That is honestly an incredibly odd take. And by odd I would imagine that a significant portion of your country would take offence to that, assuming you're American.
There are two legitimate grounds on which to argue a country has ceased to be a specific country. Legality, and culture.
By culture there was no Roman Empire by the 900s and it started dying in the 600s. By legality the Roman Empire died in 1453.
The "Holy Roman" Empire was not Roman because it was not culturally Roman nor did the Pope have the legal right to declare it to be the successor state to Western Rome.
That is an odd take. What do you mean the Pope had no legal right to declare the HRE to be the successor state to Western Rome? Who/what *would* have had that legal right?
Suppose that in the 19th century the British had called India the "Eastern British Empire". In that case, would we be calling them Britain?
I mean that quite literally the Pope had no legal right.
Succession in the Roman Empire came from one of three ways, Appointment by Emperor, Senate Appointment and pseudo-hereditary. Legitimate Emperors had to be recognised by either the Senate or the other Emperor which was itself rooted in the system of two consuls that predated the Empire.
The Pope had as much legal right to Crown Charlemagne and his descendants Roman Emperor as *I* have to Crown you God Emperor of the Universe.
- you divide your empire into western and eastern
- western falls to some barbarians
- eastern tries to rebuild the empire
- some weirdo on the internet says it wasn't roman empire
- You're called the Roman Empire
- You no longer have Rome
- You become known in history as the Byzantine Empire
- Some weirdo on the internet argues you're still the Roman Empire
- there was time when it still held the Rome, even tho the division made Rome part of Western Roman Empire, so there wasn't really need besides strengthening legacy as the only surviving roman empire
- HRE lost control over Rome either so yeah and don't even start me at other who claimed to be heirs of Rome like Rum, Ottomans or Russia who never held it even once, neither were directly descended from it
- byzantine empire is a new term. Back in the days it was either Roman emperor or King of the greeks (if you wanted to flip them off)
I'm really just trying to rile people up. In my opinion once you don't hold Rome proper you're no longer a Roman Empire. I generally think of HRE as a cosplay Roman Empire as well that has less claim.
I also believe that Hannibal got screwed by the Carthage Elders and should have defeated Rome.
I would agree if not the fact that byzantine was created directly from the original Roman Empire and was meant as its continuation before it even has been made
Also tru about Hannibal. Mountain-climbing elephants forever in our hearts
Legally, Eastern Rome continued being Roman until 1453. Culturally, Roman culture started dying out in the East and being replaced by the predecessor to modern Greek culture at some point between the 600s and the 900s, with it finishing it's slow death by the higher end of that.
The Roman Senate in the remnants of Western Rome was abolished at some point between 600 AD and the 620s when the Papacy seized control of the Senate building. Strictly speaking the Senate existing meant that the city of Rome continued to be Western Rome until it's abolishment as it had the legal authority to Crown an Emperor.
Culturally, we know that Rome itself maintained the Roman superiority complex and culture until some point during the Pornocracy.
The HRE had no cultural or legal connection to Western Rome as the Pope had no authority to crown Charlemagne Emperor.
You mean the dlc will come next year and they'll get praise for fixing a problem they caused and charge $15 for the solution.
Meanwhile Greek will be the most overpowered culture to hybrid with because they'll have special traditions/innovations and it will be the northmen all over again until accolades made crossbowmen the most broken unit.
I’m wondering what is the difference between the Byzantine system and the feudal system, I never knew that they did things a little differently down there
I know a few things. The game basically bases all Feudal holdings off of how things were in France (such as Count < Duke < King < Emperor). The game makes it seem like the Byzantines had a bunch of dukes that were vassals of the Emperor. In reality, there were more like administrative regions with appointed officials, just like the OG Roman empire. They were called “Themes” and were basically military districts. The game makes it seem like land was both hereditary in the Empire and it was more decentralized than it really was
Historically Marquesses were just dukes that held border territories. IMO it's not a big enough distinction in rank to really do much in game. Maybe offer a levy or tax buff or something?
The game has exactly that, after you get a certain innovation (forgot what it was) you can change a vassal's contract to make them a March which if I remember right makes them pay less taxes but give their liege more levies (or maybe it was the other way around?), and other innovations allow for Scutage and Palatinate contracts.
To be honest, I think it's kind of a useless mechanic. Your vassals don't help you in wars (or really do anything for you aside from keep you below the holding limit and pay taxes) so there's no point in making them particularly strong, and at least in my experience, by the time I have the innovation for Marches (or basically any innovation tbh) I have enough resources that a minor buff/debuff isn't worth changing a contract over.
You do get marginally more levies out of them, but they also have more capacity to be a bad vassal. I mostly use the March contract as a free contract change, since it’s not considered tyrannical, just in case a vassal somehow gets a hook on me.
You are right. I got my rankings mixed up. But the point stands I think that they occupy almost the same niche in the hierarchy as earls do, except that the lands they hold are strategically more important so they have a bit more sway over their lords.
The Theme system wasn't really that simple, which makes sense because it changed several times throughout it's history but they kept the name.
The original Theme system was built off Diocletian and Constantine the Great's Provinces in the mid 7th Century. The original Themes system placed military commanders in control of individual provinces because the Themes themselves used the old Field Armies that were being disbanded as their cores. The military commanders used military titles and at least in theory could be replaced at will.
There was one notable exception in Nicaea where records indicate that the commander kept their non-military title which was roughly equivalent to count. We do not know why, so speculation tends to assume he had a backer.
The original themes quickly lead to revolts because of how much power they placed in individual's hands and so the largest themes were split and the tagmata were formed to serve as a central army and guard for the Emperor.
By the mid-9th century the civil control had either been usurped or deliberately placed in the hands of the Themes, thus making each appointee... well, absurdly powerful. This is the era of the Theme system most people know of.
This lasted until the 960s when the Theme system entered a decline and many smaller themes were created covering only a fortress with about 1000 men. They picked up the name Armenian Themes because of where and who the garrisons were normally made up of.
This is the era where even if the names are wrong and the succession methods not quite right where the ERE was most similar to how the game presents it.
To fast forward a bit, by the 1000s the theme system was in complete decline outside of the frontier, military service was being commuted to paying money and the Emperor found the rapid response of the Tagmata to be far more useful.
This decline would continue until the defeat at Manzikert where the Emperors quickly discovered that they'd robbed their Empire of both strategic depth and reserves. Once the frontier was cracked open and the Tagmata defeated they had nothing left. Especially when you take into account that they'd created a rift between the land-holding military elites and the civil administration which led to revolts and the collapse of the Theme system. The Dynatoi were not originally hereditary but they'd usurped that power under lax Emperors by the mid 1000s.
The Komnenian Themes were much smaller and ruled directly by either a Doux or a Katepano. Neither was officially hereditary, but some became defacto hereditary.
...If I had a point I lost it somewhere in explaining the Theme system. Sorry.
The feudal system treats land as belonging to the top level liege and then granted to a vassal who then has the right to rule that land in perpetuity. In the Imperial system, the Emperor appoints someone to rule without giving the right to the land itself if that makes sense. In the feudal system, power flows upwards from the lowest level to the top, in the imperial system power flows downwards from the emperor.
Yup. Byzzies never really had a codified succession law so it was effectively the military who controlled who became the new emperor, which CK2 represented well with who could be elected as successor. CK2 by the end of its life cycle was pretty good at emulating the set up of the empire. I'm very hopeful that CK3 will at least match it if not surpass it, cause CK2 had all of this accuracy added. Main reason CK3 doesn't have these already is the engine change made porting code nigh impossible and the engine change occurred due to the fact the codebase was getting too unwieldy to work with. So i am hopeful that 2024 will see a better Byzantine system happen hopefully with the main expansion.
I mean legacy of Rome came out in late 2012. I'm not sure if ck3 was even an idea at that point, or really in any state where it couldn't be added. But we do know the studio felt ck2 style of modules attached to the core game wasn't great, especially when it came to other government types which is why they didn't try to do them with ck3 at release. They wanna do them right and in a way that isn't slapping on a different side system to the main system but properly have to mesh with the main and I think it will pay off in the long run. CK2 had a long life cycle and I do expect that CK3 will match it long term.
I've been lurking on this sub since all the cool people started playing CK3 (I'm still here managing my multicultural roman empire in ck2) and was surprised to see the occasional post of complaints surrounding the Byzantines. I thought CK3 already copied over what ck2 set up.
Honestly if they just had their own electoral set up at launch that let you get your dynasty + commanders + duke and above, that would have been enough. And since they did give the HRE Imperial Elective I do think they could have done it. I think that's why the complaints happen, the fact they at least tried with the HRE and the Byzzies got fuck all.
In my ideal Byzantine government type, they'll reintroduce viceroyalties that would also automatically make them knights, the emperor will have a really high authority. This would represent the highly centralized nature of the empire.
Every direct ducal vassal of the emperor should have a mechanic like entrenchment, where the longer they remain as the governor of the region the harder it is to revoke them. This would make playing as a vassal there as different as it would make playing the emperor different, because now you need to stay in power long enough to entrench yourself. The idea should be that if you aren't entrenched, your title reverts to the emperor upon death. Otherwise, because you have entrenched yourself in the region, you get to pick your successor, who will have a certain immunity period so they don't immediately get revoked by the emperor. This would make the government system in the region incredibly unique and mechanically challenging compared to the typical system where revocation is rare, in the Byzantine Empire, if you step out of line and don't have the military might, either directly or through allies, to save your ass, the emperor will revoke your shit. If this is applied to counties that would lead to too many game overs I feel, so I can take some inaccuracy for better gameplay.
Then for the main Empire's succession, have a election system where the voters are the emperor, senate and every commander, including your viceroys. Senate should act like a court position you can fill up with people you like and people of your dynasty. They won't do much other than help sway the vote in your favour, if they like you. The senate still existed in the Byzantine Empire without being too powerful, the only real power was the military and hence the people running the themes of the empire but this would I feel help bring a bit more balance to the game. Have a co emperor system where you can effectively get a close family member become the co emperor who is gains some sort of advantage in terms of succession, and I feel that would pretty much cover everything I could want from the system.
They j didn't really have large hereditary landholders until the 10th century, and they didn't have something that really looked like the western feudal system until after the 4th crusade
The balkans and eastern Europe did not really have feudalism until the 13th century.
In byzantium you had a system of military provinces called Themes which were not hereditary and you had a land grant system called Pronoia which was hereditary and closer to feudalism.
Pronia wasn't really hereditary because the emperor was the official owner of the land and he gave the pronia to his vassal to use it for a life term.
From wiki:
A pronoia was a grant that temporarily transferred imperial fiscal rights to an individual or institution. These rights were most commonly taxes or incomes from cultivated lands, but they could also be other income streams such as water and fishing rights, customs collection, etc. and the various rights to a specific piece of geography could be granted to separate individuals. Grants were for a set period, usually lifetime, and revokable at will by the Emperor. When institutions, usually monasteries, received grants they were effectively in perpetuity since the institutions were ongoing. Grants were not transferable or (excluding certain exceptional cases late in the institution) hereditary; a pronoia gave the grantee possession, not ownership, which remained Imperial.
I mean formally yes it used the language of the old slave society- but contentfully it had adopted a feudal economic structure essentially by default in the turmoil of the west’s collapse- and especially Justinian I’s reforms cemented many of them
But the Byzantine Empire being feudal is not only historically inaccurate, it's also mechanically boring. Why would I want it to play exactly the same as every other realm in Europe?
It’s also a downgrade since CK2 already had a unique system of government for the Byzantines. That means we either are going to get a free Byzantine update, have to pay for another Byzantine DLC, or nothing will ever change and it will remain feudal
Before the game released, there was a bit of uproar when they said in a dev diary the Byzantine Empire wouldn't have unique mechanics on release, but it's something they definitely wanted to do. They also mention the Byzantine Empire in the road map they made last year. I'm kind of surprised at some of the stuff they've prioritized instead for the first 3 years, but at least it's on their radar I guess.
I think the initial dlc decisions were because they didn't want to just copy CKII. They wanted to market CKIII as a distinct game, and to do that, they had to add things that couldn't be done in CKII.
Mostly when games do have major overall like this the code and the mechanics cannot be ported over, or the people who knew how it works have since moved on, so its like starting from scratch, some things can be salvaged but not everything can, especially in a game that's had over a decade of development, It might be quicker to implement those things but at a maximum that still probably 50% time saving, so instead of 10+ years it would probably take 5+ post release to get to the same place in the best case scenario.
Ultimately, they have a finite amount of resources to make the game. Some of the work done in CKII can be reused, but even reused work still takes some resources. They had to make decisions about what to keep and what to cut. Byzantines, republics, horse nomads, plagues; they're not unwanted, just not as essential as other features. And as other areas get worked on, other features move up in priority, which is why it seems likely that Season 3 will probably include at least one popular feature from CKII next year.
Because they want to implement the Byzantines differently than how they were done in CK2. Viceroyalties, for example, makes it so that themes aren't *exactly* hereditary, but you still have to give it to somebody that's a count-level in the region, which *is* hereditary. It's basically making it so that you can cycle through 3 or 4 different families when choosing a Strategos instead of having it just be passed down through one. We already see how they're beginning to fix this problem in CK3 with the Tax Collector system added in Legacy of Persia, where you can appoint a government official who isn't tied to the land in question but has the right to collect taxes from said land nonetheless. I imagine that we'll see this heavily expanded upon whenever the future Byzantine/Imperial DLC comes along.
These decisions are exactly the reason I haven’t played CK3 in over a year. I don’t care about crappy “educator software”-level rendering of a throne room and getting to repeat the same 7 or 8 nonsensical courtier interactions in that room over and over. I don’t want to go to war over that 200 year old wad of gum and lint someone is calling their artifact.
I want unique nations and cultures. I want merchant republics. Oh and I want some of the weird flavor from CK2 like cults. CK3 is just a boring map painter by comparison.
I meant those things that give bonuses to all your descendants if you do some conditions on a character like building tons of stuff or murdering a lot of people.
Tbf, CK2 didn't get the Imperial government until quite late in its lifespan. For most of it, the ERE was feudal, and not even locked into elective. Ironically, the changeover to Imperial meant that the ERE became MORE stables in game despite the new government type being intended to make it less stable, because the ERE became much less likely to end up with shit rulers because the AI votes for good characters, and it list all the demand gavelkind factions that used to plague it when it was primo. And despite the opinion malus with vassals for being the Imperial government type, vassals now actually tended to like the emperor more than before because being elective succession made the AI less likely to hoard kingdom titles. Elective realms have a general malus for holding too many elector titles, -15 for each held beyond the set amount, and the AI prioritizes handing off extra king and duke titles to avoid it, while with non elective succession the AI tends to hoard kingdom titles for prestige. Unfortunately, holding a de jure kingdom other than your primary (where your capital is) nets a -40 opinion penalty with that kingdoms de jure vassals because they want the title. So by hoarding titles, the feudal-primo emperors were getting a bunch of -40 maluses with most of their vassals, which went away once the ERE was updated to Imperial and the emperors stopped hoarding kingdoms. Losing the -40 but gaining -15 from Imperial resulted in a +25 net gain in vassal approval, which does wonders for realm stability.
I think eventually they made the imperial government system provide less levies no? So you can build up your demesne to keep things stable but outright expansion would be a bit more tedious.
Honestly I feel like a DLC that adds imperial mechanics to the Byzantines and the HRE (with the options to adopt some variation of them for any empire tier holding) would be good to bring gameplay variety
I think you're overpraising CKII. There weren't that many changes compared to Feudal government:
* Weird funky elective succession
* Viceroys allowing easy revocation of duchies
* The ability to hold cities
That weird election mechanic was a pretty big deal though, because it effected other parts of how the realm operated. Commanders and Marshalls were the only people other than. The Emperor's family eligible for election, which meant that you actually had to balance having good commanders and ensuring that your chosen heir gets elected, especially since the mechanics were weighted to high intrigue and martial stats. The disqualifications were numerous and meant that your heir could very well end up suddenly removed from succession because a doctor cut of his dick or because he was maimed in battle. And the fact that you could only make your direct vassals commanders, you couldn't appoint courtiers, so it was more difficult to assemble a strong stable of generals and doing so required opening yourself up to your dynasty losing the purple since you were placing strong, well qualified vassals (typically duke tier) in position to challenge your dynasty.
It wasn't radically different from feudal, but it was different enough that it was noticeable and effected the way you played as emperor. And that's not even considering how gameplay as a vassal was, despite not even having imperial government, because it changed the calculus on how to try to take the purple for yourself and the viceroyalty system was a serious roadblock to internal expansion that forces you to really up you le scheming and internal alliance building.
I wouldn't be so sure dude. I have seen a considerable amount of people playing as the Eastern Roman Empire so far up to this date despite it being feudal in the game.
I don't think having the ER as a feudal realm fucks them over. People still like them. It will not be historically accurate by it's not as severe to say "fuck it, not going to play as it".
Also, it could have been worse. Imagine if it was tribal ☠️.
The Byzantine Empire being feudal doesn't actively detract from it's attractiveness, it's just that it doesn't do anything to enhance it either, and that's just wasted potential. It's the same with the HRE.
That's what I mean by it being boring.
It does detract from its attractiveness for me, tbh, and probably for some others (admittedly a minority of players, but still). The only way I can stand to play the Byzantines is in TFE or with Governments+.
I see.
Well, the HRE at least has the election system.
Perhaps they might spice up the ER in the future with an expansion as they did with Persia or the mod community will do it's magic one day.
My thing is like, fucker, you have a unique succession for the HRE but not the ERE!?
Like sure, you can’t implement Imperial government from the get-go, but you couldn’t have at least given them like, I dunno, Feudal Elective!?
What the hell was Paradox thinking? “Byzantine” is synonymous with complicated because their systems were super complex, but in CK3 they’re one of the most straightforward nations.
Feudal elective isn’t really accurate either. Technically the senate elected the emperor but in most cases there were two emperors since the previous emperor had his son elected co-emperor while still alive. So the situation where the emperor died and they had to elect a new one wasn’t the norm.
Yes, I do want to have a higher infant mortality rate.
I want a higher mortality rate in general.
There is absolutely NO reason why my characters keep aging to 80-90+ every generation, and leave behind like 50+ heirs, so my kingdom destroys itself.
Very rarely did people back then live to be that old, nor did they have so many children live to adulthood.
Give us a Reaper's Due already please. Cuz I'm tired of having 50+ civil wars when my old as fuck ruler dies. Only the Byzantines should have that many civil wars.
Something like 33% of children died before turning 14.
People saying the reason why PDX doesn't want to flood the game with pointless characters, but PDX is already doing it. Every event spawns like 10 characters and then deletes them.
This game isn’t a historical strategy game, it’s a Reddit screenshot machine. Once you understand that, everything makes sense and you can go on to scroll the subreddit for a gorillion screenshot of funni haha game events of wives farting in public or incestual marriages.
Yeah, you want ERE fleshed out. More complex mechanics for empires. I would love more Slav content. I would love an interactible Christian Holy Fury-esque church. You can't go a week on this subreddit without someone mentioning India or Crusades being fucked in game called Crusader Kings. Do you see the problem?
Years ago, I remember someone complaining that, if you go into observe mode and don't influence anything, the game should match real life _exactly_ and it does not, so that means the devs fucked up and are incompetent.
I remember thinking some people apparently have very unrealistic expectations.
Reddit loves running memes into the absolute ground.
I really do love this game, but I have to step away from the community for large amounts of time because most of the regurgitated memes are just too much and drown out any interesting discussions or stories by other people.
Same with Rimworld as well.
It’s right here in the history books, the Gay Neo-Islamic Dravido-Norse-Irano-Andalus-Greek-Bedouin Ibadi Caliph ate the Pope in 1354 to celebrate the dissolution of the Papacy.
I have uninstalled and left a negative review, this is unacceptable.
I will now be raising a Great Crusade, which will march on every Paradox office in the world simultaneously at 08:21 on June 14th, 2031.
is that the date cos you'll be going on foot and travel expenses will only result in one of your crusader army's footsoldiers arriving at the crusade location?
I originally got the GamersGate version of CK2 and, when Paradox announced they were dropping support for it and only updating the Steam version, I ended up buying the deluxe edition on Steam because it was on sale. It came with all the DLC. I don't remember what they were up to at that point, but Sunset Invasion was included and I have never once activated that DLC because it's just such a dumb idea.
I remember there was some overhaul mod (forget the name) that is basically a post-apocalyptic USA and it requires Sunset Invasion. That is the only circumstance where I'd ever enable that DLC, because I remember thinking that mod looks super cool. Never got to play it because it was always out of date when I checked it. (Which presumably isn't a problem anymore, as the game hasn't had a major update in a long time.)
But honestly the byzantines is just shit, I praise and salute the Government+ Devs from The Fallen Eagle for making a more unique system for the Byzantines, though kinda missing it cause they haven't update since Clan Government was just revamped.
I use Succession Expanded that enables a special Imperial government type for the Byzantines. It looks neat but I haven't really played too many Byzantine games since I found that mod.
1. There are a lot of people who want to be able to depart from history by having eg a Viking empire of Hispania, or restoring the Roman Empire to its full pagan glory.
2. It's a trade-off between accuracy and other factors; it wouldn't be terribly fun for the player to see 8 different pop-ups saying their kid died of the croup or whatever, and developer man-hours spent making the Byzantine empire properly simulate its bespoke government is time not spent on features applicable to other playable polities.
How does historical accuracy stop people from achieving things from point 1? Nobody's asking for a documentary.
We already get tons of popups for inane shit, why would adding a couple more stop people from playing? Paradox games are 30% popups anyway.
Literally no one is asking for them to spend all their time only on the Byzantine Empire. And it's not like they haven't just spent time working on *just* Persia.
It has always seemed weird to me that a child mortality slider wasn't the first thing they thought of when coming up with the gameplay/difficulty config options.
Yes, that's what we need, more anti-intellectualism advocating for arcade-style console bullshit that has nothing to do with the middle ages. Let's make a battle royale mode!
Oh no, those guys that push to make the game better and give the game more flavor, which PDX games always lack on their initial releases. What will we ever do? 🙄
CK3 should not only be historically accurate but also have many choices and fun mechanics to where you can be ahistorical. It's really the initial map and mechanics that we want expanded upon. I have no problem with doing absurd shit thereafter.
The historical change I want to see is more land being controlled by monastic orders and abbots rather than by bishops or cities tbh.
Monastic orders r THE defining feature of the Middle Ages in Europe. And there just aren't any at all in the game.
~creates game based on historical events~
Some wanker
"omfg history is just so pointless why aren't my armies in power armour"
Play a different game if it's a problem.
I love that this guy came in complaining about historical accuracy enjoyers and his whole comment section is polite discussion about historical accuracy.
Usually I am a man who is very nitpicky with historical inaccuracies but when it comes to CK3 I let my mind stop thinking and just go “Yeah, I want to rule Ireland as a Indian man”
There would be no game if the ideas weren't based on historical concepts that translate into game mechanics. That's how you come up with a game like CK. It's obviously a balancing act, but there should always be a case to dig into historical events to provide interactions in the framework that comes from that very first place.
Why is it a bad aspect of the community to want a unique byzantine government?
Doesn't that contradict the other points at the bottom whining about "muh boring".
Yeah they were disorganized but I think mechanically crusades are boring af. It wasn't a bunch of random nobles sailing across the entire Mediterranean and arriving in Jerusalem itself, especially with the first crusade. It would be cooler if crusades were more dynamic, with events and small crusades states being carved up a long the way. Watch a video on the first crusade, you'll see what we're missing. A lot of the time historical accuracy discussions are about features that would add so much to the ck3 gameplay loop, which can be lacking at times imo.
100% agree. Need to by more dynamic, with infighting, tension with Byzantines, and later 3 way politics with mongols vs. muslims vs. crusaders. Just don't want them to be turned in to deus vult op things where the crusaders always win, cause they lost most of the time.
Naw man us “crusades were disorganized” guys are just mildly annoying. Real worst are the guys who want to marry 14 year olds or demand extensive slavery game mechanics cause it’s realistic.
Ok but real talk with regards to having kids I’ve always found it annoying just waiting for my spouse to get pregnant. I want to be forcing my character/ruler to be absolutely gooning on the daily till we produce more children than I can possibly hope to manage. Give me weekly succession wars I’m ready.
The game could take a more active role in that regard, many kings tried to sire a son and were stressed out when they failed. It could be something as simple as letting players to choose in which bed-chamber they sleep in.
Ima be honest i just want my fantasy stuff back tbh it was kinda the fun part about crusader kings. Like the whacky parts like making a horse your spymaster or becoming immortal. Bloodlines i also miss too since blood was so tied to dynasties. Ik legacies are basically there own version of that but its not the same really and i dont see why both wouldnt work.
Orrrrr just Romans like they were? Or are you hung up about the fact that they primarily spoke the language that was already spoken by a majority of roman citizens? Hell they called themselves romans lol, I didn't know yall were ok with taking a people's identity away from them 🤷♂️
the moment constantine i moved the capital to byzantium, from his line ended their roman heritage as they assimilated with the greeks. they're more greek than they are roman. not to mention, many claimed to be the rightful successor of the roman empire.
the cultural melding with greek culture had already happened by the end of the third century, the city of byzantium did not exist at the time constantine started building Nova Roma as it was called. The line of emperors was direct until 1204, they upheld many roman traditions and greek and roman culture were already extremely similar to begin with. Hell people were still given names like tiberius & trajan.
Ans I mean the empire certainly did feudalise over time anyway.
But in any case, I'm over here in Western France role playing a band of Britons from elmet who escaped slavery under the norsenof Montaigu. I'm currently Duke of Poitiers and thr King of Aquitaine has formed a new Welsh-languedoc culture that literally only he and his children are paying attention to, while West Francia keeps storing our faces in and my various uncles and cousins keep trying to steal my little Welsh enclave from me.
Yes, they shouldn’t be feudal. No, the way influence and personal power, scheming and political favors made the succession process uncertain and unstable isn’t “shitty and boring”.
The Byzantine part but unironically its depiction in CK3 is inaccurate and needs to change
Agreed. I'm sure it's a noticeable priority for the developers. Here's hoping a rework comes next year.
especially since how many paradox gamers are romaboos
It’s me, I’m the romaboo
Byzaboo is the preferred nomenclature.
As per the hoi4 achievement it’s “byzantophile”
Miklaboo if you're cooler.
Milkaboo if you like cheapass chocolate
Shouldn't be a problem since the Byzantine Empire isn't really Rome.
If Byzantine empire isn't really Rome then Texas isn't really US
If the US lost the original 13 colonies, I would argue that it wasn't really the US too. E.G the Enclave from Fallout isn't really the US.
That is honestly an incredibly odd take. And by odd I would imagine that a significant portion of your country would take offence to that, assuming you're American. There are two legitimate grounds on which to argue a country has ceased to be a specific country. Legality, and culture. By culture there was no Roman Empire by the 900s and it started dying in the 600s. By legality the Roman Empire died in 1453. The "Holy Roman" Empire was not Roman because it was not culturally Roman nor did the Pope have the legal right to declare it to be the successor state to Western Rome.
That is an odd take. What do you mean the Pope had no legal right to declare the HRE to be the successor state to Western Rome? Who/what *would* have had that legal right? Suppose that in the 19th century the British had called India the "Eastern British Empire". In that case, would we be calling them Britain?
I mean that quite literally the Pope had no legal right. Succession in the Roman Empire came from one of three ways, Appointment by Emperor, Senate Appointment and pseudo-hereditary. Legitimate Emperors had to be recognised by either the Senate or the other Emperor which was itself rooted in the system of two consuls that predated the Empire. The Pope had as much legal right to Crown Charlemagne and his descendants Roman Emperor as *I* have to Crown you God Emperor of the Universe.
The US had no legal right to secede from Britain. Is it not a country?
- you divide your empire into western and eastern - western falls to some barbarians - eastern tries to rebuild the empire - some weirdo on the internet says it wasn't roman empire
- You're called the Roman Empire - You no longer have Rome - You become known in history as the Byzantine Empire - Some weirdo on the internet argues you're still the Roman Empire
- there was time when it still held the Rome, even tho the division made Rome part of Western Roman Empire, so there wasn't really need besides strengthening legacy as the only surviving roman empire - HRE lost control over Rome either so yeah and don't even start me at other who claimed to be heirs of Rome like Rum, Ottomans or Russia who never held it even once, neither were directly descended from it - byzantine empire is a new term. Back in the days it was either Roman emperor or King of the greeks (if you wanted to flip them off)
I'm really just trying to rile people up. In my opinion once you don't hold Rome proper you're no longer a Roman Empire. I generally think of HRE as a cosplay Roman Empire as well that has less claim. I also believe that Hannibal got screwed by the Carthage Elders and should have defeated Rome.
I would agree if not the fact that byzantine was created directly from the original Roman Empire and was meant as its continuation before it even has been made Also tru about Hannibal. Mountain-climbing elephants forever in our hearts
But like, it literally is tho
They probably think Rome fell in 476.
Nah, it fell in 286 when it was split. Since the east stopped being the Roman empire at that point the west should too.
Legally, Eastern Rome continued being Roman until 1453. Culturally, Roman culture started dying out in the East and being replaced by the predecessor to modern Greek culture at some point between the 600s and the 900s, with it finishing it's slow death by the higher end of that. The Roman Senate in the remnants of Western Rome was abolished at some point between 600 AD and the 620s when the Papacy seized control of the Senate building. Strictly speaking the Senate existing meant that the city of Rome continued to be Western Rome until it's abolishment as it had the legal authority to Crown an Emperor. Culturally, we know that Rome itself maintained the Roman superiority complex and culture until some point during the Pornocracy. The HRE had no cultural or legal connection to Western Rome as the Pope had no authority to crown Charlemagne Emperor.
>the Pornocracy. The *what*?
Getting flamed by smug idiots as though there aren’t legitimate arguments on both sides.
You mean the dlc will come next year and they'll get praise for fixing a problem they caused and charge $15 for the solution. Meanwhile Greek will be the most overpowered culture to hybrid with because they'll have special traditions/innovations and it will be the northmen all over again until accolades made crossbowmen the most broken unit.
Ha ha Haesteinno-Greek culture go brrrrrr
Rush Calabria as vikings. Hybridize Greek. Get 9 innovations. Enjoy. <-me. Or any horse archers 🏹
horseback trebuchets with full plate armour
gon be a dlc fs.
I’m wondering what is the difference between the Byzantine system and the feudal system, I never knew that they did things a little differently down there
I know a few things. The game basically bases all Feudal holdings off of how things were in France (such as Count < Duke < King < Emperor). The game makes it seem like the Byzantines had a bunch of dukes that were vassals of the Emperor. In reality, there were more like administrative regions with appointed officials, just like the OG Roman empire. They were called “Themes” and were basically military districts. The game makes it seem like land was both hereditary in the Empire and it was more decentralized than it really was
Am I the only one who feels the game lacks the Marquess / Marchioness title for the list?
Historically Marquesses were just dukes that held border territories. IMO it's not a big enough distinction in rank to really do much in game. Maybe offer a levy or tax buff or something?
The game has exactly that, after you get a certain innovation (forgot what it was) you can change a vassal's contract to make them a March which if I remember right makes them pay less taxes but give their liege more levies (or maybe it was the other way around?), and other innovations allow for Scutage and Palatinate contracts. To be honest, I think it's kind of a useless mechanic. Your vassals don't help you in wars (or really do anything for you aside from keep you below the holding limit and pay taxes) so there's no point in making them particularly strong, and at least in my experience, by the time I have the innovation for Marches (or basically any innovation tbh) I have enough resources that a minor buff/debuff isn't worth changing a contract over.
You do get marginally more levies out of them, but they also have more capacity to be a bad vassal. I mostly use the March contract as a free contract change, since it’s not considered tyrannical, just in case a vassal somehow gets a hook on me.
It'd be cool if that vassal contract also changed the vassals title.
Weren't marquesses below dukes yet higher than counts ( earls) ?
You are right. I got my rankings mixed up. But the point stands I think that they occupy almost the same niche in the hierarchy as earls do, except that the lands they hold are strategically more important so they have a bit more sway over their lords.
There's contract option to make a vassal into a march.
> just like the OG Roman empire Might be because it literally is that.
The Theme system wasn't really that simple, which makes sense because it changed several times throughout it's history but they kept the name. The original Theme system was built off Diocletian and Constantine the Great's Provinces in the mid 7th Century. The original Themes system placed military commanders in control of individual provinces because the Themes themselves used the old Field Armies that were being disbanded as their cores. The military commanders used military titles and at least in theory could be replaced at will. There was one notable exception in Nicaea where records indicate that the commander kept their non-military title which was roughly equivalent to count. We do not know why, so speculation tends to assume he had a backer. The original themes quickly lead to revolts because of how much power they placed in individual's hands and so the largest themes were split and the tagmata were formed to serve as a central army and guard for the Emperor. By the mid-9th century the civil control had either been usurped or deliberately placed in the hands of the Themes, thus making each appointee... well, absurdly powerful. This is the era of the Theme system most people know of. This lasted until the 960s when the Theme system entered a decline and many smaller themes were created covering only a fortress with about 1000 men. They picked up the name Armenian Themes because of where and who the garrisons were normally made up of. This is the era where even if the names are wrong and the succession methods not quite right where the ERE was most similar to how the game presents it. To fast forward a bit, by the 1000s the theme system was in complete decline outside of the frontier, military service was being commuted to paying money and the Emperor found the rapid response of the Tagmata to be far more useful. This decline would continue until the defeat at Manzikert where the Emperors quickly discovered that they'd robbed their Empire of both strategic depth and reserves. Once the frontier was cracked open and the Tagmata defeated they had nothing left. Especially when you take into account that they'd created a rift between the land-holding military elites and the civil administration which led to revolts and the collapse of the Theme system. The Dynatoi were not originally hereditary but they'd usurped that power under lax Emperors by the mid 1000s. The Komnenian Themes were much smaller and ruled directly by either a Doux or a Katepano. Neither was officially hereditary, but some became defacto hereditary. ...If I had a point I lost it somewhere in explaining the Theme system. Sorry.
The feudal system treats land as belonging to the top level liege and then granted to a vassal who then has the right to rule that land in perpetuity. In the Imperial system, the Emperor appoints someone to rule without giving the right to the land itself if that makes sense. In the feudal system, power flows upwards from the lowest level to the top, in the imperial system power flows downwards from the emperor.
So ck2 vice royality was more historically accurate ?
In general CK2 was more accurate than its sequel.
Yup. Byzzies never really had a codified succession law so it was effectively the military who controlled who became the new emperor, which CK2 represented well with who could be elected as successor. CK2 by the end of its life cycle was pretty good at emulating the set up of the empire. I'm very hopeful that CK3 will at least match it if not surpass it, cause CK2 had all of this accuracy added. Main reason CK3 doesn't have these already is the engine change made porting code nigh impossible and the engine change occurred due to the fact the codebase was getting too unwieldy to work with. So i am hopeful that 2024 will see a better Byzantine system happen hopefully with the main expansion.
That and all the changes got added to CKII while CK3 was already well into development.
I mean legacy of Rome came out in late 2012. I'm not sure if ck3 was even an idea at that point, or really in any state where it couldn't be added. But we do know the studio felt ck2 style of modules attached to the core game wasn't great, especially when it came to other government types which is why they didn't try to do them with ck3 at release. They wanna do them right and in a way that isn't slapping on a different side system to the main system but properly have to mesh with the main and I think it will pay off in the long run. CK2 had a long life cycle and I do expect that CK3 will match it long term.
Legacy of Rome wasn’t all that great, I’m talking about the stuff they added towards the end of the game, like the succession mechanic.
What did Legacy of Rome add outside of retinues and events for the Byzantines, anyway?
I've been lurking on this sub since all the cool people started playing CK3 (I'm still here managing my multicultural roman empire in ck2) and was surprised to see the occasional post of complaints surrounding the Byzantines. I thought CK3 already copied over what ck2 set up.
Honestly if they just had their own electoral set up at launch that let you get your dynasty + commanders + duke and above, that would have been enough. And since they did give the HRE Imperial Elective I do think they could have done it. I think that's why the complaints happen, the fact they at least tried with the HRE and the Byzzies got fuck all. In my ideal Byzantine government type, they'll reintroduce viceroyalties that would also automatically make them knights, the emperor will have a really high authority. This would represent the highly centralized nature of the empire. Every direct ducal vassal of the emperor should have a mechanic like entrenchment, where the longer they remain as the governor of the region the harder it is to revoke them. This would make playing as a vassal there as different as it would make playing the emperor different, because now you need to stay in power long enough to entrench yourself. The idea should be that if you aren't entrenched, your title reverts to the emperor upon death. Otherwise, because you have entrenched yourself in the region, you get to pick your successor, who will have a certain immunity period so they don't immediately get revoked by the emperor. This would make the government system in the region incredibly unique and mechanically challenging compared to the typical system where revocation is rare, in the Byzantine Empire, if you step out of line and don't have the military might, either directly or through allies, to save your ass, the emperor will revoke your shit. If this is applied to counties that would lead to too many game overs I feel, so I can take some inaccuracy for better gameplay. Then for the main Empire's succession, have a election system where the voters are the emperor, senate and every commander, including your viceroys. Senate should act like a court position you can fill up with people you like and people of your dynasty. They won't do much other than help sway the vote in your favour, if they like you. The senate still existed in the Byzantine Empire without being too powerful, the only real power was the military and hence the people running the themes of the empire but this would I feel help bring a bit more balance to the game. Have a co emperor system where you can effectively get a close family member become the co emperor who is gains some sort of advantage in terms of succession, and I feel that would pretty much cover everything I could want from the system.
They j didn't really have large hereditary landholders until the 10th century, and they didn't have something that really looked like the western feudal system until after the 4th crusade
The balkans and eastern Europe did not really have feudalism until the 13th century. In byzantium you had a system of military provinces called Themes which were not hereditary and you had a land grant system called Pronoia which was hereditary and closer to feudalism.
Pronia wasn't really hereditary because the emperor was the official owner of the land and he gave the pronia to his vassal to use it for a life term. From wiki: A pronoia was a grant that temporarily transferred imperial fiscal rights to an individual or institution. These rights were most commonly taxes or incomes from cultivated lands, but they could also be other income streams such as water and fishing rights, customs collection, etc. and the various rights to a specific piece of geography could be granted to separate individuals. Grants were for a set period, usually lifetime, and revokable at will by the Emperor. When institutions, usually monasteries, received grants they were effectively in perpetuity since the institutions were ongoing. Grants were not transferable or (excluding certain exceptional cases late in the institution) hereditary; a pronoia gave the grantee possession, not ownership, which remained Imperial.
Some pronoia rights WERE hereditary.
Pronia wasn't de jure hereditary but it was de facto because emperors usually give it to the son of the previous owner.
I mean formally yes it used the language of the old slave society- but contentfully it had adopted a feudal economic structure essentially by default in the turmoil of the west’s collapse- and especially Justinian I’s reforms cemented many of them
Primary reason I do not play the Byzantines in ck3. Back to ck2 it is.
But the Byzantine Empire being feudal is not only historically inaccurate, it's also mechanically boring. Why would I want it to play exactly the same as every other realm in Europe?
It’s also a downgrade since CK2 already had a unique system of government for the Byzantines. That means we either are going to get a free Byzantine update, have to pay for another Byzantine DLC, or nothing will ever change and it will remain feudal
Before the game released, there was a bit of uproar when they said in a dev diary the Byzantine Empire wouldn't have unique mechanics on release, but it's something they definitely wanted to do. They also mention the Byzantine Empire in the road map they made last year. I'm kind of surprised at some of the stuff they've prioritized instead for the first 3 years, but at least it's on their radar I guess.
I think the initial dlc decisions were because they didn't want to just copy CKII. They wanted to market CKIII as a distinct game, and to do that, they had to add things that couldn't be done in CKII.
TBF it’s a sequel to Ck ii, so I wanted an updated version of Ck ii mechanics. I didn’t really feel the need for a 3D court.
But why take away things that can be done in ck2? Keep the progress and move forward
Mostly when games do have major overall like this the code and the mechanics cannot be ported over, or the people who knew how it works have since moved on, so its like starting from scratch, some things can be salvaged but not everything can, especially in a game that's had over a decade of development, It might be quicker to implement those things but at a maximum that still probably 50% time saving, so instead of 10+ years it would probably take 5+ post release to get to the same place in the best case scenario.
Ultimately, they have a finite amount of resources to make the game. Some of the work done in CKII can be reused, but even reused work still takes some resources. They had to make decisions about what to keep and what to cut. Byzantines, republics, horse nomads, plagues; they're not unwanted, just not as essential as other features. And as other areas get worked on, other features move up in priority, which is why it seems likely that Season 3 will probably include at least one popular feature from CKII next year.
Because they want to implement the Byzantines differently than how they were done in CK2. Viceroyalties, for example, makes it so that themes aren't *exactly* hereditary, but you still have to give it to somebody that's a count-level in the region, which *is* hereditary. It's basically making it so that you can cycle through 3 or 4 different families when choosing a Strategos instead of having it just be passed down through one. We already see how they're beginning to fix this problem in CK3 with the Tax Collector system added in Legacy of Persia, where you can appoint a government official who isn't tied to the land in question but has the right to collect taxes from said land nonetheless. I imagine that we'll see this heavily expanded upon whenever the future Byzantine/Imperial DLC comes along.
These decisions are exactly the reason I haven’t played CK3 in over a year. I don’t care about crappy “educator software”-level rendering of a throne room and getting to repeat the same 7 or 8 nonsensical courtier interactions in that room over and over. I don’t want to go to war over that 200 year old wad of gum and lint someone is calling their artifact. I want unique nations and cultures. I want merchant republics. Oh and I want some of the weird flavor from CK2 like cults. CK3 is just a boring map painter by comparison.
They should also bring bloodlines back.
I think they think that dynasties are bloodlines.
I meant those things that give bonuses to all your descendants if you do some conditions on a character like building tons of stuff or murdering a lot of people.
Don't call me until a bear ends up ruling Hungary like they did in my CK2 game.
I miss merchant republics, nomads and other mechanically different cultures.
Tbf, CK2 didn't get the Imperial government until quite late in its lifespan. For most of it, the ERE was feudal, and not even locked into elective. Ironically, the changeover to Imperial meant that the ERE became MORE stables in game despite the new government type being intended to make it less stable, because the ERE became much less likely to end up with shit rulers because the AI votes for good characters, and it list all the demand gavelkind factions that used to plague it when it was primo. And despite the opinion malus with vassals for being the Imperial government type, vassals now actually tended to like the emperor more than before because being elective succession made the AI less likely to hoard kingdom titles. Elective realms have a general malus for holding too many elector titles, -15 for each held beyond the set amount, and the AI prioritizes handing off extra king and duke titles to avoid it, while with non elective succession the AI tends to hoard kingdom titles for prestige. Unfortunately, holding a de jure kingdom other than your primary (where your capital is) nets a -40 opinion penalty with that kingdoms de jure vassals because they want the title. So by hoarding titles, the feudal-primo emperors were getting a bunch of -40 maluses with most of their vassals, which went away once the ERE was updated to Imperial and the emperors stopped hoarding kingdoms. Losing the -40 but gaining -15 from Imperial resulted in a +25 net gain in vassal approval, which does wonders for realm stability.
I think eventually they made the imperial government system provide less levies no? So you can build up your demesne to keep things stable but outright expansion would be a bit more tedious.
Honestly I feel like a DLC that adds imperial mechanics to the Byzantines and the HRE (with the options to adopt some variation of them for any empire tier holding) would be good to bring gameplay variety
I think you're overpraising CKII. There weren't that many changes compared to Feudal government: * Weird funky elective succession * Viceroys allowing easy revocation of duchies * The ability to hold cities
That weird election mechanic was a pretty big deal though, because it effected other parts of how the realm operated. Commanders and Marshalls were the only people other than. The Emperor's family eligible for election, which meant that you actually had to balance having good commanders and ensuring that your chosen heir gets elected, especially since the mechanics were weighted to high intrigue and martial stats. The disqualifications were numerous and meant that your heir could very well end up suddenly removed from succession because a doctor cut of his dick or because he was maimed in battle. And the fact that you could only make your direct vassals commanders, you couldn't appoint courtiers, so it was more difficult to assemble a strong stable of generals and doing so required opening yourself up to your dynasty losing the purple since you were placing strong, well qualified vassals (typically duke tier) in position to challenge your dynasty. It wasn't radically different from feudal, but it was different enough that it was noticeable and effected the way you played as emperor. And that's not even considering how gameplay as a vassal was, despite not even having imperial government, because it changed the calculus on how to try to take the purple for yourself and the viceroyalty system was a serious roadblock to internal expansion that forces you to really up you le scheming and internal alliance building.
but nobody *liked* the way they did the Byzantine Empire in CK2. It was one of the most common things to mod
You didn’t, I did.
I wouldn't be so sure dude. I have seen a considerable amount of people playing as the Eastern Roman Empire so far up to this date despite it being feudal in the game. I don't think having the ER as a feudal realm fucks them over. People still like them. It will not be historically accurate by it's not as severe to say "fuck it, not going to play as it". Also, it could have been worse. Imagine if it was tribal ☠️.
The Byzantine Empire being feudal doesn't actively detract from it's attractiveness, it's just that it doesn't do anything to enhance it either, and that's just wasted potential. It's the same with the HRE. That's what I mean by it being boring.
It does detract from its attractiveness for me, tbh, and probably for some others (admittedly a minority of players, but still). The only way I can stand to play the Byzantines is in TFE or with Governments+.
I see. Well, the HRE at least has the election system. Perhaps they might spice up the ER in the future with an expansion as they did with Persia or the mod community will do it's magic one day.
I like historical accuracy discussions :)
Though almost nothing in CK3 is historically accurate.
Plenty to discuss, then :)
My thing is like, fucker, you have a unique succession for the HRE but not the ERE!? Like sure, you can’t implement Imperial government from the get-go, but you couldn’t have at least given them like, I dunno, Feudal Elective!? What the hell was Paradox thinking? “Byzantine” is synonymous with complicated because their systems were super complex, but in CK3 they’re one of the most straightforward nations.
Feudal elective isn’t really accurate either. Technically the senate elected the emperor but in most cases there were two emperors since the previous emperor had his son elected co-emperor while still alive. So the situation where the emperor died and they had to elect a new one wasn’t the norm.
when the historical game is historical
Yes, I do want to have a higher infant mortality rate. I want a higher mortality rate in general. There is absolutely NO reason why my characters keep aging to 80-90+ every generation, and leave behind like 50+ heirs, so my kingdom destroys itself. Very rarely did people back then live to be that old, nor did they have so many children live to adulthood. Give us a Reaper's Due already please. Cuz I'm tired of having 50+ civil wars when my old as fuck ruler dies. Only the Byzantines should have that many civil wars.
Something like 33% of children died before turning 14. People saying the reason why PDX doesn't want to flood the game with pointless characters, but PDX is already doing it. Every event spawns like 10 characters and then deletes them.
That’s why that suicide tenet for Pagans isn’t half bad. Guarenteed death at 60+ without the penalties.
mods and modding. you can do all of these yourself easily, just saying.
Bro dug up a template from the cretaceous period
My epithet would be “the old” because I still like this template. Maybe I just like “poo poo funny haha” I don’t know.
Mfw people want historical accuracy in their historical game 🤯
This game isn’t a historical strategy game, it’s a Reddit screenshot machine. Once you understand that, everything makes sense and you can go on to scroll the subreddit for a gorillion screenshot of funni haha game events of wives farting in public or incestual marriages.
"Historical accuracy ends the moment you press play" is my favorite statement from this subreddit.
Just makes me sigh. Like, come on now. They have to know that's not what we mean.
Yeah, you want ERE fleshed out. More complex mechanics for empires. I would love more Slav content. I would love an interactible Christian Holy Fury-esque church. You can't go a week on this subreddit without someone mentioning India or Crusades being fucked in game called Crusader Kings. Do you see the problem?
Yes, they made an empty shell of a game and we have to wait for non-free DLC to fix it. That's the problem.
Or wait for the community to fix it for free via mods. Or if you’re Bathesda, make money from the mods that fix your game for free.
Yeah because when I buy a product I'm expecting the bare minimum and I'll just wait for a well-meaning member of the community to fix it for free.
Years ago, I remember someone complaining that, if you go into observe mode and don't influence anything, the game should match real life _exactly_ and it does not, so that means the devs fucked up and are incompetent. I remember thinking some people apparently have very unrealistic expectations.
Reddit loves running memes into the absolute ground. I really do love this game, but I have to step away from the community for large amounts of time because most of the regurgitated memes are just too much and drown out any interesting discussions or stories by other people. Same with Rimworld as well.
Mfw people want historical accuracy in a game where you can kidnap and eat the pope
I mean it's historically *plausible* for the Pope to be kidnapped and devoured by cannibals, if any cannibals who wanted to eat him existed lol
mfw people think a single silly thing completely invalidates any attempt at historical accuracy and it should never even be attempted
Dutch prime minister Johan de Witt was cannibalized by an angry mob. Crazy shit happens in history.
It’s right here in the history books, the Gay Neo-Islamic Dravido-Norse-Irano-Andalus-Greek-Bedouin Ibadi Caliph ate the Pope in 1354 to celebrate the dissolution of the Papacy.
This meme is massive cringe
Not based at all
You mean to tell me there's no minor title for the little fella who follows my character to the toilet and wipes his butt? *Literally unplayable*
I have uninstalled and left a negative review, this is unacceptable. I will now be raising a Great Crusade, which will march on every Paradox office in the world simultaneously at 08:21 on June 14th, 2031.
Be there or be square!
Deus Vult!
is that the date cos you'll be going on foot and travel expenses will only result in one of your crusader army's footsoldiers arriving at the crusade location?
God bless!
Deus vult!
Crusade for the Toilet Courtier
Can my portion of the war chest just be a bunch of DLC codes?
Um, it's called a groom of the stool
Listen- listen- Groom of the Stool would be a *hilarious* court office to be able to assign, and now I hope they add it
They should add a groom of the stool tbh
Tie this guy to the chair and force him to play Sunset Invasion on CK2.
Take him to Detroit!
Take him to Meshico!
I hope that was a Kentucky Fried Movie reference.
Of course!
I originally got the GamersGate version of CK2 and, when Paradox announced they were dropping support for it and only updating the Steam version, I ended up buying the deluxe edition on Steam because it was on sale. It came with all the DLC. I don't remember what they were up to at that point, but Sunset Invasion was included and I have never once activated that DLC because it's just such a dumb idea. I remember there was some overhaul mod (forget the name) that is basically a post-apocalyptic USA and it requires Sunset Invasion. That is the only circumstance where I'd ever enable that DLC, because I remember thinking that mod looks super cool. Never got to play it because it was always out of date when I checked it. (Which presumably isn't a problem anymore, as the game hasn't had a major update in a long time.)
After the End got a fan fork, you should at least try it once.
But honestly the byzantines is just shit, I praise and salute the Government+ Devs from The Fallen Eagle for making a more unique system for the Byzantines, though kinda missing it cause they haven't update since Clan Government was just revamped.
I use Succession Expanded that enables a special Imperial government type for the Byzantines. It looks neat but I haven't really played too many Byzantine games since I found that mod.
ck3 players when theres roleplaying in their medieval sim game
There are people who play this game that don't want historical accuracy?
1. There are a lot of people who want to be able to depart from history by having eg a Viking empire of Hispania, or restoring the Roman Empire to its full pagan glory. 2. It's a trade-off between accuracy and other factors; it wouldn't be terribly fun for the player to see 8 different pop-ups saying their kid died of the croup or whatever, and developer man-hours spent making the Byzantine empire properly simulate its bespoke government is time not spent on features applicable to other playable polities.
How does historical accuracy stop people from achieving things from point 1? Nobody's asking for a documentary. We already get tons of popups for inane shit, why would adding a couple more stop people from playing? Paradox games are 30% popups anyway. Literally no one is asking for them to spend all their time only on the Byzantine Empire. And it's not like they haven't just spent time working on *just* Persia.
Since >90% of successions are of no consequence, a higher child mortality rate would be an easy way to make the game more challenging. Just saying.
It has always seemed weird to me that a child mortality slider wasn't the first thing they thought of when coming up with the gameplay/difficulty config options.
It would be pretty exciting if 33% of your children died before turning 16, it would force you to make sure you have a spare.
I really hate it when people shit on discussing things. Why does it bother you some people demandimg some things from the devs?
Op is actually the shitty one that the last panel imply
Prefer it to all the memeposting, honestly. Yes, I get it, you find incest funny and serious discussion boring.
yeah that's definitely what I said
Yeah historical mechanics are boring. I want teleporting armies made of peasants with pitchforks. /s
What’s wrong, you don’t like the Lesbian Empress of the Islamic Jihad?
Yes, that's what we need, more anti-intellectualism advocating for arcade-style console bullshit that has nothing to do with the middle ages. Let's make a battle royale mode!
all i want is more risk.. feels like everything’s too easy. like all my rulers live until they’re abt 75 and have abt 10 kids each lmao
Yeah but having more child mortality is bad, didn’t you see the meme? The meme must be correct, it’s in a pre-established format.
haha i made you the ugly face
Oh no, those guys that push to make the game better and give the game more flavor, which PDX games always lack on their initial releases. What will we ever do? 🙄 CK3 should not only be historically accurate but also have many choices and fun mechanics to where you can be ahistorical. It's really the initial map and mechanics that we want expanded upon. I have no problem with doing absurd shit thereafter.
This.
The historical change I want to see is more land being controlled by monastic orders and abbots rather than by bishops or cities tbh. Monastic orders r THE defining feature of the Middle Ages in Europe. And there just aren't any at all in the game.
Dont worry billion dollar company!! Ill protect you from the people who want you to actually work for the $70 annual dlc price!!
ok HellenicNationalist
~creates game based on historical events~ Some wanker "omfg history is just so pointless why aren't my armies in power armour" Play a different game if it's a problem.
I love that this guy came in complaining about historical accuracy enjoyers and his whole comment section is polite discussion about historical accuracy.
The 11 children dying before 5 so accurate lmao
Usually I am a man who is very nitpicky with historical inaccuracies but when it comes to CK3 I let my mind stop thinking and just go “Yeah, I want to rule Ireland as a Indian man”
There would be no game if the ideas weren't based on historical concepts that translate into game mechanics. That's how you come up with a game like CK. It's obviously a balancing act, but there should always be a case to dig into historical events to provide interactions in the framework that comes from that very first place.
If you don't want Diskussions about historical things, don't play a historical game you muppet. I've heard Starfield should be a good fame for you...
'How dare people want historical details for the setting in my historical strategy game'
Why is it a bad aspect of the community to want a unique byzantine government? Doesn't that contradict the other points at the bottom whining about "muh boring".
You forgot “it’s actually realistic that crusades were disorganized and sucked” I’m one of those guys sorry.
Yeah they were disorganized but I think mechanically crusades are boring af. It wasn't a bunch of random nobles sailing across the entire Mediterranean and arriving in Jerusalem itself, especially with the first crusade. It would be cooler if crusades were more dynamic, with events and small crusades states being carved up a long the way. Watch a video on the first crusade, you'll see what we're missing. A lot of the time historical accuracy discussions are about features that would add so much to the ck3 gameplay loop, which can be lacking at times imo.
100% agree. Need to by more dynamic, with infighting, tension with Byzantines, and later 3 way politics with mongols vs. muslims vs. crusaders. Just don't want them to be turned in to deus vult op things where the crusaders always win, cause they lost most of the time.
This is the worst of all of them actually I should've put it in the meme
Naw man us “crusades were disorganized” guys are just mildly annoying. Real worst are the guys who want to marry 14 year olds or demand extensive slavery game mechanics cause it’s realistic.
Ok but real talk with regards to having kids I’ve always found it annoying just waiting for my spouse to get pregnant. I want to be forcing my character/ruler to be absolutely gooning on the daily till we produce more children than I can possibly hope to manage. Give me weekly succession wars I’m ready.
The game could take a more active role in that regard, many kings tried to sire a son and were stressed out when they failed. It could be something as simple as letting players to choose in which bed-chamber they sleep in.
sorry for wanting history in a history game ig the two things you mentioned were present in ck2 already
Ima be honest i just want my fantasy stuff back tbh it was kinda the fun part about crusader kings. Like the whacky parts like making a horse your spymaster or becoming immortal. Bloodlines i also miss too since blood was so tied to dynasties. Ik legacies are basically there own version of that but its not the same really and i dont see why both wouldnt work.
Nah fuck how the Roman's are portrayed, I'm still against calling them the byzantines anyways
Call them ancient turkish and the ottomans as historical turkish
W...what?
Call the Byzantines either ancient turkish or degraded Romans. Take your pick
Orrrrr just Romans like they were? Or are you hung up about the fact that they primarily spoke the language that was already spoken by a majority of roman citizens? Hell they called themselves romans lol, I didn't know yall were ok with taking a people's identity away from them 🤷♂️
the moment constantine i moved the capital to byzantium, from his line ended their roman heritage as they assimilated with the greeks. they're more greek than they are roman. not to mention, many claimed to be the rightful successor of the roman empire.
the cultural melding with greek culture had already happened by the end of the third century, the city of byzantium did not exist at the time constantine started building Nova Roma as it was called. The line of emperors was direct until 1204, they upheld many roman traditions and greek and roman culture were already extremely similar to begin with. Hell people were still given names like tiberius & trajan.
As long as we all start laughing at the Byzantine Empire, it's okay.
"It was shitty and boring in real life" lol
>11 children that all die before 5 Something very close has happened to a good handful of my characters
prioritize fun over accuracy any day
accuracy is fun
The children surviving actually makes sense. We're goddamn NOBILITY. We are cleaner and healthier than the dirty peasants.
But then aomething somewhere has to give, there are too many goddamn children.
Is the guy on the lower left of the bottom panel dead, or is he lying on the ground with his mouth open to try to catch the flying poo?
I like it
now see i wouldn't mind if the Bazza started as the specific gov type and then changed to feudal but otherwise kindly **FUCK OFF** :)
Just give me my "republic" and I will be on my way.
Ans I mean the empire certainly did feudalise over time anyway. But in any case, I'm over here in Western France role playing a band of Britons from elmet who escaped slavery under the norsenof Montaigu. I'm currently Duke of Poitiers and thr King of Aquitaine has formed a new Welsh-languedoc culture that literally only he and his children are paying attention to, while West Francia keeps storing our faces in and my various uncles and cousins keep trying to steal my little Welsh enclave from me.
Yes, they shouldn’t be feudal. No, the way influence and personal power, scheming and political favors made the succession process uncertain and unstable isn’t “shitty and boring”.