The Byzantine Empire, and how Holy Fury ruined them.

[Gunthah]

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?

One idea is that within the HRE dynastic succession of duchies, kingdoms, etc. was the way things were, even if the emperor was elected, whereas in the ERE nobody inherited the right to rule a certain part of the empire, but had to be appointed by the imperial court. Not even the empire itself had a formal dynastic succession. Influential people would try to keep their families in power, both on the throne and in various offices.

Simply put, in the HRE dynastic succession was very common, whereas in the ERE it wasn’t so.

I struggle to even make sense of hereditary counties in the ERE, but that’s more of a gameplay necessity.

 

[CoGaTe]

I'm not going to pull up history, there where several under age emperors through history but thats not the point. In a custom empire, you can elect your candidate, in byzantium you suddenly cannot, due to a -200 penalty on children. In any other circumstance you can select commanders, now you suddenly have to give then land, well I dont have spare land around all the time, so you imply taking stuff from someone and handing it out again just so you get a decent commander? I tell you what I would do if this setting stays as it is and I would actually like to continue to play as rome. I simply have no commanders at all, I hire mercs and use theirs or have my vassals provide commanders, heck I can squash the whole world but the mongol deathstacks without any good commanders. Plus side, less people to feed and less people who vote hence I could control the heir easier. So basicly I dodge the mechanic, just so I can play my sandbox roughly the way I want to. But is that a good expirience? Im not convinced.

 

[aono]

In a custom empire, you can elect your candidate, in byzantium you suddenly cannot, due to a -200 penalty on children.

Yes - because Byzantium government is special and based on highly complicated cultural circumstances.

In any other circumstance you can select commanders, now you suddenly have to give then land, well I dont have spare land around all the time, so you imply taking stuff from someone and handing it out again just so you get a decent commander?

Yup. As a bright side, you get ability to have cities, Imperial Reconquest CB, no opinion penalty for wrong government and no penalty for retracting vassals. I'd say worth it.

Still, question is, and I know how it sounds: why should you be allowed to play your sandbox the way you want to? Byzantium supposed to be juggernaut which should be killed by internal politics (or, if you want, player should deal with internal politics without real external problems). Essentially, you're saying - "I want to play juggernaut without penalties". Well, that's why custom empires are there, aren't they?

 

[Mr_Faorry]

Simply put, in the HRE dynastic succession was very common, whereas in the ERE it wasn’t so.

I struggle to even make sense of hereditary counties in the ERE, but that’s more of a gameplay necessity.

So what you're saying is there are already ahistorical elements (that are completely unavoidable) to the ERE, so what's the issue in adding one more completely avoidable one?

Give it the same treatment the HRE, max centralisation and depowered council allowing you to change to other succession laws with factions to change it back to elective being more accessible to vassals.
People who can't get their head around the game not being a history simulator can just not take advantage of this option, people who want the freedom to change succession laws can switch away once they meet those requirements. It's a win-win situation and it wouldn't be difficult to implement since it's already in the game for the HRE.

 

[WJS]

Essentially, you're saying - "I want to play juggernaut without penalties". Well, that's why custom empires are there, aren't they?

Isn't that the Abbasids? Or the Mongols?

 

[Admiral_Obvious]

Isn't that the Abbasids? Or the Mongols?

The Abbasids have Decadence to worry about, especially later down the line.

The Mongols are overall suprisingly stable... until they aren't. Then the whole thing tends to explode.

Byzantium has a few bugs that need to be fixed, especially in the case of the OP losing ALL his titles due to the AI somehow electing an unlanded commander. Other than that, they're quite powerful.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Isn't that the Abbasids? Or the Mongols?

Ehhhhhhh. Again experience may vary. I tend to play as a vassal of the Abbasids more often than not, trying to build a realm in the richest area of the world (Persia/Yemen.)

Abbasids are constantly at war. And not of their own choosing. It's often wars called by/on their tributaries, particularly the ones in Armenia where rebellions by Miaphysites are common, Cicilia which oftentimes gets run over by the Byz even with Abbasid tributary status, Sindh getting mauled yet again by Hindus, and Transonoxia (sp?) getting invaded by Nomads yet again.

It's rare that they don't have armies on the field, which disables their ability to declare war. Every once and a while they declare on Africa for a Caliphal subjugation, but I rarely see them have the time for an outright holy war. All that typical expansion into Abyssinia is usually done by the powerful Sultan of Egypt.

Mongols typically explode into separate realms due to unstable nomads. So if Genghis dies they'll have to spend their event troops to resubjugate lands, oftentimes slowing down the invasion so much they never get near Central Europe.

 

[Duskwave]

Transonoxia (sp?)

(since you asked) Transoxiana. Means "Lands beyond the Oxus River". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transoxiana

 

[N1ghteyes]

Look realistically there are two arguements here. Those who want history and those who want total freedom. Everyone in this forum lies somewhere on a spectrum between these two points. I've found its better to accept that simple reality rather than cry about my views on the forum.

If it makes you all feel better i have agreed with every request for the option to change the succession type every time you asked, despite never having any desire to use it. Under certain conditions everything should be ppossible. In the past I've argued for the option to mend the schism from the catholic side, have norse settlers succeed in colonising America as a way to stop the aztec invasion, turn from fuedal to merchant republic as descision and more. And while i think far to many people in this thread are arguing in ignorance of how the byzantine situation was, they have a right to want what they want. Dont antagonize the other side. Let us be.

 

[CoGaTe]

: why should you be allowed to play your sandbox the way you want to?

Because paradox titles are essentially sandboxes. You can do whatever you want. I only reformed byzantium for the achievement and the looks, I never played them before. In hinsight I would not change my custom empire again, why would I need a specific CB at all? While restoring the empire I was constantly above 90 percent threat and fought on multiple fronts with everyone who borthered heck even my own holy order in a holy war (paradox logic), doesnt make a difference at all in the CK2 mechanic as it would in EU4.

:
Byzantium supposed to be juggernaut which should be killed by internal politics (or, if you want, player should deal with internal politics without real external problems). Essentially, you're saying - "I want to play juggernaut without penalties". Well, that's why custom empires are there, aren't they?

I created that juggernaut from a single county as hellenic, so yea I have every right there is to play as an invincible monster. Politics are infact the whole point of the game, in a single player campaign there is no challenge at all honestly unless you play close to the invasions. So no argument there, its perfectly fine when the trouble is coming from within. However if you have an elective and the penalties for underage people is so severe (even your most loyal people wouldnt support you) so you have to bribe your commanders who cant even hold a sword, something is wrong I'm sorry.

The biggest issue is the bug that you loose the game when a non dynastic heir is elected, right now they vote for my husband an unlanded dipshit I just married becasue they dont vote for my cousin who is underage. As a player I want her because she has 5 bloodlines I spent the whole campaign to amass, and in general I always play the youngest available character with decent stats. Bedause of the whole bloodline thing, choosing an heir became even more imperative woudlnt you agree? Also you are forced to matrinially marry to get them into the dynasty.

 

[Rockphed]

Do you really have no other close members of your dynasty with decent stats? In my byzantium run I often swapped to a cousin or brother before going to the kid of the previous ruler, though if the current sudden death in battle thing were made a little less common (though I am not sure it actually is more common now than it was before Holy Fury), I would probably have gotten more time on each ruler.

That said, one of the hardest things was getting a new character and finding that they were betrothed to some nobody because I hadn't expected them to actually inherit and nobody had wanted to marry their princess to a courtier, even if that courtier was a prince of the Byzantine Empire, born in the purple, and had the emperor's vote.

 

[CoGaTe]

Yes I could switch to a a different person i. e. one of the older brothers of my choosen sucessor, however as you know you can die in an instant without a warning and in an iron man game there is no reload when that happens before your chosen one is of age. There is also the whole issue of bloodlines, I just managed to get 5 and now there is a good chance they get lost. There is also the huge issue of the way the AI handles landed characters, the spouses they choose and so on. Even if all that specific problems with the commander selection, and the inheritance bug would not apply, the mere thought of playing a character I dont want or I havent groomed is breaking any motivation to play, i. e. the example you mentioned, first thing I had to divorce my useless spouse, and then wait years to pick a focus, essentially deal with baggage Im not responsible for. I actually planned to kill my current character either through staying as a leader in tubercoulosis provinces and choose ruler focus to become depressed and commit suicide. When it is down to that I rather stop playing and wait for certain mods to be updated. Feel free to check out the save I have attached.

 

[Tatterhood]

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?

The HRE historically was like that from the twelfth or thirteenth century. There is no particular reason in 769 or even 1066 why the HRE must have a college of electors that works just like so, it's just the way history ended up going. Thus the game makes it the default but allows history to be changed.

Byzantium, on the other hand, can't change to primogeniture because hereditary rule has been anathema since the abolition of the Roman monarchy 1200 years before the game's earliest start date. Keeping those ancient Roman traditions alive even when they don't make all that much sense anymore is Byzantium's whole thing, thus to throw them away entails destroying the imperial title.

 

[Anilomu]

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.

I don’t know why people downvote on these forums for no reason, you are stating a very prominent issue with this succession system. With commanders having to be landed, you now have a smaller pool of commanders to choose from, which become more incompetent as the good ones die off from battle which is OFTEN; next thing you know you have viceroys at about 12-15 marshal leading armies and dying, with the need to fill the ranks constantly. The limit on player choice is pretty significant, and saying it’s historical doesn’t fix the system or make it any less stressful.

 

[CoGaTe]

I don’t know why people downvote on these forums for no reason, you are stating a very prominent issue with this succession system.

Well thank you, arguing emotionally probably didnt help the cause but it truly is frustrating and stressful to play in that state like you say, which is why I quit that campaign after 100h of time invested. I wouldnt loose but it would be like playing with a chasity belt. Anyone arguing on behalf of CK2 and historical accuracy cleary listened too much to glitterhoof. I think the commander issue needs to be adressed desperately both in voting power as well as in selection, while dynastic candiates should get more bonuses, i. e. born in purple +15 instead of 5, the children penalty -50 instead of -120 and dynasty members, friends, loyal servants should always vote in a way it makes sense otherwise whats the point of all these modifiers if one is introduced that overrules them all in any circumstance.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Look realistically there are two arguements here. Those who want history and those who want total freedom. Everyone in this forum lies somewhere on a spectrum between these two points. I've found its better to accept that simple reality rather than cry about my views on the forum.

If it makes you all feel better i have agreed with every request for the option to change the succession type every time you asked, despite never having any desire to use it. Under certain conditions everything should be possible. In the past I've argued for the option to mend the schism from the catholic side, have norse settlers succeed in colonising America as a way to stop the aztec invasion, turn from fuedal to merchant republic as descision and more. And while i think far to many people in this thread are arguing in ignorance of how the byzantine situation was, they have a right to want what they want. Dont antagonize the other side. Let us be.

There's also a side that wants something remotely challenging, and succession reforms was one of the more pressing balance changes on the list. It's particularly noteworthy how stable blobs are, and now? Now they break up much more often, whether it be through decadence or kept impotent though constant civil wars like Byz (HRE remains problematically stable.) The proliferation of claims among landowning vassals sows unrest and makes the realm less stable via claimant revolts. Which is a great change.

For example Hispania (Umayyads) doesn't even form half the time these days ever since claimant factions got a boost, usually splitting the realm in two with Andalusia and whatever second kingdom the Umayyads made to form the empire. And that's before this DLC which carved up the kingdom de jure. Now an independence faction is liable to successfully fire too, also killing any chance for that yellow blob.

Don't antagonize the status quo. Especially when it's been largely reasonable. Let us be.

 

[aono]

Because paradox titles are essentially sandboxes. You can do whatever you want.

Nope. Paradox games are essentially historical(-ish) simulators (whatever shallow they are, they still are the best on market). You can do whatever you want within rulesets.
In CK2 you can't swap to "normal" inheritance as a tribal. You can't hold churches as a catholic without penalties. You can't play Pope.

I created that juggernaut from a single county as hellenic, so yea I have every right there is to play as an invincible monster.

Of course, make a custom empire based on Thrace or Greece, and you're good!

However if you have an elective and the penalties for underage people is so severe (even your most loyal people wouldnt support you) so you have to bribe your commanders who cant even hold a sword, something is wrong I'm sorry.

No, nothing is wrong. At least I can't see anything wrong here. Yes, to put a child on throne when every commander have a reason to believe he can take a throne for himself, you need to invest into. Absolutely reasonable.

Bedause of the whole bloodline thing, choosing an heir became even more imperative woudlnt you agree? Also you are forced to matrinially marry to get them into the dynasty.

You see, that's a difference.
Yes, selecting a heir is imperative. So it's a thing you should invest into, work about, and it should be hard to always get a heir you want. You should use favors, please people you need, maximize your own voting power. You should work hard to select a heir you want to because it's imperative, not the opposite way.
You can't really declare it's not possible to put a child into Roman throne. I modded Imperial Government to my custom empire and played it a lot. I can place there a heir I want, until my ruler has serious problems; then it's my prefered heir siblings. It take my deal of work, sure.

I only reformed byzantium for the achievement and the looks

Yes, and you're supposed to pay (play designed way) for this achievement and the looks.
I mean, let's differ different lines of this arguement.
1. "Hey, they forbid me to do anything I want". Yes, they do. That's ok.
2. "Hey, mechanics they created aren't working!" They are working and they do it's job.
3. "Hey, mechanics they created aren't fun!" They're fun for me. Eldership and Imperial Elective (and rework of elective governments as a whole) are the best things happened with CK2 (as a simulator game). If they're not fun for you, well, it's a pity, but it's a question of personal preferences, and that's why there are a lot of other countries with different rulesets out there.

 

[magriboy0750]

Good morning,i think make a game rule for this should be a good solution to satisfy everyone.
Cordially.

 

[Naughtius Maximus]

Good morning,i think make a game rule for this should be a good solution to satisfy everyone.
Cordially.

Just make a custom empire and roleplay it as the Byz. Game rule is excessive for one realm. Objection to this is just an indicator that people appear to want the Byz Cake and none of the well reasoned balancing that goes along with it.

Want a normal empire? Make a normal empire.

 

[magriboy0750]

Indeed,in more the games rules are moddable.So even if Paradox doesn't do the game rule,you can make it yourself.So no problem about that.
Also,to be honest,i haven't say that for me.Personaly,i want more realism and the imperial government and elective succession is very interesting for me.However,i know some persons prefer to play the games in other way that realism.
Cordially.