For Byzanlovers

[Revshawn]

This sounds very simmilar to the "War of the Roses" crisis that England has to deal with at the start of eu4. No clear heir leading to civil war, powerful neighbours to contend with etc. This is also something that can be avoided by a player able to get an heir in time, so I thing eu5 might borrow from this mechanc.

The saddest part of the war was that in the end after John VI Kantakouzenos had finally defeated the regency and claimed ultimate victory, he refused to consolidate his victory and whatever power that the Byzantine Empire had left by purging his enemies and declaring himself Emperor and he brought forth peace terms that could have been reached prior to the war if the Regency hadn't been so stupidly stubborn.

This directly led to a continuation of the civil war just a few years later and this time John VI Kantakouzenos was not so lucky and ended up deposed to Moria by the ones he had granted mercy to. It also led to the Ottoman's first victory and expansion of territory past the Bosporus.

 

[AC1632]

I am no expert on Byzantine history but I think we have a civil war coming up. Is it avoidable?

Evergreen question, could be asked literally in any year of Byzantium's history, the answer is always 'no' unless you are talking about delaying it for a while. Civil wars were just their national sport

 

[tk6]

I am afraid that Byz will have many negative modifiers in the start of the game.

 

[RMS Oceanic]

Theyre still some methods of legitimacy. Rather than saying in the 2 centuries since sulla, no innovations were made

I didn't say there was no political legitimacy, just that there was no institutional means of conferring it with the hollowing out of the senate and elected magistrates. It meant in cases like 1341 with an unexpected regency there was no system for how to handle it, just what individuals could agree to, which wasn't much in this case. It's kind of telling that a dispute over regency ends up with one of the disputees becoming Emperor, very Richard III of him. In Project Caesar I am anticipating that a Byzantine player will have to spend considerable internal political capital to ensure an undisputed succession or risk civil war, much like EU4 recently started trying to model it with a guaranteed pretender rebellion, until one can actually change the laws so succession isn't a free for all by default.

 

[EU3NOOB]

No clear heir leading to civil war,

This isn't even remotely accurate. There was very much a clear heir. There was no question as to John Palaiologos' right to succeed his father. Kantakouzenos was not fighting to replace John, he was fighting to be the Regent.

The saddest part of the war was that in the end after John VI Kantakouzenos had finally defeated the regency and claimed ultimate victory, he refused to consolidate his victory and whatever power that the Byzantine Empire had left by purging his enemies and declaring himself Emperor and he brought forth peace terms that could have been reached prior to the war if the Regency hadn't been so stupidly stubborn.

That's an... interesting take... and not one I agree with at all. All John Kantakouzenos had to base his claim to the regency was that "Andronikos totes gave me permission to be the regent before he died, pinky swear, kisses XOXOXO".

The reality is with history as a guide, the Regency had every expectation that if Kantakouzenos got crowned senor Emperor (aka Regent), there would be nothing stopping him from sidelining the Palaiologoi family. Hell, it's how the Palaiologoi got into power in the first place!

The Regency would've been fools to allow Kantakouzenos to do as he pleased!

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Civil wars were just their national sport

 

[Shadow_Phoenix_]

This isn't even remotely accurate. There was very much a clear heir. There was no question as to John Palaiologos' right to succeed his father. Kantakouzenos was not fighting to replace John, he was fighting to be the Regent.

Ah, my mistake. I was mostly thinking about possible game mechanic similarities to eu4 (difficult start from being thrown into a civil war early on), as I'm not much of an expert on this part of history. If the fighting was between 2 regency claimants, then hopefully Tinto makes it more compelling, as the War of the Roses in eu4 can be sidestepped rather easily.

 

[EU3NOOB]

Ah, my mistake. I was mostly thinking about possible game mechanic similarities to eu4 (difficult start from being thrown into a civil war early on), as I'm not much of an expert on this part of history. If the fighting was between 2 regency claimants, then hopefully Tinto makes it more compelling, as the War of the Roses in eu4 can be sidestepped rather easily.

Johan has stated that something similar to the civil war mechanic in Imperator will be in the game.

 

[gigau]

I am afraid that Byz will have many negative modifiers in the start of the game.

Well, it can work if the game makes you work (as in gives you the tools) to potentially remove said-modifiers.

 

[Dongerino]

If the first 100 years don't consist of at least two massive civil wars, an invasion from Serbia and Bulgaria, an earthquake, and an invasion from the Turks, I won't consider it an authentic Byzantium experience.

 

[greywulfos]

Apparently the march of Montferrat existed and was controlled by the Paliologos family from 1305, which is exceedingly funny to me. That's definitely an idea for a run

 

[EU3NOOB]

If the first 100 years don't consist of at least two massive civil wars, an invasion from Serbia and Bulgaria, an earthquake, and an invasion from the Turks, I won't consider it an authentic Byzantium experience.

Yes! I too like to get kicked in the balls!