Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

  1. #1
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Messing around a bit with Russia and was thinking about how to approach a short campaign with a dose of historical perspective. The Kievian Rus historically stayed out the way of the Novgoradian Rus. Stainless Steel does this quite well with the actual factions. But this is a plain ordinary Russian short campaign. I was thinking of still not heading towards Kiev and being a bit more Baltic oriented. Just to be differant and mix up my habits since I had a habit of heading towards the Black Sea and restricting the Hungarians until they were so frustrated to either attack the Russians or somebody else. It did not matter at that point though. The Hungarians would become a page out of history.
     
    Now I know all some lower settings, the computer is a bit too passive and that Mikhail and a kazaks regiment can speed towards Thorn and grab it before Poland. It takes 5 turns, by the way. Strikes me as a bit cheesy though and if it is not successful, what then?
     
    Now my habits still are to not blitz out the opposition. So blitzing out Poland is also not on my agenda though I have done so previously. Not much of a game then. Just turtle and become unstopable.
     
    Obviously that leaves something with Stettin and or Stockholm along with Helsinki as one option (let's call this the Scandinaian option) and the other would be heading to the eastern edge of the map (kinda would be a Kiev option though)
     
    So how to approach this is the question. Has any member done this? If so, how did you like the campaign?
     
    Keep in mind the goals of the campaign are only 15 settlements and knocking out Hungary and Poland. To keep this more interesting I am going to have the game settiing on very had for both options. I usuallly set them on hard.

    So any thoughts?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Have you managed to reach Thorn before the Poles do? If I remember correctly, they tend to go for it rather early. Honestly, you have plenty of rebel settlements to go with.
    Take Moscow first, then Helsinki and covert it to town. Riga then Smolensk or Vilnius and you can convert one to town as well. Then Kiev. You want to be there before the Hungarians. On VH, they generally get beaten back because the Kiev rebel garrison is strong. Then Sarkel.

    The early game is easy as that, not sure why you want to force the way to Thorn. You might have issues defending it, while your goal should be to get the richest cities first and those are Kiev and Moscow.

    I strongly advise against:
    -sitting around and building up; if you do it, after a while, your buildings will become too expensive for you to afford.
    -keeping Helsinki and Vilnius or Smolensk as castles; again your economy is bad, not early on, but in the midgame;

    Your richest cities are indeed Kiev and Novgorod. Moscow lacks the port but it's alright. The units are mostly good, but I haven't played in a decade, so I don't remember too much.

    Overall, the campaign is kinda boring. If Mongols don't spawn in Sarkel, you might never face them, meaning you can steamroll Europe after you've done the above. If they do spawn in Sarkel, the steamrolling is delayed by 30-50 turns. It's one of the easiest factions due to lack of close threats and plenty of room to go. The units are strong all around, from the missile armed heavy infantry to the late musketeers. You have plenty of options for the deadly horse archers including the heavy Dvor.
    Maybe their heavy cavalry is lacking.
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; June 09, 2018 at 06:49 AM.

  3. #3
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Yes, of the Mongol entering. I did try a long campaign a few times and each time with the Russians the Mongols entered in the south and were not a problem until Russia dominated the Byzantine and Turk empires.

    That is why I was thinking of just a short campaign and not heading towards Kiev. At least not until the Polish steamroller was well established in Kiev. I hear the Polish town militia and low level castle recruits are fond of the peasant women in and around Kiev. Or maybe several years in the field makes any women attractive.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Not sure. You'll need Kiev regardless if you have to eliminate Hungary, and it's better to have that area with developed roads than none. You can delay it and focus on eliminating Poland first, but in my experience they are never much of a threat. Polish Nobles are annoying to face for a Western faction, not for an Eastern one.

  5. #5
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    In the past I would usually take out Hungary after Kiev. I would then usually destroy the Byzantines while making the Black Sea a Russian lake. Kiev needs local trade in the beginning until late game actually by my experience. For me, it creates great trade income with only Russian trade. Problem has been each time on even a long campaign, the campaign is just about over when the Mongols arrive and half the time more to the south. The only challenge is to fight thru the Mongols to take the final city -- Jerusalem. Why that is a victory condition for the Russians, I do not know though.

    The Polish are really more dangerous with the mounted crossbows than the more expensive mounted spear throwers. At least that is my experience when playing Poland. As a computer opponent, Poland is simply a spawn of trash if it is allowed to take Kiev and continue to move even further to the east. Or at least that is what I assume. That is why I want to try a game as Russia and let the Polish spawn to the east. It might be fun or it might to see what happens.

    I do agree with your ideas though not this time for this short campaign!

  6. #6

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Lol alright. I'm too used to play long campaign, but Kiev indeed takes a bit of time to develop and it might not be needed for a short one.

  7. #7
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    I played a bit with the idea for about 10 turns and came to the point I describe below. Maybe it will progress into some form of an After Action Report or maybe in the form of a single post After Action Report. I do not know if there is potential here or not. This is still acting as the Novgorod Rus, so no attempt was made to head east towards Moscow -- thus respecting the Rus in Moscow and in Kiev:
     
    It is nearly at the beginning of a Russian Short Campaign set on hard for both campaign and battle difficulty settings-- turn 10 to be precise. The Grand Duke followed the Council of Nobles suggestion and took Smolensk in a quick seige with ladders and a ram. The castle was then sacked consistent with the modest dread reputation that the Grand Duke had earned. The Grand Duke's younger son, Vladimir, had been assigned a mission to take Helsinki, Riga, and then Stockholm. He was late to Stockholm which he saw aboard his fleet to be in Danish hands. Rather than start a war, he withdrew back towards Thorn as you can see in the picture.


     



    At the same time that Vladimir was busy in the far north, the Grand Duke took his army out of Smolensk and headed towards the Lithuanian castle settlement at Vilnius. With a ploy that deceived the garrison captain, the Grand Duke besieged the castle town with only his body guard while the main army, now commanded by the Prince was moving into position on the southern side of the castle village. The Lithuanian cavalry bravely ran out to be followed by the entire garrison. The Grand Duke and his body guard then withdrew south while the Prince set up a four company town militia archer line covered by several infantry companies. The Lithuanians while pusuing their targeted prize of the Grnad Duke were cut to pieces by the archers. The garrison comander was killed and the cavalry broke and routed. The bodyguard regiments of the Grand Duke and the Prince then routed the remainder of the Lithuanian garrison as the Lithuanian cavalry ran through the infantry crushing morale.
     
    So now, at turn 10 the Russian Kingdom consists of a just completed wooden castle in Helsinki, a just completed stone castle at Smolensk, a wooden castle under construction at Vilnius and a stone castle at Halack that the Princess had acquired from Poland. The Rus Novogorod Kingdom is now castle rich and cash poor and nearly bankrupt. Future short term incomes from all source cannot even convert a single wooden castle to a small town. Where will the money come from?
    The Princess Anonina had made a momentous agreement with Poland that had bought potential peace (as well as a stone castle!) in exchange for trade rights and an alliance for future considerations with promisses an annual 300 florin tribute that will last for at least a generation of peace between Russia and Poland. At least that was what the promises which were made at the time between the Polish Prince and the Russian Princess.
     
    As depicted in the picture, the Russian Prince is racing south from Vilnius with about half the Vilnius occupation garrison towards the newly acquired stone castle at Halyck. The Polish Prince left a garrison of 5 companies of peasants. Peasants that had been loyal to the Polish Prince and were now to remain loyal to their new masters of Russian Nobillity. Peasants were typical low level conscripted companies with poor moral in a melee and now the garrison of the Russia's newest stone castle on the frontier between Poland, Hungary, and Russia. Of course the Polish Prince had other expectations, but no army for his immediate use beyond his own regimental bodyguard.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Though if you are trying to playing a bit historically, Novgorod itself was just one of the major centers of the Rurikids, whose ''capital'', in the sense of seat of the head of the family, was in Kiev. They didn't control Vilnius, nor Riga, nor Helsinki, but they did control Smolensk, Moscow and Halych.

  9. #9
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Not pure historical, but you might find this interesting:

    Okay - I tried and failed at a Short Russian Campaign on HH. Learned a bit, had a great time with the play, but in the end I was pretty much wiped out by the Hungarians.
     
    You read my mini 'kind of an' AAR a bit ago as a setup to turn 10 earlier in this thread. This was my attempt at a role play Medieval II Russia as the Rus in Novgorod and imagining the Kievian Rus as a faction though they are in the game just a rebel settlement. I stopped the construction of the wooden castle until finances improved and used the florins to convert Helsinki to a small town. Now there were three castle settlements and three town settlements. This will still be a drag on income. Maybe it should be 2 castle and 4 town settlements. I did not see how it could work. My 'Rus' have both Poland and Hungary as potential adversaries even if temporary allies and Smolensk being on the eastern frontier of my small Rus kingdom. Maybe if I were to do this again, I would convert Smolensk into a town though in the past Vilnius was where I usually made the conversion which would been only after Thorn was a part of the Russian Kingdom. This would be taken from the Poles by blitzing with frenzied growth. But this scenario I set up was role playing quite a bit. Thorn was going to remain Polish. Poland became an early ally of Russia.
     
    I have found that Russia can win if done early before the money needs to spent on fortress walls since the stone castles are fine with only the third level infantry build and no archery builds. A small chapel and dirty roads are also sufficient.
     
    Money was always going to be tight. I knew that when I thought up the 'Novgorod Scenario'. I thought it would be interesting. What I did not expect was long term effect of rebel settlements to the east and to the south. Rebel settlements do not trade. When I play a normal Total War Campaign there was trade eventually with the Turks and the Byzantines without waiting for about 70 turns to even begin such contacts for this southern trade.
     
    I did watch and wait as Kiev was repeatedly assaulted by the Hungarians (respecting Kiev as another Rus faction in my role play scenario). And then Hungary decided to bite off more than she should have by declaring war against the Byzantines. This meant that the Byzantines were now in position to take Kiev from Hungary. Bucharest had recently fallen to the Hungarians. This was probably what caused the Hungarian - Byzantine war. Hungary was now marching on Kiev to retake the settlement back from the Byzantines.
     
    I was already allied with both Poland and Hungary, so I offered the Byzantine Empire a marriage alliance with my young 16 year old prince to the Byzantine princess, Anna, who only had two charm points. Anna was a generation older than my new Prince. Call her a medieval version of the cougar! (This was after the first Russian Grand Duke died. He made a withdrawal from observing the Kiev region to be replaced by another general to head the southern army. He died peacefully in the Smolensk region at age 62 as expected.) I wanted Anna's dowry to be Kiev if this alliance with the Byzantines was to work. This was accepted! I had now reunited the two Rus factions of Novgorod and Kiev without a siege or war. That was my goal from the beginning, so things were appearing to work out from the role play constraints I had artificially imposed.
     
    Of course the Hungarians did not like being at peace, so they continued their war the next turn against the Byzantines. I kept Novgorod loyal to the Orthodox Byzantines and said goodbye to the Hungarian alliance. I then bought the stone castle settlement at Iasi from the bankrupt Hungarians for 200 florins for 20 turns. A somewhat just arrangement after they had declared war on the Byzantines twice! I also made nice overtures to the Pope (100 florins per turn as a gift and a trade agreement). Then in the same turn, I was able to form an alliance with the Pope. I now tried to sort out the finances without going to war. The HRE and Denmark were nice enough to distract Poland, so Poland remained an ally while I was still allied with Hungary and even after the Hungarian alliance ended.
     
    My original plan was to unite the Rus - Kiev (rebel held) and Novgorod(my faction, Russia) and then head east for Moscow and Ryazan which are both rebel held. This is where things started to unravel. Not many generals to the Russian faction with no offers of adoption due to what was now eight settlements from the starting one (Helsinki, Novgorod, Riga, Smolensk, Vilnius, Halych with the Polish alliance, Kiev with the marriage alliance with Byzantium, and the purchase of Iasi from my previous ally - Hungary while relations remained good). There were also a great many rebel armies that kept popping up. This kept the Rus cavalry and my generals busy. So busy that I never did head to Moscow.
     
    I did not intend to begin an expedition to Moscow before peacefully uniting Kiev with Novgorod (my role play again). Then the Byzantines were getting into trouble after the Pope called the Jerusalem Crusade. The Turks, Venice, and even the French were now at war with my ally along with the Hungarians. I had to help out my ally so I promised assistance against the Hungarians. This meant taking out the Bran fortress or declaring war in some manner against the Hungarians to fulfill the Rus obligation of the gifted promise.
     
    Rather than a sneak attack on a traditionally poorly defended Fortress. This would have been a sure thing that always seems to exist with the computer intelligence playing Hungary. I chose a more honorable attack on Bucharest after the cancelation of the trade treaty and the tribute. In hindsight I was fooling myself - this was not more honorable. This was then my clear mistake - honor might be good, but victory before honor seems standard in a Total War Game. It almost seems to be always required. The Hungarians then began a countering offensive-- where the money came from for the army stacks is a mystery. Hungary was bankrupt and I just nabbed Bucharest, Iasi, and Kiev over the previous dozen turns. These were nabbed while Russia was at peace, but how can a bankrupt faction become flush after droppingg three settlements? The Hungarian Council of Nobles may have helped out a bit, but? Poland also joined in and the roll back to Smolensk and Novgorod and Riga and Helsinki was then put in motion. The Pope did stay allied all the way though. I have no idea what the Papal ratings were, but the Poles were constantly pounding the HRE so maybe they were not the best of the Catholics. Anyways, I simply stopped after about turn 80. There is no possible recovery from losing stone castles at Vilnius and Halych when the opposing factions have already achieved Fortress and Citadel status with their key settlements.
     
    I may go back and take another go at this role play with an unmodified Medieval II game, but I can see why modifications such as the Stainless Steel modification had both Rus factions and a bigger map and eastern empires rather than rebel settlements. Trade is essential and rebel settlements do not help trade income. I never did have the time to develop the Kievian trade that is in my opinion essential for a successful Russian campaign. I also lacked the high chivalry traits needed to grow the castle populations. In my past campaigns I simply relied upon grabbing Bran and or Thorn at the fortress level as the Russians would then defeat either Poland or Hungary. This 'Novgorod Scenario' lacked that and lacked the income of an early Kiev conquest so maybe I had simply set myself up to fail.
     
    I could also do a somewhat reversed Rus Campaign as Kievian Rus in the "Lands to Conquer" modification starting in the 13th century (High Era) and needing 25 regions in a Kingdom Campaign. Of course, Kiev may be in the crosshairs for the impending Mongol invasion. Hmmm??
     
    So has anybody succeeded in what I failed at here? Does anybody have some comments on where I can improve in what I would term my "Novgorod Scenario" that respects the other "Rus" factions (Kiev mainly) - I know there was a great bit of role playing here. I just did not take Russia as a faction and played a campaign.
     
    All considered, it was great fun!

  10. #10

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Hmm, there's a reason the game suggests to take Moscow straight away and that's because it's one of your few money makers. You can ignor Bolghar and go west after it, but Ryazan and Smolensk are also a must. Also two out of three with Vilnius of those must become towns. If you want to leave Kiev alone early then you have to take out Poland. There aren't really better options. Go for Halych, which indeed is historically Rus territory, then Thorn. Once they are down to Krakow you can finish them off. Convert Stettin to town, same Helsinki, you should have decent money that way, which is enough to plan the Rus unification with Kiev. The problem with ignoring Kiev is that you don't get access to Caffa, which has slaves and ports to the South, thus you miss an opportunity.

    There's a reason if the Rurikids preferred Kiev as their patriarchal capital....

    Rus, just like the Byzantines suffers because Orthodoxy doesn't have Crusades or Jihads and almost everyone hates you for the different religion, it's something you discounted a bit in your plans.

  11. #11
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Yes, I am still working with it though. I did notice something interesting with an old campaign. Ryazan gets a growth bonus due to trade as soon as Kiev is Russian! The trade bonus is essential as is a 'surplus' of settlements over generals if you want to grab a 'man of the hour' with better than average chivalry for the castle settlement growth. At the start, the Grand Duke is your best leader for sacking and I am thinking that sending him to the east initially on a grand tour of Moscow, Ryazan, and returning towards Smolensk or wherever there are rebel armies might be essential. I am thinking of starving the development a bit in the east but the improved trade with Novgorod and Smolensk coupled with the basic revenue of the two settlements seems to be needed. I would be interested if an player with sharper skills, can pull off this sort of go slow approach without grabbing Moscow and Ryazan. I have won many a long campaign without going further east until battling the Mongol faction as a settled not hording faction, so I know there are probably ways to pull off this going slow approach.

    You are correct, that it is easier to win either a short or a long campaign by taking out Poland first. The Byzantine Empire can be used as a blocking meat shield against Hungary for a very long time with or without an alliance. They will meet their doom no matter how big they get, so it is safe to let them to even grab and develop Kiev.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    You have to go for either Moscow or Kiev. It's kind of a matter of maths. It's like you want to build a campaign relying only on Novgorod as your main source of income early on. Moscow has the big advantage that it won't get attacked by anyone, so I'm not sure why the obstination with ignoring it. Historically speaking, it wasn't a relevant center until the fall of Kiev to Mongols, but it was under the control of the Rurikids nonetheless, primarily the ones centered in Novgorod indeed.

    Considering the timeline, your best shot would be imitating this guy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sviatopolk_II_of_Kiev

    Originally Prince of Novgorod around the time the game starts, in his lifetime managed to style himself as ''Grand Prince of Rus'', having captured Kiev.

    His primary rival was this guy, who has rather interesting relationships:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_II_Monomakh

    Monomakh comes from Konstantine Monomachos, (awful) ruler of the Byzantine Empire during the 50 years of decline after the death of Basil II and before the Komnenian restoration. Vladimir's father married Konstantine daughter, so he was half Greek.
    Vladimir himself married Gytha, daughter of Harold the Saxon, yeah the one who died in the battle of Hastings against William the Conqueror. Vladimir Monomakh is thus a good example of the exention of Rus relations and their viking heritage, ranging from England, from the times of the viking raids there, to Byzantium, indeed initially raided as well by Rus proto-vikings who navigated through the Dnepr river to the Black Sea straight towards Byzantium.

  13. #13
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Yeah, your wiki link is indeed the Grand Duke that begins the game. Thanks for setting me straight on the relationships between him, Kiev, and Poland. There is a great deal of intermarriage, in the end of all leading families. The factions are more or less related by blood, marriage, or perhaps once by removed.

    My problem is within the game, how to accomplish without direct siege and conquest. I know the game allows the computer to 'sell' settlements, but in most cases outside of a marriage or to end a war this seems a bit cheesy. Much of this era these changes were more or less by marriage or simple assimilation of culture. The Norman conquest of England by William is not really much of an exception since it was still essentially a family mess with the only differences caused by Norman assimilation of French culture and Saxon assimilation of the earlier English culture.

    Maybe it is my American roots so that I simply do not appreciate the rivalry by marriage between factions. For example a princess as a diplomatic agent has a great deal of power in the early game to literally affect how the game is played. Upon marriage she is simply a cypher in the genealogy lineage and of no consequence in game terms any more.

    I did not know about his importance to Turov though. It does indeed make the game concept of taking Vilnius more important though. From a game stand point, I think it best to let Poland bash against Vilnius and build up Halych after purchase from the Poles. Actually, from prior play, it just freaks out the Polish computer player to even lay siege to Vilnius. This is the easiest way to induce Poland to break an alliance. Your link does make me think the importance of the Russian Princess married to the Polish heir is in keeping with what I am trying to role play a bit.

    Speaking of inducements to break alliances, I think it best for Russia to not make many alliances in the early game other than with Poland. From a game point, we want Poland to go to war. We just do not want Poland to go to war against Russia before Russia has an economy that can support a battle army of 4 regiments of cavalry plus a general or two plus a mix of woodsmen and spearmen. Maybe about 16 units total before heading towards Thorn. I have done this with an eastern growth strategy that focuses on building up Smolensk and using Moscow and Ryazan as cash cows. This lets the computer spend the time and florins in developing Halych and Thorn before hostilities break out. The problem with any strategy that does not grow Russian settlement counts is that limits the growth in Generals (really their heavy cavalry bodyguard). So, I must find a strategy that keeps Russia ahead in the settlement count versus Poland regardless of my role play desires.

    Perhaps I am taking this role play too far with the basic game. I am familiar with Stainless Steel and have played a couple of the other eastern oriented modifications in the dim past. I might take another look at what is hosted here at TWC.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    Ever tried Crusader Kings 2? For the type of game you want to play, you'd enjoy it a lot, since you basically want to roleplay as a ruler and build your way via marriages. The game is exactly about that. I highly recommend it.

    TW games tend to be rather simplicistic in terms of diplomacy, especially compared to Paradox ones, but the former obviously have the battle map which is vastly superior.

  15. #15
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    I will give Crusader Kings 2 a look. Thanks!

  16. #16

    Default Re: Thinking about a Short Russian Campaign without modifications

    It can be a bit overwhelming at first, but it's a lot simpler than it looks like.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •