|
PART NINE: Wolfe of the Steppes (1118-1126) Forum > Paradox Development Studio > Europa Universalis IV > EUIV: User Mods > Terra Totalis Omnium > 12th Century Bookmarks? Hi. First of all, let me just say I really appreciate the sheer scope and ambition of this project. 11 AD to 2011 AD is a lot of material to cover! And I'm sorry I made fun of your name, even though I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually mean anything in Latin. So I really, really don't blame you for getting a few things wrong. How could you not? Still, Byzantine history is a bit of a specialty of mine, and I want this mod to be the best it can be! So I thought I'd take a look at some of the bookmarks between 1118 and 1130 and give my two cents. First of all, I'm slightly dubious of the localization you've used for the BYZ tag. I mean, yeah, sure, you can draw a straight line from Augustus to Eirene II, but that line runs straight through Byzantion, you know? The Byzantines called themselves "Romans", sure, but they aren't the ones sitting around in 2014 playing video games. This era of imperial history is conventionally periodized as the Byzantine Empre, so for the sake of clarity for English-speaking audiences this mod should really follow the same convention. If nothing else, they're used to seeing that big purple blob in Anatlolia and Greece labelled "Byzantium" in vanilla Paradox games. At the very least, you could at least stick to English and not call it the "Basileia Rhōmaiōn". That's just weird. Let's start off in 1118, when Eirene II took the throne.  Anyway, this isn't a big deal, but I just wanted to point out that it's kind of a bummer that EU just abstracts regencies into regency councils, since the Dowager Empress Ingeborg Hvide is a pretty interesting historical character— a Danish noblewoman plucked from Scandinavian obscurity to become the wife of a Byzantine emperor— and then ruler of all the empire during her daughter Eirene II's minority! Pretty cool IMHO.  She let Eirene's aunt Konstantia (elder sister of Iouliana Konmene, who wrote the Alexiad-- you guys did read the Alexiad when you were researching this, right? She calls the Byzantines the "Roman Empire" a lot, you'd like it) out of jail, which signalled a crucial break from Meletios' heavy-handed handling of his vassals in favor of a more Alexian clemency.  Anyway, the regency lasted less than a year, so I guess it's not worth worrying about.   What's with the weird stats you gave Eirene, anyway? She wasn't exactly Alexios (of course, it probably doesn't help that our main source for her reign is the Anatolian Letters, written by a Saimid spy with an axe to grind, instead of say a loving paean written by her own daughter), but ADM 1 DIP 1 MIL 1 seems excessively harsh.  She also believed deeply in an Orthodox-motivated notion of self-improvement-- but I suppose I'm verging on "too granual for an EU4 mod to worry about modeling". Still, it bums me out to see Eirene get a bad rap like this.    By the end of her first year on the throne, she had already shown substantial improvement in the arts of statecraft. Maybe you just got confused about how EU4 ruler stats worked and statted her out as a child? Hm.  Now, this is a bit outside of my specialty, but since it happened in 1118 I'll mention it-- I'm not really sure about the King Possessed By Satan event chain you have firing in France after Louis VI comes to power. I'm not really sure why it was worth the effort, given that the Capets were deposed by the de Blois like, what, two years later?  Also, King Richard I of England was a Norman, but not a de Normandie, if you get me. Also, for some reason when I tried to load as him the King Possessed By Satan event chain fired for him, too.  Anyway, back to the Byzantines. It's important to note that Eirene II devoted a lot of time and effort to public works projects and improvement of the empire in general and Constantinople in particular. Maybe this could be represented by more buildings in the Thrace province starting with the 1118 bookmark? Just a suggestion!   You also have the Byzantines in a royal marriage with Kiev starting in 1120. Eirene did renew her father's alliance with Kiev by marrying off the Dowager Empress to a Kievian prince, but on observe games I've noticed that like half the time (when the save doesn't wind up corrupted) I've seen the Rurikoviches inherit Byzantium, which can't be right. Ingeborg wasn't even a Konmenos! Like, duh, we aren't talking Ptolemies here, this is a family tree that branches.  Anyway, in spite of what I suspect you mostly remember Eirene II, let's also remember that she continued the ongoing Komnenian project to encircle the Black Sea, launching a holy war against the Pecheneg rump state in 1122 to claim Moldau.  Granted, it was not a terribly challenging war. Maybe it was a bit harder in real life than in TTO, given that for some reason the Pechenegs still have like mil tech 1 in 1118. I guess it's hard to balance techspeeds across thousands of years without strange outcomes like that, huh?  Still, it led to the end of an independent Pecheneg state on the steppes-- a pretty big deal, I'd say.  Still, it wasn't the end of the Pecheneg title-- Khanum Tekçe converted to Orthodox Christianity from Tengri (note to TTO devs: the pre-Byzantine religion of the Pechenegs was Tengri, not "noreligion") and became a vassal of the empress. The various Orthodox Pechenegs who had inherited the lands of their Tengri brethren under Byzantine auspices-- the khans of the Pechenegs and the merchant princes of Belgorad in particular-- would remain a potent force in the northern empire for some time. Also, Tekçe's status as a vassal queen shouldn't be understated. I feel like the Pechenegs should keep their cores even after their tag vanishes after the 1122 bookmark-- wouldn't be cool if the Saimids could force the Byzantines to release Pechenegs or something?  For some reason you have an heir named "Isaakios Konmenos" spawn in 1122. This didn't ring a bell, so I did some researched and learned that Eirene did in fact have a son named Isaakios-- but he was a bastard and never acknowledged as an heir or even a proper member of the imperial house.  Anyway, I still think you're really selling short Eirene in the stats department. Even a hostile source like the Anatolian Letters acknowledges her substantial personal canny, fending off assassination attempts and lining the state's coffers with smart bets on chariot races. Did you know that Eirene III favored the Greens even though her grandfather literally raced for the Blues? Strange but true. Anyway, the money went straight to her building efforts. Did I mention that Thrace needs more buildings?   While we're at it, let's take a look at the Great Fire of 1124 event chain. You have the event fire (er, so to speak) in 1124 and have the Byzantines lose their Greek fire naval modifier. It's true that the fire led to the temporary loss of the Greek fire formula...   She very quickly set about reacquiring it though, targeting a pirate organization that appeared to have its own supply:      It was a triumph of Byzantine espionage and naval prowess, and I like to think that if it wasn't for what happened later on, this is the kind of thing we'd remember Eirene for. Certainly not the sort of stuff a 1/1/1 monarch would be doing, anyway. Did you know that Eirene was friends with Iouliana Konmene? It's too bad the Alexiad ended after the end of Alexios' last war against the Seljuks, since we could really do with a more sympathetic account of his granddaughter's reign.  I was glad to see that Eirene's daughter— named for her friend— was correctly listed as the heir from 1125 onwards in the history files. Since, unlike Isaakios, she, you know, was the heir and not a bastard fathered by some court rando.  There was a brief civil war in 1125 when Empress foiled yet another assassination attempt, this time catching a petty noble red-handed.   Given that the renegade Kephale didn't even have a whole province behind her, it's likely too minor to bother trying to represent in your mod. Still, I think that this slight destabilization of the empire helped explain some of what happened in 1126. Okay. Okay. No more putting it off. Let's talk about the Bulgarian uprising of 1126. Basically, what the gently caress? I mean, it happened, it was a huge deal, etc.— but the implementation of it here seems very... I don't know.   I mean, yes, the Bulgarians had a huge army, they were remarkably successful in motivating the local populace against their Byzantine overlords, etc. A 14,000 strong army in the 1100s was nothing to sneeze at! But the 100k troops you gave them might be a bit much? Especially with the 100% morale bonus they get "as a Bulgarian state". I think it's important to note that the war could have easily gone either way. The Byzantine army as a whole was without doubt stronger than the Bulgarians'.  The Bulgarians actually very cleverly baited the Byzantines into battle at Philippolis before they'd consolidated all their forces before bringing in a much larger force and overwhelming them.  Still, if Eirene hadn't had dropped dead of some random illness at the age of 24, she might have salvaged the situation.  And I'm not saying this to put down Bulgaria, all right? If anything, it's even more impressive that they beat the Byzantines without fielding an army of a hundred thousand Bulgarian supermen, right? Anybody? Speaking of Bulgarian supermen, how is Tsar Ioakim ADM 6/DIP 6/MIL 6? Just because he's an important historical figure doesn't change the fact that he was illiterate and wasn't really very good at anything besides soldiering.  Anyway, I'd keep commenting but after the war Bulgaria kept on tag switching between Kingdom of Bulgaria and Empire of Bulgaria and then EU4 crashed.   NOTE: The next update is coming very shortly-- I just felt this turn of events deserved a different POV before we got back to perusing the Anatolian Letters.
Empress Theonora fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Feb 16, 2014 |
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:43 |
|
 Steppe Wolfe jokes are the best jokes.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
That was hilarious, but there are several places where it looks like you're accidentally linking the same image twice in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
At least only one Bulgaria ended up revolting. With that original tooltip showing it granted to three individuals I thought we were going to hit a true Steppe Wolf moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Ah, nostalgia. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
PART TEN: The Sun Rises in the East (1126-1130) Excerpts from the collected letters of an anonymous Turkish lady in waiting serving in the court of Constantinople. Her identity-- and, indeed, the authenticity of the letters in general-- is hotly debated. Nonetheless, they were at the very least written contemporaneously with the events they describe, and therefore serve as a valuable source for Turkish perspectives on the Komnenian era. Dates have been converted to the Christian calendar for the reader's convenience. 1126 began with several crushing blows to the Romans— the revolt of the Bulgars, the death of the increasingly competent Empress Eirene II, and the rise of the Bulgarian Empire of Tsar Ioakim. The Roman Empire was cut in half, the empress' purple cloak nothing more than swaddling for an infant.  Actual power was vested in the eunuch chancellor of the empire, Anatolios. Quick-witted, gregarious, and a brilliant diplomat, his scrupulous diligence prevented his enormous vices from interfering in the business of empire. Having achieved mastery of Rome and with what was sure to be a lengthy regency stretching before him, his only remaining ambition was simply to make a friend.  Friends, however, were in short supply. The Pecheneg Orthodox nobles of the north, noting that they were cut off from the rest of the empire by Bulgaria decided saw an opportunity for independence, and the theme of Wallachia, the merchant republic of Belgorod, and the Pecheneg khanate all rose in revolt.  Early in the war, there was a period of extreme alarm in the city when a Pecheneg army slipped across the Black Sea and began a siege of Constantinople. The Theodosian Walls easily kept them at bay until a Roman army could come in relief of the capital, but it badly rattled the nobility. Talk circulated behind closed of "the eunuch and the infant" being unequal to the task of keeping the empire safe.  Anatolios, to his credit, knew that one needs coins more than courage to win a war. The great Jewish merchant families of Constantinople happily agreed to lend the empire money, remembering Alexios' generous repayment terms.  This money was immediately put towards hiring mercenaries to replenish an army devastated by the Bulgarian victory at Philippopolis.  While the Roman army was still a shell of its former self, the remaining rebel armies were cornered in Cherson and destroyed.  The war ended in Roman victory, and Anatolios had successfully met the great test of Iouliana's young reign. I was disappointed; while the Pecheneg magnates of the north were all Orthodox infidels in whose success I had no particular emotional investment, an empire divided amongst squabbling petty kingdoms is obviously less threatening to us than an Orthodox world united under Constantinople. I kept my feelings to myself, naturally.  The second test of Anatolios' leadership quickly followed when several of the Douxes and Doukessas of Rome decided to back yet another Doukas claimant to the imperial throne— Belisarios Doukas.  The revolt wasn't as widespread as the great Doukas revolt in Alexios' reign, but the leaders of the rebellion believed they had a chance this time— the empress was a baby, the master of the empire was a eunuch, the empire was split in two by the Bulgarians, the armies depleted from two wars, and the state fiscally insolvent.  They were sorely mistaken. The remaining power-brokers of the Roman Empire, short-sighted, cruel, and power hungry as they were, still sensed that now was a time of crisis; a time in which unity was called for. At one point, the personal bodyguards of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople engaged rebel forces in a suicidal last stand in order to pin them down long enough for an imperial army to crush them.  Other nobles followed suit, doing whatever they could to demonstrate their loyalty to the empress— and derive advantage from the inevitable postwar settlement, I suppose.  The loyalists suffered some setbacks in southern Anatolia when the Varangian Guard— a shadow of the formidable body which once scourged the east under the Butcher of Rum, Arni, but still a not insignificant force— sided with the Doukas rebels and defeated a Byzantine army. It would do little to turn the overall tide of the struggle, however.  The civil war in the Roman Empire, then, fell far short of the titanic struggle currently underway in our own beloved homeland as the Saimids and their allies once more rose up to overthrow the debauched rule of the Seljuks. Still, we should be grateful to the pernicious Doukas— if it weren't for their revolt, the Roman Empire, even in its diminished state, might have tried to take advantage of the situation and seize more Turkish territory for their own avaricious purposes.  It is fortunate for all of us, then, that you, my Sultan, were able to successfully cast down the Seljuk dogs and reunify the great Saimid empire before the inventible imperial victory in the civil war to the west was achieved.   That victory came shortly thereafter— Doukessa Leontia, forever known as Leontia the Ill-Ruler for her disastrous attempt to place Prince Belisarios Doukas on the throne— surrendered to the empress' forces. The defeated nobles were rounded up and imprisoned in the dungeons of Constantinople— an increasingly common state of affairs. The Senate waxed in importance.  So, then, what was left of the Roman empire was reunified. Bulgaria was lost, but the Doukas loyalists were defeated; the Pecheneg nobles of the north had been brought to heel.  So, then, perhaps the advice I am about to give you, my Sultan, will strike you as strage. My advice is this: Attack. Attack now. The time for war is now. The empire has not been this weak for quite some time— perhaps not since Suleyman's victories at Manzikert. It won its civil wars, but each victory cost the the Romans crucial manpower; every great battle contained the seeds of Rome's eventual defeat. Roman soldiers died. Rebel soldiers died before they could be pressed into Roman service. Anatolios is still been unable to repay the debts he owes to the merchants of Constantinople. Iouliana is still a small child— many in the empire do not take her regime seriously. I will admit that you yourself have not had long to enjoy your own throne, and you are likely tempted to consolidate your power. But believe me when I say that nothing will quell Seljuk holdouts like a crushing defeat of the Roman empire. Remember that the great failure of the Seljuks was their inability to hold onto Rum's gains. The Saimid sun is rising in the east, the Roman sun sets in the west. But remember that every morning sun eventually fades into dusk. Don't let this glorious morning slip through your fingers, my Sultan. Attack. Attack, attack, attack.  World Map, 1130 (NB: France is in the middle of a civil war-- it didn't break up.)  Senate vote later tonight!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
That Bulgarian revolt event army seemed a bit big, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:That Bulgarian revolt event army seemed a bit big, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
quote:PART NINE: Wolfe of the Steppes (1118-1126) Beautiful. It perfectly recreates that rare type of argument so bizarrely endemic to the Paradox forums: where both sides are wrong, petty, biased and the best response is to just walk away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Well, you seem hosed. It's nice that you're having setbacks though, I was starting to think that you were reaching "too big to fail" levels. Massive event-based rebel armies help obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
I have to ask. Why in the world is that having a mid-tier power that isn't crippled by debt, rebels, and a neighbor eight times their power all at once is such a terrible thing in these LPs? I haven't read a single one where people don't start insisting that the player dismember themselves or ruin their own country as soon as they win more than three battles in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Can't speak for other people, but mid-tier really isn't a problem, IMHO; but for most players playing well/for good results in CK2 they'll end up with a total superpower in EU4. (Of course, if you're referring to Grey's thread, I think people were just overestimating the value of his provinces; area is a poor way of estimating power in EU4).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me then, but what's so terrible about having one of the biggest powers in EU4? Wouldn't that be a bit more interesting than watching the AI run the superpowers of the world while we sit around as the equivalent of El Salvador? Grey's thread was the catalyst for the question, but it seems like every one of these winds up with demands for self-castration. Azerbaijan, Sicily, that Hanseatic LP, all of them were packed with suggestions of how best to trigger a massive civil war, or recommendations that the king spontaneously give away 60% of his territory to his mortal enemy. I understand that playing a mid-tier power in the end-game can be quite interesting, but certainly leading an world-spanning alliance block against another one in the war to end all wars after a thousand years of struggle has its attraction too...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
GenHavoc posted:Maybe it's just me then, but what's so terrible about having one of the biggest powers in EU4? Wouldn't that be a bit more interesting than watching the AI run the superpowers of the world while we sit around as the equivalent of El Salvador? Grey's thread involved people not understanding that an empire spanning from Ghana to Egypt is still easily chumped by other great powers that have smaller territories but much better land in EU4, while a country that size in CK2 steamrolls everything even if it has lovely land because land quality isn't very important in the end. Viscardus is devoted to spinning off cadet branches all by himself, so I don't think the thread had much to do with that. The Hansa I can sort of understand, it's a very powerful country even as a three-province minor like it is in the historical scenario. A Byzantium with more land than the Ottomans have at the beginning of the vanilla scenario would be the strongest nation on the planet easily - the Ottomans are already the easiest nation. I normally don't care much for the cries to self-cripple either but unless CK2 keeps throwing setbacks at Rincewind then some kind of final partition is probably a good idea; otherwise EU4 will be painting the map. Right now, though, the  est thing would be Iouliana the Bulgar-Slayer 
Jazerus fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
GenHavoc posted:Maybe it's just me then, but what's so terrible about having one of the biggest powers in EU4? Wouldn't that be a bit more interesting than watching the AI run the superpowers of the world while we sit around as the equivalent of El Salvador? If a good player would play 100% without restraint pretty much every single one of these multiple paradox game LPs would end in a world conquest before the 1700s. I don't think we ever had a world conquest LP here in the SA community* because our LPers like to restrain themselves and "roleplay" or something like that but if you head over to the paradox official forums and check their AAR (their equivalent to our LPs) you will see a lot of world conquests there. It gets old after a while. *Other than one time Wiz showed how to do it in like 100 years on Crusader Kings 1 just for laughs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 02:36
|
|
GenHavoc posted:Maybe it's just me then, but what's so terrible about having one of the biggest powers in EU4? Wouldn't that be a bit more interesting than watching the AI run the superpowers of the world while we sit around as the equivalent of El Salvador? Basically, the core problem that leads to the problems Kanthulu and Jazerus pointed out is that the AI is far inferior to the player, so if the player comes in even close to a dominant position, it's going to be really hard for the AI to keep up. Basically, if you want "a world-spanning alliance block against another one", that means a few things. 1) You're going to have to fudge a lot of things in the HOI stage conversion to make sure the AI gets that alliance block to combat the player. 2) The Vicky stage will be a total snoozefest, because there's no real way to expand properly in that game, meaning that if you want to come out of it in a real good position, you've got to go into it in a real good position. 3) The later part of the EU stage will also end up being pretty boring, because after you've established yourself as the power you want to be in Vicky, you've either got to spend ages consolidating (if you're lucky, at least there's rebels there) or just snoozing the time away because nobody can touch you. So that's roughly a third of the entire campaign that would just end up being a total bore, almost guaranteed. Not good numbers.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
I'm a big believer in playing sub-optimally in order to roleplay and create interesting narratives, but it's probably also worth noting that I'm not really that good at CK2 in the first place. Like, that Bulgaria war? I was actually trying to win it (since I'd decided to characterize Eirene II as "reasonably competent", especially after those Greek Fire events made her seem like some kind of super spy badass); my CK2 skills are just such that the AI is still able to outsmart me sometimes. Even through 13k is pretty inordinately huge, it wasn't necessarily unwinnable-- but I tried to assemble my doomstack too close to Bulgaria, and then let myself get tricked into attacking a smaller army (to try to save another army of mine it had attacked) before the stack had assembled properly. Anyway, if things do turn around and we become hella strong again; well, there's still plenty of CK2 left to drive the empire into the ground in some entertaining way.  I'm being mindful of what will make a good EU4 start and what won't, but that's a long way off and there will hopefully be both ups and downs on the way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
 Doukessa Konstania Komnene, a just, honest, kind, charitable, temperate... impaler?  : Sup.: So, here's how it's gonna be. Believe it or not, Anatolios is a great believer in the Senate. Maybe because you guys don't try to overthrow the emperor every decade or so and get thrown in jail instead, like the nobles do? Like my useless husband, the Doux of Crete.  Here's some life advice: Don't marry your cousins. I've made some huge mistakes in my life, you could say. Been pretty stressed out about it. But I'm loyal to our noble Empress Baby Komnene, of course. I mean, I'm not in the dungeon! That's a pretty good start.: Anyway, Anatolios is such a great believer in the Senate that he knows it's not his place to address you in person. Since, you know, he's a lowborn eunuch? And eunuchs are gross? So he's appointed me as his personal representative to the Senate. I'm a Doukessa, I'm a Komnenos, I was born in the purple because I'm super cool, people think I'm kind and honest, and I've only impaled a few people. And I'm a just woman, so believe me when I say that I'll probably only impale any of you if you really piss me off.: Anatolios wants you to vote on two things. The first is just boring housekeeping poo poo, so let's just get this out of the way quickly. Remember back in the day, when Dad dragged my stupid sister in here and had you guys ratify a flag design? And then in the Alexiad Iouliana went on and on about how that was really some kind of four dimensional chess mindgame to gauge the political opinions of the Senators based on what flag they liked? Well, that's stupid, and Iouliana is stupid-- my sister, I mean, Empress Iouliana is also stupid but can't really help it because she's a baby-- and Anatolios has decided it's high time the senatorial factions stop being vague cloak and dagger bullshit and become organized political parties, whose members we have on a helpful list so we know who to... uh... congratulate when things go really well? Yeah, sure. OOC: This will determine the general mood and goals of the Senate, and how I characterize it in updates between votes. If you want to roleplay as a Senator or whatever when you post, feel free to switch parties later on (or join one if you missed this vote, or what have you), but it won't actually affect anything until I have another vote like this.For now, anyway. Depending on the course of history, the Senatorial parties may or may not become more organized or more powerful. First, though, try not to get impaled.  There's the Old Romans, who like aquilas and Latin and putting SPQR over everything. Sometimes they are seen staring at maps of Italy and sighing wistfully.  Then there's the New Byzantines. They like building things, an imperial expansion fueled by 12th century strategic interests rather than nostalgia for the Five Good Emperors, and a more formalized role for the Senate in the state, and hate nobles and the Old Romans.  The Milvians like the Orthodox Church and hate the Saimids and Catholics even more than the rest of the factions. Sometimes they are also seen staring at maps of Italy and sighing wistfully, but for slightly different reasons than the Old Romans.  The Komnenians like getting lots of money for rubber stamping whatever the emperor or empress wants to do. Being a Senator is enough of a hassle without being responsible for stuff! They probably have the best parties out of everyone in the Senate. Icon img tags for your Senatorial convenience, please include them in your votes: code: : Oh wow, we still have like 13,000 dudes! That's pretty good. That's about the size of the Bulgarian army that owned us, right? Now, where'd I put the latest intelligence Anatolios had on the Saimids... : As you can see, 27,481 and 13,205 have the same number of digits, so I think these odds are pretty even and we should fight this one out. But Anatolios is calling the shots, and he's called the shot that you idiots are calling the shot. So, what do we do about the Saimids?OOC: Here are your three options: A: Discretion is the Better Part of Valor. Perplexingly, the Saimids are only demanding the single province highlighted in the wardec screenshot from the update. Probably their goal is to just kill enough of our army to keep us weak for the foreseeable future. To the extent that AI can have goals like that, anyway. It's possible I'm anthropomorphizing it a bit here. If we just surrender immediately and fork over the province without spilling any blood, we can hopefully be in a better position whenever the truce expires. B: Fight to the Last Man. We'll never roll over for those Saimid dogs! They should roll over! They're the dogs in this analogy! Will we let that cowardly eunuch Anatolios hand over Roman territory to infidel Turks? Why not just dig up Suleyman's skeleton and crown him Sultan of Rum at the Hagia Sophia? The last war with the Turks ended with the surrender of "just one province" too! Is the empire to die a death of a thousand cuts? Anyway, Konstantia thinks we have a shot. If this option wins, I'll keep on fighting until I'm at -100% warscore and the game forces me to surrender. Or, you know, until we win. It could happen! C: Honor Must Be Satisfied. We can't just surrender without a fight, but maybe if we're smart we can put up enough of a fight to satisfy honor without committing national suicide. If the war shapes up to look unwinnable, we can always make the decision to surrender then. Assuming there's enough time to do so in between the bit where the war looks unwinnable and the part where we commit national suicide. If we're clever, we can outmaneuver the superior Saimid forces and win some battles. That's how Bulgaria beat us, anyway. Cons: I am not very good at doing that; that's how Bulgaria beat us. Could easily just turn out to be the same as option B if our main army is caught by a Saimid wave of death emerging from the fog of war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Milvians A. I've always wanted to try for the "turn Catholicism into an Orthodox heresy" decision introduced in the Byzantine DLC. It'll be fun to see how history diverges if we manage it. And that means saving our army to conquer Rome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
New Byzantines A, take the most pragmatic approach. Then stab the Saimid ruler first chance you get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Old Romans And B! I could not tell you how many games I've played that have gone down the toilet because I'm too bitter and hate-filled to give up even an inch of territory, so I instead bankrupt myself for the next hundred years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
New Byzantines We surrender, following Option A. During the period of peace, we build up our armies to destroy the Bulgarian Rebellion, and then we take back what was rightfully ours in the first place from the Saimids. Glory to the New Byzantine Empire!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
New Byzantines for now A, surrendering that poo poo would be the most prudent option. A war is likely to deplete our manpower no matter how careful we are, and we are beset on all side by enemies. Speaking of which...  The neighboring Orthodox states suck and the schism is still fresh and can be plastered over. Most of the rest of Christendom listens to the Bishop of Rome. When we can, we should give up our petty dispute and just roll with the Pope. That way we are far more likely to win sympathy and support from the Latins, and can probably get military aid from them next time this sort of thing happens. Call me a lover of Franks or whatever you want, but it would be a great way to strengthen our diplomatic bonds with the rest of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Old Romans We must always be mindful of the examples of the old emperors, despite their lack of faith in Christ. Though Trajan has always and will always be known as the optimus princeps, Hadrian rightfully realized the impossibility and, indeed, foolishness of attachment to recent territorial conquests; the welfare of the Empire as a whole must always be placed above vain glory. We must follow in his footsteps and Abandon our foothold in Armenia for now, so that we may fall upon the Saimids like a hammer upon an anvil at the opportune moment. I have also submitted a petition to restore the Altar of Victory to its rightful place in our House, so that we may regain the favor of God; while the old Altar was ostensibly a pagan artifact, can it truly be said that we have prospered without it? Is not the decline of our great Empire related directly to the abandonment of our praise of God's support for our victories?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
C Honor through Valor!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
A, this is an untenable war right now. It would be best if we let them have what they want for now considering their objectives are so narrow, and then prepare to be in as good a situation as possible when the treaty expires. Speaking of, I have connections with a few retired hashashin who already live in Saimid territory who will pretty much do anything if the gold is right, so... you know, that option is open. If you just want to murder the fucker and blow their empire to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Old Romans A. No one is better than the Bullshit Unfair Doomstack Outta Nowhere than a Caliph.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:I have also submitted a petition to restore the Altar of Victory to its rightful place in our House, so that we may regain the favor of God; while the old Altar was ostensibly a pagan artifact, can it truly be said that we have prospered without it? Is not the decline of our great Empire related directly to the abandonment of our praise of God's support for our victories? No, our true decline began when we turned our backs on Rome- not Old Rome, not some idealized vision of a man in a bedsheet with some leafs stuck in his hair- but the Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ. The Schism has done nothing but weaken us diplomatically and hobble our efforts to secure foreign support in anything. Imagine if we had followed the Church of Rome before this war began! Why, by now the lords of Germany, France and Italy would have been falling over themselves to help us!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Milvians C. All of these noble Senators knows that a truce's length is determined by the day on which the war ends, not that on which it begins. By maneuvering around the Saimids indefinitely we can force them into the unenviable position of losing men to dysentery and disease, allowing the grumbling from their homelands to increase. Under no circumstance should the army engage in a grand battle, however. If we are cornered by the Turk, we may as well give up a little rather than lose a lot. edit: It's kinda neat how the Senate is dividing in what's basically a three-way tie. I'm interested to see how it all turns out. occipitallobe fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Speaking of, I have connections with a few retired hashashin who already live in Saimid territory who will pretty much do anything if the gold is right, so... you know, that option is open. If you just want to murder the fucker and blow their empire to pieces. I agree with this, once the temporary changing of territory is complete, and we are ready to destroy them, we cut off the head of the snake, and then slice up the rest of it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Such heathen words should not be tolerated! You willingly overlook the reign of Justinian and centuries of our history when you claim that our decline began when we embraced the teachings of Christ! No, we stood strong and tall for many years while holding aloft the Chi Rho. Rome was ours well into the reign of the Isaurians. You misunderstand, friend! I wish not to return to the pagan ways, but to recognize a simple fact - God favored our ancestors even when they believed they were honoring the false gods, knowing they would one day see the light. He received their prayers for victory in the intended spirit, and so delivered; would not a true Altar of the Victory of Christ, erected in knowing fealty to our Lord, bring Christ's favor to our endeavors to an extent unparalleled even by our great predecessors?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
B We are truly righteous, god shall not let us loose to these pagan so and so's. We just have to prove our faith first...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
C. You may surrender when beaten, but not before then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
is the one true path. This is exactly what Byzantium needs to reverse its fortunes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
We are our own state, not some petty holdover of a now-defunct empire we romanticise so heavily. The Westerners ruined Old Rome; they've fractured into a dozen squabbling nations under a power-hungry heretic sitting on Latium! Why would we even begin to consider taking them back into the fold, when we've maintained ourselves unaided for countless centuries against numberless heathen hordes? No, Byzantium is what stands strong in this new age, and we must hold to strengthening it still further, not some idle dream of a dead empire fractured so deeply as to be unrecognisable. Glory to Constantinople and the Pentarchy! Death to the enemies of Hellas! But as far as more pragmatic matters are concerned, C is the wisest course of action we can take against the Saimids. Our defeat is certain; no words may be minced as regards the subject. With defeat certain now, we must thus also consider whether defeat will be certain in another five years time. Is this period sufficient to see our power bolstered to such an extent, or the Saimids weakened, that we may even contemplate contesting them again? No; it is not. The Saimids will grow stronger, with their vast army the current result of an empire only just reunited. Time is allied to our enemies, and we can solely hope to scrape some of it for ourselves, that we might one day hold even a candle to their ever-consolidating hordes. If we drag out the current war for as long as we may possibly can, it will delay the next war surely imminent; and if we may delay the next war to be waged upon us, we gain time that may be used to definitively secure an alliance with Germany (I admit the irony here, considering the condemnation I just put forth against the Westerners) or some other great power. Perhaps it is time that could even be spent assassinating their current caliph... but we have no way to know, unless we gain as much of it as we may in the first place. The Third Option discussed is our best hope for such an objective. DentedLamp fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
New Byzantines A, discretion is the better part of valor, and if we can live to fight another day, we can strike the enemy when their back is turned. Besides, retaking Bulgaria would probably be easier and more profitable for the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
New Byzantines A Let the Moslems have their handful of peasants scraping out an existence in the dusty hills for awhile. Our chance will come, we are Rome, we survive and adapt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Old Romans A The Might of Rome shall rise... but we must pick the right opportunity. Carefully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Old Romans A. Let's not waste soldiers on a war we really can't win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
New Byzantines A. Let them take the province. while they celebrate their victory we will be building, becoming larger and stronger! we will take back what is rightfully ours in time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 08:09
|
|