Originally posted by Clendor:
Yes, but historically in the beginning of the game the byzzies were crushed by the Turks. This never happens in the game.
The Byzantines were crushed historically (in battle), but it wasn't a forgone conclusion they were going to lose to the Turks. Prior to Manzikert, they split their forces in half (with Tarchoniotes mysteriously disappearing, along with some 20,000 men), and then when confronted, several commanders betrayed Romanos IV, leading to his capture. In the interest of historical plausibility, I wouldn't mind seeing the chances of them surviving a little higher than "always losing."
If we really wanted to fix the area, I had a few suggestions for changes:
1) Disband the Armenian levies: Since the thema were disbanded in the territories settled by Armenia, the Armenian area under Byzantium should have a provincial modifier that severely inhibits levy size. Once the Armenian provinces are independent (if that happens), the modifier is removed. Also, you could have an event or decision tree to reestablish the levies if you were a Byzantine player.
2) The Seljuks should start at war with Byzantium, should already own up to Ani (conquered in 1064) and probably a few border provinces (Mesopotamia, Karin, Theodosiopolis). Historically, they conquered up to Caesaria by 1067. Also, they should have raised levies (with a force multiplier) consisting of only cavalry, who should also be near to the border. Everytime I see the Seljuks declare war, they spend three to four years just moving troops in the mountains, attempting to have them reach a rally point. It's frustrating to see a stack of Turks move 1,000 miles southeast, only to head back to where they were raised, and then disband when the money dries up. For that matter, maintenance costs for the Turks should be lowered immensely (How I wish we could on-demand plunder or sack!). They should have a claim nearly all bordering land (At one point, a combined Pecheneg/Seljuk army attempted to take Constantinople in 1091).
3) A series of events should model Turkish settlement of Anatolia. Perhaps beefing up of the conversion events to work more speedily for the Seljuks. It would be interesting to have multiple event chains. One for consistent, aggressive pressure and resettlement (which should happen to Eastern Anatolia regardless of provincial ownership) and another where it'd be interesting to see the Anatolian Turks possibly Christianized if Byzantium maintains control over provinces with heavy Turkish settlement (more of a situational narrative kinda thing -- hardly 'required'). The Turkic tribes were notoriously flippant and opportunistic.
4) There should be some way to realistically model the Abbasid caliphate being subjugated to the Seljuks, Even though it shows on the pre-game map, it doesn't stay such in game. It should act like the pope's title does, being able to exist in a landless state, and also being able to be vassalized. The Great Seljuk Empire was -- most definitely -- an empire. The Abbasids were merely figureheads once under the Turks.
5) To model history and make the Byzzies weaker, they should also start at war with the Normans in Italy. Otranto was only conquered in 1068 and Bari in 1071. The Normans should have claims across the Adriatic, since that was their next move. This would require a division of the Byzantine's resources and make progression easier for the Turks.
6) Something similar should happen for when the Seljuks try to take the Levant. Also, later in the game, buffing enemies in random Eastern provinces would be neat, to represent incursions of Ghaznavids, resurgence of the Ghurids, etc. Oman, in particular, should be hard to hold (being Ibadhi and favoring an elective imamate, they were only nominally ruled by Seljuks and Nebhani during the timeframe, especially once past the coast and into the mountains).
Just my two cents.
