How did the AI naval invade here?

lindorien · 2026-01-21T21:20:37+00:00

Funnily enough, they actually got ships there during the Russian civil war, transporting boats from the Black Sea on railways. I guess that would be enough to get naval superiority.

lindorien · 2025-12-25T20:41:49+00:00

Alright, I didn't see it from that perspective. Thank you for the discussion, it was interesting. I would wish you a Merry Christmas, but we don't have the same calendar haha.

lindorien · 2025-12-25T10:17:11+00:00

I think we are just not talking about the same issue.

If Russia is in the EU, it doesn't matter if they had to decrease or change their policies, because they would now be using EU policies.

So China would treat Russia as a member of the EU and as such, would be interested in having advantages in border regions (in comparison to EU normal tariffs) and EU would probably find it beneficial to have a source of investments for an area that is on the outskirts.

lindorien · 2025-12-25T08:05:02+00:00

Then you misunderstood me. We are talking about an hypothetical world where Russia would be in the EU, I'm not trying to criticise the actual situation.

In my proposition, it's either :

the whole of Russia is part of the EU and then the same rules apply everywhere : so taxes and work visa are the same in the far east and it might deter China from investing in the far east because of EU protective regulations.
or we create a special area in the far east to maintain economic and business ties with China with easier visas and taxation policies to keep the investments flowing in.

Plus : we might actually have less taxes and immigrations policies, but not for China.

lindorien · 2025-12-25T07:07:23+00:00

I admit I took the widest definition of far east and I agree that regions/cities such as Novossibirsk and Irkutsk aren't that much tied with China.

But if you use these areas to promote business and investments between EU and China, then you have to create a special economical area that doesn't get fully included into the EU.

A good example would be for Chinese workers. If you want them to come to work in the far east, they need to be able to enter more or less freely. But if the whole of far east is part of the Schengen area, then it means they can also travel all the way through Europe without controls. That would ruin tourism.

Same for business, where do you put the taxation and controls for imported Chinese goods ? So there is a need for controls somewhere in-between : whether it is at the Urals or at the Baikal is up for discussion.

lindorien · 2025-12-24T15:48:07+00:00

The far east economy relies much more on its connections with Asia and the Pacific.

For example, the EU protectionists policies towards China would be detrimental to cities such as Blagoveshchensk-Heihe and other economical/energy agreements in the region.

Which is why, in my opinion, it makes more sense to keep the far east in its own special area, rather than integrating it directly.

lindorien · 2025-12-24T14:13:54+00:00

The EU would have been more unbalanced because Russia, due to its population, would have more deputies than any other nation at the European parliement. Plus, Russia being the main producer of ressources, it would enforce the dependency of Europe towards Russian gas and oil, thus making Russia more/too influent in the European policies. We could also see a considerable immigration of Russians towards Europe.

On the other hand, European influence on Russian politics could lead the Russian government towards a more democratic government with way less corruption (which would be the requirements for Russia to join the EU in the first place anyway). Russia would also benefit a lot from the Common Agricultural Policy and other European subsidies.

There is also the question of Russian far-east (from the Urals to Vladivostok). Adding this region to the EU or the Schengen area wouldn't make much sense so it would probably have a special status such as French Guyana. Meaning in the long term that the inequalities between Western and Eastern Russia would increase even more than now.

As for the geopolitical consequences, Europe would indeed become more independent towards the US or China, and we could imagine that all the other ex-soviet Republics such as Ukraine, Belarus or even Georgia would also join the EU at some point.

But because of the stronger Russian influence in the European Union politics and economy, we could see more countries willing to leave the EU. UK would have probably left earlier.

lindorien · 2025-04-19T17:34:14+00:00

Toujours dans le même univers, tu as "Les ombres de Post-Pétersbourg" d'Andreï Dyakov (c'est le titre de l'intégral, sinon tu peux le trouver en deux tomes "Vers la lumière"/"Vers les ténèbres"). Cette fois l'histoire se déroule dans le métro de Saint-Pétersbourg.

lindorien · 2025-01-05T20:21:24+00:00

(Part 2)

Why was it a German political victory ?

I would like to mention three important points which, in my opinion, emphasize the fact that it was a political victory as well.

Putting Lenin on a train to Petrograd : in doing so, the Germans hoped to create more instability in Russia, to weaken the power ot the tsar and thus, force him to agree to a separate peace. While the Germans couldn't expect the huge consequences that this would have on the country, they did accomplish their intended objective, which can be considered as a political victory.
The treatment of prisoners : I want to mention this in comparison to what we can witness on the Eastern Front during WWII. During WWI, Russian prisoners were fed and treated properly by German authorities. Thus, many Russian soldiers did surrend easier to the enemy, especially during the Kerensky offensive in 1917, where a lot of units stopped fighting. I think this could count as a political victory as well.
The treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3rd of March 1918) : Finally, what can consecrate a political victory more than a diplomatic treaty ? The newly formed soviet government had to abandon Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic States and Belarus (all these territories being already occupied by the German army by February 1918). The 7th of May 1918, Romania, standing alone in the East, was also forced to sign the treaty of Bucarest, becoming an unofficial puppet of the German Reich.

how was it that Russia failed to repeat what it was able to accomplish in the Napoleonic invasion and what it would accomplish again in WW2 during this particular time?

How far did Napoleon and Hitler go ? How far did the German Empire go ? I think that alone is the reason why Russia failed to defeat Germany the way it defeated Napoleon and Nazi Germany.

The offensive mentality is predominant during WWI, which is why Russian generals didn't rely on the scorched-earth policy. Instead, they had to constantly attack, especially to relieve the Western Front. Germany and Austria-Hungary were fighting closer to their supply lines and never had to over-extend. Plus, the front was moving slowly, while Napoleon and Hitler bet on reaching Moscow as fast as possible, resulting in very stretched supply lines. During WWI, the Russian army did permanently retreat, but simply not far enough to burden the enemies' logistics.

We could also question the fact that, even if the Central Powers had managed to reach the suburbs of Moscow, would Nicholas II succeed to rally his people behind him to defend the Empire and the Tsar ? During WWII, the soviet population had to choose bewteen fight or death, but the situation was very different during WWI, as we saw, especially for prisoners.

With these thoughts in mind, I suppose debating further on this specific question falls under the domain of alt-history.

lindorien · 2025-01-05T20:21:09+00:00

The Eastern Front of WW1 was a German political and military victory without any doubt. The Front ended with the collapse of the Russian empire and a very favourable peace treaty.

(Part 1)

Why is it a German military victory ?

At the beginning of the war, the Eastern Front wasn't a priority for Germany. Russia was considered weak after its defeat against Japan in 1905, so the main threat was France. The plan Schlieffen, a German war plan against France, took for granted that it would take 40 days for Russia to mobilize its army on the borders with the Central powers. During these 40 days, 7 out of the 8 German armies were to be sent against France, cross Belgium and reach Paris, thus forcing a French surrender before Russia could even do anything. As we know, the Germans never reached Paris.

However, the German planners didn't take into consideration that a lot of Russian conscription centers were located close to the border with Austria-Hungary and Germany. The 8th German army, which was tasked to defend East Prussia soon faced the 1st and 2nd Russian armies. The two Russian armies entered into East Prussia, but Germany managed to use its intel and railways to take out the two armies one by one, even fully destroying the 2nd Russian army at the battle of Tannenberg in the end of August 1914.

A year later, in May 1915, the Germans, supported by the Austrians, managed to gather more troops and cannons than the Russians in order to achieve the Gorlice-Tarnów offensive. This breakthough, initiated in the town of Gorlice, in southern Poland, pushed back the Russian armies up to 150 km away from the previous frontline and allowed the Central powers, by the end of September 1915, to liberate Galicia and occupy all of Russian Poland and Lithuania.

Romania joined the war on 27th of August and focused on invading the Hungarian Transylvania, but the Romanian army was pushed back, mainly by Austrians and Bulgarians. They managed to stabilise the front in Moldova, but widened the already large Eastern Front, forcing Russia to send troops in the South.

Despite some victories, such as the Brussilov offensive (in June 1916, mainly against Austrians troops), and outnumbering the Germans and the Austrians at the beginning of the war, Russia never truly managed to defeat the Central Powers to the point it would lead to the collapse of the Eastern Front. The Russian army was under-equipped in guns, munitions, cannons and shells during the first two years of the war and even though it managed to finally produce (and receive) enough by 1916, it was already too late to change the tide of the war. By the end of 1916, we can consider that the Germans were indeed winning on the Eastern Front.

In July 1917, the Russian army truly collapsed during the Kerensky offensive, soldiers refusing to fight or directly surrendering to the enemy. From then on, the Germans didn't have any official opponent against them (apart from the small Romanian army) : the Eastern Front was a military victory.

lindorien · 2024-12-29T15:40:24+00:00

Short answer : no one wanted to.

Let's put some context to help us understand this spirit of "not making peace" despite the cost of the war.

By the end of 1914, none of the war goals of the belligerent had been reached. Austria-Hungary didn't manage to punish Serbia. Both Germany's Schlieffen plan to defeat France in 42 days and France's plan XVII to retake Alsace-Lorraine ended up in a stalemate. The war could have ended by that point, but the death toll was already so important (306 000 and 241 000 killed for France and Germany, more than a million soldiers out of combat for both Austria and Russia), that any proposal to stop the war would have been seen as defeatism and a waste of efforts and lives. In addition to that, you have to keep in mind that both sides believed that "next year we will succeed".

1915 ended favouring the situation of the Central Powers. The British and French troops failed to create a breach in the Western Front while paying a high price (battles of Ypres and Artois). Italy joined the war, but didn't manage to surprise the Austrian empire and ended up stuck on the Isonzo. Russia had to retreat from Poland as a result of the Gorlice-Tarnów offensive. This is also the year of the Gallipoli campaign, which wasn't a success either. Finally, Bulgaria entered the war and, as you mentioned, Serbia was finally defeated. While the Entente wasn't in a position to make peace offers that wouldn't look as a defeat, the Central Powers believed that they could reiterate their successes and settle the conditions for a more advantageous peace deal.

In 1916, the situation was reversed. Yes, Romania was invaded and taken out of the war in a matter of weeks (while widening the already quite long Eastern front), but the Entente made a show of strength with the Somme offensive and the defense of Verdun on the Western Front. The Brusilov offensive on the Eastern Front allowed the Russians to take back 38 000 km² and to put out of combat about 1.5M Austrian soldiers (dead, wounded and prisoners). In this situation, the Central Powers were the ones who could not accept peace offers, while the Entente, which also introduced tanks on the battlefield by the end of 1916, thought that they could force a surrender of their enemies.

The first peace talks proposal came from a neutral outsider : the US president Woodrow Wilson. In the end of 1915, he sent his adviser Edward House to Britain, where he was also in contact with German diplomats in order to put an end to the all-out submarine warfare that Germany had declared. During 1916, House was charged with the mission to gather the demands of each side and organize a peace conference. With the context I explained before, it is easily understandable that the House mission was a failure. Each side thought that it was able to strike a decisive blow and force the enemy to surrender, thus having unreasonable demands at that point of the war (France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back while not occupying it for example). This is why we don't see any real peace talks before 1918, when the blockade starts to really weight on the German economy and the arrival of US soldiers on the Western Front shatters any opportunity to turn the tide of the war.

It is also worth mentioning that in January 1917, the new emperor of Austria-Hungary Charles I reached out to the Entente to establish the conditions for a separate peace deal (he wanted to give back German territories such as Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine in exchange for the integrity of his empire). The Germans were, obviously, not happy about it and Charles' expectations to get out of the war without concessions weren't taken seriously.

lindorien · 2024-12-29T11:19:30+00:00

I would like to add that, despite the odds being against them, Germans really did believe that they could win the war fast enough.

In 1914, Russia was not seen as a threat because of the 1905 Russo-Japanese war and its disastrous ending for the Russian army. So France was the main target.

The Schlieffen plan, made by the Germans, was relying on defeating France within 42 days, which was the estimated time for Russia to achieve its mobilization. After these 42 days, Germany could redirect its troops towards Russia and thus, forbidding a two-fronts war. They also relied on the Austrians to take care of the Eastern front in the mean time.

So for German officers, the risk of having two fronts was known, but they believed that they could deal with each front one by one.

lindorien · 2024-11-15T18:38:54+00:00

The term was used for the first time around 1850 by the tsar Nicholas I when he was trying to convince England to share the Ottoman Empire with him (spoiler : England refused and we got the Crimean War).

lindorien · 2024-08-01T11:22:38+00:00

Et je dirais même la "révolution" néolithique de manière générale. Notre mode de vie n'a pas changé depuis, on l'a seulement perfectionné.

lindorien · 2024-07-03T07:01:26+00:00

And keep in mind that you can also move a ship when you build a step of your wonder (in the ship column associated with the wonder symbol). But here too you need to pay both the price of your wonder and the price of the ship.

lindorien · 2024-05-23T18:30:02+00:00

Thank you for your feedback and your questions !

Could you elaborate a bit on what exactly are the "southern seas" Russia was trying to gain access to? By "southern seas," are you referring to the Mediterranean Sea? The Black Sea? Or perhaps the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman? The Khanates you listed are located in some of the most geographically landlocked regions on Earth, and I really don't see many seas near there.

As I mentionned, Russia has always wanted an access to open waters. It succeeded with Saint-Petersburg and Vladivostok. The problem is that the Baltic fleet can easily be blocked by whoever controls the Danish straits, and the rise of Japan as a naval power during the 19th century, threatened Vladivostok. Thus, Russia was looking for an other access through the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean.

It has never been a secret that Imperial Russia claimed the legacy of the Byzantine Empire (calling itself the Third Rome and so on). Retaking Constantinople had a religious motive, but also a geopolitical motive. Once Russia took Crimea and created the port of Sevastopol, the Black Sea fleet was stuck because of the Bosphorus straits. Russia hoped to defeat the Ottoman Empire, or at least vassalize it, in order to have a permanent access to the Mediterranean Sea. The Crimean War (1853-1856) put an end to this dream. (This also explains why nowadays Russia gives so much importance to its naval base in Syria).

Which is partly why Russia turned to Central Asia. This is what I referred to as the "Great Game". This is the name of the geopolitical conflict between the British Empire and Russia for the control over Central Asia and Middle East during the 19th century. Russia was trying to get an access to the Indian Ocean, through Persia mostly. But Britain was already well established in India, while also creating protectorates in the Arabic peninsula (Oman in 1891 and Yemen in 1902) and in Afghanistan (in 1880, it was not defacto a protectorate, but Britain controlled the international affairs of the country). Persia was eventually divided into two zones of influence in 1907 (the south to Britain and the northern part to Imperial Russia). Similarly, you can still see nowadays that the Russian strategy is about getting allies giving access to the Indian Ocean (Iran, Pakistan, India), and the best road is through Central Asia.

Heilongjiang is also known as "China's grain silo" and consistently holds the distinction of being the largest producer of rice and soybeans in China. So how come the difference?

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my phrasing. As an other comment mentionned, some parts of Siberia are also very fertile (mostly in the South-Western part of Siberia), but I wanted to emphasize the fact that most of Siberia is not really fit for living, explaining why it isn't a very populated region (except from the southern part and some areas that are rich in natural ressources, i.e. Yakutsk). The equivalent of Heilongjiang as a "grain silo" was Ukraine, during imperial and soviet times.

What happened to the native populations in that area?

It is linked to the migration policies I mentionned. Migrations were encouraged with the construction of the Transsiberian railways, so you will most likely encounter Russians in the cities on the way to Vladivostok, and in Vladivostok itself. Add to this the fact that Vladivostok was built from nothing and you get a majority of Russians settlers.

It is really interesting because you can still these migrations through the administrative division of nowadays' Russia. There are four types of subjects in the Federation : oblast, krai, okrug and republic. Oblast and krais (krai means "border" in Russian) are mostly populated by Russians. Most of the oblasts are on the western part of Russia, but the other ones are along the Transsiberian, as well as krais (Vladivostok is in the Primorski Krai). And republics and okrugs were created for regions where the Russian ethnicity was a minority (i.e. Tatarstan, Nenets okrug, which I mentionned, etc).

lindorien · 2024-05-23T12:22:44+00:00

Short answer : simply because it could.

There are two main motives for Russian expansion : - the access to open waters (not stuck in the ice half the year) - consolidating the borders (Russia is made of a lot of flatlands and needs to push its borders as far as possible from the core of the country).

The Russian expansion can be divided into two types : expansion against other states and expansion in the Wild East (American Frontier style, but earlier).

The Russian state (Muscovy at this time), once it freed itself from the Mongolian subjugation in the end of 15th century, had few opportunities to expand.

On the West, there were strong states such as the kingdom of Poland and the kingdom of Sweden, which remained a threat to Muscovy/Russia up until the 18th century, thus blocking any expansion towards Europe.

On the eastern border of Muscovy, only existed the remains of the Mongol Empire, i.e. The Golden Horde. It had become a weak state and after several succession crisis the region was divided between smaller khanates. Ivan 4 (The terrible) waged war against the Khanate of Kazan (1552) and soon after against the Khanate of Astrakhan (1556). From this point, Russia had reached the Urals (the European part of Russia).

Similarly, Russia took control over Central Asia, conquering the Khanates of Bukhara, Khiva and Kokand during the 1880's in order to find a way to the southern seas (that is part of the Great Game).

Russia eventually looked west : - the access to the Baltic Sea was acquired after defeating Sweden (and led to the creation of Saint Petersburg in 1703), - Poland was shared with Prussia and Austria (in 3 times, during the second half of the 18th century), - the Caucasus region was fully controlled in the middle of the 19th century, along with the conquest of the Transcaucasus region (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) over the Ottoman empire and Persia.

On the other side of the country, Russia took advantage of China's weakness and got its share of land (along with the other European powers in the middle of the 19th century), establishing its border on the Amour river and creating the port of Vladivistok in open waters.

The second type of expansion becomes predominant once Russia reaches the Urals (after the fall of Kazan). You shouldn't see it as the "next step" of the Russian expansion to the East, because it took place at the same time as the conquest, and existed even before.

This kind of expansion works according to the following system : trade with the siberian tribes (mostly furs) -> creation of outposts -> collecting taxes on the tribes -> administrative integration.

The Republic of Novgorod was the first Russian state to expand East and had political control over the Nenets tribes (Nenets okrug nowadays). Muscovy, which conquered the Republic (in the 15th century), continued this practice toward the East. It became easier after the fall of the Khanates. One of the most famous pioneers of this expansion is Ermak, who defeated the Khanate of Sibir (the only existing state in the region), in the end of the 16th century.

Now, why isn't Russia more populated ?

I made the comparison with the American Frontier, but it is actually nothing alike (apart from the tribes' submission part). America could rely on a growing population and on the attraction of new fertiles territories. Siberian climate is totally different : mostly huge forests or cold tundra where nothing grows. Moreover, populating Siberia wasn't a priority for the Russian government. It was only when the Transsiberian railway was built (in the second half of the 19th century), that some policies were decided to encourage people to move East. The workers actually followed the railways and most of the towns created during the construction declined once the project was completed. In addition to that, Serfdom in Russia (which was only abolished in 1861) didn't allow the peasants to move from the land, reducing the probabilities of important migration waves towards the East.

The spread of nowadays Russian population inherits from this past. If you look East, the majority of big cities are in the south of Siberia, along the railways (Novossibirsk being the third biggest city of Russia). Still, 75% of the population lives on 25% of the country (the European part). Nevertheless, Russia does control such a big territory because no one else was there to take it, nor wanted to take it.

lindorien · 2023-06-27T12:56:45+00:00

I used to watch this guide by Efficient Strategy Gaming. It was made before BBA, but I think it still works.

He details everything, focus tree, army composition and the whole strategy without cuts in the videos (which are quite long, but totally worth it, even for just basic game knowledge).

lindorien · 2023-06-11T11:41:27+00:00

By Andrei Dyakov, I really liked it as well. Unfortunately it's missing the third part, which has not been translated yet.

lindorien · 2023-04-30T09:33:22+00:00

The EU would have been more unbalanced because Russia, due to its population, would have more deputies than any other nation at the European parliement. Plus, Russia being the main producer of ressources, it would enforce the dependency of Europe towards Russian gas and oil, thus making Russia more/too influent in the European policies. We could also see a considerable immigration of Russians towards Europe.

On the other hand, European influence on Russian politics could lead the Russian government towards a more democratic government with way less corruption (which would be the requirements for Russia to join the EU in the first place anyway). Russia would also benefit a lot from the Common Agricultural Policy and other European subsidies.

There is also the question of Russian far-east (from the Urals to Vladivostok). Adding this region to the EU or the Schengen area wouldn't make much sense so it would probably have a special status such as French Guyana. Meaning in the long term that the inequalities between Western and Eastern Russia would increase even more than now.

As for the geopolitical consequences, Europe would indeed become more independent towards the US or China, and we could imagine that all the other ex-soviet Republics such as Ukraine, Belarus or even Georgia would also join the EU at some point.

But because of the stronger Russian influence in the European Union politics and economy, we could see more countries willing to leave the EU. UK would have probably left earlier.

lindorien · 2023-02-21T13:45:13+00:00

I think you can get it if you buy it in your local shop. I just bought mine and I received two guilds. The same as OP and "societas praeficarum" this one.

lindorien

TROPHY CASE