The Byzantine Empire, and how Holy Fury ruined them.

[Gunthah]

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.

As far as I know you can get a child on the throne if you call in favours on the voters. Byzantine child emperors that succeeded their parents needed the support of powerful people at court or they were replaced by powerful men. It was very easy for rivals to take advantage of a child emperor and have themselves proclaimed emperor.

 

[aono]

So even if Paradox doesn't do the game rule,you can make it yourself.

That's not going to work if people wants achievements...
...but, actually, one can argue that to get achievements created by dev for special circumstances by conciously bypassing this exact circumstances is very close to cheating.

 

[magriboy0750]

That's not going to work if people wants achievements...
...but, actually, one can argue that to get achievements created by dev for special circumstances by conciously bypassing this exact circumstances is very close to cheating.

I totally agree with that.Personnaly,i play Paradox Games for roleplay reasons and i don't care about achievements.So i cheat with mods or using console commands but i'm honest enough to not want achievement.However,a thing that i would like to be reworked is to add an option for non-ironman games to continue in observer mode on the game over screen,like in the more recent Paradox Games.I really hope Imperator also have this option.
Cordially.

 

[Twoflower]

I must admit, I find this discussion rather confusing. One central strength of Crusader Kings 2 in comparison to, say, EU4, is that it actually has interesting internal management and peacetime activities and therefore gives you something fun and meaningful to do other than war.
The new Byzantine succession is a great way of adding to that. Yes, you have to juggle commanders, sometimes you have to scramble to find land for them, sometimes you have to make a tradeoff between a great-but-troublesome guy and a incompetent-but-biddable one, and you have to work to get them to pick the heir you want. This may be stressful, but it does make for challenging gameplay. The fact that it keeps things insecure for an already strong Byzantium and even for a resurgent Rome is not a drawback. Once you have formed Rome, your game is basically devoid of any external challenges. There has to be some kind of internal challenge at that point, and the new election system contributes to that.

EDIT: Which is all not to say that the existing bugs with the election system do not need fixing. They do, and they're keeping me from starting a serious Byzantine game which I am itching to do

 

[Gunthah]

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.

Commanders die and get injured way too much, especially in battles they win, but that's a different matter. The new imperial elective system introduces a new (way more historically accurate) level of complexity to what was up to now an invincible ever expanding blob. I understand some people prefer the less historically accurate and easier playstyle, but it is a bit like expecting merchant republics to work like feudal states because it's less of a hassle.

However, it is a new feature they've introduced years into the game, so I personally think a game rule could be in order for those who want that to remain as it was, the same way there are rules to bring back the instant assassination button and to pretend the ahistorical defensive pacts never happened.

 

[CoGaTe]

As far as I know you can get a child on the throne if you call in favours on the voters. Byzantine child emperors that succeeded their parents needed the support of powerful people at court or they were replaced by powerful men. It was very easy for rivals to take advantage of a child emperor and have themselves proclaimed emperor.

Yea sorry for even bringing that up, but yes you can, but it is unbalanced in several aspects in my opinion and ties in with other game factors related to commanders and realm management some people seem either not to acknowledge or agree upon for whatever reasons. I checked the game files and the values seem way too strong, also you end up fighting with vastly inferior commanders not that it matters until the seljuks or the mongols come knocking. CK2 plus did it right, there is an event for a succession crisis which you can even disable as a game rule. Basicly what happens is if a child character suceeds to the throne, a powerful faction overthrows the child ruler and puts in a favorable character.

Regarding achievements, I have activated iron man for the first time ever in any game, I always play modded, but since ckplus and others need to adapt first I thought I give it a go but lesson learned never try something new with chains on your wrists or complain on the official forums about bugs or balancing.

 

[Gunthah]

Yea sorry for even bringing that up, but yes you can, but it is unbalanced in several aspects in my opinion and ties in with other game factors related to commanders and realm management some people seem either not to acknowledge or agree upon for whatever reasons. I checked the game files and the values seem way too strong, also you end up fighting with vastly inferior commanders not that it matters until the seljuks or the mongols come knocking. CK2 plus did it right, there is an event for a succession crisis which you can even disable as a game rule. Basicly what happens is if a child character suceeds to the throne, a powerful faction overthrows the child ruler and puts in a favorable character.

Regarding achievements, I have activated iron man for the first time ever in any game, I always play modded, but since ckplus and others need to adapt first I thought I give it a go but lesson learned never try something new with chains on your wrists or complain on the official forums about bugs or balancing.

I think limiting the possible commanders to landed vassals makes sense historically and as a gameplay feature. Military commanders were either courtiers (who you can still name marshall) or influential men that were governing themes, which gave the emperor the same dilemma the player now has: you might want to appoint a less influential, more effective commander, but you still have to contend with the powerful families of the empire who want their share of power and influence.

Also, commanders in CK2 are not such a huge deal, at least in my experience. Way more influential are the numbers and the composition of the fighting armies.

 

[aono]

I always play modded, but since ckplus and others need to adapt first I thought I give it a go but lesson learned never try something new with chains on your wrists or complain on the official forums about bugs or balancing.

Sorry, but as far as I can tell you're arguing about game doesn't allow you to break rules for your convinience to save your dynasty and bloodlines.
Thing is, this kind of obstacles put there exactly to make you work for your dynasty and bloodlines.

also you end up fighting with vastly inferior commanders not that it matters until the seljuks or the mongols come knocking.

And also the empire would disrespect you (lower voting power) for appointing bad commanders. Yes.
...you see, you're listing arguments in favor of new elective system, at least they are in my book. That's exactly why I modded this succession into my modded empire.

or complain on the official forums about bugs or balancing.

Please. A lot of people here complaining about bugs or balancing. I personally made by share of complain - about Cosmopolitan, about Ancestral Veneration, about Animism, at least.
Still, your arguments I saw yet are about game for Byzantium/Rome doesn't gives you fun you want, freedom you want and makes you to play within ruleset you don't want. It's not bugs, and it's not a balance issues - as well as a reason I don't get fun for playing Nomads or Muslims doesn't makes their gameplay "bug" or "unbalanced".
And yes, essentially I believe that trying to "balance" paradox strategies is an auful idea that killing them, and, you know, I get my share of disagreement.

 

[DukeDayve]

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.

I made a thread pretty much asking for primo + designate heir, with a war if vassals disagree. I wasn't thinking of having the best of both of those succession law though. Ideally (and I made this thread years ago) I would like a unique type of government if you want to play as the Byzantine Empire (as opposed to a vassal of the empire) that allows you to keep playing even if another dynasty takes the throne.

I'd like to play as the emperor, no matter who the emperor is. The emperor would always take Constantinople upon succession and would keep whatever other land they had before. The outgoing emperor (or his/her heir) would lose Constantinople but keep all other land they had.

 

[aono]

I'd like to play as the emperor, no matter who the emperor is.

As far as developers would stay adamant in idea "we're making a game for playing dynasty, not a state", I'd not expect this.
But, hell, not as this developers were always follow ideas they were adamant before (and I'm not saying it as a bad thing)!

Still, I disagree with

I made a thread pretty much asking for primo + designate heir, with a war if vassals disagree. I wasn't thinking of having the best of both of those succession law though. Ideally (and I made this thread years ago) I would like a unique type of government if you want to play as the Byzantine Empire (as opposed to a vassal of the empire) that allows you to keep playing even if another dynasty takes the throne.

The most pleasing thing of new Election sucession, at least for Eldership and Imperial Elective, is, in my opinion, that they model society beyond the rulers. It's, again, shallow, but better then it was. Changing it into "primo+designate, and let vassals disagree" would remove this.
Also, actually, it's nearly current primogeniture with bonus designate heir option.

 

[Strigoi Tyrannus]

As far as developers would stay adamant in idea "we're making a game for playing dynasty, not a state", I'd not expect this.
But, hell, not as this developers were always follow ideas they were adamant before (and I'm not saying it as a bad thing)!

Hmm. When thinking about it, I don't see a reason why a title centered "game mode" wouldn't be possible. In this "game mode" you choose a title at the beginning and always play whoever owns that title. Would make it possible to play theocracies as well. Ofc, achievements would be disabled, and (or) the game mode could have couple achievements of its own. And playing a title is different than playing aa stat in my opinion. If the title is conquered, becomes independent or the liege changes, it is basically a different state!

 

[Serenity84]

You don't need to a full roster of commanders at all times. In peace time you maybe need 3-4 commanders to deal with hosts or some small wars for a weak duchy. You can wait for a major war to appoint them all. Otherwise you just don't need two independent armies.

And with the vice roy system you have a wide pool. Check which count/duke is the best compromise between martial abilities and other traits or opinion and make them strategos/exarch. I actually prefer them a bit older and die relatively soon so I can appoint another one for the opinion bonus.
Yeah you won't be able to invite the best commanders from half the world, but that always felt too easy anyways. Sometimes the choices are mostly bad (and the AI always had issues with education their children properly), but they aren't always horrible either.

 

[Alastor]

And with the vice roy system you have a wide pool. Check which count/duke is the best compromise between martial abilities and other traits or opinion and make them strategos/exarch. I actually prefer them a bit older and die relatively soon so I can appoint another one for the opinion bonus.

The problem with this is just how mindbogglingly tedious it is. Particularly when you get to the point where you have multi-Exarchs/Strategoi with 6-7 titles each. By the end game I was dreading the moment one of my Exarchs died and I had to go clicky clicky clicky again to give him his all relevant viceroyalties. Because you see if you click to grant lesser titles with the kingdom title then he becomes a hereditary duke. Which I don't want.

 

[Serenity84]

Because you see if you click to grant lesser titles with the kingdom title then he becomes a hereditary duke. Which I don't want.

I simply turn the duchies into hereditary ones and just pick one of he dukes as exarch. Problem solved

 

[aono]

When thinking about it, I don't see a reason why a title centered "game mode" wouldn't be possible.

It's definitly not impossible, they just don't want to do it (yet).

And with the vice roy system you have a wide pool. Check which count/duke is the best compromise between martial abilities and other traits or opinion and make them strategos/exarch.

And don't forget that Byzantium starts with Imperial Administration, allowing you to revoke duchy viceroyalities without opposition from anybody but previous holder; and retract vassals (an option that's quite undervalued!) from Imperial Administration AND Imperial Governments.
So, when I had some kind of need to land some genius commander, I did it this way:
1. Take away viceroyality from 2+ province duke.
2. Make a plot to revoke his title.
3. When plot succeed, give titles to commander you want.
4. Give him viceroyality.

 

[CoGaTe]

You don't need to a full roster of commanders at all times.

Yes, this is the solution and also proofs the system is wonky at best. I just fired everybody, literally all eight commanders and 4 council members, I only kept the spymaster and the marshal, at this point you dont need the other guys really, but I get back to that. The crucial part is these fellows are NOT nobles, just peasants I slapped some bagdes on, while commanders need to be landed, council members are still free. Thus they can be bribed with 80 gold which is nothing and you can put glitterhoof on the imperial throne. Works for me
Now the idea is you keep a peasant only council, hence everyone only needs the occasional 80 gold to vote for your chosen one and all is good. You dont need to buy all the votes, just enough.

Now you dont have any commanders exept your marshal and yourself, you may want to have at least 1 siege general, the others cann be supplied either through the holy order of the myrmidons which I have as a vassal and the papal guard which is also a vassal. If need be like you just stated, we can put in additional commanders if the things look bad, but thats hardly ever the case and you can teleport commanders across the map which i always do, the ai as well. Keep in mind the AI is also incredibly bad with education, the best real noble I have right now is 18 martial, and that guy is going to kick the bucket soon. In 3.0 I read martial 40 characters are not rare for players, take that as a comparison.

The retract vassalage and vice roality is indeed a option to work around the commander quality issue, as a simple count can hold it. I did that recently as I wanted to test how that works out, after all a powerful vassal is dangerous and I have still 4 Kings that need to be put down from their throne, hence replacing them with count vice royals above them seems a good strategy in that as well.

 

[Alastor]

I simply turn the duchies into hereditary ones and just pick one of he dukes as exarch. Problem solved

I'm not so sure about that. First that kind of defeats the point of viceroyalties. Second Dukes are considerably harder to control. There is little stopping powerful Dukes from toppling and usurping your chosen Exarchs. Indeed I've even seen powerful Counts do that. And this lack of control is made that much worse by the fact that granting higher lvl viceroyal titles always messes up the succession of lower titles, so you can't really force gavelkind.
It's a compromise I understand, but still far from ideal.

 

[Duskwave]

Hmm. When thinking about it, I don't see a reason why a title centered "game mode" wouldn't be possible. In this "game mode" you choose a title at the beginning and always play whoever owns that title. Would make it possible to play theocracies as well. Ofc, achievements would be disabled, and (or) the game mode could have couple achievements of its own. And playing a title is different than playing aa stat in my opinion. If the title is conquered, becomes independent or the liege changes, it is basically a different state!

I frequently think about what playing as the Pope would look like. I sometimes think an order/faction/whatever based system like the Clans or Merchant Houses would work if you want to keep that internal intrigue and risk of losing power element, but on the other hand, if not for the "there is always a Pope even if there are literally no landed Catholic characters in the world" thing, playing as the Papacy itself wouldn't be risk-free most of the time either (thinking of all the past 769 games where the Crusades are called for Aquitaine, Aquitaine, France, Italy...)

 

[Serenity84]

2. Make a plot to revoke his title.
3. When plot succeed, give titles to commander you want

Also don't forget that you can have almost anyone excommunicated who is in the area of the ecumenical patriarch. That gives you a reason to imprison them.

And if an exarchate returns to you its dukes will somehow change to the ecumenical patriarch. That gives you an opportunity to clean up things if someone has amassed too much power. Yeah some people will decry that as micromanagment, but at least it gives you something to do now and then. Instead of just expanding all the time

And this lack of control is made that much worse by the fact that granting higher lvl viceroyal titles always messes up the succession of lower titles, so you can't really force gavelkind

All the more reason to make the dukes hereditary. If someone gets too powerful you can sort them out when the exarch dies (and you aren't busy with an external war).

There is also a long standing bug where vice kings won't had out vice royalties that come back to them. So they collect titles and then everyone hates them for it

 

[DahndI]

No, hes just another vassal, if hes not elected to be heir, it doesn't matter if he has land and I chose him, everyone wants another dude as emperor so I'm still gonna lose the game.

if they hate you, pick the old dude as your heir and they will likely choose one of your children