[Interest Check] Two Different Game Ideas, Want Opinions

[alxeu]

So I was thinking about GMing a game in the near future and was wanting opinions of what kind of game I should run.

The first is a larger scale game, where you run the nations, set in an alternate history 1903 after the Ottoman Empire failed to seize Constantinople in 1453, losing their forward initiative, and resulting in a very different Eastern Europe and Middle East, though overall world politics remain unchanged.

The map is enclosed below:

Spoiler

The game would be focused around pre-war politics as the balance of power comes crashing down, and eventually war-time struggles of nations. Important flash-points will be China, Middle East, and Balkans (of course). ((Note: Norway is not correctly depicted, and will be part of Sweden should this option be chosen, as the game starts in 1903.))

It wouldn't be very statistics-based, however, as when playing with friends in this kind of way, I prefer to make results more flexible, and the tedium of researching statistics would likely disinterest me from such a venture. There will be less detailed information, but general information, and comparisons, if requested, will always be provided based on my analysis. If a player wishes to learn the feasibility of Germany invading France in-game, I will provide, to the best of my ability, and based on what their own generals would know, accurate estimations of how a conflict would play out, provided no surprises.

The game would likely last until there is one superpower that is unchallengable, or when everyone gets bored of it.


The other option is a colonization-era game, starting in 1493. Players would be running colonial administrations for various fledgling empires, tasked merely with making a large sum of money without accruing large expenses.

Players would be forced to juggle native relations, settlers, and other colonies all in their attempts to establish successful colonies.

The map is below:

Spoiler

This game will be more statistic-based, and, sacrificing historicity, attempt to create a more symmetrical start for players (outside of starting boni). Finances will be important, and at the start everything will be on a budget. As you expand and bring in money for your kingdom, the crown will be more willing to provide you with resources, and give you more freedom of judgment.

If the game lasts long enough, the issue of colonial relations with the homeland will eventually come in play, and I expect the game to end no later than the 1840s.



More detailed rules will be made for the one with more interest, and map revisions for the first option might be accepted, though the inaccurate borders for the second map are like that for a reason (don't want to simulate the Inca and Aztec expansion after 1493).

Any questions will be answered when I can answer them.

Thanks for showing interest!

 

[Ironhide G1]

So I was thinking about GMing a game in the near future and was wanting opinions of what kind of game I should run.

The first is a larger scale game, where you run the nations, set in an alternate history 1903 after the Ottoman Empire failed to seize Constantinople in 1453, losing their forward initiative, and resulting in a very different Eastern Europe and Middle East, though overall world politics remain unchanged.

The map is enclosed below:

Spoiler

The game would be focused around pre-war politics as the balance of power comes crashing down, and eventually war-time struggles of nations. Important flash-points will be China, Middle East, and Balkans (of course). ((Note: Norway is not correctly depicted, and will be part of Sweden should this option be chosen, as the game starts in 1903.))

It wouldn't be very statistics-based, however, as when playing with friends in this kind of way, I prefer to make results more flexible, and the tedium of researching statistics would likely disinterest me from such a venture. There will be less detailed information, but general information, and comparisons, if requested, will always be provided based on my analysis. If a player wishes to learn the feasibility of Germany invading France in-game, I will provide, to the best of my ability, and based on what their own generals would know, accurate estimations of how a conflict would play out, provided no surprises.

The game would likely last until there is one superpower that is unchallengable, or when everyone gets bored of it.

Alright. I like the idea, but a couple of questions.

So the rest of history happened more or less the same except for the Ottomans and Byzantium, for the most part?Does Germany control Austria? If so, what power (Hungary?) holds most of the central Balkans? How did that power come to do so?

 

[alxeu]

Alright. I like the idea, but a couple of questions.

So the rest of history happened more or less the same except for the Ottomans and Byzantium, for the most part?Does Germany control Austria? If so, what power (Hungary?) holds most of the central Balkans? How did that power come to do so?

With the failure of the Ottomans to seize Constantinople, in the 1460s, a Crusade led by the French, Poles, and Hungarians reversed the humiliation of 1443 (Crusade of Varna), and effectively vanquished Ottoman power in the Balkans. The following years saw a rising Hungary, never ravaged by frequent campaigning in its interior between Austria and the Turks, align with the Byzantines to secure most of the Balkans together. Austria, meanwhile, secured Bohemia, but never got the opportunity to take over Hungary like in OTL. As a result, centuries later, when Germany was being unified by Bismarck, Austria, with little land outside the Confederation, joined into the German Empire, after being forced by Prussia. It was this same Greater Germany that pressured Luxembourg into being annexed.

Hungary and Byzantium effectively split the Balkans between them, and each power kept mainly to its own historical region, with Byzantines gaining up to the Danube once more, but stopping at Croatia and Bosnia. Hungary meanwhile reestablished control over all of historical Croatia, and then took control of the Romanians. In 1903, Byzantium, Italy, and Hungary, are all part of the Quadruple Alliance with Germany against the Triple Entente of France, Britain, and Russia. Italy, however, is drifting from the alliance due to nationalistic claims on Dalmatia and the Eastern Mediterranean Islands.

The Middle East is also changed radically, and instead of the Ottomans securing the region in the 1500s, it was Safavid Persia. The dynasty has since collapsed and the nation is now ruled by the Qajar dynasty, but it maintains control over much of the Fertile Crescent. Egypt, meanwhile, secured independence after Napoleon's Invasion of Egypt, due to weaknesses in the Persian state caused by that. They hold control over the near-east, and claim the title of Caliph, with Hedjaz under their control. Persia is nominally leaning towards Germany, but their rivalry with Byzantium keeps them neutral. Egypt is aligned with the Entente after making several concessions through the 1800s to Britain.

Overall, outside of those regions, I couldn't think of major political changes that could affect Western European conflicts, so they haven't seen much change, yet.

 

[Ironhide G1]

With the failure of the Ottomans to seize Constantinople, in the 1460s, a Crusade led by the French, Poles, and Hungarians reversed the humiliation of 1443 (Crusade of Varna), and effectively vanquished Ottoman power in the Balkans. The following years saw a rising Hungary, never ravaged by frequent campaigning in its interior between Austria and the Turks, align with the Byzantines to secure most of the Balkans together. Austria, meanwhile, secured Bohemia, but never got the opportunity to take over Hungary like in OTL. As a result, centuries later, when Germany was being unified by Bismarck, Austria, with little land outside the Confederation, joined into the German Empire, after being forced by Prussia. It was this same Greater Germany that pressured Luxembourg into being annexed.

Hungary and Byzantium effectively split the Balkans between them, and each power kept mainly to its own historical region, with Byzantines gaining up to the Danube once more, but stopping at Croatia and Bosnia. Hungary meanwhile reestablished control over all of historical Croatia, and then took control of the Romanians. In 1903, Byzantium, Italy, and Hungary, are all part of the Quadruple Alliance with Germany against the Triple Entente of France, Britain, and Russia. Italy, however, is drifting from the alliance due to nationalistic claims on Dalmatia and the Eastern Mediterranean Islands.

The Middle East is also changed radically, and instead of the Ottomans securing the region in the 1500s, it was Safavid Persia. The dynasty has since collapsed and the nation is now ruled by the Qajar dynasty, but it maintains control over much of the Fertile Crescent. Egypt, meanwhile, secured independence after Napoleon's Invasion of Egypt, due to weaknesses in the Persian state caused by that. They hold control over the near-east, and claim the title of Caliph, with Hedjaz under their control. Persia is nominally leaning towards Germany, but their rivalry with Byzantium keeps them neutral. Egypt is aligned with the Entente after making several concessions through the 1800s to Britain.

Overall, outside of those regions, I couldn't think of major political changes that could affect Western European conflicts, so they haven't seen much change, yet.

Thank you! I'd be happy to join your game

 

[Health]

I'd be happy to join either, however would the colonization game only involve the historical colonizers or would we be free to colonize with whichever nation we wished?

 

[barkardes]

If Ottomans failed to take Constantinople Renaissance would happen later,so the entire European history would be affected.I don't think that this is what would happen if the siege failed but I would also love to play this.

 

[AzagalTheGreat]

Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom or the Netherlands in the first game. Second game is kind of eh.

 

[Ironhide G1]

I'd be happy to join either, however would the colonization game only involve the historical colonizers or would we be free to colonize with whichever nation we wished?

Idk, I think it would be funny to have the Serene Republic of Lucca, Brandenburg or the Papal States trying to colonize the new world .

 

[alxeu]

I'd be happy to join either, however would the colonization game only involve the historical colonizers or would we be free to colonize with whichever nation we wished?

If allow reasonable ahistorical colonizers. Landlocked nations are completely disqualified, of course, but if the merchant republics in Italy wanted to get together to establish profitable trade posts, for example, I would allow it.

If Ottomans failed to take Constantinople Renaissance would happen later,so the entire European history would be affected.I don't think that this is what would happen if the siege failed but I would also love to play this.

I'd debate that with you. It was already beginning in Italy at the time of Constantinople's fall, and the Renaissance could've been started in the rest of Europe in the 1460s Crusade I mentioned in the history, as Europeans were reintroduced to the grandeur of the East.

 

[Olligarchy]

I like both, but like the first one more.

 

[aedan777]

If Ottomans failed to take Constantinople Renaissance would happen later,so the entire European history would be affected.I don't think that this is what would happen if the siege failed but I would also love to play this.

I'd debate that with you. It was already beginning in Italy at the time of Constantinople's fall, and the Renaissance could've been started in the rest of Europe in the 1460s Crusade I mentioned in the history, as Europeans were reintroduced to the grandeur of the East.

The level of ignorance here is truly astonishing. The Renaissance started long before Constantinople ever fell. The west had been "reintroduced to the grandeur of the East" after the crusades, especially the First and Fourth. The exact start of the Renaissance is arguable, but no one with any knowledge of the period would put the start of it after the fall of Constantinople. Some prominent members of the Renaissance were already dead by the time Constantinople fell include Dante Alighieri, Giovanni Boccaccio, Filippo Brunelleschi, Petrarch, Giotto di Bondone, and Masaccio.

And that's not even getting into the absurdity of Constantinople not falling in 1453, the idea that doing so would cripple the Ottoman Empire, or the existence of a crusade with the city still in Christian hands when none occurred when it fell into Muslim hands historically. And it sure isn't scratching the surface on the Byzantine Empire being restored to the Danube and all of Anatolia and surviving to the 20th century. And don't even get me started on the idea that the rest of world history would be exactly the same outside of the Balkans and Middle East.

Generally this comes across as the result of a Romanophile trying to make up some reason for the Byzantine Empire to still exist long after it died historically, and completely lacking the knowledge of history to give anything close to a viable explanation of how or understand how said survival would affect the rest of the world.

 

[barkardes]

The level of ignorance here is truly astonishing. The Renaissance started long before Constantinople ever fell. The west had been "reintroduced to the grandeur of the East" after the crusades, especially the First and Fourth. The exact start of the Renaissance is arguable, but no one with any knowledge of the period would put the start of it after the fall of Constantinople. Some prominent members of the Renaissance were already dead by the time Constantinople fell include Dante Alighieri, Giovanni Boccaccio, Filippo Brunelleschi, Petrarch, Giotto di Bondone, and Masaccio.

And that's not even getting into the absurdity of Constantinople not falling in 1453, the idea that doing so would cripple the Ottoman Empire, or the existence of a crusade with the city still in Christian hands when none occurred when it fell into Muslim hands historically. And it sure isn't scratching the surface on the Byzantine Empire being restored to the Danube and all of Anatolia and surviving to the 20th century. And don't even get me started on the idea that the rest of world history would be exactly the same outside of the Balkans and Middle East.

Generally this comes across as the result of a Romanophile trying to make up some reason for the Byzantine Empire to still exist long after it died historically, and completely lacking the knowledge of history to give anything close to a viable explanation of how or understand how said survival would affect the rest of the world.

I'm backing down here and I will do some research when I have time. Renaissance didn't exactly get my attention until now and I just know what it is and how it shaped Europe. It seems I got my information from the wrong source and didn't care to look for more sources. Thank you for showing me the truth.

If allow reasonable ahistorical colonizers. Landlocked nations are completely disqualified, of course, but if the merchant republics in Italy wanted to get together to establish profitable trade posts, for example, I would allow it.



I'd debate that with you. It was already beginning in Italy at the time of Constantinople's fall, and the Renaissance could've been started in the rest of Europe in the 1460s Crusade I mentioned in the history, as Europeans were reintroduced to the grandeur of the East.

I take my word back about Renaissance. But still, the world would be a different place. Byzantium wouldn't have accomplished this without foreign help and it would be much more smaller(in the Balkans,especially). Russia may have been stronger since it didn't get delayed by the Ottomans. We could see the Spanish and Portuguese to dominate the North Africa. Ottomans wouldn't have fought against Austria for decades and who knows what this would do to European history. Since Ottomans don't charge European traders about spices etc. heavily, the new world would have been found later(well, if I'm wrong, just correct me ) .

For the sake of avoiding that much of complexity, I'm still willing to ignore those details and accept that events just turned out to be like that.

 

[Arrowfiend]

The first game's setting seems interesting. Playing the Byzantines, Persians, or Egyptians (?) would be fun.

 

[alxeu]

The level of ignorance here is truly astonishing. The Renaissance started long before Constantinople ever fell. The west had been "reintroduced to the grandeur of the East" after the crusades, especially the First and Fourth. The exact start of the Renaissance is arguable, but no one with any knowledge of the period would put the start of it after the fall of Constantinople. Some prominent members of the Renaissance were already dead by the time Constantinople fell include Dante Alighieri, Giovanni Boccaccio, Filippo Brunelleschi, Petrarch, Giotto di Bondone, and Masaccio.

And that's not even getting into the absurdity of Constantinople not falling in 1453, the idea that doing so would cripple the Ottoman Empire, or the existence of a crusade with the city still in Christian hands when none occurred when it fell into Muslim hands historically. And it sure isn't scratching the surface on the Byzantine Empire being restored to the Danube and all of Anatolia and surviving to the 20th century. And don't even get me started on the idea that the rest of world history would be exactly the same outside of the Balkans and Middle East.

Generally this comes across as the result of a Romanophile trying to make up some reason for the Byzantine Empire to still exist long after it died historically, and completely lacking the knowledge of history to give anything close to a viable explanation of how or understand how said survival would affect the rest of the world.

First part I completely agree with.

Second part is due to the legend?/story that surrounds the final assault of the city. Apparently the assault that took the city was also going to be the last by Mehmed II. It also happened that during that assault, two battle turning events occurred: the (later fatal) wounding of the Genoese commander, which broke his troops' morale, and the error of leaving one of the gates open, which allowed Turkish troops an entry-point into the city, which further demoralized the army. When the Turks entered, organized resistance collapsed, and the Italian allies quickly fled. If it weren't for these two events, it is possible, however unlikely, that Byzantium could hold the day, and leave the Turkish army ruined.

Going further, there was indeed a Crusade in 1443-4 that attempted to relieve the Byzantines and defeat the Ottomans, though it failed. If Byzantium held strong, the intrigues of the Emperor's court could convince the Pope to summon another Crusade, which the French, no longer distracted by the English threat (for England was split into infighting) could join. As for the borders of the empire, I do agree that there is no way they could've regained all that territory overnight, but this is 450 years after their darkest hour, and after the 1460's Crusade, which drove the Ottomans out of the Balkans, the Byzantines were left with a tenuous control of Greece, and the rest of the Balkans were various petty kingdoms, which would be conquered by the Empire with the aid of Hungary, which stood to gain by conquering Bosnia, Wallachia, and, later, Moldavia. It wouldn't be until much later (1800's, when Imperialism was at its height) that Byzantium could regain all of Anatolia.

As for the rest of world history, yes, it is completely inaccurate in most places. When I first dreamed up the idea, I couldn't think of many differences at the time. North Africa in particular needs a rework, but I originally wanted something familiar in the scenario for people to recognize.

At the time, I was trying to find an interesting scenario for a game that remained somewhat plausible in ways. I knew that Byzantium couldn't hope to regain Southern Italy, or much else outside Anatolia, which is why they don't hold much outside their core.


I am open to a rework on the rest of the map, as I have said, and I can elaborate on anything you wish, if you want me to defend my timeline.





To everyone else, since the first option is currently greater in support, I'll develop some rules for the game, as well as mechanics, and show it to you guys when I'm done making them.

 

[Arrowfiend]

If the Byzantines took Anatolia in the 19th century, I assume that means the number of Greek speakers is far more closer to OTL, just with the added numbers of a majority Greek Constantinople?

Also, what kind of empire is the one based in Egypt? The Mamluks?

 

[alxeu]

If the Byzantines took Anatolia in the 19th century, I assume that means the number of Greek speakers is far more closer to OTL, just with the added numbers of a majority Greek Constantinople?

Also, what kind of empire is the one based in Egypt? The Mamluks?

To the first, the Aegean Coast and Trebizond are much more Grecified than in OTL.

To the second, no, unfortunately, as they still fell to the unopposed Safavid Dynasty of Persia. By 1903, it is closer to the monarchy that established itself as independent from the Ottomans after the Napoleonic Wars, historically, except that it was more successful in securing the Levant.

 

[Arrowfiend]

Also, what is Hungary like in TTL? Is it similar to the Austria-Hungary of OTL, just with Hungarian and Croatian instead of German and Hungarian as the ruling culture?

 

[alxeu]

Also, what is Hungary like in TTL? Is it similar to the Austria-Hungary of OTL, just with Hungarian and Croatian instead of German and Hungarian as the ruling culture?

It is primarily Hungarian, both in ruling class and demographics. The population is higher than in OTL, due to the lack of warfare that occurred in the Hungarian heartland, as opposed to historically. Minorities are largely ignored, instead of outright oppressed, and overall the political situation with the minorities is similar to Austria-Hungary (i.e. little rights for non-Hungarians, and Magyarization attempts), however, now there is no large German population to balance out the Hungarian rule.

If any minority is shown preference, it would probably be either the Croatians, long part of the kingdom, or the Romanians, the largest minority in the kingdom. Hungary needs to balance the demands of these groups with their own interests, as if both Croatians and Romanians are angered, it is likely to cause massive consequences for the culturally diverse Hungarian state.

 

[Ironhide G1]

At that time there was a possibility of true reunion of the two Churches(Catholic and Orthodox) from the Council of Ferrara-Basel-Florence, which the last Byzantine Emperors supported because this would give them military support. In reality the reunion was short lived because the Greeks were largely against it with mainly the Emperors supporting it, and the hope died OTL after the fall of Constantinople. This could have helped the Pope call another Crusade as well, as the short lived reunion was largely the cause for the Crusade of Varna. Maybe as a possibility with the city's survival and Greek reliance on Latin Military aide the Emperors would continue to claim union with the Pope for military support, the Pope could have launched another Crusade. And once Byzantium secured its independence, able to stand on its own feet, then probably it would revoke the reunion and split away again, so the Greeks could get the Latin military support yet when the time come again stake out their independence from the Pope when their power had been regained.

Spoiler

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

"The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine. The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. An amicable agreement was also reached regarding the form of consecration in the Mass (see EPIKLESIS). Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact.The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. On 6 July, however, the famous decree of union (Laetentur Coeli), the original which is still preserved in the Laurentian Library at Florence, was formally announced in the cathedral of that city. The council was over, as far as the Greeks were concerned, and they departed at once. The Latin members remained to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches--the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans or Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). This last was the concluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of which from 1443 onwards took place in the Lateran palace at Rome.

The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal, but the Muscovite princes, jealousof their religious interdependence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence. Isidore was thrown into prison, but afterwards escaped and took refuge in Italy. Nor was any better headway made in the Greek Empire. The emperor remained faithful, but some of the Greek deputies, intimidated by the discontent prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrounding mass of schism. The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Palaeologus, vainly endeavoured to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine clergy and people. Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine "Decretum Unionis" (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II."

 

[alxeu]

At that time there was a possibility of true reunion of the two Churches(Catholic and Orthodox) from the Council of Ferrara-Basel-Florence, which the last Byzantine Emperors supported because this would give them military support. In reality the reunion was short lived because the Greeks were largely against it with mainly the Emperors supporting it, and the hope died OTL after the fall of Constantinople. This could have helped the Pope call another Crusade as well, as the short lived reunion was largely the cause for the Crusade of Varna. Maybe as a possibility with the city's survival and Greek reliance on Latin Military aide the Emperors would continue to claim union with the Pope for military support, the Pope could have launched another Crusade. And once Byzantium secured its independence, able to stand on its own feet, then probably it would revoke the reunion and split away again, so the Greeks could get the Latin military support yet when the time come again stake out their independence from the Pope when their power had been regained.

Spoiler

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

"The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine. The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. An amicable agreement was also reached regarding the form of consecration in the Mass (see EPIKLESIS). Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact.The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. On 6 July, however, the famous decree of union (Laetentur Coeli), the original which is still preserved in the Laurentian Library at Florence, was formally announced in the cathedral of that city. The council was over, as far as the Greeks were concerned, and they departed at once. The Latin members remained to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches--the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans or Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). This last was the concluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of which from 1443 onwards took place in the Lateran palace at Rome.

The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal, but the Muscovite princes, jealousof their religious interdependence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence. Isidore was thrown into prison, but afterwards escaped and took refuge in Italy. Nor was any better headway made in the Greek Empire. The emperor remained faithful, but some of the Greek deputies, intimidated by the discontent prevailing amongst their own people, deserted their position and soon fell back into the surrounding mass of schism. The new emperor, Constantine, brother of John Palaeologus, vainly endeavoured to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine clergy and people. Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine "Decretum Unionis" (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II."

Exactly this. I had this in mind for the storyline. If they survived 1453, the Byzantine Emperors would probably remain Catholic until the Reformation ruined Catholic unity, prompting them to leave Catholicism, their chance to do so having arrived.