Fascinating. Were Greek rebellions after the fall of the Byzantines but prior to the 1820s rebellions attempts at restoring the Byzantines? Or is there just not enough information to tell?
EU4 - 1.10 - Full Patch Notes
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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.
Fascinating. Were Greek rebellions after the fall of the Byzantines but prior to the 1820s rebellions attempts at restoring the Byzantines? Or is there just not enough information to tell?
The ones I've read about on the mainland, tbh, were generally more revolts against the corrupt (sometimes greek-speaking) administrators that the Ottoman system put in place. They'd probably fall more into the Peasant Revolt category in EU4. But the Venetians regularly had to deal with revolts that were more overtly religious and nationalistic in nature; which make it all the more irritating that those areas are now going to be the least likely to witness such.
But, yeah, like all the myriad revolts common to this era, you seldom can find a whole lot of information about them. Often just a stray reference or two that there was one.
Then yeah, in the grand scheme I feel I would prefer Byzantine Nationals being replaced with Greek Patriots as far as revolts go. This could be coupled with giving Greece their own idea set, too, which would make Greece popping up over there pretty cool. I'd definitely prefer that over the flat removal of cores outright. Maybe some sort of special event that happens once Byzantium is annexed that removes all Byzantine cores and replaces them with Greek cores?
Might be a bit extreme.
Great idea, it's unthinkable for any of the Greek rebels to consider themselves true Byzantine Empire successor states if they do not even control the imperial capital, so a removal of all cores after Constantinople has fallen to the Turks would not be a bad idea at all. This outright fixes the problem Paradox seemingly has with Byzantium continuously respawning all over the place, and it doesn't even involve the direct removal of more cores.
They could couple it together with the Ottoman mission ''City of the World's Desire''.
And what makes you think Polynesians are Native Americans? They are no such thing. They are, if anything, a separate tech group entirely. The same goes for Aboriginals. They don't even have a nation, so what's to say they don't have ships? If they had a nation, they would have ships (because pssstttt they would probably have their own tech group and were closer to South Asian tech than native american)
I too can't wait to see what flag they gave my home country, and my inner nationalist forces me to say that those are not tulips, they're called Pompeblêden (I have no idea what they're called in english)I can't wait to see the new flags, especially the flag of Friesland, its actual flag has some lovely tulips on it
At least prior to the reworking of rebels, Byzantium usually made its reapparance not through revolts but through Venice losing wars. Part of the war conditions would be to do something like release Byzantium on Corfu, which is nuts. A new basileus suddenly put into place to rule the empire of... the island of Corfu?
Corfu never actually made sense as a Byzantine core anyway. The empire effectively lost control in the early 1200s where Epirus ran things until the Venetians took over.
There are (at least historically) viable successor / rebel states in basically every Byzantine holding apart from its starting 1444 possessions. Byzantium should have a slew of claims, sure, but precious few cores.
Corfu never actually made sense as a Byzantine core anyway. The empire effectively lost control in the early 1200s where Epirus ran things until the Venetians took over.
There are (at least historically) viable successor / rebel states in basically every Byzantine holding apart from its starting 1444 possessions. Byzantium should have a slew of claims, sure, but precious few cores.
it's non-sense as for the russians or the ottomans proclamed themself the heir of the roman empire, still they did. What i mean, if it happened a revolt on Corfu, after the fall of constantinople maye they would call themself the heir of the Byzantium empire.
this could be a good suggestion, in this way PI can remove all the core from BYZ at beginning of the game, but if you form BYZ you can have them again
Wait, so if you form Italy and then consolidate the HRE will you get the subjugation of Rome penalty? What if you import a Roman Empire game from CK2 where you were Catholic?
Because making one province for Guyana was hard enough to justify splitting region among Brazil and Columbia
I'd rather they keep it and add Cuba and Hispaniola as well. If the French were to take Hispaniola it should be named Saint-Domingue.
Hell no, it was a great change. Guyana was pretty stupid as it was. Poor, small and worthless.
It actually was. There was a LOT of work that went into re-making the entire map two patches ago, and they don't even want to look at adding new provinces any more. I'm not really sure why Guyanna was it's own region in stead of part of Carribian. Same goes for Florida. It's probably because PDS decided it Carridian should be islands only, no mainland.
I don't get the change to make explorers/conquistadors fewer pips. I can understand the desire to differentiate them. However, this is frankly an indirect nerf to any nation that colonizes because you previously would obviously only hire explorers/conquistadors because it was generally what you are trying to do. Now you are weaker(in theory) 1v1 based on generals. This bugs me because you're already dumping a ton of resources into the new world and militarily you don't see the benefit as CN's are primarily just giving you a benefit monetarily.
What I would prefer to see is a rebalancing of points such that conquistadors/explorers give similar amounts of pips they are just heavily swayed toward maneuver. Nothing bugs me more when recruiting an explorer and getting a 3/4/0/1 or something like that when all you really care about is maneuver. Effectively this would give you a similar outcome to the nerf they got as you typically only care about shock/fire in terms of normal fighting but it would also balance that by allowing you to explore faster.
I know devs have talked about doing more to differentiate them but this change frankly seems like the wrong way to do it. I'd be fine with something different than I'm suggesting too but like i said this feels like an unnecessary nerf to the colonizers.
What I would prefer to see is a rebalancing of points such that conquistadors/explorers give similar amounts of pips they are just heavily swayed toward maneuver. Nothing bugs me more when recruiting an explorer and getting a 3/4/0/1 or something like that when all you really care about is maneuver. Effectively this would give you a similar outcome to the nerf they got as you typically only care about shock/fire in terms of normal fighting but it would also balance that by allowing you to explore faster.
I know devs have talked about doing more to differentiate them but this change frankly seems like the wrong way to do it. I'd be fine with something different than I'm suggesting too but like i said this feels like an unnecessary nerf to the colonizers.
Because in Guayana there was 3 colonies, and never was part of a Carribean colony?
Furthermore, the Ottomans were always able to get MA to bosnia anyways, its just that sometimes they took their sweet time doing so.
In any case, Ottomans can't take your cap and a province they can't core in the same peace deal. That's what's central to the Albania strat.
IIRC in their videos of the Nation Designer it was +1 or +2 Tolerance of the True Faith and +1 Possible Advisor.