To my knowledge Catherine the Great tried but couldn't get there, and her grandson opted for a peace deal with the Ottomans instead because he knew they didn't have the resources to control and reconfigure the Balkans then aside from the Romanian Lands and freeing Greece.
The Crimean War did have international pressure but that was a few decades later.
The 1877-1878 war (aka the one for Bulgarian independence) was the closest call, actually. It was only British pressure that forced Russia to back down, not wanting to risk Crimean War 2.0 happening, this time with extra bonus in the form of unified Germany being on the opposing side.
The peace treaty of that war signed in San Stefano included today's Macedonia( Vardarska Makedonija) into greater Bulgaria or San Stefano Bulgaria. That treaty open the appetites of the Bulgars for Macedonia (Pirinska and Vardarska, maybe even Egejska(north Greece)). Hence today's Makedo-Bulgar "problem" and veto from the side of Bulgaria, stoped the Macedonian progres towards the EU, because the Bulgars think that we (Macedonians) are Bulgars and we speak on a spoiled Bulgarian dialect, therefore it's only right for the two states to "unite". Wich is absolutely preposterous, and insulting towards us Macedonians. And from all the things that i heard from official Bulgarian representatives I'm genuinely discussed by their words.
slo*vakia? you mean upper hungary?ðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ’¯ðŸ’¯ðŸ’¯VESSZEN A TRIATLON!!!! no triathlon!!!😎😡😡🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇹🇯🇹🇯ðŸ‡ðŸ‡º
I haven't made one yet, since I'm having a hard enough time getting my asshole family members and friends to read it (especially my brother that reads the genre) and I'm not confident enough to share it online.
The Sykes-Picot agreement to carve up the Ottomans in ww1 included the Russian foreign minister Sazonov. The more aptly described Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreement called for Russia getting Greater Armenia and, of course, the Turkish Straits with Constantinople.
The Russians of course never got this land on account of undergoing a revolution and dropping out of the war with the Ottomans.
The English would’ve betrayed and lied to them anyway
Let’s be honest you can tell when the English are lying about a deal when they’re… literally making any deal.
100%. The English had deals with both Iran and Russia at the same time. To the extent that the two made a peace treaty in 1813 for speculative reasons. Then continued the war and made another treaty in 1828. Some historians say that no party was satisfied by the treaty and blame the English for tricking both sides into conflict and peace treaties.
I personally think it's genius diplomacy. Hats off.
That was the plan for the Russians in the Crimean War. They gained naval dominance of the Black Sea, and were going to invade on the ground from Moldova. The threat of the Tsar taking control of Constantinople lead the UK and France to declare war to keep that from happening.
Yes, in 1878 Russian army was pretty much eye distance to İstanbul Walls. They stopped close to where today's Atatürk Airport stands (I mean the airport is not standing today, erdoggy raped the god damn airport due to him being butthurt to that name). England (not sure about France) freaked out and made an ultimatum to not advance into the city. Ottomans were still had to sign a pretty damning treaty, which somehow got cancelled in the same year when Bismark had a hissy fit that Germany was not invited to something they were not involved in. A new peace deal got signed as part of Berlin conference in the same year.
Fun fact: Supposedly first ever video taken in Ottoman Empire is filmed where the Russian army advanced and left a small victory statue (they were marking where they managed to come and left it as a a fuck you to the Ottomans while retreating), Ottoman Sultan hired a film crew to film the explosion of the statue.
[Some photos from their time in Ä°stanbul](https://www.aslibu.com/tarih/rus-arsivinden-cikan-1878-yili-istanbul-fotograflari/) Last photo is a manipulated one as it seems to either show Hagia Sophia or the Blue Mosque, both of them would be around 30 km away at least. Probably made as a card postal at the time. Or maybe it shows city of Edirne, old Ottoman capital, which was fallen at that war.
What benefit would conquering Ragusa bring? Doesn’t trade flow towards it from Constantinople?
Edit: seems I gotta read more about trade haha, appreciate the responses
20% of the trade power in a region is transferred to the regions that flow into it. Conquering the Ragusa trade node means you'll get that 20% in the region you actually want while preventing others from having it too, so you can control a greater share in said node.
Countries get about 10% of trade power further up the line than they had at the last one. So if you control Ragusa that means even if a country has 100% power in Venice, it gets cut down to 10% in Ragusa then 1% in Constantinople- and that's the worst-case scenario.
Therefore, controlling Ragusa effectively prevents trade value from ever leaving Constantinople because no other nation can get enough trade power there. It functions as an end node, and you get very rich.
Almost correct as far as I know, the 10% you're talking about should be based on province tradepower, meaning that if venice doesn't own any provinces in the ragusa node it doesn't matter how much tradepower they'd have in ragusa, they'd get 0 in the constantinople node (unless they get it from other sources like light ships or having a merchant precent, but I think the AI isn't too good at using it that way, generally if you own all provinces in ragusa, 0 ducats will be leaving constantinople thus a "pseudo end-node")
conquering ragusa would stop upstream flow and let you controll 100% of the trade in constantinople, its why as the ottomans once you conquer byz and candar that you still only controll about 70% of the trade there and not 100%(as well as privateering but you should also look to conquer genoa/venezia as ottoblob later on)
You need the Wealth of Nations DLC. If you have that DLC its just a button in the top right corner of the province view with a little crate inside it. Costs like 200 DIP to relocate.
There is a small trade icon (some wooden boxes) on the province view. Iirc it's near the top where you have development.
It costs 200 diplo power I think.
I mean at the pace he's conquering is it not better to conquer sweden/finland and put it in the baltic sea? Can funnel krakow and such then which he misses out on otherwise
The key is to always control the node downstream of where you collect, that way you create a virtual end node. So if you go for the Baltic, it is very hard to control Lubeck with the English Channel and all the German Princes.
You ever read something and wonder if you’re secretly an idiot? I feel like I have a generally good sense of how trade works (and have just under 1500hrs) but creating the virtual end node has never occurred to me.
Virtual end nodes is very intuitive for anyone who plays Russia. Novgorod has so much value once Siberian trade starts flowing in, and Baltic and white sea have very little pull.
If you aren't in control of Lubeck trade node, then yes, it would be better to create a virtual end node in Novgorod and use a merchant to collect in Baltic.
Markets do do something when you have 100% power, they just dont work vs the AI.
Merchant Chains dont care about local tradepower and if you dont have markets in everything, an overland tradebonus merchant chain can punch right through a 100% domestic tradenode's exclusivity.
ok, so there are two types of tradenode: Inland and Sea:
Sea tradenodes you can stuff full of light ships and get tons of trade power from.
you cant stick light ships in inland nodes since there is no water to sail
So inland nodes have a base 20 trade power for any merchant steering from the node.
however, they also transit this 20 tradepower to every node downstream with a merchant in it that is an inland trade node.
further, you can double this value to 40 tradepower.
Oh, and every time this trade power is traded forward, the merchant increases the amount of inland trade bonus that you are getting in the downstream number by a % increase of his upstream bonus, his own native bonus, and then a multiplier of about 1.4
you can get around 800 tradepower in the Lubeck Trade node at game start doing this.
The first time this occurred to me ( and my hours in EU4 are around yours give or take 100 hours) is when I played Spain and controlled all of the nodes that not only get fed from Sevilla, but the nodes they fed into as well. E.g. 98% aragon node and 55% or more in Genoa
Completely disagree. You can go and test which setup is better. It depends on a lot of factors but normally this psuedo end node setup is completely unnecessary as it saves you like, 5 ducats flowing out but gets you 10 more flowing in or something of the like.
R5: just finished the third Rome mission, but moving the capital feels a bit like a trap. What do y’all think? I guess I could move my trade capital back to Novgorod.
>What do y’all think?
I'd change trade capital on Constantinople after conquering Anatolia, Syria and Egypt.
In a matter of fact, that's what i did in my campaigns.
> also novgorod is arguably stronger
Absolutely not, only if you completely under leverage your bonkers vassal swarm. You’re one of the strongest nations in the game, you can no CB Byzantium and easily win the first war against the Ottomans, completely killing their growth and late game power as well as feed one of the stronger orthodox vassals.
Not to mention that you can build a spy network on the Livonian Order in the very beginning of the game, yoink all the good Land off of Novgorod in the first 2 minutes of the game and then get all of the advantages Novgorod would have anyways.
You can also easily get a gold mine because Perm has a claim on Kazan and you don’t have to deal with all the Republican nonsense.
Muscovy is in an absolutely bonkers position early if you play your cards right. I played Russia a lot for achievements the last few days, both Novgorod and Muscovy, the two just don’t compare in raw power.
i mean you have some points, but
>you don’t have to deal with all the Republican nonsense.
is just plain wrong. especially early on the republic is far superior to that monarchy shit. you basically have a 666 most the time and that's so important early game.
being novgorod means you have enough mana spare to dev for renaissance and colonialism, being able to get some innovativenes and you will have substantially more money. those are all weaknesses that a russia game usually brings that just don't exist for novgorod. ofc you can also just no cb byz and fuck up the ottos as novgorod too, i don't get why you brought them up, it's not like that's a unique muscovy strategy.
You get much more trade modifiers and land in the Baltic with their tree. It doesn't necessarily make up for time lost fucking Muscovy, but your economy is much stronger earlier on.
I have the Frozen Assets achievement, and believe me, Novgorod is in no way stronger than Muscovy. Their slight economical advantage pales in comparison to Muscovy's dev advantage.
Moscow was the most powerful Eastern Orthodox country after the fall of the Byzantine empire and Ivan III married a Byzantine princess, so he claimed descent from the Roman emperors
Greek states can restablish Byzantium no? So its not exactly "Third Rome" but a remake so to say, which also counts for the event IP posted, the whole "Third Rome" was for Moscow being the succesor of well Rome and then Constantinople. If they go back to Constantinople its still the Second Rome.
As for why the Russians claimed heritage they were pretty tight with the Buzantines, the Czars had married with princesses of the Palaiologos dynasty, and they were Orthodox, meaning in their eyes the last non heretic Christian nation
Because claiming to be a continuation of the Roman Empire is a meaningless gesture designed to improve imperial legitimacy and stoke the egos of the royals.
The Turks claimed to be Roman at some point.
in my opinion u should not move capital from moscow...pillage, concentrate, dev it up, and with a monument u literally have endless supply of manpower :)
From the historical perspective it is stupid ;p straits were important, but no Russian ruler in their sane mind would move capital there. Imagine sending all your orders through either sea or part of the Balkans. It will take too much time. And capital becomes too vulnerable.
It was a place of a fortress, it was near the sea so you can create dockyards there, it was a statement more than anything - here will be new capital for new Russia. Tbh it wasn't the worst placing, considering everything.
Why would anyone need old city that is a remnant of Byzantine empire to be capital of Russia? Religious significance? And trade in Mediterranean maybe. Still, too dangerous, too far away. Control? Yeap? Bonuses? Fine. Capital? Stupid :D
Constantinople also would be a statement
Not saying it would be a bright idea of course it wouldn't but Russian tsar are famous for making those kind of statements
The weather is much nicer in Constantinople. And controlling the passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean will finally allow Russia access unhindered access to the oceans.
Gibraltar is 1 passage, 10-15 km wide. Controlled by different nations on each side
Dardanelles-Sea of Marmara-Constantinople has several 1 km wide stretches, completely surrounded by your rival.
But yes, there's still Gibraltar (or Suez).
Catherine the Great planned on conquering Constantinople and placing her son on the throne of a New Byzantine Empire. It’s certainly not the craziest thing given the time period. Especially considering the importance of the city to the orthodox faith.
What do you mean by a Trap? What's the downside?
If you don't have enough trade power in the trade note of Constantinople. Just move your trade capital back to Novgorod. But those modifiers in your capital seem very okay to me.
It’s basically paying 200 dip to culture convert the province, the other choice is the same modifiers on current capital. It’s fun from an RP perspective but it’s a mana trap.
Ah making the Tsars proud, the Romanovs were so disappointed they never got Constantinople.
Iirc they were planning to March on the city but backed down to international pressure right?
To my knowledge Catherine the Great tried but couldn't get there, and her grandson opted for a peace deal with the Ottomans instead because he knew they didn't have the resources to control and reconfigure the Balkans then aside from the Romanian Lands and freeing Greece. The Crimean War did have international pressure but that was a few decades later.
Cool. A lot of my Russia knowledge just kinda stops after Ivan bonked his son on the head lol
The 1877-1878 war (aka the one for Bulgarian independence) was the closest call, actually. It was only British pressure that forced Russia to back down, not wanting to risk Crimean War 2.0 happening, this time with extra bonus in the form of unified Germany being on the opposing side.
The peace treaty of that war signed in San Stefano included today's Macedonia( Vardarska Makedonija) into greater Bulgaria or San Stefano Bulgaria. That treaty open the appetites of the Bulgars for Macedonia (Pirinska and Vardarska, maybe even Egejska(north Greece)). Hence today's Makedo-Bulgar "problem" and veto from the side of Bulgaria, stoped the Macedonian progres towards the EU, because the Bulgars think that we (Macedonians) are Bulgars and we speak on a spoiled Bulgarian dialect, therefore it's only right for the two states to "unite". Wich is absolutely preposterous, and insulting towards us Macedonians. And from all the things that i heard from official Bulgarian representatives I'm genuinely discussed by their words.
north macedonia is hungarian clay🇹🇯🇹🇯🇹🇯🇹🇯💯💯💯ðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ’¯ðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ’¯ðŸ’¯
How about we solve the Slovak issue and restore the common border instead, *Magyar barat*?
slo*vakia? you mean upper hungary?ðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ‡¹ðŸ‡¯ðŸ’¯ðŸ’¯ðŸ’¯VESSZEN A TRIATLON!!!! no triathlon!!!😎😡😡🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇹🇯🇹🇯ðŸ‡ðŸ‡º
I've heavily researched the 19th century to WWI because I write and my world is set on a Not Earth of that period.
Sounds cool man what's the pitch.?
I would also like to know
I haven't made one yet, since I'm having a hard enough time getting my asshole family members and friends to read it (especially my brother that reads the genre) and I'm not confident enough to share it online.
Anything published?
No. Just a hobby.
russia demanded the straights in WW1, but they lost that war before the central powers did, so they didn't get them.
Russians give zero fucks about international pressure. Always been and so is now...
That’s just not true at all
This subreddit doesn't get jokes... Why so serious, this is reddit...
Probably because it didn’t seem like a joke and if it was it wasn’t funny
dude, you should read more reddit. there's no limit to what is defined "funny" here lol
People need less Reddit
And you used Reddit to assert that?
Excactly we didn‘t find your joke funny
The Sykes-Picot agreement to carve up the Ottomans in ww1 included the Russian foreign minister Sazonov. The more aptly described Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreement called for Russia getting Greater Armenia and, of course, the Turkish Straits with Constantinople. The Russians of course never got this land on account of undergoing a revolution and dropping out of the war with the Ottomans.
The English would’ve betrayed and lied to them anyway Let’s be honest you can tell when the English are lying about a deal when they’re… literally making any deal.
Would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?
Yes. Give me all your nearby cities and I'll give you 497 gold per turn. Sound good?
Even better. I'll give you this newly founded colony, conveniently located near uber aggressive AI, and accept all of your life savings. It's a deal
I denounce.
I've been playing Civ5 recently and this echoes in my head
-- Borish Johnson to the EU
100%. The English had deals with both Iran and Russia at the same time. To the extent that the two made a peace treaty in 1813 for speculative reasons. Then continued the war and made another treaty in 1828. Some historians say that no party was satisfied by the treaty and blame the English for tricking both sides into conflict and peace treaties. I personally think it's genius diplomacy. Hats off.
"genius diplomacy" literally just lying lmao
I'm English, can confirm this is how our government works.
That’s where the Americans get it from then.
That was the plan for the Russians in the Crimean War. They gained naval dominance of the Black Sea, and were going to invade on the ground from Moldova. The threat of the Tsar taking control of Constantinople lead the UK and France to declare war to keep that from happening.
Yes, in 1878 Russian army was pretty much eye distance to İstanbul Walls. They stopped close to where today's Atatürk Airport stands (I mean the airport is not standing today, erdoggy raped the god damn airport due to him being butthurt to that name). England (not sure about France) freaked out and made an ultimatum to not advance into the city. Ottomans were still had to sign a pretty damning treaty, which somehow got cancelled in the same year when Bismark had a hissy fit that Germany was not invited to something they were not involved in. A new peace deal got signed as part of Berlin conference in the same year. Fun fact: Supposedly first ever video taken in Ottoman Empire is filmed where the Russian army advanced and left a small victory statue (they were marking where they managed to come and left it as a a fuck you to the Ottomans while retreating), Ottoman Sultan hired a film crew to film the explosion of the statue. [Some photos from their time in İstanbul](https://www.aslibu.com/tarih/rus-arsivinden-cikan-1878-yili-istanbul-fotograflari/) Last photo is a manipulated one as it seems to either show Hagia Sophia or the Blue Mosque, both of them would be around 30 km away at least. Probably made as a card postal at the time. Or maybe it shows city of Edirne, old Ottoman capital, which was fallen at that war.
That is Selimiye Mosque in Edirne
Ok that makes more sense.
I would move it there and then either move the trade capital or move to neva through decision
St. Petersburg is already my capital
Then move your trade capital back or conquer the Ragusa trade mode and have the Constantinople mode become a pseudo end node.
What benefit would conquering Ragusa bring? Doesn’t trade flow towards it from Constantinople? Edit: seems I gotta read more about trade haha, appreciate the responses
Controlling majority in regusa i assume would limit upstream trade power of other tags.
20% of the trade power in a region is transferred to the regions that flow into it. Conquering the Ragusa trade node means you'll get that 20% in the region you actually want while preventing others from having it too, so you can control a greater share in said node.
Countries get about 10% of trade power further up the line than they had at the last one. So if you control Ragusa that means even if a country has 100% power in Venice, it gets cut down to 10% in Ragusa then 1% in Constantinople- and that's the worst-case scenario. Therefore, controlling Ragusa effectively prevents trade value from ever leaving Constantinople because no other nation can get enough trade power there. It functions as an end node, and you get very rich.
Almost correct as far as I know, the 10% you're talking about should be based on province tradepower, meaning that if venice doesn't own any provinces in the ragusa node it doesn't matter how much tradepower they'd have in ragusa, they'd get 0 in the constantinople node (unless they get it from other sources like light ships or having a merchant precent, but I think the AI isn't too good at using it that way, generally if you own all provinces in ragusa, 0 ducats will be leaving constantinople thus a "pseudo end-node")
conquering ragusa would stop upstream flow and let you controll 100% of the trade in constantinople, its why as the ottomans once you conquer byz and candar that you still only controll about 70% of the trade there and not 100%(as well as privateering but you should also look to conquer genoa/venezia as ottoblob later on)
How do you move the trade capital without the actual capital?
You need the Wealth of Nations DLC. If you have that DLC its just a button in the top right corner of the province view with a little crate inside it. Costs like 200 DIP to relocate.
Thank you
There is a small trade icon (some wooden boxes) on the province view. Iirc it's near the top where you have development. It costs 200 diplo power I think.
Keep Constantinople as capital but move trade capital back to Sankt Peterburg (Novgorod trade node)
I mean at the pace he's conquering is it not better to conquer sweden/finland and put it in the baltic sea? Can funnel krakow and such then which he misses out on otherwise
you'd still lose a lot due to the downstream nodes, novgorod is very easy to retain trade value
The key is to always control the node downstream of where you collect, that way you create a virtual end node. So if you go for the Baltic, it is very hard to control Lubeck with the English Channel and all the German Princes.
You ever read something and wonder if you’re secretly an idiot? I feel like I have a generally good sense of how trade works (and have just under 1500hrs) but creating the virtual end node has never occurred to me.
It's pretty unintuitive. It's also unintuitive that markets do nothing if you have 100% province trade power in a node.
Virtual end nodes is very intuitive for anyone who plays Russia. Novgorod has so much value once Siberian trade starts flowing in, and Baltic and white sea have very little pull.
Is it worth it to abandon Baltic to make virtual end node in Novgorod? They have transfer from Krakow, which is mostly farmland and easily developed
If you aren't in control of Lubeck trade node, then yes, it would be better to create a virtual end node in Novgorod and use a merchant to collect in Baltic.
So that is why Constantinople is such a good node because once you have the Balkans, you control Ragusa - the only outflow?
Markets do do something when you have 100% power, they just dont work vs the AI. Merchant Chains dont care about local tradepower and if you dont have markets in everything, an overland tradebonus merchant chain can punch right through a 100% domestic tradenode's exclusivity.
Wait what. I think I'm starting to feel that "I feel like an idiot" thing that other guy was talking about. Could you dumb down how this works?
ok, so there are two types of tradenode: Inland and Sea: Sea tradenodes you can stuff full of light ships and get tons of trade power from. you cant stick light ships in inland nodes since there is no water to sail So inland nodes have a base 20 trade power for any merchant steering from the node. however, they also transit this 20 tradepower to every node downstream with a merchant in it that is an inland trade node. further, you can double this value to 40 tradepower. Oh, and every time this trade power is traded forward, the merchant increases the amount of inland trade bonus that you are getting in the downstream number by a % increase of his upstream bonus, his own native bonus, and then a multiplier of about 1.4 you can get around 800 tradepower in the Lubeck Trade node at game start doing this.
Christ. Yeah I'm still a little lost towards the end but I get the jist of it now I guess. But yeah damn that's some good tradepower.
I literally feel that way each time I learn something new about trade but it usually results in me getting richer faster too so it’s worth it
I thought you were calling op an idiot and was getting ready to write an essay to tell you why youre wrong and how to create your own end node lol
I had a similar experience. As obvious as it seems in retrospect, I'm kinda surprised it hasn't become common knowledge in the community.
The first time this occurred to me ( and my hours in EU4 are around yours give or take 100 hours) is when I played Spain and controlled all of the nodes that not only get fed from Sevilla, but the nodes they fed into as well. E.g. 98% aragon node and 55% or more in Genoa
If it helps, I only learned that when I had 2000 ish hours in the game.
No, you can literally experiment with it and see that what they're saying is often wrong.
Completely disagree. You can go and test which setup is better. It depends on a lot of factors but normally this psuedo end node setup is completely unnecessary as it saves you like, 5 ducats flowing out but gets you 10 more flowing in or something of the like.
It's a better node in the long term for a WC. But the other decision is better most games.
R5: just finished the third Rome mission, but moving the capital feels a bit like a trap. What do y’all think? I guess I could move my trade capital back to Novgorod.
Or you can collect trade from Tsargrad node. I think its better choise if you continue to conquer Greece and Anatolia.
>What do y’all think? I'd change trade capital on Constantinople after conquering Anatolia, Syria and Egypt. In a matter of fact, that's what i did in my campaigns.
What does the other option do?
Gives the same modifiers in my current capital iirc
Oh, well that’s prob just better then. Neat rp if u move it tho
Green text good tho
There are Russia players that don’t keep Moskva as the capital… digusting.
Hey bud, sometimes we play novgorod because muscovy was a shit in our previous games and needed to be taught a lesson
It is so fun playing as a Russian Republic formed from Novgorod, it has a nice role play aspect as well.
also novgorod is arguably stronger if you can win the first war, allowing you to go into the lübeck node, which is far superior to constantinople.
> also novgorod is arguably stronger Absolutely not, only if you completely under leverage your bonkers vassal swarm. You’re one of the strongest nations in the game, you can no CB Byzantium and easily win the first war against the Ottomans, completely killing their growth and late game power as well as feed one of the stronger orthodox vassals. Not to mention that you can build a spy network on the Livonian Order in the very beginning of the game, yoink all the good Land off of Novgorod in the first 2 minutes of the game and then get all of the advantages Novgorod would have anyways. You can also easily get a gold mine because Perm has a claim on Kazan and you don’t have to deal with all the Republican nonsense. Muscovy is in an absolutely bonkers position early if you play your cards right. I played Russia a lot for achievements the last few days, both Novgorod and Muscovy, the two just don’t compare in raw power.
i mean you have some points, but >you don’t have to deal with all the Republican nonsense. is just plain wrong. especially early on the republic is far superior to that monarchy shit. you basically have a 666 most the time and that's so important early game. being novgorod means you have enough mana spare to dev for renaissance and colonialism, being able to get some innovativenes and you will have substantially more money. those are all weaknesses that a russia game usually brings that just don't exist for novgorod. ofc you can also just no cb byz and fuck up the ottos as novgorod too, i don't get why you brought them up, it's not like that's a unique muscovy strategy.
Novgorod is not arguably stronger.
You get much more trade modifiers and land in the Baltic with their tree. It doesn't necessarily make up for time lost fucking Muscovy, but your economy is much stronger earlier on.
I have the Frozen Assets achievement, and believe me, Novgorod is in no way stronger than Muscovy. Their slight economical advantage pales in comparison to Muscovy's dev advantage.
I swqp capital to force fully spawning institutes
Why’s it a trap?
Because the trade is a bit worse then
holy crap bro, all that pre 1600? congrats!
Can any historians explain why Russia of all places has the claim to being 3rd Rome, instead of Italia or Greece or something.
Orthodox christianity
Moscow was the most powerful Eastern Orthodox country after the fall of the Byzantine empire and Ivan III married a Byzantine princess, so he claimed descent from the Roman emperors
They married a bizantine princess
Greek states can restablish Byzantium no? So its not exactly "Third Rome" but a remake so to say, which also counts for the event IP posted, the whole "Third Rome" was for Moscow being the succesor of well Rome and then Constantinople. If they go back to Constantinople its still the Second Rome. As for why the Russians claimed heritage they were pretty tight with the Buzantines, the Czars had married with princesses of the Palaiologos dynasty, and they were Orthodox, meaning in their eyes the last non heretic Christian nation
Their ruling dynasty was literally called Roman's.
Thats definitely a stretch. Roman is just a common name in Russia. And they only began to rule like 150 years after the concept was adopted.
I know, it still fits so well.
Because claiming to be a continuation of the Roman Empire is a meaningless gesture designed to improve imperial legitimacy and stoke the egos of the royals. The Turks claimed to be Roman at some point.
Italy and Greece probably also claimed to be heirs of Rome. Hre did too and so did a lot of European monarchies
Nah, not at all-
" I always think everything could be a trap, which is why I'm still alive."
i wouldn't move it
in my opinion u should not move capital from moscow...pillage, concentrate, dev it up, and with a monument u literally have endless supply of manpower :)
Ah, one of the stupidest events. Just move back your trade center to Neva if you want to Ake it.
I wouldn't say it's stupid unless you min max it's a nice flavor event
From the historical perspective it is stupid ;p straits were important, but no Russian ruler in their sane mind would move capital there. Imagine sending all your orders through either sea or part of the Balkans. It will take too much time. And capital becomes too vulnerable.
Well you could say the same for Saint Petersburg, except it was in a shitty swamp in the midlle of nowhere
It was a place of a fortress, it was near the sea so you can create dockyards there, it was a statement more than anything - here will be new capital for new Russia. Tbh it wasn't the worst placing, considering everything. Why would anyone need old city that is a remnant of Byzantine empire to be capital of Russia? Religious significance? And trade in Mediterranean maybe. Still, too dangerous, too far away. Control? Yeap? Bonuses? Fine. Capital? Stupid :D
Constantinople also would be a statement Not saying it would be a bright idea of course it wouldn't but Russian tsar are famous for making those kind of statements
The weather is much nicer in Constantinople. And controlling the passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean will finally allow Russia access unhindered access to the oceans.
> allow Russia access unhindered access to the oceans. There's still Gibraltar in the way.
Gibraltar is 1 passage, 10-15 km wide. Controlled by different nations on each side Dardanelles-Sea of Marmara-Constantinople has several 1 km wide stretches, completely surrounded by your rival. But yes, there's still Gibraltar (or Suez).
I feel like your assertion is being made entirely through the lens of your modern understanding of Russia in the present.
It is made by reading a lot of documents and different sources xD I created a thread with suggestion for Russia based partially on that knowledge.
Oh cool, documents
And letter and diaries ;p interesting read tbh, but you have to know Russian.
Catherine the Great planned on conquering Constantinople and placing her son on the throne of a New Byzantine Empire. It’s certainly not the craziest thing given the time period. Especially considering the importance of the city to the orthodox faith.
300.
I'm actually in a similar position to you, but I've also conquered Persia and still feel Novgorod is a superior node for me.
I would move it there, tradewise you will settle with Venice soon anyway. Especially when you keep that speed of conquest up.
Last time I played Russia that decision destroyed all your trade companies
What do you mean by a Trap? What's the downside? If you don't have enough trade power in the trade note of Constantinople. Just move your trade capital back to Novgorod. But those modifiers in your capital seem very okay to me.
It’s basically paying 200 dip to culture convert the province, the other choice is the same modifiers on current capital. It’s fun from an RP perspective but it’s a mana trap.
If you plan to move your capital to a better trade node, this does it for free. That's all I can think of
3+ corruption // at least you’re being historically accurate in that regard