Let me come back to this: "Now it's been also verified that Njerpez raiders don't ever try to reach regions of western and northern cultures"
Verfied would mean proven. And as the discussion (not only in this thread) refers to history as a main base of the game, to me it looked like someone found a historical proof. From here I thought 'What a hoax, who proofed that?'.
If you say about my post # 6 that you dont really understand the arguments, thats obvious because they are actually not arguments but an ironic summary of what was posted before. Thought that was clear to be seen. That can happen when I have the impression that I get bamboozled. But only the grin smiley in addition I counted as a double check to prevent from misunderstanding that post.
As you use a present tense in the change log (what I just overlooked before) , possibly you mean it is >set< (instead of verified) in the current game scenario. This is when >verified< now only looks like an irritating word usage here. This is what I understand now after your explanation as you also mention that historical validation is fragmentary.
I dont count Wikipedia as so bad, as thousands look at i each day and mistakes would be found. Its maybe a little speculation but as you see the Novgorod map it looks quite like expansion and they probably would have tried to reach out. Even they reached the northern regions.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_Russlands#/media/Datei:Rus_de_Kiev_es_1237.svgAs you search from Russian history intead of Finnland history, it shows up easily.
If you draw the the game map maybe 40 degrees clockwise you also see that the raiders from the east actually are coming more from the south. Thats when someone looks for raiders from the east (historically) he will not find them.
Novgorod is one possibilty but according to the current scenario setup, I would count it as the second best because the game scenario shows no possibilty of success of the invaders, but in history it was there. If I include besides conditions I would count it only as the 3rd best, what is maybe a little surprising. Swedes are not necessary to explain traders. Even in stone age there were trading routes.
What I clearly dont like is someone coming in the 'I-am-style'. Sure, the adminitrator can implement little green guys coming from space to switch off the continent if the spirit of the water is angered. Or even slap off comments in the 'I-am-style'. But that means nothing and not everyone will count you as 'something else'. There is no reason to behave from upside to down as long there is nothing abusive, discriminating, ... You should know it yourself.
Other thing is: In the game desription on the public site the game is called "low-fantsy". In the discussion the historical reference is held high. "High-historical-low-fantasy" would that be coorect? I made no notes about it but repeatingly in the discussion I saw, when someone brings an argument what historically does not (really) fit, history will slap it off. But when someone then comes with history argumentation you easily say (besides others) that its just fantasy. This looks like switching the comfortable side any time you like. You find that thing in the 'Hare and the Hedghog' story where the actually faster one looks like slow.
Every scenario is somehow restricted and arranged. Thats also the case in the game. But that is not yet fantasy in my opinion. Even the quest stories of those spirits are something what exists in many variations in the mind of people. From that point of view I would not count it as 'Fantasy' in the strict sense. Fantasy for me would begin as dwarves and elves running around interacting. Also those Njerps are not fantasy not even really fictional as we found examples for them in area and other circumstances.