New rewards for Byzantium missions

[Nikita1992]

The Theodosian Walls were castle-style walls - tall, straight and relatively thin* - and those simply weren't very good against cannons, even if they were the best castle walls in the world. If they were to be added as a modifier, it should have something to do with prestige, and not defensiveness.

I could agree with this, but it seems to me that the walls themselves are not so defenseless against cannons ... Firstly, this is a whole complex defensive system, not only from walls, but from ditches, towers and camps. Secondly, even if they are destroyed by shots, there will be a lot of debris, which will not allow you to enter the city so easily. The defensive capacity of fortifications is determined not by the thickness of the walls, but by their skillful use, even if the walls are destroyed. The rejection of unique fortresses breaks my soul - I would add a unique fortress to Rhodes ... Forgive me for this, but I would not agree to this.

 

[Nostalgium]

Firstly, this is a whole complex defensive system, not only from walls, but from ditches, towers and camps.

Not long after the game begins, secondary emplacements, redoubts, bastions and trenches were all over the place, though. The Theodosian Walls were incredible things in the Medieval period, a peerless set of fortifications that were unbreachable save for technology invented a thousand years after their construction, which probably makes it the most futureproofed piece of military hardware ever produced, but in the EU4 period, shortly after game start, they would be obsolete. I just want to be absolutely clear that I'm not underselling the Walls here, but European siegecraft in this time period was mad.

I'd settle for a compromise though; a defensiveness modifier that is removed by event when T2 forts are unlocked, representing the obsoleteness of the Walls by that point, and requiring the investment in further defenses like Ramparts if you want to keep Constantinople as the heavily fortified city it was in the past.

 

[RMS Oceanic]

Much as I love the Theodosian Walls, the advent of siege cannons and their fall is kind of a significant turning point, and one of many you could conceivably point to and say "this is where the Medieval period ended". The Theodosian Walls were castle-style walls - tall, straight and relatively thin* - and those simply weren't very good against cannons, even if they were the best castle walls in the world. If they were to be added as a modifier, it should have something to do with prestige, and not defensiveness. While the grand cannon the Ottomans used was ahead of its time, siege cannons became more and more common and numerous in only the next several decades, and the time of the tall wall was, simply, over.

And yes, I do also advocate for the removal of defensiveness modifiers on other non-modern castle monuments, unless they were built onto mountains or something where it's the terrain, not the fortification, providing the majority of the defensiveness.

*When I say "thin", I want to extra-special emphasise that mean relatively speaking. Of course, the Theodosian Walls were thick, but they weren't Star Fortress "pretty much a walled hill" thick.

I had a crack at doing the Theodosian Walls as a Monument that works like thus:

1. Only works for Byzantium/Rome
2. Starts at tier 1. Provides some benefits, like they did in reality, but not as much as they could.
3. Can only upgrade it if either you've completed defensive ideas or there is a Bastion or higher in Constantinople.

This way you get the flavour of the walls, but acknowledge that you need a rethink to keep their use in the age of artillery.

 

[holyvigil]

I don't understand why Byzantium is so divisive amongst some in the EU4 community.

It's known that they are one of the most popular tags to play in game, a lot of people have a soft spot for them.

Yet you have a small, but vocal, percentage of people who absolutely hate their existence.

It's not unreasonable to say that Byzantium's ideas and missions are pretty meh. Even if they died soon after the game start date, it doesn't change the fact they are the living Roman Empire. They considered themselves the Romans, the Ottomans considered them the Romans, the Arabs they fought wars against considered them the Romans, the people of the Rus considered them the Romans. The idea that the 'Byzantines' were not Roman was an inclusively Western Europe invention.

I think Byzantium should have ideas/blogging capability on the Roman Empire's level. That means CCR at the very least. I also think they should be able to form the Roman Empire more easIly.

I know these ideas trigger a bunch of people for some reason and I'll get downvoted but it is what it is.

I think it's the split between people who love pre 1444 history and people who don't care about history prior to 1444.

 

[Dell19]

I think it's the split between people who love pre 1444 history and people who don't care about history prior to 1444.

Firstly its never as simple as just one issue, and secondly labelling one group as caring about history and the other group as not caring isn't exactly a nice way of categorising people.

For what its worth I would agree with reworking the mission tree if the devs have time as not a particularly inspiring set of missions however I like nations to play differently and part of that involves them having different NIs etc. It would be a pretty boring game if every nation got 20% morale from their first idea and then 20% CCR just to please people from every nation. Personally I feel a lot of the PU missions are too over the top as it allows certain nations to pick up a significant amount of dev, at least the Austrian ones have a historic basis.

 

[Zoot1337]

I would really like a Varangian special unit for Byzantium. Also, quests for Gauls, Iberia and Britain ?

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

I think it's the split between people who love pre 1444 history and people who don't care about history prior to 1444.

I suppose this could be the case, however I feel the truth is a little more sinister.

Someone got downvoted for suggesting Byzantium should be renamed 'Roman Empire'. They were called the Roman Empire. The term 'Byzantines' came later. This is just a historical fact. If the game wanted to represent what they were called on November 11th 1444 they would be called any variation of 'Roman Empire' or 'Empire of the Romans'. If you really wanted to distinguish it you could call them the 'Eastern Roman Empire'.

If pointing out a mere historical fact gets you downvoted it makes me feel some people have more sinister motivations.

 

[firenze419]

I also wanted to say this! This modifier is very important for Constantinople.

As for Thessaloniki, a separate great project is needed there - Athos. In Bulgaria there is the Rila Monastery, why not Athos?! And in Cappadocia - cave churches...

Didn't cannons make the walls obsolete?

What generosity! In fact, if you want, I can throw a list of possible bonuses for tasks:
1) "Akritas": -10% of the maintenance of fortresses
2) "Strategikon": + 5% to morale
3) "Byzantine enlightenment": -10% of the cost of technologies
4) "Great Komnenos": union with Trebizond and the choice of dynasties
5) "Greek fire": +10 to the power of the galleys
6) "The way from the Varangians to the Greeks": -10% of the cost of upgrading the trade center
etc.

If you turn on your brains, you can throw in a completely suitable mission tree. As much as the soul desires, there would be a will.

And wasn't Greek Fire thing a shadow of it's former potency?

But yeah, to the main point, I could definitely live with some more Byzantine missions, if they're looking for places to improve. Though I wouldn't want it to have precedence over something like more trade goods with greater impact on gameplay

 

[Nostalgium]

I suppose this could be the case, however I feel the truth is a little more sinister.

Someone got downvoted for suggesting Byzantium should be renamed 'Roman Empire'. They were called the Roman Empire. The term 'Byzantines' came later. This is just a historical fact. If the game wanted to represent what they were called on November 11th 1444 they would be called any variation of 'Roman Empire' or 'Empire of the Romans'. If you really wanted to distinguish it you could call them the 'Eastern Roman Empire'.

If pointing out a mere historical fact gets you downvoted it makes me feel some people have more sinister motivations.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what they called themselves at the time, their claim to Rome was de jure only. Their control was so far eroded that for historical reasons, their direct control of Morea and even functional overlordship of Athens is a bit of a stretch. Other countries claimed to be, and de facto were, stronger successors to Rome than the Empire in Constantinople. I agree that yes, the Roman Empire was the Roman Empire that fell in 1453, and all others are pretenders, but for gameplay purposes, Byzantium is simply a better name, as it sets them up as "merely" another claimant to the title, next to the Ottomans (who incidentally also didn't call themselves that), Russia and the HRE.

In fact, when it comes to Byzantium > Roman Empire progression, I would actually like for them to be disallowed from forming the Roman Empire via the decision, much like the HRE is, and instead get a name-change - not tag-switch - to "Roman Empire" after completing both the "Recover Lombardia" and "Rome Reclaimed!" missions. This would reflect their resurgence into being Rome not simply in name, having restored their prestige and strength, and make the journey from Byzantium > Rome feel more like a continuation, rather than taking a sudden hard left into fantasy territory. Well, a harder left than Byzantium surviving at all already is.

I hope that explains why I, at least, am against renaming Byzantium to Roman Empire in 1444. Nothing sinister about it.

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

The fact of the matter is that no matter what they called themselves at the time, their claim to Rome was de jure only. Their control was so far eroded that for historical reasons, their direct control of Morea and even functional overlordship of Athens is a bit of a stretch. Other countries claimed to be, and de facto were, stronger successors to Rome than the Empire in Constantinople. I agree that yes, the Roman Empire was the Roman Empire that fell in 1453, and all others are pretenders, but for gameplay purposes, Byzantium is simply a better name, as it sets them up as "merely" another claimant to the title, next to the Ottomans (who incidentally also didn't call themselves that), Russia and the HRE.

In fact, when it comes to Byzantium > Roman Empire progression, I would actually like for them to be disallowed from forming the Roman Empire via the decision, much like the HRE is, and instead get a name-change - not tag-switch - to "Roman Empire" after completing both the "Recover Lombardia" and "Rome Reclaimed!" missions. This would reflect their resurgence into being Rome not simply in name, having restored their prestige and strength, and make the journey from Byzantium > Rome feel more like a continuation, rather than taking a sudden hard left into fantasy territory. Well, a harder left than Byzantium surviving at all already is.

I hope that explains why I, at least, am against renaming Byzantium to Roman Empire in 1444. Nothing sinister about it.

I have nothing against your argument. I consider everything you said to be fair.

However, I maintain two things:

1) Byzantium could have better ideas/missions. I mean Saluzzo have better ideas than Byzantium do. It wouldn't be unreasonable to give Byzantium a permanent CCR modifier as their last NI to acknowledge their resurgence to the Roman legacy.

2) I think both tags "The Roman Empire" and "Byzantium" should have a unique Tier 1 Government Reform called Roman Government. They were not Feudal Nobilities or Autocracies. This government reform should have some bonuses in the same fashion the Ottoman Government, Russian Tsardom etc have.

I also think that there should be a mission much like Castile gets with Granada, that converts the western coastal provinces of Anatolia to Greek and Orthodox. There's quite an argument to say that at the very least Sugla/Smyrna should still be Greek and Orthodox.

 

[ForVictory]

Calling the Byzantine empire a Roman empire is the same as saying Turkey now is the Ottaman empire. It was basically a Greek kingdom.

 

[Nostalgium]

2) I think both tags "The Roman Empire" and "Byzantium" should have a unique Tier 1 Government Reform called Roman Government. They were not Feudal Nobilities or Autocracies. This government reform should have some bonuses in the same fashion the Ottoman Government, Russian Tsardom etc have.

I also think that there should be a mission much like Castile gets with Granada, that converts the western coastal provinces of Anatolia to Greek and Orthodox. There's quite an argument to say that at the very least Sugla/Smyrna should still be Greek and Orthodox.

"Convert the Asia Minor coast" is already a mission, isn't it?

As for 2, towards the end of its life, the ERE was indeed pretty much a feudal empire. It had been Feudalized in processes and reforms that began since just before the 4th Crusade, continued through the Nicaean Empire, and by the Restoration & Palaiologian dynasty, it was more or less fully feudalized. It simply couldn't maintain the old Imperial administration through the crisis' of its last centuries.

 

[necro84]

If Byzantium will be to strong then wouldn't people form it as Hungary, Poland, Mamluks etc.? Or it is possible to conquer it as Ottomans and play as released vassal.
Rewards should be awarded only by starting as Byzantium, maybe you can add Trebizond and Theodoro.

 

[Nostalgium]

If Byzantium will be to strong then wouldn't people form it as Hungary, Poland, Mamluks etc.? Or it is possible to conquer it as Ottomans and play as released vassal.
Rewards should be awarded only by starting as Byzantium, maybe you can add Trebizond and Theodoro.

Alternatively, lock forming Byzantium to tags like Theodoro and Trebizond, rather than to Greek culture.

 

[necro84]

There are many solutions, each has some advantages and disadvantages. For people who like to start as Byzantium this won't make any difference

 

[holyvigil]

I have nothing against your argument. I consider everything you said to be fair.

However, I maintain two things:

1) Byzantium could have better ideas/missions. I mean Saluzzo have better ideas than Byzantium do. It wouldn't be unreasonable to give Byzantium a permanent CCR modifier as their last NI to acknowledge their resurgence to the Roman legacy.

2) I think both tags "The Roman Empire" and "Byzantium" should have a unique Tier 1 Government Reform called Roman Government. They were not Feudal Nobilities or Autocracies. This government reform should have some bonuses in the same fashion the Ottoman Government, Russian Tsardom etc have.

I also think that there should be a mission much like Castile gets with Granada, that converts the western coastal provinces of Anatolia to Greek and Orthodox. There's quite an argument to say that at the very least Sugla/Smyrna should still be Greek and Orthodox.

It was a form of autocracy.

Calling the Byzantine empire a Roman empire is the same as saying Turkey now is the Ottaman empire. It was basically a Greek kingdom.

That doesn't work too well because Turkish people today would be insulted if you called them Ottomans.

While Roman people in 1444 would be insulted if you called them Byzantines. And everyone else in 1444 would be confused if you said there was a country called Byzantium.

 

[ForVictory]

While Roman people in 1444 would be insulted if you called them Byzantines. And everyone else in 1444 would be confused if you said there was a country called Byzantium.

That doesn't change the fact that that it was still basically just a Greek kingdom. Yes they split apart from the Roman empire but there was very little in common with that empire that was once ruled from Rome.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

The one way to end this madness is to make the start date 1453. Problem solved, no more threads on buffing the sick man of Middle Aged Europe.

 

[Alyssea]

Can Byz players please get good at the game instead of asking for OP buffs for a ghost town city-state?

 

[Nostalgium]

That doesn't change the fact that that it was still basically just a Greek kingdom. Yes they split apart from the Roman empire but there was very little in common with that empire that was once ruled from Rome.

When did they split? Was it under Diocletians Tetrarchy in the late 200s? Was it under Constantine, when the capital moved to Constantinople, but the Empire was once more whole? Was it under Valentinian and Valens? Or was it when the West fell due to mismanagement and the East couldn't help it because they were being invaded by the same forces who drove various tribes into the West? The East Roman Empire never "split" from Rome, it was simply the half of it that survived. As for having very little in common with it, the Empire that was ruled from Rome had very little in common with the Republic that was founded in it. The Roman Republic had very little in common with itself at various stages in its existence, so "similarity to itself" would have Rome fall at the institution of the Marian Reforms, where the Army went from being a citizen levy to a professional salaried army, and several points thereafter.

Saying the East Roman Empire "split" from the Roman Empire is like saying France "split" from Charlemagne's Empire; it's simply not the case.