Basically I would just like to hear your opinions and ideas, and hopefully the Realm Maintenance team could take a look at Byzantium sooner or later.
- 5
-
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.
Successful generals who kept commanding armies and winning battles instead of emperor should become a political threat.
- 13
- 1
Let civil war really weaken the country, grant not influence but privilege to your faction members.
When capital is lost the empire should just collapse, like the fourth Crusade event cycle.
When the emperor is lost in a major war, he could trigger an event like "Unrest in Empire", for several years, heresies, foreign tribes or adventurers could take over countries with low control without a war and gain independence.
When capital is lost the empire should just collapse, like the fourth Crusade event cycle.
When the emperor is lost in a major war, he could trigger an event like "Unrest in Empire", for several years, heresies, foreign tribes or adventurers could take over countries with low control without a war and gain independence.
Last edited:
- 5
In my personal mod, I made admin realm CB cost 2x than non-admin, and I like the result. Admin can have stability, sure, so making them harder to gain new land is a worthwhile tradeoff.
- 2
Honestly, our best bet is probably to wait and see how Paradox will make China fall apart and then backport some of those mechanics to Admin gov.
Imperial treasury, powerful minister and generals trying to claim the the throne would fit with the Byzantines but we don't now much yet about the mechanics.
Imperial treasury, powerful minister and generals trying to claim the the throne would fit with the Byzantines but we don't now much yet about the mechanics.
- 7
In general, reduce MAA unit sizes. Both stacks and units since the MAA and levy system is broken right now. ER can very easily raise mostly MAA armies to crush any enemies. But I'd rather see the warfare system changed than making these temporary changes.
Stability Phases. I can think of three phases from the top of my head. Rise, Stability and Collapse. During collapse phase independence and dissolution factions should be allowed. Influence actions should be more expensive and infighting/schemes should be easier. Mercenaries made more expensive. Maybe even a debuff for the Emperor's armies.
These phases would circle depending on the obedience of the strategos, wars won/lost and competence of the emperor.
Stability Phases. I can think of three phases from the top of my head. Rise, Stability and Collapse. During collapse phase independence and dissolution factions should be allowed. Influence actions should be more expensive and infighting/schemes should be easier. Mercenaries made more expensive. Maybe even a debuff for the Emperor's armies.
These phases would circle depending on the obedience of the strategos, wars won/lost and competence of the emperor.
- 1
I think I would retain the size of MAA because they make it feel you have a big professional army. Instead you need a system of balancing MAA by making them more expensive, possible prone to revolt, or at least push your strategos to revolt if your emperor is not seen as a good general.
- 1
- 1
Overpowered in opposition to who? The AI Byzantine blobbing is either an issue to be prevented, or a feature to be increased in the name of bigger and more dangerous realms, depending on whose paradigm of balance you use.
I doubt you'll be able to devise a singular rule set that makes it a major threat from the outside without being OP in the player's hands. Or, alternatively, a ruleset that makes it hard for the player to manage, but which doesn't also cripple it in the hands of the AI.
As a consequence, you need to be clear on which angle is the priority.
- 2
- 1
OP in context of historical immersion. Maybe people wanted a more historical aligned Byzantine empire that have peaks and low points as being something similar to their historical position.
- 3
- 1
The thing is that military strength of the Administrative government is – in big part – totally independent from the player input. Their unique system of calling upon provincial armies boosts their forces quite much, and I think AI uses it just as well as the players do.
These forces are built up by some AI-governed strategos, and not the players.
- 5
It's crazy some people are happy with an overly OP Byzantine empire. Having artificially strong faction that have no downside isn't really fun or immersive.
I posit that the real fun isn't fighting truly strong factions but rather immersive factions in line with their historical positions.
- 3
- 2
Fair enough. MAA balance is needed in general though. Maybe cheaper ER MAA could be nerfed to be slightly better levies that makes the bulk of the army instead of decreasing the size of them.
Yup, but some doesn't mean all. Administrative being too OP has been discussed many times in different topics before. There've been some adjustments but It still is.
Byzantium is too OP
Last edited:
- 2
I think there's difference between the more elite Tagma regiments Vs that of the more common theme units. So you can make a difference in stats between the Imperial MAA of the emperor and the MAA that strategos can recruit. The theme MAA should be better than levies but not massively, and they should cost more than levies as well.
I think some people just wanted big strong AI factions even if it ended up breaking historical immersion.
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
I hope they don't end up breaking historical emersion. Thats what killed orher Paradox games for me and CK3 seems to be doing okay so far.
- 1
I mean khans of the steppe will have iran join your war to become genghis khan, when genghis was declared such before he even invaded the kara khitai, so historical immersion still very much out the window. Your concubines also join you on your nerge hunts as hunters. So historical immersion is fully out the window.
- 2
Sure. Let's even say this is uncontested. But this is a description, not an problem, absent additional qualifiers / standards.
There were, have been, and still are people who believe that every realm in the game should have something similar. Every proposal of 'top-level rulers should get their MAA from their vassals' follows a broadly similar analogous- the MAA-forces are built up by some AI vassal, not the players, but the more vassals you have, the more MAA you can draw from.
Whereas the current system absolutely is a system in which the main military force (MAA) are built up by the player, rather than by the AI. It is also widely criticized, hence the regular appeals for a 'harder' model where realms do just that.
Even in HOI4 I rather have an historically OP unbalanced USA rather than a more 'balanced' US Vs Axis campaign.
- 1
- 1
- 1
I think one of the things that can be done is apply a small per-regiment Influence surcharge on raising a Thematic army combined with rebalancing the Influence economy. This should be balanced around economy-of-scale, it should be cheaper to raise 5 regiments from one theme than raise 1 regiment from 5 themes. But having the total cost be a simple function of "base cost + number-of-MAA-Regiments * scaling factor" would keep this economy of scale while making the ability of the Emperor to call on the military more sensitive to changes in the Influence economy, which is something we'd want tightened up in any event.