I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me there. Questioning the words of the great Gavin Menzies? What was I thinking. :unsure:
A True Purple Pheonix
- Thread starter Maver1ck
- Start date
-
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.
I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me there. Questioning the words of the great Gavin Menzies? What was I thinking. :unsure:
Real reply: you sold me a DLC on the basis that it would give me additional game play. You then proceeded to change the game in such a way that that DLC is useless.
As for historical accuracy: whenever it suits Paradox representatives, they excuse any amount of historical inaccuracy (and complete bullshit) by saying "The game's no longer history once it starts." But, somehow, when it comes to Byzantium, then not only the start needs to be historically accurate, but the outcomes too.
There's a couple of things I'd like to see. (1) A decision, available to Byzantium in the first year of the game IF you've bought the DLC and which the AI will never take, that rearranges the European part of the Ottoman Empire, and gives Byzantium some of the Anatolian coast, too. (2) A decision that allows Byzantium to switch to the Ottoman unit type. (The Ottoman military tradition came from the merge of Turkish military traditions and those of the Byzantines they conquered. It's the closest guess one can make to how the military of a Byzantium that survived might have evolved.)
When you sell people a Buddhist DLC and then proceed to not give the people buying that DLC any additional game play, that'll be a relevant comparison. If you don't want to give me game play for a country, that's fine - but, if that's the case, don't sell me a DLC promising to give me game play for that country.
Wiz has stated that the Byz start is already ahistorical for gameplay purposes: It shouldn't have any actual territory outside Constantinople and it's own capital should be 70% autonomy.
The Byzantines got a DLC because people are crazy and moaned about wanting for Byzantine stuff. You got it, that the start is hard and gets harder over time doesn't matter, they are a minor, doomed nation, and didn't even deserve the DLC they got.
The Byzantines got a DLC because people are crazy and moaned about wanting for Byzantine stuff. You got it, that the start is hard and gets harder over time doesn't matter, they are a minor, doomed nation, and didn't even deserve the DLC they got.
They need to pull all the hand holding cores. Not just BYZ, but including BYZ.
BYZ isn't even top 20 in difficult starts. TBH it probably isn't top 30 or 40 either, and 1.8 despite yanking cores made their opening easier rather than harder, because you don't have to anything aside from use your newfound trade money to spam galleys hard. No special tricks needed.
i'd love to disable the galley spam strat, but I dont like any game methods to playing the game so
I just want to be fair and even-handed to the Byzantines for a moment.
Here's the bad: yes, Byzantium should start with just Constantinople, and Morea should be a vassal. Byzantium should have a tech disadvantage, as they really weren't on par with the West anymore. Yes, Constantinople was a shadow of its former self.
However, it was not as 'doomed' as people make out. The biggest problem was not the Empire's own weakness - which is comparable to a lot of minors at the start of the game - but the fact that it was surrounded by the Ottoman Empire. Constantinople was weak compared to the 11th century, but in absolute terms it still had great potential and was probably still worth more than a lot of European cities at the time. It's not just out of nostalgia that it was called the 'city of the world's desire'.
Byzantium's real problem was that it was faced with a much more powerful enemy. However, the Ottoman Empire wasn't perfect itself - it was still open to civil war (which the Byzantines had exploited with some success - and failure - in the past), and it ruled over a large swathe of peoples who had been conquered very recently and were prone to revolt. So, was it extremely likely that the Byzantine Empire would end in 1453? Yes, certainly. Was it necessarily doomed? By no means.
Here's the bad: yes, Byzantium should start with just Constantinople, and Morea should be a vassal. Byzantium should have a tech disadvantage, as they really weren't on par with the West anymore. Yes, Constantinople was a shadow of its former self.
However, it was not as 'doomed' as people make out. The biggest problem was not the Empire's own weakness - which is comparable to a lot of minors at the start of the game - but the fact that it was surrounded by the Ottoman Empire. Constantinople was weak compared to the 11th century, but in absolute terms it still had great potential and was probably still worth more than a lot of European cities at the time. It's not just out of nostalgia that it was called the 'city of the world's desire'.
Byzantium's real problem was that it was faced with a much more powerful enemy. However, the Ottoman Empire wasn't perfect itself - it was still open to civil war (which the Byzantines had exploited with some success - and failure - in the past), and it ruled over a large swathe of peoples who had been conquered very recently and were prone to revolt. So, was it extremely likely that the Byzantine Empire would end in 1453? Yes, certainly. Was it necessarily doomed? By no means.
Yes, I know that you want to disable anything that doesn't agree with how you feel the game should be played, including basic strong gameplay choices, but what you want doesn't build an argument of any kind.
nor did i say it did?
All i ever said was what wiz has said in other threads and earlier in this one: Byz start is already ahistorically better than it should be, and they already got enough love in this game.
Did you bother reading the patch notes? The missions were fixed in 1.9.
Oh please: whatever the reasons are for the Byz start, they are not game play. Actually the starting date was picked to be after the 14th? Crusade: THAT is where the "game play purposes" in the Byz start are.
And, really, the reason for the Byzantine DLC was just that they had EUIII code available for reuse as a DLC.
As for whether it's justified as a DLC: DLC's are justified by whether they sell.
I really don't understand the galley strat. I just did 1.9.2 Byz game and restored the theme system even by day 0 scraping all my galleys and not building a single one till Greece was reconquered.
Byzantium should start as a Catholic state, although the provinces should all be Orthodox, as the last few rulers converted to Catholicism (although the people didn't embrace it). Constantinople is more or less a ruin after the Latin Empire's control of it so a base tax decrease would certainly be more realistic. 5-6 BT is probably decent enough for that time. In my opinion, the Byzantines should be getting a trade penalty on Constantinople as well, as Genoa was pulling in most of the trade revenues (their revenues were seven times higher than that of the Empire). If you can get your cores back, however, you should get events that increase the BT in ALL the provinces, as well as give you a huge BT boost for Constantinople (to the current levels). If you remove Genoa from Caffa and Azov, the trade penalty should be removed as well. This would make for a more interesting, and semi-realistic, playthrough. If you manage to retake all of Anatolia, you should get BT boosts there too (because the Anatolian provinces were the life blood of the Empire and it was when they were being lost one after one another that the Empire really started becoming weak).
Basically, make it harder for the Byzantine Empire to make a comeback, but if they do manage to come back, then it will be a return to former glory.
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure that Morea was a thriving community which was relatively rich.
Basically, make it harder for the Byzantine Empire to make a comeback, but if they do manage to come back, then it will be a return to former glory.
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure that Morea was a thriving community which was relatively rich.
Did they really? Or did the emperor just say so? Did he take any measures to actually make the state catholic?
Yes, this practice disappoints me too. I bought EUIV thinking I'm buying a game with historically accurate gameplay, or at least attempting to be historically accurate. I thought it was marketed as such a game. And then suddenly the argument "Oh, but the gameplay requires..." came up. Also my favourite one - "I'd put a pink elephant in the game if it would make it more fun". Well, you very nearly did, but it doesn't make it any more fun, not in my opinion.
PS: The puzzle falls into place if under "more fun" you read "sell more copies".
While I agree that Byzantium was a broken husk in 1444, I still see no reason why they have no knowledge of Persia or lost their cores on Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus and Trebizond (Albania I get).
"Why aren't byzantines more relevant than they are"
We had trillions of threads back in EU3
I think the obvious answer is that they already get way more attention than they should considering they were super-doomed in 1444 instead of just mega-doomed in 1399 and because similar civs in V2 and CK2 don't get the same kind of love
Just stop complaining about the Byzantines all the damn time, gods
We had trillions of threads back in EU3
I think the obvious answer is that they already get way more attention than they should considering they were super-doomed in 1444 instead of just mega-doomed in 1399 and because similar civs in V2 and CK2 don't get the same kind of love
Just stop complaining about the Byzantines all the damn time, gods
the trebizond core you can get back by increasing the years by a hundred and then going back to 1444
I would actually really like a dlc centered on granada, the muslim (and even harder) version of byzantium
Given there seems to be a fairly vocal fanbase for Byzantium, Paradox could probably make decent money by making a Byz-centric DLC.
Yes, there's already Purple Phoenix, but I mean another one.
Price it at like USD30 to really gouge the Byz lovers.
Yes, there's already Purple Phoenix, but I mean another one.
Price it at like USD30 to really gouge the Byz lovers.
That would be interesting to see BYZ with high DIP (naval), ADM (tax system, centralized production, infrastructure), giving all trade power to Genoa (permanent, can be revoked in war), permanent (removed by blobing back to true empire) trigger modification "Awaiting execution" to kill their morale -20% and increase advisor cost +50% (rich people already start running from Constantinople) and Muslim tech (they have knowledge, but lack resources and society/bureaucratic structures promoting innovation. Some decision to reform to western would be nice. They should have extensive maps of Asia, Europe and North Africa with Ethiopia). 50%, maybe 75% LA everywhere would be realistic 
. Oh, and trash Legitimacy! Some WE, maybe negative stab would be nice addition.
Yeah, after 9000 restarts i would be probably not that hard to resurrect purple Phoenix.
. Oh, and trash Legitimacy! Some WE, maybe negative stab would be nice addition.Yeah, after 9000 restarts i would be probably not that hard to resurrect purple Phoenix.
Last edited: