Shouldn't Byzantium have more cores?
- Thread starter tkorsvold
- 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.
Hopefully not! God help usSince Wiz found this thread, we can expect more cores removed from Byz. In next patch, Byz will start as OPM with Constantinopole only.
He spotted us! I already feel like I am abusing the game and history to get byz started. I don't want to actually need to use console commands. Hahah
Last edited:
I still like to take credit for Castile losing its cores on Granada. And that all started with me asking why the Ottomans have cores in Anatolia, even as far as Erzurum and Duldakir.
- 2
I'm probably going to get tarred and feathered for saying this, but Wiz's half-serious suggestions about nerfing Constantinople and making Morea independent are actually realistic. In 1444, Constantinople was a shell and Byzantine rule barely extended beyond the land walls (remember that the Ottomans built castles to cut off the Bosphorus before the siege. Sure if you can somehow restore Byzantine rule to a good deal of the hinterland around it, the city will recover and its trade will return (as for instance, happened after it became part of the Ottoman realm). Beyond that, they should probably have low legitimacy as well, given the frequency of civil wars (which if anything, caused the downfall of the state). That said, they should get the cores back if these proposals are implemented.
- 5
- 1
I suspect a large amount of people recognise that it was a faltering state in an extremely precarious situation historically. I think a lot of us just want to play out the fantasy in the game. Many want it to remain difficult but playable even if they are almost certainly doomed to a quick death at the hands of the AI. I am at the state I neither want nerfs nor buffs
I would love if they changed the name to something like Romania or something rlse more historically accurate though that would create some confusion with the modern state and the previous games have set the standard with also labeling it Byzantine so I certainly am not holding my breath.
Here is an interesting article on the name.
There are other entities that have ahistorical names of course, someone mentioned Persia already. Again, I am certainly not expecting any changes on this matter.
So many people here hate Byz and will post negatives in even the most reasonable threads. We used to have more cores as Byz, but get this, rather than clean up the AI which is total shit at dealing with rebels, they removed cores from Byz so that it was less likely to pop back up again later due to rebels lol
Whatever, the best time to play Byz was 1.51 one when you could, before game start, scroll the clock back and forth and end up with all your historical cores, and then cheese your way to victory, however, the quickly patched the forward back bug, and soon thereafter made scorched earth almost useless because, again, they didn't feel like making the AI smart enough to determine when going into a scorched earth province was worth it.
There was a time, basically before Common Sense when every patch negatively affected Byz in some way, even if indirectly, nowadays, I think it's about as low as it can go unless they change some of the starting diplomatic relations so it becomes impossible to ally certain countries.
Whatever, the best time to play Byz was 1.51 one when you could, before game start, scroll the clock back and forth and end up with all your historical cores, and then cheese your way to victory, however, the quickly patched the forward back bug, and soon thereafter made scorched earth almost useless because, again, they didn't feel like making the AI smart enough to determine when going into a scorched earth province was worth it.
There was a time, basically before Common Sense when every patch negatively affected Byz in some way, even if indirectly, nowadays, I think it's about as low as it can go unless they change some of the starting diplomatic relations so it becomes impossible to ally certain countries.
- 1
- 1
The real problem is that Pdox keeps using rebels as a major balance mechanic and have nerfed direct expansion such that any resurrectable state is exceedingly valuable for cheap expansion.
Problem: Byz rebels can own the OE or Venice (or OPMs). The strongest AI Byz survivals are inevitably those born of mass rebellion. Solution: ignore the base issue (rebels are founts of infinite manpower with massively powered generals that the AI is crap at evicting from islands in a timely fashion); just remove cores to paper over the poorly setup mechanic.
Problem: Resurrecting Byz is the cheapest way to cut down the OE and expand into their territory. Solution: ignore the incentive structures coring costs, OExt, and AE create and just remove cores because Byz is one of the few tags in Europe where this is a problem.
By gameplay mechanisms Byz should have cores on a LOT of places (cores expire based on the last war/rebellion) and there are quite a few of those that should extend core deadlines for many decades after 1444. Of course I'd settle for some actual history - maybe having other nations actually caring about Byz, making Skanderbeg dangerous, and all the other things that gave Byz 9 more years.
Problem: Byz rebels can own the OE or Venice (or OPMs). The strongest AI Byz survivals are inevitably those born of mass rebellion. Solution: ignore the base issue (rebels are founts of infinite manpower with massively powered generals that the AI is crap at evicting from islands in a timely fashion); just remove cores to paper over the poorly setup mechanic.
Problem: Resurrecting Byz is the cheapest way to cut down the OE and expand into their territory. Solution: ignore the incentive structures coring costs, OExt, and AE create and just remove cores because Byz is one of the few tags in Europe where this is a problem.
By gameplay mechanisms Byz should have cores on a LOT of places (cores expire based on the last war/rebellion) and there are quite a few of those that should extend core deadlines for many decades after 1444. Of course I'd settle for some actual history - maybe having other nations actually caring about Byz, making Skanderbeg dangerous, and all the other things that gave Byz 9 more years.
- 3
- 3
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
- 5
- 3
- 2
Like i know i'm bad compared to most of you on here, but how in the hell do you even get so far as to ally someone? Poland never rivals ottomans when i start as byz, and that leaves me to attempt to build enough galleys in time while going into debt which never turns out to be enough galleys to actually win.
- 1
Honestly, it can be tough. I would just restart till you get Poland to rival them. I had Austria help out in an earlier patch. I have yet to work it since 1.12.
I think Byz is basically fine atm. No nerfs or buffs planned.
I should add a quote about people not understanding what 'complex problem' means.
I should add a quote about people not understanding what 'complex problem' means.
- 9
- 2
- 1
Honestly, that is just bullshit, not the part about Byzantiums strength, that is indeed true, they are too strong for how weak they were historicaly... But I find it sad that in order to balance this they actualy do stuff like removing their cores (makes no historical sense... other countries even unexisting countries in 1444 lots of cores that historicaly make less sense then Byzantium cores, not saying they make no sense, but Byzantium cores also make a lot of sense...) and threathening with removing development from Constantinople, which is just historicaly wrong... Sure, give it a modifier (which can be removed through event later on) to signify the division of the city, the dificulty to administrate it , the weakness of the emperor, etc.. but saying that the city was as developed as some uncolonized regions in the caribean is just total bullshit... It was still one of the greatest cities of its time.
I know devs (wiz) don't like byzantium, and I don't mind it being weak at all, just don't go all against history just to 'balance' a country that is, 19 out of 20 times, dead before the historical date (1452..) and never comes back.. And that while in the 19th century, the 'Filiki Eteria' (secret society who initiated the war of independence of greece) had as objective the revival of the Byzantine Empire... ended up becoming Greece because they didn't get the support needed for their first objective because the western powers were afraid a revival of the Byzantine Empire would have too many claimes on the region, not only in greece but also in Anatolia.... So if almost 500 years later people would still fear them having claims on the region.. how is it that cores in 1444 would be at all weird?
- 2
- 1
In general we've removed a lot of foreign owned cores because they screw up the early game. Ottos keep theirs so they can grow faster, Sweden keeps theirs by Decree of Johan, and Byzantium keeps the ones that aren't an easy gimme.
- 11
- 7
- 1
I've another question to OP and other people asking for cores: Are we playing the same game? Do you need to make a claim and spend a bunch of admiistrative power to make the province a core of your nation? Isn't it enough for you? This topic could have been something if we were speaking about EU2 but, as MANY already stated, Byzantium is just one of the long list of countries lacking cores, and i can't believe there have been so many posts about a futile argument like this! Cores are more useful to AI than an human, since those are made to "drive" the ai into conquest (hence Ottomans having all anatolia as cores, sweden having cores on skane, and before castille having cores on granada, but that was overkill). So, aren't here better mechanics to discuss?
- 1
- 1
The problem with foreign cores early game is that it causes Byzantium to sprout up basically everywhere after it gets annexed. Ottomans suffer a rebellion an island? Oh look, Byzantium, in all of her glory, has returned to this earth!
- 1
- 1