Roads to Power was initially well-received, and I personally enjoyed it. However, several aspects made very little sense, and the systems felt and still feels broken and incoherent. The depth and intricacies being added to China and Japan only highlight how much of an untested prototype the administrative system is. It’s clear the developers are capable of crafting rich, tailored experiences, as they are doing with the Celestial system, which is designed for a specific government. In contrast, the Admin system feels vague and poorly defined, seemingly cobbled together to serve as a generic placeholder. Many elements are both inaccurate and not particularly fun.
Succession
Succession is completely and utterly terrible. The idea that anyone could just vote to become emperor is such a complete misunderstanding of how Roman succession worked that I honestly think it's probably the worst mechanic in the game. Not only is it painfully inaccurate, since Byzantine succession primarily followed a primogeniture system with the eldest son inheriting the throne, but it's also terrible as a gameplay mechanic. It leads to absurd and nonsensical outcomes, like purple-born sons being skipped over simply because the AI was too stupid to spend some arbitrary influence currency to acclaim them as heir. Instead, some random figure with enough influence can swoop in and claim the throne, resulting in ridiculous dynastic flip-flopping that makes no sense at all. Byzantine succession was chaotic not because people voted their way to the top, but because claimants and successful generals could seize power if they were skilled, charismatic, or had the right connections. You didn’t vote your way to power, you claimed it through marriage into the royal family, through political scheming at court, or by winning battles and taking it by force. None of this is even remotely reflected in the current system.
My fix: Byzantium should default to primogeniture. Influence should only be needed to raise your child to purple-born status. The acclamation succession mechanic should be completely scrapped, as it has no historical foundation in a thousand years of Byzantine history. There are many other ways to create chaos and instability. Mini event chains for succession crises when a child inherits could test the loyalty of regents and council members. Actually making sibling claimants matter by having them actually go around and champion their claims instead of sitting there doing nothing. Usurpation risks could increase if the heir has low skills or is seen as unfit to rule. Schemes to elope with empresses, assassinate or depose heirs, or marry into the imperial family should be possible. Marrying a purple-born princess should grant a major legitimacy boost and increase courtly support. Generals should matter more, but I’ll expand on that in the next part. In short, remove the broken acclamation system, restore primogeniture, and let ambitious characters challenge your rule in meaningful ways.
Warfare and Commanders
Warfare is and has always been CK3’s weakest aspect, and it continues to drag down every DLC, especially Roads to Power. Much of the instability of the Roman Empire came from military aristocrats who rebelled and seized power, from Leo III the Isaurian to Alexios Komnenos. These generals would often go on campaigns with imperial troops and revolt after gaining victories. But because CK3 is afraid to challenge the player and refuses to update its outdated warfare system, we’re stuck with a military that functions the same in every realm. Commanders are interchangeable and inconsequential. The only way they can rebel is through the archaic faction system, which is a poor fit for the Byzantine government model. This is why Byzantium often blobs and seems unstoppable. Civil wars don’t matter because they don’t meaningfully weaken your realm, and they’re easily avoided. There’s no sense of fighting with limited manpower or having real consequences from internal conflict.
My fix: Generals with armies should be inherently dangerous. A general in charge of the entire Roman army should rarely be fully loyal unless you offer them gifts, have a hook, or marry into their family. We have to work within CK3’s limitations, but here’s how I’d express the danger of a popular general. First, if you raise an army, you should only be able to disband or split that army if it’s in your capital county or duchy. The same rule should apply to changing commanders. You should only be able to replace a commander if they are in the capital or if they have been leading the army for at least five months to a year. This means you’ll have to choose your generals carefully. Generals will generally act in your interest, but if one achieves a series of victories or wins a highly prestigious battle, they may break away and launch a claimant revolt using your own troops. Having all your soldiers turn against you sounds horrifying, and that’s because it should be. You should panic when that happens and make strategic choices to avoid it, like using weaker generals or dividing your army into smaller stacks that are less threatening. Yes, this could get annoying after a while, so a dynasty legacy could reduce the chances of military revolts. Civil wars are supposed to be devastating. That’s why the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed. Without random, crippling civil wars, they probably would have conquered Mars by now. Let players fail. Let them feel fear. I know people will say, "Why not just lead armies with your super-powerful ruler?" I have a follow-up to address that.
Constantinople Doesn’t Matter
Constantinople was the administrative, economic, and partially military heart of the Eastern Roman Empire. It should be nearly impossible to capture. Yet in CK3, any army with enough men and siege weapons can just march in and take it. Even random raiders can plunder the capital of the Roman Empire with no resistance. The developers clearly understand how important Constantinople was, but implemented it in the worst way—by adding a long, boring scheme involving Greek fire, which is completely useless and especially ironic given the game doesn’t even have a functioning naval system. Constantinople feels generic and replaceable. The only things setting it apart are the Theodosian Walls and some good development stats.
Another issue is that proximity to the capital means nothing. Historically, the Emperor leaving Constantinople was a huge deal. It left room for scheming and usurpation. But in CK3, you can go on a campaign at the edge of the map and nothing changes. The game doesn’t care.
My fix: Make Constantinople nearly impossible to capture unless you’re part of the Greek culture group or a vassal of the Empire. Most historical captures of the city were internal, by usurpers. Add an event for usurpers with over 80% war score and who are currently sieging down Constantinople where they can attempt to convince the guards or citizens to open the gates, simulating historical standoffs. The Emperor should be in the capital. If they’re not, hostile schemes and factions should get major bonuses. Apply the same rules to emperors as to generals. If the Emperor is leading an army, they should be stuck with it for months or have to return to the capital to switch command.
Schemes
Schemes in RTP are a mixed bag. Some, like slander and estate raids, are fine, but schemes to actually take control of the state are lacking. The usurp throne scheme is convoluted and rarely viable. Schemes should be the primary way to reflect Byzantine political instability and dynastic struggle, not magic elections based on good boy points. You should be able to engage in multi-stage, difficult schemes involving many steps and triggers to seize power. Nobles should do the same. Byzantine aristocrats were ruthless. The moment they sensed weakness, they struck—especially if the Emperor was away campaigning. But the game can’t model that because distance from the capital has no effect.
My fix: Add more schemes to take power. Assassinations, covert kidnappings and blinding, seizing the capital while the Emperor is gone, eloping with the Empress and claiming the throne, becoming regent and removing the Emperor, or backing a popular uprising in the capital that you later support. There are countless possibilities. Just listen to the History of Byzantium podcast or read Wikipedia. Byzantine history is filled with these schemes.
Government
Why is pronoia not in the game? If Roads to Power didn’t add the 1178 start date, this might be forgivable, but 1178 was the peak of pronoia usage. It’s baffling that the system is completely ignored in favor of the same generic thematic system. China and Japan are allowed to evolve politically, but Byzantium is frozen in place.
My fix: Add pronoia using the Japanese-style feudal evolution system being added to AUI. This would reflect the gradual fragmentation of central authority and the rise of provincial magnates and pronoia holders.
Final Thoughts
Honestly, I doubt any of this will happen. At most we’ll get minor tweaks, and the developers will move on, leaving Byzantium as a broken mess and a shadow of what it could be. We know that going back to improve old content isn’t a priority. But even if a fraction of this were implemented, I’d be very happy.
Succession
Succession is completely and utterly terrible. The idea that anyone could just vote to become emperor is such a complete misunderstanding of how Roman succession worked that I honestly think it's probably the worst mechanic in the game. Not only is it painfully inaccurate, since Byzantine succession primarily followed a primogeniture system with the eldest son inheriting the throne, but it's also terrible as a gameplay mechanic. It leads to absurd and nonsensical outcomes, like purple-born sons being skipped over simply because the AI was too stupid to spend some arbitrary influence currency to acclaim them as heir. Instead, some random figure with enough influence can swoop in and claim the throne, resulting in ridiculous dynastic flip-flopping that makes no sense at all. Byzantine succession was chaotic not because people voted their way to the top, but because claimants and successful generals could seize power if they were skilled, charismatic, or had the right connections. You didn’t vote your way to power, you claimed it through marriage into the royal family, through political scheming at court, or by winning battles and taking it by force. None of this is even remotely reflected in the current system.
My fix: Byzantium should default to primogeniture. Influence should only be needed to raise your child to purple-born status. The acclamation succession mechanic should be completely scrapped, as it has no historical foundation in a thousand years of Byzantine history. There are many other ways to create chaos and instability. Mini event chains for succession crises when a child inherits could test the loyalty of regents and council members. Actually making sibling claimants matter by having them actually go around and champion their claims instead of sitting there doing nothing. Usurpation risks could increase if the heir has low skills or is seen as unfit to rule. Schemes to elope with empresses, assassinate or depose heirs, or marry into the imperial family should be possible. Marrying a purple-born princess should grant a major legitimacy boost and increase courtly support. Generals should matter more, but I’ll expand on that in the next part. In short, remove the broken acclamation system, restore primogeniture, and let ambitious characters challenge your rule in meaningful ways.
Warfare and Commanders
Warfare is and has always been CK3’s weakest aspect, and it continues to drag down every DLC, especially Roads to Power. Much of the instability of the Roman Empire came from military aristocrats who rebelled and seized power, from Leo III the Isaurian to Alexios Komnenos. These generals would often go on campaigns with imperial troops and revolt after gaining victories. But because CK3 is afraid to challenge the player and refuses to update its outdated warfare system, we’re stuck with a military that functions the same in every realm. Commanders are interchangeable and inconsequential. The only way they can rebel is through the archaic faction system, which is a poor fit for the Byzantine government model. This is why Byzantium often blobs and seems unstoppable. Civil wars don’t matter because they don’t meaningfully weaken your realm, and they’re easily avoided. There’s no sense of fighting with limited manpower or having real consequences from internal conflict.
My fix: Generals with armies should be inherently dangerous. A general in charge of the entire Roman army should rarely be fully loyal unless you offer them gifts, have a hook, or marry into their family. We have to work within CK3’s limitations, but here’s how I’d express the danger of a popular general. First, if you raise an army, you should only be able to disband or split that army if it’s in your capital county or duchy. The same rule should apply to changing commanders. You should only be able to replace a commander if they are in the capital or if they have been leading the army for at least five months to a year. This means you’ll have to choose your generals carefully. Generals will generally act in your interest, but if one achieves a series of victories or wins a highly prestigious battle, they may break away and launch a claimant revolt using your own troops. Having all your soldiers turn against you sounds horrifying, and that’s because it should be. You should panic when that happens and make strategic choices to avoid it, like using weaker generals or dividing your army into smaller stacks that are less threatening. Yes, this could get annoying after a while, so a dynasty legacy could reduce the chances of military revolts. Civil wars are supposed to be devastating. That’s why the Eastern Roman Empire collapsed. Without random, crippling civil wars, they probably would have conquered Mars by now. Let players fail. Let them feel fear. I know people will say, "Why not just lead armies with your super-powerful ruler?" I have a follow-up to address that.
Constantinople Doesn’t Matter
Constantinople was the administrative, economic, and partially military heart of the Eastern Roman Empire. It should be nearly impossible to capture. Yet in CK3, any army with enough men and siege weapons can just march in and take it. Even random raiders can plunder the capital of the Roman Empire with no resistance. The developers clearly understand how important Constantinople was, but implemented it in the worst way—by adding a long, boring scheme involving Greek fire, which is completely useless and especially ironic given the game doesn’t even have a functioning naval system. Constantinople feels generic and replaceable. The only things setting it apart are the Theodosian Walls and some good development stats.
Another issue is that proximity to the capital means nothing. Historically, the Emperor leaving Constantinople was a huge deal. It left room for scheming and usurpation. But in CK3, you can go on a campaign at the edge of the map and nothing changes. The game doesn’t care.
My fix: Make Constantinople nearly impossible to capture unless you’re part of the Greek culture group or a vassal of the Empire. Most historical captures of the city were internal, by usurpers. Add an event for usurpers with over 80% war score and who are currently sieging down Constantinople where they can attempt to convince the guards or citizens to open the gates, simulating historical standoffs. The Emperor should be in the capital. If they’re not, hostile schemes and factions should get major bonuses. Apply the same rules to emperors as to generals. If the Emperor is leading an army, they should be stuck with it for months or have to return to the capital to switch command.
Schemes
Schemes in RTP are a mixed bag. Some, like slander and estate raids, are fine, but schemes to actually take control of the state are lacking. The usurp throne scheme is convoluted and rarely viable. Schemes should be the primary way to reflect Byzantine political instability and dynastic struggle, not magic elections based on good boy points. You should be able to engage in multi-stage, difficult schemes involving many steps and triggers to seize power. Nobles should do the same. Byzantine aristocrats were ruthless. The moment they sensed weakness, they struck—especially if the Emperor was away campaigning. But the game can’t model that because distance from the capital has no effect.
My fix: Add more schemes to take power. Assassinations, covert kidnappings and blinding, seizing the capital while the Emperor is gone, eloping with the Empress and claiming the throne, becoming regent and removing the Emperor, or backing a popular uprising in the capital that you later support. There are countless possibilities. Just listen to the History of Byzantium podcast or read Wikipedia. Byzantine history is filled with these schemes.
Government
Why is pronoia not in the game? If Roads to Power didn’t add the 1178 start date, this might be forgivable, but 1178 was the peak of pronoia usage. It’s baffling that the system is completely ignored in favor of the same generic thematic system. China and Japan are allowed to evolve politically, but Byzantium is frozen in place.
My fix: Add pronoia using the Japanese-style feudal evolution system being added to AUI. This would reflect the gradual fragmentation of central authority and the rise of provincial magnates and pronoia holders.
Final Thoughts
Honestly, I doubt any of this will happen. At most we’ll get minor tweaks, and the developers will move on, leaving Byzantium as a broken mess and a shadow of what it could be. We know that going back to improve old content isn’t a priority. But even if a fraction of this were implemented, I’d be very happy.
- 37
- 28
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 1
