How should Byzantines realistically work in CK3? What mechanics should they have to make them different?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
How should Byzantines realistically work in CK3? What mechanics should they have to make them different?
Realistically Byzzies should be doomed to slowly decline with worse and worse modifiers, and the player’s job would be to just enjoy the imperial court politics and intrigue amid a backdrop of inevitable failure. Focus on their dynasty rather than the realm, as CK games are ostensibly about dynasty building. However, since Paradox games just exist for minmaxer blobbers now every shitass nation has to have the same expansionist rinse and repeat gameplay.
I don’t think it was inevitable at all. There was certainly nothing inevitable about the events of the 4th crusade. There was nothing inevitable about the loss of anatolia following the disaster at manzikert. Inevitability is the epitome of hindsight is 20/20 and is lazy historiography.
What a stupid way to look at history. They weren’t doomed at all in 1066. I wouldn’t say they were truly doomed until the fourth crusade. They recovered quite well from the seljuk invasions and outlasted that great empire
People don't really understand that the Empire under Komnenids (1081–1185) was stronger than under Doukids (1059–1081), I mean under the Doukids, Byzantines lost last stronghold in Italy yo the Normans and didn't even made attempt to recover it because the empire was shit. But Komnenids launched a major invasion of Italy which was on par with Justinian wars, but they didn't have a Belisarius and the Normans were the best fighters in Europe, thus the invasion failed the Byzantine went from full treasury to bankrupt.
Agreed. The empire was having a nice resurgence during that time despite not even owning all of Anatolia. Like I said, I could see a realistic Byzantine comeback anytime before the fourth crusade. Even then maybe, but it’s very very slim. But yeah if they could get lucky enough to have a few good emperors in a row they could be back in business
Considering that the Ottomans became a great power out of that area it would be very possible to see a complete byzantine resurgence if they had more energetic and capable emperors.
After the Laskaris dynasty was overthrown by the Palaiologoi they saw the complete loss of Anatolia because of they disbanded the Akritai.
I always thought what made the difference was that the Ottos had the benefit of having a large societal ecosystem at their backs, "Muslimdom", whereas while the Byzantines were part of "Christendom" they clearly werent enough or there was enough apathy between Orthodox and Catholic flavors of Christendom to even allow the fourth (or even first) crusade to end up the way it did. So they didn't have a large enough support network, so to speak, to help nourish them
>please railroad them with arbitrary stat nerfs
goy4 enjoyer detected
>t. railroad moron
Imagine playing the game that allows you to play out historical situation and insisting DESPITE YOUR PLAY AND DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES history should repeat itself anyway. All while invoking realism, out of all things
this. The Fourth Crusade was a tragedy precisely because it was preventable. If a moronic pair of emperors didn't come to power around that time and one of them didn't use the crusaders as mercenaries none of this shit would have happened.
Byzantine emperors had to bribe their generals in order to get approval, this alone should drain much income
It was building to major confrontation.
Just few decades prior to 1204 the 80K Normans had invaded Greece and sacked Thessalonica (the largest city after Constanotiple) and then the Holy Roman Emperor conquered the Normans in Sicily and threatened to conquer Byzantine Empire unless they pay him tribute, but the emperor himsel died.
>r-railroad!
This is a kino idea
It’s a terrible idea because it’s based on the flawed moronic premise that the Byzantine empire was doomed in 1066
There are far better candidates for such an idea and I can't help but say I wouldn't like that on any of them. It sounds fun as Byzantium, actually, but it's still not historical to implement it as such.
Proper migration system/ horde mechanics would properly simulate problems for not only Byzantines, but also Kievan Rus or Persia. Their biggest downfall was that Turks settled permanently in Anatolia, any internal problem they had was typical of medieval politics in both Christian and Muslim states.
Normies oppose pops so hard for some reason
>"nooo, it would kill performance"
and the same people want China
Development such shit measure of anything. I mean, what is the difference between shithole in Lapland and Constantinople? Literally 30 development, when Constantinople's population was times 500000 more.
>performace
Sinews of war works fine, so how is that argument valid in any way? If anything, Africa and India should be cut from the game with no remorse.
do those pops actual objects with culture and religion, or are they just integers?
Just integers for now sadly. Province culture and converting it by sending an advisor is even more moronic with the mod. It does one cool thing with the culture by adding a new mechanic to it, picrel.The next step would be a adding pie chart per province and expanding the existing acceptance mechanic to affect the popular opinion and public order based on that pie chart. One day.
The nu-Paradrone doesn't care for depth. It wants new shinies to look at, which is why they want China added in just like they got the utterly useless and flavourless India and fricking AFRICA of all places. Never mind the fact playing a Chief in the middle of sub-sahara Africa feels no different to playing as a Raj in Delhi, the Emperor in Constantinople or some backwater German count. I'm sure the endless DLC will haf-assedly resolve this though like they attempted with Northern Lords.
>no difference between ruling the Empire, lesser kingdoms, tiny duchies, etc
Pretty much my biggest problem with the game. I only play it once a year to see what is up with it's development and frick off. My established Italian empire feels the same as a freshly formed tribal Ireland. Remember when the Council and vassals had teeth? Reforming from a tribe was quite an endeavour. At least now you have to micro separate repair timers for artifacts with no notification because that is fun and doesn't make me want to slash my wrists.
>formed tribal Ireland
I hate the whole tribal government and how it is essentially a feudal government where money has been replaced with mana. It makes no sense that inheritance works exactly the same as feudal, the entire point of the tribal system is that there is no private property, but that the tribe owns the land, and the chieftain is elected by the tribe to decide how to use the tribe's resources to benefit the tribe.
I think the only way simulate this properly, would be to make it so that the tribes should not have vassals, but all the land should be held by its monarch directly without demesnes limits, however, they should not receive levies from provinces, instead, they should get event spawned levies proportional to the number of adult men of the dynasty, i.e. you would 100 levies for every adult men of your dynasty.
Princes of Darkness mod solves a lot of the flavour problems. Each clan feels different, even individual characters can be quite different depending on their lore. Just have to like vampires.
The funniest part is the moment PDX adds China, they'll ask for Japan and Korea next. Then Vietnam and Khmers. Then indogs and flips and every other kind of seanig. Basically they won't ever calm down until the entirety of Afro-Eurasia is in. And then they'll demand the Americas because muh vikangz went to Newfoundland! And in the end, we'll have the perfect modern PDX title, as wide as the ocean, as deep as a puddle.
Oh, yes, cant wait to make Björn Ironside the inca emperor and arrange a marriage between Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Cherokee Emperor of China
>as wide as the ocean, as deep as a puddle.
That's summed up Paradox games since the beginning tbh. Only mods ever added some degree of depth. The Grand Strategy genre has always been for nitwits.
You know, having enjoyed playing on the outskirts of the map I can say that without a doubt I understand why the map is expanding.
It's because of Sword of Islam, the first DLC.
Why, you may ask, would that cause the map to expand worldwide?
Well, you see: In the beginning, you could play Christians. Where do Christians live? In Europe. Where do Christians launch the holy Crusades and rule Crusader States? In the Middle East mainly.
Is there any other place in the entire world with which Christians interact? Not directly. There's nothing to your west. It's plenty to allow crusading into Iran and Oman.
Now you play the Caliph of Islam. Where are you going on your east flank? Why does the land suddenly end right where you would be launching wars due to inability to defeat the Crusades IRL? You go to fricking India to get more strategic depth and you conquer those Hindus. Having the entire Caliphate (which stretched out that far in the map) necessitates having all of those smaller countries no one plays. Then once you can play Tibet because it was near the Caliphate's frontier you want to fight China. Then because you can fight China you want to be China. Then because you can play China you want to fight Korea and Japan.
It's a slippery slope. You went from playing Christians fighting Muslims to playing the primary enemy, then you added the features to play the rest of Christendom's enemies as well. Why not add the enemies of the enemies to the mix? You may as well. And then add the enemies' enemies' enemies. Eventually the whole world is in there because it's gone from Crusader Kings to Literally Any Religion Wars.
Agreed. Fixed version.
I wouldn't mind a DLC with a completely separate map containing Inda, China, Japan and the rest of eastern Asia with their own mechanics and bullshit. Just don't shit up the European/Middle Eastern map with it.
>picrel
It should've been deeper but instead got so wide and shallow CK4 will have a world map and green numbers going up.
Tried it as Helena of Troy. Finally killing that rival of hers (took me a ~90 years), restoring the Dream, embracing a bunch of historical figures - good stuff. But yeah, it's too far from what the game is supposed to be. It also bloats traits and paths with all those magic disciplines I've never used a single one of through the campaign.
Helena's pretty good. She starts powerful enough you don't need to do anything to boost her really. Play most Tremere characters and you'll be living and dying by those abilities however. Which is great, it's a different experience unlike vanilla.
I do understand it's far from what the game is meant to be so it's not for everyone. But, I would argue the mechanics Paradox shat onto our plates is far better suited to P&P vampires than actual human beings. Suddenly perk trees actually makes sense (they also fixed them somewhat, so there's some much needed overlap).
Yes yes, you want take your meme screenshots of the East India Company centuries early for upvotes. Frick off back to your shithole.
Obscenely gay map, have a nice day Euro centric cuck
>Crusader Kings
That means the Levant, the actual target of most crusades, should be center. And it is in the actual game
And the entirety of Levant is on that map. The countries to the west are the ones invading it (and failing). Everything important is on the map minus Mongolia whose beginnings is better off being abstracted anyway.
>Europa Universalis
>can play entire game without any contact with Europeans ever
>Imperator Rome
>can play entire game without any contact with Rome ever
Meant to reply to
You can’t play china in imperator Rome
>play game about Dà Qín
>Can’t even play as regular Qín
Imperator is clearly complete bullshit, removing the Sino-Roman relations.
Devs said expanding east was a possibility back when the game was alive.
Levantine Arabs were the protagonists of the medieval era
>pops
How about pie charts instead. For both culture and religion.
What do you think pops are moron
I don't know, I didn't like pops that much in Stellaris, for example, they are annoying to manage once your empire grows.
A completely useless and superflous feature, which pie charts solve with far less coding, scripting and CPU overload.
liqqytards SEETHING
>Normies oppose pops so hard for some reason
no they don't. POPs aren't in any way a big enough conversation topic for "normies" to dislike them. you're pulling that out of your ass
Except you don't even need pops to make migrations, you absolute moron. People hate pops, because they are shit, especially when they are done in abstract way like in Imperator, not because they are "normies". And adding pops to a game solves SHIT.
Why do you hate Imperator pops?
No their downfall was that the Greeks couldn't assimilate the Turks and allowed them to fester. A strong, organized central government can handle demographic shifts with little change in continuity; case in point, the Turkish victory at Manzikert in 1073 and the Byzantine recovery in the 1100s.
Every Byzantine noble needs to have the Family Palace mechanics from CK2 Republic. This will allow them to have income and soldiers without holding any land. Only through this can we accurately represent the ERE as bureaucratic state where most lands belong to the emperor and officials only manage them for him. Any land you own is temporary and can be revoked at any time by the emperor, after which point you have to play as a court official again until he grants you another land.
People say this, but I'm pretty sure private property did exist in Byzantine empire.
which would be the family palace
It did, but not to the extent that aristocrats could afford private armies. To be in a position to rebel, they needed to have a tagmata or thema appointment, or ally with someone else who did.
Not entirely, Basil II is said to have visited some very rich Byzantine landholders in Anatolia and he was shocked by the amount of wealth and power they had.
He then invited one such powerful man to dinner in Constantinople and got him promptly arrested and sent to the dungeon while taking all his property in the name of the crown.
Byzantines would need to have the same election mechanics as CK2 as a start. Maybe make the capital Constantinople too. Because CK3 really even fricked that up.
THIS and also add stuff to that barony that wouldn't come from CK2 Republic. There should be unique features.
Greater economy control (monetary policy, especially) would be welcome.
That's why you'd incorporate mechanics from the CK2 DLC that allows you to play a bourgeoisie landowner.
Sholud be called Roman Empire for astart
Was Byzantine empire even proper feudal state like the rest of the Europe? With lower nobility essentially being self suffcient landlords pledging soldiers to king in the case of war? I tought Byznatines still operated on the old imperial model with generals and governors being "state employees".
Yes and no. Officially, at least in the 11th and 12th century, they were state employees who relied on the government for legitimacy and jobs. Unofficially, large magnate families owned plenty of land in Anatolia and the Macedonians spent a lot of their time trying to curb their power (the class of magnates was referred to as the Dynatoi). They often had their own household guards, large tracts of land and were the prime candidates for positions in government because an angry noble with cash, land and soldiers was dangerous.
It had a good bureaucratic structure prior to the deposition of the Komnenids and the rise of Angelids in 1190. Basically, the Angelids were shit, and the whole reason why the 4th crusader could even occur, if the 4th crusade would have happened some 30 years prior the Komnenids would have routed them the minute they reach Constantinople (if they even made that far). Because Angelids rule caused complete decentralization of the empire, as the Angelids began lynching all magnates they could, thus all the powerful men fled Constantinople and took over a governorship by force, these governors naturally no longer answered to Constantinople, so by the time crusader arrived was full of de facto independent kingdoms, which became formally independent when Constantinople fell.
Theme system, tagmata and feudal style armies that coexist with and/or replace each other based on certain conditions. Start losing control of Anatolia? Say goodbye to the theme system (since they are specifically tied to certain frontier provinces). Empire gets completely fricked up? Now you have to have your vassals muster levies for you just like any Frankish pleb. Basically they start relatively strong, but when they lose they lose a lot more than just land.
Being an emperor should be explicitly treated like an office much like in ck2 republics. You might get ousted from it by the means of a civil war started by a strong provincial general, a palace coup or a pissed off mob lynching you if you're c**t alienating everyone or are an incompetent shitter who fricks up wars and empties the state treasury.
You could just make Constantinople huge, include various noble families that you have to placate, force the state (emperor) to finance the various armies in the empire but place them under the control of generals who's loyalty isn't guaranteed, shit like that. Being (any) emperor should realistically revolve around trying to centralize power wherever you can while making sure your nobles aren't constantly chimping out (which they will whenever you try to centralize power, make them pay taxes or act like decent human beings) but in all honesty I don't think a relationship management simulator game would be fun.
Force the players to read Prokopois' "Secret History" and "The Wars" and then dozens of academic articles from crotchety old Soviet Byzantinists
and modern scholars like Anthony Kaldelis so they actually fricking learn something lol
What thesis paper you workin on?