No for border gore in Byzantine/Roman Empire!

[Ollum]

Byzantine and Roman empires consisted of regular provinces. In CK2, there was a border gore, which is ahistorical and annoying. For example, proconsul/exarch (Roman title/Greek title) of Africa was able to possess county in Anatolia.
My propositions for Byzantine and Roman Empire:
- free title revocation, even without reason.
- Viceroyalty succession for all vassals
- Viceroys can't revoke their vassals' titles.
- vassals can inherit only within their de jure duchy/kingdom.
Governors of Roman provinces ruled often only in their dedicated provinces.
This propositions isn't final, they can be modified.

 

[Torngasuk]

The Byzantine political system would work best, I think, with a fundamentally different system of governance and means of appointment to that of the western feudalism, rather than relying on the preexisting system of viceroyalties. Ideally, I'd like to see duchies formed along the borders of the Byzantine themes, with ducal-tier governors appointed through screen not unlike that by which we managed our bishops in Crusader Kings II, with the possibility of leaving the position of provincial governor vacant (with heavy economy and military penalties, obviously), or assigning a vacant province to a neighboring governor. In this way, governors could be hired, fired, or transferred at will, without necessarily incurring their disfavor for stripping them of a province when you only intend to do so to grant them a higher military command.

 

[Kainser]

The problem with your suggestions and many others I see for Byzantium is that they would make playing them extremely trivial without other mechanics holding them back.

I think most people agree that your ideas would fit better but what we really need are ideas for how to counterbalance them in flavorful ways.

 

[Arko]

The problem with your suggestions and many others I see for Byzantium is that they would make playing them extremely trivial without other mechanics holding them back.

I think most people agree that your ideas would fit better but what we really need are ideas for how to counterbalance them in flavorful ways.

And well, playing a vassal there could be a real frustation.

 

[Torngasuk]

The problem with your suggestions and many others I see for Byzantium is that they would make playing them extremely trivial without other mechanics holding them back.

Political turbulence would solve much of that issue, I think. Byzantium should be a considerable challenge to play, something that we might refer to in modern parlance as a garrison state, that is, a state organized to serve primarily its own need for military security. The Byzantines are constantly under siege, from the Turks, from the Normans in Sicily, from ambitious Serbian and Bulgarian princes seeking to claim a Roman legacy for themselves, and most importantly of all, from power-hungry generals and imperial impostors from within their own ranks. I agree that the basileus should have many means at his disposal to remove his political rivals and theoretically a more ordered political state, but he should also have to resort to such methods much more frequently. Perhaps it would be best that you must offer a general a better posting before removing him from his existing one if you want him to accept: attempting to relieve him of office entirely could result in him raising his troops in revolt and making his own claim for the throne. Or, if the general in question possesses great military ability, then you must continue to reward him with escalating offices and titles, feeding his ambition for the throne, or risk him revolting for feeling underappreciated and unrewarded.

 

[Jako473]

And well, playing a vassal there could be a real frustation.

There should be more courtly mechanics for unlanded characters. Heck even landed characters often had to attend their King and only were really supposed to return to their lands after the season had ended. The idea that you just sat in your capital the entire time is rather ahistoric.

 

[WatershockPlayz]

I saw someone in an earlier post mention having characters entering factions and cliques with similiar people, something similar could be used to simulate different groups in the Byzantine Empire rather than factions randomly appearing when you’re hated so the Emperor still needs to keep some big factions in the Empire happy rather than just having arbitrarily large power with the above mechanics.

 

[Sparticulous]

It was always annoying trying to clean up the internal fire caused by duchies marrying and merging with one another

 

[Vohen]

The Byzantine political system would work best, I think, with a fundamentally different system of governance and means of appointment to that of the western feudalism

Indeed, that is one of my biggest expectations for CK3.
They are eliminating nomad and republican governments from the game presumably because their implementation was very lacking in CK2, and in hopes to eventually do a better job at it.
Thing is, in CK2 they had to work with a lot of restrictions, one of them being the feudal system every government had to use in one way or another, to which I'd say they did a good job given these constraints.
The given reason for a move from CK2 to CK3 was exactly to get away from these restrictions in the first place, so I'd expect that the government restriction would also be looked upon, and allow fundamentally different government forms to work in fundamentally different ways.
I'm in high hopes that tribal, iqta and imperial (and nomadic and republican, in the future) will work in very different and unique ways from each other and the feudal system, unlike their "pseudo-feudal" CK2 counterparts.

 

[guinea prince]

This feels like another area where unlanded play would be innovative. If landed titles are the only value of progress and base existence, mechanics for players and AI will naturally revolve around gaining and expanding land.

If gameplay permitted success outside of landed titles, say in estate/family influence and the acquisition of office, maybe with the possibility of putting yourself or kin into positions of influence (governorship, emperor himself, etc), then you can design a fun system of non-landed gameplay adjacent to the landed. Could be something that could keep Byzantines from being vanilla Kings and Dukes with a purple coat of paint.

 

[Ollum]

It was always annoying trying to clean up the internal fire caused by duchies marrying and merging with one another

I agree with you!

 

[Patriarch of Bub]

I think the ERE should have its own dynamic government and structure.

I'd like if both the more military government with the Theme, and the more civic one if a player enacts the renaissance and demilitarises the State.

If "border gore" is eliminated, we need to have an alternative gameplay for our characters, which i hope will be shaped in development.

 

[Gurkhal]

Could a solution be for a character that the longer that character has held a non-hereditary office, the greater the relation penalty and a malus to the title would be in effect? Representing that a character puts his own people into subordinate positions and runs things his, or her, own way so that they both grow attached the position (this is a real phenomena) and mould its working after their own preferences on how to do that work?

My hope is that this would prevent Byzantium from either creating a governing dream team by moving people around and thus not always having the best people on the right position, or that as times goes by it will be difficult to just change someone from a position where they might cause problem as that will both certainly infuriate them and also make the replacement less effective for a time after the last long-lasting office holder left the office.

 

[Byzantium2000]

I wonder how female Characters would work in the more ambitious ideas and overhauls people present as I’m sure every knows their was no female Strategos, Douxs or Civil Governors In the Empire. I know one thing I absolutely detest Internal bordergore caused by Female Strategos marrying and having nondynatic characters in Ck2. Or a Child Strategos for that matter.

 

[Chlodio]

Very least, I would like not to see the Byzantine conquest of Ukraine and Turkistan. The issue in CKII stems from the preference for the "path of least resistance"; AI is always on warpath, even the most slothful and content rulers tend to attack when they see an opportunity. With the new development, AI might be able to figure it out. Let's say AI has a "desire factor" which is based on the province's development, culture, and religion. The development of Ukrainian provinces should be less than those of South Italy, thus even if the Italian provinces are Catholic (and not Orthodox) AI should see them as more worthwhile than those poor pagan provinces in Ukraine, I'd even say even if Ukrainian provinces are Orthodox, Byzantine AI should still be disinterred.

I have to say, while I like the inclusion of development, I find it wasted opportunity, for there should be a separation between the provinces with high infrastructure (high urbanization) and those with a high population.

 

[Yoann Bennett]

I Just want everything to be as historically accurate when it comes to governments. People made great points about giving unlanded characters so value. So that as long as your dynasty is alive and own some estate, they should always be a player in the grand scheme of things.