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.
I see people aren’t even looking at the screenshots. It says I’m not only loosing the empire, but duchies and counties too. Initiating a game over as I technically have no heir.
With "put preferred heir to a position of power" I meant to land that character...
I looked up the byzantine empires and while there were coups it wasnt that common
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_emperors
I think the whole elective system is a little off overall it is a form of elective that slowly changes to fully hereditory I mean the Palaiologos dynasty had 12 consecutive Emperors. I dont want to pass judgement till I try it but it shouldnt be hard to hold onto the Imperial throne.
This is really the only thing to note about this, and is (hopefully?) a bug. The rest of the rant about how terrible the succession is is pretty much pointless, at least in my opinion. You have crap-tons of gold to buy electors. You have (or am I confusing you with someone else?) other relatives you could easily nominate who would win. You have a large, sprawling empire with so many different cultures that people are going to stick with their own religions and cultures over yours. Your main opponent certainly doesn't sound Greek Orthodox to me, which means that you have a realm full of people who don't care about BITP or the Despot title. Your capital isn't in Constantinople anymore, which means that if the devs had put in something "lose all land outside of du jure borders", you're screwed.
There are so many additional variables that you've introduced beyond just the simple new succession system that it's really hard to feel bad for you. In my opinion it *should* be hard to get utterly massive and still hold everything together. If the entire realm is populated by people of a different culture/religion, then you absolutely should lose the election. Period. I don't think it should be a game-over, but there's no way that a small Greek set of nobles should be able to control an entire realm of other cultures. It didn't work with the original Roman empire, and it shouldn't work now either...
I believe the Empire became much more attached to the Palaiologan dynasty since it was re-established in Constantinople in 1261 after being dismembered in the Fourth Crusade. For the longest time this was not the case.
In that list of emperors, all eleven breaks between dynasties (within the game's time period) are coups of one sort of another, but many of the emperors included in each group are also non dynastic successions: the twenty year anarchy group are all violent depositions or palace coups, in the Isaurian group Artabasdos tried to depose Constantine V and Irene took the throne from her son in a series of coups. Staurakios was deposed in another palace coup after being injured. Although included in the Macedonian group, Romanos I, Nikephoros II and John I were all military strongmen who became co-emperors (the one making the decisions) by taking advantage of children of the Macedonian dynasty succeeding to the throne. And there are more episodes like these before the Palaiologoi. Seeing as having emperors in name and actual emperors at the same time is impossible for the game, the new system seems pretty accurate from what I've played.
If anything it would be even more realistic if the court didn't wait for you to die and actively murdered more emperors, but this is not something I personally would be in favour of.
In my experience it hasn't been hard at all to hold on to the throne. All I do is not directly antagonise vassals and give the Despot title to the relative that at that time seems most appropriate. Many times the difference between someone supporting your choice or not is just sending them a gift (not even buying a favour from them). The result as it's played out for me is it's hard to hold on to the throne if you've just taken it by force, but once you're established you keep your family on the throne as long as you have a half decent candidate to succeed you.
The AI does seem to be having a hard time. There are constant wars trying to get tons of claimants on to the throne,which does seem a bit too much, though this isn't really a new development.
I've actually been working (slowly) on a HIP submod that adds a co-emperor minor title (can be granted to up to 3 people per the maximum number of co-emperors during the game; subject to a fairly long list of conditions but all IMO pretty essential ones), and (eventually) associated events for co-emperors and their senior emperor too. I think I've already set it to count as purple-born, and I've been musing about the possibility of co-emperors having council seats too. This would leave you at a disadvantage if your control over your council is shaky, since empty seats vote 'no' by default, even if it's only empty because nobody qualifies for it. Of course there should also be some incentive to create co-emperors, since you're basically just choosing people to give claims to otherwise (they get strong claims, but if they were on the council, that would make them unable to join factions unless the council was discontent, which would kinda make sense anyway), and I think that would be one way to do it. I'm also looking at making other characters less likely to support co-emperors as claimants since they're already emperors, maybe unless the co-emperor starts the faction themselves (i.e. when the council is discontent).
Started on it way before HF, but I think it would help to perfect Imperial succession now. Tie Imperial elective to imperial admin, and restrict the standard succession laws and the despot minor title to feudal Greek independent kingdoms and empires. The prevalence of despots came after the collapse of the old imperial administration. Plus it'd add some flavour for the Despotate of Epirus and Trebizond too.
The game at this moment in already has its set of challenges without the need to introduce extra mechanics that make the game unenjoyable. A standard custom empire has more control and stability than the current succession system that the Byzantine Empire has(being historical doesn't cut it if every other empire voting for imperial law does not also get Imperial succession, it just nerfs the byzantine's).
You have your council and commanders who all vote, and Elective is always this nuisance you are forced to deal with when you claim the Byzantine throne. Bribing electors was only really something you did to get votes out of the way until you reached Full Ruler control. Now though, Its something I apparently HAVE to do every few years and keep track of, on top of vassal power, viceroyalties, inheritance, opinions, the pope, and appointing good commanders; that now also require to be landed with a small selection that die all the time from battle, effectively having to put weak commanders as that is all you have and getting more penalties, some voters like you, but still won't vote for your heir because of they are Ambitious or Lustful and so on.
I believe your solution is actually quite simple: you already have one ecstatic elector (green happy face), meaning he will always vote with you. All you need is two more. Send them gifts and sway one after the other into loving you. Switch to carousing focus and invite them to endless parties. They already have a good opinion of you, getting them to love you shouldn't be hard. Once they do, it doesn't matter at all how much they like their preferred candidate, they will always pick the one you want.
I really like the new succession law, allows easy access to godly heirs and keeps you on your toes, but the stupid ass dismissed or replaced competent commander bug needs to go.
What I'm not ok with is the required landed commanders, most byzantine commanders had only merchant republic style estates and many were simply imperial courtiers or unlanded family members. Having nothing but 10 marshal commanders isnt fun or fair to the player or especially the AI. I'm not ok with the Byzantines losing their historical territory in every start date except 1066 where their at their biggest gameplaywise. Manuel Komnenos bastard son is a vassal to Hungary now the hell. I'm especially triggered that they got these Ahistorical tributaries that drain them dry and their enemies have their historical core territory, like really Byzantium not owning Adrianopolis in 769. That combined with the fact That the AI cant handle the government has caused me to see in 5 observer games in a row Byzantium from 769 dead in 900. But guess who I would say is even more powerful then ever? The Abbasids and Selijuks.
Byzantines in 867 shouldn't have a fantasy Serbian Orthodox Epirus tributary state which can be day 1 diplo vassalized by the player anyway . Change my mind.
What I'm not ok with is the required landed commanders, most byzantine commanders had only merchant republic style estates and many were simply imperial courtiers or unlanded family members. Having nothing but 10 marshal commanders isnt fun or fair to the player or especially the AI. I'm not ok with the Byzantines losing their historical territory in every start date except 1066 where their at their biggest gameplaywise. Manuel Komnenos bastard son is a vassal to Hungary now the hell. I'm especially triggered that they got these Ahistorical tributaries that drain them dry and their enemies have their historical core territory, like really Byzantium not owning Adrianopolis in 769. That combined with the fact That the AI cant handle the government has caused me to see in 5 observer games in a row Byzantium from 769 dead in 900. But guess who I would say is even more powerful then ever? The Abbasids and Selijuks.
Byzantines in 867 shouldn't have a fantasy Serbian Orthodox Epirus tributary state which can be day 1 diplo vassalized by the player anyway . Change my mind.
If you want a different succession system in the Byzantine empire, you could always do what the Ottomans did. Start someplace else and conquer the Byzantine empire and reestablish the same empire under a different set of laws.
That was my main goal before, but I can’t form the Roman Empire without the title.
byzantine have the most powerful land and law in 769
one succession law still doesn't make them weak enough to decline over time
one succession law still doesn't make them weak enough to decline over time
Ahh, no.
They have lost most of the Balkans, including territories that they actually held during that time (Thrace), and are threatened by the Abbasids at the south and the bulgars at the north. Given what happened historically, the ERE should be able to, not only survive, but bounce back after those setbacks, because it happened historically...a lot of times.
-Joint Persian-Avar Invasion (602-626) -> Persian-Avar Siege of Constantinople (626) -> Byzantine reconquest of Jerusalem (627) -> Byzantine victory at Niniveh (628)
-Samuel of Bulgaria defeats Basil II (978) -> Byzantine victory at Kleidion (1014) -> Basil II destroys the Bulgarian kingdom and the ERE recovers the Danube border (1018)
-Defeat of Manzikert (1071) -> Alexios I Komnenoi recovers a good chunk of Anatolia (109X)
-Sack of Constantinople (1204) -> The Nikaeans recover the city and destroy the Latin Empire. (1261)
The current (bugged) situation leaves them underpowered and prone to being destroyed, either for the nothern savages, for the abbasids, or for the Crusaders.
They have lost most of the Balkans, including territories that they actually held during that time (Thrace), and are threatened by the Abbasids at the south and the bulgars at the north. Given what happened historically, the ERE should be able to, not only survive, but bounce back after those setbacks, because it happened historically...a lot of times.
-Joint Persian-Avar Invasion (602-626) -> Persian-Avar Siege of Constantinople (626) -> Byzantine reconquest of Jerusalem (627) -> Byzantine victory at Niniveh (628)
-Samuel of Bulgaria defeats Basil II (978) -> Byzantine victory at Kleidion (1014) -> Basil II destroys the Bulgarian kingdom and the ERE recovers the Danube border (1018)
-Defeat of Manzikert (1071) -> Alexios I Komnenoi recovers a good chunk of Anatolia (109X)
-Sack of Constantinople (1204) -> The Nikaeans recover the city and destroy the Latin Empire. (1261)
The current (bugged) situation leaves them underpowered and prone to being destroyed, either for the nothern savages, for the abbasids, or for the Crusaders.
What, you mean the remnants of the Byzantine Empire can't bounce back, if they've released all they vassals and consolidated their power in the one-barony Kurdistan Empire?
I just started experiencing the same thing as the OP. I play as Amalfi and each time I'm warned of losing the republic elections, the warning includes all my titles:
I also swore fealty to the Byzantines to experience their succession law from within and it really seems the AI can't handle the mechanic (or they forgot how to hand out titles again). They keep making their sons into mayors or all tiers (they even create MRs which I'd never witnessed before) which leaves them without good heirs. This leads to the crown jumping around rival families a lot which leads to many claimants so the whole empire erupts into claimant wars every couple of years.
I was forced to take matters into my own hands and I'm actively murdering claimants now.
Also I can't vote for myself. Is that because I'm a republic? Was that always the case?
I also swore fealty to the Byzantines to experience their succession law from within and it really seems the AI can't handle the mechanic (or they forgot how to hand out titles again). They keep making their sons into mayors or all tiers (they even create MRs which I'd never witnessed before) which leaves them without good heirs. This leads to the crown jumping around rival families a lot which leads to many claimants so the whole empire erupts into claimant wars every couple of years.
I was forced to take matters into my own hands and I'm actively murdering claimants now.
Also I can't vote for myself. Is that because I'm a republic? Was that always the case?
I don't see why you need it, the Ottomans surely didn't when they reformed it.
I would post a save of that game in the Bug -sub forum if you havn't already. I know some others have posted there about losing all counties when new heir come to power.
I've just fired up a game as ERE, playing the Alexiad start.
Still early, but I'm enjoying the changes, to be honest. I feel like I have to work to get a successor on the throne, feel like there is a lot more backstabbing and intrigue going on as well - or at least stuff I have to care about.
And on the plus side - under Imperial rule you can hold cities now too. I haven't seen this mentioned much but I reckon it's a bit underrated. Allows for a super-tall playatyle with insane amounts of gold, and the tech boosts too. Somyehing different at least...
I can't really see how to get hold of the cities in Constantinople but one holy war and you can hold a new power base off site.
Still early, but I'm enjoying the changes, to be honest. I feel like I have to work to get a successor on the throne, feel like there is a lot more backstabbing and intrigue going on as well - or at least stuff I have to care about.
And on the plus side - under Imperial rule you can hold cities now too. I haven't seen this mentioned much but I reckon it's a bit underrated. Allows for a super-tall playatyle with insane amounts of gold, and the tech boosts too. Somyehing different at least...
I can't really see how to get hold of the cities in Constantinople but one holy war and you can hold a new power base off site.
So, might this be a bug relating to the emperor-to-be not having any land? Like, you can't have an emperor title without land so it's taking yours instead of giving them to your dynastic heir?