Exported Roman Empire?

[Emperor Marcus]

not all phoenix dlc events would make sense possibly since they were made in the context of byzantine rising from begin a 3 province "rump state" to face down the ottomans etc to reclaim their glory.

Unless in the phoenix dlc adds a decision to "form the Roman Empire" and had Roman Empire national ideas already picked out for it (which would be odd since most other formable keep the ideas of their predecessors than create their own). Its that or keep the byzantine national ideas which most don't make sense given the context of a healthy and strong roman empire.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

Its that or keep the byzantine national ideas which most don't make sense given the context of a healthy and strong roman empire.

Byzantine Traditions give: Advisor costs -10% and Tolerance of the True Faith +3

Regulation of Mercenaries: -25.0% mercenary cost
Repopulation of the Countryside: +5.0% Production Efficiency, +10.0% National Manpower Modifier
State Administrative Reform: +10.0% National Tax Modifier
Delegated Power: -10.0% Stability Cost Modifier
Byzantine Merchant Class: +10.0% Global Trade Power
The New Imperial Army: +10.0% Discipline
Restore the Ecumenical Patriarch: +3.0% Missionary Strength

Bonus: After unlocking all the National Ideas, Byzantine gets a Yearly Prestige of +2%.

Do they not make sense? Bear in mind that this theoretical "healthy and strong" Roman Empire was still reduced to an eastern rump state during the timeframe of CK2, and suffered through a long period of decline before its resurgence. It's not like it's been going strong since Trajan.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

Do they not make sense? Bear in mind that this theoretical "healthy and strong" Roman Empire was still reduced to an eastern rump state during the timeframe of CK2, and suffered through a long period of decline before its resurgence. It's not like it's been going strong since Trajan.

Re population of the countryside wouldn't make sense cause it refers to the state of depopulation through the numerous wars happening in the Balkans countryside during the time period, and the policy of encouraging people to settle it. In a reformed roman Empire large swaths of the countryside could not have seen large scale war for decades if not centuries.

Byzantine Merchant Class refers to the newly invigorated Byzantine merchant class who were often marginalized in favor of Italian (Venetians, Genoan etc) and Latin merchants who revived exploitative deals in order to secure their republic's navy for byzantine service. In a Reformed Roman Empire those are gone and dead cause you can either destroy those republics when you take them or replace them with new merchant republics ruled by Greek rather than Italian elite.

Restore the Ecumenical Patriarch refers to the state of decline of the Greek Orthodox Church. In a reformed Roman Empire the Pentarchy was restored and there is only one true Christianity and the Orthodox church rules supreme. So whats there to restore?

And no a healthy and strong Roman Empire is no rump state. Your talking about a Byzantine being converted to 1444 from start. I'm talking about a Roman Empire actually done in the Legacy of Rome DLC form the Roman Empire decision you get. To do it you must capture many key duchies throughout the Med sea the most important being the Pentarchy duchies.

 

[TropeSage]

I'll just leave this here. http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/07/31/crusader-kings-ii-to-europa-universalis-iv-save-converter-interview/

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

Restore the Ecumenical Patriarch refers to the state of decline of the Greek Orthodox Church. In a reformed Roman Empire the Pentarchy was restored and there is only one true Christianity and the Orthodox church rules supreme. So whats there to restore?

What if they're Catholic? A pet papacy is a very powerful tool in CK2 and a lot of players who restore the Roman Empire make it Catholic rather than Orthodox.

You raise some fair and valid points, though.

And no a healthy and strong Roman Empire is no rump state. Your talking about a Byzantine being converted to 1444 from start. I'm talking about a Roman Empire actually done in the Legacy of Rome DLC form the Roman Empire decision you get. To do it you must capture many key duchies throughout the Med sea the most important being the Pentarchy duchies.

Actually I am talking about a fully played game where the Roman Empire is restored. No matter how large and powerful you make it in-game, it doesn't change the fact that it was previously a rump state. You can't erase the Western collapse from having ever happened. At the start of CK2, the ERE is severely diminished from the Empire of Trajan's time, after long centuries of slow decline. Sure you may bring large swaths of territory into the fold, maybe more than it ever held previously. But that doesn't mean that all of the damage done to it in the past is necessarily undone.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

Actually I am talking about a fully played game where the Roman Empire is restored. No matter how large and powerful you make it in-game, it doesn't change the fact that it was previously a rump state. You can't erase the Western collapse from having ever happened. At the start of CK2, the ERE is severely diminished from the Empire of Trajan's time, after long centuries of slow decline. Sure you may bring large swaths of territory into the fold, maybe more than it ever held previously. But that doesn't mean that all of the damage done to it in the past is necessarily undone.

Yes thats exactly what it means to stop being a rump state for the Roman Empire. I think your confused on what a rump state means. "A rump state is the remnant of a once-larger government, left with limited powers or authority after a disaster, invasion, military occupation, secession or partial overthrowing of a government."

If you conquer more than what Trajan had in CK2 you would be by any definition not a rump state of the Old Roman Empire, in fact you need only meet trajan's boundaries depending if you base the height of Roman Governance at that point. But by your standards you would call the Roman Empire led by Hadrian who was Trajan's direct successor leading a Rump State because he gave up a few border roman provinces to consolidate the Empire behind more defensible boundaries. At least by your argument's logic.In fact it sates only the size of government not the territories it manages so it can be a matter of the size of government rather than territorial bounds itself that the government rules over.

Though after this i think ill stop debating with you on this point. I think we are simply disagreeing now on what we define is a rump state is or not. And after giving my perspective on what it is and the flaw i see in your logic i have nothing more to really contribute to that.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=165651920

This is no Rump state in my opinion Tis a Superpower.

Though never intended to go into Germany, Bohemia etc mostly thanks to wild actions of rogue vassals who like to conquer pagans and inherit land bizarrely.

 

[Lakedaimon]

I doubt the Roman Empire will be formable in EU4 and for good reason. The concept of the Roman Empire as such has lost A LOT of it legitimacy at the start date of EU4, however if during an alternate timeframe it has been reformed in the past that claim would still have a lot of legitimacy at the start date. It is all a matter of what happened in the past.

 

[Zolotaya]

I doubt the Roman Empire will be formable in EU4 and for good reason. The concept of the Roman Empire as such has lost A LOT of it legitimacy at the start date of EU4, however if during an alternate timeframe it has been reformed in the past that claim would still have a lot of legitimacy at the start date. It is all a matter of what happened in the past.

Which brings the thread full circle. With a CK exported game, the "start" of the EUIV game is entirely different. Which is why the mod approach works as opposed to the direct conversion.

My understanding when watching the live-stream was that certain popular states that are exported over will have their unique sets of ideas and circumstances. Which is why I am debating taking my Byzantium state over or "reforming" it into the Roman state.

Also, the possible tech difference is a concern. If my Byzantium controls all of Western Europe and it gets put into the eastern tech tier upon export, then how would it grow into the Western tier? If the Roman state is put into the western tech tier automatically upon export, then that is an advantage right away.

 

[Enewald]

There never existed a state known as 'Byzantium'.
It was either known as Imperium Romani, Basileia ton Rhomaion, or Roman Empire.
Some Latin people later invented the name 'Byzantium', with their own agendas in mind promoting their own Empires as true 'heirs' of the Western Roman Empire...

They should just stop this cruel joke about Byzant and replace it everywhere with Roman Empire.
Saves a lot of drama.

The events such as 'Roman Restoration' make as much sense as giving EU kingdom of France the option to 'Restore our Frankish kingdom'.

Roman Empire didn't die 476, nor at 1204 or at any year between. It evolved over time, and only vanished from the map 1453.
Then again one could argue whether Trebizond continued to exist as remnant state.

 

[ozmono2005]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=165651920

This is no Rump state in my opinion Tis a Superpower.

Though never intended to go into Germany, Bohemia etc mostly thanks to wild actions of rogue vassals who like to conquer pagans and inherit land bizarrely.

Very nice I'm trying to restore the empire and than to conquer Europe in my game at the moment. If I can get it to that without collapsing in the process I'll be very happy.

 

[Zolotaya]

... The events such as 'Roman Restoration' make as much sense as giving EU kingdom of France the option to 'Restore our Frankish kingdom'.

Again, you are arguing from a pure EUIV start with everything set as is out of the box. The situation which will be created by the exporter (converter) is one where the start is entirely different. As an example, if I were to export my current CKII game over at this point in time, The Lotheringia kingdom is still present. The Karlings never left the throne there. In France, they fell, so "France" is considered non-Frankish, however since Lotheringia survived until 1443, there would be no need to "restore" our Frankish kingdom.

I agree, on a historical/academic level that the Roman Empire existed until 1453, however for Paradox game mechanics, the Byzantium state is different then the Roman one, and thus it needs to be delineated as such.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

Yes thats exactly what it means to stop being a rump state for the Roman Empire. I think your confused on what a rump state means. "A rump state is the remnant of a once-larger government, left with limited powers or authority after a disaster, invasion, military occupation, secession or partial overthrowing of a government."

I know what a rump state is. What you are repeatedly failing to understand is that I use the term to refer to the state Byzantium is in when the player initially takes control of it in CK2. Obviously it can no longer be considered a "rump state" by the time the empire has been restored, but it was still a rump state at some point. All of the harm done to it in previous centuries by incompetence, corruption and ransacking has not necessarily been totally reversed. Even if it's expanded to twice the size of Trajan's empire, it may still be be trying to catch up administratively, culturally and technologically, because none of those things are really adequately simulated in CK2.