Holes in the Road

Can anyone make sense of the following for me? -

"Roads E (next £300,000) - to D by December 1705"

Or am I just being dense? (Answers on the back of an envelope...)

The Revenant wrote:Can anyone make sense of the following for me? -

"Roads E (next £300,000) - to D by December 1705"

Or am I just being dense?  (Answers on the back of an envelope...)

Roads are currently E and payment of £300,000 has been made to upgrade them to D which will be in effect in December 1705 turn - 12 months from when payment was made unless using the Theodolite which, once researched, can reduce time and cost.

Doh! Sorry. Senior moment. I'd somehow lost the fact that D is better than E (and so on) rather than vice-versa. Maybe I was confused by having two different road-systems on my sheet??? (Poor excuse.) Sorry for the time-wasting.

The Revenant wrote:Doh!  Sorry.  Senior moment. I'd somehow lost the fact that D is better than E (and so on) rather than vice-versa.  Maybe I was confused by having two different road-systems on my sheet???  (Poor excuse.)  Sorry for the time-wasting.

No worries, I had a shock when I upgraded Russia's roads as then Siberia arrived on the turn sheet as requiring separate roads at much higher costs. Should have seen my face when I read the Siberian canal upgrade costs lol.

Marshal Bombast wrote:

The Revenant wrote:Doh!  Sorry.  Senior moment. I'd somehow lost the fact that D is better than E (and so on) rather than vice-versa.  Maybe I was confused by having two different road-systems on my sheet???  (Poor excuse.)  Sorry for the time-wasting.

No worries, I had a shock when I upgraded Russia's roads as then Siberia arrived on the turn sheet as requiring separate roads at much higher costs.  Should have seen my face when I read the Siberian canal upgrade costs lol.

Yep

we all do that face

with academy is required to research teodolite?

tnx

Nexus06 wrote:

Marshal Bombast wrote:

The Revenant wrote:Doh!  Sorry.  Senior moment. I'd somehow lost the fact that D is better than E (and so on) rather than vice-versa.  Maybe I was confused by having two different road-systems on my sheet???  (Poor excuse.)  Sorry for the time-wasting.

No worries, I had a shock when I upgraded Russia's roads as then Siberia arrived on the turn sheet as requiring separate roads at much higher costs.  Should have seen my face when I read the Siberian canal upgrade costs lol.

Yep

we all do that face

with academy is required to research teodolite?

tnx

Some type of engineering academy. It's long term so might be worth a specialised academy and has 2nd stage research to improve it.

See pg 26 of The Miscellany supplement if you have it.

Afraid the Siberian extra cost may be my fault. As Russian Dept East was established in G7 as a separate position including Siberia, Alaska & Singapore (!) . So as it is a separate position it has now a separate infrastructure cost as well. Before that it was all coverd under the Main Czarist position.
So an apology to all my fellow Russian Autocrats.
Seems not just the Russian naval reputation has been affected by my L7 actions.

J Flower wrote:Afraid the Siberian extra cost may be my fault. As Russian Dept East was established in G7 as a separate position including Siberia, Alaska & Singapore (!) . So as it is a separate position it has now a separate infrastructure cost as well. Before that it was all coverd under the Main Czarist position.
So an apology to all my fellow Russian Autocrats.
Seems not just the Russian naval reputation has been affected by my L7 actions.

If its G7 apology time I should perhaps say sorry to all future rulers of Spain as the G7 Spanish Empire now has 15 seperate headings for road and canal upgrades. From the very reasonable £25,000 to upgrade the Roads and £80,000 to upgrade canals in the Duchy of Milan. Too the eyewatering £1,300,000 for roads and £11,700,000 for canals in Spanish South America (excluding the Viceroyalty of Mexico and Islands like Cuba which are seperate).

Have spent years trying to develop a teodolite but no luck. Suspect it will be developed just after the last road system hits "A" standard.

J Flower wrote:Afraid the Siberian extra cost may be my fault. As Russian Dept East was established in G7 as a separate position including Siberia, Alaska & Singapore (!) . So as it is a separate position it has now a separate infrastructure cost as well. Before that it was all coverd under the Main Czarist position.
So an apology to all my fellow Russian Autocrats.
Seems not just the Russian naval reputation has been affected by my L7 actions.

Ok ok we are fine

I’ll just implement a bit roads because rebels keep dying of SL before reaching Tomsk….

How about turnpikes instead?

Nexus06 wrote:

I’ll just implement a bit roads because rebels keep dying of SL before reaching Tomsk….

How about turnpikes instead?

Might find a few more rebels come out of the woodwork that way

Marshal Bombast wrote:

Nexus06 wrote:

I’ll just implement a bit roads because rebels keep dying of SL before reaching Tomsk….

How about turnpikes instead?

Might find a few more rebels come out of the woodwork that way

would you suggest it as siberian route?

Nexus06 wrote:

Marshal Bombast wrote:

Nexus06 wrote:

I’ll just implement a bit roads because rebels keep dying of SL before reaching Tomsk….

How about turnpikes instead?

Might find a few more rebels come out of the woodwork that way

would you suggest it as siberian route?

I'm slightly concerned re your mention of rebels. You may get more rebels in Siberia so I'm assuming you may have issues getting forces there to crush any rebels?

Might be worth investing more in trade etc to increase income to then pay for these upgrades?

In the spirit of trying to help 3 poor confused Tsars (who as far as I am aware have not backed a dodgy character who swindled France out of £100M or siphoned £50M+ from England, then laundered the proceeds through the Spanish banking system before quickly spending it on fancy roads/canals etc in the Americas so that a Papal auditor would struggle to find it, etc) ... I suggest:

1. Ask your engineers precisely what the boundaries of Siberia are in relation to the rest of Russia.

2. Find out precisely what each level of road improvement will give you.  Level A, for example, should be an excellent network of paved roads, whereas Level D is just one up from dirt tracks.

3. Find out how many people live in Siberia (i.e. who will use the roads).  This is not a minor consideration since in the game roads are maintained via poor relief.  If the area the road travels through has hardly any population, who is going to maintain them?  And they will require maintenance: a lot of maintenance - if the surface is a dirt track then it will be washed away or invaded by vegetation; if it is paved, then the stone will weather and crack due to severe weather.  I don't know what the increase in annual poor relief payment will be to maintain the road, but it is worth asking the question.


If your advisors are determined to encourage the project then no doubt they will come up with plenty of reasons why it should go ahead even if it bankrupts the country.  In that case I would be tempted to send them to Siberia on a fact finding mission and watch them die on the way to Tomsk.  It will probably be the best thing they have done for you.

Seriously, if you look at real history, pre-1730 travel in Siberia was via the river network (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_River_Routes which explains why).  So introduce canoes or their equivalent, buy barges, do some river engineering works if you must, but roads are pointless.

If you still don't believe me, then look at the Trans-Siberian highway, which despite its modern surface is still one of the most dangerous roads in the world bedeviled by ice, mist, flooding, dodgy bridges, etc ... and this road is almost certainly better engineered than anything that could be attempted in game, with traffic on it using solidly-built Russian trucks, not struggling half-starved horses pulling carts through snowstorms.  If it doesn't work today, why do your engineers think it would work in 1700?

Finally (and this is where the point about the borders of Siberia comes in), there was an old road linking Moscow to the Pacific.  This was the Chinese route, otherwise known as the Tea Road (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Route )  It ran at a more northerly latitude than the Silk Road, but at least it bypassed the most impenetrable parts of Siberia AND had an economic purpose.  If any of your engineers survive the trip to Tomsk, then perhaps they could cost the Tea Road for you as a special project instead of upgrading an entire road network?

Papa Clement wrote:In the spirit of trying to help 3 poor confused Tsars (who as far as I am aware have not backed a dodgy character who swindled France out of £100M or siphoned £50M+ from England, then laundered the proceeds through the Spanish banking system before quickly spending it on fancy roads/canals etc in the Americas so that a Papal auditor would struggle to find it, etc) ... I suggest:

1. Ask your engineers precisely what the boundaries of Siberia are in relation to the rest of Russia.

2. Find out precisely what each level of road improvement will give you.  Level A, for example, should be an excellent network of paved roads, whereas Level D is just one up from dirt tracks.

3. Find out how many people live in Siberia (i.e. who will use the roads).  This is not a minor consideration since in the game roads are maintained via poor relief.  If the area the road travels through has hardly any population, who is going to maintain them?  And they will require maintenance: a lot of maintenance - if the surface is a dirt track then it will be washed away or invaded by vegetation; if it is paved, then the stone will weather and crack due to severe weather.  I don't know what the increase in annual poor relief payment will be to maintain the road, but it is worth asking the question.


If your advisors are determined to encourage the project then no doubt they will come up with plenty of reasons why it should go ahead even if it bankrupts the country.  In that case I would be tempted to send them to Siberia on a fact finding mission and watch them die on the way to Tomsk.  It will probably be the best thing they have done for you.

Seriously, if you look at real history, pre-1730 travel in Siberia was via the river network (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_River_Routes which explains why).  So introduce canoes or their equivalent, buy barges, do some river engineering works if you must, but roads are pointless.

If you still don't believe me, then look at the Trans-Siberian highway, which despite its modern surface is still one of the most dangerous roads in the world bedeviled by ice, mist, flooding, dodgy bridges, etc ... and this road is almost certainly better engineered than anything that could be attempted in game, with traffic on it using solidly-built Russian trucks, not struggling half-starved horses pulling carts through snowstorms.  If it doesn't work today, why do your engineers think it would work in 1700?

Finally (and this is where the point about the borders of Siberia comes in), there was an old road linking Moscow to the Pacific.  This was the Chinese route, otherwise known as the Tea Road (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Route )  It ran at a more northerly latitude than the Silk Road, but at least it bypassed the most impenetrable parts of Siberia AND had an economic purpose.  If any of your engineers survive the trip to Tomsk, then perhaps they could cost the Tea Road for you as a special project instead of upgrading an entire road network?

Hi Papa,

and thanks for all your suggestions!

I know the wiki pages you've suggested and i've even developed a library to help spread the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyakhta_Russian–Chinese_Pidgin commercial language to help trade in the area (even thou the best resources are in the sea of Okhotsk i believe) and invested in Thea and rhubarb. The challenge is to link the areas and since it is wise to say that upkeep costs could sky hight i was wondering if turnpike road might be an option (but i believe not since is too long road for too little population.

I like the idea of the specific project but looks like Richard tend to make them cost a lot (the archangels -St.Peterburg link cost 5/6 millions alone) in respect of canals and road levels, so i'm afraid it could cost 15/20 millions. I'll ask and let all of you know!

In the spirit of cheering up the three confused Czars who may be wondering if their ships will ever stop sinking or if Siberia is a bottomless money pit.  Here are a couple of extracts from the latest edition of the Brittanic Times which show things may get better in about 150 years give or take:-

a) Watching the smoke rise from behind the fortifications, Nepenin smiled and held his hands out wide. “Mother Russia is now sovereign of the seas!” he
announced.

and

b) Across Siberia it is still winter, but in a sheltered valley the sound of running water and the sight of early grass and snowdrops are starting to show that spring is on the way. And in said valley young ladies dressed in the finest silks silently move across Persian carpets of soft lambswool to bring
fermented yaks milk and vodka to the hetman and leaders of the Siberian and Kuban hosts, and to the officers of the greatly feared Russian II Mountain Brigade, assembled in a golden tent. A toast was charged, “One God in heaven, one Czar on earth, one united Siberia!” It seems certain the hosts are
getting ready to ride.

As a slightly confused Czar, it may well be worth pointing out that Siberia is Basically a Russian colony . (Which doesn't need ships to reach. Which is a huge bonus)Historical Russia could be classed as a colonial power due to the activities in developing Siberia.

Exploiting the mineral resource & Establishing a Fur industry may well be sufficient to pay for the cost of developing the infrastructure of the region, it has certainly worked in my case.

Siberia can also be used as a spring board to the Western American Seaboard, opening up another area to be exploited, there is the disadvantage that ships have to be used at this point.

Another source of confusion would appear to be the usage of differing calendars, as that would explain why the Czar has missed the Kaisers coronation in L7. Sergi his Chief Clerk is going to be in trouble.

As a warning to fellow players Russia Navy ( we sink Ships) has now developed the submarine. you have been warned!

J Flower wrote:As a slightly confused Czar, it may well be worth pointing out that Siberia is Basically a Russian colony . (Which doesn't need ships to reach. Which is a huge bonus)Historical Russia could be classed as a colonial power due to the activities in developing Siberia.

Exploiting the mineral resource & Establishing a Fur industry may well be sufficient to pay for the cost of developing the infrastructure of the region, it has certainly worked in my case.

Siberia can also be used as a spring board to the Western American Seaboard, opening up another area to be exploited, there is the disadvantage that ships have to be used at this point.

Another source of confusion would appear to be the usage of differing calendars, as that would explain why the Czar has missed the Kaisers coronation in L7. Sergi his Chief Clerk is going to be in trouble.

As a warning to fellow players Russia Navy ( we sink Ships) has now developed the submarine. you have been warned!

On that point i'm proud to say that a Russian Fleet of 34 man o'war has been safely brought from Russia to France and didn't lost a ship! Ok Ships were english and sailors french, but banner are Russian! Not sure if i'll ever bring them back, as luck must not be tested too often!

J Flower wrote:As a slightly confused Czar, it may well be worth pointing out that Siberia is Basically a Russian colony . (Which doesn't need ships to reach. Which is a huge bonus)Historical Russia could be classed as a colonial power due to the activities in developing Siberia.

Exploiting the mineral resource & Establishing a Fur industry may well be sufficient to pay for the cost of developing the infrastructure of the region, it has certainly worked in my case.

Siberia can also be used as a spring board to the Western American Seaboard, opening up another area to be exploited, there is the disadvantage that ships have to be used at this point.

I understood the original question was related to a different post about the relative effectiveness of different improvements when applied to large areas - whether it was worth the huge cost of infrastructure improvements or training various specialists, etc.  While I am fully aware of the spectacular economic development of Russia in G7 under 2 very able players, it has taken over a decade of sustained game play to reach its current level of revenue.  Abolishing serfdom, lowering taxes, undertaking various other internal reforms, the lease on America, development of Russia Far East as a team position, and the backing of friendly, powerful allies, have all contributed to G7 Russia's strong economic position.  Indeed it is hard to see how without the foresight of certain allies, G7 Russia would have been able to have developed so quickly.

It is not always easy to break down which factors add to this and which subtract, which I think is what Nexus was trying to do - with limited money to spend, he wanted to make sure he was spending his money wisely and getting the best return he could.  And in asking this question has generated a debate which is one that many players have puzzled over.

I would certainly be interested in separate population figures for Siberia compared to the rest of Russia, along with whether there are any native tribes in Siberia who are treated (in the game) like Indian tribes in the Americas.  We do have the Americas base population figures in one of the old rulebooks: 300,000 population for the 13 colonies (which is roughly 10% of the area of the continent of North America).  To put this in context, the population of London is quoted as being 700,000.   Russia has a base population of 20M.  My guess is that Siberia is somewhat less habitable than the 13 colonies, so it may be that in an area the size of North America, there could be 200,000 people living, concentrated perhaps in a couple of settlements with the rest leading a nomadic life, perhaps visiting the towns to trade or for essential supplies.  The idea of spending millions to improve roads/canals for 1% of the population does not make much economic sense to me, when a far greater payback could be achieved by investing in 'domestic' trade.

If you discover a gold mine, then by all means build a road connecting that gold mine to the nearest town as a special project, but it still doesn't make economic sense to develop an entire network of paved roads in an area where the population doesn't exist and where the environment cannot support a greatly increased population.

The same goes for the fur trade - those hardy enough to go hunting in the Siberian forests will use canoes and bring their pelts back to the nearest town, so you don't need roads to develop a fur trade.

If you look at the route of the (historic) Tea Road, it was basically a series of roads linking internal lakes/rivers, roughly following the southern border.  It was built in sections, extending Russian power by building towns at intervals along it to subdue rebels and thereby gradually colonizing the immediate area which also gave it an economic purpose, attracting trade from across the border.  Since it takes 2 years to build a new town, the idea of gradually building up the Tea Road may be too slow for players, but since historically it took over a hundred years to complete it, perhaps the game rules do reflect the difficulty.  I don't want to discourage anyone from trying to recreate such developments in the game - it is precisely through one brave player asking, that others learn what is possible - but it does seem that instead of just jumping in and assuming that infrastructure improvements are going to help, Nexus is asking intelligent questions and trying to determine how different improvements can help him develop Russia.  I don't know what game he plays Russia in, but since developing Russia is one of the great challenges of the game, I wish him the best of luck.

Papa Clement wrote:

J Flower wrote:As a slightly confused Czar, it may well be worth pointing out that Siberia is Basically a Russian colony . (Which doesn't need ships to reach. Which is a huge bonus)Historical Russia could be classed as a colonial power due to the activities in developing Siberia.

Exploiting the mineral resource & Establishing a Fur industry may well be sufficient to pay for the cost of developing the infrastructure of the region, it has certainly worked in my case.

Siberia can also be used as a spring board to the Western American Seaboard, opening up another area to be exploited, there is the disadvantage that ships have to be used at this point.

I understood the original question was related to a different post about the relative effectiveness of different improvements when applied to large areas - whether it was worth the huge cost of infrastructure improvements or training various specialists, etc.  While I am fully aware of the spectacular economic development of Russia in G7 under 2 very able players, it has taken over a decade of sustained game play to reach its current level of revenue.  Abolishing serfdom, lowering taxes, undertaking various other internal reforms, the lease on America, development of Russia Far East as a team position, and the backing of friendly, powerful allies, have all contributed to G7 Russia's strong economic position.  Indeed it is hard to see how without the foresight of certain allies, G7 Russia would have been able to have developed so quickly.

It is not always easy to break down which factors add to this and which subtract, which I think is what Nexus was trying to do - with limited money to spend, he wanted to make sure he was spending his money wisely and getting the best return he could.  And in asking this question has generated a debate which is one that many players have puzzled over.

I would certainly be interested in separate population figures for Siberia compared to the rest of Russia, along with whether there are any native tribes in Siberia who are treated (in the game) like Indian tribes in the Americas.  We do have the Americas base population figures in one of the old rulebooks: 300,000 population for the 13 colonies (which is roughly 10% of the area of the continent of North America).  To put this in context, the population of London is quoted as being 700,000.   Russia has a base population of 20M.  My guess is that Siberia is somewhat less habitable than the 13 colonies, so it may be that in an area the size of North America, there could be 200,000 people living, concentrated perhaps in a couple of settlements with the rest leading a nomadic life, perhaps visiting the towns to trade or for essential supplies.  The idea of spending millions to improve roads/canals for 1% of the population does not make much economic sense to me, when a far greater payback could be achieved by investing in 'domestic' trade.

If you discover a gold mine, then by all means build a road connecting that gold mine to the nearest town as a special project, but it still doesn't make economic sense to develop an entire network of paved roads in an area where the population doesn't exist and where the environment cannot support a greatly increased population.

The same goes for the fur trade - those hardy enough to go hunting in the Siberian forests will use canoes and bring their pelts back to the nearest town, so you don't need roads to develop a fur trade.

If you look at the route of the (historic) Tea Road, it was basically a series of roads linking internal lakes/rivers, roughly following the southern border.  It was built in sections, extending Russian power by building towns at intervals along it to subdue rebels and thereby gradually colonizing the immediate area which also gave it an economic purpose, attracting trade from across the border.  Since it takes 2 years to build a new town, the idea of gradually building up the Tea Road may be too slow for players, but since historically it took over a hundred years to complete it, perhaps the game rules do reflect the difficulty.  I don't want to discourage anyone from trying to recreate such developments in the game - it is precisely through one brave player asking, that others learn what is possible - but it does seem that instead of just jumping in and assuming that infrastructure improvements are going to help, Nexus is asking intelligent questions and trying to determine how different improvements can help him develop Russia.  I don't know what game he plays Russia in, but since developing Russia is one of the great challenges of the game, I wish him the best of luck.

Are we looking to deeply in the historical realism and forgetting the game mechanics? For example whenever I put down mile stones I've always had an EH increase of 1 whether Scotland, Papal States China Russia or Siberia. What are the rules for developing a colony in the improvements context and would they be applied equally across the board?

Also being in the Far East then Siberia should be eligible to build caravansaries to support the Tea road rather than building towns and would be quicker but not necessarily cheaper.

way i understand it. Caravansaries can only be built in Muslim countries. So not for Russia. Siberia is in North Asia so you would think its ok to build caravansaries there. However as Siberia is owned by Russia and the people there are technically Russians will that effect Richards thinking.?

jamesbond007 wrote:way i understand it. Caravansaries can only be built in Muslim countries. So not for Russia. Siberia is in North Asia so you would think its ok to build caravansaries there. However as Siberia is owned by Russia and the people there are technically Russians will that effect Richards  thinking.?

Advice for Princes supplement pg 29 says they are commonly found in Muslim countries and further down doesn't distinguish between nations:

"They can only be built in Asia, Africa, or the Far East."

Having said that Russia's camel stock is rather low, so might be worth asking a trade adviser whether they're worth it and can be built

Marshal Bombast wrote:

jamesbond007 wrote:way i understand it. Caravansaries can only be built in Muslim countries. So not for Russia. Siberia is in North Asia so you would think its ok to build caravansaries there. However as Siberia is owned by Russia and the people there are technically Russians will that effect Richards  thinking.?

Advice for Princes supplement pg 29 says they are commonly found in Muslim countries and further down doesn't distinguish between nations:

"They can only be built in Asia, Africa, or the Far East."  

Having said that Russia's camel stock is rather low, so might be worth asking a trade adviser whether they're worth it and can be built

I have built them before and they are worth it but you need to build them between towns where there are large populations or a very large trade route passing through. As you need to build them between named towns. Towns in Siberia would not be populated enough and if you built them along the tea road, most of that was in Russia. So you would think Russian towns will not be accepted.

As three quarters of Russia is in Europe rather than Asia.

jamesbond007 wrote:

Marshal Bombast wrote:

jamesbond007 wrote:way i understand it. Caravansaries can only be built in Muslim countries. So not for Russia. Siberia is in North Asia so you would think its ok to build caravansaries there. However as Siberia is owned by Russia and the people there are technically Russians will that effect Richards  thinking.?

Advice for Princes supplement pg 29 says they are commonly found in Muslim countries and further down doesn't distinguish between nations:

"They can only be built in Asia, Africa, or the Far East."  

Having said that Russia's camel stock is rather low, so might be worth asking a trade adviser whether they're worth it and can be built

I have built them before and they are worth it but you need to build them between towns where there are large populations or a very large trade route passing through. As you need to build them between named towns. Towns in Siberia would not be populated enough and if you built them along the tea road, most of that was in Russia. So you would think Russian towns will not be accepted.

As three quarters of Russia is in Europe rather than Asia.

True but was talking about Siberia and Court Circular supplement pg 21 says Siberia is considered Far East

The whole point of the caravansaries is that they link up busy big towns. Would the Siberian towns be too small in population to bring in large incomes.?

jamesbond007 wrote:The whole point of the caravansaries is that they link up busy big towns. Would the Siberian towns be too small in population to bring in large incomes.?

Probably not worth it for just between Siberian towns. Could be quicker than building new towns in Siberia. Might be better to consider their contribution to the overall Tea Road rather than just linking up Siberian towns.

Again it comes down to the game mechanics more than strict historical reality and likely cheaper than trying to set up a special construction project for the Tea Road, which might suggestion it's cheaper to just upgrade the roads that the merchants would travel along.