Two Small Map Change Suggestions for Byzantium

  • 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 think they already teased that there will be a Byzantium DLC at some point, but i'm not that sure.
It's on the roadmap and they said it would be part of a full expansion, whether we get a flavor pack afterwards remains to be seen.

As long as it comes with a Fourth Crusade event chain to go with it.
As long as it not's like Ck2s, I don't care, that was hax and not even historical, I hate the current broken Crusades But I don't want to see the setup of CK'2 latest patch where a strong Fatimid or Ayyubid Egypt and Byzantium are instantly destroyed by a Crusade.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
There are not only geographical inaccuracies, the Byzantine Empire is very badly represented in the game. The simple fact of applying a silly feudal system when the empire had inherited the Roman imperial bureaucratic system is very anhistorical. I understand that it's done for convenience but a reform of this system would be cool, I would love to see a bureaucratic system appear as much as the return of the merchant republics. I think there are mods for that eventually. I recommend this video which sums up the problem:
As long as they have some type of system to allow you to pull off palace coups (outside of your regent overthrowing you) then I'll be happy
 
We also need a real varangian guard, because damn varangians through history were not only epic but really important to Byzantium. And at least they were not huge emperors makers/betrayers as were the Praetorians (most corrupted guard ever). A full set of norse/byzantine interactions and events would be a really exciting feature. Imagine being emperor of Scandinavia and sending your heir son for ten years in the varangians to learn life, or vikings who return from Byzance to become king like Harald Hardrada, sound amazing.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There are not only geographical inaccuracies, the Byzantine Empire is very badly represented in the game. The simple fact of applying a silly feudal system when the empire had inherited the Roman imperial bureaucratic system is very anhistorical. I understand that it's done for convenience but a reform of this system would be cool, I would love to see a bureaucratic system appear as much as the return of the merchant republics. I think there are mods for that eventually. I recommend this video which sums up the problem:
You're preaching to the choir here, everyone agrees byz needs to be redone, but thats a major rework, whereas fixing history files is an easy ask to devs
We also need a real varangian guard, because damn varangians through history were not only epic but really important to Byzantium. And at least they were not huge emperors makers/betrayers as were the Praetorians (most corrupted guard ever). A full set of norse/byzantine interactions and events would be a really exciting feature. Imagine being emperor of Scandinavia and sending your heir son for ten years in the varangians to learn life, or vikings who return from Byzance to become king like Harald Hardrada, sound amazing.
You can already send people to the varangian guard, its one of the norse dynastic legacies, hardrada is the whole reason the mechanic was added, even though it was a very rare occasion, yet still precludes exiled anglo saxons joining it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes but the Varangians here are mere (and way too expensive) mercenary band, and for the norse it's already here but i meant that in the situation of a Byzantium Flavor pacl/DLC, it shall get a rework and maybe a real new mechanic. Anyway i don't think we will ever see that, people are already complaining that the game is too roleplay oriented (which I understand, but that's also part of what makes the game unique compared to another Paradox game).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Mmmm, the roleplay-mechanics opinion divide is sorta on us, I feel. We put out a DD with that split in it, and some folks have really taken it to heart, when it was more meant to be illustrative than like... a read on how we see the spectrum of possible future gameplay. There isn't a hard divide between mechanics and roleplay, though some features can be more dependent on a story built in the player's head and others on a story built through the player's actions, but both are needed to make any game good. Though I fully expect us to try focusing a bit more on the latter for our next expansion, that's not to say it won't have elements of the former in it, just like ToTo is built more on the story you tell in your head but has a lot more of that told through your actions.

:D Otherwise, this thread's sources and discussion very helpful so far, thankee folks!
 
  • 4Like
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
In general, blobs are always more powerful in-game, and there is little to stop them otherwise. The Normans in Sicily are a great example of where this goes wrong. Within 15 years of 1066 historically, they should have not only completely driven the Byzantines out of Italy, but they were able to launch an invasion of Greece that threatened to conquer Byzantium as a whole.

In-game, they are nothing more than a road-bump for the Byzantine reconquest of Sicily, much less a threat to actually go on the offensive. The only way Paradox can make smaller countries defeat larger ones* is with event troops (we see this with pretty much every starting war, from the Norman Conquest to Manzikert to the Sons of Ragnar).

Leaving Bari in Byzantine hands in 1066 would just mean that the Byzantines consistently reconquer all of Sicily. The Byzantines are already arguably the strongest power in the game; the last thing the game needs is to make them even more so.


*(ignoring AI incompetence that sometimes leads them to march around without ever capturing the war goal)
I think the HIP mod for CK2 modelled it well, having a "levy efficiency" box which took into account how many provinces a country had and what laws governed it and then calculated its efficiency in raising armies, which affected levy sizes.

I may be misremembering some of the details, but it seems to me like CK3's best way to get out of the false dilemma of "arbitrary event troops" vs Snowball effect) would be a similar system, which would measure various factors, like county modifiers, relationships between liege and vassal and an expanded set of laws, in order to allow smaller realms to have larger or much more professional armies than huge empires, which have gotten inefficient in their internal management.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the HIP mod for CK2 modelled it well, having a "levy efficiency" box which took into account how many provinces a country had and what laws governed it and then calculated its efficiency in raising armies, which affected levy sizes.

I may be misremembering some of the details, but it seems to me like CK3's best way to get out of the false dilemma of "arbitrary event troops" vs Snowball effect) would be a similar system, which would measure various factors, like county modifiers, relationships between liege and vassal and an expanded set of laws, in order to allow smaller realms to have larger or much more professional armies than huge empires, which have gotten inefficient in their internal management.
I think what would be really helpful is some kind of system to represent how distant regions of a realm could sometimes completely slip out of their liege's control and just become independent without any kind of war or faction demand, such as the Spanish Marches slowly fading out of Frankish control or Sardinia gradually becoming independent from the Byzantines after the Muslim Conquest of Sicily.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think what would be really helpful is some kind of system to represent how distant regions of a realm could sometimes completely slip out of their liege's control and just become independent without any kind of war or faction demand, such as the Spanish Marches slowly fading out of Frankish control or Sardinia gradually becoming independent from the Byzantines after the Muslim Conquest of Sicily.
Replace Sardinia with Naples and I agree. Sardinia drifting out because of the lost of Sicily is 30 years out of date academia.

But in the case of Naples, Gaeta and Amalfi you have Italian cities going defacto independent due to Byzantine inactivity in the region and closer ties with the Papacy and then the arriving Muslims. Of course when the Byzantines came back in force in 867 they resumed nominal submission and alliances but the cities had no wider strategical interest for the Empire and thus stayed independent.

A similar situation happened in Anatolia and Syria post Manzikert, some directly rejoining the Empire when the first Crusade passed, others nominal submission, and some defended their independence.

Good idea, not sure how it would work mechanically though , since that’s what the enclave system is trying to represent already.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Replace Sardinia with Naples and I agree. Sardinia drifting out because of the lost of Sicily is 30 years out of date academia.

But in the case of Naples, Gaeta and Amalfi you have Italian cities going defacto independent due to Byzantine inactivity in the region and closer ties with the Papacy and then the arriving Muslims. Of course when the Byzantines came back in force in 867 they resumed nominal submission and alliances but the cities had no wider strategical interest for the Empire and thus stayed independent.

A similar situation happened in Anatolia and Syria post Manzikert, some directly rejoining the Empire when the first Crusade passed, others nominal submission, and some defended their independence.

Good idea, not sure how it would work mechanically though , since that’s what the enclave system is trying to represent already.
I think a good way to make it work would be if you controlled territory within a single duchy or less that's separated from the rest of your realm by either a mountain range, a body of water, or just another realm it would slowly begin to fade out of your grasp unless you continually re-established your authority there in some form (either by frequently going on tours in the region or through some new province authority system). You can ensure that the territory will remain in your realm more permanently by conquering more lands in the region and extending it to be larger than just a single duchy, further entrenching your presence there.

Also, could you elaborate on that part about Sardinia fading out of Byzantine control after the loss of Sicily being outdated? What's the new consensus on when Sardinia stopped being directly ruled from Constantinople?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think a good way to make it work would be if you controlled territory within a single duchy or less that's separated from the rest of your realm by either a mountain range, a body of water, or just another realm it would slowly begin to fade out of your grasp unless you continually re-established your authority there in some form (either by frequently going on tours in the region or through some new province authority system). You can ensure that the territory will remain in your realm more permanently by conquering more lands in the region and extending it to be larger than just a single duchy, further entrenching your presence there.

Also, could you elaborate on that part about Sardinia fading out of Byzantine control after the loss of Sicily being outdated? What's the new consensus on when Sardinia stopped being directly ruled from Constantinople?

Just gonna repost this.

But Basically it was autonomous already by the 700s after the government of Africa from Carthage relocated there and the Mint shut down. First Under a Native Dux and then an Archon. an Archon being the command position given to isolated naval bases, for ex Cyprus, Crete, Cherson, Thessaloniki when it was surrounded by Slavs etc or for an autonomous native lord in the service of the empire like the Serbs.

Sardinia sat on the line between them and its exact role is still debated, further exasperated by a 2017 find of a Byzantine archon seal dated to the Mid 700s in the Balearic Islands with a Sardinian name.

Sardinia is unique in this period in that you have a Latinized Island and people dominated by Byzantine culture. The Archon and Nobles Spoke Greek as an elite language , used Byzantine Greek administrative titles and offices, the rite practices were those of the east with a plethora of Eastern Saints while remaining under the Suzerainty of the Pope(mostly) and using Latin as the liturgical language. Byzantine Catholics I guess you could say. The island was also home to a Greek migrant and monastic population while frequented by Greek traders that would sell slaves to them.

Sardinia also participated in the iconoclast controversy up to the 840s and even received an orthodox Bishop from Constantinople around the 867 start named Arsenios but wasn’t actually anti iconoclast like some parts of Italy.

It had its own military forces from its time as a duchy and a navy that helped protect the area against Muslim raiders. Sardinian soldiers were highly sought after with the Pope requesting them and them serving in the Byzantine palace guard. It also Maintained its own diplomatic relations with neighbors such as the Franks and Cordoba. The island was however mostly isolated from the monetary union economy of the western and central Mediterranean

Sources on Byzantine Sardinia become a lot more active in the 900s.

Constantine VII in his book de ceremonies lists them as an Archonate in a list of the Empires Italian Vassals. Another chapter high lights the Latin chants sung by Byzantine Sardinian Soldiers in the name of the emperor. 10th century Greek Inscriptions have been found on churches in Sardinia listing the new updated Byzantine titles received from Constantinople such as Protpspatharios that the Archons wore. Basil II at the end of the century sent an emissary to the caliphate of Córdoba representing Sardinia that had collected prisoners captured by Sardinia and Corsica.

Finally, it’s been theorized by Cosentino that the Byzantine naval attack on Muslim Fraxinetum in southern France in 942 was launched from Sardinia, as they wouldn’t have been able to make the voyage otherwise.

IMG_0651.jpeg
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
As long as they have some type of system to allow you to pull off palace coups (outside of your regent overthrowing you) then I'll be happy
You can kinda do a palace coup during the Iberian struggle. You need to kidnap your liege, claim his throne, start a faction for your claim, and then press your claim.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think what would be really helpful is some kind of system to represent how distant regions of a realm could sometimes completely slip out of their liege's control and just become independent without any kind of war or faction demand, such as the Spanish Marches slowly fading out of Frankish control or Sardinia gradually becoming independent from the Byzantines after the Muslim Conquest of Sicily.
That's a great idea, yeah! I would support it as a solution. Much better than "automatic independence of exclaves on ruler death", which is actually ahistorical in some instances.

You can kinda do a palace coup during the Iberian struggle. You need to kidnap your liege, claim his throne, start a faction for your claim, and then press your claim.
Eh, too gamey. They should utilize such options more closely to model it.
 
1708444762449.png


So looks like with Legends of the dead some map changes were made. And I know these are default as there's no way ingame to get these borders naturally after start.

Thus comparing it to the map I made:

1. The counties of Marash, Samosata and AIntab in Syria were added to Byzantine Control.
2. The county of Edessa in Syria WAS NOT added to Byzantine control.
3. The countries of Tao and Acampse in Georgia were not added to Byzantine control.
4. The County of Bakriya in Jazira was kept under Byzantine control.
5.The counties of Mayyafariqin and Tall Basma in Jazira were added to Seljuk control.
6. The county of Ani in Armenia was not added to Seljuk control.

Not gonna mention Bari cause that was never gonna happen lets be real but I'm surprised Edessa was left under Seljuk control despite having a recorded Byzantine governor in 1066, up to it's Seljuk capture in 1087 and a recorded successful defense against Alp Arslan in March 1071.
 
  • 11
  • 1Like
Reactions:
View attachment 1085215

So looks like with Legends of the dead some map changes were made. And I know these are default as there's no way ingame to get these borders naturally after start.

Thus comparing it to the map I made:

1. The counties of Marash, Samosata and AIntab in Syria were added to Byzantine Control.
2. The county of Edessa in Syria WAS NOT added to Byzantine control.
3. The countries of Tao and Acampse in Georgia were not added to Byzantine control.
4. The County of Bakriya in Jazira was kept under Byzantine control.
5.The counties of Mayyafariqin and Tall Basma in Jazira were added to Seljuk control.
6. The county of Ani in Armenia was not added to Seljuk control.

Not gonna mention Bari cause that was never gonna happen lets be real but I'm surprised Edessa was left under Seljuk control despite having a recorded Byzantine governor in 1066, up to it's Seljuk capture in 1087 and a recorded successful defense against Alp Arslan in March 1071.

Let's hope that at least Pecheneg etc. are added as subjects as they should be.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
View attachment 1085215

So looks like with Legends of the dead some map changes were made. And I know these are default as there's no way ingame to get these borders naturally after start.

Thus comparing it to the map I made:

1. The counties of Marash, Samosata and AIntab in Syria were added to Byzantine Control.
2. The county of Edessa in Syria WAS NOT added to Byzantine control.
3. The countries of Tao and Acampse in Georgia were not added to Byzantine control.
4. The County of Bakriya in Jazira was kept under Byzantine control.
5.The counties of Mayyafariqin and Tall Basma in Jazira were added to Seljuk control.
6. The county of Ani in Armenia was not added to Seljuk control.

Not gonna mention Bari cause that was never gonna happen lets be real but I'm surprised Edessa was left under Seljuk control despite having a recorded Byzantine governor in 1066, up to it's Seljuk capture in 1087 and a recorded successful defense against Alp Arslan in March 1071.
Well if we're lucky the revisions aren't final yet! let's cheer them on for making a starting effort and hope they go a little further!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Well if we're lucky the revisions aren't final yet! let's cheer them on for making a starting effort and hope they go a little further!
Yeah these are good changes, surprised they made any at all and did not wait till roads of power given how Byzantine vassal ownership works is gonna completely change.
 
  • 5
Reactions: