.png){kind=avatar}
I do not want primogeniture as it was only a formality in the ERE and not the law. Co-emperorship would be fine with me. But I am okay with the system now, it just need to be adjusted to fix the bugs.
The Byzantine Empire, and how Holy Fury ruined them.
- Thread starter Anilomu
- 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.
Again - in the real ERE it wasn't even a formality. It was a practice that happens often (not always), because basileus was usually powerful man with nice abilities, nothing more.
I suspect that the reason why some players are stuck on primogeniture succession being available for the Byzantine Empire is that the game started out with the Byzantines having that succession from the beginning. Had Paradox created the Imperial Elective succession from the beginning of this game, the discussion would be much different. The complaining players have gotten used to primogeniture and its stabilizing effects on succession, and thus can't adapt to the chaotic nature of Imperial Elective.
The key is popularity and being born in the purple was also a big factor. Even if someone was highly competent, if the people did not support their reign and if they were not purple born, it would be a short reign. This tradition goes back to the early Roman Republic where the consuls and others would sway the people to their side to support them.
None of the Succession Laws are perfect and none of them really reflect reality.
In reality Kings and Emperors didn't get to vote on who succeeded them and there might be a significant interregnum with political wrangling after a monarch died whilst still avoiding all out Civil War. Those who are asking for Primo + Heir Designation are really saying they want the best of Primo and Elective and they want to be able to fight a war if their vassals disagree about their choice. In reality when the Emperor died if his son was not acclaimed Emperor he wouldn't be likely to be able to raise an army and fight it out. At best he could flee to his family estates or another realm and try to raise a rebellion from there.
Certainly, if he tried to hold the Capital against the will of the Court Party and the Military Party he'd be likely to be lynched.
The current system does a pretty good job of portraying this - with the very serious caveat that it currently punishes the Emperor far to much for essentially running the Empire properly.
In reality Kings and Emperors didn't get to vote on who succeeded them and there might be a significant interregnum with political wrangling after a monarch died whilst still avoiding all out Civil War. Those who are asking for Primo + Heir Designation are really saying they want the best of Primo and Elective and they want to be able to fight a war if their vassals disagree about their choice. In reality when the Emperor died if his son was not acclaimed Emperor he wouldn't be likely to be able to raise an army and fight it out. At best he could flee to his family estates or another realm and try to raise a rebellion from there.
Certainly, if he tried to hold the Capital against the will of the Court Party and the Military Party he'd be likely to be lynched.
The current system does a pretty good job of portraying this - with the very serious caveat that it currently punishes the Emperor far to much for essentially running the Empire properly.
The Byzantines had Agnatic-Cognatic Gavelkind when the game first launched. They got the free early primogeniture later. (Primogeniture wasn’t that hard to get back then though, either).
I'm on my third consecutive female basilia as the Byzantines, succession has never been a problem for me.
As soon as one of the most stable blobs in the game turns remotely interesting people begin complaining.
.png){kind=avatar}
But but but... I want my blob to always dominate in all circumstances! I shouldn't have to fight for it!
Nice wishful thinking there. Go in the suggestion forum and post it there because that's just not how it actually works right now.
That's my default tone. You might as well spam a 'you are right but I don't fucking like how you tell me what should I know about and mainly I don't like your tone' button instead of respectfully disagree, lol.
To be more elaborate than my starting post, I think changes in 769 were entirely good. Let's be honest here 769 Abbasids were an actual joke. People kept breathing in and out about how big a blob they were, but in reality they are often too busy with internal affairs and constant involvement in their tributary's wars for them to actually threaten the Byz (or anyone else for that matter.)
Meanwhile pre Holy Fury AI Bulgaria reliably got demolished by the AI Byzantines within 30 years every single game, whereas now they remain a prominent threat to the Byzantines for at least a century. Similiarly the Emirs in Cicilia and Sultan of Armenia reliably get wrecked every game, oftentimes even while under Abbasid tributary protection (Abbasids running around like headless chickens between here, Nubia, and what used to be Khiva. Transonoxia or w/e that's called.)
Now that decadence revolts destroy the top title that's even more the case to nerf the Byz.
People keep believing the Byzantines were strong in any of these starts, when really they were always hemmed in from all sides. Changes to 769 do a great job reflecting that.
Oh, regarding the tributary of Epirus? As soon as the Emperor gets toppled by a faction that tributary gets released. And then in my last playthrough it got carved up by the purple blob the same way Bulgaria used to. Extremely rapidly.
Meanwhile pre Holy Fury AI Bulgaria reliably got demolished by the AI Byzantines within 30 years every single game, whereas now they remain a prominent threat to the Byzantines for at least a century. Similiarly the Emirs in Cicilia and Sultan of Armenia reliably get wrecked every game, oftentimes even while under Abbasid tributary protection (Abbasids running around like headless chickens between here, Nubia, and what used to be Khiva. Transonoxia or w/e that's called.)
Now that decadence revolts destroy the top title that's even more the case to nerf the Byz.
People keep believing the Byzantines were strong in any of these starts, when really they were always hemmed in from all sides. Changes to 769 do a great job reflecting that.
Oh, regarding the tributary of Epirus? As soon as the Emperor gets toppled by a faction that tributary gets released. And then in my last playthrough it got carved up by the purple blob the same way Bulgaria used to. Extremely rapidly.
The Abbasids in my game are real strong! I have never seen them blob this much or have this many soldiers before in my previous runs. I need to sic China on them.
The system is fundamentally broken, I cannot select anyone for commanders anymore but doux or higher nobles, bribing them to go for my candidate would cost thousands and they suck as commanders. They also currently vote for a non dynastic heir so its game over when my character dies. Well done paradox, well done.
The system is working as designed. In the Eastern Roman Empire, commanders doubled as landowners and only landowners could field armies and be appointed to lead them - which is why only ducal rank+ characters can be made commanders.
The Empire title will pass to someone else yes but your dynastic heir should retain all your other titles.
This is completely baffling to me. I started an ERE game for poops and giggles, and aside from the initial clusterf*** it's been a piece of cake. My brother has ~650 points, my daughter has 50, and there aren't even any non-dynastic candidates getting *any* votes. I even auto-appointed commanders just to see if things got any more interesting? Then again, I'm staying relatively small (thanks Defensive Pacts!!), and spreading my dynasty (or at the very least, the true Greek culture) across any areas I do conquer, so maybe that's it? That a sprawling, multi-cultural empire like the one in the original post is somehow harder to hold together? I can't say that I'm disappointed....
This doesn't address my question though, his argument was that you shouldn't be allowed to change it because that's how the ERE historically was.
They also made the HRE have a new succession law so it's how it historically was yet you're allowed to change away from that, so why shouldn't it be the same for the ERE?
No it is not and the design is stupid. The game states that you have no dynastic heir if someone non dynastic is beeing elected, which is a bug apparently as stated by others in this thread. Secondly why would anyone but the emperor be able to assaign command posts?! Not only do you end up with people with 2 martial in command, it is literally impossible to bribe them due their rank they want outrageous amounts to support your candidate for a couple of years, they tend to die in battle much more often in 3.0 and have to be replaced, hence you have to rebribe them, and even start a complete minigame in itself to place worthy commanders as doukes so your armys dont loose and keep bribing them.
I want to have specific candidates to play, yes it is fine if it is tricky to get your genius 6 year old on the throne but right now thats literally impossible, and if your playing iron man you get screwed very fast, I spent 200 hours in this campaign and loosing because of a broken game mechanic is not fun.
In short this is madness and not working at all.
The emperor is assigning commands though. You can simply grant the viceroyalty you gain to higher martial barons/counts and make them commanders.
6yr old gaining the throne of the Roman Empire was impossible IRL as well so I'd say thats working as intended.
Lastly, CK2 is the last game where you should expect things to go your way all the time.