• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Slym

Colonel
63 Badges
Apr 7, 2012
864
71
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • March of the Eagles
  • Magicka
  • Lead and Gold
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • 500k Club
  • War of the Roses
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
Why do the Byzantines get all the historically inaccurate fun?

Why isn't there a gigantic amount of potential gameplay about the Muslims reconquering these areas? Seems unfair, s'all I'm saying.
 
Why do the Byzantines get all the historically inaccurate fun?

Why isn't there a gigantic amount of potential gameplay about the Muslims reconquering these areas? Seems unfair, s'all I'm saying.

Because Grenada isn't supposed to survive the first few years so I assume it was figured it was a waste of effort to give them anything special.
 
Because something like 0.1% of players will ever get a successful Granada, and pandering for them is not as worktime effective as making missions for the far greater number of people who will play Spain/Byzantium/England/France/Austria/other unique-mission countries and not die instantly.

But it's concerns like this that leads to a thriving modding scene so feel free to write up some missions for them and share 'em.
 
There should be a decision to form the Grenadine empire, including a mission tree ordering you to colonize sugar provinces.
 
Muslims dont generally colonise anything..

False. I have seen the Mamluks colonize through the Golden Horde before
 
Because Grenada isn't supposed to survive the first few years so I assume it was figured it was a waste of effort to give them anything special.

But historically Granada survived till 1492, while the Byzantines (read: Roman empire) until 1453....
 
The "Byzantines" seem to be very popular among the gaming community here, so much so that there have been accusations of the developers pandering to these people by over focusing on them too much, giving them cores on things they lost centuries ago and giving them a bonus to culture spreading.
I'm not sure about that but I would agree they seem to have a lot of focus for their size and there historical sell by date. I sense an argument coming in this thread.
A mod that focuses on increasing missions for fringe or non-european countries would be a nice idea.
 
The "Byzantines" seem to be very popular among the gaming community here, so much so that there have been accusations of the developers pandering to these people by over focusing on them too much, giving them cores on things they lost centuries ago and giving them a bonus to culture spreading.
I'm not sure about that but I would agree they seem to have a lot of focus for their size and there historical sell by date. I sense an argument coming in this thread.

Can we include the Ottomans bad performance in EU3 in this theory? :)
 
A similar question may be raised in regards to the Mongol Khanate. Why don't they get any unique missions and/or decisions to restore the Yuan reign over China and perhaps also the rest of former Mongol Empire? And why are they made to always die right away when historically they survived until 1635?!
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't much care for playing the Byzantines, but one cannot disregard that the nation represents the continuation of the Roman Empire and until its end at the hands of the Turks they asserted the importance of the Patriarchy and the historical claims on the region -- although one cannot say that they actively sought its reconquest to the degree the missions would suggest. Granada on the other hand was a Emirate that established itself without historical continuance and was more a product of the reconquista (as an tributary of Castille). As such, it would lack any basis or reason to model a reversal of the reconquista since the people of Granada or the Nasrid dynasty were never Moorish conquerors.

On a different note, I have toyed with the idea of letting Morocco perpetrate the reversal, since it was the place of origin and capital of the Almohad Caliphate. That would be a little more reasonable. On a related subject matter, I am a bit disappointing that the title of Khalifi has been reduced to a small decision and modifier. Still, not even the ottomans took it that serious in the time period.
 
There was document in television, where they researches genealogies of famous Reconquistas heroes as El Cid etc. And they found...
all of them was Morrocean Muslims:D
 
Why do the Byzantines get all the historically inaccurate fun?

Why isn't there a gigantic amount of potential gameplay about the Muslims reconquering these areas? Seems unfair, s'all I'm saying.

Game is made by Europeans, to be more specific the "westerners".

1.) Most of the "westerners" (in this case the ones on the island and ones across the sea) are obsessed with Rome and Romans (for some reason). In EU3 which is a game focused on age after "the" Rome, the closest that you can get to "the" Rome are Byzies.

2.) Most people in general like people/countries/alter egos in general that are, in certain context, considered an "underdog". Nobody can have too much fun loading as France and uniting it, and than brag that they have achieved something. But everyone who manages to survive and thrive as Byzies (even to turn the tables around) can be proud of what they have done.

So out of combination of 1.) and 2.) an interest (or desire) to play as Byzies was born, hence when EU3 was under development, one of the devs sat down and wrote these missions.

Writing missions is not always as simple as it might seem. It doesnt require too much time to do on its own, but it does require lots of time to debug it (to make sure that it works).

3.) Byzies are Byzies and Granada is Granda. Nothing more has to be said. Its not fair, but it is what it is. One was given more attention, other was put there to get killed within 5 years of game start.