Byzantium seems a popular option, yet it doesn't really mesh with the Western European Feudal model the game opts for. When will the Powers present a DLC the flushes out the East Roman Empire? The heirs of Antiquity are watching.
- 2
- 1
Whither Byzantium?
- Thread starter Pontiac
- 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 think the problem is going to be player expectations.
Because when people talk about how the ERE wasn't feudal (sure, but neither were the Anglo Saxons) what they mean is they think it should have some kind of better system, some kind of system which empowers the player as Emperor and lets them feel more cool and awesome, but realistically a lot of things that made the Byzantine Empire less feudal would also make them less fun to play. The fact that the succession system is not particularly hereditary is fine for the Empire, but a direct downgrade for the player who might lose the succession just because their heir is unpopular, or because some random military commander is such a chad that everyone decides he should be Emperor.
There's a tendency to look down on Feudalism as symptomatic of some kind of societal decline or dark age, but at the time it made a lot of sense. If you give people land and status in exchange for military service, then those people have an incentive to provide good military service. If they know their children will inherit their lands or status when they die, then there's an incentive to train those children to provide good military service too. This is part of why Latin mercenaries became increasingly predominant within the Byzantine army, because they (the nobles at least) had been trained from birth under the feudal system and were very good at what they did. It's also, probably, a part of why the Byzantine land tithe system increasingly came to resemble feudalism.
Because when people talk about how the ERE wasn't feudal (sure, but neither were the Anglo Saxons) what they mean is they think it should have some kind of better system, some kind of system which empowers the player as Emperor and lets them feel more cool and awesome, but realistically a lot of things that made the Byzantine Empire less feudal would also make them less fun to play. The fact that the succession system is not particularly hereditary is fine for the Empire, but a direct downgrade for the player who might lose the succession just because their heir is unpopular, or because some random military commander is such a chad that everyone decides he should be Emperor.
There's a tendency to look down on Feudalism as symptomatic of some kind of societal decline or dark age, but at the time it made a lot of sense. If you give people land and status in exchange for military service, then those people have an incentive to provide good military service. If they know their children will inherit their lands or status when they die, then there's an incentive to train those children to provide good military service too. This is part of why Latin mercenaries became increasingly predominant within the Byzantine army, because they (the nobles at least) had been trained from birth under the feudal system and were very good at what they did. It's also, probably, a part of why the Byzantine land tithe system increasingly came to resemble feudalism.
Last edited:
- 5
DLC is never going to be announced as a response to a topic on the forums. It's either going to happen one day or it's not. If it is going to happen, they're not going to talk about it until like 3-6 months before it releases. It's probably safe to say that Byzantium isn't on the agenda for 2021. Royal Court is coming in the Fall and I doubt we will see a second major expansion before Spring of next year.
- 3
- 3
You would need some kind of system like the Patrician CK2 Merchant Republic one to accurately represent dynastic politics within the Empire (and to prevent you from getting game-over screen when Nikephoros Phokas seizes the throne from you), but it might be kind of boring without trade posts.
Just spinning off that idea, perhaps in Byzantium direct levies are not really possible and armies are controlled by the dynasts who are represented as allied armies. They can accrue prestige from battles. Succession might be similar to how it was in CK2's later Imperial succession, but would be more prestige based. Just a thought.
- 1
It seems Paradox are focusing in on a sort of Tic-Toc system where a "Tic" is a fairly minor DLC that focuses in on a particular region, with a "Toc" being a major Expansion DLC. The timing seems to be a "Tic" is early in the year and a "Toc" being late in the year.
My guess is that any Eastern Roman DLC will be a "Tic" DLC focused on the Balkans and Anatolia.
In this hypothetical "Tic" DLC, it's likely, in addition to improvements to the East Roman Government, we'll see improvements to the cultural situation in the Balkans, along with the Turkish conquest of Anatolia.
This sounds amazing, provided ofcourse some mechanic be introduced to prevent an instant game over. Imagine getting dethroned, making a narrow escape, biding your time and striking when the time is right to reclaim what is rightfully yours. That might actually make CK3 an interesting game.
- 1