Byzantine Unique Mechanics for CKIII

[RetrousseRaptor]

I'm becoming slightly concerned that Paradox might do what they did in CKII and give the Byzantines a 'feudal' government type in all but name. I think it would be worthwhile to implement a system where there are a list of important families like those in the Republics for CKII, i.e. they have family heads and exist on their estates if they have no appointments in the provinces and you can engage in intrigue to become Basileus or gain important positions in the government etc.
You could also have a system where your family always has a province to govern but you can be placed in undesirable and weak postings if you don't have enough influence to gain or hold onto the stronger provinces. It makes no sense for there to be 'counts' that can fight each other for 'ownership' over provinces that are part of a unitary bureaucratic state. Just some thoughts. Would love if anyone else had some views on this they'd like to express...

 

[Torngasuk]

I agree that the Byzantines require a representation of landless families in order to function, perhaps with a system not unlike that of Imperator where the emperor is encouraged to give each family at least one posting at any given time, mostly so that the player isn't locked into permanent landlessness under an AI emperor. As far as the governance of the realm is concerned, a combination of civil offices and military governorships would be ideal, I think. I've always envisioned the Byzantine provincial scheme as something akin to the page in Crusader Kings II for appointing bishops: you get a list of available duchies, and can appoint or change a province's governor from there (just in case you're too busy to go find somebody right now), with the possiblity of leaving a province vacant temporarily in exchange for obvious penalties to its economy and manpower.

 

[RetrousseRaptor]

I agree that the Byzantines require a representation of landless families in order to function, perhaps with a system not unlike that of Imperator where the emperor is encouraged to give each family at least one posting at any given time, mostly so that the player isn't locked into permanent landlessness under an AI emperor. As far as the governance of the realm is concerned, a combination of civil offices and military governorships would be ideal, I think. I've always envisioned the Byzantine provincial scheme as something akin to the page in Crusader Kings II for appointing bishops: you get a list of available duchies, and can appoint or change a province's governor from there (just in case you're too busy to go find somebody right now), with the possiblity of leaving a province vacant temporarily in exchange for obvious penalties to its economy and manpower.

These are all very good suggestions and I'm definitely going to remember to quote it in the post I'm going to make in the suggestions thread.

I do understand how difficult it would be for Paradox to create an entirely unique set of game mechanics for a state that only covers Anatolia and part of the Balkans but for people that have read up, even a little, on the Byzantines it's a definite must. The historical Byzantines are in the very odd situation of having 'dynasties' i.e. powerful families that essentially monopolized state institutions and collectively ruled the Empire (the Doukoi, Komnenoi, Phokades, Skleroi, etc.) but who had almost no power independent of their positions within state. When the Phokades family was out of office, as an Armenian chronicler puts it, they ‘ranted like caged lions’. The historian Chris Wickham nails it on the head:

" The Phokades had a family identity, to be sure, but it could only really be expressed through office-holding. Wealth, land, and three or four generations by now of ancestry were by no means enough on their own. This was even truer of the other families, who hardly appear in the sources at all when out of office."

Wickham, Chris. The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000 (The Penguin History of Europe) (p. 314). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 

[kviiri]

I think unique mechanics for a country aren't really CK, but Byzantines are probably the one case I'd consider a worthy exception. I'd still rather have them operate on the same rules as everyone else so other countries can take on the same function too.

 

[Karlmann]

How can a country without imperial heritage take on the same functions? Beeing an empire was tied to the Roman Crown, whether it was in the west (HRE) or in the east (ERE). There were no exceptions. The Latin Empire was tied to eastern Rome (aka Constantinople) the same way the russian Tsars thought (aka "third rome"). How could other countries "take on" while the "Original(*trademark)" is in full charge? There is no Emperor (Kaiser, Bassileus) but the Emperor. And there is only one Empire. And its roman.

 

[kviiri]

How can a country without imperial heritage take on the same functions? Beeing an empire was tied to the Roman Crown, whether it was in the west (HRE) or in the east (ERE). There were no exceptions. The Latin Empire was tied to eastern Rome (aka Constantinople) the same way the russian Tsars thought (aka "third rome"). How could other countries "take on" while the "Original(*trademark)" is in full charge?

First of all, did you read the OP? They're not talking about anything inherent to being an empire. They're talking about things inherent to being the Byzantine Empire, in particular relating to their imperial bureaucracy and powerful families.

As for other countries becoming empires... well, Otto I wasn't an emperor until he was crowned one, and he was crowned one for reasons that are plausibly recreated by other countries in the Crusader Kings timeframe, so I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Torngasuk]

I think unique mechanics for a country aren't really CK, but Byzantines are probably the one case I'd consider a worthy exception. I'd still rather have them operate on the same rules as everyone else so other countries can take on the same function too.

How can a country without imperial heritage take on the same functions? Beeing an empire was tied to the Roman Crown, whether it was in the west (HRE) or in the east (ERE). There were no exceptions. The Latin Empire was tied to eastern Rome (aka Constantinople) the same way the russian Tsars thought (aka "third rome"). How could other countries "take on" while the "Original(*trademark)" is in full charge? There is no Emperor (Kaiser, Bassileus) but the Emperor. And there is only one Empire. And its roman.

I tend toward preferring at least some unique mechanics for certain countries, for the simple reason that there are some incredibly significant factors not found anywhere else (and more flavor is always welcome), but the fundamentals of the Byzantine political organization actually could be reused with relatively little modification in another important context. The kingdom of Hungary operated on what was essentially the same system, a sort of aristocratic bureaucracy. Each of their counties was run by an appointed count, an ispán, with ducal tier titles like the ban of Slavonia or the ban of Croatia being similarly temporary offices: the first perpetual (hereditary) count was not created until 1453 (John Hunyadi). Thus, I'm going to modify my earlier suggestion somewhat to make it more easily reused in this context: the gubernatorial appointment screen could contain all titles immediately subject to the king or emperor: so if you're playing the Byzantines, and have all the duchies established, then you're appointing ducal governors, while if you're playing somewhere like Hungary, with a mix of duchies and counties beneath you, you see a list of both.

 

[Drogan]

ERE should be a very unique experience. Hope they improve from CK2.

 

[Rinan]

The problem is that CK2 simplifies medieval government a lot. CK2 was designed on a "feudal", West-European model (a problematic term for historians, but let's keep it for the game), and then retroactively had to fit in the Byzantines, the Islamic states, republics etc. into that same system, which was very... inelegant.

For the Byzantines, instead of creating a unique government, perhaps CK3 should have a "Bureaucratic" government type, which would also apply to some middle-eastern states and maybe also some western states (Republics?) in some cases. The difference between "feudal" and "bureaucratic" is as follows:

1. In a Feudal government, local power is controlled by land-based military strongmen, the de jure liege has limited power over local rulers ("vassals"). This system is very similar to what we know from CK2 and have seen so far from CK3.

2. In a Bureaucratic government, the central authority (king, emperor, council) appoints governors to rule local provinces. Governorship can be revoked and is not inherited. However, much like in Imperator: Rome, powerful families expect to be given offices (either at court/central government, in the army, or as governor).

Characters own private estates as a source of money, but also gain a salary when holding an office or a governorship. Gameplay-wise, it could borrow from CK2's Republic and Imperial system, you don't play a local count or duke but the head of one of the realm's great families (for the Byzantines, families like the Doukas, the Phokades, etc.) and your goal is to achieve offices, prestige and ultimately, the imperial title.

Other government systems, such as tribes and hordes could also exist, but are not relevant here. What is relevant is that a bureaucratic government can change into a feudal government over time (kind of what happened under the Seljuk Empire and the Byzantine Palaiologan dynasty) and vice versa.

The main problem with this approach is that the game would have two different kind of play styles, and potentially also causing balance problems. But it would much more accurately portray the different political systems of the medieval world.

EDIT: I just read this interview, seems like Paradox isn't making anything like a Bureaucratic system. If it's only going to be feudal/clan/tribal then we'll have to see whether feudal or clan fits better with Byzantium: https://www.usgamer.net/articles/paradox-answers-12-major-questions-about-crusader-kings-3 question 10)

 

[Gurkhal]

Without being an expert, main sources of info being the "History of Byzantium" podcast and Wikipedia, I would think that much of the uniqueness of Byzantium could be solved with allowing for a more complex relation to offices and landholding than according to the Western feudal model.

And if such oppertunities are introduced from the start then I would think that marvellous things could be build on that foundation for many different cultures and states.

 

[Karlmann]

First of all, did you read the OP? They're not talking about anything inherent to being an empire. They're talking about things inherent to being the Byzantine Empire, in particular relating to their imperial bureaucracy and powerful families.

As for other countries becoming empires... well, Otto I wasn't an emperor until he was crowned one, and he was crowned one for reasons that are plausibly recreated by other countries in the Crusader Kings timeframe, so I don't see what the problem is.

Yes i did. I agree that Byzantine Empire need its own flavour. But i don't agree that byzantine imperial flavour could be adopted 1:1.

I also did not agree that this statement: "reasons that are plausibily recreated by other countries" is true. Otto only could do what he did cause the western Empire was vacant. I withhold the fact that a western christian emperorship is thinkable without beeing connected to roman legacy.

Perhaps i expressed myself in a bad way (cause my lacking english abilities). I agree it is ok to have a general "bureocratic government" that could apply to other countries but there has to remain something unique for ERE and HRE (and other known Empires).

Generally i would love to see all default de jure empires vanish. And the few remaining ones should have unique flavoured mechanics. If you want to create a new one there has to be a way. Perhaps in mixing the Charlemagne DLC feature of "realm creation" with the Holy Fury DLC feature of "faith reformation". So every Empire got its proper (spiritual) backround.

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I absolutely believe that Byzantium deserves its own government which doesn't consists of a simple rearrangement of feudalism.

Feudalism still seems to be the founding slab of ck, which is my biggest gripe and only serious criticism i have of the game.
It's understandable if we'll have to wait a DLC to cover the ERE, but when it comes it best be worth to represent the greatness and sometimes the not-so-greatness of Byzantium.

I'm far from an expert on Byzantium, so I'll leave other forumers to make valid suggestions, but this monopoly of feudalism has to end even if added in a DLC.

 

[Lysistrata]

EDIT: I just read this interview, seems like Paradox isn't making anything like a Bureaucratic system. If it's only going to be feudal/clan/tribal then we'll have to see whether feudal or clan fits better with Byzantium: https://www.usgamer.net/articles/paradox-answers-12-major-questions-about-crusader-kings-3 question 10)

So basically, Paradox pre-emptively committing to keep the representation of rulership in CKIII as superficial as it was in CKII with self-limiting design philosophies. I hate this idea that if it doesn't neatly fit into feudalism, it doesn't belong in the game and they won't make any effort to represent it as it was at all. It's the one aspect of their design philosophy I explicitly hoped they would ditch for CKIII.

This apparently fundamental idea that it's game over for you as soon as you lose your titles flatly contradicts history. It's making me seriously question whether I'll bother moving onto CKIII at all.

 

[Chlodio]

1. In a Feudal government, local power is controlled by land-based military strongmen, the de jure liege has limited power over local rulers ("vassals"). This system is very similar to what we know from CK2 and have seen so far from CK3.

2. In a Bureaucratic government, the central authority (king, emperor, council) appoints governors to rule local provinces. Governorship can be revoked and is not inherited. However, much like in Imperator: Rome, powerful families expect to be given offices (either at court/central government, in the army, or as governor).

Interestingly that is how Machiavelli describes the types of principalities. He explains that the principalities such as Ancient Persia and Ottomans are hard to conquer, but easy to sustain because all the governors are kept in line by the fear of the prince. Wherein principalities such as France—where bunch nobles govern the land—are easy to conquer, because the opportunistic nobles will defect to the conqueror, but that they are also hard to hold for the nobles are always scheming.

 

[Rinan]

So basically, Paradox pre-emptively committing to keep the representation of rulership in CKIII as superficial as it was in CKII with self-limiting design philosophies. I hate this idea that if it doesn't neatly fit into feudalism, it doesn't belong in the game and they won't make any effort to represent it at all. It's the one aspect of their design philosophy I explicitly hoped they would ditch for CKIII.

This apparently fundamental idea that it's game over for you as soon as you lose your titles flatly contradicts history. It's making me seriously question whether I'll bother moving onto CKIII at all.

Looks to me like CK3 is more like Game of Thrones: The Game than a representation of the medieval world. Don't get me wrong, it looks like it's going to be a good game and I'll probably get it, but I am concerned about its historical realism (I do think gameplay is more important than realism)

 

[Denkt]

Byzantine Empire and its neighbours should be able to raid each other. Byzantine Empire spent like 400 years at pretty much constant war against the muslim states to the east which involved raids on yearly basis and these raiding forces was often very large, involving teens of thousands of Soldiers.

 

[Varren]

Perhaps i expressed myself in a bad way (cause my lacking english abilities). I agree it is ok to have a general "bureocratic government" that could apply to other countries but there has to remain something unique for ERE and HRE (and other known Empires).

Generally i would love to see all default de jure empires vanish. And the few remaining ones should have unique flavoured mechanics. If you want to create a new one there has to be a way. Perhaps in mixing the Charlemagne DLC feature of "realm creation" with the Holy Fury DLC feature of "faith reformation". So every Empire got its proper (spiritual) backround.

The de jure empires always felt like a bit of a placeholder, since custom empires were a DLC feature.

Byzantine Empire and its neighbours should be able to raid each other. Byzantine Empire spent like 400 years at pretty much constant war against the muslim states to the east which involved raids on yearly basis and these raiding forces was often very large, involving teens of thousands of Soldiers.

That should be more of a Muslim thing than a Byzantine thing, no?

 

[Fierabras]

That should be more of a Muslim thing than a Byzantine thing, no?

I personally think that raiding should be a thing for everyone, regardless of religion or culture, because historically, everyone did it, whether it was Byzantines and Crusaders raiding Muslims, Muslims raiding said Byzantines and Crusaders, the English raiding the French, the French raiding the English, and the Vikings raiding everyone. Raiding was almost ubiquitous in the Middle Ages, and often undertaken to finance a larger war effort, so taking a raiding stance really should be an option for all armies.

 

[LukeCreed13]

I wouldn't count on the game having specific government features for Byzantium at launch, so yeah, we'll probably start off with full feudal Byzantium (maybe just with some no penalties on revoke claim features). But I think it's a safe bet to say that it'll probably get overhauled at some point.

 

[kviiri]

Perhaps i expressed myself in a bad way (cause my lacking english abilities). I agree it is ok to have a general "bureocratic government" that could apply to other countries but there has to remain something unique for ERE and HRE (and other known Empires).

To make sure we're talking about the same thing: what exactly do you mean by HRE? Because I can tentatively agree with you as long as we are talking about any sufficiently powerful Western Roman Catholic realm to receive imperial coronation from the Pope. But if you mean it should be specifically restricted to the historical HRE territories and around them, I am in disagreement. I just don't see any sense why we should be railroaded into having the successor of the Western Roman Empire be confined to a particular geographical locale.