New rewards for Byzantium missions

[Blindbohemian]

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 think more accurately we might characterise it as a split between people who see EUIV as an early modern game (and therefore recognise that Byzantium in 1444 was gone. From a historicity perspective any time spent on Byzantium in EUIV is wasted time) and people who just love Roman history (and therefore see Byzantium in 1444 as the height of cool and anytime NOT spent on Byzantium in EUIV as wasted time).

I would be very happy to see the start date moved to 1453 and the Byzantibros sent back to CK3 (there’s a whole damn game for you guys!) but here we are and we gotta love everybody just the same.

 

[Nostalgium]

Saying the their art was the same art style of Rome makes it clear to me that you don't know what your talking about. Just look at the art that was made in the Byzantine history from churches and statues and then compare it with he western side. A huuuuge difference.

I have. Many, many times. Art from either half of the Empire - from Spain to Syria - have huge similarities right up until the fall of the Western Empire. A 4th century mosaic from Eastern Rome will be virtually indistinguishable from one from the West, save perhaps for motif and materials used to make it. Byzantine art from the 5th century and later deviated significantly, of course, becoming more spiritualist than realist in nature over time and concerning itself more with Church affairs, but Western Roman art becomes very hard to find for comparison, on account of the Western empire no longer existing and thus no longer producing art with which we can compare it. If you can find me some drastically different pieces of artwork from within the Empire dated to roughly the same time to back up your point and counter everything I've known about Roman art until this day, go ahead.

 

[holyvigil]

I think more accurately we might characterise it as a split between people who see EUIV as an early modern game (and therefore recognise that Byzantium in 1444 was gone. From a historicity perspective any time spent on Byzantium in EUIV is wasted time) and people who just love Roman history (and therefore see Byzantium in 1444 as the height of cool and anytime NOT spent on Byzantium in EUIV as wasted time).

I would be very happy to see the start date moved to 1453 and the Byzantibros sent back to CK3 (there’s a whole damn game for you guys!) but here we are and we gotta love everybody just the same.

I suppose people loving the high middle ages and the renaissance is not valid to you then.

And lol a whole game! All about Rome! With less unique Roman/Byzantium content than EU4! Yeah sure it is.

 

[Jihem]

Maybe Purple Phoenix should have included a lot more content specific to prestigious tags about to be wiped out, but aimed at restoring their former glory: Byzantium therefore, but also Hisn Kayfa, Granada (which would certainly have been redundant with later released Golden Century), and others that don't immediately come to mind ? All this would have reduced the criticism about Byzantium fans, perhaps.

 

[Nostalgium]

Maybe Purple Phoenix should have included a lot more content specific to prestigious tags about to be wiped out, but aimed at restoring their former glory: Byzantium therefore, but also Hisn Kayfa, Granada (which would certainly have been redundant with later released Golden Century), and others that don't immediately come to mind ? All this would have reduced the criticism about Byzantium fans, perhaps.

The lack of a proper Hisn Kayfa mission tree (and decision to form Egypt) makes me so sad. Like, I'm glad that they have at least a little one, but there's justification in their history for so much more. I like this idea, though. Add Mongolia to the list, maybe. They're not at the same level of fallen empire as Byz and Ayyubids, but they're certainly a vestigial rump in a bad position.

 

[necro84]

@ForVictory do you know that capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Milan in 286, later to Constantinople and after spliting into eastern and western capital of the western empire was in Ravenna and not in Rome? For about 65 years capital of the whole Roman Empire was in Constantinople

 

[Blindbohemian]

Maybe Purple Phoenix should have included a lot more content specific to prestigious tags about to be wiped out, but aimed at restoring their former glory: Byzantium therefore, but also Hisn Kayfa, Granada (which would certainly have been redundant with later released Golden Century), and others that don't immediately come to mind ? All this would have reduced the criticism about Byzantium fans, perhaps.

Majapahit, too. This would’ve been cool. I could’ve just not bought it and let these bygone countries be bygones.

I suppose people loving the high middle ages and the renaissance is not valid to you then.

And lol a whole game! All about Rome! With less unique Roman/Byzantium content than EU4! Yeah sure it is.

It’s not that they’re not valid, it’s that anyone who loves “the Renaissance” is conscious that by the time of the Renaissance Byzantium was gone.

Advocate for Byzantium content in Crusader Kings, is what I’m saying. I think it’s downright weird that there’s no massive cohort of the CK3 community rabble-rousing for unique Roman content there, too; for some reason they’re all here, getting their irrelevant Byzantium all over my nice early modern geopolitical strategy game

 

[Ferdinand_Bardamu]

As I have said before, Byzantium are one of the most played nations in the game.

People can belittle Byzantium all they want, 'they weren't Roman, they were a small Greek ghost town, a decadent insignificant realm waiting to be killed off'...doesn't change the fact they are still one of the most played nations in the game. Killing them off by moving the start date to 1453 will be extremely unpopular. I have 4k hours in EU4 and I would legitimately consider not buying EU5 if Byzantium weren't in it.

But again, irrespective of Byzantium, moving the start date to 1453 removes: The Hundred Years War, Independent Hungary, the Timurids would pretty much be partitioned...hell even the Ambrosian Republic could no longer fire for Milan because it would be in the past...My point is, Byzantium excluded, 1453 is objectively a much worse start date. I've heard people even argue to go back to 1399 (I prefer 1444).

The CK3 argument is irrelevant. CK3 is a different game with different mechanics. There's nothing to say there can't be a small time overlap. Also, the Byzantine Empire in CK3 is in an absolutely dire state. CK3 only has an air of historical accuracy if you're playing Feudal Western Catholic Europe. The absence of a Byzantine government makes it too immersion breaking to play them on CK3.

 

[Sergeant Major Gross]

I don't think the devs should 'buff' Byzantium. But I do think they should take a hard look at great mods like Flavour Universalis and Missions Expanded. These mods have fantastic mission trees for nations like Ottomans and Byzantium. These missions make it way more fun to play as them rather than conquer x area for y claims.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Hisn Kayfa

Hisn Kayfa wasn't a thing when Purple Phoenix was released.

 

[Jihem]

I don't think the devs should 'buff' Byzantium. But I do think they should take a hard look at great mods like Flavour Universalis and Missions Expanded. These mods have fantastic mission trees for nations like Ottomans and Byzantium. These missions make it way more fun to play as them rather than conquer x area for y claims.

I even think that they should take over a large part of the content, and translate it of course (it is extremely painful to play in English). Edit : I mean hiring the guys behind this project, if necessary.

 

[coorta19]

I think that ultimately this discussion should not be too much about realism as you will find out that while Byzantines surviving after 1444 in real life would require almost an intervention of ASB it is as much unrealistic as any nation conquering entire world or forcing its own religion on it.

I don´t think that Byzantines/Eastern Roman Empire require too much - the best thing would be slightly reworked mission tree which should for example allow them to

1.change name to Eastern Roman Empire after having at least 500 development and holding Athens, Sofiya, Nikomedia, Ancyra (+get some flavour event about this achievement)

2.become Roman Empire after conquering Rome, Antioch, Milan, Alexandria, Jerusalem and having at least 1000 development (+get some flavour event).

3.integrate Turks into empire - after conquering all of Turkish provinces, coring them, converting them to orthodox you should be able to add Turks into Byzanthine culture group.

 

[holyvigil]

Majapahit, too. This would’ve been cool. I could’ve just not bought it and let these bygone countries be bygones.

It’s not that they’re not valid, it’s that anyone who loves “the Renaissance” is conscious that by the time of the Renaissance Byzantium was gone.

Advocate for Byzantium content in Crusader Kings, is what I’m saying. I think it’s downright weird that there’s no massive cohort of the CK3 community rabble-rousing for unique Roman content there, too; for some reason they’re all here, getting their irrelevant Byzantium all over my nice early modern geopolitical strategy game

There are and have been people who have asked on the CK3 forums for content for Byzantium if that's what you mean by 'rabble rousing'.

I think you need to get over your desire for no Alt history in EU4. Reviving dead tags is a important piece of EU4.

More than that though Byzantium was a major historical country in EU4's time period. It's most important event past 1444, its fall, affected the fortune of every single country in the Balkan region and affected more countries beyond the Balkans.

And even more important than that a lot of players started playing and continue to play EU4 due to the start date being moved back to 1444 from 1454 because they are excited to play Byzantium.

 

[Blindbohemian]

More than that though Byzantium was a major historical country in EU4's time period. It's most important event past 1444, its fall, affected the fortune of every single country in the Balkan region and affected more countries beyond the Balkans.

It literally wasn’t. It’s most important event in the period happened nine years into EUIV, and was a sputter rather than a bang. A decrepit city with farms in its old boulevards getting trampled by the Turks was not a “major event” for anyone except the Byzantines themselves; the effects of the fall of Byzantium were being felt long before 1453, because it had functionally fallen long before then. By 1444 it was an irrelevance.

I think you need to get over your desire for no Alt history in EU4. Reviving dead tags is a important piece of EU4.

I love alt history in EUIV. What I don’t like is wildly implausible alt history (by 1444 nothing was going to save Byzantium) and the constant demands for investment of developer time into making nonsense alternative histories more overpowered instead of making actually relevant stuff deeper and more interesting.

The Italian maritime republics still have bizarre half-baked mechanics that don’t reflect their actual political-economic systems at all; as someone who professes a love for the Renaissance surely those actually significant Renaissance states need more attention than a Greek ghost town with no relevance to the EUIV period? Surely a unique government form related to the Aragonese cortes, similarly an actually important power in the EUIV period with no real development in EUIV, is more worthwhile than messing around giving bonuses to an irrelevant sideshow? Even Songhai and the Somali states were more relevant to global history in the EUIV period than the last twitches of Rome’s corpse.

And even more important than that a lot of players started playing and continue to play EU4 due to the start date being moved back to 1444 from 1454 because they are excited to play Byzantium.

This is a circular argument, though. People play Byzantium because attention gets poured into Byzantium. After Origins people played Zimbabwe; after Leviathan people played Ngāpuhi. The goal is to make the game as a whole good, not random pet tags and ESPECIALLY not random pet tags with no relevance whatsoever to the game as a whole.

 

[holyvigil]

This is a circular argument, though. People play Byzantium because attention gets poured into Byzantium. After Origins people played Zimbabwe; after Leviathan people played Ngāpuhi. The goal is to make the game as a whole good, not random pet tags and ESPECIALLY not random pet tags with no relevance whatsoever to the game as a whole.

That could be true if attention to Byzantium that wasn't buffing the Ottomans further got poured into Byzantium. Byzantium hasn't gotten anything of substance since they transferred the radiant mission tree from the Purple Phoenix DLC (a preorder DLC when EU4 first came out in 2013) into the new mission tree system.

 

[necro84]

@Blindbohemian
People also play Albania, Knights and other nations near Ottomans just because they like the challenge.
Playing as big nation is less interesting so smaller and weaker nations should get more flavor. If most people like to play as Byzantium then content should reflect that.
I personally don't like Byzantium, especially when someone just repeats guide from YT but I still support more flavor for them.

I think I've never played as the emperor of China or Shogunate because I don't like it but does it mean that it should be removed from the game?

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

OK that's an interesting thread to be sure.

Most older mission trees could certainly use an overhaul with new rewards and more interesting flavor. I don't think they really need a buff since the difficult / interesting parts are mostly over once you have defeated the ottomans. There could be some cultur switches in the Anatolian coastal regions since they were very much Greek by that point. I don't think that is much of a buff since conquering them is really difficult.

Just one thing I want to mention. The Byzantine Empire shouldn't be a thing. Like the name itself is wrong.
They considered themselves to be Roman. Not one source from their Empire ever says they were Byzantines or Greek or even Eastern Romans. That name is a later introduction by western European authors.
Look up history of Byzantium podcast if you are interested. There is an episode on that. I think he even gives and example of some remote island who hat little to no contact with the outside world and who still called themselves Roman in 1800sth. Might be a legend but still interesting.

 

[Blindbohemian]

I think I've never played as the emperor of China or Shogunate because I don't like it but does it mean that it should be removed from the game?

Some people would like to play Carthage in EUIV. Should it be added to the game?

 

[Nostalgium]

Some people would like to play Carthage in EUIV. Should it be added to the game?

Who argues for Carthage being added as a formable though? I'm pretty sure they're content to roll them as a Custom Nation, like all the people wanting to play a successful Vinland or something. The difference between Carthage and [Insert any older empire that was dying in the starting years of EU4] is that Carthage was 1600 years dead by 1444.

 

[MatthewP]

There’s a lot of focus on whether the byzantines of 1444 are Rome or not. To me the answer is clearly “yes. But…”.

Someone made the comparison with modern day Britain, how it would be absurd to say that they’re no longer the same nation as the British empire. I buy this. But let’s say we’re creating an EU4: modern day. Should the old British Empire inspire the ideas for England (or for that matter, should they have ideas based around the simmering Anglo-Saxon/Norman conflict)? Should conquistadors and the high seas inspire the ideas for 2022 Spain? To me it seems much more logical that they should be based on what the nation is in the game’s time period. And Byzantium of 1444 (or Rome, if you like, though it seems more confusing than not), is not in this sense very similar to the Roman Empire of the early first millennium.

That said, should the byzantines have cool missions? Of course! Everybody should have cool missions, and their popularity makes them a logical choice. But honestly I’d rather see their missions guiding them towards reforming Rome (and make it slightly easier), then add content to Rome so any of the pretenders can use it.

Edit: for that matter, I think given advancements in mission tree technology, Rome should be rethought. It should be generally much easier to form (especially, but not exclusively, for Byzantium), and its ideas should be a bit worse (or maybe it shouldn't even have its own ideas, though I suspect that's a non-starter). But it should have a very large and interesting mission tree which makes up for the idea nerf with permanent modifiers IF the new Rome can actually match or exceed the accomplishments of the old.