I've been avoiding playing the Byzantines since this DLC was announced, and it's now getting painful
I've avoided playing, period, since the DLC was announced. That's even *more* painful
Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome beta screens (September 18th)
- Thread starter Regina
- 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've avoided playing, period, since the DLC was announced. That's even *more* painful
I've avoided playing, period, since the DLC was announced. That's even *more* painful
Perfect time to catch up to your reading. God knows you won't have time when the DLC is released.
i cant wait, im a byzantinophile at heart so this is awesome, granted i perfer starting with the byzantines when the kommeni take power, doukas and those other scrubs squandered the power of the empire. Although reconquering asia minor is fun id like to see a specific byzantine reconqueset CB. Its rather annoying having to deal with truces and expand through asia minor bit by bit. Unless i get lucky with a forged claim or steal a title(or holy war and bring half the middle east after me)
Last edited:
Im worried about this dlc. It seems to be wet dream for byzz fanboys but during period of ck2 Byzantine Empire was slowly dying. I hope this dlc also includes mechanics how almost collapsed Empire can regenerate herself from ruins, not events and decisions for Empire not existing.
The patch includes new mechanics for realm-wide revolts that are likely to hurt Empires quite a bit if they dont keep their vassals happy. This being said, I'm absolutely thrilled that it also opens avenues for Byzantium to become a major resurgent power, it' only fair. And I happily feed off the tears of anyone who want them to be crushed no matter the circumstances.
It's common to think of the period after Manzikert as one long decline but that's inaccurate, for one thing that's just shy of 400 years which is longer than the history of a number of nations. In reality the first 150 years or so after the battle saw a series of ups and downs, indeed under the first few Komnenos Emperors the Byzantines actually pushed the Seljuks back and reclaimed much of Anatolia. After the death of Manuel Komenus the Byzantine had a series of weak or incompetent rulers leading and squabbling for the throne brought about the sack of Constantinople in 4th crusade.
If you start the game at the beginning the it's not a "almost collapsed Empire" even if you start after Manzikert the situation isn't that bad, if you don't believe me just click through start dates on the CKII start-up screen and watch the Empire expand. It's only towards the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th century (in particular the 4th Crusade in 1204) that the decline truly starts to look irreversible.
This looks awesome. If I may suggest an UI change, however, please make decisions to blind and/or castrate someone executable in the same kind of UI/place where you also make a decision to execute, release or ransom them. Using the decisions in the Intrigue screen may become a headache once you have several prisoners and you have to double-check to make sure you are, say, castrating the right Ioannes etc.
Also, seconding the capture plot.
Also, seconding the capture plot.
I agree with this one, I'm really looking forward to LoR but it doesn't make much sense to place the castrate button next to "holding a feast" or "Grand tournament".
Thats an excellent comment, yes. Putting related stuff all over the place is bad for the interface.
not sure about the "castrating the right Ioannes". cutting someone's cajones by mistake makes for delicious roleplaying...
Looks great so far, but why is the Byzantine Emperor wearing the Imperial Crown of Austria?
Last edited:
This is the best sentence ever. Anyways, these screens look awesome. The "mend the schism" makes me think the devs have really been paying attention to the players.
What? That makes me sad.
Suppose it should probably look more like this: http://wiki.phantis.com/images/5/56/Alexius.jpg
Still--better than the previous crown they used. The robes could use some work though.
This is amazing, it saddens me though because my favorite mod will have to take time to adjust to changes. But Once more for the Roman(Italian) Empire
Yeah PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!!
The UI for CK2 is not that bad, please don't obfuscate it by scattering the new options all over the place.
I love this... Basil II will be able to be... Basil II. Or more accurately Basil III
The flavor of the Eastern Roman Empire is definite in those events. What is described there WAS definitely possible in the 1000's if things had gone differently... The Macedonian Dynasty culminating with Basil II actually HAD the ability to retake Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and often campaigned in those areas (including Jerusalem) they chose NOT to mostly because they didn't want to overextend and just lose it later. The Byzantine Empire of that time was easily the most powerful state in the world, a superpower of the time. I think they were reluctant to go on full "remake the Roman Empire" mode due to what happened ultimately when Justinian tried the same thing, and the terror of almost losing it all from 634-700 when the Arabs took away 2/3rds of the Empire...
But if a Justinian had arose and been a strong successor to Basil II, everything was there to TRY to do it. And he might have succeeded... Basil II's main failure was in NOT continuing the Macedonian Dynasty, leading to the disasters of 1071 and later...
The Empire of the Macedonian Dynasty was truly powerful, stable, and sustainable, unlike Justinian's. Unfortunately it lost it's core (Asia Minor) to the Turks more due to internal (Byzantine) strife than military defeat. Arp Arslan had no intention of conquering Asia Minor, he just wanted to push the Empire back from Syria and perhaps to extract rich tribute (which Romanos Diogens agreed to, but was betrayed when he was deposed). Had that not happened, the Empire could have recovered with it's core intact and again rose to march into Syria, especially as the Seljuks declined in the 1100's...
The flavor of the Eastern Roman Empire is definite in those events. What is described there WAS definitely possible in the 1000's if things had gone differently... The Macedonian Dynasty culminating with Basil II actually HAD the ability to retake Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and often campaigned in those areas (including Jerusalem) they chose NOT to mostly because they didn't want to overextend and just lose it later. The Byzantine Empire of that time was easily the most powerful state in the world, a superpower of the time. I think they were reluctant to go on full "remake the Roman Empire" mode due to what happened ultimately when Justinian tried the same thing, and the terror of almost losing it all from 634-700 when the Arabs took away 2/3rds of the Empire...
But if a Justinian had arose and been a strong successor to Basil II, everything was there to TRY to do it. And he might have succeeded... Basil II's main failure was in NOT continuing the Macedonian Dynasty, leading to the disasters of 1071 and later...
The Empire of the Macedonian Dynasty was truly powerful, stable, and sustainable, unlike Justinian's. Unfortunately it lost it's core (Asia Minor) to the Turks more due to internal (Byzantine) strife than military defeat. Arp Arslan had no intention of conquering Asia Minor, he just wanted to push the Empire back from Syria and perhaps to extract rich tribute (which Romanos Diogens agreed to, but was betrayed when he was deposed). Had that not happened, the Empire could have recovered with it's core intact and again rose to march into Syria, especially as the Seljuks declined in the 1100's...
Last edited: