• 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.

unmerged(11198)

Corporal
Oct 4, 2002
40
0
Visit site
Is it a balance issue? Or were the ratings generated randomly? I can find no historical justification for such low ratings on many of the Emperors. Yes, there were some really, really bad ones, but there were also many very strong Emperors. Unfortunately, the latter aren't modelled very well.
 

unmerged(9076)

No. 33 the Mysterious Stranger
Apr 28, 2002
343
0
Visit site
Do you have any specific examples of underrated Emperors? Most of the rulers of the Byzantine Empire were not fit for the job (the Angelos, for one), and only a few emerged with any kind of ability (the Macedonian Dynasty, for example). Even famous rulers like Justinian I had many, many flaws in their leadership abilities. Instead of saving his gold for an army to defeat the Persians and acquire valuable cities and unchallenged population centers, he paid the Persians off and then focused on the perilous areas in the west - thus wasting massive amounts of money and manpower.

This is just one example, and I'm not saying that perhaps they should have slightly better ratings in some cases, it's just that Byzantium lacked strong leadership through most of its history.