Idea Brainstorming: Replacing Retinues in LoR

[Jorlem]

The devs have stated that they regret having tied the retinue mechanic to a DLC, as it has grown to become something that vastly alters the balance of the game. So, why not just seperate it from the DLC? Because it would greatly decrease the value of the LoR DLC, and could easily anger those that have spent money for that content.

I think there is a fair solution to this: remove the DLC requirement for retinues, and add in some new content that would be exclusive to the DLC to replace it. That way, the devs could more easily expand or rebalance the retinues into a solid standing army mechanic, and owners of the DLC would still have roughly the same amount of DLC exclusive content.

So, I ask all of you, what addition or combination of additions do you think would be appropriate as a replacement for the retinue mechanic as LoR exclusive content? I'm hoping that if we can come to something approaching a consensus, I could post it in the bug forum as an enhancement request.

 

[Latheloi]

Maybe. But replace it with another content isn't really the right way. I mean... People who just buy LoR because of retuines... Are not interested in other content. If they don't buy it for the Byzantine Empire... Why would they happy about more content for the Byzantines? They are not. This would make the people happy because of the Byzantine Empire, because they would get more content.

This is a reasonable point. I suppose the question would then be "what content which would be satisfying for people who only got LoR for retinues could be switched for the retinue mechanic itself"?

Something more advanced with army commanders (like, appointing flank leaders having an impact on relationship?). Something which uses the mechanic, but isn't the mechanic itself (don't ask me what, I have no idea)?

 

[Actalo]

This is a reasonable point. I suppose the question would then be "what content which would be satisfying for people who only got LoR for retinues could be switched for the retinue mechanic itself"?

Something more advanced with army commanders (like, appointing flank leaders having an impact on relationship?). Something which uses the mechanic, but isn't the mechanic itself (don't ask me what, I have no idea)?

So for instance a DLC specific to retinues? Instead of correcting Legacy of Rome, a DLC dealing in retinues would better suffice - although I'm pretty sure there are a few mods that do something similar.

 

[Thure]

So for instance a DLC specific to retinues? Instead of correcting Legacy of Rome, a DLC dealing in retinues would better suffice - although I'm pretty sure there are a few mods that do something similar.

That wouldn't be the solution... The problem is that retuines ARE in a DLC. Even paradox don't like anymore that retuines are DLC only. The problem is that some people just bought LoR because they need retuines. Not because of the Byzantine features.

 

[Latheloi]

That wouldn't be the solution... The problem is that retuines ARE in a DLC. Even paradox don't like anymore that retuines are DLC only. The problem is that some people just bought LoR because they need retuines. Not because of the Byzantine features.

Yep, my point was wondering what could be added (which would be LoR only) to replace retinues (which would become a vanilla feature, allowing troops to be properly rebalanced) which would be satisfying content for those who bought LoR specifically for retinues.

Obviously, I don't know, because I bought it mainly for Roman Empire material. My only thought was something to do with flank leaders and the relationship impacts appointing specific people to be in charge because it adds more interest to the military game, synergises with retinues, and can also fit within the Byzantine theme while not being specific to just the Byzantine.

 

[LumberKing]

I too would like to see more Orthodoxy features as a replacement for retinues (as well as Miaphysites and Nestorians if one can fit it) like they did for Catholicism in Sons of Abraham. However, this will still piss off a lot of people who bought the Legacy of Rome just for retinues, though they would probably get over it after a while since it is an old expansion pack (and Caesaropapism!).

 

[Cymsdale]

I bought the DLC, and I don't care if retinues became free no more than I care that the DLC is on sale for a single dollar now and then.

 

[Gothmar]

I'd like the AI to just not be so stupid and lean to favor the same exact few every single game. Seems too easy for many area's to thrive and build empires and hold them for 100's of years with no threats. Empires should be hard to form imo and existing ones should take effort to keep together with out huge tensions ( good rulers etc..). Tired of watching the byz. go through a civilwar and fend off 2 holy wars ( sicily and their eastern provinces) win all 3 because the AI can't get past itself. I know as a player when I get in a rut and struggle, everyone that has a claim or reason to start a faction for Joe bob to get throne of X they will and I will not only get faction wars but also dog piled at any moment by neighbors ( ai ) when they can. So why do they not do this against itself? I've seen abbisids go into large rebellions and not a single person tries to take advantage of it. I've seen india AI ( hindu) holy war clear into Persia w/o the sunni caliph lifting a single finger to assist, just so they could counter / kill my Jain empire. too gamey and not realistic imo.

to me investing in more content that will probably be broken next patch seems redundant..why not try to get an overall rehaul on the ai or existing content that really needs looked at imo.

 

[Cymsdale]

I'd like the AI to just not be so stupid and lean to favor the same exact few every single game. Seems too easy for many area's to thrive and build empires and hold them for 100's of years with no threats. Empires should be hard to form imo and existing ones should take effort to keep together with out huge tensions ( good rulers etc..). Tired of watching the byz. go through a civilwar and fend off 2 holy wars ( sicily and their eastern provinces) win all 3 because the AI can't get past itself. I know as a player when I get in a rut and struggle, everyone that has a claim or reason to start a faction for Joe bob to get throne of X they will and I will not only get faction wars but also dog piled at any moment by neighbors ( ai ) when they can. So why do they not do this against itself? I've seen abbisids go into large rebellions and not a single person tries to take advantage of it. I've seen india AI ( hindu) holy war clear into Persia w/o the sunni caliph lifting a single finger to assist, just so they could counter / kill my Jain empire. too gamey and not realistic imo.

to me investing in more content that will probably be broken next patch seems redundant..why not try to get an overall rehaul on the ai or existing content that really needs looked at imo.

Lol, the AI is not persecuting you.

 

[Gothmar]

If you say so. I've seen the AI's choices vary to match the players many times to make it more challenging. maybe it's my setting but don't believe that the difficulty settings affect it. AI that goes against me when I'm liege and rebels seems to try to hit me hard and fast expecially if they get vultures event and usually go for key area's. but when I'm a vassal and not head of a faction that launches , but with-in the faction, what should have been an easy win all of a sudden the AI takes his massive rebel army on a detour through where ever to sight see a far off land like a tard. I've seen duchies be given away from my family to counts that have no claim or allies with in our area just so the AI will be able to gain the momentum to rebel when our family could have easily defended that duchy from leaving our hands as we controlled 60% or more of them in the kingdom, 2 seconds later rebellion, 2 seconds later vultures, 2 seconds later invasion from neighbor, 2 seconds later XXX Liberation force, 2 seconds later , XX peasant revolt X3.

Happens too often to discount that the AI in a manner doesn't plot a bit to make your game as the player more challenging when it's completely unrealistic in terms of event A that lead to events B through D just shouldn't of happened in the first place.

 

[scelestus13]

In my opinion, retinues should always have a low monthly fee, like standing armies in EUIV. That way, they are what they were meant to be- expensive, elite soldiers. Not basically free, elite soldiers.

 

[Raineh Daze]

The ERE not being feudal and thus the DLC being more than a few event chains.

Orthodoxy assimilating the Catholic holy orders would be a nice bonus, too.

 

[vandevere]

In my opinion, retinues should always have a low monthly fee, like standing armies in EUIV. That way, they are what they were meant to be- expensive, elite soldiers. Not basically free, elite soldiers.

That's already doable. Go into the defines and you can mod the upkeep in...

Easy-peasy...

 

[Jorlem]

Could the addition of a new type or two of plot work, or the addition of some minor mechanics like blinding and castration? If at least some of these are available to all characters, not just Byzantines, I think it could take the sting out of moving retinues from the DLC to the base game. (This could be in addition to a non-feudal Byzantine Empire, which should be more doable with the new succession types that have been added since LoR came out.)

Anyway, plot ideas. Maybe a plot to blackmail a vassal, that could tie into the spymaster mission? Or maybe a plot to make someone appear dishonorable, that could act like a lesser version of excommunication (and if discovered, could make you rivals with the person)?

Or maybe a trophy/memorial room, which could display banners of the coats of arms of those you've defeated, or empty spaces where your own should be, that could act as a record of the wars you've been involved in. For the Byzantines, it could tie into the Triumph event, but it would be great to be able to see this sort of record for everyone.

 

[Desslok]

1. Most of the populations starting in 867 within the former Roman empire actually migrated to their positions, so don't actually have a tradition affected by rule under rome. 'Corrupt empire that we pushed out' isn't exactly a role model anyway.
2. rome itself took hundreds of years to Romanize some areas, and didn't really succeed in a number of places (thus why the Eastern empire shifted to Greek). So instantly is silly.
3. Hellenic religion? So masses of cultures would convert to a specific form of paganism thats long dead and they never practiced anyway?
4. Sunset invasion is its own DLC - it can be not bought (I don't have it, and will never buy it) or turned off. Your proposal would be on for anybody using LoR and the rest of its content (so no, you actually came up with something WORSE than SI, an allegedly serious DLC with high fantasy drivel in it)

I'll preface this by saying that there are truly good arguments on either side of my idea, both for and against. I'm totally OK with what I request never seeing the light of day. All that being said, I'm not quite done sticking up for my side. Here are my responses to your points:
1. Your point is well taken and I think the areas most affected would be England, Northern France, Illyricum/Yugoslavia ... whatever you prefer to term the region I'm sure we both know of, and the Levant. However, my understanding is that the bulk of the Gallic population were pre-Germanic Romano-Celtic Gauls who were ruled by Franks, same holds true for Iberians and Italians, but with other Germanics in power. Greece and Asia Minor's populations were largely unchanged at this time, and Egypt and North Africa probably had a pre-existing Romano-native population ruled by Arabs at the top. These are all, of course, gross oversimplifications. Still, I do not think we move entirely out of the realm of plausibility if we control for the likelihood of the switch back to Roman culture based on what the existing culture is. Certainly some of these regions might have had a greater propensity, both amongst the poor and the elite, to knuckle under to a powerful emperor demanding togas and grapes be the order of the day, and some lesser. I really do think that many people, forced to either war against a patently superior foe OR benignly change the facade of their culture to that of Rome would opt for the latter. Really, that is more or less what the actual Roman conquerors forced on those they conquered (again, a little oversimplified, but not a falsehood).
2. I relent here: if there were some way to have "percentage culture" in provinces, it would be WAY more realistic. Maybe we could get that in a forthcoming DLC? Of course then you have to mix DLCs to get the desired effect which is entirely against the point of this thread. If I have to pick between "instantly" and "no dice", I choose the former. But your point is well taken.
3. The whole threat effect is the one thing my argument backstops onto. It worked for the Muslims after all! However I do believe, and implied in my orginally post, that a culture shift is more plausible than a religion shift. This one could be left out if I got the culture shift.
4. As I already stated, my mentioning SI was a cop-out. It did not bolster my argument. I pledge not to use that canard in the future.

 

[Desslok]

Then go ahead and argue it, because I couldn't possibly imagine such a thing as being even marginally possible. Besides, what was the "legend of Rome" in the mind of the average medieval person? The German aristocracy often saw themselves in Medieval times as being legitimately Roman. What basis did they have for such a claim? Their emperor was crowned by the Pope, and they were a strong country. That was enough.

People have this strange idea that conquering Rome in the Middle Ages would have been at all significant. Rome was a podunk town, sitting among ruins, just as it had been since before the days of Diocletian. Even during the time of the Roman Empire, Rome had gotten to where it wasn't even close to being a suitable capital of the country that bore its name.

If the Byzantine Empire had a string of miraculous conquests in the west, you would see a pretty significant change of culture, but not a reversion of culture back to the way things were many centuries before. That simply doesn't happen.

A couple points to clarify my points:
1. LOR is about The Byzantines and Orthodoxy so I'd assume any replacement content would be limited to their use, but frankly I think there could/possibly should be a way to expand the culture shift mechanic to anyone who has a culture that has a reasonably direct descent from the Romans. Iberians, Occitans, arguably Franks, and Italians at minumum probably should, for accuracy purposes, be allowed, under the strenuous conditions required, to do the culture shift ... but again I don't think that will happen. Hope that actually addresses your point ... not sure it does though.
2. Actually, I could easily have seen a re-Romanization actually occurring were Justinian's real life successors more competent AND committed to the ideals of Ancient Rome, and had he not overextended the Eastern Empire's abilities so greatly all in a couple decades or so. I just don't buy your point about miraculous Byzantine conquests having no possibility of sparking re-Romanization. That they did not do so IRL can be explain IMHO by the factors above.
3. Sure, average people might not have been Romanophiles, but the fact that German aristocracy, who were mostly non-Romanized basically ever, somewhat ridiculously wanted to be called Roman Emperors is, I think, proof for my point. There were plenty of (at least) nobles who wanted to be Roman and an emperor. If enough of those nobles ever decided to work together to make it happen ... it just might have.

OK, I'm going to stop arguing my points with this post. For the record, I think Talq and Oriflamme state plausible arguments ... arguably more plausible than mine, but I am unconvinced that their arguments ace out my ideas. That being said, if my ideas never happen, no prob, I'll probably buy all the future DLC for this game anyway as it remains awesome.

 

[Latheloi]

Or maybe a trophy/memorial room, which could display banners of the coats of arms of those you've defeated, or empty spaces where your own should be, that could act as a record of the wars you've been involved in. For the Byzantines, it could tie into the Triumph event, but it would be great to be able to see this sort of record for everyone.

That could be cool. Or indeed any sort of historical record thing. And it is hardly going to break gameplay to not have it.

 

[klopkr]

They should just flesh out Hellenic a little bit, add a decision to become "roman" if you conquer all of historical rome, and make it so that crusades in anatolia/greece give the winner the option to donate it to the byzantine emperor. That should satisfy the byzantinophiles on here and be enough content to replace the retinues.

 

[Raineh Daze]

They should just flesh out Hellenic a little bit, add a decision to become "roman" if you conquer all of historical rome, and make it so that crusades in anatolia/greece give the winner the option to donate it to the byzantine emperor. That should satisfy the byzantinophiles on here and be enough content to replace the retinues.

One of these is useless, one makes no sense, and the other is far from enough to replace retinues without drastically cutting the price of the DLC.

 

[Cardinal Sin]

If this came to pass then I would like to see a more Byzantine and less feudal administration for the Byzantine Empire. Of course this would be rather difficult to implement, especially if you want to keep vassals of Byzantium as a playable option.

A more fleshed out Orthodoxy (and Miaphysitism!) would also be great.

Whoever said that the Byzantine Empire should be able to reinstate Roman culture and religion was clearly having a bit of a laugh...

 

[Jorlem]

If this came to pass then I would like to see a more Byzantine and less feudal administration for the Byzantine Empire. Of course this would be rather difficult to implement, especially if you want to keep vassals of Byzantium as a playable option.

Maybe give each dynasty something akin to the family mansions that patricians get, held by the head of the dynasty? That would ensure that playing as vassals would remain viable, even if all other titles are lost. (Game overs could be changed from none of your dynasty holding land to none of your dynasty having strong claims.) Then, all that would be needed would be a few plots or diplomatic actions to model competing/petitioning for your father's titles, and to make someone's liege dislike them (as opposed to the current chancellor mission to make the vassal dislike the liege.) Finally, there would need to be some way to convince the emperor to grant you a hereditary appointment, which would grant access to normal succession laws.

Heck, with this, you could give everyone access to dynastic houses, and the petition mechanic, which would let you play as a potential adventurer, who would need to petition his liege for support in order to launch the adventure.