November 1444: State of Byzantium

[flame7926]

WW1 it was attempted, most have slowed it down, but never completely stopped transportation

Yeah I remember that the Entente lost lots of ships trying to. So why should it be able to happen in this time period? Coastal defenses would have destroyed the ships.

 

[EMT0]

I'd bet on Granada going Al-Andalus on the Iberian Peninsula's ass by itself when it was on its last legs having its capital sieged before I'd take a bet on Byzantium surviving. Just sayin'. Chamboozer has nailed the point in so thoroughly that I can't understand how Byzantophiles can continue to insist that it was in any way, shape or form possible, aside from divine intervention. And especially at that date. Byzantium's fate was arguably sealed at Manzikert.

I'm going to make on things I'd bet on before I'd bet on Byzantium surviving to illustrate how hopeless I think their situation was. I'd bet on:

The Inca/Aztecs crushing the Spanish invasion 'armies' (easily)
1880s Qing China beating Japan in a war
Trebizond reforming the Roman Empire
The Netherlands holding back Nazi Germany on its own
Mussolini's Italy reforming the Roman Empire
Bolivia in a game of Victoria 2 coming out a Great Power by the end of it

I'm sorry, I used to be a Byzantophile for a while, but the Byzzies were toast. And then I learned the glories of being a Turkophile...

 

[Garak]

I'd bet on Granada going Al-Andalus on the Iberian Peninsula's ass by itself when it was on its last legs having its capital sieged before I'd take a bet on Byzantium surviving. Just sayin'. Chamboozer has nailed the point in so thoroughly that I can't understand how Byzantophiles can continue to insist that it was in any way, shape or form possible, aside from divine intervention. And especially at that date. Byzantium's fate was arguably sealed at Manzikert.

I'm going to make on things I'd bet on before I'd bet on Byzantium surviving to illustrate how hopeless I think their situation was. I'd bet on:

The Inca/Aztecs crushing the Spanish invasion 'armies' (easily)
1880s Qing China beating Japan in a war
Trebizond reforming the Roman Empire
The Netherlands holding back Nazi Germany on its own
Mussolini's Italy reforming the Roman Empire
Bolivia in a game of Victoria 2 coming out a Great Power by the end of it

I'm sorry, I used to be a Byzantophile for a while, but the Byzzies were toast. And then I learned the glories of being a Turkophile...

Because you can't be interested in or enjoy the history and culture of both? :wacko:

 

[Alerias]

It's cheap because the AI is bad at responding to it. It's too easy for the player to do, and the AI does poorly at responding to it. As Byzantium, all you need to do is set up a patrol, and the AI can't respond, Ship goes out, cuts off troops movement, fleet goes out to intercept, but when your ship goes back in again, then the fleet cancels it's move. If you're another power, it makes the fight too easy.

In MP I have no problems with it. Humans don't do stupid things like not build enough fleets (or delete all your fleets when you unlock a tech), or move all your armies to one side of the strait. The AI is also incapable of properly using naval transports, and always uses marching and never tries to transport by sea.

Too easy to exploit.

Then lets hope the EU4 AI is better Bottom line, if you play SP, youll always be "exploiting the AI" even if its accidently, its part of the game. But its too early to say how much better or worse EU4's will be, surely they'll take a pass at improving it.

 

[Connor Mulhern]

Because you can't be interested in or enjoy the history and culture of both? :wacko:

Eh, the byz lovers seems to completely ignore history, which annoys those who want a game to be semi-realistic. I have zero problems with greeks, they may make inferior kebaps and doners, but they are passable, if they dont bother me I dont bother them (well there was this one time though when the greek orthodox church was petitioning the city to close down by favourite turkish restaurant because everybody was going there rather than getting their crappy gyros, but that is another story). We want the mechanics to be working, I wish they had just chosen a 1453 start, would make everything way easier for this

 

[Alerias]

Why, exactly?

Yes, I'm well aware historically Byzantium was on life support in 1444. But a skilled player with alot of luck can turn around anything in these games, its just the way it is. I've done a quasi-WC with Granada. Fortunately for you, you dont have to play Byzantium, and you can even set your start date to 1453 whenever you wish. Furthermore, I'll add that I'm certain AI Byzantium will fall in short other every time, as it should, so none of this impacts your games. Finally, I actually love the Ottomans too, and I'll certainly play many games as them as well. This is really not an either-or situation, and setting the start to 1453 achieves nothing except spite players who enjoy a little in-extremis alternate history; it made a huge mess last time, I dont see why we'd want a repeat of that. 1444 is a pretty good start point, giving us 50 years before the new world gameplay kicks in.

And hey, it's a moddable game. You can make Byzantium fall in 1439 in your game files if you wish. Just as I'll be able to restore the EU3 cores if they get nerfed any further.

 

[tvremote84]

You know, one could argue that if the Byzantines don't fall then the entire point/scope of EU doesn't really make sense. The fall of Constantinople was the final nail in the coffin of the Christian west getting access to sweet sweet Asian trade. This, amongst other factors, lead to the search of a western rout, which in turn led to the age of discovery. Add to that the fact that the renaissance was fueled by fleeing Greek scholars heading to Italy, revitalizing interest in classical thought and the advent of humanism in Europe.

So really, if Byzantium doesn't fall half of the reason this game exists in the first place is gone. What I'm trying to say is that in this alternate history there would be no real incentive for western Europe to do all the things they did historically during the time frame of this game. Also I'm pretty tired as I write this so hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.

 

[Alerias]

You know, one could argue that if the Byzantines don't fall then the entire point/scope of EU doesn't really make sense. The fall of Constantinople was the final nail in the coffin of the Christian west getting access to sweet sweet Asian trade. This, amongst other factors, lead to the search of a western rout, which in turn led to the age of discovery. Add to that the fact that the renaissance was fueled by fleeing Greek scholars heading to Italy, revitalizing interest in classical thought and the advent of humanism in Europe.

So really, if Byzantium doesn't fall half of the reason this game exists in the first place is gone. What I'm trying to say is that in this alternate history there would be no real incentive for western Europe to do all the things they did historically during the time frame of this game. Also I'm pretty tired as I write this so hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.

I get it and its a good point. Part of which is already accounted for, though. For instance, if Byz never falls, the Catholics never get access to the sweet Byzantine Refugees decision, which is a big among early tech boosts. The link to exploration tech is admittedly more tenuous, but one could argue that without Byz Refugees, itll logically longer for western nations to come up with the tech to cross the Atlantic.

Still, I agree this could be modeled better. I find it absolutely likely and believable that if Constantinople holds, it could take 10-30 years longer for sea exploration to kick in (Still would have I'm sure). I'd be thrilled to see this modeled, really. But OFC it has to work both ways; if we code in penalties for Byzantiums survival, we need advantages too. Meaning there should be a pretty sweet land-based trade route across Constantinople that gives the World's Desire alot of wealth, and make it's fall all the more relevant. Thats entirely historical, after all, and would make a good tradeoff. The more I think about it, the more I like that idea.

 

[Chamboozer]

Constantinople was nearly irrelevant for east-west trade in 1444 anyway, it mostly went through Egypt for the Red Sea route, and for the Gulf/Overland route: Aleppo, Bursa, and Trebizond. Indeed, the Fall of Constantinople was largely symbolic - though increase of interest in classical thought did happen as a result.

 

[Alerias]

Given that Johan told us trade routes are static, I'd still expect an hefty of these "static trade routes" (whatever that actually means), goes through Constantinople/Istanbul. For geographical reasons alone, that seems like a given.

 

[Chamboozer]

Yeah, it certainly makes more sense to do it that way for the vast majority of the timeline, I was just clarifying the situation before 1453.

 

[Faeelin]

I agree with those who claim anything could happen.

The game needs to have events to represent time travelers giving Granada Ak-47s and reconquering Al-Andalus.

Anything can happen!

 

[Faeelin]

Them's fightin' words :glare:

This isn't the era of nationalism, cores have more to do with the legitimacy of rulers control over land, and very few would deny that the natural land of a resurgent Byzantium includes more than Greece proper. All land under Turkish occupation that once belonged to Byzantium is still Byzantine de jure in the eyes of the Christian world, and everyone would breathe a sigh of relief to see Byzantium somehow driving the Turks back, hence why the Catholics just tried to do just that and failed on the day the game starts. Had the war been successful, the aim was to restore the Empire as much as possible and drive the Turks out, not set up independent states in Bulgaria or such nonsense. The Byzantine cores belong, all the way to Trebizon and Adana in the east, and to the Danube in the North.

Cores also recognize whether the provinces' subjects recognize the rule as legitimate. I don't think the Turks of Anatolia were gonna go for that.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Eh, the byz lovers seems to completely ignore history, which annoys those who want a game to be semi-realistic. I have zero problems with greeks, they may make inferior kebaps and doners, but they are passable, if they dont bother me I dont bother them (well there was this one time though when the greek orthodox church was petitioning the city to close down by favourite turkish restaurant because everybody was going there rather than getting their crappy gyros, but that is another story). We want the mechanics to be working, I wish they had just chosen a 1453 start, would make everything way easier for this

I believe that it was rather your argument in technology thread that the game should not be historically deterministic. So, yeah, the Ottomans could not dominate the world and Byzantine was not luckily to survive. Deterministic?

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Given that Johan told us trade routes are static, I'd still expect an hefty of these "static trade routes" (whatever that actually means), goes through Constantinople/Istanbul. For geographical reasons alone, that seems like a given.

it's a shame they're stating, but given the CPU power they'd eat if not probably for the best. What I do hope however is that Johan allows for the appearing and disappearing of traderoutes via event/commands (like when a traderoute drops below a value of say 100 ducats.) That way some change could at least be simulated.

 

[Captain Gars]

it's a shame they're stating, but given the CPU power they'd eat if not probably for the best. What I do hope however is that Johan allows for the appearing and disappearing of traderoutes via event/commands (like when a traderoute drops below a value of say 100 ducats.) That way some change could at least be simulated.

But why do you need to drop it? It's possible that the trade between two nodes drop to zero so no trade moves between them but the connection is still there should this change.

 

[Macs]

But why do you need to drop it? It's possible that the trade between two nodes drop to zero so no trade moves between them but the connection is still there should this change.

Paradox, you really are truly evil. The game's still a year away and I can't wait for more information on the trade system. It looks extremely interesting.

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

But why do you need to drop it? It's possible that the trade between two nodes drop to zero so no trade moves between them but the connection is still there should this change.

for modding purposes mostly

 

[Don_Quigleone]

for modding purposes mostly

Seconded. Likewise the creation of routes.

 

[vertinox]

I was just pointing out the irony of the statement as you wrote it, not making a serious case for the plausibility of a Castillian invasion of Greece.

I think in my first game of EU4 I'm going to take a -3 stab hit just to dow Ottomans as Castille on day 1 of the game.