[Submod] Better Imperial Reconquest

[Mr Nobody]

I am not an historian, but isn't it more intuitive to reconquer North Africa first rather than Italy after you have reconquered the Levant and Egypt? Or at least, grouping Italy with the former rather than the latter.

My rationale is that the Roman Empire ran through a similar course during Justinian's reconquest in the 6th century. The empire first reconquered North Africa in 533-534, then it gained a foothold in southern Italy (which we would have reconquered already in the Balkans and Sicily tier, simulating Basil II's campaign) and gradually captured the Italian peninsula.

Moreover, retaking northern Italy should be a big deal that basically says the empire is back to its apogee under Justinian; that means clashing with the Latins and potentially ending the schism.

So, I'm proposing that the reconquest of North Africa goes before the eventual bloody clash with HRE in the war for Italy. The Iberian peninsula could be on a tier of its own or lumped with Mauretania.

EDIT : I made a submod based on this idea.

Small update as requested, a king tier reconquest CB for a military oriented, ambitious ruler of the restored Roman Empire. It will cost you 450 prestige now instead of 150 to declare war as well as scaled amount of gold, and it will count as a major victory should you succeed, or major loss should you lose.

Let me know if you folks have any other idea for the submod. I'm currently thinking of simulating ambitious generals of the Empire, being able to conquer vast tracts of land and financing their own campaign. This way, the player is encouraged to keep track and curb the power of these ambitious generals lest they back stab you. Too many ambitious generals will of course cause the decay of the Empire to fasten.

 

[Mr Nobody]

Anyone interested in a submod that modifies the Imperial Reconquest CB? I'm currently making one that creates a separate tier between tier 3 and 4, grouping Africa Proconsularis (sorry, I don't know what the region shown above should be properly called, it's certainly smaller than Northwest Africa) and Italy together, thus simulating Justinian's reconquest better.

EDIT :

Oh well, I went ahead and made it anyway. Please tell me if there's any bug or things to improve on.

 

[.Me]

Anyone interested in a submod that modifies the Imperial Reconquest CB? I'm currently making one that creates a separate tier between tier 3 and 4, grouping Africa Proconsularis (sorry, I don't know what the region shown above should be properly called, it's certainly smaller than Northwest Africa) and Italy together, thus simulating Justinian's reconquest better.

EDIT :

Oh well, I went ahead and made it anyway. Please tell me if there's any bug or things to improve on.

Imho is better to call it just "Africa" or maybe "Africa Vetus", calling it "Africa Proconsularis" in this period is really out of time, also because is a name given by the form of government, it mean "Africa of the Proconsul" because was governed by a proconsul.
But I'm really interested in some changes in that, I was even thinking about the possibility to add in a personal submod kingdom-level imperial reconquest for particular ambitious rulers who are also good commanders an own the Roman title, that's because imho is more realistic to wage war for entire kingdoms, especially if you have already in your hands the Roman Empire.

 

[Mr Nobody]

Imho is better to call it just "Africa" or maybe "Africa Vetus", calling it "Africa Proconsularis" in this period is really out of time, also because is a name given by the form of government, it mean "Africa of the Proconsul" because was governed by a proconsul.
But I'm really interested in some changes in that, I was even thinking about the possibility to add in a personal submod kingdom-level imperial reconquest for particular ambitious rulers who are also good commanders an own the Roman title, that's because imho is more realistic to wage war for entire kingdoms, especially if you have already in your hands the Roman Empire.

Yes I thought of an additional king tier CB earlier today, but I don't know how I should balance it. Perhaps it should cost the ruler some ducats alongside (bigger?) prestige cost, like in WTWSMS. After all the thematic system was created following the loss of manpower and economic strength from losing Egypt and the Levant. This will encourage players to centralise and focus on a sound economy rather than relying on vassal levies.

Maybe Africa is a less anachronistic name. There's also a Byzantine exarchate by that name, so there's that too. Anyone else?

 

[.Me]

Yes I thought of an additional king tier CB earlier today, but I don't know how I should balance it. Perhaps it should cost the ruler some ducats alongside (bigger?) prestige cost, like in WTWSMS. After all the thematic system was created following the loss of manpower and economic strength from losing Egypt and the Levant. This will encourage players to centralise and focus on a sound economy rather than relying on vassal levies.

Maybe Africa is a less anachronistic name. There's also a Byzantine exarchate by that name, so there's that too. Anyone else?

It can maybe be modeled after the "great conquest" cb and be active only if the ruler is ambitious and has high martial stats maybe? Or at least that was my idea

 

[Mr Nobody]

It can maybe be modeled after the "great conquest" cb and be active only if the ruler is ambitious and has high martial stats maybe? Or at least that was my idea

Yeah, I'll probably model it after the Great Conquest or Manifest Destiny CB while taking into account the tier restriction of HIP's Imperial Reconquest CB. I will have to do some test runs first though, I think it has the potential to be a bit too overpowered e.g. reclaiming all the western provinces within one lifetime. After all, the Muslims were supposed to be more zealous and hungry for conquest during the middle ages, no? Even the Romans only got warmongering during the 10th century because of a string of soldier emperors. Perhaps a crusade like cooldown timer?

 

[.Me]

Yeah, I'll probably model it after the Great Conquest or Manifest Destiny CB while taking into account the tier restriction of HIP's Imperial Reconquest CB. I will have to do some test runs first though, I think it has the potential to be a bit too overpowered e.g. reclaiming all the western provinces within one lifetime. After all, the Muslims were supposed to be more zealous and hungry for conquest during the middle ages, no? Even the Romans only got warmongering during the 10th century because of a string of soldier emperors. Perhaps a crusade like cooldown timer?

The Romans were pretty under the papacy. Lol, jokes apart, the western europeans didn't waged huge wars of conquests kingdom against kingdom because they were stopped by christianity and lack of CB, there was this "we're all part of the sancta res publica christiana nominally under the HRE" in the western european world that avoided Napoleon-style megawars for a lot of time, more or less like the Ummah and the Asabiyya for the muslims.
For the ERE was different, imho nothing would have stopped an empire stable and with the manpower of a reconquered Levant, Egypt, Africa and Italy to snowball into Europe and crush everything on his path in one or two generations.
Also is very probable that in a similar situation the pope will grant the crown of the HRE to the ERE emperor, in the real world that crown was promised to Manuel Comnenus during the alliance between him and the papacy against the kingdom of Sicily.
But still, to avoid to make the Byz too OP my original idea was to make this CB only for the ruler of the reformed Roman Empire and not for the ERE.

 

[Mr Nobody]

Small update as requested, a king tier reconquest CB for a military oriented, ambitious ruler of the restored Roman Empire. It will cost you 450 prestige now instead of 150 to declare war as well as scaled amount of gold, and it will count as a major victory should you succeed, or major loss should you lose.

Let me know if you folks have any other idea for the submod. I'm currently thinking of simulating ambitious generals of the Empire, being able to conquer vast tracts of land and financing their own campaign. This way, the player is encouraged to keep track and curb the power of these ambitious generals lest they back stab you. Too many ambitious generals will of course cause the decay of the Empire to fasten.

 

[Mr Nobody]

Anyone interested in simulating the campaign of John Tzimisces? I find him quite fascinating, and perhaps the one emperor that fully utilised the capability of Anatolia to wage war. Better than Basil II, perhaps. Had he lived longer, I think it's very likely he would have completely subjugated Bulgaria and the Levant.

So, this CB will allow only the most capable emperor to wage such wars, and with greater consequences since you can't strain the finances of the Empire too much. That means even the Komnenian emperors and later Palaeologan emperors are out of the question, since they are not as ambitious a soldier emperor as John nor do they control Anatolia to have sufficient manpower to wage such wars.

Also, I find it odd that no empire can establish tributary state before they reach majesty level 4. Yet we can play with empires that have tributaries right from the start, even when majesty level is nowhere near 4. Perhaps I should make a little tweak. What's the point of these historical empires if they can't even establish tributary states, right.

 

[theKing1988]

It's an interesting discussion you've started for sure with the submod.

I would say that you're basing yourself a bit too heavily on looking backwards than actually taking examples from the time period, when you think that it's more intuitive to go for North Africa before going for Central and Northern Italy. A lot of things happened to North Africa from 698 to 867, let alone to the 1000's, that made North Africa a lot less enticing target. The agricultural economy of the region were in steady decline and after 1048 went into downright collapse. Also, during the Imperial presence in Southern Italy (-1071) and during Manuel Komnenos' short attempted reconquest (1155-1158), the Empire were just as likely to seek influence in and support from Central Italy as they were in Southern Italy, with Ancona in Central Italy being a longstanding Imperial ally.

Perhaps a separation of Central Italy and Northern Italy would be the answer, but that would be even less intuitive than what we have now.

And if we put down the history book for a second, when the Imperial Reconquest CB, were fashioned you still had access to a pretty OP Holy War CB, so tailoring the Reconquest CB to be the main tool for expansion were less of a priority. But perhaps it is time for a re-examination at least.

 

[Mr Nobody]

It's an interesting discussion you've started for sure with the submod.

I would say that you're basing yourself a bit too heavily on looking backwards than actually taking examples from the time period, when you think that it's more intuitive to go for North Africa before going for Central and Northern Italy. A lot of things happened to North Africa from 698 to 867, let alone to the 1000's, that made North Africa a lot less enticing target. The agricultural economy of the region were in steady decline and after 1048 went into downright collapse. Also, during the Imperial presence in Southern Italy (-1071) and during Manuel Komnenos' short attempted reconquest (1155-1158), the Empire were just as likely to seek influence in and support from Central Italy as they were in Southern Italy, with Ancona in Central Italy being a longstanding Imperial ally.

Perhaps a separation of Central Italy and Northern Italy would be the answer, but that would be even less intuitive than what we have now.

And if we put down the history book for a second, when the Imperial Reconquest CB, were fashioned you still had access to a pretty OP Holy War CB, so tailoring the Reconquest CB to be the main tool for expansion were less of a priority. But perhaps it is time for a re-examination at least.

Well, I'm no expert but it seems to me that controlling North Africa makes for uncontested dominance of the Mediterranean Sea, in the sense that now the Empire can play ball with the Latins and all the merchant republics. Not unlike how Ottomans did historically a few centuries later. Also, there's the Norman Kingdom of Africa.

Control of Africa gave Sicily control of all the sea routes between the western and eastern Mediterranean. Roger II taxed shipping, although he seems to have allowed the local Muslims princelings to collect some tariffs of their own. Ibn abī-Dīnār states that the wāli of Gabès collected taxes in Roger's name.

Abulafia, "The Norman Kingdom of Africa", 35.

Quoted from Wikipedia, and what I knew from the books I read here in my country. Maybe they are not really accurate.

Furthermore, tier 3 consists Italy, Levant, and Eastern/Central North Africa. So theoretically, you can rush Northern Italy after doing basically Basil II's campaign. Yet historically, the Romans were always looking to establish dominance over the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Just look at their military and diplomatic policies in the 10th century. So, I'm basically forcing the player and AI to control that region first; then and only then can they reconquer North Africa and Italy, in whatever order they wish.

 

[theKing1988]

Well, I'm no expert but it seems to me that controlling North Africa makes for uncontested dominance of the Mediterranean Sea, in the sense that now the Empire can play ball with the Latins and all the merchant republics. Not unlike how Ottomans did historically a few centuries later. Also, there's the Norman Kingdom of Africa.



Quoted from Wikipedia, and what I knew from the books I read here in my country. Maybe they are not really accurate.

Furthermore, tier 3 consists Italy, Levant, and Eastern/Central North Africa. So theoretically, you can rush Northern Italy after doing basically Basil II's campaign. Yet historically, the Romans were always looking to establish dominance over the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Just look at their military and diplomatic policies in the 10th century. So, I'm basically forcing the player and AI to control that region first; then and only then can they reconquer North Africa and Italy, in whatever order they wish.

I dont wish to dictate what should do with your submod, i was merely answering the op. Which were addressed to us hip devs.

The man thing i would contend with is your premise, that the empire needs africa to be able to play ball in northern italy.

 

[Mr Nobody]

I dont wish to dictate what should do with your submod, i was merely answering the op. Which were addressed to us hip devs.

The man thing i would contend with is your premise, that the empire needs africa to be able to play Ball in northern italy.

isn't it more intuitive to reconquer North Africa first rather than Italy after you have reconquered the Levant and Egypt?

That's a straw man of my premise. I said, more intuitive. And then I brought several historical reasons as well as the situation in the middle ages that would support my idea.

 

[Ese Khan]

That's a straw man of my premise. I said, more intuitive. And then I brought several historical reasons as well as the situation in the middle ages that would support my idea.

I think you need to edit either of your first posts. In OP you state "isn't it more intuitive to reconquer North Africa first rather than Italy . . .?", but in your second post you propose "a separate tier between tier 3 and 4, grouping Africa Proconsularis . . . and Italy together," which does NOT necessitate conquering North Africa first (as you also mentioned in post #11).

Anyhoo, in my opinion, your argument doesn't refute theKing1988's argument. He mentioned a series of Byzantine meddlings in Italy during CK2 era, which is consistent with his view that something similar to a Byzantine/Roman/whatever reconquest CB of Italy happened historically during CK2 era. You brought up the Justinian and Ottoman cases of conquering North Africa first and then going north, but given theKing1988's argument, there's no ground to argue that either North Africa->Italy or Italy->North Africa is more intuitive than the other. Both happened historically.

Not sure what the Norman example is supposed to do here. AFAIK Hauteville lords were not acting as Byzantine agents, and this is a case of conquering North Africa from Italy, not the other way around, so it doesn't support your North Africa->Italy thesis.

 

[Mr Nobody]

I think you need to edit either of your first posts. In OP you state "isn't it more intuitive to reconquer North Africa first rather than Italy . . .?", but in your second post you propose "a separate tier between tier 3 and 4, grouping Africa Proconsularis . . . and Italy together," which does NOT necessitate conquering North Africa first (as you also mentioned in post #11).

Anyhoo, in my opinion, your argument doesn't refute theKing1988's argument. He mentioned a series of Byzantine meddlings in Italy during CK2 era, which is consistent with his view that something similar to a Byzantine/Roman/whatever reconquest CB of Italy happened historically during CK2 era. You brought up the Justinian and Ottoman cases of conquering North Africa first and then going north, but given theKing1988's argument, there's no ground to argue that either North Africa->Italy or Italy->North Africa is more intuitive than the other. Both happened historically.

Not sure what the Norman example is supposed to do here. AFAIK Hauteville lords were not acting as Byzantine agents, and this is a case of conquering North Africa from Italy, not the other way around, so it doesn't support your North Africa->Italy thesis.

I'm questioning the status quo which is to group Italy together with the Levant and Egypt. I decided to force the player to control Eastern Mediterranean Sea first rather than slowly creeping up on Italy just after tier 2, which for me is too implausible since I don't recall any emperor in the 10th century eyeing Italy even when they have the manpower of Anatolia. So you do not necessarily have to conquer North Africa first, although I personally prefer so. It's a compromise.

The Norman example is to show that controlling Africa is a good way to control sea routes and ultimately, trade over the Mediterranean Sea. Hence "uncontested dominance of the Mediterranean Sea".

 

[Cristian!]

I am not an historian, but isn't it more intuitive to reconquer North Africa first rather than Italy after you have reconquered the Levant and Egypt? Or at least, grouping Italy with the former rather than the latter.

My rationale is that the Roman Empire ran through a similar course during Justinian's reconquest in the 6th century. The empire first reconquered North Africa in 533-534, then it gained a foothold in southern Italy (which we would have reconquered already in the Balkans and Sicily tier, simulating Basil II's campaign) and gradually captured the Italian peninsula.



Moreover, retaking northern Italy should be a big deal that basically says the empire is back to its apogee under Justinian; that means clashing with the Latins and potentially ending the schism.

So, I'm proposing that the reconquest of North Africa goes before the eventual bloody clash with HRE in the war for Italy. The Iberian peninsula could be on a tier of its own or lumped with Mauretania.

EDIT : I made a submod based on this idea.

Hey I'm having trouble making this mod work. I've Installed it but the tiers for the Imperial Reconquest cb are still the same. Does anyone know if the mod is outdated? Maybe I'm just doing something wrong- Any help would be appreciated.