Russia

[Swerg]

I was reading through the 'faction summary' thread and came across the argument about Russia, and the suggestion to make a thread to argue about Russia in, so I decided to act on my slavophillia and throw this thread out there.

Anyway...

I have to side with the Ruskies in the topic on this one. It seems odd to make Russian infantry so weak in all areas. I mean, if we're talking stereotypes and feeding them, wouldn't Russian infantry be most famous for their ability to stand their ground against just about everything?

I'm more of a Napoleonic fan myself, but a good deal of argument in the topic mentioned Suvurov, and some of his greatest exploits came on the edge of that particular time period (marching across the Alps, for instance.)

Anyway, my suggestion is, rather than making a technology that can be researched, just make a 'New Model Infantry' unit for the Russians. Make the third tier barracks the requirement to build them, and maybe remove the standard line infantry from thereon out, if that could be done easily. Give the new model infantry a higher cost/upkeep (better trained soldiers cost more, after all) and give them the melee ability and morale (and maybe increase their musketry a teensy bit) that made armies all over Europe wet themselves when they heard the famed 'Ourah!'


On another note, an item not mentioned in the factions topic, I've read that Russian armies were known for their endurance and marching ability. Russian horses (bred with the Cossack ponies) tended to be smaller than European warhorses, but with better long-term endurance. Likewise the infantry were able to march for quite long distances. Maybe a little boost to Russia's movement range?


Simultaniously, I might also suggest some weaknesses to add to the Russians. Russia's officer and supply corps' was quite famous for being lazy, corrupt, drunkards. Perhaps reducing the effects and stats of Russian generals in general (rimshot) would be a good idea. To represent the occasional 'flash of brilliance' that seems to pop up, perhaps some uniquely Russian traits ('Suvurov - automatic 100 stars, maybe? ) could be added? I have no idea how difficult such a thing would be, but there you go.

Further, Russian naval vessels, from what I know, tended to suffer from two debilitating issues:
They were built with shoddy timber, since Russia doesn't have much wood that's good for shipbuilding.
They tended to be old. Russians have a habit of never throwing anything away, ever. It's why they still have T-55's in their stockpiles and uncover random caches of perfectly preserved Mosin-Nagant's from 1900. Anyway, they tended to keep ships in service well past their combat-useful life, so perhaps an overall reduction in the hull strength of Russian ships is in order.


Another consideration might be the Russian nobility, who weren't much better than the officer corps. I might suggest giving Russian ministers a high chance of getting corruption-related traits (Morally Impaired, etc.)

tl;dr:
-Create a unit of 'improved line infantry' for Russia avaliable from one of the higher tier barracks with increased morale, melee, and cost.
-Increase movement range of Russian units slightly
-Reduce effects and stats of Russian generals
-Add some sort of random trait unique to the Russian faction to represent generals like Suvurov.
-Decrease hull strength of Russian naval vessels
-Russian ministers have a high chance of having corruption-related traits.

I think these changes would, overall, balance each other out.

I'm actually downloading this right now, so please forgive me if any of this has already been implemented and I just missed the update.

[Lazy Knight]

We're always happy for such constructive feedback. You will see though that russia is a very strong nation, and giving it strong infantry would enforce other changes to make them balanced.

We also have not made Russian infantry weak in all means. They are one of the best melee fighters available and they have larger numbers. Just their shooting is very weak.

[The Vicar]

What he said.

However, I am currently toying with ideas (provided I can figure out an issue I'm having with 3dsMax) to have 3 levels of basic infantry, unlocked at various techs.

Of course, that's assuming everything works out like I hope it will.

And while it's true that their infantry were not as terrible as we've portrayed them, it does need to be remembered that Russia has one of the strongest (potential) economies in the game. In my latest Russian campaign, which I'm in the middle of right now (1768-ish), I've only really taken 4 regions (trying to play this one defensive, and only go to war with those who DOW me) and am now rolling in an easy 20k per turn. That seems to me to be a hell of a good economy, which can only really be matched by the Big 3 or a united India (or of course a different European faction that manages to somehow conquer most of Europe).

With that kind of economic might, you don't need powerful units. You just roll over your opponents with multiple big stacks. How much easier would the game be then, if Russia, in addition to all its other bonuses, also had strong infantry? Does anybody truly want the game to be easier?

But I like your ideas, and appreciate you posting your thoughts. If we ever implement a faction-specific trait system, be assured that Russia will get some attention.

PS - Although I would take issue with your suggesting that Russian's armies ever moved fast. They were noted for their excessive sluggishness in the field, in which they would take great pains to protect their supply train. They had learned to do this by their multiple encounters with cavalry and irregular-heavy eastern factions, notably the Ottomans and Crimea. This is a trait that both has its advantages and disadvantages, obviously.

Also, I'm not sure that Russian infantry should "stand their ground against just about anything." What has happened in both modern instances of Russia proper being invaded, is that the military as a whole gives ground and gives ground and gives ground until it brings the enemy to battle on Russian terms. Before that, however, Russian armies are fairly notorious for being surrounded and destroyed (because, again, they were slow to move and slow to react).

[Lazy Knight]

It is true that in both, the great Nordic War, and the Seven Years war, The russian troops could not stand up to their Swedish or Prussian opponents.

And those two are the sources that count in the timeframe, rather than napoleonic sources.

[Swerg]

We're always happy for such constructive feedback. You will see though that russia is a very strong nation, and giving it strong infantry would enforce other changes to make them balanced.

We also have not made Russian infantry weak in all means. They are one of the best melee fighters available and they have larger numbers. Just their shooting is very weak.

Ah, I see. The way I read the topic it seemed as though the Russian infantry were overall weaker.

Well, that's cleared up

What he said.

However, I am currently toying with ideas (provided I can figure out an issue I'm having with 3dsMax) to have 3 levels of basic infantry, unlocked at various techs.

Of course, that's assuming everything works out like I hope it will.

And while it's true that their infantry were not as terrible as we've portrayed them, it does need to be remembered that Russia has one of the strongest (potential) economies in the game. In my latest Russian campaign, which I'm in the middle of right now (1768-ish), I've only really taken 4 regions (trying to play this one defensive, and only go to war with those who DOW me) and am now rolling in an easy 20k per turn. That seems to me to be a hell of a good economy, which can only really be matched by the Big 3 or a united India (or of course a different European faction that manages to somehow conquer most of Europe).

With that kind of economic might, you don't need powerful units. You just roll over your opponents with multiple big stacks. How much easier would the game be then, if Russia, in addition to all its other bonuses, also had strong infantry? Does anybody truly want the game to be easier?

But I like your ideas, and appreciate you posting your thoughts. If we ever implement a faction-specific trait system, be assured that Russia will get some attention.

PS - Although I would take issue with your suggesting that Russian's armies ever moved fast. They were noted for their excessive sluggishness in the field, in which they would take great pains to protect their supply train. They had learned to do this by their multiple encounters with cavalry and irregular-heavy eastern factions, notably the Ottomans and Crimea. This is a trait that both has its advantages and disadvantages, obviously.

Also, I'm not sure that Russian infantry should "stand their ground against just about anything." What has happened in both modern instances of Russia proper being invaded, is that the military as a whole gives ground and gives ground and gives ground until it brings the enemy to battle on Russian terms. Before that, however, Russian armies are fairly notorious for being surrounded and destroyed (because, again, they were slow to move and slow to react).

3 levels of infantry would be awesome. I'd love to see late-model infantry with shakos or caps. Those tricorns just don't do it for me. I guess I got too much media about the American Revolution as a kid so they're pretty much intrinsically tied with Minutemen for me

But anyway, the economic issue is where the other parts I suggested would come in. The Russian army's notoriously poor equippage and supply, as well as the countries general underdevelopment, wouldn't lend themselves to a strong economy...in fact, I gather that on campaign more Russian troops tended to die from attrition than anything else. Corruption, extreme conservatism, and paranoia on the part of the rulers meant that pretty much only the nobles and Tsar had any kind of wealth.

One of the terrible ironies of the Russian Revolution is that, when he died, Tsar Nicholas was one of the richest men in the world. He's apparently up there in the top 10 richest people who ever lived, and still is. I think he's actually above Bill Gates if you account for inflation.

It is true that manpower was an advantage of Russia's. Considering the nigh-infinite ranks of serfs and peasants, quite large compared to European states, the problem was equipping them. I recall occasions in both the Great Northern and Napoleonic wars where a lot of serfs were conscripted into the army, handed pikes, and told 'the enemy is that way, get going'. A Russian tactic of the era was to march two columns of regular infantry alongside a mob of pikemen, basically a living shotgun. It also seems that tactic wasn't ENTIRELY ineffective.

I guess I'd be pretty demoralized too when the final 30 or so crested the hill of bodies.

I suppose you're right on the account of sluggish armies. Still, Russian forces were known for their sheer endurance. March all night and fight all day, sort of thing.

For the last part, there seem to have been two types of Russian regiments. The first sort, who tended to be newer conscripts, would tend to flee almost immediately (The page I found this on seems to have removed their 'worst regiments' section. Curses.). The second were of the 'what the hell are these guys robots or something' type (one French general, possibly Napoleon himself, did describe the Russian infantry as 'automatons'.) They tended to launch bayonet charges against cavalry as well.

Basically, I suppose having 'high morale' is the wrong term. Russian infantry tended to be extremly disciplined, probably a result of the training process (as the old saying goes 'recruit three, beat two to death and train one.') Russian infantry, for the most part, kept their heads down and did what the chap with the big hat told them to. Although I gather some of the crazier regiments tended to act on their own and do things like, say, charge across a burning bridge and sweep the French out of a town at bayonet point (Pavlovsk Grenadiers...basically the Russian equivalent of Scots )

Again, this is all late-18th/early 19th century stuff. I suppose basically what needs to be pinpointed is where exactly the change took place for later modification. Right now, I suppose, if we're only counting sources from the start of the game, the current situation makes sense. But if/when the ability to reform comes in, certainly more of a look should be given to the later material.

[The Vicar]

3 levels of infantry would be awesome. I'd love to see late-model infantry with shakos or caps. Those tricorns just don't do it for me.

For the last part, there seem to have been two types of Russian regiments. The first sort, who tended to be newer conscripts, would tend to flee almost immediately (The page I found this on seems to have removed their 'worst regiments' section. Curses.). The second were of the 'what the hell are these guys robots or something' type (one French general, possibly Napoleon himself, did describe the Russian infantry as 'automatons'.) They tended to launch bayonet charges against cavalry as well.

And here not one of those 3 I had in mind (pre-Petrine reforms 'Soldatski', 1720-ish Petrine Line Infantry, and 7YW Line Infantry) would be wearing a shako.

And yes, you are entirely correct about there being "two types." This is part of what makes Russia so difficult to accurately depict. I know that when it came to their artillery, Munnich (I think it was Munnich, although now I'm not 100% sure) had to publish a memo (or whatever the 18th century version of a memo was) saying that yes, in some instances it was perfectly alright to abandon the guns. Prior to this, the mindset throughout the army was that losing guns was unacceptable, which led to 2 things: the gunners either took flight immediately upon being threatened by the enemy (and never went back to military life) or they stayed with their guns until the bitter end. Munnich attempted to remedy that situation by saying (and I'm paraphrasing here, of course) that losing experienced gunners, whether to desertion or firing squad or suicidal bravery, was at least as bad as losing the guns themselves.

One way that I've attempted to depict it, is that the common footsloggers aren't so great (although they will get the job done. Especially if you have a general), but the Guards regiments are second-to-none. And I think that's the way it's really going to have to be, at least until/if we figure out a way to randomize recruitment (so that there's a chance of getting somebody good and a chance of getting somebody not so good. I'm not sure that will ever happen though).

HOWEVER, it's not so bad as it sounds, as in this game regiments tend to stick around until they've been mauled to death, so it isn't as though they rout everytime a gunner farts.

One key to success with the Russians, if you're going to be playing them, is to not ignore your artillery. Yes, they're expensive early on (although the prices do get better) but they're true battle winners.

[Husayn Bayqara]

It is true that in both, the great Nordic War, and the Seven Years war, The russian troops could not stand up to their Swedish or Prussian opponents.

And those two are the sources that count in the timeframe, rather than napoleonic sources.

Seven Years War Russians vs Prussians .........Zorndorf.......Kunersdorf........Russians did not just take it,they gave it!

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

One idea about corruption and such - why not have higher than normal maintenance costs for Russian units and a slight reduction in recruitment costs. This reflects that it was easy to conscript the bastards, but due to corruption a lot of money is required to keep them going.

[Lazy Knight]

I dunno if you actually played yet, but there already is the ability to reform a bit.

[The Vicar]

Now that's an idea.

I'll have to think about that.

I'm currently in a campaign, one that I'm forcing myself to play ALL the way through, in order to see how the Russians fare in the late game. I like how they play early, how they compare to other factions. Now I need to know how they play late.

And of course, the late game is the hardest one of all to test/fix.

And I also need to know whether other people have been noticing Austria spam Insurrection Husaren (I only fought one battle against them, is why I'm not positive).

[Swerg]

Ah, well...

Having actually played the mod now, I can only say it seems odd that Russian line infantry are significantly worse than British invalids

But it seems that, for now, the infantry are set in stone...

So, what about the artillerymen? Currently Russian artillery (like everybody elses) have 1 morale. Perhaps give Russian artillery a morale boost? 5 or so would seem appropriate. They won't flee at the sight of cavalry. Or if you're going for the 'fight-to-the-death-for-the-guns' types maybe even give them Guards-level morale.

The increased upkeep sounds like a good idea as well. But I would say not to exaggerate it too much, considering Peter the Great will be tsar for most of the game, and I gather that he tended to do very unpleasant things to people he regarded as traitors.

Also, is there any comment on the other suggestions I made in the first post? I thought the ship hull strength one would be quite easy to implement.

[The Vicar]

Artillery of all stripes are getting a makeover. But as for low morale, artillery as a whole didn't just stick around when they were being charged. They broke and ran (except for some Russian guns, which I've already talked about. And I might change them in the future, I'm just not sure yet). They weren't trained to fight, they were trained to shoot big guns. And the way the game engine is set up, even a 5 morale means that those gunners are going to stand there until their unit is 3/4 gone or even massacred to a man, which isn't right.

Lucky for you none of the other factions have it any better.

And I'm not sure the Russian Line 5/6/8/4 with 240 men compared to British Invalids 3/3/5/6 with 200 men (melee/charge/defense/morale) qualifies as "significantly worse."

I've been playing Russia for some time now, and I have to say that I'm not seeing what the big deal is. I haven't lost a battle yet. So then we're just arguing about numbers compared to numbers, as opposed to in-game performance? Yes, I know that probably a good portion of why I haven't lost is because I'm a player and the AI sucks. But still. I'm not that good at this game. And any player out there should find himself on the winning side of battles close to all the time. So then, what is there to complain about? I just don't get it.

Of course, to be fair, my late-game test isn't complete. I haven't fought against all the AI factions yet. But please, rest assured, Russia is getting more than it's fair share of attention. If there is anything that I find that doesn't seem right, it gets fixed. So far I haven't found anything like that. No, wait, yes I have. I've noticed that in the late game I'm only recruiting grenadiers. Probably because they're better at everything than common line infantry. So that will have to change, because we believe that all units should have a place in the game, from the lowliest early-game units to the superplasticfantastic late-game guards units.

Actually, I find it funny that it's the infantry that gets the most abuse from players, when the reality is that it's Russia's cavalry that sucks the most. I'm not sure I've had a single battle yet where my cavalry haven't broken and fled the field.

And I haven't touched the navy, that's Disaray's department. But yes, I like the idea.

[Notees]

Vicar, maybe implementing a unit cap on Grenadiers is a good idea? They ARE pretty much elite after all...