AI Seljuks never beat byzantines??

[LaurenceC96]

Hi all. Im not sure if this is confirmation bias but where in vanilla ive seen Alp Arslan defeat the byzantines several times in the 1066 start i dont think ive ever seen it in CK2 plus. To test this ive watched several observe games and it seems that the Seljuks consistently get the initial upper hand then attrition/fortress assault their stacks to death so the Byzantines can make a comeback.

Although i appreciate the battle of Manzikert historically was a rather pivotal moment which would be unlikely to occur in game, is there anything that can be done to increase the chances of the Seljuks winning as historical?

If others have a different experience of this and im just experiencing confirmation bias please let me know!

 

[Tatterhood]

They won in my last campaign with Plus, but I agree that it seems to be pretty rare.

 

[FakeShady]

they consistently win in my games now since a recent patch buffed them. But I'll run some tests when I have the time.

Last time I tested Seljuk won 7 times out of 20 runs. And that was before the buff. (Summer 2017 version?)

 

[zeress]

Well now we have Schroedinger's Seljuks it seems.

Either way, keep me informed on those tests as the Seljuks have specific event troops already assigned to them so it'd be trivial to adjust them up or down as needed for this specific war.

 

[cchiu23]

Byzantines are overpowered as fuck in CK2+ they are the most stable empire (no independence revolts) with no rivals that can really fight them well (abbasids tend to fall apart and since they don't get de jure like byzantines by default, they'll basically never reconquer lost territories)

They can lose most of anatolia but can still field 30k men in the earliest bookmark


I've had the Seljuk beat them once but immediately lost all their gains because the event troops are finite and the byzantines regain their full forces in >5 years

 

[Mr Nobody]

Byzantines are overpowered as fuck in CK2+ they are the most stable empire (no independence revolts) with no rivals that can really fight them well (abbasids tend to fall apart and since they don't get de jure like byzantines by default, they'll basically never reconquer lost territories)

They can lose most of anatolia but can still field 30k men in the earliest bookmark


I've had the Seljuk beat them once but immediately lost all their gains because the event troops are finite and the byzantines regain their full forces in >5 years

The problem is with the AI not knowing how to optimally take into account supply limit and terrain disadvantage. A decent human player can fully utilise Alp Arslan's potential and recreate Cyrus the Great's empire in no time. In fact I managed to do this several times before I got bored of him and played Rex Teutonicorum nowadays. And I'm a noob compared to you folks.

Try role playing a bit, if you mould your successor to be Julius Caesar of course there would be hardly be any independence revolt.

 

[DeathLawlie]

Byzantines are overpowered as fuck in CK2+ they are the most stable empire (no independence revolts) with no rivals that can really fight them well (abbasids tend to fall apart and since they don't get de jure like byzantines by default, they'll basically never reconquer lost territories)

I strongly disagree, post-schism, the Byzantines are a very unstable empire that can easily spiralled in succession crisis and civil war. For example, if an emperor convert to Catholicism, you will see a lot of "Wars of Religions" between catholic and orthodox, switching between Latin empire and Byzantine empire.
Also, no need to talk about unlucky Jihad on Nicaea or Greece.

 

[fnvtova]

I strongly disagree, post-schism, the Byzantines are a very unstable empire that can easily spiralled in succession crisis and civil war. For example, if an emperor convert to Catholicism, you will see a lot of "Wars of Religions" between catholic and orthodox, switching between Latin empire and Byzantine empire.
Also, no need to talk about unlucky Jihad on Nicaea or Greece.

Personally i find muslim inheriting France more frequent then Byzantine Emperor switching to catholicism. They fell apart and fractured into billion states every game a few updates ago, sure, maybe 6 or so month ago or even 2017, but now they are OP and consistently steamroll over balkans and southern Italy if they don't get hit with Jihad on Greece (which they still have a good chance of winning by capturing Caliph in battle). IMO strong basileus trait is either just too powerful or too easy to get for the AI

 

[DeathLawlie]

Personally i find muslim inheriting France more frequent then Byzantine Emperor switching to catholicism. They fell apart and fractured into billion states every game a few updates ago, sure, maybe 6 or so month ago or even 2017, but now they are OP and consistently steamroll over balkans and southern Italy if they don't get hit with Jihad on Greece (which they still have a good chance of winning by capturing Caliph in battle). IMO strong basileus trait is either just too powerful or too easy to get for the AI

I completely understand that when you have a lot of game with a too powerful Byzantine Empire it can quickly become boring. Fortunately I never see this too often, but it's because I never play in period when the Empire is in a good state (769 and 867). In 1066, the big threat of the byzantine is not really the war against the Turks, but more the Komnemos claimants who have strong duchies in the east to support their potential revolt.

Personally, my earliest start date is the Alexiad (and i still prefer to manually start around 1090, to have an even more weaker Byzantine Empire). It's a well-balanced start no matter the place you start, and even with the exceptional Basileus that is Alexios Komnemos, the Empire will have a hard time if they want to retake their lands and it's not even sure that they will succeed. I can only advise you to try this bookmark if you don't want to have a purple blob.

 

[fnvtova]

I completely understand that when you have a lot of game with a too powerful Byzantine Empire it can quickly become boring. Fortunately I never see this too often, but it's because I never play in period when the Empire is in a good state (769 and 867). In 1066, the big threat of the byzantine is not really the war against the Turks, but more the Komnemos claimants who have strong duchies in the east to support their potential revolt.

Personally, my earliest start date is the Alexiad (and i still prefer to manually start around 1090, to have an even more weaker Byzantine Empire). It's a well-balanced start no matter the place you start, and even with the exceptional Basileus that is Alexios Komnemos, the Empire will have a hard time if they want to retake their lands and it's not even sure that they will succeed. I can only advise you to try this bookmark if you don't want to have a purple blob.

I only start in either 1066 or 1081, actually. Never seen Alexios having a hard time retaking Anatolia (if he didn't lose jihad for greece), but maybe that's just RNG. Starting near byzantines and finding ways to deal with them can be pretty fun, but starting anywhere else in the world and seeing them blob out in every direction just feels wrong for some reason. I'll try to start around 1090 and see how it goes, thanks

 

[Mr Nobody]

I only start in either 1066 or 1081, actually. Never seen Alexios having a hard time retaking Anatolia (if he didn't lose jihad for greece), but maybe that's just RNG. Starting near byzantines and finding ways to deal with them can be pretty fun, but starting anywhere else in the world and seeing them blob out in every direction just feels wrong for some reason. I'll try to start around 1090 and see how it goes, thanks

Try the 4th Crusade start if you really feel the Byzantines are wrong.

Nobody bats an eyelid when their ahistorical kingdom is blobbing in the span of one generation..

 

[cchiu23]

I strongly disagree, post-schism, the Byzantines are a very unstable empire that can easily spiralled in succession crisis and civil war. For example, if an emperor convert to Catholicism, you will see a lot of "Wars of Religions" between catholic and orthodox, switching between Latin empire and Byzantine empire.
Also, no need to talk about unlucky Jihad on Nicaea or Greece.

I usually never play anything but the earliest bookmark so schism is a no-go for me

also most of the time, the byzantines can beat back any jihad against them and even if they lose all of Nicaea, they can still pull out 30k troops out of their butts to dismantle that new jihad state

 

[fnvtova]

Try the 4th Crusade start if you really feel the Byzantines are wrong.

Nobody bats an eyelid when their ahistorical kingdom is blobbing in the span of one generation..

You at least you see how your realm came to be when you blob out, and I usually set territorial goal at the start of the game, achieve it and then try to spread dynasty and faith as far as I can without taking any land. When byzantines blob out it seems they use some demonic magic to take over land with very little resistance. In Plus it's much better than in vanilla of course, they don't expand into steppes for example, but still they are OP.
It's not wrong that byzantines exist, I really enjoy playing as them in EU4, but I never attempted byzantine campaign in CK2 because i know as soon as I become emperor nobody can stop me. It's a real shame, because they have a lot of events for atmosphere and immersion from legacy of rome.

 

[DeathLawlie]

I usually never play anything but the earliest bookmark so schism is a no-go for me

I don't want to be rude but it seems odd to me that you only play during relative golden age of the Byzantine Empire and complain that it's an OP empire that will steamrolled everything without player intervention.
If you don't want big blobs, too ahistorical outcome and bordergore, never play in 769 and the Macedonian period.
Also about Jihad, don't forget that new kingdom formed by Jihad/Crusade have a truce timer, and when the IA controlled Byzantine Empire with it's 30k troops will have to fight a 10k kingdom + 25k Rum and probably a 50k Seljuk Persia (if he is not in the middle of a Crusade), it will not be exactly an easy war for the poor byzantine IA...

 

[Mr Nobody]

You at least you see how your realm came to be when you blob out, and I usually set territorial goal at the start of the game, achieve it and then try to spread dynasty and faith as far as I can without taking any land. When byzantines blob out it seems they use some demonic magic to take over land with very little resistance. In Plus it's much better than in vanilla of course, they don't expand into steppes for example, but still they are OP.
It's not wrong that byzantines exist, I really enjoy playing as them in EU4, but I never attempted byzantine campaign in CK2 because i know as soon as I become emperor nobody can stop me. It's a real shame, because they have a lot of events for atmosphere and immersion from legacy of rome.

So it's internal turmoil you're looking after. Turn up faction aggression to high, but I find that if you're good at quelling rebellion (and cruel), this potentially gives you a chance to wipe out the old money and gain their land and cash. Role play a bit and pardon them.

If your emperor-to-be is a brilliant strategist, chances are he's going to be a Basil II rather than a Constantine VIII. The tools are there, it's up to the emperor's competence, i.e. being a strong basileus to utilise it. Try mastermind theologian, I find role playing as Constantine VII very satisfying.

 

[cchiu23]

I don't want to be rude but it seems odd to me that you only play during relative golden age of the Byzantine Empire and complain that it's an OP empire that will steamrolled everything without player intervention.
If you don't want big blobs, too ahistorical outcome and bordergore, never play in 769 and the Macedonian period.
Also about Jihad, don't forget that new kingdom formed by Jihad/Crusade have a truce timer, and when the IA controlled Byzantine Empire with it's 30k troops will have to fight a 10k kingdom + 25k Rum and probably a 50k Seljuk Persia (if he is not in the middle of a Crusade), it will not be exactly an easy war for the poor byzantine IA...

Omg I love ahistorical outcomes which is why I love playing 769 but I hate how OP byzantium is (I want to see smaller greek kingdoms which is you know, ahistorical), I also hate the HRE so I refuse to play later timelines


>will have to fight a 10k kingdom + 25k Rum and probably a 50k Seljuk Persia (if he is not in the middle of a Crusade), it will not be exactly an easy war for the poor byzantine IA..

crusade/jihad targets almost always doesn't get enough help as it needs


edit: and as you probably know, the byzantine empire eventually started declining


the problem with the 769 start is that you can play till the end date but the byzantines will never suffer

 

[DeathLawlie]

Omg I love ahistorical outcomes which is why I love playing 769 but I hate how OP byzantium is (I want to see smaller greek kingdoms which is you know, ahistorical), I also hate the HRE so I refuse to play later timelines

Oh, if you love ahistorical outcome and divided greek realms I have something for you...
https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/388856/ck2_6.png
http://www.noelshack.com/2018-38-5-1537539266-ck2-34.png
http://www.noelshack.com/2018-39-3-1537976221-ck2-47.png

- For the Jihad, the Seljuks will always come to save the ass of their brothers in this region if they are not in the middle of a war, especially if it's a Seljuk on the throne. Also, it also happen in case of byzantine holy war against Rum.

- The decline of the Empire only came during the 11th century so if you start two or three century before that, it's not a surprise that you will never see a a destruction of the empire under ck2 mechanics. At best, you can hope that the schism (if it happen) or some successions crisis will weaken the Empire. And the Imperial Decadence help a bit in this case.

 

[Moridin997]

What's your opinion on Defensive Pacts as an anti-blobing measure (in the case of the ERE)?

 

[Duckett]

I almost exclusively start between 1090 and 1094, and even when the ERE is small in comparison to the Turks, they still always win.
The Muslims in Andalucia always lose too.
I'm not sure, but it might be because Muslims don't join each other's Jihads? At least they didn't the last time I played, which was a couple of versions ago. Compare this to the Catholics, who always have close to 100% moral authority, and win every crusade which the player isn't involved in due to the massive number of participants. I hope this will be resolved at some point, but I don't really know how to resolve the issue.

 

[vicbus]

I've just had a game at the William The Conqueror Bookmark where the bizantines lost their war with the seljuks and eventually were pushed back from anatolia. I thought they were done untill ortodox revolts liberated anatolia and they were annexed by the Emperor. From there, the ERE is certainly snowballing, having annexed Georgia, the Adriatic coast and almost snatching southern Italy from me (as the de Hautevilles) in a very intense war. This time, they were led by an Komemnos which had inherited a lot of land and managed to strenghten the Empire and, without defensive pacts, he is bound to pull a Justinian in this generation, which I don't think is a bad thing at all, in terms of gameplay.

I don't think implementing defensive pacts would be a good idea. If the Bizantines get their second Justinian let him try to restore the Empire. Also, the planned fourth Crusade event may help nerf the ERE a little as well.