Byzantium

[Sekenr]

I think the choice between the Italian and the Turkish cultures is valid gameplay-wise if not historically so. For example if you choose the eastern path you will obviously go after the Turkish minors, and than Syria. And if I go west (without Italian culture), why would I even want Italy, with their overlapping cores, wrong culture that slows my research, and most of the provinces aren't even very rich!
Of course the Byzantine state isn't initially very close to the Italians, but IMO 150 or so years of friendship with Genoa, and other meddling in italian affairs would bring them closer together, and make Byzantine court somewhat "italianazied" which I think is very interesting too.
Edit: maybe another choice along the way between italian culture and cores in Italy, or latin techgroup and no culture and cores ?

 

[Nikolai II]

You both bring good points, but I think Sekenr has the prize - to get two state cultures the individual cultures need not be able to cooperate very well, it only needs to mean that the upper classes of the cultures in question see themselves as reasonably equally and fairly treated, whatever the truth in the matter might be.

 

[MattyG]

While Nikolai is right about culture referring more to the ruling classes, I don't think it can entirely cover the culture issue. The people can reject rules as well. Even as late as the 1800s the English were often unhappy about being ruled by a German from the house of Hanover, which should surely be represented by increased RR.

Second, I don't think that Latin tech group could not be considered a worthy prize.

Finally, I have to challenge Sekenr on the quality of the Italian provinces. I think there are some very wealthy provinces there. Two CoTs, several producing wine or cloth. And lots of MP.

I don't think it needs it for gameplay balance. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I think that Byzantium should not get Italian culture because of gameplay balance. Two major state cultures is already pretty sweet (Greek and Slavonic) but giving it a third major and seriously-wealthy state culture, I think its too much.

UNLESS, of course, we add yet another level of juicy intrigue to the Byzantium mix. Another level of option. At the time the Italian Culture Gaining event might trigger, instead it triggers as an event that requests from the player how s/he will administer/relate to these Italian possessions.

action_a = {
name = "Bring the Italian nobility into the inner circle"
command = { type = add_coultryculture which = Italian }
command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -1 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 2 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 120 value = 1 }
command = { type = lose_countryculture which = syrian }
}
action_b = {
name = "Instigate an Italian Reformation in Byzantium"
command = { type = technology which = latin }
command = { type = cash value = -500 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -1 }
}

 

[Incompetent]

action_a = {
name = "Bring the Italian nobility into the inner circle"
command = { type = add_coultryculture which = Italian }
command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -1 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 2 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 120 value = 1 }
command = { type = lose_countryculture which = syrian }
}
action_b = {
name = "Instigate an Italian Reformation in Byzantium"
command = { type = technology which = latin }
command = { type = cash value = -500 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -1 }
}

I'm also reluctant to give Byzantium too many cultures if it's got Italian, but it doesn't make sense to lose Levantine culture as a direct result of gaining Italian, as if anything Levantine culture is closer to Italian than it is to Greek. Instead, I was thinking we should have an 'imperial overstretch' event if Byzantium goes crazy on the cultures and expands in all directions - this would force them to make a choice between focusing on the East (and thus losing all cores and culture in Italy) or on the West (and so losing Turkish, Levantine and a mass of cores in the East - basically a westerward Byzantium wouldn't have cores on anything east of Anatolia province). We could give a third option to try to keep it all, but this would have severe and permanent consequences, as by this point the sprawling empire would be extremely unwieldy.

Even as late as the 1800s the English were often unhappy about being ruled by a German from the house of Hanover, which should surely be represented by increased RR.

This observation is misleading - nationalist sentiments got stronger in the 19th century, not weaker, and indeed you could say our fancy modern idea of a Europe composed of 'nations' is a product of the last 200 years. Nowadays people in most countries in Europe would be unhappy with a foreign president or prime minister, but in early modern Europe it was the norm, eg Poland kept electing monarchs from all over the place. In any case the ruling families were so closely related by intermarriage that calling them 'Germans' or 'French' or whatever on the basis of their ancestry was almost meaningless.

What matters for cultural purposes in EUII is not who the king is, but how he runs things. It's the institutional strain of different laws and practices more than anything else which made multiethnic kingdoms a challenge to hold together.

 

[MattyG]

I actually got interrupted and had to hit send. I wanted to remove the lose-Syrian culture thing.

The problem with Italian culture, apart from the obvious power issue of three major culture groups (plus one smaller one, although I know we are going to cut them free from Levantine culture) is the issue of size and diversity. Inevitably, nobles from one cultural group are going to feel aggrieved and not want to suffer their inferior status, leading to lessened taxation and more revolts (an effect generated by increased RR itself generated from no longer having the culture group).

It would take masterful statesmanship to keep the nobility of four cultures spread over a large area happy.

However, if we give them this massive number of right-culture provinces, there need to be consequences. At the moment the civil war totally ignores Italy. The Italian states essentially watch it happen and stay calm. This needs to be changed significantly.

Perhaps the price for the Italian culture are serious revolts there when the civil war starts. However, the civil war can be easily avoided with the right slider settings. So instead, the civil war becomes more likely to occur, a function of too many competing elites PLUS the civil wars aggrieved peasanty aspect. We could create separate triggers for the war, that if Byzantium has Italian culture, then other requirements are easier to achieve, for example:

trigger = {
OR = {
culture = italian
domestic = { centralization = 3 }
}
OR = {
and then the current triggers continue

So, having Italian culture means the only way to avoid the civil war is to be really, really decentralized (in addition to avoiding its other triggers).

Of course, this is mostly a moot point for MP. In MP, players will see the choices the Byzantine player is making and see which of the many 'prizes' s/he is heading for. Once the player signals Palaiologoi and then takes the Italian route, its essentially a declaration of non-stop hostility with genoa, Siciliy or any other Italian state. And it will take a serious diplomatic endeavour to convince the other players to permit you to acheive that goal.

So it's mostly going to be an SP option, I think.

 

[unmerged(8881)]

Just a couple of points:

Wrong culture provinces don't necessarily mean a slow-down in tech research, what you're mainly missing is the manpower. With the tech research formulation as it is even a -30% income with an additional -10% for no land-connection can still help tech speeds if the province has a half-decent income in european terms, some of the italian provinces are rich indeed.

Secondly, I really don't see how Byzantium and Genoa are induced to co-operate at all in MP and thereby give eachother cultures. How is it in Genoa's interest to give a very-likely land-based monster shared ownership of their only state-culture and the prize of a number of italian cores if Byzantium chooses war? And what is Byzantium's payoff of giving Genoa greek culture when (as far as I'm aware) every greek province is a core of Byzantium's? Surely having Genoa stick to only italian provinces, and Byzantium stick to only greek and slavonic is the best co-operation they can engage in.

BTW, I'd just like to point out that that, in general, I love the events of both Byzantium and Genoa, and I think the way they're constructed are some of the best in the game.

 

[MattyG]

Excellent Points, nlilith.

More fuel for the anti-Italian-culture aregument (whoo-hoo!!).

The answer then, lies in figuring out what they would give one another for cooperation. Presumably in the 'real world' it would have been trade access and diplomatic assistance, such as claim recoginition (more cores for both of them, but not in the same provinces.)

Or Latin culture for the Byzantines, and the shift of the Ragusa CoT to a Genoese province, instead of Sicily, through some kind of trade-pact-flavoured event.

 

[MattyG]

Of course the Byzantine state isn't initially very close to the Italians, but IMO 150 or so years of friendship with Genoa, and other meddling in italian affairs would bring them closer together, and make Byzantine court somewhat "italianazied" which I think is very interesting too.QUOTE]

However, there is no 150 years here.

The Cooperation starts in 1470s with the first Palaiologoi emperor, but the Italian culture event can trigger as early as 1530, so that's only 60 years, something a player will certainly acheive. The Italian culture thing, if it happens, should not occur for game balance reasons until at least 1650 IMO.

 

[LlywelynII]

Of course the Byzantine state isn't initially very close to the Italians, but IMO 150 or so years of friendship with Genoa, and other meddling in italian affairs would bring them closer together, and make Byzantine court somewhat "italianazied" which I think is very interesting too.

However, there is no 150 years here.

The Cooperation starts in 1470s with the first Palaiologoi emperor, but the Italian culture event can trigger as early as 1530, so that's only 60 years, something a player will certainly acheive. The Italian culture thing, if it happens, should not occur for game balance reasons until at least 1650 IMO.

I tend to play AGCEEP and shy away from BYZ getting Italian for anything less than signing away its trading rights and soul, but even for Ab, there's got to be something to the fact that the Palaiologues had been marrying into the Genovese nobility for generations (esp., amusingly enough, a tendency to pick up wives from the branch that lorded over Lesbos )

jay.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Italian is the most difficult culture to obtain and it's also the easiest to lose. I tried to balance it compared to other goals available and I consider it working more or less nicely for that. There certainly could be alternate goal to gain there, but it has to compare to Turkish or Caucasian culture after all, not to mention that the Genoese path contains other nastiness like moving CoT to Hellas etc.

I added few conquisatadors and explorers for Byzantium, because I think all majors should have at least a few of them.

 

[MattyG]

Italian is the most difficult culture to obtain and it's also the easiest to lose. I tried to balance it compared to other goals available and I consider it working more or less nicely for that. There certainly could be alternate goal to gain there, but it has to compare to Turkish or Caucasian culture after all, not to mention that the Genoese path contains other nastiness like moving CoT to Hellas etc.

I added few conquisatadors and explorers for Byzantium, because I think all majors should have at least a few of them.

I don't see Italian culture being comparable to Caucasian or Turkish. One is a major culture, the other two minor cultures. Italian has more than twice as many provinces which are almost all wealthier (Armenian gold doesn't count, as you get 100% of its production income anyway), not to mention the huge MP advantage they give and their superior positional advantage over Asia Minor or the backwater of the Caucasus.

Italian culture is only tough to gain in MP, in which I think it would be an option almost never pursued, and when it is (or should be!) opposed violently by other players. And it still doesn't resolve the issue of why Genoa and Byzantium would cooperate and grant each other their core culture.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Italian culture is only tough to gain in MP, in which I think it would be an option almost never pursued, and when it is (or should be!) opposed violently by other players. And it still doesn't resolve the issue of why Genoa and Byzantium would cooperate and grant each other their core culture.

Well, when we first made Aberration, it was primarily intended for interesting and more balanced MP experience, so many decisions made then originate from that standpoint.

And Genoa and Byzantium cooperating and granting each other their core culture is a huge gamble for them both, with big risks and possible big gains.

I'm not really trying to oppose any changes, just trying to give light to why things were done the way they were in the first place.

 

[MattyG]

Well, when we first made Aberration, it was primarily intended for interesting and more balanced MP experience, so many decisions made then originate from that standpoint.

And Genoa and Byzantium cooperating and granting each other their core culture is a huge gamble for them both, with big risks and possible big gains.

I'm not really trying to oppose any changes, just trying to give light to why things were done the way they were in the first place.

Absolutely. And we not only greatly appreciate your original work but also your ongoing ideas and suggestions.

What did you see as being the big gain for them both as a partnership in getting each other's culture. As nlilith wrote, it seems to lead them toward conflict instead. What did you plan for it to produce and maybe we could work on that?

 

[unmerged(8881)]

I'd like to reiterate how much I enjoy the event chains of both Genoa and Byzantium as they're written, I'm playing Genoa in an MP game at the moment largely because of them!

The only event 'block' I have difficulty with is the one dealing with the exchange of cultures, as MattyG pointed out I can't see what the payoff is for either Genoa or Byzantium. (I was wondering whether maybe I was missing something obvious). By the time the events roll around they're each going to have most if not all of the provinces of the cultures to be given.

I'm wondering if anyone has some multiplayer experiences they could share where this interaction worked well?

 

[Incompetent]

The cultural exchange thing makes sense to me, and I really like the overall idea. The only problem is as others have said, that once both parties have the other culture, there's every incentive for them to stab each other in the back to get provinces of that culture, eg Genoa will start raiding Byzantium's islands, and Byzantium will muscle its way into Genoese Italy.

There's a simple fix for that, though: if Genoa goes to war with a Palaiologoi Byzantium, Genoa loses Greek and Byzantium loses Italian by event. That way the cultures provide a strong DISincentive to conflict once they've got them, as usually each will have at least some provinces of the other's culture. We'll need to set up the triggers carefully to ensure it's fair, but it shouldn't be too hard to make this work. For example Genoa is allowed to fight Byzantium during the turmoil, because they're fighting on behalf of the Palaiologoi.

@nilith: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that by the time Byzantium gets Italian culture, Genoa rules supreme over Italy? Or are you saying that each side gets a lot of provinces of the other culture? The latter makes the cultural prize all the bigger; the former suggests there are balance issues in Italy, as Sicily should survive at least long enough for Byzantium to have at crack at them, and Hungarian pressure should be checking Genoa's march southwards.

I agree though that Byzantium is likely to have most of the Greek provinces, but then the costs of cooperation to Genoa are much less than to Byzantium, and Genoa can simply wait for the end of the Palaiologoi and then raid Byzantium for Greek provinces to its heart's content. Given how well the Palaiologoi and the Genoese get along, perhaps it should be Genoa rather than BYZ who inherits Krete.

If necessary though, the cooperation events could lead to an exchange of disputed provinces - for example, Genoa and Byzantium agree to the division of Sicily as specified by their cores, or Byzantium sells Cyprus to the Genoese.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Maybe both Byzantium and Genoa could get the opportunity to inherit Krete. First Genoa get it, can reject or accept the opportunity. If they accept it their relations with Byzantium are at risk, and if they reject the opportunity, Byzantium inherit Krete. Also Byzantium should get several opportunity to raise the Crete question, if Genoa inherit, which could mean loss of italian culture. At the other hand Genoa could later accept to sell Krete to Byzantium (maybe Cyprus also) for better relations with Byzantium (but maybe loss of greek culture). Also if Byzantium press claims in Italy, Genoa should react either positive or negative, a negative reaction would of course hurt the relations between Byzantium and Genoa, while a positive reaction would give Byzanium a opportunity to drop claims in the Black sea are, and on the isles of Cyprus and Crete.

 

[MattyG]

The cultural exchange thing makes sense to me, and I really like the overall idea. The only problem is as others have said, that once both parties have the other culture, there's every incentive for them to stab each other in the back to get provinces of that culture, eg Genoa will start raiding Byzantium's islands, and Byzantium will muscle its way into Genoese Italy.

There's a simple fix for that, though: if Genoa goes to war with a Palaiologoi Byzantium, Genoa loses Greek and Byzantium loses Italian by event. That way the cultures provide a strong DISincentive to conflict once they've got them, as usually each will have at least some provinces of the other's culture. We'll need to set up the triggers carefully to ensure it's fair, but it shouldn't be too hard to make this work. For example Genoa is allowed to fight Byzantium during the turmoil, because they're fighting on behalf of the Palaiologoi.

@nilith: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that by the time Byzantium gets Italian culture, Genoa rules supreme over Italy? Or are you saying that each side gets a lot of provinces of the other culture? The latter makes the cultural prize all the bigger; the former suggests there are balance issues in Italy, as Sicily should survive at least long enough for Byzantium to have at crack at them, and Hungarian pressure should be checking Genoa's march southwards.

I agree though that Byzantium is likely to have most of the Greek provinces, but then the costs of cooperation to Genoa are much less than to Byzantium, and Genoa can simply wait for the end of the Palaiologoi and then raid Byzantium for Greek provinces to its heart's content. Given how well the Palaiologoi and the Genoese get along, perhaps it should be Genoa rather than BYZ who inherits Krete.

If necessary though, the cooperation events could lead to an exchange of disputed provinces - for example, Genoa and Byzantium agree to the division of Sicily as specified by their cores, or Byzantium sells Cyprus to the Genoese.

The event to end the cultural exchange based on conflict is certainly very graceful, but it still does not answer the reason why they would get one another's cultures. It there is no conflict between them (or, it should be stressed, between Byzantium and the Papal States either) then how are they going to use this new culture?

So, I'm Genoa and I have Greek culture and only Krete remains as indepedent. Now, as long as they are not allied to Byzantium, I can annex them and have the right culture. Unless Byzantium attacks me later, in which case I lose it again. All that rigamarole for one province? And if there are lots of free greek Staes, why is Byzantium going to give me Greek culture and make it worthwhile to steal her/his birthright?

Likewise Byzantium. If as Byzantium I happen to have captured some Italian provinces beforehand, then cool, I'll get the right culture for them as long as Genoa doesn't attack me. Which it will probably eventually do so to win those provinces from me. Otherwise, I won't get any unless through rebellious secession, or someone else eliminates Genoa from the game.

The cultural exchange seems like a nice concept from afar, but up close it feels more like a "You can have the cake, but not eat it" event when you can lose the cultures due to attack. And, as discussed elsewhere, if nothing takes those cultures away, then they are a scenario for outright war by the larger of the two.

I'm still with nlilith on this one. I just can't see a realistic scenario in which it benefits both players to 'exchange cultures'. I'd love for one of the Italian-Greek culture proponents to describe a common scenario in MP (not SP) where it makes sense for both sides. Not some bizarre situation, but a feasible scenario.

 

[Incompetent]

So, I'm Genoa and I have Greek culture and only Krete remains as indepedent. Now, as long as they are not allied to Byzantium, I can annex them and have the right culture. Unless Byzantium attacks me later, in which case I lose it again. All that rigamarole for one province? And if there are lots of free greek Staes, why is Byzantium going to give me Greek culture and make it worthwhile to steal her/his birthright?

Likewise Byzantium. If as Byzantium I happen to have captured some Italian provinces beforehand, then cool, I'll get the right culture for them as long as Genoa doesn't attack me. Which it will probably eventually do so to win those provinces from me. Otherwise, I won't get any unless through rebellious secession, or someone else eliminates Genoa from the game.

I see what you mean. The cultures are a big reward in theory, but keeping the cooperation going for 100 years or so is quite hard in MP. Perhaps there should be other stakes riding on the cooperation. For example, Genoa gains enormous trading power in Byzantium, so maybe we can represent this with trade tech or even a refinery? Then if they attack BYZ, they lose it, and suffer serious economic disruption. Similarly, Byzantium could get technology from Genoa, especially for ships (which is usually a weak spot for Orthodox-tech countries), and even the odd admiral. EU2 is rather bad at representing the impact of war on trade, but in this specific case we can justifiably have economic consequences for a breakdown in relations.

 

[MattyG]

I see what you mean. The cultures are a big reward in theory, but keeping the cooperation going for 100 years or so is quite hard in MP. Perhaps there should be other stakes riding on the cooperation. For example, Genoa gains enormous trading power in Byzantium, so maybe we can represent this with trade tech or even a refinery? Then if they attack BYZ, they lose it, and suffer serious economic disruption. Similarly, Byzantium could get technology from Genoa, especially for ships (which is usually a weak spot for Orthodox-tech countries), and even the odd admiral. EU2 is rather bad at representing the impact of war on trade, but in this specific case we can justifiably have economic consequences for a breakdown in relations.

Nice to see you are recognizing technology as a possible alternative ... :rofl:

Ahem. So, if you want to "keep the cooperation going" then effectively you are saying that the culture swap is NOT about the cultures themselves. That, in fact, although Byz gets Italian it is not actually supposed to make use of it, only to hold it as a safeguard that Genoa won't attack it. Likewise Genoa having Greek. These are then using cultures as insurance policies.

Interesting, but off the scale in game-ness. Absolutely zero realism here. What could this possibly represent in the real world? Sorry if I sound cranky, I don't mean to be, but I remain quite baffled by both the value and justifications for this culture swap.

If Byzantium should get Italian, then it can only be in order than it conquer and rule the place with the acceptance of Italian nobility. Likewise Genoa and Greek culture. And with the current set-up, the pathway to acheive that lacks logic, because its Genoa that gives it, in contravention of its own best interests.

If it's going to get the Italian culture ( which I still think is too powerful ) then the process needs to be based on antagonism with the ruling elites of Genoa and Sicily and Milan etc, but also somehow reflect Byzantium having won over the general nobility/mid-ruling class. This would be a tricky and brilliant event structure, and presumably require Genoa et al to be poor rulers to so isolate their own nobility. Likewise, vice versa for Genoa getting Greek. None of which strikes me as likely to happen with player run countries.

MattyG

 

[Incompetent]

I was thinking of technology as well as the culture. I still don't understand why you say Byzantium can't take anything in Italy; Genoa should not be master of the peninsula, and there's no reason why it couldn't accept Byzantine provinces in Italy any more or less than it can accept the existence of the Papal States or Sicily. You don't have an obligation to secure every last province of your own culture.

One thing to bear in mind is that the cooperation is not over the whole 400 years; it would usually end with the Palaiologoi turmoil in the 1630s, and I'm not proposing either side can lose the culture by fighting each other either during or after the turmoil, as by then they have enough support among Greek dissidents or Neapolitan nobles or whatever to keep hold of it. So in a sense the powers can have their cake and eat it; they can cooperate in the 16th century, but then when it all goes wrong for the Palaiologoi, BYZ and GEN can fight each other for all they're worth. If you like, you can view it as more of a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact than an Entente Cordiale.

Perhaps it shouldn't require just a DOW to remove the cultures - maybe you lose the culture if you start occupying key provinces of the other power. That way it's more likely that the aggressor is punished for getting greedy than the poor fool who gets stabbed.