Where fo the Russians need castles?

[Viking Prince]

I am thinking about starting a short Russian campaign (maybe long). Any difference in how each type of campaign should be approached? I would assume the short victory can be reached before the hoards appear.

If building for the Mongal invasion, which settlements should be built as castles? Smolensk is a natural since you will rely upon this province early in the game. Ryazan may be the other good candidate since it can also support both Kiev and Vilnius in the early game.

I am thinkin the remaining castles should be converted when population reached 2000 and garrisioned with only a woodsman or peasant unit. I plan to build farming up through crop rotation to max growth. The oher production solution would be to convert directly and use town watch troops to garrison for free and not build the land up as quickly for population growth.

[clandestino]

I preferr to take Vilnius first and then take Smolensk and Ryzan which I convert to cities. Why? Cause the Mongols arive at 1206-16 and by that time you should reach Bulgar and Sarkel which should be your castles on that side. Actualy you need just Sarkel cause Bulgar is totaly off way. If you wait for Mongols at Ryazan and Smolensk you will be in deep trouble. Taking Vilnius before Poland is always my primary goal when playing with Russians, cause it defends Novgorod and Smolensk and give you base for capturing Kiev.

I am thinkin the remaining castles should be converted when population reached 2000 and garrisioned with only a woodsman or peasant unit. I plan to build farming up through crop rotation to max growth. The oher production solution would be to convert directly and use town watch troops to garrison for free and not build the land up as quickly for population growth.

Again I preferr to convert them immediately cause they tend to get rebelious if converted on larger population, also the farm upgrading of all Russian provinces is wasting money cause they are wery poor and you will be getting about the same money from minor city as from huge city.

[Viking Prince]

Clandestino - I was thinking about waiting on Vilnius since I do not think the Poles will be able to take them out. I am using vh /vh with Retrofit Mod and the Kingdoms patch. The rebalancing of the swords/spears/cav seems to make taking the rebels a bit tougher. Do you go into Vilnius with everything and then split the forces for Riga and Smolensk?

My thinking on the land was to give a kick to population growth. I guess your thinking is that I will need the cash first.

So, in your experience, it will be best to convert and go the town watch garrision route. Should I try and keep the taxes low on the small population settlements to at least push the rate up to 3%?

Thanks!

[clandestino]

My thinking on the land was to give a kick to population growth. I guess your thinking is that I will need the cash first.

I was thinikng that you want biger growth to upgrade your setlements cause I guessed you want to upgrade them to get more income from trade and taxes. That's why you want to develop your farms, right? .

Do you go into Vilnius with everything and then split the forces for Riga and Smolensk?

Clandestino - I was thinking about waiting on Vilnius since I do not think the Poles will be able to take them out

Oh they will be able, and willing!
I take those settlements one by one without spliting of my forces, first cause they are to small to be split and second cause, like you said, those rebels are not naive at all. My usual sequence is Vilnius-Riga-Smolensk altough you can also take Riga-Vilnius-Smolensk but generaly strategy should be to take Riga and Vilnius before Polish cause on the vh/vh they won't wait for long to take them before you and then to attack you. Oh, and you should take Helsinki immediately as you train some extra militia units at Novgorod. Convert it to city and you will have extra cash maker with low upkeep in no time.

Should I try and keep the taxes low on the small population settlements to at least push the rate up to 3%?

Well when I'm plaing Russia I usualy need every florin I can take so I keep the taxes on maximum regardless of population growth. Untill you take Kiev and Stockholm you will have constant troubles with cash so draining out every posible nickel from you realm is imperative.
I hope I helped you a bit.

[wearycelt]

[quote=clandestino;3026014]
Untill you take Kiev and Stockholm you will have constant troubles with cash so draining out every posible nickel from you realm is imperative.
quote]

Those are Number One and Number Two of the Russian economy. On vh/vh I have many times looked for whatever fleeting alliance I can with the Poles to buy enough time to round up all of the East and get to Stockholm. And that has meant letting Vilnius fall to the Poles. North and Black Sea Trade are absolutely imperative. You will find yourself at war with the Danes and the Poles in seconds, but, with Stockholm, Kiev, and Caffa you will be able to easily out produce both of them. Especially, if you have a frisky HRE.

Good Luck

[Viking Prince]

Clandestino - I took a version of your advice. Upon start up I had a Rebel stack north of Novgorod and split the force to take Riga and the rebel stack. Council of Nobles then offered 2500 florin for Helsinki and proceeded. I was still able to combine and take Vilnius by turn 14 with about 10000 florin in the bank and still build town watches, roads, grain exchanges, small churches, and even a leather in Novgorad. Unfortunately, Poland won the race to Kiev on turn 17. The Council of Nobles want me to take Smolensk, but I know the die is cast and I will be at war with Poland soon. I am allied with the Bytantines and HRE. I am keeping diplomats close to their cities to feed a bit of cash to my allies. Time will tell. As someone else has stated it is best to clean up in the East before Poland. With Poland in Kiev, is this still advisable?

Thanks to all for help in getting a newbie started on the steppes!

[wearycelt]

I hate it when the Poles beat you to Kiev.

With your alliances intact, I think you probably do have enough time to go and sweep the East before Poland will really threaten you.

However, you have Vilnius and want Kiev. Please, someone correct me if I am wrong, but this looks like a good oppurtunity to blitz the Poles. Taking Kiev and then Halych in the South and then moving into whatever Castles that they own on the North Sea Coast would seriously diminsh their capacity to wage war on you or anyone else (i.e. Denmark)

Just bear in mind, Rebels do not develop cities. Sarkel is your 1st line of defense against the Horde. The longer it sits Rebel the less time you have to get it up to snuff befroe the Mongols come for you.

[clandestino]

Taking Kiev and then Halych in the South and then moving into whatever Castles that they own on the North Sea Coast would seriously diminsh their capacity to wage war on you or anyone else (i.e. Denmark)

Yes, but that way you will be just replacing one potential enemy ( Poles ) with two others - Danemark and Hungary who are, by my expirience, little bit overpovered in game. I like to use Poland like buffer zone between me and mentioned factions untill I take all the steppes.Then, when I'm secured at East I go for Stockholm still living the Poles alone,except when they are stubborn in atacking me.In that case I like to take Torn or Halich just to pressure them to ascept truce. Maybe my tactic is litle slow but I'm playing year per turn so I have plenty of time, if you play 2 years per turn blitz is only way to win the game.

[wearycelt]

Even if you are not playing one year per turn you don't have to blitz. The question is really what kind of narrative you are thinking of building with the Russians. I think that too often we conceive of these campaigns not as nations or monarchs but only as generals. Here you have two options:

The Chivalric Route. Go East and secure the Steppes. Very wise decision for achieving long term strategic goals and bears no threat to your alliances nor introduces you to any new enemies. Nota Bene; Sarkel and Caffa both have Black Sea ports so, there is still economic oppurtunity to the East without Kiev.

The Dread Route. Hit the Poles. Hard. There is money to be made in the taking of their cities and castles and when you are done the East will still be unconquered. Especially if you take Kiev and block Hungarian access to Caffa. The trouble is, Clandestino is right. You will immediately be at war with the Danes and there will be friction with Hungary. Butter your bread on the right sides and the HRE will stand with you against the Danes and you may be able to get the same help from the Byzantines against the Hungarians. However this is a risk because the AI is not terribly intelligent nor effective in its alliances. 20 turns into a campaign may not be the best time to go to war with everyone.

In either case, ride to victory, like a true son of the North!

As a side note; in my last Russian campaign (vh/vh) I was allied with the Poles for almost the entire beginning of the campaign and using them as a buffer was incredibly successful. I held the Steppes, all of Denmark (who attacked me), all of Hungary (whom I attacked, principally to get Kiev), all of England (they had no idea what was coming), and all of the German HRE territories (also betrayed me) before I even considered attacking the Poles. (Then that speck of white amidst my sea of blue was a little perturbing)

I don't know if you an tell by the length of my posts or their frequency, and I bet the same can be said of Clandestino, I find that Russian campaigns are some of the most interesting I have played. And just you wait till you get those late game units!!!!

[Viking Prince]

Wearycelt - I notice in another post that you are in a Hungarian campaign. If you were Hungary, here, in this campaign of mine, what would you do? What would an AI Hungary do? Poland has Thorn and Kiev which nearly seals Russia from the west. You have Iasi to complete the control of rebel provinces that are easy to take. Does Hungary turn against the Byzantines to clear the Balkans? Push into the far east by naval action in the Black Sea? I do not see conflict between the Pols and Hungarians.

As Russian, I am concerned with needing to fight both powers at once. To avoid this and punish Poland for overextension, quick action is required.

What the chances of a short campiagn where Russia seizes Halych and then Kiev. Without Halych, Poland will be unable to reinforce a weak Kiev. A ceasefire can then be offered and ceding Halych back to Poland. If this is quick, I suppose Hungary will stay on the sidelines. This action would mean postponing actions in the East. There is always the risk that Poland will not accept a ceasefire. The resulting long campaign could pull Hungary into the mess. Russia's allies may choose to sit on the sidelines.

I do not think Russia has the punch to take Poland completely out in a quick campaign. Hmmm. Perhaps it is best to keep the front quiet and hope that Poland will irritate another neighbor (Denmark, HRE, Hungary). Poland can then wait for Russian artillery development and a unified East.

This brings up the process to unify the East. How should Russia approach the Eastern unification campaign? I was thinking a general and cav (all Kozaks?) force out of Smolensk to Moscow. This is a pure seige force and will take time. Yet another general will follow with slower marching militia for garrision duty. If the militia arrival is opportune, this may allow for a final assault before the rebels sally out. The cav force then moves on (to Bulgar). The garrison holds, clears land, and then converts the settlement to a city. The occupation general is also responsible for a fort network further east. After three turns, the garrison force moves on leaving one militia behind. Then repeat to Bulgar, Sarkel, and finally Ryazan. A quick run from Kiev to Caffa first. I am thinking to demob much of the Kiev force to first lower the gold outflow.

Does this tie two generals up for too long? Russia does not have a large body of family. When playing France, I noticed the computer provided adoption candidates as required. The French never seemed to lack for generals. I have not sen the same for Russia. Perhaps the adoptions will still come, but I fear Russia's isolation makes adoption chances remote. Would it be best to take a slower, but more balanced force to assault, pacify, and garrison? Only one gereral then needs to be deployed.

Sorry for combining several questions into one post.

[wearycelt]

Ok, I'm going to work from the bottom up.
As far as unifying the East is concerned, send two generals if you want, but after you pick up Moscow and Ryazan let one of them go to Sarkel and then to Bulgar, the other go for Caffa. Moscow and Ryazan are the closest and thus most convieniant but the Black Sea ports are the most valuable. (Get those Turkish trade rights, too.) And having Caffa keeps that one General in play.

As far as the force is concerned, Kazaks are your early period workhorses, of course you should go packing them along, but take some infantry with you, it doesn't have to be great infantry, (though woodsmen are) because you are looking at three castles (Ry, Bul, Sar) all of which will hold out for a lot longer than is worth seiging them. So, having the ability to assault, even if you don't, will prove useful, at least, at one of the three. (making those rebels sally into Kazaks is a sure win, if you don't mind taking the time, just make sure you get those sea ports first.)

BTW the number of family members is based on the number of settements you have so, as you conquer you will be offered more generals.

In my Hungarian Campaign, the first thing that I did was to secure alliances with the catholic west, so I allied w/ Poland, HRE, and Venice and went to war with the Byzantines to take control of the incredibly lucrative Black Sea.(I got Kiev and Caffa, not early either). However, Iasi and Bucharest are the only Hungarian settlements with coastline and they both needed to go through City upgrades to be able to build ports. So, if Poland has Kiev, Hungary is not going to be coming for you any time soon because they have no navy and start off far away from getting one.

The Hungarian AI is clearly wildly unpredictable, but what matters more than that are the nations around them. Hungary is weak, especially early, because it does not sit in a resource rich area. If you are concerned about them or run-ins with them, watch the diplomacy screens. Hungary is very high on the hit lists of Byz, Venice, and the HRE. Two of these Three are your allies. If you get Caffa and Sarkel, you may find yourself in a position to offer your allies assistance by an amphibious assault on Hungary, while staying out of any confrontation with Poland.

In other words, don't worry about Hungary attacking anyone, just look to capitolize on whoever attacks them.

Poland, Poland, Poland. You must make a decision. You must decide, after unity in the East, where you want your expansion to take place. In my before mentioned Russian campaign I was allied with the Poles, the Danes, and the HRE and was left with an amphibious assault on Hungary and an amphibious assault on England. (Both were awesome). In your case, an assault on Hungary should only come as assistance to your allies because you will be stifling their expansions by doing so. So, you can hit Poland, even though in the early period they outclass you in units, or you can go for one of Clandestino's best ideas; Stockholm. War with the Danes gives you North Sea trade and lots o' cash. But it will be difficult.

Nota Bene: As Russia, you are isolated. This makes it hard for you to estabilsh relations with others and makes it a trudge to get to other factions. What is true for you is true for your enemies. You have time to unify the East without engaging in hostilities in the West. And when you do decide to engage choose wisely.

Nota Bene 2: The marvelous part about TW is that it can give you insight into National Interests. Think back on your Russian History (if you have none, got to wikipedia), Russia has fought endlessly to control a warm-water sea port. The last half century has seen them embroiled in the Crimea and the modern fuss about Ukraine joining NATO is the same issue. The lesson here is, take your time with your first 40 turns and find an economy. Use Merchants, get trade rights, get ports, get resource rich territories. Once you have an economy, the Russian unit roster will do the rest.

Please keep us updated. After all this typing, I would really like to see how this goes!

[Viking Prince]

Good advice. There is nothing more for me to do but take a shot of vodka, strap on the armor and mount my horse. Off to create an empire in the north.

Updates will follow in about a week. Thank you both.

[wearycelt]

I look forward to the updates!

[Viking Prince]

Clandestino - After many disasterous starts, I have started anew. I have finally followed your suggestion and took Vilnius first and then swung up to Riga and then over to Thorn. Brief journeys out of Novgorod have picked up Helsinki, Smolensk, and Moscow. Moscow was the last congueast for the now departed Grand Duke.

It is now turn 26. I have all the territories surrounding my home plus Thorn. A good start on Baltic Sea trading! The Hungarians will be in Kiev if their large stack is successful in the seige. Poland is in Stettin. That seals the common border. I am trading with both and I have about 5000 florins in the bank at the end of each turn. The only castle is Vilnius, all others have been converted to cities. I am at the drill square level and have produced a handful of Spearman.

If I can manage to keep Poland happy for a few more turns with gifting, I am hoping they will become involved with HRE, Hungary, or Venice.

I still need to get trading rights with the Danes. With my ports appearing on the Baltic, this is essential.

It looks like a great start.

How did you figure out the solution to attack Vilnius first? It seems counter intuitive? It works though. Thanks!

[eisenkopf]

i found it very useful to conquer thorn very early (right after riga), before the poles make it there.

why? because russian castles suck in developing. unless you are willing to convert an advanced city into castle (what a waste!), it takes ages to develop those wooden castles until something worth fighting with is trainable (druzhinas, for example). thorn, being already a castle, is therefore worth taking. as russia, it think there is no way to not go to war with poland - they are simply too much in the way of russian expansion options.

[Viking Prince]

The reason that I took Thorn was to get another 2000+ city quickly. Smolensk also makes a good city from the Russian perspective. We are not Italy or France here! I think Vilnius and Ryazan make the best locations for early castles, partially because the population sucks. With a good general and land development, the growth can be had to get good units in time to fight the Mongols will hopefully be there. Time will tell for me.

[clandestino]

Clandestino - After many disasterous starts, I have started anew. I have finally followed your suggestion and took Vilnius first and then swung up to Riga and then over to Thorn. Brief journeys out of Novgorod have picked up Helsinki, Smolensk, and Moscow. Moscow was the last congueast for the now departed Grand Duke.

Excelent start, congratulations!!! If you only could reach Kiev before Hungary you would be on horse's back, as my people like to say.

How did you figure out the solution to attack Vilnius first? It seems counter intuitive?

I was thinking like this: my only enemies in the early stage of the game will only be Poles or Danes so I needed one castle as near as possible to those factions and that was Vilnius. If Poles take it before me they will have 3 castles near each other so I would be seriously outpowered by their castle trained troops if I had only Smolensk. By taking Vilnius first I would also protect Novgorod and I will be cutting the way to Smolensk to Poles so I could take it later anyway.

I think Vilnius and Ryazan make the best locations for early castles,

I would still suggest you to convert Ryazan and take Sarkel to be your key castle in the steppes.
I hope we'll be hearing more updates from you!

[Viking Prince]

When the Mongols come, will Sarkel be ground zero? If Ryazan, then a battle or two and a couple cites will fall first. Also, if Kiev is the target of the Horde, perhaps Ryazan may only be a glancing blow. I have looked into where the river stands will be. I would hope to produce troops out of the castle for several stands against the Horde.

[clandestino]

Mongols apear or near Sarkel or near Baghdad. If they apear near Sarkel they will roam around for turns and there's a chance they will go south and leave you alone but probably they will attack. They have a wery haotic movement path so they can just pass by Sarkel and go for Kiev or Ryazan or they can attack Sarkel immediately. In any case the best thing you can do is to train at least two good cavalry armies at Sarkel and to put strong garrisons in your nearest settlements. If you have money to waste you could build up both Sarkel and Ryazan as castles or you can, which is mine favorite, take Sarkel and Tbilisi and wait for Mongols there. In any case you should fight with Mongols far away from your home regions cause you don't want them pilaging around.