Russia and Rus civilizations thread: suggestions and discussion.

[AOS9001]

Connect 8 ports to Moscow?

A number of ports on the Baltic, Arctic, Black, Caspian, and Pacific coasts by X date (1770?) would be a good thematic goal, representing the policies of expansion of Ivan IV, Peter, and Catherine...

 

[Temujin8k]

A number of ports on the Baltic, Arctic, Black, Caspian, and Pacific coasts by X date (1770?) would be a good thematic goal, representing the policies of expansion of Ivan IV, Peter, and Catherine...

Listing the historical ports: Petersburg, Riga, Astrakhan, Sevastopol, Azov, Arkhangelsk, Okhotsk, Obdorsk? I could also see Kem, actually.

 

[Dracosolon]

"Control a port on the Sea of Japan and six other bodies of water by 1700 AD and connect all of them to your capital by railroad by 1920 AD", if you wanted to make the second UHV more difficult.

I also think the communist goal should require vassals instead of friendly relations. As it is, the Russian UHV is very peaceful outside of the early phase, and its military history isn't really reflected (especially its primary involvement in WW2, which would be thematically relevant to a soviet goal). Another aspect that could be a cool alternative to the current goal's elements would be "complete four projects first", representing the space race and the rush toward nuclear weapons.

 

[Nikas Kunitz]

I'm really happy to see more and more people supporting ideas I formulated and presented almost a year ago. I think the way I formulated the UHV goals is the most optimal (not denying creativity of others, though):
All roads lead to Third Rome: Control continuous territory between port cities 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.

Of these goals, "Gendarme of Europe" is the one most open to be changed to something else, as the other two are just improved UHV goals that Russia has both in RFC and DoC.

 

[Nikas Kunitz]

Hello everyone, I’m a new member of the forum, but an old fan of RFCDoC. I’ve been following the forum for a long time and finally decided to join — I hope you won’t judge me for that.
I wanted to ask the esteemed community, and especially @Nikas Kunitz, what you think about adding the Tatar, Novgorod, and Lithuanian civilizations to the game. As we know, Tatar states such as Crimea and Kazan played an important role in the historical development of Eastern Europe — perhaps in the form of the so-called Golden Horde, which could later transform into one of the aforementioned civilizations.
On one hand, adding such civilizations would make the game more historically accurate, but on the other hand, it would probably make playing as Russia and Poland even more challenging — which, in my humble opinion, is already quite difficult.
I’d also like to ask whether there are any plans to add the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Novgorod. As we know, the rise of Moscow took place amid a competitive struggle — a triangle of Novgorod, Lithuania, and the Horde. I’ve come across a concept of Lithuania in the RFC DoC Reborn mod by 1SDANi (small map), and also Lithuania (along with Novgorod and Crimea) in RFCE++. In the Aeons and Chross Overhaul projects, however, such civilizations are absent.
At the same time, I understand that developing and integrating all of these civilizations would be quite challenging, even for the large map (for which I’d like to express my great gratitude to everyone involved). I suppose I’m not the only one among the esteemed members of the community who has thought about such innovations.
What does the community think about this idea? Unfortunately, I haven’t yet learned modding — otherwise, I would have already presented my own project.

Yeah, in my suggestion thread I noted that having a "Steppe" civ , starting as Khazars, and continuing as Kipchaks-Cumans, Golden Horde (how (vassal?) it should relate to Mongolia is in question, but Golden Horde, or Ulus Jochi, was largely considered as, and was, Kipchak country during its existence), Tatar Khanates of Crimea, Kazan and Astrakhan, maybe also later as Nogai, is essential for representing history of Eastern Europe, to counter Rus' and especially Russian expansion to Pontic-Caspian-Kazakh steppe. I think this civ would be good as an optional civ, that may usually appear if the player plays Rus, Russia or other neighbouring civs. Considering that it represent various Turkic nomadic peoples in this vast region, choosing a single name for this civ is not easy, but I think Tartary could be the most optimal one, as it was the main ethno-geographic name for the region before it was incorporated into Russia. Initially it would have ingame name Khazaria, and later Cumania, of course.

Meanwhile, I think Poland is important enough as the main country in East Central Europe between Germany and Russia to be made spawn always, regardless what civ the player plays.
Other than Poland, I think having Lithuania, Hungary and probably even Bulgaria is more than enough to represent Eastern European history, as I wrote a bit about them in my suggestions thread. However, all of them (except Lithuania, to a degree) would be one-city-core civs with only 2-3 more historical cities to expand to. They all are crucial for Medieval history, but their importance, or even very existence, diminished after the Middle Ages. As such, they probably should be very optional at best, spawning only if the player chooses to play relevant civ in the region.
Concerning Lithuania, I have another issue. In test runs of my modified version of RFCDoC, Poland usually manages to expand forming the Commonwealth: founding Wilno and/or Riga, and capturing some or all of south-western part of Rus after it collapses around 1250, usual cities being Lutsk, Minsk and Kiev, all before Russia spawns in 1472. With separate Lithuania civ, such expansion for Poland will be much harder, resulting in two weaker civs of around 3-4 cities instead of one proper civ of 6+ cities.
I don't think that we need separate Novgorod civ. It should be represented by the Rus civ (both as part of it, and also as independent republic if Rus loses Kiev and gets its capital moved to Novgorod), or maybe not represented at all, just having indep Novgorod is fine. To be honest, separate Novgorod civ reminds me of the meme about separate Venice civ.
As such, I think just having Poland spawn always, and Russia spawning in 1472 (as I did in my modded version), is mostly sufficient for properly representing Eastern European history.

Below are screenshots from test autoplay I just started when writing this post, showing Poland around 1300 (notable is that Rus hadn't founded a Volhynian city like Lutsk as it does in most test runs, so Poland founded Lvov Lwów itself), after Rus collapsed, and in 1400, illustrating its eastern expansion before spawn of Russia in 1472. Also, classic RFC problem of civs capturing unhistorical cities is illustrated by France capturing Novgorod and Smolensk, but both cities will flip to Russia on its spawn.
[For some reason, the images are not loaded, I will try to attach them later]

 

[banzay13]

I see only one problem with Russia start at 1472 - you'll get wastelands, and it will be hard to get your economy online

 

[Nikas Kunitz]

I see only one problem with Russia start at 1472 - you'll get wastelands, and it will be hard to get your economy online

As it was discussed briefly above, Rus will (and usually does in my test version) develop Russia core area atleast somewhat, at least the resources have improvements with some roads, with couple of cottages as well.

 

[Nikas Kunitz]

I've noticed a serious error in resource allocation in Russia, which has a significant impact on how Russia plays:

1) Kursk Oblast has been home to iron since the beginning of the game, but the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly was discovered only in the 18th century, and iron mining only began in the 20th century.

2) European Russia has only three horse resources: near Bashkiria, near the Volga region, and in southern Ukraine. Historically, Russia only gained control of these regions in the second half of the 16th century (and southern Ukraine only in the 18th century!). Because of this, the important process of orientalization of the Russian army in Russian history begins later than the 15th century. This forces Russia to either capture Kazan too early to obtain knights to fight the Tatars, or suffer constant attacks from the steppe without a coherent countermeasure.

I would keep the iron near Kursk (but I'm actually not sure where exactly it is in existing map, if I changed it in my improved map or not). In my opinion, it represents not just the magnetic anomaly, but also centuries long weapon making industry in Tula and generally stresses importance of southern Central Russia. Beside, making it appear only in XIX century would make it somewhat pointless gameplay-wise.
Yeah, there should be a horse source in Central Russia. I put it near Ryazan and Murom, to represent centuries long horse breeding tradition and industry of Kasimov Tatars, who were major supplier of horses for the army, and horse breeding was well developed in Ryazan governorate in general. And horses just fit the place, unlike that horse in the middle of Siberia.

 

[TsimTsigal]

Yeah, in my suggestion thread I noted that having a "Steppe" civ , starting as Khazars

Khazars already exist in quite a few modmodmods. While fun is definitely subjective, they are simply not interesting to play due to poor territories, constant barbarian harrasing and short timespan; there is not much they can achieve in such circumstances. It's tempting to take "the more the better" stance towards civs, but current system allows only for about three dozens of them, and even if it wasn't an issue, the more isn't, in fact, always the better. It can lead to bloating. Everything in a mod/game should serve a clear(ish) purpose and add more to the experience that it takes away.

Meanwhile, I think Poland is important enough as the main country in East Central Europe between Germany and Russia to be made spawn always, regardless what civ the player plays.
Other than Poland, I think having Lithuania, Hungary and probably even Bulgaria is more than enough to represent Eastern European history, as I wrote a bit about them in my suggestions thread. However, all of them (except Lithuania, to a degree) would be one-city-core civs with only 2-3 more historical cities to expand to.

Will these civs be fun to play as (especially given they all are minuature civs in the same region)? Will these civs be fun to play against? And let's not even bring up the fact that RFC (and civ) always suffered from being a bit too Eurocentric (1.18 was a massive step in the right direction, don't forget we got 33% more Native American civs, 66% more non-Mediterranean African civs and 100% more South-Asian civs with the update!).

While adding more immersion and historical accuracy is always good, let us remember it's a mod about entire human civilization, not just Eastern Europe. Honestly there are regions that need more content much more desperately than Eastern Europe, especially Africa.

 

[AOS9001]

I think, with effort, a Khazars->Cumans->Golden Horde->Crimean/Astrakhan/Kazan Khanate civ could be made to work.

(But yeah, I'd rather see 1.19 focus on African civs, north and south of the Sahara)

 

[Nikas Kunitz]

Khazars already exist in quite a few modmodmods. While fun is definitely subjective, they are simply not interesting to play due to poor territories, constant barbarian harrasing and short timespan; there is not much they can achieve in such circumstances. It's tempting to take "the more the better" stance towards civs, but current system allows only for about three dozens of them, and even if it wasn't an issue, the more isn't, in fact, always the better. It can lead to bloating. Everything in a mod/game should serve a clear(ish) purpose and add more to the experience that it takes away.


Will these civs be fun to play as (especially given they all are minuature civs in the same region)? Will these civs be fun to play against? And let's not even bring up the fact that RFC (and civ) always suffered from being a bit too Eurocentric (1.18 was a massive step in the right direction, don't forget we got 33% more Native American civs, 66% more non-Mediterranean African civs and 100% more South-Asian civs with the update!).

While adding more immersion and historical accuracy is always good, let us remember it's a mod about entire human civilization, not just Eastern Europe. Honestly there are regions that need more content much more desperately than Eastern Europe, especially Africa.

I completely agree that having too much civs is not good. This is why I noted that all these civs should be optional at best, appearing only if the player plays some relevant civ. I also hinted that making Poland always spawn, and generally improving existing civs, particularly Russia (the reason I started this subthread in the first place), is sufficient for properly representing Eastern European history, and my contemplation about Lithuania potentially hindering both itself and Poland, as well Hungary and Bulgaria being one-city-core civs with limited room to expand are all valid criticism that I already stated. In any case, I think most DoC players would enjoy atleast an option to play these miniature civs (particularly Hungary), even if they will not appear at all on their own, controlled by computer.
Khazar-Cuman-Tatar civ might be more important as optional civ, specifically to counterbalance Rus and Russia, representing separate center of power that existed in Eastern Europe for centuries. If this civ was not fun to play, likely it wasn't implemented properly.

I really don't like when questions of eurocentrism and diversity are combined with percent quotas.
Personally, I would like to see many African civs, like both Hausa and Yoruba in Nigeria, Ashanti, Kanem-Bornu, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Somali and Madagascar. The things is that they all have similar problems as the Eastern European civs I mentioned: they all historically would be miniature 1-city civs with dubious gameplay options considering Civ and RFC mechanics and not enough space even on the new bigger map.
I also personally don't like many extra civs I see in DoC mods, like dividing China into two civs, or having separate Macedonia, Parthia and Bactria civs. But I think additional Deccan civ would be good in India, along with Manchu civ in East Asia.
This is not about "the more the better" or Eastern Europe in particular, but about representing what was more and less important for world history, as RFCDoC is bound by historicity, unlike original open sandbox Civ gameplay. With the new map and addition of many civs that I long wanted to see in the mod, the question shifted from adding new civs to properly implementing existing ones, and Russia in my opinion is the most ahistorical civ in the mod at the moment, considering its size and importance.

 

[vovadk]

I would keep the iron near Kursk (but I'm actually not sure where exactly it is in existing map, if I changed it in my improved map or not). In my opinion, it represents not just the magnetic anomaly, but also centuries long weapon making industry in Tula and generally stresses importance of southern Central Russia. Beside, making it appear only in XIX century would make it somewhat pointless gameplay-wise.
Yeah, there should be a horse source in Central Russia. I put it near Ryazan and Murom, to represent centuries long horse breeding tradition and industry of Kasimov Tatars, who were major supplier of horses for the army, and horse breeding was well developed in Ryazan governorate in general. And horses just fit the place, unlike that horse in the middle of Siberia.

Let me clarify about iron: before Russia's conquest of the Urals (and I'm not just talking about conquering them, but also about establishing production there), Russia suffered a serious iron shortage. This shortage was partly one of the reasons for the seizure of the Urals. Copper would have been more suitable for the Tula military industry. However, given the availability of horses, adding a resource symbolizing the Tula military industry would have been pointless, as Moscow already possessed a strong military potential thanks to the hills to the west.

Important! If Russia had emerged in 1480, the presence of copper/iron would have been justified, as Poland would have already captured Kyiv and Minsk, playing the same role as Lithuania. Moreover, in this case, the presence of horses would have compensated for the presence of a strong Poland in the west and the late start. I've seen complaints that Russia is already too strong, but this is mainly due to the absence of Lithuania. Russia's arrival in 1260 with an army capable of capturing Rus' cities (had it not already fallen) allowed for the rapid capture of Minsk and Kyiv, which is what made Russia so powerful.

Furthermore, in this case, it would be a good idea to increase the frequency of Mongol units appearing when attacking Rus', as the Rus' AI is usually easy prey for the Russian player, and the Mongols are unhistorically passive in Eastern Europe due to the "Rise of Russia" modifier, which prevents them from declaring war. In five games, the Mongols have only caused serious problems once; in the rest, they simply played the role of useful idiots, exterminating barbarians in the steppe.

 

[Nikas Kunitz]

Let me clarify about iron: before Russia's conquest of the Urals (and I'm not just talking about conquering them, but also about establishing production there), Russia suffered a serious iron shortage. This shortage was partly one of the reasons for the seizure of the Urals. Copper would have been more suitable for the Tula military industry. However, given the availability of horses, adding a resource symbolizing the Tula military industry would have been pointless, as Moscow already possessed a strong military potential thanks to the hills to the west.

Important! If Russia had emerged in 1480, the presence of copper/iron would have been justified, as Poland would have already captured Kyiv and Minsk, playing the same role as Lithuania. Moreover, in this case, the presence of horses would have compensated for the presence of a strong Poland in the west and the late start. I've seen complaints that Russia is already too strong, but this is mainly due to the absence of Lithuania. Russia's arrival in 1260 with an army capable of capturing Rus' cities (had it not already fallen) allowed for the rapid capture of Minsk and Kyiv, which is what made Russia so powerful.

Furthermore, in this case, it would be a good idea to increase the frequency of Mongol units appearing when attacking Rus', as the Rus' AI is usually easy prey for the Russian player, and the Mongols are unhistorically passive in Eastern Europe due to the "Rise of Russia" modifier, which prevents them from declaring war. In five games, the Mongols have only caused serious problems once; in the rest, they simply played the role of useful idiots, exterminating barbarians in the steppe.

Check the maps in my suggestions thread to see how optimal resource placement looks in my opinion.
Central European Russia never really suffered iron shortage. In pre-industrial times, there was good supply of iron from traditional sources like bog iron, that certainly was not suited for industrial era metallurgy, but major iron deposits were discovered shortly after. I think the only period of any such iron shortage in Central Russia was during shift to industrial metallurgy in XVIII-XIX centuries, when traditional iron sources for smithing became irrelevant (but still they supplied local needs) and major iron ore deposits weren't yet discovered. I just think for gameplay and simplicity sake we should place iron resource in such locations to represent both pre-industrial smithing centers, and industrial iron ore deposits. That includes not only iron is southern Central Russia, placed between Kursk, Tula and Lipetsk (all three have some modern and historical connection to iron working industry); but also iron on lower Dnieper, representing modern Krivoy Rog deposits, but also supplying iron for Kiev that was significant smithing center in Middle Ages; and iron in swampy area in north-western Central Russia, representing major historical smithing center of Ustyuzhna (that was even called Zheleznopolnaya - "iron-field") and modern steelworks in Cherepovets, gameplay wise, it provides iron for otherwise not very productive Novgorod. Of course, there also should be iron deposits in southern Urals, representing industrial foundries from XVIII century to this day.

Russia historically suffered shortage of copper actually, that made some problems with cannon-casting in XVI-XVII centuries (we relied on Swedish copper ore imports) and placing copper near Tula is very unrealistic, as Eastern European plain lacks any significant copper deposits (one of the reasons why it was such a backwater in ancient times). Shortage of copper was solved only in XVIII century, exactly thanks to foundries in Ural. So closest copper deposits should be located in Ural mountains.

Judging from my test runs, 1472 Russia starting solves a lot of historical problems. By that time Rus collapses, and Poland usually captures half of Rus cities, providing solid western barrier for upstart Russia.