Byzantium is OP

[Vekaa]

i think they need to nerf byzatium somehow ,every game i tried they took over crazy amount of land ,every kingdom around them do not stand a chance at all ,they even took most of modern day russia by the 1200 and my start date was 1066 , it would be much more realistic if they add historical accuracy and nerf big empires in the game so that they cant easily become gigantic blobs that devour everything

[galadon3]

not really a byzantium only problem, kinda regularly see the HRE taking over most of the smaller kingdoms in eastern europe

[jfoytek]

I disagree they are far weaker and less stable in CK3 to be honest....

The Only reason they are blobbing is because the rest of the world is less stable because of the crazy succession splitting realms up over and over and over.....

[EA Latium]

The first Patches will probably sort these things out.

[Jack Niggleson]

They're next door to the seljuks. If they weren't "op" they'd probably vanish in the first decade or so of the campaign.

[Vekaa]

Originally posted by Nugget Head:

They're next door to the seljuks. If they weren't "op" they'd probably vanish in the first decade or so of the campaign.

problem is they dont even go to war with seljuks there was one war with seljuks in 1066 byzantine lost and that is that ,then at least in my games byzantines start to takeover everybody,sure there was civil wars like before in the empire but no effect ,at one time two dukes gained independence for couple of years and joined or they were conquered by the empire again very soon after

[Turian14]

Byzantine Empire should actually be one of the harder starts. Historically they were constantly losing land and mired in civil wars.

[Natius]

Just keep killing the king, and enjoy the show

They will collapse in any second after you kill (especially when heir still kid)

[Vekaa]

Originally posted by Turian14:

Byzantine Empire should actually be one of the harder starts. Historically they were constantly losing land and mired in civil wars.

i was playing like duke of duklja and i said to myself i will join empire and grow my lands and then when empire had lost a lot of land to the seljuks and is weak i am going to get my independence from them and form serbian kingdom but lol empire just keep expanding and conquering everything on its path lol

[galadon3]

Originally posted by Turian14:

Byzantine Empire should actually be one of the harder starts. Historically they were constantly losing land and mired in civil wars.

depends WHEN actually, under the macedonian dynasty in the 9th to early 11th century the empire was stable, expanding and without a doubt the biggest power in the region. And under other emperors they had quite stable times too.

[Vekaa]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Originally posted by Turian14:

Byzantine Empire should actually be one of the harder starts. Historically they were constantly losing land and mired in civil wars.

depends WHEN actually, under the macedonian dynasty in the 9th to early 11th century the empire was stable, expanding and without a doubt the biggest power in the region. And under other emperors they had quite stable times too.

i have no problem with byzantines staying big power in the region like they were historically for some time what i have problem with is exaggerated expansion they undertake on everybody and conquer russia, italy ,hungary mongolia lol

[₦ễȯṱoxicMeꝛçenary]

The issue is that the Byzantines dont have a special imperial government like they did in CK2 and that other empires around them have stability with the confederation succession or partition. The Byzantines start off with only the oldest inherting making them far more stable than other empires. This makes them extra OP in the 867 start date compared to the 1066 ones as everyone else has confederation for a few hundred years and wont get the same inhertance laws as the Byzantines for another 450 years.

Its stupidly easy to reform the roman empire with in a single or maybe two characters if you go slow in the 867 start. In CK2 the Byzantines in the starts was a bit of blob too, but not in the 1066 start as they start in a war with the seljuks which causes them to lose a big chuck of anatolia. CK3 1066 start does not have that and they blob like crazy. Seljuks also blob like crazy and it seems like the mongol invasion is a joke right now. Honestly the blobbing Byzantines is the biggest issue this game currently has and will probably last a while if not a running theme through out the whole game. Its second biggest issue, which I think is far easier to fix, is the too power Seljuks. This mostly comes from their family bonuses as they have so many members that they can get all the legacies.

[Turian14]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Originally posted by Turian14:

Byzantine Empire should actually be one of the harder starts. Historically they were constantly losing land and mired in civil wars.

depends WHEN actually, under the macedonian dynasty in the 9th to early 11th century the empire was stable, expanding and without a doubt the biggest power in the region. And under other emperors they had quite stable times too.

Oh for sure. I was thinking later periods also the empire did have lots of internal issues and of course once the turkish invasions started they were essentially delaying the inevitable.

[EA Latium]

Originally posted by galadon3:

depends WHEN actually, under the macedonian dynasty in the 9th to early 11th century the empire was stable, expanding and without a doubt the biggest power in the region. And under other emperors they had quite stable times too.

There were 26 civil wars in the 11th century. During whole Byzantium life span out of 94 emperors, 20 of them started as usurpers, 23 died violently and 31 were deposed before death.

Also worth noting that after the 555 they never quite got back there, has been a constant shrinking and re expanding until 1270, when they pretty much on life support at that point.

All in all they were a real hegemon in their area in CK's timeframe, but stability was more the exception rather than the rule (like the Macedonian dynasty indeed), which translates very well to its gameplay, both externally and internally.

The devs mentioned that it will be one of the first areas they will be focused on the first DLCs, so we can expect some interesting changes.

[mitchincredible]

Originally posted by EA Latium:

Originally posted by galadon3:

depends WHEN actually, under the macedonian dynasty in the 9th to early 11th century the empire was stable, expanding and without a doubt the biggest power in the region. And under other emperors they had quite stable times too.

There were 26 civil wars in the 11th century. During whole Byzantium life span out of 94 emperors, 20 of them started as usurpers, 23 died violently and 31 were deposed before death.

Also worth noting that after the 555 they never quite got back there, has been a constant shrinking and re expanding until 1270, when they pretty much on life support at that point.

All in all they were a real hegemon in their area in CK's timeframe, but stability was more the exception rather than the rule (like the Macedonian dynasty indeed), which translates very well to its gameplay, both externally and internally.

The devs mentioned that it will be one of the first areas they will be focused on the first DLCs, so we can expect some interesting changes.

Byzantium was pretty much desperately trying to restore their own state while maintaining Roman back-stabbery and meritocratic entitlement.

They would've done better sitting back for a second and saying "Hmmm... Is Rome really worth it?"

I mean they got it back like once and it didn't fix anything.

[EA Latium]

Originally posted by mitchincredible:

Byzantium was pretty much desperately trying to restore their own state while maintaining Roman back-stabbery and meritocratic entitlement.

They would've done better sitting back for a second and saying "Hmmm... Is Rome really worth it?"

I mean they got it back like once and it didn't fix anything.

Indeed, reconquering Rome at the beginning was actually very useful, as it was the richest region in the former Empire and seen as the seat of the authority in the West, that's the period historians call Byzantine Italy, but after the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna things changed drastically, especially since Charlemagne came around shortly after and the Church started having more authority, after that time it was a pretty pointless endeavour.

If the the Exarchate didn't fall history would have been probably different, the reappearance of the Iconoclasm is what started the rivalry, which gave a lot of space and support to the Franks.