aka, the Grand Pain or the Big Mess... 
43 events done so far and only reached 1647...
43 events done so far and only reached 1647...
-
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.
Well, if you read through the byzantine events for too long, you get headaches.
Nice work, check it out.
Nice work, check it out.
TheArchduke said:
Non-dynastics actually still missing, so more will still be added.
I'll make a short list of all available options in choosing a dynasty, to make it easier to follow, here being listed all different monarch lines:
1. Komnenos, gives options 2 and 3.
2. Laskaris, gives options 5 and 6.
3. First Palaiologos line, can become 4 or continue to 11.
4. Second Palaiologos line, continues to 11.
5. Third Palaiologos line, continues to 11.
6. Early Kantakouzenos line, gives options 7, 8, 9 and 10.
7. First middle Kantakouzenos line, continues to 12.
8. Second middle Kantakouzenos line, continues to 12.
9. Third middle Kantakouzenos line, continues to 12.
10. Boulgaros line, if survives Michael Doukas, goes to end, if not, goes to 13.
11. Turmoil and Michael Doukas after it. Gives options 15, 16 and 17.
12. Michael Doukas. Can give option 14 OR options 15, 16 and 17.
13. Michael Doukas. Gives options 15, 16 and 17.
14. Late Kantakouzenoi line. Goes to end.
Of all lines after this there are two versions, with only names differing (so that numbers wouldn't mess up).
15. Early Doukas line, gives options 18 and 19.
16. Early Monomachos line, gives options 18, 19 and 20.
17. Gidos line, goes to end.
18. Late Doukas line, goes to end.
19. Late Monomachos line, gives options 17 and 18.
20. Saronites line, gives options 17 and 21.
21. Non-dynatic emperors, undone yet.
Playing Aberration 11th April and Byzantium, I found that the fact the turkish neighbour states do not have armies. The byzantine revival, obviously, was much helped by this fact.
In general, the early years of Byzantium were quite easy: not a single strong neighbour after all, very strong fleet. I guess the idea is that Byz will get a easier time, but I think you overdid Unless there is some nasty events in the road ahead.
In general, the early years of Byzantium were quite easy: not a single strong neighbour after all, very strong fleet. I guess the idea is that Byz will get a easier time, but I think you overdid
Unless there is some nasty events in the road ahead.
Last edited:
arcorelli said:
Giving 15/5 armies to the anatolian neighbors and a 10/0 to the Albanians could be a good start then?
But AFAIK only the biggies have gotten looked over yet - probably the minors will at least get armies before first release
Yeah, especially the poor turkish minor holding Anatolia needs some chance, however if you play France in the normal GC you will see that small Ai nations seldom stand a chance.
Nikolai II said:Giving 15/5 armies to the anatolian neighbors and a 10/0 to the Albanians could be a good start then?
But AFAIK only the biggies have gotten looked over yet - probably the minors will at least get armies before first release
Yeah, giving the minors armies will almost certainly help.
arcorelli said:Playing Aberration 11th April and Byzantium, I found that the fact the turkish neighbour states do not have armies. The byzantine revival, obviously, was much helped by this fact.
In general, the early years of Byzantium were quite easy: not a single strong neighbour after all, very strong fleet. I guess the idea is that Byz will get a easier time, but I think you overdid
Well, how does it differ from for example OE easy time in GC? The nearest strong countries are Hungary and Kaliphate, which you'll come accross after conquering either the slavonics or the turks.
How far did you play? Did those dynasty events look nice ingame?
Well, they get 15k and 10k armies now, piecemeal for any vet, but better than nothing..
TheArchduke said:Yeah, especially the poor turkish minor holding Anatolia needs some chance, however if you play France in the normal GC you will see that small Ai nations seldom stand a chance.
I know but getting all the country without fighting a battle it is damn too easy. It almost feel bad taking his provinces
Byakhiam said:
Until 1580's for now. I played rather safe I got to say but I got almost all my cores. I was very lucky converting the turks to orthodoxy (I succeeded with converting 3 provinces at the first try
And I know a lot of the middle east and even all the khanates by sieging capitals of muslim minors. All in all, Byzantium is nice.The events look fine, but I got to say that I got no idea if I chose well (no idea if the leaders I got are better than the lost ones. And damn Dauid II (that is his name) is bad, I was very happy when the bastard died
In general, Europe looks very fine. A lot of middle-big countries. The Kaliphate is very strong (and allied with all his neighbours), Hungary, Milan, The Hanseatic League lost all his non-german holdings but got almost all Northern Germany, Burgundy is new France (but Brittany still exists). Ukranie and Finland are extremely large, and reduced my poor georgian ally from a strong power to a, well, a not bad minor. Evil ones.
So, as far as balance is concerned, I think the scenario works.
Now that Byakhaim is back, I just wanted to pass along these words: Really nice job on the Byzantium monarchs, leaders and events. Particularily the monarchs -- simply put, succession in the Eastern Roman Empire is truly Byzantine.
Cheers.
Cheers.
I certain have enjoyed playing the Byzantine Empire. I'm not sure why, but the good old Eastern Roman Empire is my favorite 'what if?' candidate. I've played them in the EEP and the AGCEEP, I made a small EEP-Byzantine mod of my own some time ago, and now I've played them in the Aberration. Perhaps it's just the region, because I like playing the OE as well.
Incidentally, if you are interested making more leaders and events for the Byzantium, I could definately throw a few suggestions your way.
Cheers.
Incidentally, if you are interested making more leaders and events for the Byzantium, I could definately throw a few suggestions your way.
Cheers.
Medicine Man said:
Well, leaders are finished, AD has the final version. Oh well, one explorer missing, but otherwise. But suggestions for events are of course welcome.
Byakhiam,
I like the way the events are currently laid out for the Byzantium; the player gets several options on what dynastic path he wishes to follow, and each path has different events, pros and cons. It is very cool... but with only one small flaw (in my opinion) -- one of the possible event paths is clearly more powerful, or affords more potential power, than all of the others.
The dynastic path I'm talking about is, of course, Palaiologoi in 1463 and then backing Manoel in 1516-20. This is the only way that the Byzantium can get Turkish culture, which from an empire building perspective is a powerful advantage. The potential manpower and wealth the Byzantines can get from having this culture in many ways eclipses all of the other paths.
In theory, I agree that not all dynastic paths should be equal, but in practice most gamers are fierce, strategic min-maxers. I wonder if it might be a good idea to either sweeten some of the other dynastic lines a bit or to make claiming the turkish culture more costly (or a bit of both). If you think I have a valid point, I would be happy to submit some specific suggestions.
Just one note about the above: I don't want you to take any of what I've just said as a vote of no-confidence in you, Byakhaim. Your work on the Byzantium is far and away the most detailed and realistic take on the subject that I've seen.
While I'm on the subject, I was wondering if I could convince you to transfer ownership of Anatolia to the Byzantium in 1419? I realize that you probably have good reasons for every decision that you've made when setting up the Empire, but I think this change is justifiable from a gameplay standpoint for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, I think the Byzantium should have a slightly larger footprint in Asia Minor. Currently, it is very easy for the turkish minors to drive the Empire completely out of Anatolia, particularly if the Empire is controlled by the AI. Symrna gets covered almost immediately, usually dogpiled massively, and is very difficult to counter attack due to the Bosphorous/Agean water bodies.
I don't think this change would diminish (much) the ability of the turkish minors to act as a stumbling block/obstacle for the human-played or AI Byzantium either. The turks are dangerous because they are three small nations, each cheating the support limits, that have an alliance and excellent relations. Removing Anatolia from Candar's control would still leave the minor with two provinces, making it impossible (still) to eliminate the Candar-Karaman-Teke (-Dulkadir) alliance in one go.
Secondly, although the Byzantium stacks up quite well against the Caliphate, it is weak compared to mighty Hungary (who has every reason to mess with the Empire). Once we see what Archduke is doing with the Two Sicilies and once more leaders/events are added for Hungary, I think the balance of power between the Byzantine and the west is going to become an issue.
The fact that you've done some post-Doukas leaders for the Byzantium lays many of my fears to rest, but I'm still want to ensure that the Empire remains a strong competitor right up to 1819 in MP.
Cheers.
I like the way the events are currently laid out for the Byzantium; the player gets several options on what dynastic path he wishes to follow, and each path has different events, pros and cons. It is very cool... but with only one small flaw (in my opinion) -- one of the possible event paths is clearly more powerful, or affords more potential power, than all of the others.
The dynastic path I'm talking about is, of course, Palaiologoi in 1463 and then backing Manoel in 1516-20. This is the only way that the Byzantium can get Turkish culture, which from an empire building perspective is a powerful advantage. The potential manpower and wealth the Byzantines can get from having this culture in many ways eclipses all of the other paths.
In theory, I agree that not all dynastic paths should be equal, but in practice most gamers are fierce, strategic min-maxers. I wonder if it might be a good idea to either sweeten some of the other dynastic lines a bit or to make claiming the turkish culture more costly (or a bit of both). If you think I have a valid point, I would be happy to submit some specific suggestions.
Just one note about the above: I don't want you to take any of what I've just said as a vote of no-confidence in you, Byakhaim. Your work on the Byzantium is far and away the most detailed and realistic take on the subject that I've seen.
While I'm on the subject, I was wondering if I could convince you to transfer ownership of Anatolia to the Byzantium in 1419? I realize that you probably have good reasons for every decision that you've made when setting up the Empire, but I think this change is justifiable from a gameplay standpoint for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, I think the Byzantium should have a slightly larger footprint in Asia Minor. Currently, it is very easy for the turkish minors to drive the Empire completely out of Anatolia, particularly if the Empire is controlled by the AI. Symrna gets covered almost immediately, usually dogpiled massively, and is very difficult to counter attack due to the Bosphorous/Agean water bodies.
I don't think this change would diminish (much) the ability of the turkish minors to act as a stumbling block/obstacle for the human-played or AI Byzantium either. The turks are dangerous because they are three small nations, each cheating the support limits, that have an alliance and excellent relations. Removing Anatolia from Candar's control would still leave the minor with two provinces, making it impossible (still) to eliminate the Candar-Karaman-Teke (-Dulkadir) alliance in one go.
Secondly, although the Byzantium stacks up quite well against the Caliphate, it is weak compared to mighty Hungary (who has every reason to mess with the Empire). Once we see what Archduke is doing with the Two Sicilies and once more leaders/events are added for Hungary, I think the balance of power between the Byzantine and the west is going to become an issue.
The fact that you've done some post-Doukas leaders for the Byzantium lays many of my fears to rest, but I'm still want to ensure that the Empire remains a strong competitor right up to 1819 in MP.
Cheers.
One idea to equalize the lines - allow the others the possibility of picking up a culure as well, but a *different* one. Romanian, perhaps, or Italian, to steer expansion north or west instead of east.