PI, now that you've broken up Germany, could you consider breaking up Byzantium too?

  • 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.

Jia Xu

Strategist
64 Badges
Feb 27, 2010
4.240
6.790
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
I'm talking about the Kingdom of Byzantium of course. Considering the huge addition of so many (sometimes ahistorical) kingdoms in the recent patch (which I'm perfectly fine with), it would be nice if that monstrosity called the Kingdom of Byzanium was broken up as well. Break it up into Anatolia and Greece, please. I love being able to create kingdoms as an emperor now and have a big empire without having to manage 100+ dukes, but that big Greek monster is an issue. You can't create it, and even if you could, giving it to a vassal would make someone into a super power and holding it yourself leaves you with all of those little disloyal Greek dukes. If Byzantium was split into two kingdoms, both able to be created and given away, it would make the whole eastern imperial experience much more enjoyable, in my opinion. Thanks!
 
Hmm...there is a problem with that however, as no King of Anatolia or Greece ever existed, and that general area was just, well, Byzantium! That was the very core of the Byzantine Empire, its "base" lands, and as no kingdom (not sultanate!) existed over there, a uncreatable Byzantium is what i would have made.

But...make Khazaria creatable, Jews exist and playable and fix Armenia`s tech levels.

EDIT: And kill Pommerania.
 
Hmm...there is a problem with that however, as no King of Anatolia or Greece ever existed, and that general area was just, well, Byzantium!

No, it was not at any time in it's existence referred to as Byzantium (exempting the ancient town of course). The term Byzantine wasn't even coined until 1557. The general area was The Roman Empire, or Romania, or some translation of that.
 
CKII isn't a historical simulator, so saying this or that didn't exist just doesn't make any sense. CKII is all about creating an alternate history.

Then i want the Kingdom of the Ponies over Trebizond, because its about creation an alternate history.

No, it was not at any time in it's existence referred to as Byzantium (exempting the ancient town of course). The term Byzantine wasn't even coined until 1557. The general area was The Roman Empire, or Romania, or some translation of that.

Or Byzantium, the name we give to the very same area they called Romania (that today is a country). Naming it Romania and painting it another colour isnt going to change anything, as there as never a Kingdom over that area. Those are Byzantine core lands, hence Byzantium.
 
Hmm...there is a problem with that however, as no King of Anatolia or Greece ever existed, and that general area was just, well, Byzantium! That was the very core of the Byzantine Empire, its "base" lands, and as no kingdom (not sultanate!) existed over there, a uncreatable Byzantium is what i would have made. But...make Khazaria creatable, Jews exist and playable and fix Armenia`s tech levels. EDIT: And kill Pommerania.

It isn't a problem because the game is already filled from top to bottom with ahistorical elements. A kingdom of Greece is certainly no more ahistorical than a Kingdom of Byzantium, which is what currently exists in the game.
 
It isn't a problem because the game is already filled from top to bottom with ahistorical elements. A kingdom of Greece is certainly no more ahistorical than a Kingdom of Byzantium, which is what currently exists in the game.

The kingdom of Byzantium is just a placeholder and uncreatable, so it actually does not "exist" (as nobody could never become king of Byzantium). It is only there because every duchy needs to belong to a de jure kingdom.
 
CKII isn't a historical simulator, so saying this or that didn't exist just doesn't make any sense. CKII is all about creating an alternate history.

Please stop with this argument. The setup at the beginning of the game is meant to reflect history as closely as possible within the game mechanics. What happens after you start is irrelevent to the conversation.
 
The big problem here is that people REALLY need to stop just starting every game in 1066.

If you start in the 1080s or 1070s, you'll have exactly what you're asking for: an eastern kingdom that splits up Byzantium. The Rum Sultanate will NEVER exist if you start in 1066, but if you start just a couple decades later, there will be a strong kingdom that almost always achieves de jure status.
 
The kingdom of Byzantium is just a placeholder and uncreatable, so it actually does not "exist" (as nobody could never become king of Byzantium). It is only there because every duchy needs to belong to a de jure kingdom.

Why isn't the Kingdom of Byzantium creatable? I assumed that if an independent ruler got 50% or more of the admittedly large amount of provinces, he'd be able to create it?
 
Hmm...there is a problem with that however, as no King of Anatolia or Greece ever existed, and that general area was just, well, Byzantium! That was the very core of the Byzantine Empire, its "base" lands, and as no kingdom (not sultanate!) existed over there, a uncreatable Byzantium is what i would have made...
You're statements are correct, of course. But the Asian themes and the European generally reported to two different Domestikos, that you could consider "kingdoms" in game terms, if you wanted to stretch things. The Ottomans kept the practice and made them a bit more formal (Beylerbeys), though they were still not inheritable.

The thing is, such a distinction could be useful if the game were ever to allow something like a Sultanate of Rum. But that's more a reflection of the over-powered Empires, than a problem with the de jure kingdom definitions.

Didn't someone say they could take Khazaria and Byzantium if they got Crusades against them?
 
You're statements are correct, of course. But the Asian themes and the European generally reported to two different Domestikos, that you could consider "kingdoms" in game terms, if you wanted to stretch things. The Ottomans kept the practice and made them a bit more formal (Beylerbeys), though they were still not inheritable.

The thing is, such a distinction could be useful if the game were ever to allow something like a Sultanate of Rum. But that's more a reflection of the over-powered Empires, than a problem with the de jure kingdom definitions.

The Sultanate of Rum exists in the game. It just doesn't show up if you start at the earliest date.
 
The Sultanate of Rum exists in the game. It just doesn't show up if you start at the earliest date.
Sure, it can exist if you start later. Just like the Latin Empire or Trebizond can exist if you start in 1204. But it's a significant weakness in the game that none of those will ever be created, if you start in 1066. Won't and can't, not even by a player who is determined to do so.

I'm not saying that the game should be structured so that those always come into play, or even that they should come into play the majority of the time (debatable). But the fact that they are impossible is an issue. If "you can't get there from here", it's tough to take the game seriously. There is no reason the mechanics couldn't allow for a Manzikert, a Latin takeover, a Byzantine splintering, a Byzantine resurrection, etc. Adding those (historical) possibilities into the game would make it far richer, as well as far more realistic. Within the current game mechanics, to model something like Manzikert, and the subsequent occupation of much of Anatolia, you'd probably need a de jure kingdom definition that encompassed most of that area; which is basically what the O.P. is suggesting. Since "Armenia" is already separate, making most of Anatolia (excepting the Aegean coast and probably Trebizond) into its own de jure kingdom, gives the AI the flexibility to do things like a jihad to conquer "Anatolia". It is currently impossible, which is part of the reason Byzantium is so rarely the historical punching bag that it was for most of this era.
 
Sure, it can exist if you start later. Just like the Latin Empire or Trebizond can exist if you start in 1204. But it's a significant weakness in the game that none of those will ever be created, if you start in 1066. Won't and can't, not even by a player who is determined to do so.

I'm not saying that the game should be structured so that those always come into play, or even that they should come into play the majority of the time (debatable). But the fact that they are impossible is an issue. If "you can't get there from here", it's tough to take the game seriously. There is no reason the mechanics couldn't allow for a Manzikert, a Latin takeover, a Byzantine splintering, a Byzantine resurrection, etc. Adding those (historical) possibilities into the game would make it far richer, as well as far more realistic. Within the current game mechanics, to model something like Manzikert, and the subsequent occupation of much of Anatolia, you'd probably need a de jure kingdom definition that encompassed most of that area; which is basically what the O.P. is suggesting. Since "Armenia" is already separate, making most of Anatolia (excepting the Aegean coast and probably Trebizond) into its own de jure kingdom, gives the AI the flexibility to do things like a jihad to conquer "Anatolia". It is currently impossible, which is part of the reason Byzantium is so rarely the historical punching bag that it was for most of this era.

I agree that it would be good if there was a mechanic to form some of these possible kingdoms. Maybe an event or decision which gives some of them de jure territory if certain conditions are met. I just thought you were saying it didn't exist in the game at all, to which I was disagreeing. But if the Kingdom of Byzantium were to be split up into formable, de jure kingdoms from the 1066 start, I prefer they have some historical basis, not just be sort of "what if" kingoms like Pommerania.
 
Hmm...there is a problem with that however, as no King of Anatolia or Greece ever existed, and that general area was just, well, Byzantium! That was the very core of the Byzantine Empire, its "base" lands, and as no kingdom (not sultanate!) existed over there, a uncreatable Byzantium is what i would have made.

But...make Khazaria creatable, Jews exist and playable and fix Armenia`s tech levels.

EDIT: And kill Pommerania.

The problem with Jewish culture is that it just isn't very relevent as far as European history goes. Sure it is probably one of the better known culture groups today, but comparing to Franks, Germans, Greeks and all the other cultures in the game, the Jewish culture just isn't all that important. It has no independent territory between 63BC and 1948 and generally has little bearing on major political decisions of the nations. It was one of the persecuted culture groups, but then again there were a lot of culture groups that were persecuted throughout the history.
 
split it into four kingdoms, epirus, nicaea, thessalonika, trebizond, make the two greek kingdoms catholic/latin only, and allow a independant person (greek or otherwise) to create the two anatolian kingdoms, also disallow the byzantine emperor to create these titles he shouldnt just be like "herpy derpy ima meak a king titul fer my vassals lul"
 
The kingdom of Byzantium is just a placeholder and uncreatable, so it actually does not "exist" (as nobody could never become king of Byzantium). It is only there because every duchy needs to belong to a de jure kingdom.

Feel free to look at all of the other ahistorical examples already present in the game. We have a Kingdom of Mesopotamia, a Kingdom of Germany, a Kingdom of Rus, a Kingdom of Arabia, among other things. I don`t really understand these calls for historical purity in a game that`s pretty much ahistorical from the start. We have the King of England, the Emperor in Byzantium, and the Sunni Caliph all operating under the same western Euro-feudalistic administrative system. Splitting Byzantium for game play balance reasons will be not the straw which breaks the camel`s back.
 
Feel free to look at all of the other ahistorical examples already present in the game. We have a Kingdom of Mesopotamia, a Kingdom of Germany, a Kingdom of Rus, a Kingdom of Arabia, among other things. I don`t really understand these calls for historical purity in a game that`s pretty much ahistorical from the start. We have the King of England, the Emperor in Byzantium, and the Sunni Caliph all operating under the same western Euro-feudalistic administrative system. Splitting Byzantium for game play balance reasons will be not the straw which breaks the camel`s back.

Potential kingdoms carved out of non-Christian territory as a goal for particularly successful crusaders I don't have a problem with. Kingdoms like Germany or Rus can also have some historical arguments made for them. But something like Pommerania, or a completely anachronistic kingdom of Greece are just strange. As for them all falling under the same rules, that's a just a mechanical limit. I can write that off. Hopefully, future DLC focused on those areas will flesh them out more and make them more distinct. Anyway, it's hardly a call for "historical purity". It's simply a desire that the starting situation of the game have a more or less historical basis.
 
Potential kingdoms carved out of non-Christian territory as a goal for particularly successful crusaders I don't have a problem with. Kingdoms like Germany or Rus can also have some historical arguments made for them. But something like Pommerania, or a completely anachronistic kingdom of Greece are just strange. As for them all falling under the same rules, that's a just a mechanical limit. I can write that off. Hopefully, future DLC focused on those areas will flesh them out more and make them more distinct. Anyway, it's hardly a call for "historical purity". It's simply a desire that the starting situation of the game have a more or less historical basis.

It's a desire that Z be historical while A-Y are ahistorical and we give all of those examples a free pass based on completely arbitrary reasons. A kingdom of Greece is no stranger than a kingdom of Arabia or Mesopotamia. They're all ahistorical kingdoms. And again, based on completely arbitrary reasons, you can accept some of these but not others.
 
It's a desire that Z be historical while A-Y are ahistorical and we give all of those examples a free pass based on completely arbitrary reasons. A kingdom of Greece is no stranger than a kingdom of Arabia or Mesopotamia. They're all ahistorical kingdoms. And again, based on completely arbitrary reasons, you can accept some of these but not others.

And your willingness to accept certain things is no less arbitrary. That doesn't make my view somehow less valid than yours. As I said, I just prefer that new kingdoms be based on some historical entity. If we have to split up the big empires for whatever reason, it seems to me it would make more sense to add in mechanisms for Muslims to create things like the Sultanate of Rum, or for Catholics to create the Latin Empire.