Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

EU4 - 1.10 - Full Patch Notes

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81916 EUIV: Bug Reports 458 EUIV: Suggestions 19154 EUIV: Technical Support 6725 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Show only dev responses
Legend92 said:
in history, byzantine act like vassal of ottoman at 1444
Click to expand...

No they weren't. Where did you get that disinformation from? the Byzantines were a tributary state for a short period until the end of the 14th century, when the Emperor rebelled against the Otto Turks; the Ottomans attempted to suppress the rebellion but had to comply after their defeat against Tamerlane in 1402. By 1444 they paid the Ottomans a certain sum of money per year, afaik, but the Ottomans had to conquer the Byzantines to actually gain their proper.
 
Last edited:
josh127 said:
What is this special mechanic that you speak of? Is it like the Hindu deity system but with Norse?
Click to expand...

Norse gets to pick personal deities if you have Wealth of Nations. Same mechanic as Hindus, but different gods.
 
Wiz said:
Norse gets to pick personal deities if you have Wealth of Nations. Same mechanic as Hindus, but different gods.
Click to expand...
Cool. Thanks
 
Eolath said:
No they weren't. Where did you get that disinformation from? the Byzantines were a tributary state for a short period until the end of the 14th century, when the Emperor rebelled against the Otto Turks; the Ottomans attempted to suppress the rebellion but had to comply after their defeat against Tamerlane in 1402. By 1444 they paid the Ottomans a certain sum of money per year, afaik, but the Ottomans had to conquer the Byzantines to actually gain their proper.
Click to expand...
Game has trouble distinguishing between "vassal", "tributary" and the various other degrees of subject states that were the norm in that part of the world in this era. While representing BYZ as a vassal, in EU4 terms, might not represent their relationship with the Turks perfectly, nor does the complete independence they have in the 1444 start. I could make an argument either way, tbh, and might lean more toward vassal if the new subject mechanics allows enough granularity to represent tributary states.

Certainly both Constantine and Mehmed could have viewed Constantine's actions leading up to 1453 as a (poorly timed) rebellion and attempt to assert its independence.

That said, while BYZ is certainly still clearly overpowered, relative to its historical self, the constant BYZ nerfs have become almost comical. The justification for this one is not simply lame, it actually degrades the game. There SHOULD be ample opportunity for outside powers to promote rebellion in those areas, as they did historically. Removing/reducing these possibilities neither promotes any gameplay goal that I can perceive, nor does it make things more historical. It simply allows them to check their "BYZ nerfed" box for 1.10.
 
WhiskyGlen said:
This sounds like one of the most useless updates yet (unless you play as a South American nation). Though custom nations does sound interesting. Of the many patch notes, this one bothers me greatly:

"- Now more reluctant to separate peace out of a war where their side is winning."

Minors in a war almost never get anything for a victory so why bother fighting and letting their war exhaustion rise at all? It's already difficult to get a nation with a medium war enthusiasm and a fair amount of war exhaustion to drop. The only benefit for finishing out a war is your relations "fought to the end" or "early truce" bonus or penalty. I suppose there may be some trust effect too. But some wars just don't make sense to continue fighting. What I find even more annoying is when my ally is drawn into war and I join the war. If the enemy has no chance, I still cannot get them to accept a white peace if I never engage them because our borders are nowhere near each other. At least not any time soon.
Click to expand...

I agree. This update seems useless for you.
 
RobRoy3 said:
Game has trouble distinguishing between "vassal", "tributary" and the various other degrees of subject states that were the norm in that part of the world in this era. While representing BYZ as a vassal, in EU4 terms, might not represent their relationship with the Turks perfectly, nor does the complete independence they have in the 1444 start. I could make an argument either way, tbh, and might lean more toward vassal if the new subject mechanics allows enough granularity to represent tributary states.

Certainly both Constantine and Mehmed could have viewed Constantine's actions leading up to 1453 as a (poorly timed) rebellion and attempt to assert its independence.

That said, while BYZ is certainly still clearly overpowered, relative to its historical self, the constant BYZ nerfs have become almost comical. The justification for this one is not simply lame, it actually degrades the game. There SHOULD be ample opportunity for outside powers to promote rebellion in those areas, as they did historically. Removing/reducing these possibilities neither promotes any gameplay goal that I can perceive, nor does it make things more historical. It simply allows them to check their "BYZ nerfed" box for 1.10.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with this. These changes to BYZ cores will have no effect on the majority of games and only a minor effect on games where the player is running BYZ. The actual challenge of playing BYZ -- the starting moves -- are unaffected by any of this, and once you get past the start these details are irrelevant.

On the other hand, I've yet to play a game of EU where BYZ didn't keep reappearing for hundreds of years in random places like Corfu. It's nonsense; the new nation is not Byzantium in any way shape or form, and it should have used another revolter tag instead.

To be honest, at a 1444 start, the state probably shouldn't be called "Byzantium" at all -- that empire has long since fallen. Rather, it should simply be Constantinople -- a city-state, much like Ragusa or Ulm. Byzantium should be exclusively a formable tag for a Greek state that has conquered a fairly impressive swath of territory.
 
What about pretender rebels in Byzantium winning and turning the government form into a monarchy? It should be fixed so that the empire government remains regardless of pretender rebels winning.
 
rickyson33 said:
just something that occurred to me

does this make Albania impossible now?
Click to expand...

You just have to cancel it once you've run away from the Ottoman army. The Ottomans will still be able to get MA themselves, but it shouldn't change anything for Albania.
 
net.split said:
...I've yet to play a game of EU where BYZ didn't keep reappearing for hundreds of years in random places like Corfu. It's nonsense; the new nation is not Byzantium in any way shape or form, and it should have used another revolter tag instead....
Click to expand...
That's not nonsense. That's a desirable feature. Or was a feature. These places absolutely did and should have frequent rebellions and attempts to assert their independence. Maaaaybe we'll still see it without the nationalist BYZ rebels, but I'm highly skeptical, unless they plan on putting in GRE cores in those areas or another revolter tag. Sure, they weren't Byzantium in any way, shape, or form, but any successful rebellion is most likely going to try to associate themselves with the spectre of the Empire, yes for hundreds of years, lacking any other glorious nation-state, so I don't really have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that these areas are now going to be excessively docile.

And, this is the one area of the world where the highly questionable, gamey concept of vassal-feeding actually has some validity and precedent. Yet we've just made it far more difficult (or impossible) for nations like VEN, ARA, GEN, to do what they did or what they aspired to do, historically.


net.split said:
To be honest, at a 1444 start, the state probably shouldn't be called "Byzantium" at all -- that empire has long since fallen. Rather, it should simply be Constantinople -- a city-state, much like Ragusa or Ulm. Byzantium should be exclusively a formable tag for a Greek state that has conquered a fairly impressive swath of territory.
Click to expand...
Would certainly be a more accurate representation of the historical realities. And if they really don't like the way it's currently represented, I'd prefer an all-at-once reworking, to these irritating little nerfs each patch - lose a core here, lose a core there, because...reasons.

The big change isn't the BYZ nerf, though. Trebizond, or anyone wanting to become BYZ, just got a whole lot harder to play! Because, well, you know... because... a decision that was fine for years is suddenly OP? because someone was having too much fun in an unapproved manner? because we just don't like Greeks?
 
net.split said:
On the other hand, I've yet to play a game of EU where BYZ didn't keep reappearing for hundreds of years in random places like Corfu. It's nonsense; the new nation is not Byzantium in any way shape or form, and it should have used another revolter tag instead.
Click to expand...

Nonsense? Based on what? If we do assume a historical basis here then you can be assured that the Orthodox community was never particularly happy with either their Latin, or their Ottoman oppressors, so the Greeks rising up in rebellion is not strange at all. Also, even by 1444 it was a little more than a city state, do not forget that Byzantium as an entity also included the Despotate of Morea, the city of Mesembria and some of the Aegan Islands. In general none of your suggestions make any historical sense, as Byzantium was still regarded as a state rather than a city state even by the Otto Turks.

net.split said:
I can't agree with this. These changes to BYZ cores will have no effect on the majority of games and only a minor effect on games where the player is running BYZ. The actual challenge of playing BYZ -- the starting moves -- are unaffected by any of this, and once you get past the start these details are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

How can you claim the removal of cores is completely irrelevant past the initial moves? It's ridiculous, ofcourse being able to take Venetian land without incuring a significant AE and Dip penalty was useful.

I'd rather they weaken BYZ at the start and readd some of the cores. Like Rhodes, Naxos and Chios, all with a certain historical basis to be a core as well. Paradox could add a modifier to BYZ that reduces their trade and tax income, only to be lifted after they have declared war on the Otto Turks or somesuch.
 
Last edited:
RobRoy3 said:
Sure, they weren't Byzantium in any way, shape, or form, but any successful rebellion is most likely going to try to associate themselves with the spectre of the Empire, yes for hundreds of years, lacking any other glorious nation-state, so I don't really have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Did the Greek rebellion in the 1820s claim association with the Byzantine Empire?

I don't know my Greek history well enough to know this answer, but if they didn't, then I find it hard to believe that any successful Greek rebellion would associate themselves with the Empire. I feel like they would just form Greece at that point. "The Empire's dead; time to establish a new Greek nation" and so on. I don't like the removal of the cores for other reasons, but I do not feel like the cores there were required to simulate Greek rebellions. I would much rather Greek rebels actually create an independent Greece, not a restoration of the Byzantine Empire.
 
Freudia said:
Did the Greek rebellion in the 1820s claim association with the Byzantine Empire?

I don't know my Greek history well enough to know this answer, but if they didn't, then I find it hard to believe that any successful Greek rebellion would associate themselves with the Empire. I feel like they would just form Greece at that point. "The Empire's dead; time to establish a new Greek nation" and so on. I don't like the removal of the cores for other reasons, but I do not feel like the cores there were required to simulate Greek rebellions. I would much rather Greek rebels actually create an independent Greece, not a restoration of the Byzantine Empire.
Click to expand...
Well, the Roman identity remained strong, principally among Greek speakers. What's interesting about the 1820s rebellion is precisely that it was consciously promoting a "Hellenic" or "Greek" identity, rather than a "Romioi" identity, for the first time. And, apparently, it was a concept that the intelligentsia glommed onto. It took awhile for your peasant classes to warm up to a term that had traditionally been associated with pagans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back