Fix the byzantines please!

tvremote84 · Feb 21, 2012

During the timeframe of CKII the Byzantine empire was on the long slow decline. On the oppposite end, the Seljuk Turks were quickly conquering the anatolian region and converting the christian subjects. This is really really important because it is the backdrop against which the crusades started. Thats right, the crusades weren't the idea of some random kings in Europe looking for adventure, they were a direct appeal by the Byzantine emperor to help him reclaim his lost lands in the Levant. The drama, if you will, of the time was the battle between christians and muslims in the holy land, the decline of the great roman empire which is losing its ancestral lands to the muslim hordes.

But in CKII, the byzantines pretty much beat the crap out of everyone. The civil wars they do have are over so quick there is no time for outsiders to take advantage. Its really dissapointing to see this because it greatly limits what is possible with this game. I had so much fun in CKI trying to survive as the duke of trebizond or claim the mantle of the collapsing empire and try to restore the glory. These things are not possible now because the byzantines can't lose.

I know, I know, this isn't a history simulator yaddah yadda. But seriously, the whole framing of the time period for the game is the decline of the byzantine empire, which causes a response from the west. Not having that collapse is like playing EUIII where no one colonizes the new world, or playing HOI III and America never joins the war. Yes, these things are all possible, but the games in question lose so much plausibility if they don't happen its just not fun.

I'm not great with mods, and even if i was I wouldn't really know how to fix this, but something really needs to be done. Does anyone feel the same?

unmerged(199940) · Feb 21, 2012

Well, you can start in 1080 and I think that'll do it. It's true that the game has trouble modeling the Byzantine decline, but it's less of an issue considering the different start dates

Tallfellow · Feb 21, 2012

In my current game Byz are slowly collapsing like they did in RL. They have lost most of Anatolia to Aleppo which is a vassal of the Seljuk Turks, so it's good to see if finally happening

Kannon · Feb 21, 2012

Try one of the later starts. Something like mid 70s, when Rum is already formed. Byzantine is less than impressive at that point.

Rozmarzony · Feb 21, 2012

jossief said:
Well, you can start in 1080 and I think that'll do it. It's true that the game has trouble modeling the Byzantine decline, but it's less of an issue considering the different start dates

There have been many times repeated. 1080 doesn't help. : ) Byzantines then quickly overcomes Rum.

tvremote84 · Feb 21, 2012

Its not at all less of an issue. Its a fundamentally broken aspect of the game. Starting at a later date after the empire already lost land isn't really a good solution, as it defeats of the purpose of trying to take the helm of the empire and prevent the collapse.

vanin · Feb 21, 2012

You could always take a later start date, works wonders for those who wish for a more challenging and probably more historical game.

However, the ERE was in no way in decline by 1066, the decline started later in the civil war after Manzikert (which was aptly explained in another thread) during which the Seljuks managed to conquer if not all at least most of Anatolia. The ERE then recovered the coastal provinces rather quickly. The nail in the coffin was the 4th Crusade as the ERE afterwards, despite the eventual recovery of Constantinople, was not only weak but still divided. The Ottomans more or less just picked up the scraps after Latin interference and the Slavic successor states on the Balkans causing trouble, bringing the ERE to its knees.

tvremote84 · Feb 21, 2012

I don't understand this whole start at a later date thing. Why do I need to do that? Just fix the problem. If none of the western powers colonized the new world in EUIII would people be happy if it was suggested that you just start in 1790? I want to play the full campaign. The byzantine empire should not be as powerful as it is in the game. Starting later is a cheap solution

mrnutty · Feb 21, 2012

I think you're missing how thinks work in these sorts of games. Yes it is a historical simulator, but a lot of things happened in history to create the world we live in today, one small unexpected event can completely change the dynamics. Look at England for example, a lot of people have posted on here how 'strange' it is to see Norway take over England, but in reality William got extremely lucky. In my current game William succeeded in beating Godwin, but not in beating Norway, and thus became the Duke of Cornwall, subservient to the King of Norway and England. History is weird. And for what its worth in my current game the Byzantine Empire beat back the Seljuks, slowly conquered Mesopotamia, and with the help of their ally the HRE managed to beat back the Il Khanate *AND* Timur. But now they're in the middle of the most decisive civil war I've seen them suffer all game, and have lost half their empire already as a result and could stand to lose even more.

Think the Empire's really too powerful? Assassinate the Emperor until an idiot's in charge.

DarkieBabZ · Feb 21, 2012

tvremote84 said:
I don't understand this whole start at a later date thing. Why do I need to do that? Just fix the problem. If none of the western powers colonized the new world in EUIII would people be happy if it was suggested that you just start in 1790? I want to play the full campaign. The byzantine empire should not be as powerful as it is in the game. Starting later is a cheap solution

Thats not really the same thing.. at all..

The fact is that you start out historically and then change history. I have seen Byzantine fail and get crushed big time or rise to power as a even larger empire.. I like the fact that it don't play out the same way each time. "note" that in Eu3 its not always the same nations that colonize.

My point here is. Embrace the fun of change instead of a historical accurate spin from start to finish (thats not going to happen and it would not suit the game or the fun for me atleast)

Hawkeye1489 · Feb 21, 2012

To have the ERE always collapse slowly and to the Seljuqs is completely deterministic and against the spirit of the game. Yes, the game is based on history, but to anchor it to historical events so that no matter what, the same things always play out doesn't sound like a very fun game to me.

tvremote84 · Feb 21, 2012

Ok, let me explain my reasoning here, since I don't think I made it clear.

Europa Universalis is not a game stricly about colonization, that is only a small part of it. But the time frame during which the game is set is during the age of exploration, where the western powers are consolidating their empires and expanding into the new world. This creates conflict, and conflict drives the game.

HOI III is a game set during world war II. Germany doesnt' have to attack france, but honestly, is that game as much fun if it doesn't? The point of that game is that there is a world war going on. You don't have to take part, but you can still influence things or be influenced by it. That is the conflict in the game.

CKII has no conflict. It is great fun to build your dynasty and spread around the courts of Europe, but there is no sense of the timeframe. The muslims are so underpowered, and the Byzantines are so overpowered that the potential for conflict is lost.

Even in paradox style sandbox games there is a central point of conflict that the game revolves around. But, IMHO, the strength of the byzantines and the weakness of the muslims negates that point of conflict in CKII. That is the problem I have.

Dinsdale · Feb 21, 2012

tvremote84 said:
Its not at all less of an issue. Its a fundamentally broken aspect of the game. Starting at a later date after the empire already lost land isn't really a good solution, as it defeats of the purpose of trying to take the helm of the empire and prevent the collapse.

So you'd argue that the decline of Byzantium was inevitable, that no changes could occur to reverse it.....but that you also want the opportunity to prevent it. You can't really ride two horses

While I agree that all the major empires and kingdoms become too cohesive in game and could use tweaking, I don't think it is possible to combine strongly typed adherence to history, and ability to dynamically change and alter the historical flow.

I hope that some of the issues around empires are addressed, but I would imagine that the balancing act between what we have now and absolute anarchy across all kingdoms is going to be a tough one to get right, and will never suit anyone.

Kannon · Feb 21, 2012

vanin said:
Why do I need to do that? Just fix the problem.

Do you want Byzantine to be railroaded into the disaster by events? Because as of 1066 Byzantine was still in a good fighting shape and paradox doesn't do railroading anymore.
There is already a big limitation on the early game byzantine where they can completely explode into endless civil war during the succession. Future progress heavily depends on the way that situation is solved.

unmerged(199940) · Feb 21, 2012

tvremote84 said:
I don't understand this whole start at a later date thing. Why do I need to do that? Just fix the problem. If none of the western powers colonized the new world in EUIII would people be happy if it was suggested that you just start in 1790? I want to play the full campaign. The byzantine empire should not be as powerful as it is in the game. Starting later is a cheap solution

I understand your point, but surely you concede there's a difference between starting in 1790 in a game that runs until 1820, and starting in 1080 in a game that runs until 1453. The reason Paradox lets us start from 1066 is to change history in those months/years before William took England and Anatolia fell to the Seljuks. As I said, the game has trouble modeling Byzantine decline, and that might not be addressed until a Byzantine DLC.

Fryz · Feb 21, 2012

I suggest that we start a poll.

tvremote84 · Feb 21, 2012

Dinsdale said:
So you'd argue that the decline of Byzantium was inevitable, that no changes could occur to reverse it

No not at all. I have no problem with the byzantines winning. But currently the game is tilted towards them winning. Everything needs to break right for them to lose. I think it should be the opposite. Everything should need to break right for them to win.

vanin · Feb 21, 2012

tvremote84 said:
No not at all. I have no problem with the byzantines winning. But currently the game is tilted towards them winning. Everything needs to break right for them to lose. I think it should be the opposite. Everything should need to break right for them to win.

Funnily that is exactly what I would call inevitable decline.

I agree that the Seljuks specifically need to be beefed up (the Iberian muslims do very well in my games) but saying that the ERE should hardly ever win (which is exactly what your quote is saying considering that the Seljuks hardly ever win) is not the way to go. Sure, make the Seljuks stronger, but railroading the ERE to disaster is not the way to do it, that empire was still very powerful by the start of the timeframe.

kiahoga · Feb 21, 2012

It was just s likely in the begining for the Seljuk Turks to be crushed like several other Asia Minor invasion into the empire, In fact it wasnt even the battle of Manzikert itself that started the decline of the empire. For we now now that the byzantines lost very little troop wise and could have rebounded and pushed back the badly out numbered Turks. What it was was the massive and prolonged series of civil wars that came in the wake of Manzikert that allowed the Seljuk Turks to solidify there hold in Central Anatolia and eventually allowed them to crush the empire.

ConstantineXII · Feb 21, 2012

The Byzantine decline was not a foregone conclusion, and the disaster at manzikert (which happened after the start date) played a significant role in the Byzantines troubles and was due in large part by treason. It's quite possible that the Byzantines could have not suffered such a fate, and in fact seems like a likely scenario. So no the Byzies don't need to be nurfed or "scripted to fail" just because they did historically after another 400 years.

Fix the byzantines please!

First Lieutenant

Captain

Lt. General

Colonel

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant

Colonel

First Lieutenant

Sergeant

Konungr of Scandinavia

Defensor Fidei et Ecclesiae

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Colonel

Captain

NO_TEXT_FOR_KEY

First Lieutenant

Colonel

Major

Captain