Since the Byzantine Empire has the Pentarchy event, why not a "Roman Empire" event?

[Helios Panoptes]

Because Byzantium has gotten so many bonuses I don't have much fun playing as it. Still having cores on central Anatolia and Bulgaria is bad enough, getting free cores on lands Byzantine soldiers haven't even looked at in a thousand years is just too wacky.

E: I also agree with Beamed. BYZ is the embodiment of 'change history', sure. But in a game that's supposed to be about exploring/colonizing the world, the Protestant Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment and finally the freedom-based revolutions...all the focus on the last crumb of antiquity is just 'off-message', if you will.

 

[gela1212]

By EU3 core rules they would still have the cores on Bulgaria and Anatolia. I don't see why the rules should make an exception just because the events happened before 1399. However, I think the core end date should be brought down significantly, perhaps to 1415.

 

[IconOfEvi]

You guys think THATS bad? Punjab STILL doesn't have the correct flag.

 

[CSARebel]

Because perhaps some country that isn't the two-bit wreckage of an ancient empire deserves some attention from the designers.

And have you presented any ideas on what sort of attention these nations should get? Lets say you have...why care if others do the same with the nations they like? If the developers feel like it is worth their time they will add, if not then they won't.

Think more about how to create then how to deny or destroy. The latter is a dead end.

 

[CSARebel]

By EU3 core rules they would still have the cores on Bulgaria and Anatolia. I don't see why the rules should make an exception just because the events happened before 1399. However, I think the core end date should be brought down significantly, perhaps to 1415.

That is a good point.

 

[Seek75]

Are we seriously still talking about this? Half the stuff people are talking about has almost nothing to do with the original post anymore, but rather if Byzantium is the Roman Empire, if Charlemagne had a legitimate claim, etc. etc.

Honestly, can we just quit it and leave? This same exact thing is debated every other month, it's boring and doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

[Palaiologos]

Even by Eu3 rules their cores are valid. They were at war with the Ottoman and the Turkish beyliks constantly, reseting the core countdown, and more importantly these regions were of their primary culture. The fact that they start as Turkish culture ones, instead of properly Greek, represents the fact that by 1400 a high(not the majority) percentage of Turks formed the population, and the rest fully went along with their tolerant Ottoman overlords. And thats why they convert so quickly back to Greek, when the Byzies get them back. Its a special rule set up to represent this thing.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

All those lands were lost before 1204, though. Wouldn't the 1204-1261 gap delete them?

Really I just don't like that Byzantium can roll over all those lands so easily, with no badboy or revolt risk (no revolt risk in Bulgaria against imperial rule, really?). Alexios freaking Komnenos couldn't pull that off, and he had far more to work with.

 

[Nephrahim]

Byzintines were originality the same culture as those Providences though, so they would not have lost them.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

Bulgaria's been Bulgarian since the 900s at least.

 

[Nephrahim]

Fair point. I guess you can put it down to "The devolpers wanted you to be able to play the Byzantines as a resurgent of the Roman Empire, so they gave them the tools to quickly take over their old land."

 

[Cenobite30]

Ok...

If the United States moved its capital from Washington D.C. to the center of the country (or to the west coast), and then a foreign power, say the Chinese, invade and successfully take over Washington D.C. and the Northeast United States. Has the United States ceased to be the United States?

A bad analogy.

 

[Ivashanko]

I personally really, really dislike the name 'Byzantine Empire'. Even if it does signify a difference that was forged through time, the idea of calling a nation a name that had no historical base (at the time, you understand) is... well, ahistorical. That being said, clearly the idea of giving the Romans free cores on lands they lost well over the fifty-year time limit is rediculous- giving them cores on parts of Turkey which were no longer Greek is too much as is. Just call them the Romans, give them a better flag (simply because their current flag is awful), and go work on some other nation= what I would do if I were dev. the game.

 

[Cenobite30]

I personally really, really dislike the name 'Byzantine Empire'. Even if it does signify a difference that was forged through time, the idea of calling a nation a name that had no historical base (at the time, you understand) is... well, ahistorical. That being said, clearly the idea of giving the Romans free cores on lands they lost well over the fifty-year time limit is rediculous- giving them cores on parts of Turkey which were no longer Greek is too much as is. Just call them the Romans, give them a better flag (simply because their current flag is awful), and go work on some other nation= what I would do if I were dev. the game.

The cores make sense within the game mechanics, what with the constant wars continually resetting the clock on losing the cores. Though they don't make as much sense in real-world terms.

I'll agree on the flag. Not as much on the name. It's not that I like the idea of having an inappropriately named state in the game. It's just that there are already lots of others that there is really no special reason to make a fuss about the Byzantines, especially when they get so much love already. Though if they were fixed, maybe everyone would be fixed. Here's to hoping.