November 1444: State of Byzantium

[Emperor Marcus]

There's another realistic possibility. A human-played third power like Venice, Austria Muscowy or even the Memelukes could want to try to keep it alive to weaken the Ottomans, and could manage to make that happen by vassalizing and then defending Byzantium. It makes the most sense for Venice, I think, though keeping the Ottomans at bay would not be easy for them. Austria and Muscowy are a bit far. Mamelukes would do it easily but its uncertain if they'd stand much to gain from it.

Possibly but as Venice i'd likely more want to control Constantinople than have it as a vassal. And as the NPC capital of hte BYZ you would have to take their holdings in greece as well to do that. Territorial control of a trade node is important for trade oriented nations like Venice.

 

[Alerias]

Possibly but as Venice i'd likely more want to control Constantinople than have it as a vassal. And as the NPC capital of hte BYZ you would have to take their holdings in greece as well to do that. Territorial control of a trade node is important for trade oriented nations like Venice.

Actually, we know vassals help your trade, though short on specifics. Its quite possible vassal land counts as friendly for the purposes of trade direction. Seizing Constantinople directly may be desirable but its hard to do; gotta annex the whole thing. Vassalization is likely possible in a single war, annexation might require two. And the Turks may be most hostile towards Venetian Constantinople, given the AI's traditional reluctance to DoW vassals.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

I like the idea of outwardly being a happy Ottoman Ally after improving relations; turning over Constantinople, and focusing on helping in things like the navy; and by getting colonies/trade; but once technologically westernized/very ahead and prepared to take revenge on the only remaining oppressor turning on the unsuspecting Ottomans; I hope the diplomacy option is viable.

 

[Projekt 919]

just my personal opinion. But any strategy that involves surrendering the city of the worlds desire makes me sick to my stoumach. and I think Constantine XI agrees with me...

..."To surrender the city to you is beyond my authority or anyone else's who lives in it, for all of us, after taking the mutual decision, shall die out of free will without sparing our lives." -Konstantinos XI Dragazes Palaiologos, Basileus and Autokrator of all the Romans (April 1453)

 

[Alerias]

Depends what you mean by surrender? Temporary and strategic vassalization or tribute seems in the cards given how weak BYZ is in '44.

Giving up the province itself is indeed heinous, but if it can't be avoided, after a defeat, it depends in part on the setup. If Byzantium owns Athens, as it should, and assuming that the Turks have no cores nor claims on Athens and Morea... well, the loss of the City would still be terrible but it would open the possibility of recovery in southern Greece, away from permanent Turkish hostility. It's definitely not a good day-1 strategy, but if forced to it, its better to use Greece to try to take it back than to simply give us. A 3 province minor BYZ can regain strength through conquests elsewhere and time can play in it's favor; something that isn't true with the barbarians at the gates.

I can at least appreciate a player who'll try to redeem a bad situation like that, more than someone who'll endlessly reload or restart to 'get it right'.

 

[Merrick Chance']

Eh, but you'd be surviving completely on Turkish goodwill, and you really can't compare to the Ottomans militarily if you give up the City.

 

[Alerias]

Eh, but you'd be surviving completely on Turkish goodwill, and you really can't compare to the Ottomans militarily if you give up the City.

Depends on the setup. If there are Turkish cores on Athens and Morea, absolutely, at that point, losing the City is losing everything. If there aren't, then it's not inherently stranger or less possible to play as a Morean BYZ than it is to try to play any other minor in the Balkans. I'm not saying its a good strategy, just saying that it might be possible to recover from such a loss given time. Lets face it, we're not going to compare to the Ottomans militarily in 44' in the first place. I'll certainly do anything to save the World's Desire, but every time it doesn't work, I'll at least explore other possibilities that could let me win it back in time.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Depends what you mean by surrender? Temporary and strategic vassalization or tribute seems in the cards given how weak BYZ is in '44.

Giving up the province itself is indeed heinous, but if it can't be avoided, after a defeat, it depends in part on the setup. If Byzantium owns Athens, as it should, and assuming that the Turks have no cores nor claims on Athens and Morea... well, the loss of the City would still be terrible but it would open the possibility of recovery in southern Greece, away from permanent Turkish hostility. It's definitely not a good day-1 strategy, but if forced to it, its better to use Greece to try to take it back than to simply give us. A 3 province minor BYZ can regain strength through conquests elsewhere and time can play in it's favor; something that isn't true with the barbarians at the gates.

I can at least appreciate a player who'll try to redeem a bad situation like that, more than someone who'll endlessly reload or restart to 'get it right'.

Lets not forget if you manage a leg up techwise you could retake Constantinople later; but if the Ottomans declare war on you the game is over after a very short period.

This isn't the world of EU3 where you start with a better navy; the Ottomans in a civil war where the government has no forces in Europe and many minors you could take over after taking the Ottomans European provinces; you have no chance; no chance at all if the previews give an accurate account.

 

[Alerias]

Lets not forget if you manage a leg up techwise you could retake Constantinople later; but if the Ottomans declare war on you the game is over after a very short period.

This isn't the world of EU3 where you start with a better navy; the Ottomans in a civil war where the government has no forces in Europe and many minors you could take over after taking the Ottomans European provinces; you have no chance; no chance at all if the previews give an accurate account.

Thats excessively gloomy. Johan is teasing us a bit, but the whole game design favors small nations over blobs, and the Ottomans, while stronger and under fewer threats, are far from the peak of their power. Meanwhile, BYZ is one province larger and the Serbs are no longer aligned with the barbarians. It won't be trivial, but you can be absolutely certain that in skilled player hands, the Empire will thrive again.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Thats excessively gloomy. Johan is teasing us a bit, but the whole game design favors small nations over blobs, and the Ottomans, while stronger and under fewer threats, are far from the peak of their power. Meanwhile, BYZ is one province larger and the Serbs are no longer aligned with the barbarians. It won't be trivial, but you can be absolutely certain that in skilled player hands, the Empire will thrive again.

In theory; but at the start of the game the game doesn't know who is agressive yet so Byzantines are first victims, and unless provinces are dramatically restructured everyone else is a one province minor with 1000 soldiers; nothing to threaten a small Ottoman stack; and the major powers have just been crushed at Varna and are in treaty with the Ottomans.

Unless I am much mistaken the Ottomans need only declare war to destroy the Byzantines so Byzantines must persuade Ottomans not to declare war?

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Lets not forget if you manage a leg up techwise you could retake Constantinople later; but if the Ottomans declare war on you the game is over after a very short period.

This isn't the world of EU3 where you start with a better navy; the Ottomans in a civil war where the government has no forces in Europe and many minors you could take over after taking the Ottomans European provinces; you have no chance; no chance at all if the previews give an accurate account.

Byzant is much much harder with the EU3 5.2 patch. 1444 is going to be almost impossible.



Achaea should have improved fortifications in 1444:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexamilion_wall

 

[Alerias]

I pulled off Granada, and I don't think Byzantium can be made nearly as challenging. But specifics are going to be scarce until we get that game in our paws. Until then, speculating it's super hard seems a bit hollow.

Traditionally, it's been hard but not that hard. Most the changes in Eu4 favor small powers over big ones. And hey, how many people here bothered to launch 5.2 post-Varna and play BYZ? I did, you can too.

 

[Jarren]

When the eventual CK2 to EUIV converter comes, i will transfer my Byzantine game to it, then bring the light of Rome to the farthest corners of the world!

 

[Emperor Marcus]

When the eventual CK2 to EUIV converter comes, i will transfer my Byzantine game to it, then bring the light of Rome to the farthest corners of the world!

Dunno about you but i nearly conquered the entire traditonal borders of the roman Empire by the late 13th century. With the exception of some German border regions and the Duchy of York in England.

If it went to played till 1444 AD in CK2 and converted it to EU4 god there wouldnt be much point in playing other than taking the Roman Empire to the new world and into India.

 

[Projekt 919]

That in itself is worth it. Presuming you survived for another couple of centuries after EU3 the roman empire could into SPACE.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

That in itself is worth it. Presuming you survived for another couple of centuries after EU3 the roman empire could into SPACE.

Or have it plunge into civil war that destroys everything you worked for imminently after not having the good graces of god by being played by a cunning player.

 

[Beylerbeyi]

just my personal opinion. But any strategy that involves surrendering the city of the worlds desire makes me sick to my stoumach. and I think Constantine XI agrees with me...

..."To surrender the city to you is beyond my authority or anyone else's who lives in it, for all of us, after taking the mutual decision, shall die out of free will without sparing our lives." -Konstantinos XI Dragazes Palaiologos, Basileus and Autokrator of all the Romans (April 1453)

Actually a contemporary account writes that when Mehmed II asked the Romans why they failed to surrender the city (the Genoans in Galata did), they replied that they wanted to surrender but the Latins forced them to fight.

The Conqueror did not just want the city but also the Imperial title. That's another reason why "Byzantium" had zero chance to survive. Mehmed II eliminated the Trebizond Empire soon after he took the city. He had a grand plan. He wanted the world. He could not be bribed by tribute or vassalage. If he failed, maybe his son, Bayezid II wouldn't dare with Cem in rebellion, but his grandson Selim definitely would. If Selim couldn't, Süleyman surely would, and so on and so forth. Ottomans had no shortage of ambitious Sultans who wanted to conquer the world...

 

[Yasko]

Yep, Mehmed II actively tried to annex every bit of land that could be called "Roman Empire". His policy like Beylerbeyi says was to becoming The Emperor and get rid of all potential competitors.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

Yep, Mehmed II actively tried to annex every bit of land that could be called "Roman Empire". His policy like Beylerbeyi says was to becoming The Emperor and get rid of all potential competitors.

Mehmed II sounds exactly like how I am ingame... I may have to reconsider playing Ottomans after my Byzantine Campaign.

 

[Borne2Run]

If Byzantium lives to 1550 then they should get the option of selling the city to the highest bidder; so that the Emperor may fund an expedition to the Americas, and found a new Roman Empire.