Because ^
And I would hardly call the extend and the number of the two empires posted 'everyone' and 'posing'. There are far more humongous empires posted with far worse starting positions. I am onto building a Trebizond -> Greece now.
Please Paradox make Byzantium playable and fun, like it was in 1.3 and 1.4.
- Thread starter torda
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Because ^
And I would hardly call the extend and the number of the two empires posted 'everyone' and 'posing'. There are far more humongous empires posted with far worse starting positions. I am onto building a Trebizond -> Greece now.
Out of curiosity, are you playing with the Byzantium themed DLC or not. I haven't tried this, so I wanted to know if the DLC is impacted by the newest patchOttoman is killing me every game now and I don't know what to do! There was ways to survive in last patches, but now its too hard in my opinion. I'm not good at this game, but playing byzantium was fun.
Please do some changes. Crying, whining, boohoo
Does everyone realize how screwed Byzantium was by 1444? It was basically an Ottoman vassal state, forced to pay tribute, etc. Needed Ottoman permission to be crowned, had devolved from the once resplendent city into really a collection of villages, separated by their own palisades. Even the palace of Blachernae was just a shadow of its former glory. The Theodosian Walls, which had stood defiant to even the greatest armies, where in ill repair. At coronations, the feast was served on clay and pewter plates, the crown jewels actually glass, having been sold to pay for bankrupting civil wars. The combined forces of Byzantium numbered some 4,000 (in 1453 an additional 4,000 Latins came to help). Constantine XI, upon succession, had to beg his way to afford passage on a boat back to the capital...yeah. Ottomans, meanwhile, numbered somewhere between 80,000 and 160,000, where richer, technologically superior, better trained (the Hungarians knew all too well). Basically, starting as the Romans should be quite nearly impossible.
I would agree with you totally on that. My only concern is that if the OP was playing the Purple Phoenix DLC, which is supposed to give them a half a chance, as I understand it (haven't played them), then that poses a problem, since then the patch nullifies the usefulness of the DLC, which is not acceptable. If the OP did not use that DLC, then I would just say it is WAD most likely.
that bad hun? still didn´t Constantinople last for a long time? up until 1453ish? but I bet it was more because Morad the conqueror wasn´t in the mood then anything else lol
I also saw a documentary on the ottomans, when they siege Constantinople for the last time, the greeks were able to cut off the Bosporus strait, using special nets, the ottos use were able to transport their ships trow land using tree trunks to move the ships and attacked Constantinople in the rear!, dam, you simply don´t mess with the ottomans! unless its the 19th century
that bad hun? still didn´t Constantinople last for a long time? up until 1453ish? but I bet it was more because Morad the conqueror wasn´t in the mood then anything else lol
I also saw a documentary on the ottomans, when they siege Constantinople for the last time, the greeks were able to cut off the Bosporus strait, using special nets, the ottos use were able to transport their ships trow land using tree trunks to move the ships and attacked Constantinople in the rear!, dam, you simply don´t mess with the ottomans! unless its the 19th century
Yeah, that giant chain really messed with attackers. The reasons for Byzantium's continued survival had very little to do with their own strength. For one, Murad II, Mehmed's daddy, wanted peace and feared a Crusade might be called against him, as had been threatened in the past. Then, Byzantium had a pretender to his throne in prison, who they would threaten to release should he try anything. Finally, the walls were still some of the most impressive human fortifications known to man. So yeah, it lasted, but more because of luck than its own ability. They were BROKE. As in, couldn't afford to book passage on a ship or pay civil servants.
This is ridiculous, the Byzantines didn't really have a shot of surviving by 1444. They were too far gone and the Ottomans had already gained too much ground. Keep in mind they were wiped out in 1453, 9 years after game start, and the only reason it didn't happen earlier was pretty much because the Ottomans didn't decide to attack until 1453. The siege only lasted a month and a half...
Asking Paradox to make a Byzantine start anything other than lose almost every time is just asking for a blatantly ahistorical start for 1444. I agree that this game isn't and shouldn't be a history simulator once you start the game, but at game start, it should be accurate. Do you want them to add in the Roman Empire from the start in 1444 just because you want to play it? You can always play the Byzantines in Crusader Kings 2.
Asking Paradox to make a Byzantine start anything other than lose almost every time is just asking for a blatantly ahistorical start for 1444. I agree that this game isn't and shouldn't be a history simulator once you start the game, but at game start, it should be accurate. Do you want them to add in the Roman Empire from the start in 1444 just because you want to play it? You can always play the Byzantines in Crusader Kings 2.
For the AI, yes. For the player, why should it be more impossible than every other tiny, doomed, almost-dead nation on the map?
We like playing as Byzantium. It should be very tough but doable, at least.
The real question is: Does everyone realize that this is a game and everyone has a right to ask how to turn around a screwed up situation in that game with out been criticized for it?
Please, let's separate "historical" from "plausible". Burgundy in 1444 was a rising power that was culled by a badly-timed death; Byzantium in 1444 was a starving city, 80% of it empty ruins, which controlled almost nothing out of its walls.
The thing is in all of the playthroughs you start as an OPM or a dying nation in this game you never survive alone. You form alliances which 90% of time had no real interest to help you and you are taking loans from an invisible institution that doesn't take note of the worlds political situation. So again you guys are speaking about history in these kinds of arguments, but contrary when it doesn't suit your purposes you advocate that this is a game and history has no place.
And for all intents and purposes it is a game. History was written up to 1444 as far as we are consearned. Up to there till 1821 history will be written inside the confines of game mechanics, those and the players skill and ploys write the history of the game.
And the game itself is quite ahistorical, and this can be easily showcased by some national decisions that didnt even happen in during its time frame.
Half of the magic that is this small nation is to turn around the tables. If you guys want 'historical' dominance why don't you play the Ottos, France or Castile instead? Nobody forced you to play the Byzies in the end or save them.
It's not about history, it's about plausibility.
Byzantium survival should be as hard as Nazi Germany winning world war II in February 1945.
Byzantium survival should be as hard as Nazi Germany winning world war II in February 1945.
No, no. I am all AGAINST Byzantium being absolutely unplayable. I just want for it to be extraordinarily difficult - because it would have been.
The game is giving a decade to the Byzies than the thirty days you are giving the Germans. The world from the onset of those 9 years could have a thousand different outcomes with miniscule changes in it.
It wasn't the easiest thing in the world last patch. Not being able to release your vassals for a truce with the Ottomans seems like a bug because the option just doesn't show up.
I would contest the tech part; they were broke which is why they didn't match the Ottomans but they did actively try to get pretty much everything the Ottomans did.
You are an "emperor" completely surrounded by a expansionist colossus.
You have no money, your possible allies were crushed a while ago and the other don't like you. You don't have men nor good weapons, which your rival have.
Don't know how you think, but sounds pretty f**** up to me, not very different from the germans, considering that two months of warfare in WW2 meant a lot in 1444.
"durr it's a game."
It's a non-argument, I was following a playthrough of a guy that unified Germany as Ulm, you can, but you need to think outside of the machine a little instead of "press the button to win" (consider that I'm in no way insulting you).
If blobing hard should be completely possible, why I don't see people complaining WC being impossible as Navarra?
Last edited:
Ok then, you are some omnipotent being that knows every detail of what would happen between those nine years had something turned completely different? There are a lot what ifs and believe me historians have worked out plausible scenarios on the empires survival. Weather you believe it or not. I can direct you to some things to read if you interested, PM. Ofc historians are in our age are non-issue, if Wikipedia says the byzies were done for they were done for....
What are you talking about? What all these have to do with our discussion? Who told you that we are saying to go all easy and think inside the box? Where did you read press the button to win thing? What is that random comments about Navarra and someones playthrough? I said the magic of the Byzie playthrough is to overcome the adversity and with a stroke of luck and skill manage to survive. Navara, Byzies, Ulm Aztechs, Nomans land, if the player can do it nobody has the right to say it cant be done and that nation/city/whatever must be destroyed all the time because it did in history.
Before you make arguments and start with statements such as 'durr you are making no arguements' I suggest you read what the other party is saying to you first, and put some thought and effort into understanding whats been said. Because it was painfully obvious you didn't.
The Empire was at a sorry state in 1444. But let's not forget some things: Morea was in many purposes a vassal state, and the Latins of Athens were themselves tributary to the Morean Despots. The Empire was also allowed to recruit men from Crete, and enjoyed a special prestige amongst Europe. Let's remember that an even feebler empire in 1402 was saved and doubled it's territory.
Of course such luck is rare, but it would not be impossible for John VIII to request aid from the west, perhaps an anual excursion like that of Manuel II, and begin to reconquer the various greek islands.
Starting with those nearest, advancing to Cyprus and then to Naxos and Crete. Perhaps a pact could be made with the Genoese, granting them continual trading privileges and a couple of conquered towns, in exchange for ships and men. Constantinople could potentially survive the siege of 1453 with more reinforcements and mercenaries from the extra lands. Or perhaps the city would fall but the emperor would preserve the Morea and the islands by providing the Sultan with tribute (as the Morean despotate did after the city fell).
If 1453 failed, perhaps the Hungarians and Serbians would advance, like the second siege of Vienna where the retreating Ottomans completely lost their chance at subduing Austria and losing Hungary in the process.
Of course such luck is rare, but it would not be impossible for John VIII to request aid from the west, perhaps an anual excursion like that of Manuel II, and begin to reconquer the various greek islands.
Starting with those nearest, advancing to Cyprus and then to Naxos and Crete. Perhaps a pact could be made with the Genoese, granting them continual trading privileges and a couple of conquered towns, in exchange for ships and men. Constantinople could potentially survive the siege of 1453 with more reinforcements and mercenaries from the extra lands. Or perhaps the city would fall but the emperor would preserve the Morea and the islands by providing the Sultan with tribute (as the Morean despotate did after the city fell).
If 1453 failed, perhaps the Hungarians and Serbians would advance, like the second siege of Vienna where the retreating Ottomans completely lost their chance at subduing Austria and losing Hungary in the process.
Last edited:
Wow, wow, i acknowledge that my Anti-byzziephila made me jump in conclusions, but why so aggressive?