• 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.

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 26th of September 2023 - Byzantium

On the 13th August 2013, EU4 was released to the public - and with it a small little event pack called “Purple Phoenix” for a country whose popularity was almost uncanny even back then. Over the ten years, this popularity did not stop but rose further and further, and now it is one of the main three focus points of King of Kings.

Welcome to today’s Development Diary which is all about the one country you guys have been looking forward to the most: Byzantium. Hardly in need of any more introduction on the country, as every single patch of EU4 has at least one video tutorial dedicated to the remnant of the Roman Empire. So without further ado, let us jump into the content we can expect for Byzantium in 1.36.

So first thing first: the setup of Byzantium. The province change has been somewhat spoiled already, but I will mention it here nonetheless to confirm it: yes, Mesambria is now part of Byzantium and it will have the Bulgarian core on it:
img1.png


Another change is the adjustments on the stats of its heir, Konstantinos Palaiologos. Although the empire did eventually fall under his rule, it was not anything he could have prevented, and as such the stats he had were a bit unfair considering his experiences as the past Despot of Morea. He is now a 5/2/3!

Speaking of Morea, the area of Morea now starts with +25% Local Autonomy to represent the kinsmen of the Byzantine Emperors ruling over this part of the empire.

Another point of Byzantine adjustments is their ideas. While their +3 TotF and 3% Missionary Strength make them a strong religious country, the rest of their ideas are relatively underwhelming. As Byzantium is an end-game tag it felt kind of justified to balance their ideas a bit better out. Additionally, it is a nice reward for players who survive the early years.

These are the new ideas (Ideas with a # at the start are the modifiers that used to be there pre-1.36):
Code:
BYZ_ideas = {
    start = {
        advisor_cost = -0.10
        improve_relation_modifier = 0.2
        #tolerance_own = 3
    }
 
    bonus = {
        tolerance_own = 3
        #prestige = 1
    }
 
    trigger = {
        tag = BYZ
    }
    free = yes
 
    repopulation_of_countryside = {
        global_trade_goods_size_modifier = 0.1
        #merc_maintenance_modifier = -0.15
    }
 
    byz_roman_empire = {
        core_creation = -0.25
        #global_manpower_modifier = 0.1
        #global_trade_goods_size_modifier = 0.05
    }
 
    ecumenical_patriarch = {
        global_missionary_strength = 0.03
        yearly_patriarch_authority = 0.003
        #global_tax_modifier = 0.1
    }
 
    byz_corpus_iuris_civilis = {    #Replaces byz_admin_power for Purple Phoenix events
        reform_progress_growth = 0.2
        #stability_cost_modifier = -0.1
    }
 
    byz_protect_the_frontiers = {
        defensiveness = 0.15
        #global_trade_power = 0.1
    }
 
    byz_strategikon = {
        discipline = 0.05
    }


    new_imperial_army = {
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.15
        #global_missionary_strength = 0.03
    }
}

With that out of the way, let’s talk for a moment about the intentions for Byzantium. I mentioned in the Persia Development Diary that countries that receive content tend to become a lot easier than they used to be, hence Ardabil received explicitly nothing that could trivialize their early game.

Byzantium is another candidate where we explicitly want it to be a fight for survival. Because of that, the Byzantines will now start with 4 privileges which are more curses than blessings to you:
img3.png

Note: That privilege increases the starting opinion of the Papal State of you by 125. More to it later.
img4.png

Note: The Morale Reduction is only present if you have King of Kings active as the mission tree will give you Land Morale modifiers over the course of the campaign to counteract this privilege.
img5.png

img6.png

All of the privileges with the exception of 'Reliance on Republics' can be removed through decisions. Both the starting privileges and the decisions are part of the 1.36 update.

Additionally to the penalties, the privileges also cause certain events to happen to your country. Our first example is the Union of Churches. Roughly 3 months into the game you get greeted with the following event in regard to the union:
img10.png

While revoking the privilege immediately would prevent the spawn of rebels further down the line, there is an argument to be made for keeping the privilege active as they can trigger the following event if you are in a defensive war against the Ottomans while having this privilege active:
img11.png
I don’t want to spoil this part as this should be rather experienced in your own playthrough. But a little teaser: the second option allows for a very different religious path for the Byzantines!

Moving on, the 'Tax Exemption' privilege also fires an event that can be an early game boon with a long-term penalty.
img12.png

Byzantium has been fitted with many early game events leading up to their eventual demise. While it would be lovely to showcase them all, we only have so much time. So here are a few:
img13.png

Note: that event is firing for the Ottomans. The follow-up event is triggered for the Byzantines.
img14.png

img15.png

img16.png

Also an event for the Ottomans in relation to the Byzantine content:
img17.png

One final thing to mention to make the early game even more of a challenge - the starting reform for the Byzantines has been adjusted with a new penalty… and a new mechanic (more to it later):
img18.png

img19.png

There is nothing more Roman than falling in the back of your countrymen in time of need for a chance to seize absolute power for yourself.

Now that we have the events through, it is time to take a look at the new mission tree for the Byzantines for the upcoming DLC:
img20.png

Note: with 55 missions in one playthrough, the Byzantine tree is the largest of the DLC.

First a few words about the general theme of the mission tree before going into detail: there are vastly different ideas of what is to be expected of a tree for Byzantium (a look into your local Steam Workshop is a fast way to see what I mean). Some would like to see the addition of Hellenism and a whole path revolving around it, others want a mission tree that revolves around the big “what if” questions of a modernized Byzantium that no longer tries to forge its own destiny independently from the Roman legacy.

While all of these ideas are great ones to explore, we have decided to focus on the one path which is generally the one accepted by the majority of the player base which is the ambition of restoring the Roman Empire. The goal was to keep the spirit of the Purple Phoenix mission tree and expand it with flavor so the reconquest of your empire feels like a bigger narrative than just good ol’ blobbing.

The mission tree is split into six parts:
  • A small defensive part with three missions revolving around reinforcing the Theodosian Walls and constructing the Hexamilion Wall
  • A large conquest part starting from “The Impending Doom”
  • A small trade part of the two missions “Peloponnesian Renaissance” and “Monemvasian Merchants”
  • An internal infrastructure part starting from “A Tarnished State” and “Promote the Emporoi”
  • A part about the military and administrative aspects of the Empire
  • And finally the religious part
As usual, I will start with the more obvious part which would be in that case the re-conquest missions. In this branch of the missions, you gain areas of permanent claims after another area of permanent claims. Notable within this branch is the theme of an evolving permanent modifier as a reward. Usually, you get the strong permanent modifier at the end of a mission path. Here, however, you get it early on, though in a very weak state:
img21.png

This modifier will then be further modified through follow-up missions:
img22.png

Finally merged into the finisher reward once you finish the conquest path of the mission tree which requests you to be the Roman Empire:
img23.png
The final version of the modifier at the end of your long spree of conquest has the following bonuses:
Governing Capacity: +300
Global Missionary Strength: +2%
Yearly Prestige: +1
Morale of Armies: +10%
Morale of Navies: +10%
Stability Cost: -25%

Of course, this part of the tree has more to offer than just a growing modifier though. Here are some other great highlights of the conquest part:
img24.png

img27.png

img28.png

Oh, while I am at it: the decision to form the Roman Empire has been adjusted.
img29.png

Note: this will retroactively affect the achievement "Mehmet's Ambition" too. Also, we might add some key provinces to the decision to be part of the Empire - depending on how these changes play out.
img30.png
In total, there are 475 provinces highlighted, and you will actually have to conquer MORE provinces than before. But at least you no longer have to subject yourself to the conquest of Mesopotamia anymore.

Moving on, the next part is about the walls of Constantinople:
img31.png

img32.png

img33.png

I should talk about the elephant in the room here: yes, the Theodosian Wall is a permanent province modifier instead of a unique monument. This is a choice that has been made because we want to spread out the monuments and the Theodosian Walls would be put on a province that already has two static monuments placed on it.

Anyhow, the defensive missions are relatively easy to achieve early game which can give you some significant months to survive the Ottomans.

Now let us take a small look at the small trading missions:
img34.png

Gemistos Plethon is the only, small nod to Hellenism you can expect from 1.36. For more information, I highly suggest checking out Third Odyssey.

With that out of the way, let’s continue with a more exciting part of the mission tree: the internal development and infrastructure missions:
img35.png

img36.png

img37.png

img39.png

And of course the map color in question:
img40.png
It is the color of the Roman Empire.

Continuing on with the religious part of the mission tree. Due to the Council of Florence and the religious policies enacted by the last Emperor, the public trust in the Patriarch and the government has crumbled. This mission branch focuses on rebuilding that trust, limiting the rivals, and eventually bringing the schism to an end. Beginning with the trust:
img41.png

img42.png

While also limiting the ever stronger Muscovy ambition:
img43.png

Restoring the Pentarchy:
img44.png

img45.png

img46.png

Note: this decision is usable every 25 years.

And of course, mending the Schism:
img47.png

Note: the mending will be significantly more difficult though as you must ensure that 300 provinces in Europe are Orthodox and in Orthodox hands. Fortunately, many provinces are already Orthodox. They just need a Roman hand to free themselves from the heretics.

And at last the military and administrative missions. The “Sea Fire” mission lets one already guess what it is all about. So once you finish it, your galleys get +10% combat ability for the rest of the game under the assumption that they are once again using the Liquid Fire.

Now before we continue with the branching missions, let us take a short look at a new mechanic added for Byzantium which is the Pronoia. This new subject type is available to countries with the Byzantine Autocracy, Reformed Byzantine Monarchy, the Roman Empire, and the Roman Republic government reforms.

Nations with Pronoia available will be able to convert their Vassals and Client States into a new type of subject, the Pronoia. The idea of the subject type is to provide military support during your wars. Pronoia Subjects get military bonuses and do not cost a diplomatic relation slot, but are limited by a new modifier – Number of Pronoiars.
The sources of the above include:
+1 per 100 Force Limit
+2 for “Reform the Pronoia System”

img48.png
+2-4 from Byzantine Missions and up to +6 from various idea groups (namely Offensive, Aristocracy, Espionage, Quantity, and Administrative)

As for how to establish and annex these subjects and what bonuses they give, I will let those images speak for themselves:
img49.png

img50.png

img52.png
After you ‘Retract Right to Inheritance’, the Pronoia will be annexed on their monarch’s death. We are looking forward to the “Pronoia Swarms”!

Anyway, back to the missions. Let us familiarize ourselves with the Theme System:
img53.png

As you can see, The Byzantine mission tree utilizes the same Preview System as Persia does: you can choose between a standing-army build or a mercenary, feudal build:
img55.png

First, let us begin with the Standing Army Build. With this rendition, you will be able to take stricter control over the Pronoia subjects that you have, opting for their quality:
img57.png
There is also a mission about the Varangian Guard, allowing you to bring this nearly-extinct guard back to life, making you into the real Lord of Varangian. Lastly, a final mission that gives your troops a bit more firepower while also making them cheaper by granting them +10% Land Fire Damage and -10% Land Maintenance Modifier.

The other branch focuses on building a military based on mercenaries and Pronoiar. The missions here will allow you to focus on the quantity aspect, while also providing bonuses to Mercenaries:
img56.png

img59.png
The final mission here gives an additional +50% Mercenary Manpower and +5% Mercenary Discipline.

Note: All the art is placeholder, as the new icons are currently WIP. All the numbers are also WIP and are subject to change.

That was it for this week. Thank you all for reading today’s Development Diary! My colleague @PDXBigBoss will continue next week with a hefty DD on Georgia, Armenia, and the Qoyunlus!

Before we say goodbye, we thought you'd enjoy a sequel to the most recent Byzantium Comic from FatherLorris:
ByzComicPt2.png
 

Attachments

  • img26.png
    img26.png
    298 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 87Love
  • 63Like
  • 22
  • 9
  • 6Haha
  • 5
Reactions:
So, since you claim right at the start that Byzantium is supposed to be hard are you going to undo any of the ridiculous nerfs you've given the Ottomans over the years to make Byzantium easy?

And the answer is:

"Nope, in fact we're going the opposite direction and nerfing the Ottomans even more because we really didn't mean it when we said that"
 
  • 2
Reactions:
So, since you claim right at the start that Byzantium is supposed to be hard are you going to undo any of the ridiculous nerfs you've given the Ottomans over the years to make Byzantium easy?
Man I've seen a lot of hot takes on this forum in my time, but "the Ottomans are too weak" is a pretty rare one.
 
  • 6
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Man I've seen a lot of hot takes on this forum in my time, but "the Ottomans are too weak" is a pretty rare one.

Facts are facts even if the majority are reluctant to admit it because it hurts their fragile egos. No, they aren't all that good just because they can succeed with Byzantium, the devs have gone far overboard to make that task easy enough for mediocre players over the years and the latest patch is just another example.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Facts are facts even if the majority are reluctant to admit it because it hurts their fragile egos. No, they aren't all that good just because they can succeed with Byzantium, the devs have gone far overboard to make that task easy enough for mediocre players over the years and the latest patch is just another example.
You know, I've asked people to substantiate their claims that the Ottomans are unrealistically weak in this game dozens of times and never gotten an answer.

Every time someone says that the power level of Ottomans is realistic or too low I ask them what major war in history the Ottomans won against a large, stable state that resulted in them gaining land. No one can ever name an instance of this occurring. Can you? Because I can name a bunch of times they LOST wars against not only large, stable states but also small and weak states that they outnumbered 10:1 like Georgia, Wallachia, Moldova, the Knights, Albania, and so on.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You know, I've asked people to substantiate their claims that the Ottomans are unrealistically weak in this game dozens of times and never gotten an answer.

Every time someone says that the power level of Ottomans is realistic or too low I ask them what major war in history the Ottomans won against a large, stable state that resulted in them gaining land. No one can ever name an instance of this occurring. Can you? Because I can name a bunch of times they LOST wars against not only large, stable states but also small and weak states that they outnumbered 10:1 like Georgia, Wallachia, Moldova, the Knights, Albania, and so on.

And yet their history for much of the game's time frame was nothing but growth...at least in the real world rather than the Byz-ophile fantasy that EU IV is turning into...
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
You know, I've asked people to substantiate their claims that the Ottomans are unrealistically weak in this game dozens of times and never gotten an answer.

Every time someone says that the power level of Ottomans is realistic or too low I ask them what major war in history the Ottomans won against a large, stable state that resulted in them gaining land. No one can ever name an instance of this occurring. Can you? Because I can name a bunch of times they LOST wars against not only large, stable states but also small and weak states that they outnumbered 10:1 like Georgia, Wallachia, Moldova, the Knights, Albania, and so on.
Lol.

You’d get on with Kent Hovind.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
And yet their history for much of the game's time frame was nothing but growth...at least in the real world rather than the Byz-ophile fantasy that EU IV is turning into...
Yes, they ate up a bunch of unstable and minor states. Byz, Serbia, Bosnia, Hungary (only after Corvinus's reforms were revoked), minor Beyliks, the Qoyunlu states, and the one conquest they made against a nation close to them in strength, the Mamluks. Which they took because of a well-placed traitor and an extreme fluke. They never took part of Austria, Russia, Persia, Poland before the Liberum Veto, Ethiopia, or Naples.
Lol.

You’d get on with Kent Hovind.
OK. So name one.
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
OK. So name one.
Ottoman-Hungarian Wars. Serbian Wars. Venetian Wars.

The time period did not have wars which often ended with giant changes of land but the Ottomans managed to destory each of the above, outside of Venice where over 30 years they destroyed the famed Venetian navy.

The fact they fought a huge number of European countries at once should be testament.

I am not an Ottoman fanboy, and am not here to discuss their domestic policies, but the simple fact is they built the largest empire in that hemisphere and maintained it for centuries.

And yes, those do count as powers... I mean outside of France and Spain there weren't really centralized powers at the time. And France is stretching it.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes, they ate up a bunch of unstable and minor states. Byz, Serbia, Bosnia, Hungary (only after Corvinus's reforms were revoked), minor Beyliks, the Qoyunlu states, and the one conquest they made against a nation close to them in strength, the Mamluks. Which they took because of a well-placed traitor and an extreme fluke. They never took part of Austria, Russia, Persia, Poland before the Liberum Veto, Ethiopia, or Naples.
OK. So name one.
The problem with Kent Hovind’s (and your, and other reality-deniers’) approach to setting up a false test of whether a thing is real and then insisting that anything which doesn’t meet your made up bar isn’t true, is that it’s not how reality works.

First, you need to demonstrate that your test is a meaningful test of the thing you profess to be testing: why distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution? What does it demonstrate? How does that distinction help us better understand whether or not something has happened? If it doesn’t help, what’s the use of the distinction, if any, other than to allow Mr. Hovind (or whomever) to arbitrarily reject reality on the basis that it doesn’t meet a bar they made up?

Similarly, before applying your wrongheaded test to the Ottoman state, it’s worth asking what that test demonstrates, what it helps us understand, and whether that’s of any value in the question of Ottoman hegemony.

This has been expressed elsewhere in the wise dictum: never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with years of experience.

This is because “winning an argument”, to an idiot, means coming out looking right, not coming out with the right answer. So they set up false questions like this in order to make themselves look and feel as though they won.

The easiest way to defuse this is to turn the question back on itself: if “name one major war X won in history against a large stable state that resulted in them gaining land” is the vital test for whether or not a country was hegemonically powerful, what other hegemonically powerful countries does it predict? If it fails to predict other hegemonically powerful countries, what use is the question?

So: can you similarly name examples of major wars won in history against large stable states that resulted in gaining territory by such luminary examples of regional or global powers as Rome, Achaemenid Persia, Britain, or Carolingian Gaul?

(Examples, of course, which can’t be dismissed on further arbitrary and invented distinctions as you’d dismiss similar examples of the Ottoman Empire defeating Mamluk Egypt, Safavid Iran, Lithuania, Hungary and Austria, Naples, Russia or indeed basically all of centralised Europe in the Crusade of Varna?)

Or is it possible that the historical process of major powers forming and consolidating their hegemony is one of opportunism, the realities of geographical pressures, and the generation and leveraging of relative advantage, making your question both simple-minded in its approach to the complexity of history, obtuse in its approach to the very basics of geopolitics, and pernicious in its attempt to pre-enforce a favourable answer by manipulative framing?
 
Last edited:
Similarly, before applying your wrongheaded test to the Ottoman state, it’s worth asking what that test demonstrates, what it helps us understand, and whether that’s of any value in the question of Ottoman hegemony.
Propose a better test to determine if the Ottoman military strength being greater than Austria, Russia, and the like is realistic in this game. We'll use whatever one you come up with.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Propose a better test to determine if the Ottoman military strength being greater than Austria, Russia, and the like is realistic in this game. We'll use whatever one you come up with.
Good idea!

Rather than trying to determine historical reality by using any test based on “what do two randoms on an Internet forum think about the evidence they can scrape up”, I suggest the test should be: what’s the historical consensus?

Well, it’s that the Great Turkish War (1683–1699) was the turning of the tide, by which virtually all of Central Europe and Russia uniting against the Ottomans was enough to beat them back after three hundred years of virtually-unrivalled dominance, and even that was stalled when France distracted one of the allied European powers with the Nine Years’ War. Take one of the three out and even Russia and Poland together lost momentum against the Ottomans.

Further, the consensus that even following said turning of the tide, the Turks managed to outclass and defeat unified Habsburg and Russian forces (e.g. see the 1739 treaty of Belgrade) such that their borders fluctuated rather than retreated, and the Ottomans wouldn’t be meaningfully or consistently deprived of territories by western powers until the 1770s, or even the nineteenth century.

So historians say the Ottomans could and did beat Austria and Russia put together, forty years after their apogee was over. Sounds like the Ottomans should be dramatically more powerful than Austria, Poland, Russia and so on, such that you’d need—as in history—all three together to seriously challenge them (although the game could gainfully model a large number of things that made such confrontations nuanced and hard to predict, as well as changes in military administration and technology making military power a moving target to reproduce the Ottomans’ as it were “arc”). Job done.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Propose a better test to determine if the Ottoman military strength being greater than Austria, Russia, and the like is realistic in this game. We'll use whatever one you come up with.
Sure. Which nation expanded the most, militarily, in this time period?

For the first century or two ingame that would be the Ottomans. Russia expanded, later, under Peter and Catherine and others.

But the Ottomans took Egypt, that gem of the Romans. They took tons of land in Europe and threatened Vienna.

The fact they lost when overextended isn't to show they are "bad" but rather to show that they were competent to get that far.

You say that all the others were small and divided. That in itself is testament to the Ottomans- they WEREN'T divided.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Good idea!

Rather than trying to determine historical reality by using any test based on “what do two randoms on an Internet forum think about the evidence they can scrape up”, I suggest the test should be: what’s the historical consensus?
Ah, so no test. Appeal to authority only! Yes, the "tide" turned against the Ottomans as soon as anyone at all with a meaningful force of arms confronted them. That's accurate. Until then they were unstoppable...as long as they only targeted states they outnumbered 10:1, or states with internal divisions they could take advantage of.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ah, so no test. Appeal to authority only! Yes, the "tide" turned against the Ottomans as soon as anyone at all with a meaningful force of arms confronted them. That's accurate. Until then they were unstoppable...as long as they only targeted states they outnumbered 10:1, or states with internal divisions they could take advantage of.
If you think appealing to a cumulative five hundred years of evidence-gathering, comparing, argumentation, testing, bickering, re-testing, re-appraising method, throwing out bad evidence, gathering new evidence, questioning doctrine, testing other evidence, finding ways to tease out the implications of yet more evidence so as to better understand the question here, bickering some more, integrating new ideas and approaches while bickering, writing, reviewing, bickering, pioneering new approaches, re-writing and ultimately tentatively and contingently agreeing across a global community watching each other like hawks for a wrong move is an “appeal to authority”, you are, to put it frankly, simply not tall enough for this ride.

If they’re wrong, in other words, you ought to be able to show it without resorting to nonsense questions and sophistry. And if you can’t, why would any thinking person listen to you rather than the global body of people who’ve spent lifetimes trying to establish the best possible understanding of the question?

An appeal to authority would be: I hold quite a lot of qualifications in a field directly adjacent to this one, so you should listen to me. Which I have never said in my life.

It might even be: “Eugene Rogan (say) is a historian, so you should listen to him”, which I haven’t said but would be a fairly reasonable position. It wouldn’t demonstrate you’re wrong, but would demonstrate how tremendous the burden of proof you’re trying to shift is.

Rather what I am saying here is that the best efforts of the world’s foremost experts to collectively disprove one another disagree with you, and furthermore your methods of argumentation and posts betray basic failures of understanding with respect to the specific subject—Ottomans—and the more general matter—the meaning of power in a geopolitical context—you purport to be arguing about. Not to mention a dogmatic fixation on a position you seem to believe you can make true by pure force of will and dishonest argumentation. So, please, can you explain why are your conclusions worth listening to rather than the sum total knowledge produced by the efforts of historians?

That’s not an appeal to authority, it’s an appeal to the value of research and peer review over the unsubstantiatable opinions of some guy on a forum with an axe to grind.

Further, if you think “anyone with a meaningful force of arms” doesn’t include the coalition smashed at Varna, the coalition defeated in the invasion of Otranto, and each of Austria, Russia and Poland individually until they started working together… well, all that position seems to do is disqualify @Pellucid from competently discussing this subject.
 
Last edited:
Spain, and it's not even close. And yet for some reason, their military ideas and buffs are vastly weaker than the Ottomans.
Your main complaint about the Ottomans is they fought outnumbered and disorganized enemies, which I disagree with.

But that’s all Spain did for most of this time period. Aztecs? Sick, used native auxiliaries and had tech the natives didn’t have. Rest of the new world? The same.

Heck, by 2/3 in this game we are talking the War of Spanish Succession where it’s a fight over who gets to rule Spain. Spain isn’t a competent military power, it’s something to be fought over like a prize.

Of all the nations Spain is probably most emblematic of a rise due to good fortune and weak enemies, with a fall due to poor leadership. Inflation, a weak military, and, yes, natural disasters meant Spain was a joke.

France, I could see. Britain? Yeah, sure. Germany or Russia? Both are too late, Germany far to late, but maybe. All has histories of mikitary success (and failure). But SPAIN?

For what it’s worth, if there is a long history of successful campaigns not in Africa (this includes Morocco!) or the Americas I would love to see it. Because I’ll admit, outside of the Netherlands, which they also lost, and influence in the religious wars I’m stumped.