This was originally a post on reddit, got told to post it here, so copying pasting everything from reddit. Hopefully the devs see it. Feel free to criticize or give suggestions to improve this.
Why did Byzantium historically fall to the Ottomans? In eu4, you might think because it's armies and fortifications were simply just as bad as say Karaman's, but while the army part IS true, arguably even more so than in eu4, the fortification part most certainly is not.
[WARNING, HISTORY DISCLAIMER]
The Theodosian Walls protected Constantinople for thousands of years, they only fell in 1204 because the Byzantines thought it was just another coup, and not crusaders coming in to ransack their city, and in 1453 the Ottomans only got in after a defender left a gate open. This was after they had 80,000 men repeatedly attack the walls in a devastating 53 day siege(to the Ottomans that is, they suffered massive casualties, the Theodosian Walls rubble actually absorbed the ottomans cannon shots better than the walls themselves, and the Byzantines could repair them just as fast as the ottomans broke them) They even did the famous maneuver of lugging ships OVERLAND just to get them in the Golden Horn to open up another front against the city's weaker sea walls, but the city still didn't fall until that one defender left a gate open. The Morean fortifications on the other hand, were far weaker than the theodosian walls, and failed almost every time they were put into use, but they were not inherently weak. Rather, they were only useful if one had control of the ocean, and by the time the Byzantines only had the Morea left, they most certainly did not. The byzantines however, could not take full advantage of their fortifications because they had almost no navy whatsoever, they had an army of possibly 5,000 or so, and they were bankrupt. The despotate of Morea also had a large degree of autonomy, almost to the degree of being a vassal, and it's Hexamillion wall was it's main defense. Athens was more of a tributary than a full-blown vassal state.
[HISTORY DISCLAIMER OVER!]
So how can we more accurately represent Byzantium's position at start, would it even add to the enjoyment of the game to more accurately represent it? I think we can more accurately represent some elements.
First off, let's try to more accurately represent Morea's defenses. While the fort connecting Achaea to Yanya could be argued for, once Paradox adds another province to the Morea in the upcoming 1.2.9 update it will completely break any point of defending Morea, as you'll now have to build 2 forts to defend 3 provinces, while the whole historical appeal of drawing back to it was that there was only a 6 mile gap you had to defend. Literally defending Yanya, where historically you had to defend practically the whole of Greece, is more practical than defending the Morea ingame currently, despite it making no sense historically. While the fort mechanics ingame are questionable, I'll try to make it make sense with what we have.
The Changes:
First, as Paradox are adding a third province to Morea in 1.2.9, let's delete the straight connecting Epirus to Morea. Now we have 1 fort protecting 3 provinces, but it's still strategically better to protect Yanya than Achaea, so how can we make it more appealing to simply withdraw back to Morea? I see a couple options, none of them perfect, but I'll list them.
*Change Achaea to mountain terrain.
This would be somewhat inaccurate, as it wasn't completely mountains historically, but it would represent the strategic situation on the peninsula more accurately, as it would both make sieges take longer and make it easier to beat sieging armies, while adding no new elements to the game.
*Change greek ideas to include fort defense.(maybe 33-50%?)
This would somewhat solve the problem, making Morea harder to take early game, but you'll still have the problem of why not just feed Morea up to Yanya? Although it would probably just be better for Byzantium to annex them anyway, as they start with cores on all the land, so it may not be as large a problem as it seems.
*Add a province modifier for +50% fort defense(or similar)
Personally, I think this is the best option, as it most accurately represents the situation, without changing it's terrain, although I think Paradox is less likely to implement this as they prefer to keep province modifiers to buff their favorite countries *cough* swedish mines *cough* anyway, this would make Morea attractive to defend, although it would still have to compete with Yanya in some cases as your defending less and getting only a -1 penalty to attackers in combat opposed to mountain's -2, but it would be a large improvement nonetheless.
The hexamillion failed in history because the defender almost never had control over the sea, and it would still be useless even with the above buffs if the defenders didn't(the attackers can just land troops in lower Morea) but this WOULD more accurately represent the potential the peninsula had for defense, given the defenders did have control over the seas, and representing historical scenarios accurately to allow for detailed alternate histories is part of the fun of eu4.
Now let's deal with Constantinople, personally, I see two options, adding one or both could more accurately represent Byzantium
*Make it a level 4(5 if capital) fort
This is one I think LEAST likely to be implemented by Paradox, but I remember some mod I used to play(it may have been 1356 start date, but don't quote me) did this. This would most accurately represent Byzantium's situation by doing two things. One, it would make it much harder to siege, although not as hard as it was historically, this would I think be the best balance between gameplay and reality, as this fort would make Constantinople costly to siege at the beginning of the game, mirroring why they didn't fall in reality, but slowly lose its value later in the game as cannons and hire level forts come into play. The second benefit would be more accurately mirroring Byzantium's bankruptcy, they simply couldn't afford to raise a large army. With 2 ducats going down the drain into maintaining their Theodosian walls, they couldn't afford to maintain a large army. I feel this is almost too perfect, it highlights all the strengths and weaknesses the Theodosian walls had in real life. (They were nearly impregnable, and costed insane amounts to even attempt to siege, but also were so costly to afford the Byzantines could barely maintain them with their land they had, and they slowly got less and less useful over time as artillery came into play)To summarize, if only one change was done to Constantinople, making it a level 4 fort at start would both capture how hard it was to siege, and the late Byzantines historic tendency to go bankrupt, partly because they couldn't afford to maintain their capital's walls.
*Add a province modifier similar to the Hexamillion(+50% fort defense or similar, should be higher than the Hexamillion though, as the defenses here were MUCH stronger)
While this wouldn't be as good as the above, partly because it wouldn't mirror the financial cost of maintaining the walls, it would still show how hard the walls were to siege in real life, there was a reason the Ottomans couldn't take them for a hundred years after the Byzantines were pushed back into just their capital and the Morean peninsula.
Now let's talk about vassals. The Despotate of Morea had significant autonomy, so it would make both historic and gameplay sense for it to be a vassal. If Paradox ever DOES to another focus on the greek region(has been awhile) it would be nice if they could add in a unique government for the byzantines, reflecting their special relationship with their vassals and the themes, but I digress. That's a separate topic, and probably me caring too much about a 3 province minor at the start of the game, even if it is the roman empire. Also, Athens was a tributary, not a vassal of Byzantium. While this could be solved by the above special government type to more accurately reflect this... if we're not adding dramatic new mechanics, they really should be independant, not a vassal, to maintain consistency. What am I talking about? Muscovy was technically a tributary of the Great Horde, but they start out independant, because that was closer to their actual historical relationship. Same holds true for Athens, unless the Byzantines are getting a new government form to more accurately represent this, Athens should be independant.
Miscellaneous changes:
Byzantium should have historical friends modifier with Trebizond and Theodoro, it makes no sense that they dont, they were successor states of the same empire, and Trebizond even recognized Byzantium's supremacy at one point. If Trebizond and Theodoro are historical friends, it makes no sense that both aren't historical friends with the Byzantines. With Epirus getting added as an independant state, I'd also argue that when added, they should also get historical friends with the Byzantines. While it wouldn't alter gameplay much as you can usually secure these alliances at the start of the game or shortly after anyway, it would be nice flavor, and it's a bit weird that Paradox decided to give Trebizond and Theodoro historical friends but neither the modifier with Byzantium. This last one I'm about to say is one change I'm unsure about, but I think could help model the Hexamillion's defenses better, change Morea's capital to Achaea. While historically the capital was in the south, capitals in eu4 don't matter much as long as they're in the same trade node, or on terrain thats great for developing(neither of these are), except for adding another fort level. This could help more accurately portray the Hexamillion's defensive potential while requiring minimal effort from Paradox.
(EDIT: The map also doesn't include my suggestions for Athens to be independant, or for Morea's capital to be moved upwards, or for the straight from Epirus-Achaea to be removed, sorry)
Conclusion:
If you got through all of this, well, thank you. Took me awhile to type and come up with all of this. I really do like Byzantine history, and I tried with the above suggestions to mirror their position in 1444 more with history, without sacrificing gameplay too much. If anyone has some suggestions, then comment them, I'd love to hear them! Hopefully Paradox will see this, but even if they don't, if your a modder(pretty small likelihood I know, probably nobody will read or upvote this anyway) I would definitely play a mod that implemented some/all of these changes! Any feedback/criticism is welcome, and I think that's about it, I dont want to bore you any more than I already have, thanks for reading!
Why did Byzantium historically fall to the Ottomans? In eu4, you might think because it's armies and fortifications were simply just as bad as say Karaman's, but while the army part IS true, arguably even more so than in eu4, the fortification part most certainly is not.
[WARNING, HISTORY DISCLAIMER]
The Theodosian Walls protected Constantinople for thousands of years, they only fell in 1204 because the Byzantines thought it was just another coup, and not crusaders coming in to ransack their city, and in 1453 the Ottomans only got in after a defender left a gate open. This was after they had 80,000 men repeatedly attack the walls in a devastating 53 day siege(to the Ottomans that is, they suffered massive casualties, the Theodosian Walls rubble actually absorbed the ottomans cannon shots better than the walls themselves, and the Byzantines could repair them just as fast as the ottomans broke them) They even did the famous maneuver of lugging ships OVERLAND just to get them in the Golden Horn to open up another front against the city's weaker sea walls, but the city still didn't fall until that one defender left a gate open. The Morean fortifications on the other hand, were far weaker than the theodosian walls, and failed almost every time they were put into use, but they were not inherently weak. Rather, they were only useful if one had control of the ocean, and by the time the Byzantines only had the Morea left, they most certainly did not. The byzantines however, could not take full advantage of their fortifications because they had almost no navy whatsoever, they had an army of possibly 5,000 or so, and they were bankrupt. The despotate of Morea also had a large degree of autonomy, almost to the degree of being a vassal, and it's Hexamillion wall was it's main defense. Athens was more of a tributary than a full-blown vassal state.
[HISTORY DISCLAIMER OVER!]
So how can we more accurately represent Byzantium's position at start, would it even add to the enjoyment of the game to more accurately represent it? I think we can more accurately represent some elements.
First off, let's try to more accurately represent Morea's defenses. While the fort connecting Achaea to Yanya could be argued for, once Paradox adds another province to the Morea in the upcoming 1.2.9 update it will completely break any point of defending Morea, as you'll now have to build 2 forts to defend 3 provinces, while the whole historical appeal of drawing back to it was that there was only a 6 mile gap you had to defend. Literally defending Yanya, where historically you had to defend practically the whole of Greece, is more practical than defending the Morea ingame currently, despite it making no sense historically. While the fort mechanics ingame are questionable, I'll try to make it make sense with what we have.
The Changes:
First, as Paradox are adding a third province to Morea in 1.2.9, let's delete the straight connecting Epirus to Morea. Now we have 1 fort protecting 3 provinces, but it's still strategically better to protect Yanya than Achaea, so how can we make it more appealing to simply withdraw back to Morea? I see a couple options, none of them perfect, but I'll list them.
*Change Achaea to mountain terrain.
This would be somewhat inaccurate, as it wasn't completely mountains historically, but it would represent the strategic situation on the peninsula more accurately, as it would both make sieges take longer and make it easier to beat sieging armies, while adding no new elements to the game.
*Change greek ideas to include fort defense.(maybe 33-50%?)
This would somewhat solve the problem, making Morea harder to take early game, but you'll still have the problem of why not just feed Morea up to Yanya? Although it would probably just be better for Byzantium to annex them anyway, as they start with cores on all the land, so it may not be as large a problem as it seems.
*Add a province modifier for +50% fort defense(or similar)
Personally, I think this is the best option, as it most accurately represents the situation, without changing it's terrain, although I think Paradox is less likely to implement this as they prefer to keep province modifiers to buff their favorite countries *cough* swedish mines *cough* anyway, this would make Morea attractive to defend, although it would still have to compete with Yanya in some cases as your defending less and getting only a -1 penalty to attackers in combat opposed to mountain's -2, but it would be a large improvement nonetheless.
The hexamillion failed in history because the defender almost never had control over the sea, and it would still be useless even with the above buffs if the defenders didn't(the attackers can just land troops in lower Morea) but this WOULD more accurately represent the potential the peninsula had for defense, given the defenders did have control over the seas, and representing historical scenarios accurately to allow for detailed alternate histories is part of the fun of eu4.
Now let's deal with Constantinople, personally, I see two options, adding one or both could more accurately represent Byzantium
*Make it a level 4(5 if capital) fort
This is one I think LEAST likely to be implemented by Paradox, but I remember some mod I used to play(it may have been 1356 start date, but don't quote me) did this. This would most accurately represent Byzantium's situation by doing two things. One, it would make it much harder to siege, although not as hard as it was historically, this would I think be the best balance between gameplay and reality, as this fort would make Constantinople costly to siege at the beginning of the game, mirroring why they didn't fall in reality, but slowly lose its value later in the game as cannons and hire level forts come into play. The second benefit would be more accurately mirroring Byzantium's bankruptcy, they simply couldn't afford to raise a large army. With 2 ducats going down the drain into maintaining their Theodosian walls, they couldn't afford to maintain a large army. I feel this is almost too perfect, it highlights all the strengths and weaknesses the Theodosian walls had in real life. (They were nearly impregnable, and costed insane amounts to even attempt to siege, but also were so costly to afford the Byzantines could barely maintain them with their land they had, and they slowly got less and less useful over time as artillery came into play)To summarize, if only one change was done to Constantinople, making it a level 4 fort at start would both capture how hard it was to siege, and the late Byzantines historic tendency to go bankrupt, partly because they couldn't afford to maintain their capital's walls.
*Add a province modifier similar to the Hexamillion(+50% fort defense or similar, should be higher than the Hexamillion though, as the defenses here were MUCH stronger)
While this wouldn't be as good as the above, partly because it wouldn't mirror the financial cost of maintaining the walls, it would still show how hard the walls were to siege in real life, there was a reason the Ottomans couldn't take them for a hundred years after the Byzantines were pushed back into just their capital and the Morean peninsula.
Now let's talk about vassals. The Despotate of Morea had significant autonomy, so it would make both historic and gameplay sense for it to be a vassal. If Paradox ever DOES to another focus on the greek region(has been awhile) it would be nice if they could add in a unique government for the byzantines, reflecting their special relationship with their vassals and the themes, but I digress. That's a separate topic, and probably me caring too much about a 3 province minor at the start of the game, even if it is the roman empire. Also, Athens was a tributary, not a vassal of Byzantium. While this could be solved by the above special government type to more accurately reflect this... if we're not adding dramatic new mechanics, they really should be independant, not a vassal, to maintain consistency. What am I talking about? Muscovy was technically a tributary of the Great Horde, but they start out independant, because that was closer to their actual historical relationship. Same holds true for Athens, unless the Byzantines are getting a new government form to more accurately represent this, Athens should be independant.
Miscellaneous changes:
Byzantium should have historical friends modifier with Trebizond and Theodoro, it makes no sense that they dont, they were successor states of the same empire, and Trebizond even recognized Byzantium's supremacy at one point. If Trebizond and Theodoro are historical friends, it makes no sense that both aren't historical friends with the Byzantines. With Epirus getting added as an independant state, I'd also argue that when added, they should also get historical friends with the Byzantines. While it wouldn't alter gameplay much as you can usually secure these alliances at the start of the game or shortly after anyway, it would be nice flavor, and it's a bit weird that Paradox decided to give Trebizond and Theodoro historical friends but neither the modifier with Byzantium. This last one I'm about to say is one change I'm unsure about, but I think could help model the Hexamillion's defenses better, change Morea's capital to Achaea. While historically the capital was in the south, capitals in eu4 don't matter much as long as they're in the same trade node, or on terrain thats great for developing(neither of these are), except for adding another fort level. This could help more accurately portray the Hexamillion's defensive potential while requiring minimal effort from Paradox.
(EDIT: The map also doesn't include my suggestions for Athens to be independant, or for Morea's capital to be moved upwards, or for the straight from Epirus-Achaea to be removed, sorry)
Conclusion:
If you got through all of this, well, thank you. Took me awhile to type and come up with all of this. I really do like Byzantine history, and I tried with the above suggestions to mirror their position in 1444 more with history, without sacrificing gameplay too much. If anyone has some suggestions, then comment them, I'd love to hear them! Hopefully Paradox will see this, but even if they don't, if your a modder(pretty small likelihood I know, probably nobody will read or upvote this anyway) I would definitely play a mod that implemented some/all of these changes! Any feedback/criticism is welcome, and I think that's about it, I dont want to bore you any more than I already have, thanks for reading!
Upvote
0
