Byzantine Monarchy

[Dakilla TM]

Uhm... They did burn a sizeable amount of my city once for supporting Marius, and then again for supporting Catilina.
I guess I'm a "byzantohater" now

But were you or any of your close relatives alive to witness it? No, so don't even try

 

[Blindbohemian]

Because this what happens when those fools hear someone make a suggestion for the ERE.

Grand Historian: I think Byzantium could use a unique government type to give it more uniqueness like it did in previous patches.

The foolish haters see that as,

Grand Historian: I think Byzantium should be the most powerful nation in the world and deserves 1234345456238943 more expansions dedicated just to the ERE.


See the issue here? While Byzantine aficionados jokingly get called Byzantinophiles, this word is often used by the rest of the community to shut down any proposals to make the ERE more fun, which I think is stupid.


Unless the Romans burned down your house or stole your pencils, it's very irrational to hate the Romans

Hm yes, call the people who disagree with you foolish. Good plan. Such credibility.

I'm neither a fool, nor a hater. I see "Grand Historian: I think Byzantium could use a unique government type to give it more uniqueness like it did in previous patches." not as what you posted, but as something more like:

Grand Historian: I think Byzantium should get some more developer time to make it more unique and different to other countries.

Which is basically what it says. Note I didn't say anything about the amount of time.

And I disagree.

So does that make me a fool? Personally, I think Byzantium has already received more developer time than Prussia, which was actually a major player in the period and at this point rarely even forms. I don't think that Byzantium deserves another second of developer time, until things that actually matter in this game are fixed, like the formation of Prussia, the Netherlands and the Mughals. I literally see Byzantium succeed in turning from a rump state into a regional power, once even a pretty strong power, more often than I see the above countries form in any meaningful incarnation.

I've played EUIV for 708 hours, according to Steam, often until at least the 1750s. In those 708 hours I have seen Prussia form twice. Once, it was a two province minor consisting of Danzig and Ostpreussen, the other time it was nothing more than the Teutonic Order's starting borders converted to Protestantism; I have seen the Netherlands form ("properly"--I've seen it pop up by event and get squashed flat, or pop up by event and persist as, like, 3 random provinces doing nothing) once, and I have never seen the Mughals form, ever.

I've also never seen the Ottomans reach their historical 1680s extent, or Britain effectively lay the foundations of its historical late 18th century empire (although its coming close in my current game), or the Manchu unite, take over China, and create Qing.

Those countries are major players and very important in the early modern period. Byzantium is not. Byzantium, historically, lasted for something like seven years after game start. Byzantium doesn't matter. Once issues like the above are rectified, and the game is, in terms of historicity, in a reasonably good position, I don't care if the devs then go back to messing around with fantasy stuff like a Byzantine resurgence. Cool! I'm glad they're doing fun fan-service stuff! However, until they're rectified, I don't think they should waste time on things for an irrelevant, doomed country.

If you want to play Byzantium, play Crusader Kings 2. If you want to play Byzantium in the Early Modern Period, play Crusader Kings 2 and convert it to Europa Universalis 4. These tools exist for exactly these purposes. Use them.

Does that make me a foolish hater? I don't think so.

 

[Dakilla TM]

You act like this change is gonna be the end of the world. It's just a small government change that takes less than 5 min of typing to do.

The Byzantines will still fall most of the time even with this proposed change. This just gives the player a more unique experience. Nothing more than that.

 

[Ameron]

But were you or any of your close relatives alive to witness it? No, so don't even try

Actually, I was hironic. Reasoning about "the Romans burned your house/village/city and enslaved it" will include most of western Europe

 

[Ameron]

I've played EUIV for 708 hours, according to Steam, often until at least the 1750s. In those 708 hours I have seen Prussia form twice. Once, it was a two province minor consisting of Danzig and Ostpreussen, the other time it was nothing more than the Teutonic Order's starting borders converted to Protestantism; I have seen the Netherlands form ("properly"--I've seen it pop up by event and get squashed flat, or pop up by event and persist as, like, 3 random provinces doing nothing) once, and I have never seen the Mughals form, ever.

I've also never seen the Ottomans reach their historical 1680s extent, or Britain effectively lay the foundations of its historical late 18th century empire (although its coming close in my current game), or the Manchu unite, take over China, and create Qing.

You make some kind of a good point, but you know, the game isn't railroaded to follow history. And it cannot, without becoming a completely different game.
Starting in 1444 almost never gives a historical 1821 world and there's hundreds of reasons for that.
So, stating that some historical event has to be represented in the game before the unhistorical possibilities are explored, would probably mean hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of work for the developers.
While changing a government form really is few minutes.
(And I'm still against that)

 

[LastSalian]

Yet another of oversimplification in CS that destroys immersion, nerfs a country, and adds nothing to the game experience.

Hope you are right and it's just 5 minutes of coding to revert it.

 

[.Me]

In fact Byzantium was very, very important in that time, especially in eastern europe, but only as a symbol. When the Byzantine Empire agreed to pay tribute to the Ottomans, the ruler of Muscovy said "We have a patriarch but not an Emperor". I say this to make clear that in the Eastern Europe the idea of the "invincible universal empire protected by God" was still strongly felt. This Idea was inherited both by the Ottoman Empire, both the tsarist Russia, when the rulers of these two countries began to call himself "Caesar". And both these states were in fact heirs of Byzantium. Byzantium is the foundation of power of two major powers during the Eu4 period, therefore deserves as much attention as possible, but I also think that it has received enough.
the correct form of government for Byzantium would be, I think, the administrative monarchy, to reflect the high bureaucratization of Byzantine government in that period, that European states have achieved much later. Create a specific "Byzantine monarchy" will be just redundant.

Then I would focus mostly on the legacy of the Byzantine state, more than on Byzantium itself. For example, add to the decision to form Russia the "Byzantium does not exist" trigger.
Or events connected to Byzantium within the Ottoman Empire, like "declare yourself qaysar-ı Rum" that maybe would give a claim on Rome itself.

 

[123e55]

Haha,a very good idea! +1.
*trying to revive an old post without getting killed by someone*

 

[zsImmortal]

Feudal monarchy is a catch-all term (as per modern historians). It properly illustrates the Byzantine administration and doesn't at the same time (this applies mutatis mutandis to all Feudal monarchies in the game). So I wouldn't complain about it, because it isn't much more than a shallow concept, an idea that it is more or less a medieval-era monarchy.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I agree with the OP.