Tinto Flavour #22 - 27th of May 2025

[EneaBako]

accident give me a second while i type smth

No worries, accidents happen - like pretending Serbia didnt collapse after Dushans death.

 

[Vanbor]

I get what you are saying about how the fragmentation wasnt marked by open war or rebellion and thats true to a point. But what makes it more urgent to simulate is exactly that: the Serbian crown disintegrated not with explosions, but with silence, the kind of silent collapse that left the gates wide open for Ottoman expansion. That's the danger of reducing it to -3 stability unrest and calling it a day.

Thats also why I proposed a system flexible enough to reflect both kinds of fragmentation: yes, some nobles acted like vassals in name only, but others like the Balshaj in Zeta or Dukagjini in Northern Albania acted with total independence. We already simulate that kind of noble autonomy in other parts of the game. Why not here?
And the concern is that rebels feel too ‘weak,’ to represent the historical view, then there is room to script some factions as initial vassals with severe liberty desire, while others might go the full separatist route depending on Serbia’s stability. That approach would actually simulate the historical decentralization we mentioned and not erase it behind a vague disaster modifier.

I just think it’s strange that Albania, which had no unified state structure at all during this period, got noble tags and fragmentation nailed in the dev diaries - but Serbia, which was an empire that splintered dramatically after Dushan, gets none of it. If we ignore the breakdown of the Serbian Empire in 1355, we’re not just rewriting history, we’re erasing one of the most important collapses that enabled the Ottomans to dominate the Balkans. No Dushan death → no fragmentation → no Ottoman conquest → no siege of Vienna.

So yeah, if the choice is between a slightly oversimplified potato-map version or no fragmentation at all, Ill take the map. "But ideally, we would move beyond both and build a dynamic system that reflects how big that collapse really was not just for Serbia, but for the entire region."

Alright but why are you trying to railroad Dusan's death in 1355? The man died relatively young. With most sources suspecting he was poisoned. Should that be hardcoded? Now stop me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of EU was to rewrite history. Having Dusan die in 1355 followed by an immediate Ming style explosion of Serbia doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. Having the Serbian Empire fall be railroaded just because you're fixated on it being historic makes for a boring game. Would rather have games where it survives and thrives so when I'm playing Ottomans I have an interesting opponent in the Balkans.

 

[Inzano]

The two pillars of Balkan history that need to be nailed in the early timeline are the collapse of Byzantium and the breakup of Dushans Serbia. Everything else - from the Albanian resistance to the Ottoman siege of Vienna the Venetian influence in the balkans and her holdings flows from those fractures. If Serbia is still a stable empire in 1450, then i dont know how the game can accurately simulate the chain of historical events that actually followed.

You're actually playing the game to create an alternate world, not just repeat the same events. If I were playing Serbia, I would try to first prevent its collapse by taking as much as possible with Dušan's role. Then I would consolidate its stability on its territory, to be ready for a Turkish invasion, if I hadn't already tried to destroy them. Then to unite the Orthodox world in the area of the former Eastern Roman Empire. And free the Copts from Muslim rule. Perhaps as my vassal.

There would be no fun if events always repeated themselves and you had no power over it.

 

[Inzano]

Alright but why are you trying to railroad Dusan's death in 1355? The man died relatively young. With most sources suspecting he was poisoned. Should that be hardcoded? Now stop me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of EU was to rewrite history. Having Dusan die in 1355 followed by an immediate Ming style explosion of Serbia doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. Having the Serbian Empire fall be railroaded just because you're fixated on it being historic makes for a boring game. Would rather have games where it survives and thrives so when I'm playing Ottomans I have an interesting opponent in the Balkans.

I'm more in favor of it being random when he dies, whether naturally or due to some other factor, so that every game isn't the same. In fact, if the AI or the player decides differently than what happened in real life, the situation can't happen again.

 

[Vanbor]

I'm more in favor of it being random when he dies, whether naturally or due to some other factor, so that every game isn't the same. In fact, if the AI or the player decides differently than what happened in real life, the situation can't happen again.

Yeah that's what I'm saying too. No reason to have him die like in OTL. Would rather it all be random.

 

[BokicaTheEpic]

No worries, accidents happen - like pretending Serbia didnt collapse after Dushans death.

Accident as in posting before I wrote anything dude... plus I never said that. Moreso I think the disaster should be tied to control, reforms, ruler stats and nobility making it hard for the AI and more manageable for the player.

 

[Pls fix HRE]

In fact, the disintegration or decentralization (IO event) should be tied to the successor. If the successor is very weak, a disintegration event would occur or in the form of independent principalities. If the successor is slightly less weak or moderately strong, an IO event would occur (The principalities are tied to the IO of the Serbian Empire with the leadership of the successor). In the case of a strong successor, the Serbian Empire would remain unified.

I dont know how far we can take this cause Uros was already born at the game start so even if the game itself gives Stefan a new son it would still lead to Uros leading the throne. Maybe if EU5 allows you to train your kids to be better at certain things like in Crusader Kings but even there your child can be a dissapointment no matter how much you try. I would say tying it to the skill of the successor himself would be too puishing to both the AI and playing and will lead to strange situations like intentionally getting Uros killed so his son with better stats can take over in 15 years and end it. I dont think the AI would ever manage to stop the collapse that way when it really should achieve to stop the crisis in roughly 10-15% of games.

I get what you are saying about how the fragmentation wasnt marked by open war or rebellion and thats true to a point. But what makes it more urgent to simulate is exactly that: the Serbian crown disintegrated not with explosions, but with silence, the kind of silent collapse that left the gates wide open for Ottoman expansion. That's the danger of reducing it to -3 stability unrest and calling it a day.

Thats also why I proposed a system flexible enough to reflect both kinds of fragmentation: yes, some nobles acted like vassals in name only, but others like the Balshaj in Zeta or Dukagjini in Northern Albania acted with total independence. We already simulate that kind of noble autonomy in other parts of the game. Why not here?
And the concern is that rebels feel too ‘weak,’ to represent the historical view, then there is room to script some factions as initial vassals with severe liberty desire, while others might go the full separatist route depending on Serbia’s stability. That approach would actually simulate the historical decentralization we mentioned and not erase it behind a vague disaster modifier.

I agree that if just some minus prestige and some extra rebel chance (IDK how devestating the numb ers are in context) is too little. This event should be the thing a new EU5 players restarts his run over if he fails to stop it in time. It should weaken Serbia to the point that the Ottoman AI can actually take over cause atleast from the footage I myself saw from the youtuber beta the Balkans is INCREDIBLY STAGNANT. The devs might aswell have said every region in the world is allowed to have things happen except the Balkans who shall keep its borders static forever in the one period where therer was the most border changes overall in the entire history of the peninsula. Look at this do you believe that nearlly 100 years 1/5th of the entire games runtime passed? if you asked me this without any actual numbers to see my guess would be 10 or 20 years passed at most. So yeah the events need to be stronger and border changes should happen. Serbia should be about preventing yourself from falling while Bulgaria and Byzantium should be about regaining past glory. Everyone else should be focused on expanding and becoming the next empire of the Ballkans from Bosnia to the crusader states in Greece,

 

[Pls fix HRE]

I just think it’s strange that Albania, which had no unified state structure at all during this period, got noble tags and fragmentation nailed in the dev diaries - but Serbia, which was an empire that splintered dramatically after Dushan, gets none of it.

When did Albania get a dev diary.

 

[EneaBako]

Alright but why are you trying to railroad Dusan's death in 1355? The man died relatively young. With most sources suspecting he was poisoned. Should that be hardcoded? Now stop me if I'm wrong but I thought the whole point of EU was to rewrite history. Having Dusan die in 1355 followed by an immediate Ming style explosion of Serbia doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the game. Having the Serbian Empire fall be railroaded just because you're fixated on it being historic makes for a boring game. Would rather have games where it survives and thrives so when I'm playing Ottomans I have an interesting opponent in the Balkans.

The point isnt to railroad Dushans death or enforce collapse every single game. The point is to acknowledge the historical reality that his death in 1355 was the inflection point that shattered a multi-ethnic empire not with grand battles, but with quiet decentralization that made the Ottoman advance possible and a dozen of other historical events like league of lezhe, Venetian holdings, the vulnerability within the fragmented provinces. ect

While Albania, which had no centralized state in this period, gets carefully-scripted noble tags and fragmented gameplay. Yet Serbia, which was an empire that fragmented in real historical terms after Dushans death, is treated as a monolithic state that only gets unrest from a “disaster”? That’s just inconsistent and also historical erasure.

I’m not saying Serbia should always fall apart. I’m saying that, just like how EU4 gives players tools to reverse or accelerate history, Serbia should get the same treatment. If the successor is strong, Serbia can survive and thrive. But if it’s weak - like history shows - then we need an actual system to simulate the fragmentation. Otherwise, there is no power vacuum, no Albanian or Montenegrin independence, no real Ottoman foothold. You might as well send Serbia to siege Vienna in 1450 and call it a day.

This is about fair historical representation across the Balkans. I should be able to play the Balshaj or Dukagjini and forge my own path just like someone can play Wallachia or Bosnia. You as a Serbian player still get the opportunity to prevent collapse. But removing collapse altogether is not alternate history, its bad history.

And yes, the game should allow for flexibility. If the Serbian player holds it together? Great. Thats player agency. But without the potential for fragmentation, you strip agency away from everyone else in the Balkans - Albanians, Bosnians, Montenegrins — who historically did carve out autonomy in that vacuum. Later on wich were possible only through this historical event that shaped the balkans and the wars to come.

In short: Let the empire thrive if it can, but dont whitewash the fact that when Dushan died, it splintered and that splintering changed Balkan history forever. EU4 had that historical flow should EUV not reflect that and not pretend it never happened?

Alternate history doesn’t mean ignore real events because they are inconvenient. It means starting from history and letting players change it. But to change history, you have to include it first.

 

[Trepanator]

I dont know how far we can take this cause Uros was already born at the game start so even if the game itself gives Stefan a new son it would still lead to Uros leading the throne. Maybe if EU5 allows you to train your kids to be better at certain things like in Crusader Kings but even there your child can be a dissapointment no matter how much you try. I would say tying it to the skill of the successor himself would be too puishing to both the AI and playing and will lead to strange situations like intentionally getting Uros killed so his son with better stats can take over in 15 years and end it. I dont think the AI would ever manage to stop the collapse that way when it really should achieve to stop the crisis in roughly 10-15% of games.

I agree that if just some minus prestige and some extra rebel chance (IDK how devestating the numb ers are in context) is too little. This event should be the thing a new EU5 players restarts his run over if he fails to stop it in time. It should weaken Serbia to the point that the Ottoman AI can actually take over cause atleast from the footage I myself saw from the youtuber beta the Balkans is INCREDIBLY STAGNANT. The devs might aswell have said every region in the world is allowed to have things happen except the Balkans who shall keep its borders static forever in the one period where therer was the most border changes overall in the entire history of the peninsula. Look at this do you believe that nearlly 100 years 1/5th of the entire games runtime passed? if you asked me this without any actual numbers to see my guess would be 10 or 20 years passed at most. So yeah the events need to be stronger and border changes should happen. Serbia should be about preventing yourself from falling while Bulgaria and Byzantium should be about regaining past glory. Everyone else should be focused on expanding and becoming the next empire of the Ballkans from Bosnia to the crusader states in Greece,
View attachment 1308586

The solution would be to make serbia and byz rivals to make serbia actually go for byz conquest because as far as i've seen from gameplay they ally 9/10 times . So far they don't expand so no empire, no empire they are stable and no disaster.

 

[Trepanator]

I'm more in favor of it being random when he dies, whether naturally or due to some other factor, so that every game isn't the same. In fact, if the AI or the player decides differently than what happened in real life, the situation can't happen again.

Yeah, like mansa musa dies historically the same year the game starts, if you script it where is the fun in that.

 

[EneaBako]

You're actually playing the game to create an alternate world, not just repeat the same events. If I were playing Serbia, I would try to first prevent its collapse by taking as much as possible with Dušan's role. Then I would consolidate its stability on its territory, to be ready for a Turkish invasion, if I hadn't already tried to destroy them. Then to unite the Orthodox world in the area of the former Eastern Roman Empire. And free the Copts from Muslim rule. Perhaps as my vassal.

There would be no fun if events always repeated themselves and you had no power over it.

You are absolutely right that EU is about alternate history thats the heart of the game. But alternate history only works when its rooted in real history first. Nobody is saying Serbia must collapse every time. What we are asking for is a system that reflects what actually happened in 1355 - the fragmentation after Dushans death - and gives the player a chance to prevent it.

Right now, Serbia doesnt fragment at all unless rebels take over, while Albania which was even a unified state they changed it gets noble tags and fragmentation already built in. Thats the inconsistency. You, as the Serbian player, should be able to hold the empire together and even unite the Orthodox world that’s the fun of the sandbox. But I, as an Albanian, Montenegrin, or Bosnian player, should also be able to emerge from that collapse like it happened historically.

We are not asking for “railroaded history, like he mentioned we are asking for a historical starting point. Because if Serbia doesn’t have the potential to fragment, then the Ottomans steamroll nothing, Albania never unifies, and the Balkans become a giant alternate power block that never faced its defining crisis.
So yes rewrite history, but let’s not erase the facts it came from.

 

[Sizvahstar]

No one has pointed the spelling error out yet.

The Advance "Georgian Golden Age" has a spelling error "relieve" -> "relive"
Surely the point is to "relive this period" rather than "relieve them from the siege"

 

[Trepanator]

No one has pointed the spelling error out yet.

The Advance "Georgian Golden Age" has a spelling error "relieve" -> "relive"
Surely the point is to "relive this period" rather than "relieve them from the siege"

I hope that someone from pdx actually sees this but since it turned a bit balkans here i dont think they will be wading trough this swamp.

 

[BokicaTheEpic]

You are absolutely right that EU is about alternate history thats the heart of the game. But alternate history only works when its rooted in real history first. Nobody is saying Serbia must collapse every time. What we are asking for is a system that reflects what actually happened in 1355 - the fragmentation after Dushans death - and gives the player a chance to prevent it.

Right now, Serbia doesnt fragment at all unless rebels take over, while Albania which was even a unified state they changed it gets noble tags and fragmentation already built in. Thats the inconsistency. You, as the Serbian player, should be able to hold the empire together and even unite the Orthodox world that’s the fun of the sandbox. But I, as an Albanian, Montenegrin, or Bosnian player, should also be able to emerge from that collapse like it happened historically.

We are not asking for “railroaded history, like he mentioned we are asking for a historical starting point. Because if Serbia doesn’t have the potential to fragment, then the Ottomans steamroll nothing, Albania never unifies, and the Balkans become a giant alternate power block that never faced its defining crisis.
So yes rewrite history, but let’s not erase the facts it came from.

Aren't we forgetting that the disasters work as situations but inside one country right? So who knows maybe there will be a system implemented (events, situation* etc.), something like Delhi maybe but less violent? Hopefully that's what the disaster will be after the formation of an empire and not just flat modifiers.

 

[Sizvahstar]

Ouch... I was going to post it much sooner, but things got in the way. How important does it have to be to warrant a ping for a dev?

 

[EneaBako]

I dont know how far we can take this cause Uros was already born at the game start so even if the game itself gives Stefan a new son it would still lead to Uros leading the throne. Maybe if EU5 allows you to train your kids to be better at certain things like in Crusader Kings but even there your child can be a dissapointment no matter how much you try. I would say tying it to the skill of the successor himself would be too puishing to both the AI and playing and will lead to strange situations like intentionally getting Uros killed so his son with better stats can take over in 15 years and end it. I dont think the AI would ever manage to stop the collapse that way when it really should achieve to stop the crisis in roughly 10-15% of games.

I agree that if just some minus prestige and some extra rebel chance (IDK how devestating the numb ers are in context) is too little. This event should be the thing a new EU5 players restarts his run over if he fails to stop it in time. It should weaken Serbia to the point that the Ottoman AI can actually take over cause atleast from the footage I myself saw from the youtuber beta the Balkans is INCREDIBLY STAGNANT. The devs might aswell have said every region in the world is allowed to have things happen except the Balkans who shall keep its borders static forever in the one period where therer was the most border changes overall in the entire history of the peninsula. Look at this do you believe that nearlly 100 years 1/5th of the entire games runtime passed? if you asked me this without any actual numbers to see my guess would be 10 or 20 years passed at most. So yeah the events need to be stronger and border changes should happen. Serbia should be about preventing yourself from falling while Bulgaria and Byzantium should be about regaining past glory. Everyone else should be focused on expanding and becoming the next empire of the Ballkans from Bosnia to the crusader states in Greece,
View attachment 1308586

Exactly. The whole point of a historical sandbox is dynamism with plausible foundations. If the Balkans - arguably one of the most volatile regions in European history - ends up more static than Scandinavia, somethings off. Even the Serbian players should understand this.

This isnt about forcing Serbia to collapse for the memes. Its about designing a regional narrative because of actual historical factors like the vacuum left by Dushan death. If the collapse is reduced to “+10 unrest,” then the Ottomans have nothing to exploit. The Venetians have no incentives to intervene. Albania, Bosnia, and Montenegro never get a chance to take shape.

My question to @Pavía is Why should Western Europe get the Hundred Years’ War, the War of the Roses, Burgundy events, and Iberian unions - but the Balkans get silence?

Give Serbia the chance to hold itself together -absolutely- but make it a challenge, just like the Ottomans have to beat the Timurids or Byzantium has to survive its final days. Make the region alive, not a quiet corner where nothing ever happens. If anything, the real Balkan experience was chaotic, treacherous, and filled with ambition. That’s not a flaw that’s a feature.

 

[EneaBako]

I concluded with ambition because thats what Paradox aims to achive!

 

[Alekslav123]

I dont know how far we can take this cause Uros was already born at the game start so even if the game itself gives Stefan a new son it would still lead to Uros leading the throne. Maybe if EU5 allows you to train your kids to be better at certain things like in Crusader Kings but even there your child can be a dissapointment no matter how much you try. I would say tying it to the skill of the successor himself would be too puishing to both the AI and playing and will lead to strange situations like intentionally getting Uros killed so his son with better stats can take over in 15 years and end it. I dont think the AI would ever manage to stop the collapse that way when it really should achieve to stop the crisis in roughly 10-15% of games.

I agree that if just some minus prestige and some extra rebel chance (IDK how devestating the numb ers are in context) is too little. This event should be the thing a new EU5 players restarts his run over if he fails to stop it in time. It should weaken Serbia to the point that the Ottoman AI can actually take over cause atleast from the footage I myself saw from the youtuber beta the Balkans is INCREDIBLY STAGNANT. The devs might aswell have said every region in the world is allowed to have things happen except the Balkans who shall keep its borders static forever in the one period where therer was the most border changes overall in the entire history of the peninsula. Look at this do you believe that nearlly 100 years 1/5th of the entire games runtime passed? if you asked me this without any actual numbers to see my guess would be 10 or 20 years passed at most. So yeah the events need to be stronger and border changes should happen. Serbia should be about preventing yourself from falling while Bulgaria and Byzantium should be about regaining past glory. Everyone else should be focused on expanding and becoming the next empire of the Ballkans from Bosnia to the crusader states in Greece,
View attachment 1308586

yeah, i dont think a player should have too much of an impact over Uroses upbringing(although maybe being able to influence him a bit through events would be nice) since, from what ive seen, EU5 wont have systems in place similar to the crusader kings series when it comes to educating your heir. Probably the best way to do it, in my opinion, would be something similar to the EU4 disaster Crisis of the Ming dynasty. You would get it if certain conditions were met (I think the ones stated in the Tinto talk are fine) where your army morale suffers, stability and legitimacy suffer and control overall suffers. You can then also add modifiers to make rebellions more common along with some scripted breakaway states (for example, given the requirements for forming the empire, you are bound to have greek lands held by Serbia, so i think a rival Empreror appearing there and proclaiming independence should happen, simillar to the General fleeing to Taiwan in the Ming disaster). Then the disaster should end either by getting your stability and legitimacy in order in say, 15 years or so? and if you fail to do that you lose the Empire title and get the historic breakaway states

 

[Cigan1330]

Will there be Visoki Decani monastery and will there be a event about contruction of Monastery of Holy Archangels in Prizren