If we're taking that point in, then you might as well just invalidate Austria's popularity because of Austria tryhards who reset until they have 4+ PUs in 1475 (like yours truly... :|)
What features would you like to see in a unique Byzantine government.
- Thread starter dayalu
- 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.
If we're taking that point in, then you might as well just invalidate Austria's popularity because of Austria tryhards who reset until they have 4+ PUs in 1475 (like yours truly... :|)
Oh yeah, there's so much historical precedent for people converting back to their original religions once conquered/reconquered.
Like uh....
Sicily crete and malta come to mind off the top of my head but i don't think forced conversions are necessary
Your interpretation of history lacks understanding of what power and wealth mean. Wealth comes from trade of something you have in abundance for something others have in abundance. Money for time, for example, or protection for grain. Power comes from dependency of one side on the aforementioned deal. To build *and maintain* a city and an empire like Byzantium, now that required a lot of weatlh and a lot of power. In Roman times it had plenty to offer: military protection and economic union being the most prominent benefits. In 1453 Byzantines still knew how to do all this. As I said, at this point, they have 2 millenia worth of experience in empire managemnent, extortion and power grabbing. The problem is - the geographic landscape might be the same, but people are not. New languages, customs, alleigances, religions. The great schism also didn't help. Byzantium was a broken state not because it wasn't capable, but because others more capable have risen in the meantime.
The Ottoman empire is Byzantium with a new management. For all the hoo-haa about them, their borders they acquired are pretty much identical to borders of the Eastern Roman empire from a thousand years earlier. They didn't break Persia, they didn't conquer Italy or Iberia, or set up camp at Hadrian's Wall. They did, however, unlike Napoleon and Hitler, manage in maintaining their conquests. Kudos to them.
In Byzantine of 1444 start, I would like to see constant pretender rebels and occasional monarch/heir murdering events.
And exponential dependence of rebel stacks from the Byz growing in power. The same goes for the unrest—the bigger Byz is, the more rebellious the provinces should become.
Almost forgot: PDX please add occasional development decrease representing own population massacres in all types of Byzantium provinces ("true faith", "heretic" and "heathen" with a bit more inclination to non-"true faith" ones).
And exponential dependence of rebel stacks from the Byz growing in power. The same goes for the unrest—the bigger Byz is, the more rebellious the provinces should become.
Almost forgot: PDX please add occasional development decrease representing own population massacres in all types of Byzantium provinces ("true faith", "heretic" and "heathen" with a bit more inclination to non-"true faith" ones).
Last edited:
Love the idea of more involved political mechanics (esp. to model how things were in particular historical nations), but I'm not so keen on having it be its own government type: when there's no real reason to switch government, it's like you lose an entire game play mechanic.
Maybe in future installments, you wouldn't explicitly choose what government type you have, but rather you would gain or lose features/mechanics depending on the estates in your nation, what decisions you make, etc. so you'd get a more dynamic form of government which is assigned largely based on how you play the game.
Maybe in future installments, you wouldn't explicitly choose what government type you have, but rather you would gain or lose features/mechanics depending on the estates in your nation, what decisions you make, etc. so you'd get a more dynamic form of government which is assigned largely based on how you play the game.
I do not understand what this has to do with what I said, I was just explaining what I mean in the precedent post with "mismanagement", and I just explained some policies of Byzantium who lead to its collapse, most of the time caused by a lot of incompetent administrators, unable to see the long-term consequences of their actions.
Like indeed the events who leads to the fourth crusade for example, starting from the massacre of the latins.
Or allowing greek pirate ships to raid the shores of western mediterranean and take other christians as slave to sell them to the arabs, causing resentment. That was pretty common in the middle ages, if we want to give credit to Paul the Deacon.
Byzantium has gone from being forgotten by history and be neglected in the past years to be overly "venerated" and viewed in an excessively positive light in the last decade, and I don't like that, I don't like this "byzantinophilia", so I try to point out the "negative sides and the bad things" about them.
but I would also like to specify that this does not mean that I do not know the positive sides.
This is wrong. We have to stop to think about Byzantium like it was a single entity from its born to its collapse, around which the world turned and changed, or like it was a single person, able to mantain the knowledge learned a thousand years ago and use it again and again. Generations changed, people changed, is not like only the landscape around Byzantium changed, also Byzantium changed, because it was part of that landscape.
Is not like others more capable have risen in the meantime, is not Eu4 when a player use a tag for hundred of years and learn from his mistakes, series of events led a nation to collapse, and many times these events were caused by the stupidity of single individuals and by problems posed by an extremely corrupt form of government.
They did not have two millenia of experience in state management for the same reasons the french people don't remember what was the fashion at the time of Vercingetorix, or how to play the carnyx.
I agree, but this again has nothing to do with what I said.
Yes and this is why you're wrong. Byzantium didn't collapse because of Crusades, massacre of the latins or pirates. It started collapsing collapsed because it stopped being the conqueror. Even the worst administration finds a way to survive if it benefits enough people.
The crusaders had around 20.000 men, Augustus had an army of about 350.000 men. Insta-stackwipe right there
Well, that's true, we agree on this.Yes and this is why you're wrong. Byzantium didn't collapse because of Crusades, massacre of the latins or pirates. It started collapsing collapsed because it stopped being the conqueror. Even the worst administration finds a way to survive if it benefits enough people.
The crusaders had around 20.000 men, Augustus had an army of about 350.000 men. Insta-stackwipe right there