that causes controversy due to this mixed meaning) in contrast to российский (rossijskij) "Russian, of Russia"), alongside Ukrainian continuation руський (rus'kyj "Ruthenian", "of Rus", also encompassing all East Slavs, including Russians, but usually contrasting between "Ruthenians and Muscovites"). "Russish" also, as you might notice in its Scandinavian analog "russisk" is also direct analog of Old East Slavic rusĭskŭ, making it ultimate translation of both the meaning and the word itself (Rus+isk=Rus+s+ish, double s is due to English orthographic norms). While ethnic Slavic Russians refer to themself as both russkij "Russish, of Rus" as well as national россиянин (rossianin "Russian, of Russia"), which is also used by and for non-Slavic Russians, Ukrainians (in both Ukrainian and Russian languages) call all Russians as росіянин (rosianyn, "Russian", "of Russia"), while reserving rus'kyj "Russish, of Rus" only to ancient Rus and/or its later western part (that is exonymically called Ruthenia), where Ukrainians and Belarussians originated. This contradiction between usage of these adjectives with mixed meaning in different language standards (along with political tensions and conflicts) is the source of current controversy over adjective for Rus, as "(Old/Kievan) Russian" can't be used as it was few decades ago, when, by living united in one country, both modern identities and historical adjectives of "Russian (Russish), Ruthenian, Ukrainian" weren't mutually exclusive in most contexts, as they are today. Even if adjective "Russish" for Rus came into use today, it still couldn't had solved this controversy, as long as both many Russians and Ukrainians, led by their nationalist-minded part of intellectuals, try to claim legacy of Rus for themself alone, and deny independent right to do so for other.

I, of course, do not suggest using adjective Russish, as it is basically was devised and is used by me privately. So, I think, either Ruthenian or noun-adjective Rus' can be used as the adjective for the civ (I somewhat would prefer the latter, but the first one is acceptable too).

Now, as Civ's short name and its two possible adjectives are detrmined, let's look at how full name should look.

"Kievan Rus" is purely historiographical term coined by Russian historians in XIXth century to refer to period in X-XIth centuries when principality of Kiev was the first leading polity that dominated all East Slavic lands, uniting them into Rus. Later this term was extended to mean that polity itself, but usually in the form of "Kievan state, empire or realm" alternatively called "Rurikid state etc.", still exluding Rus principalities into which this "Kievan state" evolved and desintegrated from mid XIth century. Finally, in XXth century term "Kievan Rus" was extended once again, now referring to whole pre-Mongol invasion period, both of leading Kievan polity of X-XIth centuries, and of principalities it desintegrated into. Alongside term "Kievan Rus" term "Old/Ancient Rus" (by "new" Rus modern East Slavs are meant) was and is widely used, specifically designating entire pre-Mongol invasion period and Rus as a country, not a state.
So, how did Rus people refer to the place they live in?
To understand this, there's a key difference that existed between a prince as a ruling authority with his personal armed companions (druzhina), who establishes (violently or by agreement) order, resolves disputes and, obviously, provides armed protection, and group of people over whom this prince exercises power, who in return pay him in various ways, usually by providing him with food and goods of land. At more general scale, there was difference between "principality" as a "state" set and ruled by a prince, and "land" as a "country" composed of many traditionally self-governing rural communities often centered around some urbanising ones. Thus, when referring to the "state", it should be called principality, either determined by princely seat, or by prince himself (often they combined rule over several seats). Initially, holding "dynastic" princedom in Kiev was considered as having highest position among other Rurikid princes, providing title of grand prince. Later such high position was taken over to Vladimir on Klyazma, in Suzdal land, and later also to other major regional centers. In parallel with naming by "state" there also was naming by "country", that was much more widely used (referring to principality usually meant government). For some country or region defined by something, word "land" was used. Most basic, and common, was using of "land" for a region composed of rural communities centered around some fortified town or city. As such lands provided self-reliant economic base, they usually were contagious with principalities that were established atop of them. As more and more of these economically self-reliant communities and lands grew, more and more Rurikids got their own principalities, first granted by grand prince of Kiev, dividing Rus among his sons, and later by their heirs, who established local dynasties and started to divide their principality-land among their own offspring. This state of affairs can be called early feudalism and led to more and more desintegration of Rus. Also, word "land" was used to designate countries with some unity of language, culture and ruling dynasty. For conglamerate of all these lands, communities and towns, ruled over by Rurikid principalities, term Rus' Land(s) or Land of Rus was used (compare Polska (ziemia) (Po(le)land), Deutshland, England etc). In this period, there was no single "state" principality that ruled over all of Rus Land, so this term was used as name for the whole country divided into principalities, usually emphasising desired unity instead of constant conflicts between them. Otherwise, during fragmentation period people usually used (as attested in sources) their regional lands ruled by local branch of Rurikids as main identifier: Novgorod Land, Suzdalian Land, Kievan Land (encopassing only the region around the city, ruled as Principality of Kiev, in contrast to earlier Grand Principality of Kiev, as its grand princes controlled many other regions-lands (by giving them to their sons to live and rule)), Volhynian Land, Galician Land, Chernigov Land, Smolensk Land, Polotsk Land etc etc. Real aspirations to unify all these lands appeared only later, by G.D. of Lithuania and G.P. of Muscovy. This is why title "of all Rus" and later "of all Russias" appeared, as claim to unify and rule all these regional lands.
As such, full name of Rus civ ingame should be either princely "state" Grand Principality of Kiev (or other city it has capital in), representing early dominance of Kiev (882-1054) and prestigious status of this seat later (1054-1157/69). Or, as name of the country it should be Rus' Land(s), that was the only unifying name for the whole of what Rus civ is supposed to represent, from beginning to later fragmentation period (1054-well until rise of Lithuania and Muscovy in XIV-XVth centuries). "Grand Principality of Kiev" probably should be tied to more "centralised" civics, like Monarchy or Elective, while "Rus' Land" should be used for "decentralised" civics (like current Citizenship suggests).
Finally, if Rus civ should shift to Novgorod, losing Kiev and other cities to south, the full name of the civ should be not anachronistic and bland "Novgorod republic", but Lord Novgorod the Great (unless its government civic is Monarchy, then it should be (Grand) Principality of Novgorod). That was "state" name that replaced princely names used in other parts of Rus, as Lord Novgorod the Great was used for the sovereign legal "person" "who" conducted relations and treaties with Rus princes and foreign monarchs, and with other cities. The "country" name for "Novgorod republic" was Novgorod(ian) Land(s). Singular land usually referred specifically to region of the city, while plural referred to it and all other regions (all the vast northern territories) controlled by Novgorod.
 
Last edited:
Working on Siberia…
What does this horse in the middle of nowhere even supposed to represent? Away from any city or cultivated land, where is nothing but taiga?
There's always been a horse in Siberia, it might even exist in base RFC. I couldn't tell you why it's there. Another mineral resource would make more sense to me if you wanted more production up there.
 
I always assumed it represents the Yakutian horse. Is it needed? No, but it isn't harmful either.
 
I always assumed it represents the Yakutian horse. Is it needed? No, but it isn't harmful either.
Well, both on old map and the new, it is very far too west from Yakutia, where horses actually can be placed, to represent their famous traditional hardy breed.
Where they are currently is the most unpopulated region of Russia (not counting more extreme tundra), in the middle between more settled areas of Siberia.
 
Yeah, new land plot with a food resource should make settling Plymouth (or even Bristol, though it's close to London) viable.
Coal in Ireland was present beforehand. I noticed it is quite common for Civ maps to place coal in Ireland for some more production. Maybe there's another important mining industry in Ireland?

Not really in terms civ, Ireland has always been resource poor. The only mining significant on a worldwide scale is zinc afaik. Coal deposits have always been tiny, less than 1% of UK I would guess although numbers are hard to find, and coal has been imported for at least 2 centuries.

Copper might make the most sense, it was significant historically and some of the oldest mines in Northwest Europe are found there
 
Not really in terms civ, Ireland has always been resource poor. The only mining significant on a worldwide scale is zinc afaik. Coal deposits have always been tiny, less than 1% of UK I would guess although numbers are hard to find, and coal has been imported for at least 2 centuries.

Copper might make the most sense, it was significant historically and some of the oldest mines in Northwest Europe are found there
Ayyyyyyy what about the Peat ya bollox!
 
Ayyyyyyy what about the Peat ya bollox!
As someone who had to harvest it in my youth I'd rather not be reminded of it while playing civ :lol:

I vaguely recall from history class that they tried to replace coal with turf to power the old steam trains during WW2 but it turned the journey from hours to days it was so inefficient
 
Back
Top Bottom