Byzantium

[illathid]

As I recall Wiz said that if he'd give Constantinople a theodosian wall bonus then he'd also make "the city of the world's desire" mission spawn spawn cannon regiments for the ottomans.

 

[victimizer]

"Byzantium" at this point was a handful of villages within the decrepit ruins of Constantinople.

 

[NetherViking]

"Byzantium" at this point was a handful of villages within the decrepit ruins of Constantinople.

Where are you getting this data from? Most of the numbers I see out there estimate a population at or over 30 k people.

 

[Scottx105]

1) In this era Constantinople's defenses were mothballed and as such weren't maintained as they had been in history
2) IIRC they didn't really use Greek Fire in the medieval ages
3) This is more of a design choice from what I understand, it wouldn't really make sense to have them in Western so having them in Eastern is somewhat of a compromise, Extended Timeline puts them in the "Roman" tech group

Maybe you should check historical accounts of the siege of Constantinople, most accounts support the idea that the walls of Constantinople were well maintained, despite the economic troubles of Byzantium. On the Greek fire, maybe they did. There are accounts from the siege that the Byzantines employed some form of flame weapon, however it could have been stored Greek fire or a new weaker form as the formula was lost.

Purple Phoenix DLC already rewards and guides Byzantine reconquest of lands.

To be honest the Purple Phoenix DLC sucks, when it first came out it was alright because it gave Byzantium a fighting chance, but recent patches pretty much negated the effects of the DLC as most small nations are harder to play as compared to previous patches.

I want an Albanian tech group, with 100.5% technology cost and cool units.

Albania was created around 1100, my point remains that Byzantium was an Empire that lasted over 1000 years. Regardless of economic state at the starting point of EU4 they out of every other nation deserve to have their own tech group/special ideas as compared to other EU4 nations due to the fact most of them in Europe are nations formed around 800AD-1200AD that are represented in EU4. The Byzantines would have defiantly had a far more collective knowledge of the world through 1000 years of existence compared to other younger nations. This is again supported by the refugee points I made earlier on.

Where are you getting this data from? Most of the numbers I see out there estimate a population at or over 30 k people.

Most sources estimate the population around 40000 to 70000 population before Constantinople fell.

 

[PhroX]

Yes because it takes 200 years for people to flee from Greece/Turkey/Balklands to the rest of europe. For them to start causing the Renaissance 200 years later. The fourth crusade did cause refugees to flee to Europe, however it was the fall of Constantinople that revived peoples interests in the old manuscripts brought by the previous refugees (now reinvigorated interest from the new refugees with newer modern manuscripts after the old manuscripts fell into obscurity), this kick started the process which caused the Renaissance in the mid to late 15th century.

Errr....what? The Renaissance didn't start in the late 15the century. It had been going for a long time before that.

Oh, and I assume you also think the Ming should have a tech cost of, maybe, 80%? After all, they were even more advanced than the Byzantines as well as having every bit as much of a history as them.

 

[Scottx105]

Errr....what? The Renaissance didn't start in the late 15the century. It had been going for a long time before that.

Oh, and I assume you also think the Ming should have a tech cost of, maybe, 80%? After all, they were even more advanced than the Byzantines as well as having every bit as much of a history as them.

There is no defined start date of the Renaissance, this has been a debate between historians for ages. However most people agree that the Renaissance main time was between the 14th and 17th Century. However this time frame does not support your point as this was still well over a century after the Fourth Crusade. Yet many people (including me) prefer to see the Renaissance after the end of the medieval period as it was the rebirth of Europe from the medieval period, which ended in the 15th Century.

And no, the Ming dynasty was between 14th Century and the 17th Century. The history of nations applies up to the start date of 1444, after that EU4 is alternate history unless you start from a later time period, but seriously who does that?

 

[PhroX]

The social, scientific and artisic advances which are usually taken to define the Renaissance began long before EUIV began, and had some of their roots in the knowledge and people leaving Byzantium as a result of the Fourth Crusade. It certainly wasn't a matter of those changes beginning immediately after Constantinople's sacking or anything, but the ideas from Byzantium helped lay the groundwork for those changes - and as such had a far greater impact on the Renaissance than any refugees fleeing the final fall of Byzantium. By the time the Ottomans took the city, the centres of the Renaissance - particularly Northern Italy - had surpassed the remnants of the Roman Empire, and, while I won't claim nothing was brought to Europe by refugees fleeing the Turks at this time, it did not have a significant impact on the advancement of science, art or culture in Western Europe.


And if we're going purely by dyansty...well, the Palaiologans had hardly been in power for the entire history of Byzantium now, had they? So only stuff from the last couple of centuries of the Empire count, and in that time they did....well, sweet FA comes to mind.

 

[Scottx105]

The social, scientific and artisic advances which are usually taken to define the Renaissance began long before EUIV began, and had some of their roots in the knowledge and people leaving Byzantium as a result of the Fourth Crusade. It certainly wasn't a matter of those changes beginning immediately after Constantinople's sacking or anything, but the ideas from Byzantium helped lay the groundwork for those changes - and as such had a far greater impact on the Renaissance than any refugees fleeing the final fall of Byzantium. By the time the Ottomans took the city, the centres of the Renaissance - particularly Northern Italy - had surpassed the remnants of the Roman Empire, and, while I won't claim nothing was brought to Europe by refugees fleeing the Turks at this time, it did not have a significant impact on the advancement of science, art or culture in Western Europe.


And if w're going purely by dyansty...well, the Palaiologans had hardly been in power for the entire history of Byzantium now, had they? So only stuff from the last couple of centuries of the Empire count, and in that time they did....well, sweet FA comes to mind.

Who said we're going by Dynasty, that's only you. China is a world away from Europe, in EU4 that means it has to have bad technology (I know the system is bad) but Byzantium was in constant contact with other European countries and knew of the most modern technologies as previously stated, it just did not have the funding to act on the most modern stuff. And no, most historical records state that even with refuges from Byzantium arriving in Europe during the 13th Century, most of the tomes/documents/scripts fell into obscurity until they were revived when Greek scholars arrived after the fall of Constantinople.

 

[PhroX]

You're the one that limited it to dynasties. Ming is just the current (as of EUIV time) name for China, yet you constained them to starting in the 14th century. So by the same standards we should limit Byzantium to their current dynasty.

And the Otttomans had a fair bit of contact with Europe, yet get a 125% tech group. So again, why should Byzantium get better?

 

[Shaaaq]

You're the one that limited it to dynasties. Ming is just the current (as of EUIV time) name for China, yet you constained them to starting in the 14th century. So by the same standards we should limit Byzantium to their current dynasty.

And the Otttomans had a fair bit of contact with Europe, yet get a 125% tech group. So again, why should Byzantium get better?

The vast majority of ottoman technological growth occurred prior to the timeline.
They already get represented for their military strength in the form of Jannisaries and discipline.
The ottomans went through a general technological decline when they failed to take Vienna (which means that they went through the decline prior to the holy league wars).

Ming and china in general is not represented well in EU4; it would require DLC sized changes to make the chinese region accurate.

 

[Kinniken]

The OP is right about the Western tech group, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. A proper overhaul should include at least the following:
- Constantinople should start as a size 4 fort (some people would say more but let's not exaggerate)
- Byzantium really should have cores on all the Eastern Roman Empire, with missions for cores on the Western half
- The national traditions and ideas really need an overhaul. I'm thinking something like:
- NTs: Greek Fire: +100% Galley combat ability, Imperial Reach: +5 diplomatic ability, Legacy of Empire: +5 yearly prestige
- NIs:
- Cataphracts: +100% Cavalry combat ability
- SPQR: -5 revolt risk
- Legacy of Plato: -50% idea cost
- Roman conquests: -75% coring cost
- Legions reborn: +150% Infantry combat ability
- Tributary states: +5 diplomatic relations
- Roman concrete: -75% building cost
- Roman discipline: +50% discipline
- Classical Heritage: -50% technology cost
- Garrison towns: +100% colony growth
- Pax Romana: 80% AE reduction
- Imperial Prestige: -75% vassal integration cost
(yes, that's more than eight, but whatever, Byzantium should have more)
- Ambition: Empire Reborn: permanent 100 prestige, 100 legitimacy and +3 stability.
Of course restoring the Roman Empire should switch you to better NIs than those.

Also, Byzantium really should also be the union tag for South Slavic as well, and the restored Empire the union tag for Latin, French, Iberian, and British (I'm being reasonable and not adding German there).

That would be a good start to make Byzantium's starting position a little more realistic, while we wait for a proper DLC.

 

[Scottx105]

You're the one that limited it to dynasties. Ming is just the current (as of EUIV time) name for China, yet you constained them to starting in the 14th century. So by the same standards we should limit Byzantium to their current dynasty.

And the Otttomans had a fair bit of contact with Europe, yet get a 125% tech group. So again, why should Byzantium get better?

That proves my point, Ottomans get their own tech tree yet they are one of the youngest nations in EU4. And I'll return to the point that Byzantium was not as far gone as people keep saying they were. And regardless of your Byzantaphobia it seems a lot of people agree with my 3 main points at the start of this thread. And to know that the majority support the 3 points which are explained well enough is fine by me, sad thing is you keep pulling random excuses for Byzantium to not have the 3 points added to the game where as everyone supporting this has given historical and game play reasons to why Byzantium should get these features. Your arguments are the equivalent of well if this nation gets special treatment then this one should, fact is Byzantium (regardless of if you like this or not) is a special snowflake compared to most other European nations due to its history and the effect that it had on Europe (is a continuation of the Roman Empire that shaped European social structures, politics ect).

The OP is right about the Western tech group, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. A proper overhaul should include at least the following:
- Constantinople should start as a size 4 fort (some people would say more but let's not exaggerate)
- Byzantium really should have cores on all the Eastern Roman Empire, with missions for cores on the Western half
- The national traditions and ideas really need an overhaul. I'm thinking something like:
- NTs: Greek Fire: +100% Galley combat ability, Imperial Reach: +5 diplomatic ability, Legacy of Empire: +5 yearly prestige
- NIs:
- Cataphracts: +100% Cavalry combat ability
- SPQR: -5 revolt risk
- Legacy of Plato: -50% idea cost
- Roman conquests: -75% coring cost
- Legions reborn: +150% Infantry combat ability
- Tributary states: +5 diplomatic relations
- Roman concrete: -75% building cost
- Roman discipline: +50% discipline
- Classical Heritage: -50% technology cost
- Garrison towns: +100% colony growth
- Pax Romana: 80% AE reduction
- Imperial Prestige: -75% vassal integration cost
(yes, that's more than eight, but whatever, Byzantium should have more)
- Ambition: Empire Reborn: permanent 100 prestige, 100 legitimacy and +3 stability.
Of course restoring the Roman Empire should switch you to better NIs than those.

Also, Byzantium really should also be the union tag for South Slavic as well, and the restored Empire the union tag for Latin, French, Iberian, and British (I'm being reasonable and not adding German there).

That would be a good start to make Byzantium's starting position a little more realistic, while we wait for a proper DLC.

Lol, whilst I like your enthusiasm I think that's a little bit too OP xD. I agree Byzantium should get a mission to reconquer all of its Roman Cores (should be able to reform Roman Empire), should have improved ideas such as adding Greek fire naval combat +20%-+50%. Theosodin walls either level 4 fort or a defense modifier. And it should have its own units such as Byzantine Infantry, Cataphract, ect. And better Tech group.

 

[Shaaaq]

At the very least Byzantium should have cores over every greek province and the greek/turkish coast; these cores should remain for quite some time as it is likely that if the ottoman empire began to collapse that there would be resurgences in the byzantine empire.
I don't think they deserve cores over Anatolia unless it is given by the DLC decision/events or anywhere else (to stop rampart respawning of Byzantium).
You could maybe justify some vassalization missions for bulgaria and the serbian/bosnian despots.

You might be able to justify giving Byzantium western tech but eastern units (so a westernized eastern country) but those idea suggestions are so extreme that they are probably satire.
Byzantine ideas are already extremely good beaten only by top notch idea sets like the ottomans (who are more deserving historically); although I would like to see 100% tech cost or -10% tech cost in the ideas just for flavor purposes.

For the record I think the byzantine ideas (5% discipline, 10% manpower, 3% missionary strength, +3 tolerance) are extremely good and without much of an equal.

Also to add on to what was discussed with China: it already gets technological superiority to the hordes and the other chinese states by its 10% tech reduction bonus in its government form (all of its other neighbors are still chinese tech right?).

 

[Scottx105]

At the very least Byzantium should have cores over every greek province and the greek/turkish coast; these cores should remain for quite some time as it is likely that if the ottoman empire began to collapse that there would be resurgences in the byzantine empire.
I don't think they deserve cores over Anatolia unless it is given by the DLC decision/events or anywhere else (to stop rampart respawning of Byzantium).
You could maybe justify some vassalization missions for bulgaria and the serbian/bosnian despots.

You might be able to justify giving Byzantium western tech but eastern units (so a westernized eastern country) but those idea suggestions are so extreme that they are probably satire.
Byzantine ideas are already extremely good beaten only by top notch idea sets like the ottomans (who are more deserving historically); although I would like to see 100% tech cost or -10% tech cost in the ideas just for flavor purposes.

For the record I think the byzantine ideas (5% discipline, 10% manpower, 3% missionary strength, +3 tolerance) are extremely good and without much of an equal.

Also to add on to what was discussed with China: it already gets technological superiority to the hordes and the other chinese states by its 10% tech reduction bonus in its government form (all of its other neighbors are still chinese tech right?).

Personally I don't rate tolerance very high when you can convert everyone, and the +3% missionary strength looks nice on paper but everyone goes for Religious ideas as Byz, so the only thing it really does is speeds up conversion rate of Muslim provinces from generally around 20-40 months to about 7 months, which is nice but to be honest with 3 priests you can convert all your provinces extremely quickly anyway. (3rd priest is from reconquering Jerusalem or Antioch, cant remember which one)

 

[Havanabananaman]

After reading about the rise and fall of the ottoman empire, i realised how "lucky" the ottomans were in conquering constantinople.

1. The Timurids, who basically occupied all of asia minor decided to simply leave, because they wanted to attack china
2. The Person responsible for the Ottoman Gun(s) was not hired by the Greeks, because they deemed the cost of his Weapon too high, so he went to the ottomans instead
3. The final push into constantinople was only possible because the Genoese retreated after their CO fell

regarding the game mechanics, the Ottomans would have to take Constantinople by force, without the possibility of them simply sieging it down - not very appealing.

However, i feel as OP - Byzantium should really have that exceptional something about them - a new Technology group maybe ?

 

[Kinniken]

Indeed! In fact it was such bad luck it should happen really rarely in game. Proper balance would be Byzantium winning the war against the ottomans 75% of the time. They should really be a major candidate to weird domination in most games, ahead of parvenus like the Turks or the French!

 

[knapp86]

[...]This further does not make sense when European nations get a tech cost reduction when Byzantine refugees arrive in their countries, if Byzantium is technologically inferior due to eastern tech group, why are they getting a reduced tech cost? Surely if Byzantium had scholars, mathematicians ect who are able to make western tech groups techs cheaper then they must at least be ahead in tech or slightly resemble western technology? And the argument that Byzantium had advanced technological secrets which could be shared to western nations through the tech reduction just supports Byzantium having a western tech group.

Even aside from any argument for realism or historical accuracy this is a good point, I think. It's a contradiction within the logic of the game itself.

However, if Byzantium were to become more powerful for historical accuracy, they would also need some terrible modifiers or events, for the same reason. If you give them great technology and cores, for historical reasons you also have to make sure that they are weak and easy prey for the Ottomans.

 

[Shaaaq]

Even aside from any argument for realism or historical accuracy this is good point, I think. It's a contradiction within the logic of the game itself.

However, if Byzantium were to become more powerful for historical accuracy, they would also need some terrible modifiers or events, for the same reason. If you give them great technology and cores, for historical reasons you also have to make sure that they are weak and easy prey for the Ottomans.

I don't think the 10% tech cost would matter even if byzantium was player controlled; by the time it would come into action the AI would have either taken Constantinople or have been long defeated by the player.
The cores similarly wouldn't matter in the same context; byzantium would already have crippled the turks by winning a significant war and the cores would be nothing more than ease on behalf of the player (or I guess AI in some truly bizarre situation).

That said it could be as simple as an event to westernize themselves immediately if it did somehow have an effect on their 1444 strength.

 

[Aries666]

To be honest the Purple Phoenix DLC sucks, when it first came out it was alright because it gave Byzantium a fighting chance, but recent patches pretty much negated the effects of the DLC as most small nations are harder to play as compared to previous patches.

Small nations are easier than ever thanks to increased base income, increased FL and the ability to develop provinces.

 

[pharaomatic]

Indeed! In fact it was such bad luck it should happen really rarely in game. Proper balance would be Byzantium winning the war against the ottomans 75% of the time. They should really be a major candidate to weird domination in most games, ahead of parvenus like the Turks or the French!

Totally agree! That Constantinople fell to the Ottomans is very ahistorical! After all they had a glorious past to protect them from such irrelevant historical factors as vastly superior enemies, population decline, lack of allied support and getting their asses kicked in battle. They could've just thrown books after the infidels and they would've won ffs!

A bit more seriously....

Byzantium doesn't deserve their own tech group or any more special attention, mainly due to the fact that they only existed in about 2 % of the games timeframe. They're a stain on the EU4 blanket. Even the major players of the period, like Spain or England, fx. doesn't get this. And a glorious past, well, if that were an argument for special mechanics, countries like Persia, Ming, The Papal States and probably every other country with a certain claim to a glorious past, which is basically every nation, could be given it.