Byzantium and Roman Empire needs a revamp

[holyvigil]

Yes please

Thank you for your support Mr. President Donald Trump. I'll take whatever I can get.

I edited the event file for Purple Phoenix and removed all these events that give you or rob you of mana. Actually at most times you gain 50 mana and very rarely do you lose 25 mana. And that's it. It feels like a cheap buff which i dont need, i want more flavor, more inner mechanics and a better way to simulate civil wars which basically ruined byzantium again and again. One good doomstack of pretenders does not a civil war make. I should be losing half my country to a pretender emperor who wants to kick me out. This one doomstack running around is just nothing to worry about. When did this EVER worry you or cause you issues?

It's a 50% chance either way. On average its 25 mana every mtth.

The empire will be nerfed once again in the next patch. The total development goes down from 41 to 38. While the Ottoman will most likely rise.

Where did you hear this?

Edit: wouldn't surprise me though. The starting position of Byz has gotten nerfed every patch except for the one where Athens became a vassal at start.

 

[raikaria]

Should Byzantium and the Roman Empire be buffed, with new mechanics, buffs and reverting old nerfs?

No.

Firstly; the Roman Empire dosen't exist in the game, and frankly if you've formed Rome you have already won. Also it's never been nerfed.

Byzantium if anything is too strong compared to it's actual position in 1444. It was the definition of a doomed state and is frankly not relevant to the timeframe the game covers. It gets too much attention as it is with unique missions, events, Purple Pheonix ect.

Edit: wouldn't surprise me though. The starting position of Byz has gotten nerfed every patch except for the one where Athens became a vassal at start.

There have been many; many patches which have either not touched the area, nerfed the Ottomans [EG: Them losing their cores and Janniaries becoming a unique unit rather than a country-wide modifier] or directly buffed Byzantium [Third Rome].

There has been far more than *one* patch which 'did not nerf Byzantium'.

 

[holyvigil]

No.

Firstly; the Roman Empire dosen't exist in the game, and frankly if you've formed Rome you have already won. Also it's never been nerfed.

Byzantium if anything is too strong compared to it's actual position in 1444. It was the definition of a doomed state and is frankly not relevant to the timeframe the game covers. It gets too much attention as it is with unique missions, events, Purple Pheonix ect.

Is Byzantium not that way in EU4?

Is it not doomed 99% of the time in the hands of the ai?

Doesn't it take quite a few restarts and quite a bit of luck and strategy for a player to get it to be successful?

 

[raikaria]

Is Byzantium not that way in EU4?

Is it not doomed 99% of the time in the hands of the ai?

Doesn't it take quite a few restarts and quite a bit of luck and strategy for a player to get it to be successful?

All it takes for Byzantium to potentially succeed is Ottomans to declare war on Albania + Venice before they declare on Byzantium.

That happens, you give Venice Condot and reinforce Albania so they don't get stackwiped; so Skanderbeg remains on the field. From there Venice's ducats and troops+Skanderbeg's leadership win. You have no truce so you can declare on the battered Ottomans immediately after with whatever ragtag band you gathered [IE: Wallachia and some minors in Anatolia who serve as distractions].

There really isn't much luck needed beyond not getting DoW'ed first. And I find that dosen't happen 95% of the time unless you delete the fort in Constantinople [Which will case the Ottomans to attack you first almost always]. From here you can usually push the Ottomans into; or on the brink of Bankruptcy, and other AI's will usually jump on them.

If Byzantium was at a state that reflected 1444, they'd be teetering on bankruptcy, with high autonomy in all provinces bar Constantinople, and probably with a disaster ticking.

 

[treb]

All it takes for Byzantium to potentially succeed is Ottomans to declare war on Albania + Venice before they declare on Byzantium.

That happens, you give Venice Condot and reinforce Albania so they don't get stackwiped; so Skanderbeg remains on the field. From there Venice+Skanderbeg win. You have no truce so you can declare on the battered Ottomans immediately after with whatever ragtag band you gathered [IE: Wallachia and some minors in Anatolia who serve as distractions].

There really isn't much luck needed beyond not getting DoW'ed first. And I find that dosen't happen 95% of the time unless you delete the fort in Constantinople [Which will case the Ottomans to attack you first almost always].

If Byzantium was at a state that reflected 1444, they'd be teetering on bankruptcy, with high autonomy in all provinces bar Constantinople, and probably with a disaster ticking.

Not even that as a player all it takes is skill and a little luck and you can easily win the war singlehandidly to the extent that you can get Greece back and have the WS spare to to the them to the cleaners.

I will add Byzantium's flavor does feel outdated to an extent it lacks a lot of the gimmicks and deeper flavor that many of the other ultimately gimmick formables got. One idea I had was a theme mechanic where in return for half tax and manpower from a full controlled state you could raise thematic regiments for your army at half upkeep and as a twist on the government side give them a unique reform that allows extra interaction with the estates at the expense of province bonuses as the Byzantines technically had no landed aristocracy.

 

[holyvigil]

All it takes for Byzantium to potentially succeed is Ottomans to declare war on Albania + Venice before they declare on Byzantium.

That happens, you give Venice Condot and reinforce Albania so they don't get stackwiped; so Skanderbeg remains on the field. From there Venice's ducats and troops+Skanderbeg's leadership win. You have no truce so you can declare on the battered Ottomans immediately after with whatever ragtag band you gathered [IE: Wallachia and some minors in Anatolia who serve as distractions].

There really isn't much luck needed beyond not getting DoW'ed first. And I find that dosen't happen 95% of the time unless you delete the fort in Constantinople [Which will case the Ottomans to attack you first almost always]. From here you can usually push the Ottomans into; or on the brink of Bankruptcy, and other AI's will usually jump on them.

If Byzantium was at a state that reflected 1444, they'd be teetering on bankruptcy, with high autonomy in all provinces bar Constantinople, and probably with a disaster ticking.

Clearly you haven't played much byzantium if you think all you have to do is:
1.
2.
3...
46.
47.
Etc.

And boom bam winrate 95% of the time!


Just try playing 20 games and win 19 of 20 of them and see if that 95% works out for you.

 

[treb]

Clearly you haven't played much byzantium if you think all you have to do is:
1.
2.
3...
46.
47.
Etc.

And boom bam winrate 95% of the time!


Just try playing 20 games and win 19 of 20 of them and see if that 95% works out for you.

It took me 3 attempts to get the strategy down and on the 4th I got Basilieus, Byzantium as of this patch is a mostly skill based country as you can trick the AI into mothballing Macedonia and Okipsion? and then there doomstacks will without fail siege Constantinople, stick the fort edict on beforehand and you can go to town on the entire Ottoman empire before Constantinople is even really threatened. I get the feeling this will be nerfed into the ground in the upcoming patch but as it stands cheesing the Ottomans is ludicrously easy given the disparity at start.

 

[Josar]

I might be ok with a unique government for Byzantium/Roman empire though this is by no means a priority.

One other way to deal with the ottomans is to ally Hungary. With scornful insult, royal marriage, improved relations, the mission that gives you diplomatic reputation for having allies, it is easy to flip Hungary to friendly, at which point they can be allied. This is a rather slow method, but once the ottomans get in a war in Anatolia, especially aganist the Mamuluks, you can win a fairly easy war with Hungary.

 

[holyvigil]

It took me 3 attempts to get the strategy down and on the 4th I got Basilieus, Byzantium as of this patch is a mostly skill based country as you can trick the AI into mothballing Macedonia and Okipsion? and then there doomstacks will without fail siege Constantinople, stick the fort edict on beforehand and you can go to town on the entire Ottoman empire before Constantinople is even really threatened. I get the feeling this will be nerfed into the ground in the upcoming patch but as it stands cheesing the Ottomans is ludicrously easy given the disparity at start.

I'd say there is still a lot of luck involved still. Some games they do not mothball either. Most games they do not mothball the one on the Anatolian side. You just have to hope for the best and there's nothing that can force a mothball.

literally ludicrously easy would be defeating Byzantium as The Ottomans imo.

 

[treb]

I'd say there is still a lot of luck involved still. Some games they do not mothball either. Most games they do not mothball the one on the Anatolian side. You just have to hope for the best and there's nothing that can force a mothball.

literally ludicrously easy would be defeating Byzantium as The Ottomans imo.

That's from raising maintenance far to early or recruiting the one unit to cross the straits to early. If you practice it enough you can pull the whole thing off flawlessly in ironman as many times as you need to get one run where you don't screw up.
Ludicrously easy is crippling the games strongest nation off the bat with a 3pm in a war you fight on you own or with Albania if you want naval backup Skanderbeg is useless as your not looking to battle the Ottomans. It's All based on you timing things right and not screwing up. Yes luck can play a role, get a general with siege pips and take Erdrine or a bad roll with a one regiment army in Anatolia messing your occupations but the main point is as Byzantium you are far more reliant on your own skill at duping the AI and shuffling troops across the Aegean sea to quickly occupy the Ottomans than you are on waiting for someone else or something else to give you an opportunity to strike that may never come.

 

[Willem IV]

Where did you hear this?

See this tweet from Groogy

View attachment 542027https://twitter.com/SirVogelius/status/1222458708145377282

Constantinople is down from 23 to 20. Morea is down from 9 to 6, Corinth is new with 6 Dev. I assume that Achaea has been lowered as well.
The Peloponnese, had 2 provinces of 9 Dev each, will get 3 provinces of 6 Dev, will stay at 18 Development.
At the end we will loss the 3 development in the City.

 

[szmik]

It took me 3 attempts to get the strategy down and on the 4th I got Basilieus, Byzantium as of this patch is a mostly skill based country as you can trick the AI into mothballing Macedonia and Okipsion? and then there doomstacks will without fail siege Constantinople, stick the fort edict on beforehand and you can go to town on the entire Ottoman empire before Constantinople is even really threatened. I get the feeling this will be nerfed into the ground in the upcoming patch but as it stands cheesing the Ottomans is ludicrously easy given the disparity at start.

Except they always leave siege and chase my+Albanian armies as of current patch... 100% games (10/10). Also they leave small stack between Albania and Morea, which messes up with Macedonia empty fort, which gets small garrison because of battling this small stack there beyond end of month, as it always retreats through there. Even if I wipe them, I can't take fort immediately. The other stack then gets back from Constantinople and it's dice mercy then. If I retreat to mountains, they retreat back to Constantinople.

Here you go with your easy strategy. It does NOT work. At least not consistently.

 

[holyvigil]

I think you are missing the point that byzantium SHOULD remain a challenge because historically it is doomed underdog that faces the hegemon of that timeframe. If you cannot win consistently then maybe it is intended to do so? Maybe it is the point that there are countries that are not always demeed to succeed? Maybe the fact that Byzantium AI looses 99% of times is intended by developers? What about the fact that Byzantium is formable and making the formable country even stronger formable is not desired by developers?

Another thing is that if you are good enough player then you can make byzantium survive everytime(with different outcomes ofcourse, but still survive).

That was not at all the point of his posts.

Treb post said that it was easy. And szmik said it was not easy. That was exactly what treb was talking about.

Treb spent 95% of one post and 100% of another post talking about how easy it is.

 

[Blust]

No one said Byzantium should be an easy start (and by easy, I mean not "cheesy gamey abusing the AI") not even more rewarding (the "event" where you lose and win 50 mil points aren't that interesting) but more interesting. Byz' tree mission is very good indeed, but... that's it.

 

[aono]

we are not saying that devs should go overboard with Byz, but giving the purple phoenix a unique goverment type is not that hard.

No one said Byzantium should be an easy start (and by easy, I mean not "cheesy gamey abusing the AI") not even more rewarding (the "event" where you lose and win 50 mil points aren't that interesting) but more interesting. Byz' tree mission is very good indeed, but... that's it.

Actually, you (OP) do asking that devs should go overboard with Byz and (to make them survive) be an easy start.

First, about easy start. Because, well, the declared problem about start is "Byzantium is rarely survive, like, 1/5, if they're lucky". So, essentially, a situation where Byzantium has a hard start and should be lucky to survive declared as a bad thing that should be fixed. It is "let make their start easier" by definition.
Second, about going overboard. Essentially, a number of content and mechanics OP asking as unique for Byzantium and Rome would make a game being about restoration of Byzantium and Rome. Maybe it's not bad (I'm not interested, but whatever makes your boat rock). Still, it should be understood.

The very problem with Byzantium is that it wasn't exactly unique in 1444. It was a remnant of the very powerful country, indeed, rebuilt as essentially feudal state (yes, academically there was a difference between western feudalism and pronoia system), on the wreck of the feudal state. To "make them interesting" you'll need to invent whole culture and history for resurgent Purple Phoenix, make it consistent and, still, "roman". As the quality of mission tree and event system of Purple Phoenix definitely isn't enough, it gives you something to understand how big is the supposed work.
Still. The very core of situation, in my opinion, summed by OP. This countries are off their historical scope. You need to invent a whole historical scope for them to be adequate.

 

[holyvigil]

See this tweet from Groogy

Constantinople is down from 23 to 20. Morea is down from 9 to 6, Corinth is new with 6 Dev. I assume that Achaea has been lowered as well.
The Peloponnese, had 2 provinces of 9 Dev each, will get 3 provinces of 6 Dev, will stay at 18 Development.
At the end we will loss the 3 development in the City.

I have made a suggestion that suggests reverting this change back to where it was: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...nt-lower-constantinoples-development.1325501/

Please read it and comment.

 

[WeissRaben]

I have made a suggestion that suggests reverting this change back to where it was: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...nt-lower-constantinoples-development.1325501/

Please read it and comment.

Constantinopolis in 1444 was the hollowed-out shell of the city that it had been. It barely counted 50k inhabitants, down from the hundreds of thousands it had had before the Deluge of the second millennium hit it, and there was very little that the Empire controlled beyond the city walls.

It should be an easy province to improve, if you manage to stave off the Ottomans; but as to providing resources for doing that? It shouldn't really be that large a help. It had seen better days, to use an understatement.

 

[Question]

You guys keep bringing up historical accuracy, but historically large empires ran into tons of problems that eventually resulted in the empire's decline and those are not depicted in the game...keeping a 2k+ development empire at max stability, 0% autonomy, 0% inflation, 0% corruption and 0% unrest is a piece of cake. You literally have to try to not do it. It is also near impossible to have subjects rebel or lose the HRE emperor seat even if you lose a major war.

Im in 1800+ with a total development score of 4.5k (half that being subjects), there are literally no events or anything firing to threaten my empire, all I have to do is click "boost stability" every time my ruler dies...

It doesnt really make sense to say "yea, historically country X was weak because it had these problems" when the game doesnt depict empire Y as having any of the problems it should historically.

 

[holyvigil]

Constantinopolis in 1444 was the hollowed-out shell of the city that it had been. It barely counted 50k inhabitants, down from the hundreds of thousands it had had before the Deluge of the second millennium hit it, and there was very little that the Empire controlled beyond the city walls.

It should be an easy province to improve, if you manage to stave off the Ottomans; but as to providing resources for doing that? It shouldn't really be that large a help. It had seen better days, to use an understatement.

I actually mention that very type of sentiment in my suggestion you should check it out.

 

[Question]

I tried playing as Byzantium and had to restart multiple times to get the alliances I needed to survive. The requirement to do so based on RNG is silly. If all possible allies that can help deter the ottomans are either rivaling you or allied to someone rivaling you, you are screwed.

Other than that, the main thing I noticed was how...lackluster restoring the empire was. Yea, theres a lot of fighting, but the rest of the world has no real reaction to it, there are no events and the missions are basically "okay here you go, you get more claims for completing this mission". You dont get anything to actually help you complete the missions.

For example, Great Britian gets stuff like naval boosts to help them obtain naval supremacy, a conquistador with 80 tradition and stuff that develops their provinces. Everything is flavourful and fits the missions well. Byzantium gets almost nothing, they get no naval boosts to help them recover the shoreline from the Ottomans for example, and the progress of the claims is odd.

Recover eastern islands is a top level mission, and it involves recovering the Aegean islands from Venice, Naxos and Genoa. But you dont actually get claims on these islands! You do not start with the claims and the mission doesnt give you claims...completing it just gives you claims on Malta, etc, which is skipping ahead imho. Infact, Byzantium should be starting with cores on everything they lost in the last 150 years which is when cores expire in the game. The idea that you have to fabricate claims to recover provinces you used to own is silly, especially when later missions in the tree give you the claims you need. Not even starting with a claim on Naxos is particularly strange.

It doesnt make sense for recovering the coastline to be a top level mission either, because that requires obtaining naval supremacy and launching an amphibious invasion against the ottomans, and this should NOT be your first mission...the logical progression is to kick the Ottomans out of Greece, Bulgaria, etc, and after securing the western half of the empire, you start thinking about going into Anatolia. Recovering Bulgaria should give you naval bonuses that you would use to take on the Ottoman fleet, which would make sense progression wise. Instead, the missions encourage you to invade Anatolia via the sea while leaving Bulgaria alone...which makes no sense whatsoever.

And a huge problem with restoring the empire is all the cultures you need to promote. Yes, going humanist helps, but they could at least throw Byzantium a bone and give them more culture slots...the western half of the empire alone has the following as non-accepted cultures :

-Albanian
-Serbian
-Croatian
-Bulgarian

And of course, going into Anatolia requires Turkish. Then the middle east has a ton of cultures, and Italy alone has like 4+ different Italian cultures...the diplomatic cost to convert the bare minimum amount of cultures is astronomical. Byzantium really needs more culture slots from missions to pull this off properly. It wouldnt even be OP at all considering other nations get WAY bigger bonuses for their missions.

Its quite clear that not a lot of thought was put into this DLC...