Discussion on how to nerf Byz more

[Darkhymn]

This game is not supposed to be perfectly historical, or it would just bit a short film showing us what happened during the time period with no input from the player. Byzantium is in a pretty rough spot from the start, and never survives under AI control. Like any other nation, it can occasionally pop up in places where it had cores - which, granted, are not exclusively places where it owns territory in 1444 - but there are nations all over the game with cores on un-owned provinces at the start date, so that's not abnormal. As for Byzantium coming back and forming the Empire again, how is this any more likely than Ryukyu dominating the whole world? Or the Creek driving the West back into the sea and invading continental Europe? Leinster conquering the British Isles? England winning the Hundred Years' War? Navarra conquering the Iberian Peninsula? Shall I go on? There's this irrational need for historical perfection in some places that boggles my mind. If a player wants to take a small, floundering nation and rebuild the old Roman Empire with them, why not?

 

[balmung60]

Seriously?

First if we are going to go one personal biases do you understand how many people have a personal bias towards the Purple menace? I mean PDox made a DLC about this one country and people still buy it. You really don't want to start off your argument with personal bias claims.

Second - so what if it lasts too long? Not holding Constantinople deprives the Ottos of some tax, trade, and manpower ... but they are still the biggest, baddest boys around for a hundred years. So what if some pathetic island state revolts and installs a Pelologoi pretender does that actually change game balance? Some imperial pretender arises up in Rhodes, how exactly does that make the Ottos weaker? The Ottos can already crush any such pittance of a state and it won't materially change their rate of conquest.

Further in the vast majority of my games they don't even make it 1453. It is a random die roll - how fast does Albania fall, how fast do the Ottomans burn through their cores, Byz never survives the Ottoman assault unaided. Of course freakishly many other states don't die and they actually affect game balance: Timurids can hold out often and stop Persia (a main Ottoman counterbalance) from forming. Delhi and QQ both can routinely survive and prevent their historical successors (who you know are better suited for their historical roles) from emerging. Let us not forgot about Timbuktu, the Inca, the Aztecs, and Vijay who all often last inordinately long term who through off the major wealth distributions in game. Lest we get too caught up in states persisting too long we need to remember that other small, pivotal states, like Brittany, The Livonian Order, Lorraine, and Navarra all mysteriously die a century before they should. Skanderbeg dying out in the first few years is a bigger affront than most of the Byz in the islands stuff ever could be. I mean I really don't see how this is worse than Gotland - a slightly ahistorical map that changes game balance not a whit.

We can worry about putting a stake through a Byzantine zombie's heart after we get a decent evolution of Persia, India, and Mesoamerica.


Frankly, this just reeks once again of Pdox being unable to balance rebels and nerfing the fun out of something to try to cover it up.

He asked why people had a bias against BYZ and I answered honestly for mine. Yes, it's a personal bias, but that is a lot of it for me.

And it's not that weakens the Ottomans (getting wagged by their Crimean tail seems to do that just fine) that bugs me, it's that the Ottomans, as a nation claiming to be the new Roman Empire would have a vested interest in preventing the old one from returning, as well as being a symptom the AI's poor rebel management and how it seems to effect the Ottomans especially badly. But in all of my games, the Ottomans just seem consistently too cautious in declaring war and let BYZ sit there for 30+ years when they could easily have annexed them in the first decade.

And yes, I'd love to see Persia spring up more often again (and at the same time, for the Mughals to form on an even semi-regular basis), for there to be something to simulate AQ's (seemingly implausible when looking at the 1444 map) conquest of QQ (hey, if the Burgundian Inheritance gets to exist, then why doesn't AQ get an event that lets them instantly annex all of QQ under certain conditions?), and other, especially early game, formations and conquests that helped shape the period.

 

[Oddb@ll]

Byzantium is weak, but frankly it has a lot more going for it than the Ottomans had 150-200 years prior (when the Ottomans were sub-OPM).

In any event Chios should be a Byzantine core, the revolt in 1329 revoked the petty fiefdom grant to the Zacharia and reverted the place to nominal direct Byzantine rule. Genoa had no rule on the island again until 1346. This should then result in a core lasting until 1496. Arguably you could have a distinct revolter for Chios (though it does not seem to be the case that Chios thought of themselves as anything other than Byzantine subjects enfiefed to Genovese nobility), but I don't know what practical difference that would make.

Naxos should even more definitively be Byzantine as the last clash for it was in 1310. That should mean the core there would survive until 1460.

Trebizond warred with Byzantium in 1351 so we are looking at core expiration there in 1501.

Corfu is a harder nut to crack it was enfiefed under Epirus, but I think the enforced union of Epirus should have resulted in core timing from 1386 that should give us 1536.

Remember, 150 years before 1444 is 1294 so you have that whole Michaeline resurgence to date off for cores.

Hear hear

 

[Karpathios]

I think for those like me who are interested in byz campaigns, I would like more flavor added that fleshes it out with religious events and decisions, diplomatic decisions regarding its relationship with catholic nations and Balkan minors.

I want these events and decisions to reflect the terrible straits they were in before the city fell in 1453. These DHEs would reflect historical reality. In this case I would like it 'nerfed' and would buy and purple Phoenix dlc 2 for it.

For example, as a previous poster suggested:
Event hits trade power, virtually nothing being collected by byz in their own trade node. The blockade strategy might become prohibitively expensive. You would have to rely on a strong western ally, but the east/west schism means you won't gef a lot of sympathy from the Latins. This may be reflected in DHEs that establish an orthodox/Latin opinion malus(distinct from heretic malus)

 

[sterjs]

Fix the bugs in the military AI and teach the AI to deal with unrest and rebels. If you do that, you nerf Byzantium because the Ottomans will do their job. In the process you also improve the game all around instead of limiting the scope of your change to a single country. And finally, if the player manages to win and can successfully form the Roman Empire of old, then you also made a good chunk of your fanbase happy. Seems like a win all around to me.

QFT. Nerfing Byzantium itself is just idiotic when nationalist rebels and the way the AI deals with them are the real problem. Historicity is a generally a terrible reason to make gameplay changes, especially for something as nebulous as "cores" and given how terribly ahistoric the game is. Ever seen Hungary defeat Austria or Granada last until 1492? How about Malta or Rhodes holding vs determined Ottoman sieges? The list of historical events that are basically impossible in the game goes on and on.

 

[Karpathios]

wouldn't it just be better, then, to have an event fire after byzantium has been annexed that removes its cores and replaces the cores with that of a new nation/new series of nations that could form up now instead, if the problem is that byzantium keeps shooting up?

It's definitely possible; its the same exact principle as forming a nation, except you don't cede provinces.

example: any/all in region: greece now have greek cores, and byzantium cores are removed. Then... we can give Byzantium back these cores and its cores in anatolia that it used to have.

I like this. This would satisfy people's annoyance at seeing byz pop up, even though we've edtablished that it's one of countless other 'ahistorical' or 'unlikely' permutations of the game engine. I personally would like to see byz 'nerfed' through fleshed-out DHEs, decisions, or missions; but that doesn't change the underlying fact that the AI just doesn't take care of its own business yet, and removing cores from byz is more like sweeping dust under a rug.

Edit: while we're at it, unique NIs for formable nation Greece

 

[RobRoy3]

I like this. This would satisfy people's annoyance at seeing byz pop up, even though we've edtablished that it's one of countless other 'ahistorical' or 'unlikely' permutations of the game engine. I personally would like to see byz 'nerfed' through fleshed-out DHEs, decisions, or missions; but that doesn't change the underlying fact that the AI just doesn't take care of its own business yet, and removing cores from byz is more like sweeping dust under a rug.

Edit: while we're at it, unique NIs for formable nation Greece

As much as this would make sense, the only thing that it would solve is that the revolting nations are called something else, like Greece, rather than Byzantium. For some reason that escapes me, they are making that part of the world uniquely resistant to nationalist unrest, despite that being ridiculously ahistorical and undesirable from a gameplay perspective.

I guess it would help the odd player who has developed an unreasonable prejudice against purple, based on negative CK2 experiences, though. Hmmm... didn't Wiz start as a CK2 modder?

 

[BFTeixeira]

Just put Byz as an Ottoman vassal at the game start. It's basically the position they had circa 1444, anyway.

 

[yerm]

Just put -50% rebellion size in Ottoman Traditions and slap the discipline back on as a second bonus for Ghazi. Then put Byzantine cores EVERYWHERE. OP Ottomans, OP human Byzantium, Happy everyone.

Foul language removed - Seelmeister

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just put Byz as an Ottoman vassal at the game start. It's basically the position they had circa 1444, anyway.

That makes equal historic sense to making Muscovy start off as a vassal to a horde (Muscovy paid them too).

But the worse part about your suggestion is that it would block the Ottomans actually attacking and conquering BYZ/Constantinople, and make it really, really easy for player BYZ to survive and game the system, including through independence support shenanigans. That move makes sense for nobody.

 

[BFTeixeira]

That makes equal historic sense to making Muscovy start off as a vassal to a horde (Muscovy paid them too).

But the worse part about your suggestion is that it would block the Ottomans actually attacking and conquering BYZ/Constantinople, and make it really, really easy for player BYZ to survive and game the system, including through independence support shenanigans. That move makes sense for nobody.

Yes. It makes no sense to put the game with the historical representation of the world circa 1444.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes. It makes no sense to put the game with the historical representation of the world circa 1444.

Why are you saying the start should be ahistorical and then claiming that doing so would be historical?

The game clearly does not treat tributary situations/loose vassals as something that can be easily annexed without war. It's the same reasoning for independent Muscovy and Malindi/Mombasa. That relations is abstracted into the game as "independent", probably expressly because it would be odd for those nations to be forced to help their overlord in wars and then just peacefully be integrated.

 

[net.split]

Yes. It makes no sense to put the game with the historical representation of the world circa 1444.

Constantinople paid tribute, but they were not a vassal state. Vassal states include more than paying some money in EU4. The historical status is most accurately represented in EU4's game mechanics as BYZ using Send Gift to try to not get conquered.

For me, seeing BYZ return after getting squashed is odd because of what the tag represents -- the remnants of the Roman Empire based out of Constantinople. Once those last vestiges have been stamped out, anything that returns is not going to be the Roman Empire or the Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire or whatever until it actually builds an empire. Having 1-3 provinces from a revolt or release does not make you an empire.

When Constantinople was sacked after the Fourth Crusade, the splinter states had other names until one of them successfully reunited a notable portion of land (including Constantinople itself).

That's why it's weird to see it popping up in strange places much later. It's simply the wrong tag for the resulting state. There are already tags in the game for Corfu, Greece, etc, which would make more sense if it's not Constantinople itself that's becoming independent once more.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Why are you saying the start should be ahistorical and then claiming that doing so would be historical?

The game clearly does not treat tributary situations/loose vassals as something that can be easily annexed without war. It's the same reasoning for independent Muscovy and Malindi/Mombasa. That relations is abstracted into the game as "independent", probably expressly because it would be odd for those nations to be forced to help their overlord in wars and then just peacefully be integrated.

I suggest making it historical by putting Byz as a vassal of the Ottomans. They paid tribute to the Ottomans and the emperors had to be approved by the Ottomans. That's a vassal relation, not a tributary vassal or loose vassal.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I suggest making it historical by putting Byz as a vassal of the Ottomans. They paid tribute to the Ottomans and the emperors had to be approved by the Ottomans. That's a vassal relation, not a tributary vassal or loose vassal.

Very little of what I've seen you suggest is historical in the context of the game.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Very little of what I've seen you suggest is historical in the context of the game.

That's a matter of opinion.

 

[Krajzen]

I think for those like me who are interested in byz campaigns, I would like more flavor added that fleshes it out with religious events and decisions, diplomatic decisions regarding its relationship with catholic nations and Balkan minors.

I want these events and decisions to reflect the terrible straits they were in before the city fell in 1453. These DHEs would reflect historical reality. In this case I would like it 'nerfed' and would buy and purple Phoenix dlc 2 for it.

For example, as a previous poster suggested:
Event hits trade power, virtually nothing being collected by byz in their own trade node. The blockade strategy might become prohibitively expensive. You would have to rely on a strong western ally, but the east/west schism means you won't gef a lot of sympathy from the Latins. This may be reflected in DHEs that establish an orthodox/Latin opinion malus(distinct from heretic malus)

Dude Byzantium - historically failed state which basicalky dies in the game 'intro' - has its own DLC and a lot of events, it has a mod designed only for it adding even more flavour, interesting religious mechanics, and both grand eu4 mods VeF and Meiou give it absurd amounts of flavour. Everything is undeserved given eu4 theme/era and done only because of Byzantophiles.

In the meantime the entire South East Asia with very rich and quite impactful 1444-1821 history has not a single byte of flavour in the game; no interesting Buddhism, one of few major global religions, nothing for Myanmar ethnic minorities nor Taungu, creator of greatest Indochinese empire ever; nothing for Ayyuthaia, one of few countrkes succesfully resisting West ever; nothing for military power of Dai Viet, nothing for Lan Xang, nothing dpfor declining Khmer and Angkor, nothing for Malaccan trade center, nothing for Majapahit and Sunda, nothing for Aceh fighting with Portugal for 300 years nor for Brunei, nothing for Philippines, nothing representing unique Mandala governments and thalassocracies, nothing about spread of Islam, no war elephants, no Wat Arun and great temples, no interactions with West, no Chinese pirates and crazy Malay-Chinese-European naval wars, no Oceanian kingdoms of Tonga and Hawaii, no Aborigines, no Maori, no feudal kingdoms of Madagascar and horrible Zimbabwe; not a single event nor decision for dozens of interesting countries historically very active in this period.

But sure, everything for Byzantium! This is main theme of this game: not colonization, exploration and globalization but rise of Roman Empire in alternate history - and God forbid it ever to be nerfed. This is Byzantium Universalis.

PS
China is still retarded in eu4 and didn't have own dlc, who cares about 1/4 of global economy and population from this period.

 

[Vincenzo_667]

How often does the AI Byz survive though tbh? In my experience they allways get roflstomped by the Ottomans in the first decade, all is well imho.

 

[yerm]

How often does the AI Byz survive though tbh? In my experience they allways get roflstomped by the Ottomans in the first decade, all is well imho.

Nothing about the start has changed. Nothing at all. They did not lose owned land or have their owned land altered in any way. In fact, the AI now actually gets slightly more prestige, due to having less uncontested core territory.

What HAS changed is Byz popping back up for a visit decades AFTER being roflstomped by the Ottomans. This doesn't just happened sometimes, it happens most of the time according to others and in my experience and it is rather shocking when I play to NOT see a Byz re-emergency at some point if I'm not all over the area myself. This is the aspect that's being targeted - resurgent Byzantines well after being conquered - their actual start and the sack of Constantinople are NOT impacted by the removal of unowned cores or the denial of free cores in favor of claims should the empire re-establish itself.

 

[sterjs]

What HAS changed is Byz popping back up for a visit decades AFTER being roflstomped by the Ottomans. This doesn't just happened sometimes, it happens most of the time according to others and in my experience and it is rather shocking when I play to NOT see a Byz re-emergency at some point if I'm not all over the area myself.

Removing Byz cores is just a bandaid for the AI's problems with nationalist rebels. I have my doubts that this change will actually fix the problem since I've seen Epirus quite often pop up with all the Byzantine cores. Patriot rebels manage to get cores that never belonged to them quite regularly.