Purple Phoenix II?

[Fritzpower]

Dear Paradox,

I think I am not the only one who loves to play with Byz. There are a few possible achivements or national decisions that could be in the game.
There is however one to Restore the Roman Empire but that only happens if I restore the Eastern Roman Empire. It would be awesome if there
would be a decision or achivement to restore the WHOLE roman empire. Also I am sure you could add more unique events too. I would definetly
buy such a DLC and I am sure many others would.

Is there a chance you'd make Purple Phoenix 2?

 

[zodium]

I would guess no. The original Purple Phoenix decisions file actually contained a now-removed comment line along the lines of "#restore the Roman Empire(?)" with no c accompanying code, so I surmise it was considered and rejected,. At the risk of opening a can of worms, I would say rightly so.

I think there's a fair argument to be made for real continuity of Roman government up until the Fourth Crusade in 1204, but after that it gets real murky, like Papal continuity murky, and it's fair to call the reconstituted rump state existing in 1444 something other than the Roman Empire.

 

[henzington]

sadly the only way to get the roman empire into eu4 is to convert a ck2 game where you have made the decision.

 

[Thrake]

How about giving love to a country that is yet to have a DLC focused on it?

 

[AlphaSonic]

No, one DLC for a doomed minor it's enough.

 

[Fritzpower]

not doomed at all, I always beat the ottomans 1 out of 3 tries in 1.8 just as easy as it was in vanilla

 

[qijiang_ok]

As a Byzantine lover, I would buy this too.

 

[mercenarybraces]

not doomed at all, I always beat the ottomans 1 out of 3 tries in 1.8 just as easy as it was in vanilla

lovely quote reminds me of anchorman; its called sex panther, 60% of the time, it works every time!

 

[Zehir]

Byzantine Empire IS The Roman Empire.

 

[Pilot00]

I think there's a fair argument to be made for real continuity of Roman government up until the Fourth Crusade in 1204, but after that it gets real murky, like Papal continuity murky, and it's fair to call the reconstituted rump state existing in 1444 something other than the Roman Empire.

For historicity shake: Laskaris was appointed emperor at the last moment before the shacking of the city by the Crusaders, by what was left of the military and the citizens who took up arms in a last ditch defense. Seen as from there on the Nikeans continued the line of succession, it was a government in exile that returned after recapturing the city. So yes it was the same state.

Byzantine Empire IS The Roman Empire.

And since this was mentioned, given the fact that there was no 'Byzantine empire" but only the Roman one, restoring it akin to CK2 is totally bullcrap.
The only thing akin to it that can be made is something that dissolves the HRE and a declaration of restoration of borders and authority. Not a restoration of a state, since it already exists. The fact that is bleeding and near death is Irrelevant. The only thing that can be called something different is the term empire, since that stopped to be the case long ago.

However all the work to do this is pointless, the only thing necessary is to fix the damn mission roster and completely overhaul the stupid sprites (but the later one wont happen ever).

 

[zodium]

I'm no historian and don't really have the wherewithal to defend or critique any particular position. In my experience, it seems like virtually everyone agrees that Roman government ran continuously until 1204, and only then, depending on who you ask and how you ask them, may or may not have ran continued beyond that point. I'm not so much saying "rightly so" because I think one side is righter than the other, but because calling them the made-up Byzantium in 1444 (when they pretty much are just Byzantium anyway) sort of side steps the issue.

 

[Pilot00]

I'm no historian and don't really have the wherewithal to defend or critique any particular position. In my experience, it seems like virtually everyone agrees that Roman government ran continuously until 1204, and only then, depending on who you ask and how you ask them, may or may not have ran continued beyond that point. I'm not so much saying "rightly so" because I think one side is righter than the other, but because calling them the made-up Byzantium in 1444 (when they pretty much are just Byzantium anyway) sort of side steps the issue.

I am one myself (10 years of ancient and medieval history and I teach in a Uni now) so I can say I know what I am talking about. I can give some really good reads on the subject if you are interested. That said to prove the point will actually require an analysis best left out of a forum like this, cause it cant be summarized easily.

I am afraid right now I am too tired and my logic/English skills fail me so I dont understand quite clearly your last sentence. Can you make it a bit more clear plz?

 

[justin6477]

If we get another Rome DLC anytime soon, it'll more than likely be a 3rd Rome DLC.

 

[zodium]

I am one myself (10 years of ancient and medieval history and I teach in a Uni now) so I can say I know what I am talking about. I can give some really good reads on the subject if you are interested. That said to prove the point will actually require an analysis best left out of a forum like this, cause it cant be summarized easily.

I am afraid right now I am too tired and my logic/English skills fail me so I dont understand quite clearly your last sentence. Can you make it a bit more clear plz?

I don't doubt you understand the subject much better than I do. Let me try to state my position like so: the matter of continuity in Roman government post-1204 is complex beyond what can be simply and unequivocally explained by an expert to a layperson without risking another, equally authoritative expert objecting. This is purely based on watching academic historians get into Byzantine debates, and no credible knowledge of my own. I think your post largely agrees with this position. (For what it's worth, I tend to believe the Roman Empire fell with Constantinople.)

Given that a consensus position can't be readily stated, I think leaving the matter unspoken by just not including anything but the indisputable historical facts is pretty sensible. It's a weirdly touchy hot potato.

 

[Pilot00]

I don't doubt you understand the subject much better than I do. Let me try to state my position like so: the matter of continuity in Roman government post-1204 is complex beyond what can be simply and unequivocally explained by an expert to a layperson without risking another, equally authoritative expert objecting. This is purely based on watching academic historians get into Byzantine debates, and no credible knowledge of my own. I think your post largely agrees with this position. (For what it's worth, I tend to believe the Roman Empire fell with Constantinople.)

Given that a consensus position can't be readily stated, I think leaving the matter unspoken by just not including anything but the indisputable historical facts is pretty sensible. It's a weirdly touchy hot potato.

We agree completely and I want to assure you that I tossed my knowledge not as a leverage on the discussion but to say that I have searched this extensively. Hot potato doesn't even come close to it, it might start a war

 

[mrguymiah]

I am one myself (10 years of ancient and medieval history and I teach in a Uni now) so I can say I know what I am talking about. I can give some really good reads on the subject if you are interested. That said to prove the point will actually require an analysis best left out of a forum like this, cause it cant be summarized easily.

I am afraid right now I am too tired and my logic/English skills fail me so I dont understand quite clearly your last sentence. Can you make it a bit more clear plz?

1) Anyone can say they know what they're talking about. : P
2) He's saying that they didn't call it "the Byzantine Empire" unlike in other games, but instead called it "Byzantium" in game.
3) I would argue that the Byzantine Empire is a continuation of the Roman STATE, but not of the Roman CULTURE, for obvious reasons. I would posture that it is therefore acceptable to make the distinction that they're separate entities from a comparison standpoint, but the point of distinction is the muddy part.

-Some College Student

 

[Xinkc]

I would only support/buy a second Purple Phoenix if it was called "Purple Phoenix II: Electric Boogaloo".

 

[Viperswhip]

I wouldn't support any of them until they fix the Purple Phoenix first...have you guys played it, how often do the missions show up? Do they show up in a sensible order (as in, not a later mission first, like taking Aleppo)?

The short answer to that, at least for me in close to 10 60 or 70 year playthroughs of Byz (I am addicted to early game) is a resounding NO!

Basically I don't yet trust Paradox enough to actually make a working mission DLC.

 

[redomer]

I would love some more purple phonix stuff. Mainly new events and decisions regarding the recovery of lost land. Like egypt gets all its provinces renamed and some extra BT and manpower for the capital.

 

[mrguymiah]

I wouldn't support any of them until they fix the Purple Phoenix first...have you guys played it, how often do the missions show up? Do they show up in a sensible order (as in, not a later mission first, like taking Aleppo)?

The short answer to that, at least for me in close to 10 60 or 70 year playthroughs of Byz (I am addicted to early game) is a resounding NO!

Basically I don't yet trust Paradox enough to actually make a working mission DLC.

It worked for me. I got "Retake Greece" (I forget the exact wording, but that was the goal), then Asia Minor coast, then convert Asia minor coast, then take Anatolia. I got one for restoring the pentarchy once I'd destroyed the Ottos and was pushing into the Levant. So, for me at least, it all worked correctly.