CK2 Dev Diary #79 - Beautifying the Baltics

[Griff Lancer]

No more good looking borders in East Prussia

This.
New map is very ugly guys

 

[Byzantium2000]

Sort of true. In terms of power it's certainly not an empire on the caliber of The HRE, Byzantium, or Persia. The prestige question is less sure, and Simeon I was indeed recognized as Emperor of the Bulgarians in 913, in Blachernae palace by Ecumenical Patriarch Nikolas Mystikos no less. Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that Bulgaria should have to conquer 80% of de jure e_byzantium to gain this imperial title, and even if it were to happen it would be a mistake to call this new empire a continuation of the byzantine title, just like it would be a mistake to consider later Russian or Ottoman successors simply the same Byzantine empire under new leadership.

I'm talking about 1187 Bulgaria by all definitions that was just a kingdom and recognized as one indeed the first Bulgarian empire was an empire, and I don't see how a Bulgarian Byzantine empire is not Byzantium Bulgaria was a Byzantine political and culture rich successor state just like Nicaea both Serbia and Bulgaria tried to take control of Byzantium historically, also you can't compare Bulgaria to the ottomans a Muslim non Roman citizenship empire that conquered Byzantium and replaced its political identity with its own or the Russians a people never under control of the ere and were not former citizens and did not control Constantinople or finally have its political institutions. And really 80% should be reduced to like 40% and own Constantinople

For splitting d_adrianopolis, not only is it necessary for creating nice realistic-looking de jure borders (An existing problem which will only get worse with my d_ochrid proposal), but it's also the simplest and cleanest way I can think of to encourage the AIs to fight over these key provinces: overlapping de jure claims.

Beauty wise good point know what valid point I concede this one to you.

Having played many games both as Bulgaria and as the Byzantine emperors, and always keeping an eye on the region even if I'm not playing there, I can assure you that this simply isn't true as the game currently stands. The entire kingdom begins de jure under Byzantium, and the byzantine emperors take any opportunity to jump in and reclaim. This is especially obvious and consistant in 867 due to ahistorically early the war with the magyars providing just such an opportunity.

Problem is in 867 which is the only start date you can justify the Bulgarian empire Byzantium won't have dejure claim or holy wars leaving Bulgaria to just expand all over while Byzantium watches, which is another reason why empire of Bulgaria wouldn't work

It's a possible outcome, but an overwhelming majority of the time when I consciously try to do this as Bulgaria in 867, the serbs choose to convert when you holy war them rather than go extinct. The Croats are already catholic and safe from being gobbled.

True enough if Bulgaria stays a kingdom their is the odd game though where Tengri Bulgaria like in 769 eats Serbia and survives though

Certainly, and I'm not saying that Bulgaria be put in its own empire right from the start of any bookmark, merely suggesting that it be given a decision (Maybe with a very high prestige cost? 5000? Don't know) to form this imperial title as happened historically, without jumping through the hoops of creating separate kingdom titles a historically,

the empire title was only awarded cause Simeon wasn't recognized as emperor of Byzantium historically Bulgaria always tried to become the ere not destroy it

I disagree. The current Greece Bulgarian divide makes it look like Bulgaria never controlled anything south of the balkan mountain range (Which they did, often and for extended periods), and even worse doesn't give the opportunity to do so at all without going all the way to the sea (Which they rarely did).

but within the games around 270 start dates Bulgaria only in a very few of them historically did, let's not ignore 1066 till 1187 no Bulgaria, till 1204 gains ochrid then around 1230 peaks and gains adrian and Thrace, then like historically Nicaea appears and takes all their gains except for ochrid and then for the rest of the game from 1300 Bulgaria swaps territory with Serbia back and fourth, finally 867 where Bulgaria should have 100% those areas sorry still learning in posting multi quote comments response in quotes, edit huzzah I did it!

 

[Vokasak]

but within the games around 270 start dates Bulgaria only in a very few of them historically did, let's not ignore 1066 till 1187 no Bulgaria, till 1204 gains ochrid then around 1230 peaks and gains adrian and Thrace, then like historically Nicaea appears and takes all their gains except for ochrid and then for the rest of the game from 1300 Bulgaria swaps territory with Serbia back and fourth, finally 867 where Bulgaria should have 100% those areas.

Speaking for Plovdiv (Philippopolis) specifically, Bulgarian rule begins anew in 1199-1200 or so, is lost to the Latin empire in 1204 but was captured twice by Tsar Kaloyan before he died in 1207 and his successor Tsar Boril in 1208. Ivan Asen II conquers the rest of the (Latin created) duchy of Philippopolis in 1230. The area is traded back and forth for the next hundred years but is notably held by Tsar Theodore Svetoslav around 1300, is reconquered from Byzantium by Tsar George II Terter in 1323, was sucessfully defended from Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos' invasion the following year, and was ceded to Tsar Ivan Alexander by the regency of Emperor John V Palaiologos in 1344. That's 150 years of perhaps not continuous de facto rule but certainly enough to suggest a strong claim to the region. The only way this can only be represented in CK2's current system is by overlapping de jure claims of k_bulgaria and e_byzantium.

Sources:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Hh0Bu8C66TsC
https://www.amazon.com/Bŭlgarskite-khanove-t͡s︡are-istoricheski-spravochnik/dp/954427216X

 

[Byzantium2000]

Speaking for Plovdiv (Philippopolis) specifically, Bulgarian rule begins anew in 1199-1200 or so, is lost to the Latin empire in 1204 but was captured twice by Tsar Kaloyan before he died in 1207 and his successor Tsar Boril in 1208. Ivan Asen II conquers the rest of the (Latin created) duchy of Philippopolis in 1230. The area is traded back and forth for the next hundred years but is notably held by Tsar Theodore Svetoslav around 1300, is reconquered from Byzantium by Tsar George II Terter in 1323, was sucessfully defended from Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos' invasion the following year, and was ceded to Tsar Ivan Alexander by the regency of Emperor John V Palaiologos in 1344. That's 150 years of perhaps not continuous de facto rule but certainly enough to suggest a strong claim to the region. The only way this can only be represented in CK2's current system is by overlapping de jure claims of k_bulgaria and e_byzantium.

Sources:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Hh0Bu8C66TsC
https://www.amazon.com/Bŭlgarskite-khanove-t͡s︡are-istoricheski-spravochnik/dp/954427216X

You should also discuss my other points i made but stupid me got them mixed up in your quote at first, also see but that wasn't continuous rule and ingame dejure you gotta hold it plus it ends up being around 80 years total, but gameplay wise I agree this would be a better option so I concede this one cause it ends up being dejure for both thus a battleground like you said.

 

[Vokasak]

You should also discuss my other points i made but stupid me got them mixed up in your quote at first,

Ah I see, no problem!

I'm talking about 1187 Bulgaria by all definitions that was just a kingdom and recognized as one indeed the first Bulgarian empire was an empire, and I don't see how a Bulgarian Byzantine empire is not Byzantium Bulgaria was a Byzantine political and culture rich successor state just like Nicaea both Serbia and Bulgaria tried to take control of Byzantium historically, also you can't compare Bulgaria to the ottomans a Muslim non Roman citizenship empire that conquered Byzantium and replaced its political identity with its own or the Russians a people never under control of the ere and were not former citizens and did not control Constantinople or finally have its political institutions. And really 80% should be reduced to like 40% and own Constantinople

Any exception to the 80% rule would require a custom decision, though, since I don't think title creation mechanics can lower requirements, only add new requirements on top. I'll leave the exact specifics of the requirements of such a decision to the devs, and truthfully it's the least important of my suggestions (Although if it's not implemented, perhaps a change in the localization files to make Bulgarian Orthodox king-tier rulers be called "Tsar"? But that means caeser and that gets weird without an empire-level title...)

Problem is in 867 which is the only start date you can justify the Bulgarian empire Byzantium won't have dejure claim or holy wars leaving Bulgaria to just expand all over while Byzantium watches, which is another reason why empire of Bulgaria wouldn't work

Byzantium totally does have de jure claims, and Bulgarian holy war prospects outside of Serbian Rashka are pretty limited. The magyars in the north are very strong and it's very difficult to make inroads northward until they settle Carpathia. I don't think this will be a problem.

True enough if Bulgaria stays a kingdom their is the odd game though where Tengri Bulgaria like in 769 eats Serbia and survives though

769 is indeed a mess, but I don't have any simple solutions there.

the empire title was only awarded cause Simeon wasn't recognized as emperor of Byzantium historically Bulgaria always tried to become the ere not destroy it

I'm not suggesting the ERE be destroyed in any of these circumstances, but the fact remains that an Simeon I was able to secure an imperial title, and a successful player should be able to follow in his footsteps. The prospects for outright taking over the entire Byzantine empire that early are slim even with how successful Simeon I was, and probably can't be modeled in CK2 at all outside of swear fealty -> usurp from within shenanigans (Which is very fun for a player but I would be alarmed if the AI did this).


Edit: A much simpler work-around that I've used in the past before CM's custom title feature is to conquer the rest of pannonia, create e_carpathia, and rename the title to "Bulgarian Empire", even though that still creates weird gross de jure situations and leaves me with a wildly inappropriate title CoA. If some kind of title-CoA changing feature was implemented, or changes were made to how de jure is handled via CM's custom titles, the need for a custom Form Bulgarian Empire decision decreases, although that seems like more work for the devs than the form empire decision I originally suggested.

 

[Byzantium2000]

Ah I see, no problem!



Any exception to the 80% rule would require a custom decision, though, since I don't think title creation mechanics can lower requirements, only add new requirements on top. I'll leave the exact specifics of the requirements of such a decision to the devs, and truthfully it's the least important of my suggestions (Although if it's not implemented, perhaps a change in the localization files to make Bulgarian Orthodox king-tier rulers be called "Tsar"? But that means caeser and that gets weird without an empire-level title...)



Byzantium totally does have de jure claims, and Bulgarian holy war prospects outside of Serbian Rashka are pretty limited. The magyars in the north are very strong and it's very difficult to make inroads northward until they settle Carpathia. I don't think this will be a problem.



769 is indeed a mess, but I don't have any simple solutions there.



I'm not suggesting the ERE be destroyed in any of these circumstances, but the fact remains that an Simeon I was able to secure an imperial title, and a successful player should be able to follow in his footsteps. The prospects for outright taking over the entire Byzantine empire that early are slim even with how successful Simeon I was, and probably can't be modeled in CK2 at all outside of swear fealty -> usurp from within shenanigans (Which is very fun for a player but I would be alarmed if the AI did this).

Oh I ment if bulgaria was made a empire in 867 with its own dejure territory, now one thing that's needs to be discussed though is now with even titular titles having dejure titles what would bulgarias dejure be and what territory would you need to take to form it, I'd personally think Bulgaria and wallachia dejure but take adrianople Thrace and thessealonica plus hold Bulgarian Hungary and not hold Constantinople to form it.

 

[Keizer Harm]

@Snow Crystal has been adding title creation decisions left and right. I'm sure there's room for an e_bulgaria, under some very specific circumstances?

 

[TheDungen]

Problem is in 867 which is the only start date you can justify the Bulgarian empire Byzantium won't have dejure claim or holy wars leaving Bulgaria to just expand all over while Byzantium watches, which is another reason why empire of Bulgaria wouldn't work

Except you know the great realms CB will eventually kick in dragging them into conflict with one another.

 

[Snow Crystal]

@Snow Crystal has been adding title creation decisions left and right. I'm sure there's room for an e_bulgaria, under some very specific circumstances?

Hm, I have to admit Bulgaria isn't a strong point for me, but it doesn't sound completely unlikely?

I'd have to look into the area a bit more to be able to give a proper answer.

 

[Semigall]

I don't think I've ever seen a large and interesting Lithuania form, or Teutonic order

I have seen huge Lithuania many times, even reaching the Black sea. You sure you play the same game ?

 

[GoatMagic]

I have seen huge Lithuania many times, even reaching the Black sea. You sure you play the same game ?

Nope, probably not. I thought I played this game but I just checked and in fact I was mistaken.

 

[performer]

That smells like a Hussite Wars Expansion (15th century), imho.

 

[Mortheim]

That smells like a Hussite Wars Expansion (15th century), imho.

To be honest - i would LOVE to see it. I think it is something that will give me reason to play late game. And, i think, lack of Hussite Wars from EU4 and CK2 is big oversight.

 

[GoatMagic]

That smells like a Hussite Wars Expansion (15th century), imho.

I hadn't even considered that, that'd be wonderful. Especially in the framework of some greater holy war/heresy rework.

 

[performer]

To be honest - i would LOVE to see it. I think it is something that will give me reason to play late game. And, i think, lack of Hussite Wars from EU4 and CK2 is big oversight.

I also think it would be GREAT. We had expansions for the early game (Old Gods, Charlemagne), but a late game expansion is still missing. Go, Paradox!

 

[Mortheim]

I also think it would be GREAT. We had expansions for the early game (Old Gods, Charlemagne), but a late game expansion is still missing. Go, Paradox!

I think that they can nail it. I really hope that they will add something distinctive to late game gameplay and it will FEEL (at least somewhat) different.

 

[VoodooEconomist]

I also think it would be GREAT. We had expansions for the early game (Old Gods, Charlemagne), but a late game expansion is still missing. Go, Paradox!

I would love that too. The only reason why I fear that might not be it is that the devs discussed some while ago that very few people play any of the later start dates or reach late-game. So here's hoping they've found a way to add all that late-game glory while also satysfying the needs of the early-game majority.

 

[Kljunas]

@Snow Crystal has been adding title creation decisions left and right. I'm sure there's room for an e_bulgaria, under some very specific circumstances?

This one would be covered by the custom empire decision though

 

[Ruwaard]

This.
New map is very ugly guys

I disagree with that general sentiment; the map in general looks brilliant with the border of East Prussia as the sole exception.

 

[elvain]

I disagree with that general sentiment; the map in general looks brilliant with the border of East Prussia as the sole exception.

Exactly this.

I generally don't get the sentiment - we get improvement, but dislike one detail about it. And therefore we mark the whole thing as something we disagree, something ugly, bad or whatever else.... just wrong