1.8 Byzantium

[ktk1212]

I think mid-long term Byz got buffed, although largely indirectly. Vassal feeding seems like it would be stronger now, as you can holy war without directly bordering a country if your vassal does and vassals will now make their own claims so you can sell them those lands. The new autonomy reduction to their government forms means that they should have an easy time remaining stable. The nerfs were all to their early game, which does suck a lot. Especially losing those islands, and the Ottos getting much stronger, is going to be a very big problem. The Constantintople trade node seems richer though.

EDIT: It will be VERY interesting to see how the new rebels interact with the AI. Now they'll face full blown rebellions instead of simple single stacks, so hopefully that can be used against the Ottos a bit.

 

[Kh3lben]

Nope. Appears that file hasn't been touched.

On the plus side, BYZ does have a core on Chios. And Smyna (Izmirni) in Sugla, and Sinop are now Greek culture. And Gothic is related.

Right....and Bithynia(Izmit) that was still under Byzantine control well after 1400 not only isn't a core but is a fully fledged Turko-Sunni province.

 

[Grand Historian]

I personally think these nerfs have to do more with the dev's just wanting to buff the Ottomans into the France of the Middle East and less with a dislike of Byzantium. Or it could be both.

 

[Zak Preston]

and Don't ally with Theodoro since Crimea almost always DoWs them around 1450's.

 

[RobRoy3]

Right....and Bithynia(Izmit) that was still under Byzantine control well after 1400 not only isn't a core but is a fully fledged Turko-Sunni province.

Nicomedia? Yeah, core-wise, you could justify one there. Though it was only for a decade or two during the interregnum, so I guess you could argue they never finished "coring" it (to use a kludgy game mechanic in a complex historical period). But, honestly, if you're applying game "core" rules, I think it'd been well over 150 years since there was any Byzantine presence in Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Trebizond. I doubt the overwhelmingly Greek populations would seriously object to a Byzantine takeover, but I'm not so sure they'd all prefer that to some sort of semi-independence (at least in the case of places like Trebizond and Cyprus which had such a history).

 

[Kh3lben]

Nicomedia? Yeah, core-wise, you could justify one there. Though it was only for a decade or two during the interregnum, so I guess you could argue they never finished "coring" it (to use a kludgy game mechanic in a complex historical period). But, honestly, if you're applying game "core" rules, I think it'd been well over 150 years since there was any Byzantine presence in Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Trebizond. I doubt the overwhelmingly Greek populations would seriously object to a Byzantine takeover, but I'm not so sure they'd all prefer that to some sort of semi-independence (at least in the case of places like Trebizond and Cyprus which had such a history).

Rhodes was lost to the crusaders at ~1310.So if Paradox wanted to play by their rules the core should stay put till 1459-60

 

[RobRoy3]

Rhodes was lost to the crusaders at ~1310.So if Paradox wanted to play by their rules the core should stay put till 1459-60

Yeah, I couldn't remember the date on Rhodes. But they took it from a Genoese psuedo-vassal, and the Genoese had occupied it a bit during the Nicean phase. Still, the one with the weakest justification for removal, I agree. And whether you'd consider them full wars or not, they had enough conflicts with Trebizond and Venice over the years, that you'd think applying their game rules would preserve the cores on Trebizond and Crete. I wonder why they treat Corfu and Naxos differently?

 

[Kh3lben]

Yeah, I couldn't remember the date on Rhodes. But they took it from a Genoese psuedo-vassal, and the Genoese had occupied it a bit during the Nicean phase. Still, the one with the weakest justification for removal, I agree. And whether you'd consider them full wars or not, they had enough conflicts with Trebizond and Venice over the years, that you'd think applying their game rules would preserve the cores on Trebizond and Crete. I wonder why they treat Corfu and Naxos differently?

After looking around the new map a bit more,the only possible explanation i can come up with is that the devs are flamebaiting massively with this patch.Have you seen the basques? They are in cultural union with the Castilians now.What's next Paradox? Maybe give cores all over Poland to Brandenburg?

 

[RobRoy3]

After looking around the new map a bit more,the only possible explanation i can come up with is that the devs are flamebaiting massively with this patch.Have you seen the basques? They are in cultural union with the Castilians now.What's next Paradox? Maybe give cores all over Poland to Brandenburg?

Nah. We knew about the Basque one. And they modeled it like that in prior versions. Presumably game play reasons. I'm actually surprised they broke Turkish out of the Semetic group, which they'd argued had been done for gameplay reasons. I guess those reasons no longer apply? Will make life a bit more difficult for the Turks.

 

[Ranjid]

Nah. We knew about the Basque one. And they modeled it like that in prior versions. Presumably game play reasons. I'm actually surprised they broke Turkish out of the Semetic group, which they'd argued had been done for gameplay reasons. I guess those reasons no longer apply? Will make life a bit more difficult for the Turks.

Egypt is rich enough to become an accepted culture. Syria otoh won't. But I guess that's not that much of a nerf. Could someone check if they still take Humanism? The breakup makes sense history wise. Turks and Bedouins shared the same faith. But certainly not the same culture. Oh well, at least it's not as crazy as D&T in EUIII - there was a Graeco-Semitic culture group for Greeks and Turks.

 

[unmerged(58610)]

The Byzantines fought the Turks enough to keep all their cores.

 

[Lord Finnish]

In my first AoW game as Sweden it took until 1470s for Ottos to attack Byzantium even when they had had the mission for several years.

I take that as a promising sign!

 

[Viperswhip]

Okay folks, I just watched an art of war let's play called Kingdom of Jerusalem where he started as Rhodes and I am pretty sure Byz still has a core there, or at least he lost the island to Greek patriots. Can someone check for sure? I won't be home from work for 3 more hours.

 

[DM818]

It is also worth noting that the decision to form the Byzantine Empire gives super weird cores holes everywhere.

 

[Ranjid]

Nah. We knew about the Basque one. And they modeled it like that in prior versions. Presumably game play reasons. I'm actually surprised they broke Turkish out of the Semetic group, which they'd argued had been done for gameplay reasons. I guess those reasons no longer apply? Will make life a bit more difficult for the Turks.

Egypt is rich enough to become an accepted culture. Syria otoh won't. But I guess that's not that much of a nerf. Could someone check if they still take Humanism? The breakup makes sense history wise. Turks and Bedouins shared the same faith. But certainly not the same culture. Oh well, at least it's not as crazy as D&T in EUIII - there was a Graeco-Semitic culture group for Greeks and Turks.

/edit: Wut? That was one major hiccup with the servers here.

 

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The most solid strategy remains; aggression in the Balkans. Ragusa, Serbia, and Bosnia are all relatively easily vasselized at the game start and are located at precisely the right location to aid you in retaking your Greek cores- which are your only remaining cores of significance. Priority should also be put on securing an alliance with Hungry if possible.

 

[AchedTeacher]

Looks like the Byzantines have lost their cores on Cyprus, Crete and Rhodes, just as a heads up.

Wtf man Byzantines should have cores on virtually everything :/

 

[Zak Preston]

The most solid strategy remains; aggression in the Balkans. Ragusa, Serbia, and Bosnia are all relatively easily vasselized at the game start and are located at precisely the right location to aid you in retaking your Greek cores- which are your only remaining cores of significance. Priority should also be put on securing an alliance with Hungry if possible.

What should I do with that huge AE coming from no-CB DoW Ragusa and then annexing\vassalizing Serbia?

 

[rafek]

Watching a YouTuber playing Rhodes at the moment - he hovers over the Cyprus and Rhodes cores, BYZ ones are still there.

Seems to be some kind of confusion on the forums.

 

[AchedTeacher]

What should I do with that huge AE coming from no-CB DoW Ragusa and then annexing\vassalizing Serbia?

Wait are you actually expecting a step-by-step tutorial here? You are trying to restore the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is effectively dead at this point. There is no easy way of doing it like how you can easily beat UK as the USA.