Russia is the funnest to play

[civluvr100]

I love to play Russia the area is full of resources, you can build many units because of it. And you can build a large empire. but i noticed that even though the middle ages was over I still used Vassalage and Serfdom and had no stability penalty for it, Russia was still stable. Second, would be The Ottomans, and then the English. Anyone else like to play the Russians.

 

[evran]

I like the turks. But I like japan, and germany

 

[Aprisis]

I'm not fond of a big landmass empire, that's why I seldom play as Russians or Mongols or Americans, my favourite is the Greeks.

 

[ninerzfan_22]

I like to play as some tiny European nation like the Dutch or Portuguese, and then move my capital to South America, India, or somewhere else.

Germany is really fun too, and I think that the Khmer are awesome. There are plenty of good city spots near them, and the UHV is really fun.

 

[Deego3]

I like playing as Rome, building up the empire and spending the rest of the game geting it back

 

[ThurinEthir]

Rome is pretty fun...As long as you have the Great Wall, you can easily survive until the rise of Europe, then as Deego said, you can try reconquering your territories.
Persia, Arabia and Mongolia are good too for creating big empires, and with quick UUs.

 

[musicfreak]

It's fun to dominate the world with Arabian or Mongolia (or Persia to a lesser extent), though eventually you have to watch stability destroy the empire you built up (if you play long enough).

And speaking of stability, it's actually kind of fun to try to take your empire back after it collapses due to civil war.

 

[blizzrd]

It's fun to dominate the world with Arabian or Mongolia (or Persia to a lesser extent), though eventually you have to watch stability destroy the empire you built up (if you play long enough).

(My emphasis on the have)

Have you read the conquest thread musicfreak? Stability doesn't have to destroy large empires, although it is certainly a difficult task to keep everything together.

And speaking of stability, it's actually kind of fun to try to take your empire back after it collapses due to civil war.

IMO, it is much more fun to conquer the whole world though and defy Rhye's stability system.

 

[musicfreak]

Have you read the conquest thread musicfreak? Stability doesn't have to destroy large empires, although it is certainly a difficult task to keep everything together.

Well no I didn't mean it literally. I've won a couple crazy domination victories and stayed alive (though I've never gone for conquest). I'm just saying that it's incredibly hard to maintain those empires without losing your cities to stability.

IMO, it is much more fun to conquer the whole world though and defy Rhye's stability system.

True, but sometimes winning gets boring.

 

[OldGuard]

There is this strange bug I encounter whenever I play as the Russians. Playing as a Kiev-based Russian empire, all of my cities seem to ignore the fact that I have two iron sources. What I mean is that whenever the iron within Kiev's big fat cross get pillaged/destroyed by the inevitable German attack, all of my cities are subsequently unable to build any units that require iron despite the fact that I have another unpillaged iron source within Saratov's cross (Saratov is the city one tile to the northeast of the iron, which itself is two tiles to the southeast of Moscow). Despite this odd iron bug, I still like to play as the Russians only to recreate the USSR at its height The Reds are coming!

 

[coko]

I rather like building huge armies and just razing half the map in a mad conquest across from China, so much fun!

 

[musicfreak]

There is this strange bug I encounter whenever I play as the Russians. Playing as a Kiev-based Russian empire, all of my cities seem to ignore the fact that I have two iron sources. What I mean is that whenever the iron within Kiev's big fat cross get pillaged/destroyed by the inevitable German attack, all of my cities are subsequently unable to build any units that require iron despite the fact that I have another unpillaged iron source within Saratov's cross (Saratov is the city one tile to the northeast of the iron, which itself is two tiles to the southeast of Moscow). Despite this odd iron bug, I still like to play as the Russians only to recreate the USSR at its height The Reds are coming!

Is the iron connected to the city?

 

[Virdrago]

despite the fact that I have another unpillaged iron source within Saratov's cross

I'd say probably.

 

[blizzrd]

There is this strange bug I encounter whenever I play as the Russians. Playing as a Kiev-based Russian empire, all of my cities seem to ignore the fact that I have two iron sources. What I mean is that whenever the iron within Kiev's big fat cross get pillaged/destroyed by the inevitable German attack, all of my cities are subsequently unable to build any units that require iron despite the fact that I have another unpillaged iron source within Saratov's cross (Saratov is the city one tile to the northeast of the iron, which itself is two tiles to the southeast of Moscow). Despite this odd iron bug, I still like to play as the Russians only to recreate the USSR at its height The Reds are coming!

It would be helpful if you could post a save with the problem situation.

 

[Dave_Oz]

even though the middle ages was over I still used Vassalage and Serfdom and had no stability penalty for it, Russia was still stable.

Well from what i know of Russian history, its social systems were very backwards and serfdom was still around way longer then the rest of Europe, and it didn't have any major problems with that until the turn of the 20th century.

 

[blizzrd]

Well from what i know of Russian history, its social systems were very backwards and serfdom was still around way longer then the rest of Europe, and it didn't have any major problems with that until the turn of the 20th century.

An interesting point of view you have. I would contend though that Russia's backwardness had something to do with both the 1904/5 uprsisings and the 1917 revolution. I would also call these "major problems". Just my 2 cents.

 

[War Bear]

An interesting point of view you have. I would contend though that Russia's backwardness had something to do with both the 1904/5 uprsisings and the 1917 revolution. I would also call these "major problems". Just my 2 cents.

Wasn't Russia was considered backwards partially due to Nicholas I's conservatism? I'm not very familiar with that time period in Russian history, so if somebody does know better, please feel free to correct me.

Anyway, Russia is fun to play as. It always brings joy to my heart as one of my neighbors inevitably declares war on me, and if they actually send anything, by the time they arrive at one of my cities, they are at about half health.

 

[belamoor]

Wasn't Russia was considered backwards partially due to Nicholas I's conservatism? I'm not very familiar with that time period in Russian history, so if somebody does know better, please feel free to correct me.

I'm not that good at it but perheps i can clear some points since i had one course of russian history . I's say that russians backwardness started from year 1240 with a mongol occupation (Mongolo-tatarian igo). Half of population killed (!), most of the major cities destroied and town culture razed (information taken from russian wiki). Basicly mongols came and said *Surrender or be killed* and so they did, most of the major cities traded freedom for death, literaly. There is a town in russia called by mongols *Evil town* because they couldn't take it for so long, they had to kill everyone of tham. The occupation ended in 1480 which is 240 years of mongols taxes and policy. Interesting thing to tell it that the last liberation battle called *Staying on river Ugre* wasn't battle at all, russian waited for mongols to attack and they (mongl.) decided it doesn't worth it.
About year 1917 (communist came to power yay) revolution and Nicholas I. They were many reasons social problems and action which led to revolution but yea Nocholas I played some role. In 1825 (day of hes coronation) there was a decembrist's revolt. 3020 armed men (2 regiments) standing before hes palace. And that's it ... they were just standing there. Actually they planed to shtorm the palace and prevent the coronation in order to force monarch estabilish constitution, freedom of speech and blah blah (they didn't actually wanted to change regime) but leaders of revolt didn't came and nobody knew what to do, they just stood and yelled *We want constitution*. So Nicholas ordered to shoot down decemebrists. 1271 dead and becides people, it was faith in tsar that was shot down.
Btw. First message on forums I <3 RFC. yay.

 

[Rod]

Well this is a pretty simplistic view on Russian history, but typical for the current teachings in Russia.

Russian teachers like to explain all lets say unfortunate events in Russian history with either the Tartar/Mongol Occupation, the Polish Occupation or the Jewish/German ownership of most Industry in the 19th century (who were the founders anyway, but who cares).

The fact is that Germany had undergone a bloody civil war in the 17th century (1618 - 1648) and was recovering from this blow into becoming the industrial powerhouse of the earliest 20th century. The fact is that Netherland was occupied by Spain until the 17th century as well and turned into a Trading Empire. The fact is that Japan was in deep Medieval Age still in the 19th century and became a High Tech Nation in less than hundreds years.

So, sorry, but Mongol rule from 550 years back doesnt qualify as an excuse anymore,

So, sorry, but Russia's backwardness was never caused by outside powers, but by inside powers ...

Russian leaders were simply overstretching the empire and were using to many resources to maintain vast areas of inhospitable lands. Naturally the Tzar never sent direct money to Jakutz, Samarkant, Baku or Kazan (as examples for the diversity of Russian occupied territory) but of course he had to send troops , he had to maintain roads, he was engaging the land in countless small wars with Tribal peoples who were somewhat desperate to fight for rocky, icy, desert wastelands. So in the same time when the European powers invested huge sums into universities, banks and railroads Russia was investing huge sums to quell rebellions in Kavkas, Krim and the regions ... any more questions ??

 

[belamoor]

Good post, i guess you are right from global view. If to take the blame of any backwardness on ability of goverment/people to overcome crysises and problems not on the problems thamselfs.
So in the same time when the European powers invested huge sums into universities, banks and railroads Russia was investing huge sums to quell rebellions in Kavkas, Krim and the regions ... any more questions ??
Anyway i wasn't saying russia backwardness was because of invasion but that it started from it.