• 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.

peteoj

Colonel
4 Badges
Oct 28, 2022
998
8.317
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
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.
 
  • 37
  • 28Like
  • 3
  • 2Haha
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Generally I agree with all your points but on succession I do like the acclamation. It shouldn't be possible to influence your way to be born in the purple since it defeats the whole point of the trait. I would instead suggest tweaking the number so that born in the purple and stuff like relative of the current emperor had way stronger bonuses such that you'd have to spend thousands of influence over a lifetime as governor to surpass it, or at least be a dominant family to give that mechanic more use. The current +50, +100 bonuses are a joke.
 
  • 14Like
  • 3
Reactions:
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.

You seem to have a misconception that spending influence to boost or harm candidacy is some kind of election or voting. It is not, in general. It's an abstraction for sure, and may include voting if it's appropriate for the office, but can also represent exactly what you accuse it doesn't: generals being skilled charismatic, and have the right connections.

If you want to see a more specifically abstraction of an election mechanism, look at the HRE's Princely Elective.
 
  • 16Like
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Generally, the empire followed a cycle of: stability for a few generations > someone incompetent comes along > there's a flurry of destructive civil wars and claimants > opportunistic forigners invade > the empire plunges to new lows > someone competent comes > partial revival and expansion (but never reaching previous highs).
raf,360x360,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.jpg

Ideally, I'd like to see this cycle play out if the empire is AI run, and would require a lot of cautious management from the player emperor if he wants to break the cycle.

Most of the empire's problems came from succession, so I especially agree with the current representation of the succession system being awful. There's a popular perception that basically anyone could become emperor, but it wasn't that simple. The primary source of legitimacy was always your predecessor and lineage, and dynastic continuation was just as significant to the Romans, albeit in a different way. There's a reason why "caretaker" emperors like Phokas and Tzimiskes couldn't just kill off their child wards and junior emperors. Usurpers also always married into, or were already married into the former ruling dynasty, because this was seen as essentially a union of the dynastic families, and hence automatically conferred some legitimacy.

This brings me to the fact that legitimacy should just matter a lot more. Going into debt, prolonged periods of peace/non-expansion, losing battles (especially when you lead), losing wars, and losing territory should all severely tank your legitimacy. At low legitimacy governors should be much less loyal, factions much more common, and there should be events that give governors (especially military ones) free claims on the empire. Basically the whole thing of "if this idiot can be emperor, why can't I?"
Being from the same dynasty as the former emperor (born in the purple), marrying into the former ruling dynasty, having a gold surplus (or building buildings), leading armies, winning wars, and expanding should all increase legitimacy.

Generals and governors should gain a lot of influence for winning battles which they can use for creating factions, and at very high influence they should be able to claim the empire. At high legitimacy they only become a threat if you're over-reliant on them, but at low legitimacy they're always extremely dangerous. They should also be able use the influence to create strong hooks on the emperor, force marriages into the imperial family, force the emperor to make them co-emperor (if married into the family), or force themselves into controlling regencies.

Lastly, imperial princesses should give their husbands claims on the empire if your legitimacy is middling or low. This makes them powerful tools for satisfying/allying powerful families, but it makes them dangerous if you anger them. Suffice to say, the offset of high legitimacy should matter little if you anger all your important families and governors, or if they have certain traits like disloyal or ambitious.
 
Last edited:
  • 13Like
  • 5
Reactions:
I think for succession over all, one of the main problems is that primogenitur is available only in later eras, when France, England, Rome, etc had it allready in what the game considers early medival periode. Partioning ones realm was not "that" big of a thing outside of the convoluted mess that was the middle/late HRR.

I also wanted to add three additional things.
First, that there is no naval mechanic is a huge hole, especially for the Eastern Roman Empire. There Navy was of vital importance, as where the fleets of the italian trading republics.
Secondly, many cultures like the Roman one have not been overhauled with RtP. Considering it was "The Eastern Roman DLC" there should have been added something.
Thirdly, the AI for the Eastern Roman Empire is a mess. Familyheads castrate nearly all of there male children right after birth, leading to there families dying out rather quickly. Marriages are rare and sometimes between people who can not get children leading to the same thing. Without ConsoleCommands and character switching there are almost never the same families vying for power or Themes as they all die out. I think you get the point.

I agree with the Rest said in the first Thread here, just wanted to add this.
 
  • 11
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It's pretty typical in many Paradox games. They learn as they go, (nothing wrong with that) so later DLCs feel more refined and China/Japan systems on paper are big improvements from Byz admin, making it feel lackluster and like a prototype. Look how many year it took from Japan to have it's focus tree reworked in HoI4 (coming in the next expansion).

Maybe they will import features like Treasury to Byzantium etc. but that might take years.
 
  • 15
  • 1
Reactions:
It's pretty typical in many Paradox games. They learn as they go, (nothing wrong with that) so later DLCs feel more refined and China/Japan systems on paper are big improvements from Byz admin, making it feel lackluster and like a prototype. Look how many year it took from Japan to have it's focus tree reworked in HoI4 (coming in the next expansion).

Maybe they will import features like Treasury to Byzantium etc. but that might take years.
We can just hope. There are Mods and the like, but if it is in the basegame it would be better. Also i would like to add that there are worlds between the Dev-Teams of HoI4 and CK3. Just look how playerfeedback was integrated in the last two DLCs in HoI4, it was a mess that lead to the problems we now have there. To come back to CK3, i think a custodian team like HoI4 has it, that deals primarely with bugs, updating older Mechanics and adding new things like the mechanics from AuH to RtP would be a great addition, if handled correctly.

Edit: I play CK3 almost exclusively as the (Eastern) Roman Emperor so i am clearly for any good aditions in that Gamearea. So on the one hand i thing RtP is a great DLC, on the other it could have come to a later time to be more refined and detailed. Also if they add Rome as a Hegemony then they should add the Western Roman Emperors somewhere in the title history (Joannes, Petronius Maximus, Avitus, Libius Severus, Olybrius, Glycerius, Romulus Augustulus and above all Julius Nepos, Anthemius und Majorian). It is a shame that only Honorius, Constantius III (he was ok) and Valentinian III are representing it currently in the title history.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't think making Constantinople arbitrarily almost unconquerable would be a good idea. If someone wants to play, say, as the Bulgarian Empire and take Constantinople, then it should be possible. Maybe it should be harder than it is now, but not near impossible.
 
  • 16
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
You seem to have a misconception that spending influence to boost or harm candidacy is some kind of election or voting. It is not, in general. It's an abstraction for sure, and may include voting if it's appropriate for the office, but can also represent exactly what you accuse it doesn't: generals being skilled charismatic, and have the right connections.

If you want to see a more specifically abstraction of an election mechanism, look at the HRE's Princely Elective.
I know it's an abstraction my point is it ends up being no different from voting, there's no restrictions or engaging mechanics to it. You simply use the points you have to boost your score, the ai is generally bad at dealing with it so it's barely capable of keeping a dynasty going. The abstraction itself is not only ahistorical it's also just bad gameplay wise.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't think making Constantinople arbitrarily almost unconquerable would be a good idea. If someone wants to play, say, as the Bulgarian Empire and take Constantinople, then it should be possible. Maybe it should be harder than it is now, but not near impossible.
I think you can seize Constantinople if you have a claim without actually holding the county itself as long as you're able to max out war score, not being able to seize Constantinople through siege won't really stop you from taking the city as you can just win every battle and take every other county. I also just don't think a random bulgarian king with a 10k stack should be able to take Constantinople because historically the Bulgars have tried to seize the city even during times where they dominated the balkans yet still repeatedly failed, it's been proven that the only way the city falls is either through cannons, internal sabotage or byzantine infighting. In order for my points to make sense (making the capital matter) then the capital needs to be the impenetrable fortress it was historically.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you can seize Constantinople if you have a claim without actually holding the county itself as long as you're able to max out war score, not being able to seize Constantinople through siege won't really stop you from taking the city as you can just win every battle and take every other county. I also just don't think a random bulgarian king with a 10k stack should be able to take Constantinople because historically the Bulgars have tried to seize the city even during times where they dominated the balkans yet still repeatedly failed, it's been proven that the only way the city falls is either through cannons, internal sabotage or byzantine infighting. In order for my points to make sense (making the capital matter) then the capital needs to be the impenetrable fortress it was historically.
Random Bulgarian king? Probably not.

Ahistorical minmaxed Bulgarian emperor whose capital is probably more developed than Constantinople at this point? I think that's a different thing entirely.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Anyway, I agree that overall, Administrative government feels like an alpha version of the Celestial one, judging by the dev diaries. So some additions would be nice. And maybe making Constantinople somewhat more special would be a good idea.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Anyway, I agree that overall, Administrative government feels like an alpha version of the Celestial one, judging by the dev diaries. So some additions would be nice. And maybe making Constantinople somewhat more special would be a good idea.
It is not only Constantinople, but cities like Rome, Bagdad and Alexandria that need to be made more special. In RtP you get special screens when you reconquer certain cities as Eastern Rome like Antiochia ad Orontem, Edessa, Bari, etc. Such a thing on the World level when a city like Bagdad or Rome is conquered would be nice. There should also be more events when you reside in Constantinople or controll Rome for instance. Simply more flavour would be nice.
 
  • 7
  • 4Like
Reactions:
It is not only Constantinople, but cities like Rome, Bagdad and Alexandria that need to be made more special. In RtP you get special screens when you reconquer certain cities as Eastern Rome like Antiochia ad Orontem, Edessa, Bari, etc. Such a thing on the World level when a city like Bagdad or Rome is conquered would be nice. There should also be more events when you reside in Constantinople or controll Rome for instance. Simply more flavour would be nice.
One thing I'd like would be an option to make other cities more "special" if you invest in them, so over the centuries, you could potentially turn some backwater into a world city that might not be as great as Constantinople, but comes close.
 
  • 4Like
  • 4
Reactions:
One thing I'd like would be an option to make other cities more "special" if you invest in them, so over the centuries, you could potentially turn some backwater into a world city that might not be as great as Constantinople, but comes close.
For that we need at least something resembling trade routes (which seem to be coming next year).
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Honestly if they don’t improve admin gov I lose faith into Paradox. It could be justifiable for base game, but we paid for DLC and know we will get another one with much more refined mechanics which could be very well applicable.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Regarding acclamation succession: IMHO the values should be invisible. Instead, e.g. a some sort of general statement (the charismatic general) has built up a strange following among the administration could be shown, and whether the succession is totally secure.

I mean, you probably shouldn't be able to tell who will become the next Emperor when there is a razor thin advantage in the Acclamation score, but if it is clear that someone has very much more support, then it should be visible.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Honestly lots of those should just be in the game generally. Like siblings doing anything at all to claim the throne, generals being more than just an advantage number with a commander trait of two and expanding schemes.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions: