Why is Sturgia so desperately poor? (1.4.1)

[Adijazz1706]

Their backstory is similar to early Canadians basically trapping animals and trading fur, where's all the meat?

The politeness just isnt there tho

 

[Norseman13]

These arguments explain why the nords left Scandinavian and took over half of England. Problem is in the game these harsh conditions don't create top tier troops, just starving peasants trying to survive while Harold Fairhair wages war with everyone.

 

[PeteSKTemplar]

These arguments explain why the nords left Scandinavian and took over half of England. Problem is in the game these harsh conditions don't create top tier troops, just starving peasants trying to survive while Harold Fairhair wages war with everyone.

Sturgia is inspired by Kievan Rus so Nordic-Slavic kingdom which was not just to the east from Scandinavia but also to the South (ofc Novgorod is not much on the South but Kiev is) where was always great farmland btw. Ofc for the Mediteranians it was North but it was not Siberia.

 

[TurtleFactz]

These arguments explain why the nords left Scandinavian and took over half of England. Problem is in the game these harsh conditions don't create top tier troops, just starving peasants trying to survive while Harold Fairhair wages war with everyone.

Boats and water travel was also kind of a huge part of how the nords were able to do this and survive/thrive as well.

There's so much of Viking Conquest I wish was in Bannerlord, maybe in the future.

 

[Ichon]

Water trade routes will help as well more intelligent placement of the cities on the map. Some of the city placement is quite questionable.

 

[askarmc]

Sturgia is poor because it needs ships to raid the villages and churches. ?‍

 

[Maneuverer]

Sturgia is poor because it needs ships to raid the villages and churches. ?‍

they aren't viking faction

 

[askarmc]

they aren't viking faction

Yes I know that they are not viking faction in full meaning (it is koncept of Kievan Rus). But if you will revise history Kievan Rus was formed by the rulling clan of Variags (slavic people called vikings - Variags). In historical records slavic tribes accepted Riurik (Rorik - scandinavian name) to unit slavic people and rool them. So in this meaning they have sort of viking enfluance (that is why we see in the game an ultimate sturgian units - variags, looking as vikings).
Due to this reason I think they should have viking element game play.
Eventually the developers I hope will give us viking concept faction (may be in DLC who knows?). The Bannerlord series is directly saying that some Sturgia faction lords have come to this lands from far North and they really have viking looking banners of their clan.

 

[xdj1nn]

Yes I know that they are not viking faction in full meaning (it is koncept of Kievan Rus). But if you will revise history Kievan Rus was formed by the rulling clan of Variags (slavic people called vikings - Variags). In historical records slavic tribes accepted Riurik (Rorik - scandinavian name) to unit slavic people and rool them. So in this meaning they have sort of viking enfluance (that is why we see in the game an ultimate sturgian units - variags, looking as vikings).
Due to this reason I think they should have viking element game play.
Eventually the developers I hope will give us viking concept faction (may be in DLC who knows?). The Bannerlord series is directly saying that some Sturgia faction lords have come to this lands from far North and they really have viking looking banners of their clan.

no mate, **** history, check the Warband lore and you'll understand better. Sturgians are the precursors of both Varangian and Nords (by mixing). Sturgians mixed with invading Nords, and later on Nords made a full blown invasion taking northern calradia and mingling with it's peoples. In WB Nords are almost pure, but a bit mixed with Battanians and Sturgians. Remaining Sturgians mixed with Battanians and became the Varangir.
Swadia formed out of Vlandia, while Rhodoks are an offshoot of Vlandia that don't make much sense, though in Warband there are some lame explanations.
What baffles me is that by following WB lore, that means both Sarranids and Khergit are part of peoples that basically dominated the entirety of the Empire lands (which's irritating, at least to me). The most probable outcome would be that half Empire would be taken by them while the other half would either become something else or be taken by other factions/cultures.

If we want more historically based BL, then they'd have to scrap WB entirely, Vlandians which are mostly "Normans" would have to be geographically located in a different area, never really coming in touch with Sturgians, Khuzait or Aserai. They'd have to have a domating "french-like" culture near them, Battania would have to be in a Island close to Vlandia, Sturgia would have to be wide-spread in wastes with little to no access to shores, Empire would have to have it's "capital" in a strategic choke-point with shores (big port) akin to Constantinople, Aserai and Khuzaits would have to "surround" empire territory sharing borders between them (it's barely like that, they don't actually share borders between them, it's more like they are both between a tip of Empire territory). Rhodoks are kind of the "Italians" so they should be a "proto-rhodok) at the south and not border Vlandia. Maybe even have their own kingdom around that Volcano near Rhotae, but with tons of shores. Aaaaa, I think you get my meaning.
And we'd still be missing a German culture, a Slavic Culture, a Scandinavian Culture (Nords are not in the game), a Finnish Culture, and a French culture (as I've said), that to give sense to the Geo-Cultural base of the game alone. Because Normans cannot exist without French + Scandinavians, Kievan Rus cannot exist without Slavs + Scandinavians, Rhodoks are basically Italians mixed with something, so on so forth. We either embrace TW's lore or it's simply impossible to make heads and tails of this

 

[askarmc]

no mate, **** history, check the Warband lore and you'll understand better. Sturgians are the precursors of both Varangian and Nords (by mixing). Sturgians mixed with invading Nords, and later on Nords made a full blown invasion taking northern calradia and mingling with it's peoples. In WB Nords are almost pure, but a bit mixed with Battanians and Sturgians. Remaining Sturgians mixed with Battanians and became the Varangir.
Swadia formed out of Vlandia, while Rhodoks are an offshoot of Vlandia that don't make much sense, though in Warband there are some lame explanations.
What baffles me is that by following WB lore, that means both Sarranids and Khergit are part of peoples that basically dominated the entirety of the Empire lands (which's irritating, at least to me). The most probable outcome would be that half Empire would be taken by them while the other half would either become something else or be taken by other factions/cultures.

If we want more historically based BL, then they'd have to scrap WB entirely, Vlandians which are mostly "Normans" would have to be geographically located in a different area, never really coming in touch with Sturgians, Khuzait or Aserai. They'd have to have a domating "french-like" culture near them, Battania would have to be in a Island close to Vlandia, Sturgia would have to be wide-spread in wastes with little to no access to shores, Empire would have to have it's "capital" in a strategic choke-point with shores (big port) akin to Constantinople, Aserai and Khuzaits would have to "surround" empire territory sharing borders between them (it's barely like that, they don't actually share borders between them, it's more like they are both between a tip of Empire territory). Rhodoks are kind of the "Italians" so they should be a "proto-rhodok) at the south and not border Vlandia. Maybe even have their own kingdom around that Volcano near Rhotae, but with tons of shores. Aaaaa, I think you get my meaning.
And we'd still be missing a German culture, a Slavic Culture, a Scandinavian Culture (Nords are not in the game), a Finnish Culture, and a French culture (as I've said), that to give sense to the Geo-Cultural base of the game alone. Because Normans cannot exist without French + Scandinavians, Kievan Rus cannot exist without Slavs + Scandinavians, Rhodoks are basically Italians mixed with something, so on so forth. We either embrace TW's lore or it's simply impossible to make heads and tails of this

Comon man you are going too deep, I'm talking just about concept all of this factions were based on prototypes from real history. There are a lot of hints on that (architecture, clothes style, name of units - Druzhinnik - Sturgian heavy cavalry from russian means the friend of Knyaz his followers, Keshig - from turkic language means - night guard, Torguud - is a body guard or day guard, Karakhergit - means black khergit, mameluks and so on.) You do not need to be very presice when you making parralels with history, because it's very low, but steel gives a hint who is who. So Sturgians are defently a prototype (visual concept) of Kievan Rus (look at warriors ammunition and armor, variags looks more viking and upgraded sturgian main units tree - looks more like druzhina russian warriors of 9 century). However varyags upgraded into the late stage to Druzhina cavalry again looks like russian havy druzhina cavalry of 9-10 century or even 13 century. So don't tell me that history has no sence here it is the main source of inspiration for the developers.

 

[askarmc]

no mate, **** history, check the Warband lore and you'll understand better. Sturgians are the precursors of both Varangian and Nords (by mixing). Sturgians mixed with invading Nords, and later on Nords made a full blown invasion taking northern calradia and mingling with it's peoples. In WB Nords are almost pure, but a bit mixed with Battanians and Sturgians. Remaining Sturgians mixed with Battanians and became the Varangir.
Swadia formed out of Vlandia, while Rhodoks are an offshoot of Vlandia that don't make much sense, though in Warband there are some lame explanations.
What baffles me is that by following WB lore, that means both Sarranids and Khergit are part of peoples that basically dominated the entirety of the Empire lands (which's irritating, at least to me). The most probable outcome would be that half Empire would be taken by them while the other half would either become something else or be taken by other factions/cultures.

If we want more historically based BL, then they'd have to scrap WB entirely, Vlandians which are mostly "Normans" would have to be geographically located in a different area, never really coming in touch with Sturgians, Khuzait or Aserai. They'd have to have a domating "french-like" culture near them, Battania would have to be in a Island close to Vlandia, Sturgia would have to be wide-spread in wastes with little to no access to shores, Empire would have to have it's "capital" in a strategic choke-point with shores (big port) akin to Constantinople, Aserai and Khuzaits would have to "surround" empire territory sharing borders between them (it's barely like that, they don't actually share borders between them, it's more like they are both between a tip of Empire territory). Rhodoks are kind of the "Italians" so they should be a "proto-rhodok) at the south and not border Vlandia. Maybe even have their own kingdom around that Volcano near Rhotae, but with tons of shores. Aaaaa, I think you get my meaning.
And we'd still be missing a German culture, a Slavic Culture, a Scandinavian Culture (Nords are not in the game), a Finnish Culture, and a French culture (as I've said), that to give sense to the Geo-Cultural base of the game alone. Because Normans cannot exist without French + Scandinavians, Kievan Rus cannot exist without Slavs + Scandinavians, Rhodoks are basically Italians mixed with something, so on so forth. We either embrace TW's lore or it's simply impossible to make heads and tails of this

And eventually when you go to make a mission from some lords wife to train her son she will say that her clan came to this land from far north a long years ago. That is not my fantasy or imagination that what i read in the dialogue with game character who was scripted by developer say this story to introduce her family history.

 

[kreamy]

In my latest campaign, Sturgia has almost been completely eliminated and Khuzait own 1/3 of the map in less than two years. But I looked at their territories and noticed something throughout said campaign, which is that every city and village is dirt poor. Villages have 10-20 militia at most, there are lots of "village needs grain stock" and "extortion by deserters" quests. Every city has very little or negative prosperity growth and whenever a village gets raided or anything gets sieged, Sturgia never goes to defend it (instead sieging a western empire castle half the map away for some reason).

If you read the story for Sturgia and the various clans within it (the proto Vaegir for example) they organized into a kingdom on the basis of their fur trade and wealth. Yet so far in every patch since EA release they've been the poorest Kingdom.



In reality within the game though fur seems to be completely irrelevant, only ONE village even produces iron and honey doesn't exist. Sturgian lands have nothing to offer in-game.

they should put some sort of attrition for winter campaigning, besides slowing down. IE wounding but not death (since its basically equal but recoverable).

That would get them a home field advantage, but deep in territory, not necessarily at the borders

 

[Maneuverer]

Yes I know that they are not viking faction in full meaning (it is koncept of Kievan Rus). But if you will revise history Kievan Rus was formed by the rulling clan of Variags (slavic people called vikings - Variags). In historical records slavic tribes accepted Riurik (Rorik - scandinavian name) to unit slavic people and rool them. So in this meaning they have sort of viking enfluance (that is why we see in the game an ultimate sturgian units - variags, looking as vikings).
Due to this reason I think they should have viking element game play.
Eventually the developers I hope will give us viking concept faction (may be in DLC who knows?). The Bannerlord series is directly saying that some Sturgia faction lords have come to this lands from far North and they really have viking looking banners of their clan.

You are right, Kievian Rus was principality of slavic tribes and nordic settlers/traders. Yet this doesn't mean they were vikings as you want them to be. Vikings are sea riders in the north-west part of the map.

 

[archaicwarrior]

In my latest campaign, Sturgia has almost been completely eliminated and Khuzait own 1/3 of the map in less than two years. But I looked at their territories and noticed something throughout said campaign, which is that every city and village is dirt poor. Villages have 10-20 militia at most, there are lots of "village needs grain stock" and "extortion by deserters" quests. Every city has very little or negative prosperity growth and whenever a village gets raided or anything gets sieged, Sturgia never goes to defend it (instead sieging a western empire castle half the map away for some reason).

If you read the story for Sturgia and the various clans within it (the proto Vaegir for example) they organized into a kingdom on the basis of their fur trade and wealth. Yet so far in every patch since EA release they've been the poorest Kingdom.



In reality within the game though fur seems to be completely irrelevant, only ONE village even produces iron and honey doesn't exist. Sturgian lands have nothing to offer in-game.

(Racist mode ON) ..because they are blue eyed blonds mostly ..(Racist mode off)

say no more .... LOL

 

[TurtleFactz]

(Racist mode ON) ..because they are blue eyed blonds mostly ..(Racist mode off)

say no more .... LOL

huh?

 

[xdj1nn]

huh?

I'm also trying to understand, maybe it's alien logic, idk

 

[Galiathus]

Because Sturgia was raised by a stepmother~~~LOL,LOL
Seriously speaking, it is mainly because this country was born in the Northland, which itself is cold, so it is normal to be poor.
In addition, the horizontal span of Sturgia's land is too large.and often went to war on both sides, and the support of lords was not timely, resulting the village,caravans often being looted, and it was very easy to lose the city.

 

[askarmc]

You are right, Kievian Rus was principality of slavic tribes and nordic settlers/traders. Yet this doesn't mean they were vikings as you want them to be. Vikings are sea riders in the north-west part of the map.

Honestly saying Vikings, Normans, Varyags, in the west or east are almost the same people. Vikings in the west were not only riders, they tried as trading and settling so riding, depending on surcumstances (vikings of the west were not only riders, there are a lot of proofs for that). The picture of sever barbarians were artificially created by western christians however slavs in the east were pagans as vikings and did not tryed to create an idiology war. However slavs in the East were expirienced of raids and both got benefits of trading. The difference only in the name that scandinavian salorman were received - in west, local people called them vikings and normans. In the east local people called them Variags.

 

[paladinx333]

1. Caravans often cannot operate in parts of Sturgia due to sea raider infestations.
2. Sturgia starts out at war with Vlandia, a war that usually results in an early loss of Varcheg.
3. Living on permafrost has a deleterious effect on a person's ambition.


(I just made the last one up)

 

[PeteSKTemplar]

1. Caravans often cannot operate in parts of Sturgia due to sea raider infestations.
2. Sturgia starts out at war with Vlandia, a war that usually results in an early loss of Varcheg.
3. Living on permafrost has a deleterious effect on a person's ambition.


(I just made the last one up)

Sometimes I have feelings when playing Sturgia that why those wool mammoths stoped migrating around here "some time ago" for other options for economic growth are kind of non avaliable or more precisely frozen