Byzantium

[Scottx105]

What the hell does 60% defensiveness accomplish? It forces the siege to take years? It merely annoys the Ottomans vs AI and is cripplingly OP for a human Byzantine? This suggestion belongs in that list with the 11 new ideas, honestly, it's that bad... except I actually think you're trying to be serious.

Oh yeah because obviously giving Byzantium its historical walls is a bad idea, while we're at it why don't we also remove Austria as starting nation as emperor of HRE.

That's because the English and the French had a whole country to inhabit, and this was a time when urban living wasn't profitable for most people. In contrast, the Byzantines at this point were faced with the lack of territory. Doubtless a large part of Constantinople's population would have preferred to thrive on the countryside, rather than languish in their city, where they had been driven by Turkish occupation. That's what I meant by refugees essentially.

The very definition of refugees is people outside their own country, so they are not refugees if they were already Byzantine citizens going to the city to feel safe, and regardless of a potential population influx 50000 is a lot, easily enough for a city to run on as business as normal especially since even though its economic state Constantinople during this time was still a trading hub receiving food and equipment from nations like Genoa or Venice. And the fact that so much of Byzantium's population was gathered in one city makes taxation much easier.

 

[victimizer]

The very definition of refugees is people outside their own country, so they are not refugees if they were already Byzantine citizens going to the city to feel safe, and regardless of a potential population influx 50000 is a lot, easily enough for a city to run on as business as normal especially since even though its economic state Constantinople during this time was still a trading hub receiving food and equipment from nations like Genoa or Venice. And the fact that so much of Byzantium's population was gathered in one city makes taxation much easier.

Oh fine internally displaced persons then.

So you have this miserable city, where there are hardly any peasant farmers. You only have the traders to tax and they can take their business elsewhere if they're taxed too heavily. You have a very fragile economy supporting a city state beholden to foreign merchant states. I don't see how this is supposed to be a suitable polity for world conquest.

 

[Shaaaq]

I know, I was half sarcastic. It would make any other nation to siege Constantinople harder though. But I don't really understand the point of the thread, Ottoman siege of Constantinople took just a little more than 1 month. In game it takes more than 1 year.

Historically the city didn't "surrender" in game terms but rather assaulted multiple times and overwhelmed.
If you don't assault the city it is expected to take a very long time.

 

[Scottx105]

Historically the city didn't "surrender" in game terms but rather assaulted multiple times and overwhelmed.
If you don't assault the city it is expected to take a very long time.

Quite right, and the siege would have taken longer or may have held if some of the mercenaries did not break when their CO died, allowing the Ottomans to get a foothold and once a flag was seen on the walls the entire Byzantine defense collapsed to mass panic.

 

[Chat]

Quite right, and the siege would have taken longer or may have held if some of the mercenaries did not break when their CO died, allowing the Ottomans to get a foothold and once a flag was seen on the walls the entire Byzantine defense collapsed to mass panic.

Which doesn't make me think that the Byzantines deserve a higher fort level, or even a period of increased fort defensiveness. If your entire defense fails because one guy got wounded, your defenses are lacking. The walls might have been great, but that doesn't matter when the people behind them break.

If it was to get an extra fort level to mimic the Theodosian walls, then it would have to get a pretty heavy fort defense penalty to mimic how easily the defenders broke. Which really just means that whoever takes Constantinople scores a free Bastion.

 

[Juggernaught]

Op has points. I have always wondered why Constantinople did not have level 2 fort while rhodes had. If I remember right this was not the case in previous versions. Hell.. it should have a level 3 fort in fact. After the siege Ottomans should have a decision to mend the walls or lose level. Tho, I do not agree with them having western tech. Byzantine had even inferior technology to Ottomans at the time.

 

[Chamboozer]

Historically the city didn't "surrender" in game terms but rather assaulted multiple times and overwhelmed.

Historically, the in-game distinction between a regular siege and assaulting didn't exist.

 

[Scottx105]

Which doesn't make me think that the Byzantines deserve a higher fort level, or even a period of increased fort defensiveness. If your entire defense fails because one guy got wounded, your defenses are lacking. The walls might have been great, but that doesn't matter when the people behind them break.

If it was to get an extra fort level to mimic the Theodosian walls, then it would have to get a pretty heavy fort defense penalty to mimic how easily the defenders broke. Which really just means that whoever takes Constantinople scores a free Bastion.

The walls were great because even though the defenders in Constantinople were outnumbered 10 to 1 they still allowed the defenders to cause heavy casualties on the Ottoman army, and since this happens AFTER the start date of EU4, I believe we are entitled to assume that anything could happen between 1444 and 1453, perhaps in this timeline Byzantium converts to catholic and gets more support, or perhaps western nations take a greater interest in Byzantium and send more support, or perhaps the soldiers defending Constantinople don't break and successfully defend the city. The whole point of EU4 is alternate reality, the missions in game help drive players towards some historical symmetry but ultimately anything can happen... Hell there are even ahistorical missions, which is perfect so we can get a cool mission to reform Roman Empire after capturing Rome and then get claims on all SPQR Rome lands >.

And the excuse that "Oh whoever gets this is gonna be OP" if England gets a PU with France they are going to be OP, don't see anyone complaining about that especially since its now easy to do.

Op has points. I have always wondered why Constantinople did not have level 2 fort while rhodes had. If I remember right this was not the case in previous versions. Hell.. it should have a level 3 fort in fact. After the siege Ottomans should have a decision to mend the walls or lose level. Tho, I do not agree with them having western tech. Byzantine had even inferior technology to Ottomans at the time.

Because they did not have the money to purchase the latest equipment, yet they still had guns and cannons and knew about the latest equipment available in Europe at the time. Plus the fact that why do European nations get a tech buff if Byzantium was technologically inferior? The fact that they do suggests the opposite.

 

[Juggernaught]

It is not a fact, it is a game mechanic. Don't throw design choices as facts.
There is a similiar mechanic that is Moorish Influx but how come Andalusia is in Muslim tech group?
Also buying equipment does not put you in the western tech, so you are contradicting yourself there. Most of firepower equipment were given to Byzanzium by Genoa/Venice for more trade rights.
Constantinople was conquered in 1453 -with cannons however mil tech 7 is ahead like 30 years to that time. Good luck finding yourself a Hungarian cannonsmith.

 

[Oddb@ll]

and since this happens AFTER the stat date of EU4, I believe we are entitled to assume that anything could happen between 1444 and 1453

Exactly what this game is about. It may be far fetched but nothing should be set in stone. I think most players prefer a game that is not railroaded and make alternative scenarios possible.

 

[Scottx105]

It is not a fact, it is a game mechanic. Don't throw design choices as facts.
There is a similiar mechanic that is Moorish Influx but how come Andalusia is in Muslim tech group?
Also buying equipment does not put you in the western tech, so you are contradicting yourself there. Most of firepower equipment were given to Byzanzium by Genoa/Venice for more trade rights.
Constantinople was conquered in 1453 -with cannons however mil tech 7 is ahead like 30 years to that time. Good luck finding yourself a Hungarian cannonsmith.

I said they did not have the funding to purchase the latest equipment, and they Byzantines did have cannons and guns go check historical accounts. And no Byzantium did not receive cannons and guns from Venice or Genoa, it instead received ships, the cannons and guns the Byzantines used were slightly out of date as Byzantium did not have enough money to replace its entire arsenal. However after the fall of Constantinople refugees bringing rare Greek manuscripts triggered a revived interest in the classical period, EU4 interprets this as the Byzantine refugees event that gives all nations that accept the refugees in Europe a reduced tech cost, which makes no sense if Byzantium was technologically inferior to western nations, so the only solution is to fix Byzantium's tech group to either western or give it its own special technology group as it is significant enough to cause an event that reduces the tech cost for all of Europe. Or you could delete the events but then everyone will complain about the loss of a tech boost.

 

[metallicania]

Historically the city didn't "surrender" in game terms but rather assaulted multiple times and overwhelmed.
If you don't assault the city it is expected to take a very long time.

Still, nothing represents Ottoman Great Bombards in game. So you have to wait for a breach in walls for months and even then you can't win the assault. And thats because Ottomans had between 50.000-300.000 soldiers in that war while in game it is much less. Long story short, it is impossible to take the city as short as the historical siege. So I'd rather leave it be as it is if it wouldn't receive a (pointless) overhaul.

 

[Rhylsaldar]

Hi Im Byzophile. But in my point of view Byzantium was just a shadow some elitist narrowminded orthodox morrons that just did not follow the choice of their eastern people whose just change the head of state, the greek ones change to be the turks ones. If the emperator establishment follows the curve instead of fight against their own people.

If it should have been a Constantin imperator and the Empire would still be here today. And probably a huge opened muslim expention, and a war against Christians empire but what if...

In the game the fall of Constinople IS the starting point. Byzantium is dead, deal with it.

 

[Scottx105]

Hi Im Byzophile. But in my point of view Byzantium was just a shadow some elitist narrowminded orthodox morrons that just did not follow the choice of their eastern people whose just change the head of state, the greek ones change to be the turks ones. If the emperator establishment follows the curve instead of fight against their own people.

If it should have been a Constantin imperator and the Empire would still be here today. And probably a huge opened muslim expention, and a war against Christians empire but what if...

In the game the fall of Constinople IS the starting point. Byzantium is dead, deal with it.

Constantinople fell in 1453, not 1444. FYI the start of the game is called "The rise of the Ottomans" not "The fall of Byzantium", that is the 1453 start date but it is not the official start date of EU4. It is called the rise of the Ottomans because this was the period in which the Ottomans began to rapidly become a major power.

Still, nothing represents Ottoman Great Bombards in game. So you have to wait for a breach in walls for months and even then you can't win the assault. And thats because Ottomans had between 50.000-300.000 soldiers in that war while in game it is much less. Long story short, it is impossible to take the city as short as the historical siege. So I'd rather leave it be as it is if it wouldn't receive a (pointless) overhaul.

Most cannon damage caused by the Ottomans (especially the big cannon) was repaired between volleys, and the large cannon was so inaccurate that it rarely hit the same place meaning that the Ottomans could not hit the same area repeatedly with any degree of reliability.

 

[Chat]

The walls were great because even though the defenders in Constantinople were outnumbered 10 to 1 they still allowed the defenders to cause heavy casualties on the Ottoman army, and since this happens AFTER the start date of EU4, I believe we are entitled to assume that anything could happen between 1444 and 1453, perhaps in this timeline Byzantium converts to catholic and gets more support, or perhaps western nations take a greater interest in Byzantium and send more support, or perhaps the soldiers defending Constantinople don't break and successfully defend the city. The whole point of EU4 is alternate reality, the missions in game help drive players towards some historical symmetry but ultimately anything can happen... Hell there are even ahistorical missions, which is perfect so we can get a cool mission to reform Roman Empire after capturing Rome and then get claims on all SPQR Rome lands >.

And the excuse that "Oh whoever gets this is gonna be OP" if England gets a PU with France they are going to be OP, don't see anyone complaining about that especially since its now easy to do.

Sure, but how many sieges where frontal assaults were used ended well for the attackers? I've had a quick look, and while numbers are rarely available, the few I have seen seem to indicate that assaulting with anything less than 5 to 1 is often doomed to fail against moderately fortified defenses. Svetigrad (Albania) for example was outnumbered by the Ottomans 40 to 1 and held out longer than Constantinople, though admittedly they also had a good number of troops outside the walls lead by Skanderbeg harassing the Ottomans that brings down how outnumbered they were to around 6 to 1. Or the siege of Krujë, outnumbered by ~10 to 1 like Constantinople was, but again lasted longer than Constantinople and forced the Ottomans to lift the siege 6 months later.

So lasting 6 weeks being outnumbered 10 to 1 and inflicting an unknown number of causalities doesn't appear to be very impressive given the walls. Hence I stand by my earlier assertion, the walls may have been great, but the defenders were not. A boost to local fort defensiveness isn't warranted, and if the fort level gets bumped up to mimic the walls, it should also get a heavy penalty to defensiveness to mimic the people.

I'm all for ahistorical outcomes, and I've seen Byzantium survive and prosper without my intervention. I don't really see a need to increase the possibility of it occurring, and I don't really see how bumping up Constantinople's defenses will even change anything. All it will really do is drag out the siege longer, when it's already ahistorically long nearly 100% of the time, and then give the captors a shinier fort in their new capital. Which I'm fine with really (I never said anything about it being OP). I'm just not fine with boosting Constantinople's defenses just to try and make Byzantium last longer before capitulating.

 

[Kinghillard]

If only the fourth crusade hadn't happ....
If only the tiger tanks came quicker....
Winter messed the campaign up...
If only the american army supported the buddhists instead if the catholic minority...
If only the chinese didn't intervenr in Korea...

YOU STILL FUCKING LOST. There's some history for you

 

[Scottx105]

Sure, but how many sieges where frontal assaults were used ended well for the attackers? I've had a quick look, and while numbers are rarely available, the few I have seen seem to indicate that assaulting with anything less than 5 to 1 is often doomed to fail against moderately fortified defenses. Svetigrad (Albania) for example was outnumbered by the Ottomans 40 to 1 and held out longer than Constantinople, though admittedly they also had a good number of troops outside the walls lead by Skanderbeg harassing the Ottomans that brings down how outnumbered they were to around 6 to 1. Or the siege of Krujë, outnumbered by ~10 to 1 like Constantinople was, but again lasted longer than Constantinople and forced the Ottomans to lift the siege 6 months later.

So lasting 6 weeks being outnumbered 10 to 1 and inflicting an unknown number of causalities doesn't appear to be very impressive given the walls. Hence I stand by my earlier assertion, the walls may have been great, but the defenders were not. A boost to local fort defensiveness isn't warranted, and if the fort level gets bumped up to mimic the walls, it should also get a heavy penalty to defensiveness to mimic the people.

I'm all for ahistorical outcomes, and I've seen Byzantium survive and prosper without my intervention. I don't really see a need to increase the possibility of it occurring, and I don't really see how bumping up Constantinople's defenses will even change anything. All it will really do is drag out the siege longer, when it's already ahistorically long nearly 100% of the time, and then give the captors a shinier fort in their new capital. Which I'm fine with really (I never said anything about it being OP). I'm just not fine with boosting Constantinople's defenses just to try and make Byzantium last longer before capitulating.

The sieges you mentioned did last longer, however they also had a far more advantageous situation compared to Byzantium (economic problems), plus the fact that the Byzantines were defending an entire city with 7000-12000 men on a larger siege front, compared to the siege of Krujë where they may have had fewer defenders inside their castle, but they defended a smaller area and were exposed to a smaller siege front, plus the fact that they were able to have forces outside the castle harassing the Ottoman supply trains ect.

 

[Chat]

The sieges you mentioned did last longer, however they also had a far more advantageous situation compared to Byzantium (economic problems), plus the fact that the Byzantines were defending an entire city with 7000-12000 men on a larger siege front, compared to the siege of Krujë where they may have had fewer defenders inside their castle, but they defended a smaller area and were exposed to a smaller siege front, plus the fact that they were able to have forces outside the castle harassing the Ottoman supply trains ect.

Which still leads me to the same conclusion. They don't deserve an increased local fort defensiveness, and if they do get a bastion to represent the walls, they should get a heavy penalty to defensiveness for the people.

Because in the end, it didn't matter how great their walls were. They still failed, and they failed because of the people. Harassing forces was not a novel tactic used by Skanderbeg, nor was actually having enough troops to man the wall effectively a revolutionary idea. They're basics of defending against sieges. That a good chunk of the defenders retreated upon seeing one particular guy get wounded and taken from the battlements, that sections of the wall abandoned their positions the moment they saw Ottoman flags on another part of the wall, and that a gate got left open (whether through complacency, incompetence or sabotage) doesn't make me think that they deserve better fort defensiveness. If it was just one thing, then maybe you could make the argument that if x just didn't happen, the city would have held out much longer. But all of them? It just says to me that the defenders had no morale, and the city would have fallen regardless the moment the Ottomans stepped through the walls.

I can see arguments for giving Constantinople a higher level fort, but I can't see any good arguments for improving their defensiveness over it's current levels, or even maintaining it in the event it gets a bastion. The EU4 Constantinople already outlasts the real life version by a considerable margin.

 

[yerm]

The defensiveness bonus is, obviously, for the location. With the positioning of the city and the golden horn and the ability to defend via the walls (which WERE huge) and everything... it makes it a far more defensible position than almost any.

 

[Scottx105]

Which still leads me to the same conclusion. They don't deserve an increased local fort defensiveness, and if they do get a bastion to represent the walls, they should get a heavy penalty to defensiveness for the people.

Because in the end, it didn't matter how great their walls were. They still failed, and they failed because of the people. Harassing forces was not a novel tactic used by Skanderbeg, nor was actually having enough troops to man the wall effectively a revolutionary idea. They're basics of defending against sieges. That a good chunk of the defenders retreated upon seeing one particular guy get wounded and taken from the battlements, that sections of the wall abandoned their positions the moment they saw Ottoman flags on another part of the wall, and that a gate got left open (whether through complacency, incompetence or sabotage) doesn't make me think that they deserve better fort defensiveness. If it was just one thing, then maybe you could make the argument that if x just didn't happen, the city would have held out much longer. But all of them? It just says to me that the defenders had no morale, and the city would have fallen regardless the moment the Ottomans stepped through the walls.

I can see arguments for giving Constantinople a higher level fort, but I can't see any good arguments for improving their defensiveness over it's current levels, or even maintaining it in the event it gets a bastion. The EU4 Constantinople already outlasts the real life version by a considerable margin.

That's the beauty of EU4, its meant to be ahistorical after 1444 to allow players to experience history differently. And it does not matter that they failed as 1444 is the official start date and as far as everyone is concerned Byzantium had not yet fallen. You don't see the dev's adding an event that wipes out 75% of Spain's navy around 1588 because it was destroyed in history. Historical factors should only count towards the 1444 start date as that is the start date of the game and date the majority of people start at, after that EU4 has guiding missions and a few events to major things that happened in Europe but ultimately after 1444 the game wants you to forge your own path regardless of what real life history dictates.