Shouldn't Byzantium have more cores?

[PhroX]

I support Byzantine starting with cores on the entirety of the Eastern Roman Empire, plus Justinian's holdings from Italy. I also want this to be realistically implemented only AFTER you give Mongolia cores on all of Genghis Khan's empire, and Granada cores on the entirety of the Umayyad Caliphate.

While I've little doubt your post was somewhat tounge in cheek, it does rather sum up my issue with this (and pretty much every request to buff Byzantium) - there might well be some decent arguments that support the idea that they should have more cores. But those arguments also apply to dozens of other nations. There were plenty of proivnces changing hands in the 50-150 years prior to the game starting. If Byzantium gets cores on land it lost in that time period, so should every other nation that did likewise. And every nation that was eliminated in the time period should have its cores so it could reappear.

If PDox were to go over the entire map and do this, I'd have no problem with Byzantium getting more cores. But I'm tired of people asking for one tiny nation that existed for no more than a couple of percent of the EUIV time period to get super special treament because Rome.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

While I've little doubt your post was somewhat tounge in cheek, it does rather sum up my issue with this (and pretty much every request to buff Byzantium) - there might well be some decent arguments that support the idea that they should have more cores. But those arguments also apply to dozens of other nations. There were plenty of proivnces changing hands in the 50-150 years prior to the game starting. If Byzantium gets cores on land it lost in that time period, so should every other nation that did likewise. And every nation that was eliminated in the time period should have its cores so it could reappear.

If PDox were to go over the entire map and do this, I'd have no problem with Byzantium getting more cores. But I'm tired of people asking for one tiny nation that existed for no more than a couple of percent of the EUIV time period to get super special snowflake treament.

You also have the reverse stuff like "Persia", "Syria", "Finland", etc which are rather...interesting cores to have existing (permanently at that) in 1444.

 

[Kapitalisti]

You also have the reverse stuff like "Persia", "Syria", "Finland", etc which are rather...interesting cores to have existing (permanently at that) in 1444.

No worries, Paradox is already sneakily removing those Finnish cores and culture a provinces at a time.

 

[SacredDatura]

Wiz would say: "okay I'll add the cores.... but Constantinople will get 75% autonomy, Morea and Achea will be independent and Constantinople will lose its trade boost"

Not sure if you're being facetious, but that actually wouldn't be a bad way to do it. I remember the VeF mod at one point had very punishing modifiers for Byzantium (called "Imperial Decline" or something similar) that made them very fragile even if you manage to get a good chunk of the Aegean coast. In the mod the modifier disappears once you control enough territory, if I remember correctly.

It would mean AI Byzantium would never thrive, but players could with enough finesse and some luck pull the ailing state through and conquer enough territory to declare the Roman Empire reinvigorated. It would play like Ming, but in the west and tiny. The early-game would be an interesting challenge, instead of just being incredibly luck-based and exploit-y like now.

 

[tkorsvold]

While I've little doubt your post was somewhat tounge in cheek, it does rather sum up my issue with this (and pretty much every request to buff Byzantium) - there might well be some decent arguments that support the idea that they should have more cores. But those arguments also apply to dozens of other nations. There were plenty of proivnces changing hands in the 50-150 years prior to the game starting. If Byzantium gets cores on land it lost in that time period, so should every other nation that did likewise. And every nation that was eliminated in the time period should have its cores so it could reappear.

I do agree. I would be cool to have lots of more cores for lots of nations actually.
Not sure how it would affect gameplay though.

On the other hand, Byzantium should maybe be nerfed if one wanted to attain maximum historical correctness.

For max gameplay fun though, I wouldn't mind a few more cores and maybe a small buff.

One could also implement more bonus cores via event if ie. the Byzantines manage to retake much of Greece - it would be natural for them to retake former holdings - especially those with greek culture.

 

[Darkath]

I actually think ottomans shouldn't start with core on other beyliks and minors in Anatolia since they never owned the place in the first place.

 

[Cragspyder]

Buffed Byzantium: Added 1 starting manpower for each purchase of EU4 with all expansions and DLC at the default price.

 

[Aries666]

You also have the reverse stuff like "Persia", "Syria", "Finland", etc which are rather...interesting cores to have existing (permanently at that) in 1444.

Persia much like Byzantium is just poorly named and is named so because that is what people recognise. Obviously the tag should be named the Safavid empire, the point is what Persia represents was actually a nation in real history, but Finland and Syria not so much.

 

[grommile]

I actually think ottomans shouldn't start with core on other beyliks and minors in Anatolia since they never owned the place in the first place.

Actually, they did own significant chunks of that land... briefly, before Timur facestomped them.

 

[Aries666]

I do agree. I would be cool to have lots of more cores for lots of nations actually.
Not sure how it would affect gameplay though.

On the other hand, Byzantium should maybe be nerfed if one wanted to attain maximum historical correctness.

For max gameplay fun though, I wouldn't mind a few more cores and maybe a small buff.

One could also implement more bonus cores via event if ie. the Byzantines manage to retake much of Greece - it would be natural for them to retake former holdings - especially those with greek culture.

No, no, no, no, no, by that logic any former empire, say Mongolia, should get free core if manages to retake some of its former territory.

 

[Alectron]

Has anyone heard "a joke" that each time someone asks J.K.Martin when the next book is coming he kills a Stark? So, each time people create a new Byzantium buff thread they make Byzantium weaker and weaker. Hopefully EU5 won't have the earliest startdate in 1453 because of that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Persia much like Byzantium is just poorly named and is named so because that is what people recognise. Obviously the tag should be named the Safavid empire, the point is what Persia represents was actually a nation in real history, but Finland and Syria not so much.

Safavid uprising and administration came way later than 1444. They weren't just waiting with governance in Iran...en masse'. By game rule standards, giving BYZ/Mongols/etc gobs of cores actually makes MORE sense.

The "Persia" of old is ridiculously old by comparison. Granted, even that makes more sense than Syria and Finland existing forever from the start though .

 

[Outrider]

I do agree. I would be cool to have lots of more cores for lots of nations actually.
Not sure how it would affect gameplay though.

It'd be garbage for game-play.

I was under the impression that game-play was the reason Byz lost its cores. Nothing to do with Byz being in a "too-strong" start or being mean to Byzantophiles, but because release Byz+feed cores was an easy and dirt-cheap way for players to cripple the Ottos and gain a ton of rich territory.

 

[tkorsvold]

It'd be garbage for game-play.

I was under the impression that game-play was the reason Byz lost its cores. Nothing to do with Byz being in a "too-strong" start or being mean to Byzantophiles, but because release Byz+feed cores was an easy and dirt-cheap way for players to cripple the Ottos and gain a ton of rich territory.

Yes, you might be right.

I still would like a few more byzantine cores, though. It just doesn't feel right that Nicomedia, Nicaea, Smyrna etc don't have a core.

 

[Aries666]

Safavid uprising and administration came way later than 1444. They weren't just waiting with governance in Iran...en masse'. By game rule standards, giving BYZ/Mongols/etc gobs of cores actually makes MORE sense.

The "Persia" of old is ridiculously old by comparison. Granted, even that makes more sense than Syria and Finland existing forever from the start though .

Indeed and Persia doesn't exist in the 1444 start so I still think it is fine that an independent state that arises in that region as historically did is referred to as Persia because this is what more people would have heard off.

 

[LordNeidhart]

How dare you, sir.

You should introduce a new 'thing' where Byzantium is buffed every patch. But make it a tiny, pointless and irrelevant buff -- just enough to have "Buffed Byzantium by..." listed near the top of the change notes.

Make it so every patch ever released, Byzantium gets a 0.5% increase in Envoy Travel Speed.

 

[Metz]

Albania and Yanya should be split into 2 provinces.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Indeed and Persia doesn't exist in the 1444 start so I still think it is fine that an independent state that arises in that region as historically did is referred to as Persia because this is what more people would have heard off.

But we don't have Fulani cores, or Ashanti (anymore), or Qing over all of China, or other such silliness. Rebels can create cores if they happen, so it's not like having Persia cores in 1444 is necessary to them forming. It's most likely done so that players can simply release them and play nicely, but it's still an inconsistency.

 

[Kapitalisti]

J.K.Martin

Who? Some hideous amalgamation of J.K. Rowling and George R.R. Martin?

 

[chochko12]

Buffed Byzantium now they have level 5 fort in Constantinople, to ensure more historical feel the starting Inflation is 20% and Byzantium can take only 2 loans.