Only on islands and Trebizond - Byzantium still has cores on Greece. The reason is that Venice and Genoa losing a war can often cause it to pop up on some island, which is utterly silly.
Discussion on how to nerf Byz more
- Thread starter Karpathios
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
no whats silly is that byzantium suddenly has no claim nor core on provinces it definitely would have a legitimate connection to? They're greek? Some of them are orthodox?
Byzantium can easily get claims through missions. Not to mention that a lot of those islands were out of imperial control since the 4th Crusade. Any claims they can have on them are only in their heads.
Constantinople's base tax is absurdly high for its 1444 situation. By its fall -- less than 10 years later -- it was described as essentially a loose set of villages with fields in-between. That's pretty far from being one of the richest cities in the world as the game presents it as being, and since it already has an Ottoman event to boost its base tax to later Istanbul levels, there's no need to have its starting value so high. So, first, plummet that initial base tax and boost the tax increasing events to match.
If there are any cores remaining outside of Constantinople and the other starting provinces, those should also go, being replaced with claims. Epirus and Trebizond could have expanded cores maybe (but mostly just claims as well); also Epirus should exist at the game start.
If it's desired to make Byzantium a bit friendlier to play, Paradox would need to move the timeline back to 1402 with the Ottomans in a civil war.
If there are any cores remaining outside of Constantinople and the other starting provinces, those should also go, being replaced with claims. Epirus and Trebizond could have expanded cores maybe (but mostly just claims as well); also Epirus should exist at the game start.
If it's desired to make Byzantium a bit friendlier to play, Paradox would need to move the timeline back to 1402 with the Ottomans in a civil war.
First of, from a coherency/game logic perspective or whatever you want to call it, I'm actually fine with this round of core removals, because I believe all affected territories have been lost around ~1200 in the 4th crusade and have never been reconquered by the Byzantine successor states or the restored empire. So, a primary culture core expiring after 150 years would be in line with the rules.
From the perspective of someone who enjoys playing a casual Byzantium game every patch, Byzantium is still in a far better position than say Granada or the Knights, not to mention the really tough starts. Especially if your ambition is just to survive and slowly expand. If it's replacing the Ottomans by 1500, it got a bit harder again with the latest nerfs
In a patch that follows a patch where you could find threads every other day about the ridiculousness of Norwegian and Swedish rebels establishing the Empire of Gotland all over Skandinavia or the Reformed Dutch reuniting with their ancestral homeland, the Prince-Archbishopric of Cologne, Byzantium is singled out as the one hotspot of rebel problems adressed in the official patch notes. There was a huge rebel problem, but the least of it was located in Greece proper.#
If the general rebel nonsense has been adressed, it should have been announced more prominently. If it hasn't, someone got their priorities wrong.
Also, I don't find Byzantine revolter states popping up in Chios any more silly than Norwegians in Iceland. Sure, in realty that purple nation with Byzantine ideas would be called the Despotate of Naxos and not the Roman Empire until they reconquer Constantinople, but absent dynamic country names, you have to use your imagination in that regard.
It is also a bit peculiar they announced removing the core on Trebizond with this patch even though it has already been removed with 1.8.
From the perspective of someone who enjoys playing a casual Byzantium game every patch, Byzantium is still in a far better position than say Granada or the Knights, not to mention the really tough starts. Especially if your ambition is just to survive and slowly expand. If it's replacing the Ottomans by 1500, it got a bit harder again with the latest nerfs
That this was the reason given is what I find most irritating.
In a patch that follows a patch where you could find threads every other day about the ridiculousness of Norwegian and Swedish rebels establishing the Empire of Gotland all over Skandinavia or the Reformed Dutch reuniting with their ancestral homeland, the Prince-Archbishopric of Cologne, Byzantium is singled out as the one hotspot of rebel problems adressed in the official patch notes. There was a huge rebel problem, but the least of it was located in Greece proper.#
If the general rebel nonsense has been adressed, it should have been announced more prominently. If it hasn't, someone got their priorities wrong.
Also, I don't find Byzantine revolter states popping up in Chios any more silly than Norwegians in Iceland. Sure, in realty that purple nation with Byzantine ideas would be called the Despotate of Naxos and not the Roman Empire until they reconquer Constantinople, but absent dynamic country names, you have to use your imagination in that regard.
It is also a bit peculiar they announced removing the core on Trebizond with this patch even though it has already been removed with 1.8.
And how should Naxos (or Athens, or Corfu, or Cyprus) be re-established by a rebellion if they culture is/stays Lombard/Cosmo? I'm not 100% sure if such a thing is theoretically possible but I've never seen a wrong culture province spawn a nationalist rebellion loyal to that nation.
Huh? What missions?
So long-standing cultural and religious connections, and a strong shared history/identity, isn't sufficient to warrant a core in the game? What is supposed to be the current definition that warrant cores?
True, but not really a justification for core removal.
Either
a) is controlled or was controlled by that nation in the last 50/150 years or that nation is the primary nation of a specific culture
b) Paradox likes your country and feels it could use a little hand-holding
I've seen AI Byzantium get control over most of Greece and Turkey thanks to revolves caused by a strong AI QQ.
Given that Byzantium is not the primary nation of Greek culture, ideally it'd follow these rules:
1) 150 years after the most recent time it has gone to war with a nation owning Byzantine same-culture cores
2) 50 years after the most recent time it has gone to war with a nation owning Byzantine non-same culture cores
These are the standard core removal rules that the rest of the game abides by; unfortunately, when applied to cores from before game start, you wind up with cores missing, or, even worse (as in the case of Castile), cores added.
I read Strange Screenshoots thread regularly and honestly it looks like AI Byzantium lives for centuries in at least 1/4 of all games
Hell, I have personally seen AI Byzantium forming, destroying Ottomans and living till 1821. Of course without my help.
Easily, how often do you play Byz? I can count on one hand the number of times the Purple Phoenix missions show up in any kind of logical order in my games.
Just to put things in perspective: "In 1453, when the Ottoman Turks captured the city, it contained approximately 50,000 people." (Source: English Wikipedia) That is represented by a base tax of 9.
Lübeck had a population of around 22,000 people (1460, German Wikipedia). It's represented by a base tax of 12.
München had a population of around 12,000 people (1462, German Wikipedia). It's represented by a base tax of 14. Sure, the respective provinces is larger than just the city, but it's still called München, not Oberbayern.
Of course, Lübeck was probably far richer in 1444 than Constantinople, but that is already somewhat represented by the Merchant Republic government. So maybe Constantinople's base tax is a bit high, but I wouldn't call it absurdly high.
By the game's own rules, BYZ cores should exist almost everywhere they were in 1.0, because cores take 150 years to expire but that *gets updated for each war*. BYZ fought Ottomans multiple times in the interceding time.
By the game's own rules, Castile having cores on Granada is a complete travesty, and removing French cores on all of its vassals holds every bit the credence that removing BYZ cores has.
According to Wiz, he's interested in balance/gameplay first and foremost, but that isn't applicable here; BYZ surviving as an AI is exceedingly rare and most often tied to the broken rebel system. From a balance perspective, Greek nationalists popping up in Rhodes or Cyprus and Ottomans neglecting them --> losing all of Greece can happen either way, and it doesn't really matter if the result is "Epirus", "BYZ", or "Greece" itself. BYZ getting released in Corfu is strange, but is also a problem that exists amongst other revolter tags as well. Heck, you can for example be forced to release Finland, which never existed that way. Maybe remove their cores too?
Doing this but then making Muscovy/Kazan start the game at peace creates a self contradiction that nobody can really squirm out of, and for that reason despite how ahistorically easy BYZ remains to play it's still an annoying change because making it belies a convoluted/biased implementation of history only when one wants history to matter and not otherwise...an working example of the very thing Wiz himself dismissed as "not taken seriously" when defending his rebel implementation.
By the game's own rules, Castile having cores on Granada is a complete travesty, and removing French cores on all of its vassals holds every bit the credence that removing BYZ cores has.
According to Wiz, he's interested in balance/gameplay first and foremost, but that isn't applicable here; BYZ surviving as an AI is exceedingly rare and most often tied to the broken rebel system. From a balance perspective, Greek nationalists popping up in Rhodes or Cyprus and Ottomans neglecting them --> losing all of Greece can happen either way, and it doesn't really matter if the result is "Epirus", "BYZ", or "Greece" itself. BYZ getting released in Corfu is strange, but is also a problem that exists amongst other revolter tags as well. Heck, you can for example be forced to release Finland, which never existed that way. Maybe remove their cores too?
Doing this but then making Muscovy/Kazan start the game at peace creates a self contradiction that nobody can really squirm out of, and for that reason despite how ahistorically easy BYZ remains to play it's still an annoying change because making it belies a convoluted/biased implementation of history only when one wants history to matter and not otherwise...an working example of the very thing Wiz himself dismissed as "not taken seriously" when defending his rebel implementation.
Great. Give all greek cultured provinces a GRE core, if there's no love for BYZ anymore.
LOL. Thing is, Paradox seems to vacillate between love and disdain for BYZ. Initially, didn't they say they'd start in 1453 to avoid discussions such as this one? Then they give us a start with a clearly over-powered, almost fantasy-level BYZ, compared to its historical self. And they cater to byz-o-philes with an embarrassingly generous country-specific DLC.
But, since release, they gradually nickel and dime BYZ with gratuitous little nerfs every patch that really can't be justified in game terms. And they certainly don't make the situation historical. So why do we see the regular cycle? Are they confusing BYZ with Hordes? Has anyone EVER seen an AI BYZ beat up on the Ottomans? NONE of the niggling little nerfs help out the Ottoman AI, in any appreciable fashion. So, in some cases, they seem intended just to make the start harder for players who are having too much unapproved fun. In other cases, though, they don't really do seem to do much at all, except to ... what ... irritate BYZ players? That can't be the objective?
Sorry, thought I read you arguing that BYZ shouldn't have any cores.
I'd argue the opposite. If you're going to have a state that purports to be the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman or whatever) Empire, they should probably start incredibly weak, but they should have cores on virtually all greek orthodox provinces, and probably one or two in Asia Minor.
But I'd be perfectly happy with GRE cores on these areas. Maybe BYZ should have a motivation to form Greece? To have this area be uniquely resistant to nationalist rebellions is just wrong.
I'd be okay with this, but I already know Byzantophiles would be opposed to it.
That's true regarding the Ottomans, but possible not regarding Venice and Genoa. That's why I don't find this round of core removals as ridiculous as the preceding ones.
Absolutely true of course. I also wonder whats the gameplay purpose of those French cores since I presume Paradox expects regular players to dutifully integrate all their vassals "the right way" and not break vassalage and conquer them in a totally evil and gamey way. The associated achievement would still have a similar difficulty with the cores held by England and Burgundy.
I agree with your entire post, but this the most. In my last 5-6 games the Ottomans broke to rebels only once and it resulted in Trebizond getting all the greek provinces.
It's the rebels system that need reworking, not Byzanthium.
