Russia - Information & Discussion

[Tariq]

Man, Russia is certainly a sobering experience compared to my previous campaign with Prussia. Their troops rout so easily in comparison. I just had a 1/2 stack plus some get annihilated by a full Swiss stack, even when I had cannons. The Swiss cavalry just tore through my infantry line. They didn't kill them, so much as they broke them with ease. First real loss I've taken, and it makes me extremely paranoid about further battles.

I'm fighting a two front war against both with Swiss and the Ottomans, and I'm not faring too well on land. I've yet to lose a province, but they have extremely intimidating armies waiting in the wings. (Ottoman full stack might be marching on Crimea rather soon, but I hope to have an artillery fort ready to delay their advance on any real estate). It's a very new experience, as Prussia I had little trouble isolating my enemies and tearing them apart piecemeal. However, with a Ottoman full stack fleet in the Mediterranean, my trade from Crimea is in serious jeopardy, since I only have 5 sixth-rates down there to defend my trade interests.

I'm curious, though, what tech path did others take as Russia? I went all the way to military syllabus and grabbed Fire-By-Rank before continuing down the arty line, and I'm wondering if I made a mistake. The special Russian Arty might have gotten me the W against Sweden, since my 12 lb cannons didn't manage it.

You mean Swedes (you are mentioning Swiss all the time , so i'm getting confused)? I got to 190 turns with Russia , and i am about to stop , since i own all of the Central and Eastern Europe and Swedish part of Scandinavia + Ceylon(minus ottoman parts).It's just matter of me easily steamrolling rest of the Europe now, so it's getting pretty automatic and i don't see the point of continuing.

But it looks like that i went completely different way then you about GC approach, since i intentionally managed to avoid all the wars except one with Dagestan(And i tried to avoid that one to) till turn 60, when Sweden declared war one me, and by then i was making healthy 30-40k per turn. With Russia , you rely on taxation(although i kept it on second lowest setup all the times) and not on trade for income.Never been in war with Ottomans in all 190 turns(signed peace on turn 1), and never had problems military or financially.

I have to say i had thoroughly enjoyable campaign.Now i'm thinking of who to start with next.

[JMSlayer]

You mean Swedes (you are mentioning Swiss all the time , so i'm getting confused)? I got to 190 turns with Russia , and i am about to stop , since i own all of the Central and Eastern Europe and Swedish part of Scandinavia + Ceylon(minus ottoman parts).It's just matter of me easily steamrolling rest of the Europe now, so it's getting pretty automatic and i don't see the point of continuing.

But it looks like that i went completely different way then you about GC approach, since i intentionally managed to avoid all the wars except one with Dagestan(And i tried to avoid that one to) till turn 60, when Sweden declared war one me, and by then i was making healthy 30-40k per turn. With Russia , you rely on taxation(although i kept it on second lowest setup all the times) and not on trade for income.Never been in war with Ottomans in all 190 turns(signed peace on turn 1), and never had problems military or financially.

I have to say i had thoroughly enjoyable campaign.Now i'm thinking of who to start with next.

*facepalm* Yes, I did indeed mean the Swedes. I went back and edited that, thanks for pointing it out for me. Brainfart on my part.

Anyway, you method certainly sounds interesting. I just found myself disturbed by my low initial income, I was making something like 4k a turn, and I didn't see how I'd be able to improve that quickly. How exactly did you get from the humble beginnings that existed initially to 30-40k by turn 60?

Also, do you play 2 turns per year?

[Tariq]

*facepalm* Yes, I did indeed mean the Swedes. I went back and edited that, thanks for pointing it out for me. Brainfart on my part.

Anyway, you method certainly sounds interesting. I just found myself disturbed by my low initial income, I was making something like 4k a turn, and I didn't see how I'd be able to improve that quickly. How exactly did you get from the humble beginnings that existed initially to 30-40k by turn 60?

Also, do you play 2 turns per year?

3 turns per year , that's why i am stating turns, instead of years. As for strategy thing..i can PM you with more details, i would rather not post any spoilers here , don't want to ruin anyone's fun . I will just point you to check Industrial research in Ironworks department and see what benefits you can gain from it.

I can say that i basically followed up this order :

1)Diplomacy
2) Economy
3) Timely military expansion - only when diplomacy fails completely or you are outgrowing your current territory.But before you decide to venture into expansion, you need to secure your own lands first.

Properly managed , Russia can be turned into beast,and there is nothing that can stop them after that:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In addition to this i have 10 full offensively operative armies and 4 fleets with highest levels of ships, plus numerous garrison troops as reserve armies.Currently i am recruiting 3 more armies and 2 more fleets(got like 40 units in building queue) ..that's why low treasury. Never lost single battle, AI is to much of the muppet for that to happen

Note taxes on middle (3rd) setting and happiness levels.I stopped developing provinces after i took Lithuania, and didn't even build everything in Homeland provinces yet(still have 1 or 2 tiers to go).As you can see , i can live without any trade if i want to.And i had same results with UP and France in IS 2.04.I never rely on trade to keep me alive.

[HellFell]

ok where are you getting this?

Osprey series Man-at-Arms №297 by Angus Constam.

[Xmecial]

I believe IS does the best job of representing Russia during this period. The reality of the Russian Army prior to the reforms of Peter are clear. A large force of low morale and poor quality. Look at the Swedish victory at Narva (8,140 men opposite the besieging Russian army of about 37,000 troops.), after the reforms of Peter we see the battle of Poltava. IS does a great job of advancing the Russian war machine in what I believe to be a historical manner. A large low quality poorly led and trained army, into a much more effective fighting force.

[strickland911]

Playing as Russia, I managed to capture Crimean Khanate in turn 2 with little casualties. I sent two armies. The army of Crimea attacked the my first army then I retreated then my other army advanced to their capital.

I also managed to capture Ingria a few turns after that. Now I can have 4 trade routes.

After capturing Bulgaria, I repaired the capital then gave it to the Ottoman Empire for peace.. but before that I wiped out there whole fleet with my 6 6th rates. I got 20k from that.

I then traded my Military technologies with different factions. I got Naval Shore Facilities, Ultranationalism, some economic techs and some money to heal my armies.

Now, my 3/4 stack is moving in Finland. Those Finnish regiments are formidable foes.. Only to be killed by artillery..

[Lucan]

I believe IS does the best job of representing Russia during this period. The reality of the Russian Army prior to the reforms of Peter are clear. A large force of low morale and poor quality. Look at the Swedish victory at Narva (8,140 men opposite the besieging Russian army of about 37,000 troops.), after the reforms of Peter we see the battle of Poltava. IS does a great job of advancing the Russian war machine in what I believe to be a historical manner. A large low quality poorly led and trained army, into a much more effective fighting force.

Sure, IS does a great job for perhaps the first 30-40 years of the 18th century, then things kinda fall by the wayside as far as troop quality goes. However, this is probably the second best game play decision.

[Panzer VI Tiger]

Wait, if Russian infantry sucked like ingame until the later half of the 18th century, than can't you just replace their infantry with a less sucky version in higher tech army buildings? All artillery ingame also gets replaced with better versions in higher tech buildings, so why not the Russian Line Infantry?
(Though of course, if that happens, you can't keep their numbers.)

[Swerg]

Sure, IS does a great job for perhaps the first 30-40 years of the 18th century, then things kinda fall by the wayside as far as troop quality goes. However, this is probably the second best game play decision.

The first 15-20 years, really. Post-Narva Peter got the idea that it was generally best to TRAIN your troops prior to sending them into battle, and not to hire the first random foreigners who dropped in claiming to be military officers. By the end of the GNW Russia had some damn fine line infantry.

Wait, if Russian infantry sucked like ingame until the later half of the 18th century, than can't you just replace their infantry with a less sucky version in higher tech army buildings? All artillery ingame also gets replaced with better versions in higher tech buildings, so why not the Russian Line Infantry?
(Though of course, if that happens, you can't keep their numbers.)

As I've mentioned...twice now...it seems there are plans to put something like that into effect, I believe.

[Swerg]

Had a little idea, thought it might be interesting. It's not exactly historically accurate, but the tech tree is already off anyway

So, Russia can't recruit Guards/Line units at the start of the game, but why not give them something to represent Peter's "Toy Regiments", that is, the units composed of people he conscripted as a child to form his play armies, which later were used to form the Preobrazhensky/Semenovskiy regiments.

In terms of stats, they would probably be more or less equivalent to average line infantry (not average Russian line, but average in general, representing their extensive training, although not on the level of a guards unit), but with higher morale. The limitation would be that you'd be very limited in terms of recruiting numbers, I'd say between 2-4 of them in total. They would also have high upkeep, representing the fact that their equipment was fairly unique and had to be specially ordered/maintained.

EDIT:
Also, any word on the animations for the Russian line infantry? Nobody responded in the graphics topic

[The Vicar]

I'd imagine I could do that. The drill set, I mean.

But it'll have to wait until I go back to Russia for their revamp.

And as for Peter's regiments, I think if I were to add a unique early regiment it would be Lefort's (which was 1 of only 2 regiments to survive Peter's purge/restructuring of his father's western-style regiments).

Which I might do.

So here's the deal: The Artillery Revamps are done for the UP, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Next I'm doing the Prussia group and then the Ruspol group. So Russia won't be done by the time we release the official 2.1. But, when I do get there, I have some ideas that I'll be implementing (in addition to the artillery) that I think people will like.

[Swerg]

Sounds good

No toy regiments? Too bad. I mean, the history behind them is kind of neat all by itself, even before they became Guard units.

Are there any plans to reform the Russian naval tech tree?

[The Vicar]

At some point, yes.

But it will be a part of a broader change where we take a close look at the diversification of all the navies.

[Lucan]

Reading through "Russian Army of the Seven Years War (vol. 2)" of the Men of War series, I found an interesting tidbit on the Secret Howitzer: for one, they were a logistical nightmare. This should be represented with a far increased upkeep. Also, two, when firing at near by targets, they fired 156 or so normal musket balls. For ranges between 300-400 meters, they fired 48 large balls. Is this represented in game?

[The Vicar]

Yes, this is indeed represented.

Unfortunately, due to we modders not being able to change anything battle-UI related, the long-range canister is represented by the round-shot icon.

[Swerg]

Given that it seems that Narva was the turning point in the quality of the Russian army, could this be represented by a technology? Perhaps create seperate trees for infantry/cavalry reforms?

For example:
-Streltsi Reforms
Infantry Branch:

1. Post-Narva Reforms (+Morale, +Melee attack/defense), representing Peter's reforms post-Narva, including better training, replacement of poor quality foreign officers

2. Seven Years War Reforms (-Upkeep, increased campaign movement, increase # of guns in artillery units, access to Cossack (horse) light artillery), representing the efforts by the Russian high command to decrease the size of supply trains, the increased amount of artillery avaliable, and Saltykov's success in attaching light artillery to Cossack units. To compensate, I would suggest giving Russians normal sized artillery units prior to this.

3. Napoleonic reforms? I'm not sure how far into the future you want to go...
You mentioned no shakos earlier, though, so probably not that far.


Cavalry Branch:
1. Initial Dragoon reforms
On a side note, Vol. 2 of the Men At Arms on Peter's army mentions that his dragoons were supposed to have relied heavily on firepower, although with no particular standardization. So perhaps give dragoons their guns back, but give them low accuracy (20 or so?) and high upkeep to represent the fact that they're using every sort of gun under the sun. It also notes that Garrison Dragoons wore green coats with red facings, rather than blue. A minor detail, but it's there

2. Westernization of Cavalry

I wouldn't really be sure where to go with cavalry, to be honest. It seems they didn't change a whole lot until the Napoleonic Wars.


You might also add a 'Bruce's Reforms' to the artillery, increasing artillery quality in general, specifically focusing on a small movement speed increase. Apparently this particular reform focused mostly on the design of the guns and carriages, and reduced a standard 12lber gun from a weight of just over 2.5 tons to about 1/2 ton. A decrease in upkeep/price might be in order as well, as the reforms also introduced detailed records and standards of production for carriages and guns, and resulted in the enlarging of the Russian armory at Tula.

[jo the greek]

good idea

[The Vicar]

Hm. Bruce's Reforms are not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at all.

The other techs are already being put in place. In fact, they're already there. The Streltsi Reforms are the 1st set of reforms Peter introduced following Narva. The Cavalry Reforms are the 2nd. The Westernization of the Cavalry will be changed to Munnich's Reforms, and will be a Seven Years War set of reforms that will unlock new infantry as well as new cavalry.

This will mean that there will be 3 levels of basic line infantry for Russia (I'm adding two): Soldatski, which will represent the "western regiments" of Peter's father (and I might go so far as to include a new unique unit at that time: Lefort's Regiment. We'll see.); Fusiliers/Line Infantry (not sure on the name at present), which will be available after the Streltsi Reforms and which will replace Soldatski (this level is the current Line Infantry); Musketeers/Line Infantry (again, not sure on the name), which will be available following Munnich's Reforms.

Of course, you'll have to wait for all of this. First I need to do the Artillery Revamp for the Prussian group of factions.

[Swerg]

Woo, I had a good idea

Further, Men at Arms provides a list of Russian artillery pieces at Narva. Apparently these were all bronze, 'modern' weapons forged from churchbells prior to the campaign (Maybe the first artillery reform should be named 'Melt the Churchbells!'):
4 30- and 48lb guns
26 18- and 24lb guns
33 6- 10- and 12lb guns
50 3- lb guns
25 80- 120lb mortars
1 40lb howitzer

Assuming some pieces go unmentioned, that matches up with Wikipedia's 180 guns lost at the battle figure, since the entire artillery train was taken by the Swedes.

The Poltava artillery train was much, with all the guns over 12lbs relegated to the siege train, and 3-pounders being far more common.


If you don't want to do the 1759 reforms as such, then I'd suggest moving the extra cannons per unit to Bruce's reforms, since it seems his methods gave the Russians the ability to produce all the cannons they could need to satisfy their desire for big things that went 'boom'.

From what I can get from the text, Bruce's reforms in their entirety consisted of:
1. Separating siege artillery trains from field artillery trains
2. Standardized the poundage system for ammunition. Made one Russian pound equivalent to a 5cm iron ball.
3. Supervised artillery production, improving design and quality, such as the aforementioned reduction in weight.
4. Created a uniform system of artillery carriages with standardized parts (to the degree possible in the 18th century). He also standardized the color of carriages, apparently brick red was almost universal.
5. Post-Narva he brought in machines from the West to assist in production.
6. Established iron/bronzeworks and powder factories in the Urals and Moscow/St Petersburg

Apparently these reforms were so successful that by 1720 Russia was entirely self-sufficient in production of war materials, even having enough for export.


It's not mentioned directly, but from the text in Men at Arms it seems that the new model soldiers were referred to by the French pattern. If you wanted a Russian name, I think 'Strelok'/'Strelki' would be correct. Another suggestion it seems is 'Fyzylye'. That doesn't really look very good, though. Far too many y's in one word for my taste.

I also found that the local equivalent of Hussar was 'Gousary'/'Gousar'. Riflemen were sometimes called Pekhotinets, although it seems Pekhota was more common. This is all second-hand information from a friend, so please don't kill me if it's not accurate.

[The Vicar]

It's not mentioned directly, but from the text in Men at Arms it seems that the new model soldiers were referred to by the French pattern. If you wanted a Russian name, I think 'Strelok'/'Strelki' would be correct. Another suggestion it seems is 'Fyzylye'. That doesn't really look very good, though. Far too many y's in one word for my taste.

Which, I believe, translate to Musketeer and Fusilier, respectively, which is what I had in my post above.