Byzantium

[Medicine Man]

Again, just my opinion, but I don't think that cultures are really the problem, Sheridan. I also don't think that the Byzantium is weak either -- maybe not even *relatively* weak. It's all debatable really. Other than maybe Genoa, none of the western powers have a reason to push into Byzantine core territories. Hungary and the Empire may fight over the Balkans, but Hungary doesn't have greek culture and probably doesn't want to touch too many orthodox provinces either. For that matter, most of Hungary's core provinces are *far* better than greece anyhow. At any rate, even without the proper cultures, Hungary is probably better off invading Italy or Poland (religion, tax value, etc.).

What I'm doing is comparing the Byzantium's various strategic options to one-another. The Empire is in kind of a poor position for colonizing and isn't in a good tech group for doing naval research. The (Byz) Empire doesn't have the overland expansion options that the Ottoman Empire does either, due to culture/religion penalties. The most reliable, consistant grand strategy would be (IMO) to claim the turkish culture and milk as much as possible out of existing core provinces -- followed by focussed research and industrialization.

Why I bring this up with Byakhiam is that I would like to see all of the various Byzantium dynasties having a strategic niche -- particularly considering that AI Krete can screw the BYZ player out of his Paleologoi dynasty 12% of the time anyhow. Byak has set up a nation that could be played using a number of strategies and I'd like to emphasize that fact.

My suggestion about Anatolia is (admittedly) secondary. I think that the Empire should be a bit stronger at the start and I believe that there is at least some marginal justification for it. I'll have to wait and see what the powers-that-be think.

[Byakhiam]

Well, I admit that the turkish giving choice is definetly better than the other option. But I didn't figure out anything better than giving several average-good admirals in exchange for choosing otherwise. Also the Turmoil is much worse than anything coming up from the Kantakouzenoi options. Being practically incapacitated for 15 years is bad. But I am of course open to suggestions how the Dauid option could be improved. Besides, there ain't so many turks in Aberration as is in Vanilla.

About Anatolia, well nag on AD, he made the borders.

I think Byzantium could be moved to latin group, perhaps at 1419 or at some event choice, as that would give it some edge over it's neighbours, Ukraine & Hungary.

Also, I don't think Byzantium should be compared to Ottoman Empire, because even if they live on same spot, orthodox religion, lack of cultures and lack of CBs mean that Byz won't be a far fetching empire like OE. But I think that's one of the points in Aberration, instead of several vanilla major level countries, we'll have many vanilla medium level countries.

[TheArchduke]

Anatolia to Byzantium? Hmm, ok.

[Nikolai II]

Originally Posted by Byakhiam

I think Byzantium could be moved to latin group, perhaps at 1419 or at some event choice, as that would give it some edge over it's neighbours, Ukraine & Hungary.

The genoan route? It sounds like a passable option to getting turkish culture IMO?

[Medicine Man]

Originally Posted by Byakhiam

Also, I don't think Byzantium should be compared to Ottoman Empire, because even if they live on same spot, orthodox religion, lack of cultures and lack of CBs mean that Byz won't be a far fetching empire like OE. But I think that's one of the points in Aberration, instead of several vanilla major level countries, we'll have many vanilla medium level countries.

I only compare the OE and the BE on a geographic basis, and I believe I come to most of the same conclusions you do, Byakhiam. For many reasons, the Byzantium cannot gorge itself on the ROTW the same way the OE does in the regular game. I'm completely fine with that -- honestly.

But all medium-sized nations need some valid means of increasing their power, lest they eventually end up second-fiddle to the countries that are very well set up for colonization. Thankfully, the colonial game is looking a lot more balanced in Abe than in the GC.

About a latin tech Byzantium: If we would even give the Byzantium latin tech (and that is a big *if*), I would suggest that it happens when they support Ionnes in the Paleologoi power struggle 1516-20. What this means (if I'm reading the event chains), is that the human player has to choose between latin tech or turkish culture, which I think is a fair trade off.

Just another question to Byakhiam: Correct me if I'm wrong, but does choosing Paleologoi in 1463 (b) and then Ionnes in 1520~ carry with it the greatest risk of having the Genoese pinch the Athens CoT later (prior to Doukas)? If so, then this is definately where I would want the (hypothectical) latin techgroup change, just to make it appropriately painful and dangerous.

Some of the above changes would make either Paleologoi (sp) route equally attractive. The only problem then would be what to do if the human player (or CPU) chooses option (a) in 1463 and continues the Laskaris line? Maybe an early explorer or two (1500s) and some nice bonus events later on (there already are some good ones, I realize)?

EDIT: I think I should add -- as it stands now, the Byzantium leaders, events and (especially) monarchs are all excellent. It is all playable and viable; my hat is off to Byak. It is just out of sheer bloodymindedness that I keep piling things on my uber Byzantine wishlist. I acknowledge that we would probably be developing until the end of days if I had my way. Feel free to reign me in at any time.

Cheers.

[TheArchduke]

Zounds of dates missing in the event file, salvaged some on my own, but there must be something done..

[Byakhiam]

Doh, I missed you came back from holiday.

And I hate to admit, but when somebody keeps a holiday, I feel like keeping one too. I know that the versions of events sent to you are lacking as the whole thingy is somewhat lacking still, it's not yet ready.

If you mean by "no date" any completely empty events, those are placeholders I tend to leave at the end of "still-under-work" files for quick copy-pasting.

[arcorelli]

I only bump this thing because I am currently playing Byzantium in Aberration, and I really miss the kings. This thing of playing with vanilla kings in Aberration sounds bad.

I understand that there are some problems with the file, and that problems were identified but it involved too much work (or so I read in another thread). So, I volunteer to do some of the work (most of the work if needed), if someone could be so kind to explain to me what needs to be done.

That being said, Aberration rocks

[Byakhiam]

Well, it's simple really, take the Aberration monarch file, change all ids to begin with 4 instead of 3 and edit event file so that all references to monarchs of monarchs.byz have the correct ID.

[arcorelli]

Originally Posted by Byakhiam

Well, it's simple really, take the Aberration monarch file, change all ids to begin with 4 instead of 3 and edit event file so that all references to monarchs of monarchs.byz have the correct ID.

All right. I will start today. (I need only to change monarchs, not leaders I guess).

EDIT. I just noticed that in my Aberration, I didn't get any monarchs.byz file

(I got some files with byzantine civil war factions, that I changed -with the exception of the monarchs.u00 that uses Bulgarian range numbers). So, where I get that file?

[TheArchduke]

Every version before the July 9th should have it. Check for the older files. And thanks if you help us.

[arcorelli]

Originally Posted by TheArchduke

Every version before the July 9th should have it. Check for the older files. And thanks if you help us.

I don't have the older versions. I DL before, but I reformatted my HD a few weeks ago, and I did not make a backup of Abe -I said to myself, I will DL again So I need it, please somethign send me the monarchs

[TheArchduke]

Well, if Byakhiam doesn't find the time, maybe I add the monarchs again and just delete the ones making trouble..

By the way Byak has time ( checking Ck MP and such) he just don't devote it to us.

[Byakhiam]

Well, it's a question about finding the Will. Anyways, DL fixed Byzantium monarchs and events here.

[TheArchduke]

Thanks and in.

[Byakhiam]

Well, as Byzantium's options vary quite a lot according to the Dynasty choices, I was thinking on something like this:

1) Palaiologos who is friendly with turks, gives turkish culture
2) Palaiologos who is friendly with Genoa, as Genoa is a player state, some kind of cooperation with Genoa, perhaps against Sicily? (cores in Italy?) Would need to do with Genoa's maker to get it fit into both plans.
3) Palaiologos who is not friendly with Genoa, internal stability perhaps? Additional economic boost in form of manus or something?
4) Kantakouzenos, during the great Kantakouzenos (1546-1592) beneficial reforms and / or additional cores in nearby areas, perhaps removing them later if they are not successfully taken in some time limit

Also, I thought that before 1632, if Byzantium went for Palaiologoi, there should be an event to inherit Krete, if it's still independent.

Then during Michael Doukas (1647-1665) you would have many reforms and possibly some conflict events late in his time.

To make Boulgaros line option by some means viable, I'd say no Slavonic culture for Byzantium at start and then add Slavonic if Byzantium goes for Boulgaros line. Of course removing slavonic, if Boulgaroi are deposed in 1647.

Then after Michael Doukas:

1) Gidos, no future dynastic mess, great monarch Isaakios (1734-1776)
2) Doukas, little dynastic mess, great monarch Michael (1715-1753)
3) Monomachos, loads of dynastic mess, starts with great monarch, but tends to be poorer towards the end, moves to Gidos or Doukas at the end (1744)
3b) Saronites, short dynasty that is available in a early Monomachi choice, serves mostly as the way for Revolution

I thought a revival during a great monarch period for Gidos and Doukas, while Monomachos gives option to get Revolution (with it's benefits), but still gives option to fall back to Gidos if desired.

I'd like some opinions and confirmations on these before I'll start making them into events though.

[TheArchduke]

Originally Posted by Byakhiam

1) Palaiologos who is friendly with turks, gives turkish culture
2) Palaiologos who is friendly with Genoa, as Genoa is a player state, some kind of cooperation with Genoa, perhaps against Sicily? (cores in Italy?) Would need to do with Genoa's maker to get it fit into both plans.
3) Palaiologos who is not friendly with Genoa, internal stability perhaps? Additional economic boost in form of manus or something?
4) Kantakouzenos, during the great Kantakouzenos (1546-1592) beneficial reforms and / or additional cores in nearby areas, perhaps removing them later if they are not successfully taken in some time limit

Sounds balanced to me, where does Hungary fit in the picture, though?

Originally Posted by Byakhiam

Also, I thought that before 1632, if Byzantium went for Palaiologoi, there should be an event to inherit Krete, if it's still independent.

Sure, give Crete a SP option to say no, though, if possible.

Originally Posted by Byakhiam

Then during Michael Doukas (1647-1665) you would have many reforms and possibly some conflict events late in his time.

To make Boulgaros line option by some means viable, I'd say no Slavonic culture for Byzantium at start and then add Slavonic if Byzantium goes for Boulgaros line. Of course removing slavonic, if Boulgaroi are deposed in 1647.

No, slavonic is there to create valid conflict in the Balkan.

Originally Posted by Byakhiam

1) Gidos, no future dynastic mess, great monarch Isaakios (1734-1776)
2) Doukas, little dynastic mess, great monarch Michael (1715-1753)
3) Monomachos, loads of dynastic mess, starts with great monarch, but tends to be poorer towards the end, moves to Gidos or Doukas at the end (1744)
3b) Saronites, short dynasty that is available in a early Monomachi choice, serves mostly as the way for Revolution

Ehrm, hmm, well yes, sure.

No really sounds like a plan, but as I said, don't overdo it, we got other nations, too.

[Byakhiam]

Originally Posted by TheArchduke

Sounds balanced to me, where does Hungary fit in the picture, though?

Option 3 or 4 has the possibility to go against Hungary. They are the most open options at the moment.

Originally Posted by TheArchduke

Sure, give Crete a SP option to say no, though, if possible.

Well, I could make the Inheritance eventseries for Crete to start from Crete and if it's not AI there would be option to refuse. If Crete is AI, it won't get option to refuse (because that less than 10 percent chance for no inheritance due to AI choice is just needless headache for the player).

Originally Posted by TheArchduke

No, slavonic is there to create valid conflict in the Balkan.

Well, at least I tend to expand to my core areas when I play, culture or no and Balkans are already Byza's core area at start. I don't think that slavonic at start is necessary to create conflict in Balkans.

Originally Posted by TheArchduke

No really sounds like a plan, but as I said, don't overdo it, we got other nations, too.

Well, Byza really needs conflict events and reform events. At the moment it's not really getting any CBs anywhere really, while country like Sicily gets whole Aegean-Greece area as cores in just one conflict event.

I'd say those dynastic struggles and such are the part that were somewhat 'overdone', but as they are done, they are done. I mean, as the dynastic options are already there, it's just the work to link conflicts and reforms to them.

[TheArchduke]

1, ok.
2, ok.
3, ok.

4, I hope I didn't sound too harsh. It is great that you're polishing Byzanz especially non-dynastic events.
Do you think Sicily claims too easily? It is not like they have many cbs at start.

[Byakhiam]

Originally Posted by TheArchduke

4, I hope I didn't sound too harsh. It is great that you're polishing Byzanz especially non-dynastic events.
Do you think Sicily claims too easily? It is not like they have many cbs at start.

Well, it wasn't harsh, but I was just sort of "shocked" after I found that Sicily gets to practically double it's cores which are almost completely originally Byzantium territory in just one event.

Well, at least Byzantium will have tough time as it seems that all it's neighbours want to smash at it in their conflict events. I was (am?) kind of worried that Byzantium would end up as everyone's kicksack via conflict events.

Maybe you could link the "going for Greece" event with Byzantium's helping of Genoa, sort of "If they claim our land, we will claim theirs" sort. As Byzantium has many options, it is possible that Byzantium is even an enemy to Genoa.