Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Byzantium vs Eastern Roman Empire?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
P.Quirinius said:
He clearly means this one.

I don't know, from this period I only read texts that dealt with the present. I think people in the West tended to care about the events around Cicero, Caesar, Hannibal and other classical Rome stuff which is now famous in the West, because the texts that were used to teach Latin either come from that period of time or they talk about these events. For example take the Catilinian conspiracy, which would be a completely random event, that no one would probably remember if it happened like in the 3rd century, but Sallust, one of the greatest classics wrote a book about it and Cicero, the number one classic, wrote multiple speeches about it and kept ridiculously boasting about how he stopped it and saved the polity until the end of his life, so it is quite well known and it even became inspiration for the awful Megalopolis film today. But Byzantines wrote in Greek so they had other authors to study as examples of excellent style and those mainly cared about stuff happening in classical Greece, so for them the events that we consider as super important would not matter as much (because honestly many of them were not very important) and they would probably remember other people more, Constantine for sure, and maybe Justinian, Heraclius and so on.
Click to expand...
Or to quote Sallust himself: "The acts of the Athenians, in my judgment, were indeed great and glorious enough, but nevertheless somewhat less important than fame represents them. But because Athens produced writers of exceptional talent, the exploits of the men of Athens are heralded throughout the world as unsurpassed."
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
P.Quirinius said:
For example here on page 298 the late 6th century historian Euagrios describes how in the late 6th century a patriarch speaks to Byzantine soldiers about their Roman ancestors including Manlius Torquatus a hero from the republican era and I bet you almost no one here knows Manlius Torquatus, unless they are massive Romaboos.
Click to expand...
Yes, some of us know our Roman stuff pretty damn well. I was that strange Financial Engineering/Classical History major as an undergrad. The classical history is useful at times to impress people with my breadth of knowledge as I pitch them on an unusual structure for using derivatives that is customized to their particular risk exposure. You'd be amazed how many people in charge of money respect knowing shit about Rome.

Mucius Scaevola comes up occasionally too since I have a guy who has Scaevoli as his last name and always gets a kick out of the fact that none of his relatives are lefties.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't really want to read 100 pages of text.
Good people, tell me, is it possible to change the Greek culture to the Roman?
Because my eyes bleed when I look at the map of cultures.
 
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
cmert08 said:
I don't really want to read 100 pages of text.
Good people, tell me, is it possible to change the Greek culture to the Roman?
Because my eyes bleed when I look at the map of cultures.
Click to expand...

From TT #36

You can swap your primary culture with an accepted culture if it fulfils the requirements, such as if it becomes the dominant culture in your country or if it is the culture of your ruler. There is also a game rule for it to be of the same Culture Group.
Click to expand...

As Rome is a formable, I guess there will be Roman culture, like in EU4. But I don't know if and how Byzantium can get it.

The real problem is, that there's not even 100 pages in this thread!
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
If I've understood correctly, one can fall into dislike with the devs if one is not active enough here. So have to keep trying.

Have there been Latin or Greek translations, official or mods, of previous PDX games? How's Byz named in them? How should it be named? Should one, and which one, be forced on the player who chooses Byz?

Or perhaps the other way around. Choose to name the country East Rome or some version of it, you get the game in Greek as you're favoring the Greek claim to Rome's title. Choose to name it Byzantium or some version of that, you get the game in Latin as you're favoring that West Rome is the only real Rome. IDK which name would lead to game being in English or what other non Roman language. Iconic Rome perhaps.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Red Xs, but no one provoked enough to type a reply. I suck at trolling. It's only 9 days before this thread has its anniversary, surely it should get to 100 pages by then.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
honkajoki said:
Red Xs, but no one provoked enough to type a reply. I suck at trolling. It's only 9 days before this thread has its anniversary, surely it should get to 100 pages by then.
Click to expand...
I'd bet it's the complaining about not getting dev replies people are mostly disagreeing with. Nobody are entitled to them. Though your suggestion is kinda hard to parse as well, so it could be either or. Are you suggesting the name should depend on versions of the game?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
What do people think the requirements for forming (West or United) Rome should be? Or for that matter, what the requirements for (re)forming East Rome?

Like I could see requirements as low as "capital is Constantinople and Greek is accepted" and as high as "Orthodox, primary culture is Greek, and Nicaea's 1261 borders"
 
How about this: Byzantium should be called "Byzantine empire", but if playing as them and you change your nation too much, messing with the societal values, conquer lots of territory, change your religion, change your liturgical language and so on, your name automatically changes to something else like "Constantinopolitan empire" so people don't get confused believing that it is still the same Byzantine empire as at the start of the game.
 
Nostalgium said:
I'd bet it's the complaining about not getting dev replies people are mostly disagreeing with. Nobody are entitled to them. Though your suggestion is kinda hard to parse as well, so it could be either or. Are you suggesting the name should depend on versions of the game?
Click to expand...

Given that the message I linked to in the dev replies part suggests the exact opposite reason for not getting them, I thought the mention was humorous. Entitlement critique would fit better here. Although even there, the red Xs would be far from unambiguous. As for anyone being entitled to dev replies, I may have some disagreement, but let's not ruin this fine thread with such petty bickering.

What I tried to suggest was that if the game came with Latin and (koine) Greek as choices for the game language, then the name for Byzantium would be automatically set according to the language that the player chose. Or the other way around, if the player chooses that Byzantium is Byzantium, his game is in Latin, if he chooses that it's East Rome, his game is in Greek. Some immersion beyond the name. The only way for anyone to find out if I was serious with that or not is for PDX to implement it, and see if I complain.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
AntarcticRanger said:
What do people think the requirements for forming (West or United) Rome should be? Or for that matter, what the requirements for (re)forming East Rome?

Like I could see requirements as low as "capital is Constantinople and Greek is accepted" and as high as "Orthodox, primary culture is Greek, and Nicaea's 1261 borders"
Click to expand...

EU4 provides a good base. Christian or Pagan, and owns Rome as a core. But I would not, in all cases, require as much land as EU4 does. The amount of land required could depend on who's forming Rome, for this one can look at tag, culture, or both. If it's someone with a good claim, not much. Just most of Italy and something else, something like 80% of the locations in Italy and 20% of maximum extent of Roman lands. So a bit more than West Rome had in 476 but not too much more. If it's someone random with no historical connection to Rome, then it's ok to require 90% of maximum extent or something like that. Once Rome is formed, assuming they want to keep it simple, give cores to Italy and permaclaims for the rest. If putting a little more effort into it, give missions to reacquire the Roman lands. And then some.

For East Rome, something similar, obviously with Constantinople being the first requirement. And just Christian, not Pagan. Not sure if it should be allowed to form East Rome if West Rome exists, perhaps not. Atleast it should not be allowed if Byz has formed united Rome.

As for who gets to be tyrian purple in the case there are two Romes on the map, I still vote that there should be an option for that. Just like there is for the name.

EDIT: Not sure how the Christian or Pagan requirement would work if it's the Ottomans who are forming Rome. Should they be allowed to do it regardless of religion, assuming they control most of it and Byz does not exist?
 
P.Quirinius said:
How about this: Byzantium should be called "Byzantine empire", but if playing as them and you change your nation too much, messing with the societal values, conquer lots of territory, change your religion, change your liturgical language and so on, your name automatically changes to something else like "Constantinopolitan empire" so people don't get confused believing that it is still the same Byzantine empire as at the start of the game.
Click to expand...

That's something that could apply to any country.
 
honkajoki said:
Not sure how the Christian or Pagan requirement would work if it's the Ottomans who are forming Rome. Should they be allowed to do it regardless of religion, assuming they control most of it and Byz does not exist?
Click to expand...
See, I totally think an Islamic Roman Empire is a reasonable thing, it happened to Persia after all.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 2
Reactions:
Let me improve on this.

honkajoki said:
The amount of land required could depend on who's forming Rome, for this one can look at tag, culture, or both.
Click to expand...

There could be a Romanness score. You get some for occupying provinces, some for your culture(s), some for religion, some for tag (historical claim to the title), etc. The end result of the score would be like I said before, someone with a good claim can form Rome with less land than someone with no claim.

Similar score system could apply for all formables, or at least all above a certain tier. Better than fixed requirements. When the score to form something gets close to actually being able to do it, the decision to do it becomes visible in the decisions list (if there's such a thing, like in EU4). But somewhere within the game one could see the scores for all possible formables. That could of course be limited by game rules, especially if there are other rules about limited intel.

IDK if the scores for all formables would be too demanding to compute, if so, then limit it only to highest tiers.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
P.Quirinius said:
Well, it happened to Rome as well and it is actually a formable in EU IV as well: https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Rûm
It will also be a tier IV historical formable in PC.
Click to expand...
Rum was never claiming to be the new Roman Empire though, it was the Sultanate of the Romans, as in those it ruled were Romans.

It's a significant step towards claiming the legacy of Rome, but it itself it very much not a Rome claimant.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
We already have societal values, they will work perfectly.

Non-Roman vs. Roman

Roman 100%:
+25% Heavy Infantry Combat Ability
+10% Road Construction Cost
-30% Religious Unity
+5 Base Unrest

Non-Roman 100%:
+15% Cavalry Combat Ability
+50% Fort Defense
-3% Missionary Strength
+20% Core Creation Cost


Capital City is Rome: +.1 Roman
Capital City is Constantinople: +.01 Roman
Culture is Roman +.50 Roman
Religion is Catholic/Orthodox +.01 Roman
Religion is Greco-Roman Pagan +.01 Roman
Religion is NOT Christian/Pagan +.25 Non-Roman
Army composition is over 80% infantry +.2 Roman
Army composition is over 20% Heavy Cavalry +.2 Non-Roman
Country is in civil war +.1 Roman
Court Language is Latin +.3 Roman
Court Language is Greek +.1 Roman
Court Language is NOT Latin/Greek +.5 Non-Roman
Strong Bureaucracy +.2 Roman
Codified Legal System +.3 Roman

What else am I missing?


Then we can use this for the name as well:

If below 0% Roman,
If Culture
-Greek, TAG = Byzantine Empire,
-Turkish, TAG = Turkish/Ottoman Empire
-French, TAG = Latin Empire
-Russian, TAG = Russian Empire
-German, TAG = German Empire
-Serbian, TAG = Serbia

If above 0% Roman:
If Culture:
-Roman, TAG = Roman Empire
-Greek, TAG = Eastern Roman Empire
-Turkish, TAG = Rum
-French, TAG = Imperium Constantinopolitanum
-Russian, TAG = Third Rome
-German, TAG = Holy Roman Empire
-Serbian, TAG = Empire of Serbians and Romans

etc. etc. etc.


This system will work excellently.
 
  • 6Haha
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back