MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I don't see a problem with the names but the word "Empire" is redundant for a faction reduced to one province. Simply "The Trapezuntines" or "The Nicaeans" may be more suitable.

I'm very sorry to notify you of this, yet, in some of the books I have seen, one of which shows the world in 1453, when the once great Byzantine Empire was reduced to a small area of Greece and Contantinople after the Ottoman Invasion, the remainder of the Byzantine land is still labled "The Byzantine Empire". I'm not quite sure why this strange, and quite illogical name is still held, yet I think it may be because their now humble leader is still known as, and holds the title of, "Byzantine Emperor". I'm not too sure, but if their leader at this time was to have a different title, for example, that of Duke of Nicea, or Duke of Trezibond, then based upon the map presented in the book I have seen, they could, from a political term, no longer be called an empire and would have to be considered to be a Dukedom.

However, that said, I do most humbly agree with you in logical terms to a certain extent, and am not too concered over whichever path you may take in this naming regard. Either one of the two, both valid, logical and correct, paths would be perfect, in my extreemly humble opinion. Thanks, cheers!

[The Unknown Guy]

They fancied themselves "Roman Emperors", by virtue of holding Constantinople. For the record, the Turks regarded themselves as the actual Romans, or heirs of the Romans, and regarded the Byzantine Emperors as "dukes", or somesuch. After the fall of Constantinople they took up the "Roman Empire" mantle.

The claimants to a throne in exile often style themselves "kings" or "Emperors". The courts in Nicaea, Trapisond, and Epirus, certainly did.

[caravel]

I'm very sorry to notify you of this, yet, in some of the books I have seen, one of which shows the world in 1453, when the once great Byzantine Empire was reduced to a small area of Greece and Contantinople after the Ottoman Invasion, the remainder of the Byzantine land is still labled "The Byzantine Empire".

On a map yes, but with respect you seem to have missed the previous point entirely, and that is that the word "Byzantine" is a later word applied by historians and scholars. The Eastern Romans (Romanoi) did not call themselves or their empire "Byzantine". Also if you refer to maps you will be heading for mass confusion. I've seen maps in several book and on the net that all seem to conflict with each other and with historical texts. The things to remember is that those maps are never accurate geographical boundaries, but approximate territory and there are differing opinions as which small parts of territory was held by who, when and for how long. Many of these naming differences are in essence the same thing, for example, the "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum" would be the same as the "Roman Sultanate". The use of "Byzantine Empire" on a map is there for uniformity and for the purposes of identification only. The correct name would be "Eastern Roman Empire", but this is almost never used on maps depicting Europe after the fall of the western empire. After 1204 most maps show clearly the "Despotate of Epirus" (Epirian Despotate), "Empire of Nicaea" (Nicaean Empire) and "Empire of Trebizond" (Trapezuntine Empire). My point is that all of these have been prefixed (or suffixed) either "Despotate" or "Empire", but are these scholars terms added for classification purposes or are they the true names of those lands?".

I'm not quite sure why this strange, and quite illogical name is still held, yet I think it may be because their now humble leader is still known as, and holds the title of, "Byzantine Emperor". I'm not too sure, but if their leader at this time was to have a different title, for example, that of Duke of Nicea, or Duke of Trezibond, then based upon the map presented in the book I have seen, they could, from a political term, no longer be called an empire and would have to be considered to be a Dukedom.

The titles on the MTW map are not historically accurate and refer to a mish mash of provincial governors and monarchs.

However, that said, I do most humbly agree with you in logical terms to a certain extent, and am not too concered over whichever path you may take in this naming regard. Either one of the two, both valid, logical and correct, paths would be perfect, in my extreemly humble opinion. Thanks, cheers!

Personally these are my proposals for the High era Byzantines:

Three factions:

Trapezuntine Empire (possibly a smaller Trebizond)
Epirian Despotate (possibly break up greece to form more realistic provinces)
Nicaean Empire


One Faction:

Eastern Roman Empire holding only Nicaea


One Faction:

Eastern Roman Empire holding Nicaea, smaller Trebizond, new Epirus province.

[ULC]

I prefer the three Byzantine factions to the one. UG, the Trebizond Empire (misnomer) DID conquer Armenia and annexed Georgia. It eventually lost these to the Ottoman Empire obviously, but it was far more active then other factions. I don't support the "virtual" faction idea, mainly because the AI uselessly expends troops in that direction, builds up massiveborders to said rebelsm, and almost exclusivly attacks them. It creates a situation in which there is total peace. I in fact think the rebel AI should be crippled, so that the actual factions within game expand and stand a chance against the much more intelligent Human.

On factions though, I really want more religions represented then just Catholic christianity. I'm sick of having catholic revolts in EGYPT for the love of Allah the merciful. I champion more Islamic factions or Pagan ones specifically.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I agree with YourLordandConqueror. I would find three Byzantine factions very interesting to play with/fight against. It would be very interesting to watch them play it out against each other - especially if their tactics are all slightly different.

I'm sorry to go off topic, yet I just decided to start a Byzantine campaign in High and I have found that it was a simple bribing game. After bribing Constantinople, I could afford to pay off the Greeks, Serbians and Wallachians with ease. After twenty turns, the Byzantine Empire was almost as good as it was at the beginning of Early. I think that the rebel factions have some sort of hard-code behind them which prevents them from having a highish bribing cost. If there were to be "real" factions there instead, it would be almost impossible to simply "go bribe", something which I cannot resist doing, which is an additional reason as to why I would prefer three factions.

[The Unknown Guy]

I had this nutty idea.... adding an eçuivalent to the papacy for muslims. That is, not as in excommunication, but as a "keep reappearing" faction, with the Nizaris. My idea was giving them Syria, or a piece of Syria, at least, and making Nizari units exclusive for them, plus using the Grand Inçuisitor to allow them to build a super-assasin. Ideally they'd start messing up with their all Nizari footsoldiers/Fedayeen forces, and harassing and assasinating people, until the factions around them wiped them out, after which they'd have a resurgence, and restart the cycle (pay no attention, I am just toying around with the concept :p)

[caravel]

I prefer the three Byzantine factions to the one. UG, the Trebizond Empire (misnomer) DID conquer Armenia and annexed Georgia. It eventually lost these to the Ottoman Empire obviously, but it was far more active then other factions.

I agree with adding the other two Byzantine faction in the High era, though I have other reasons. Extra Byzantine factions would serve to add some balance to the region, effectively keeping the Byzantine lands divided and weakened. Real factions instead of just rebels would also present more of a challenge to other factions in the area.

I think that the rebel factions have some sort of hard-code behind them which prevents them from having a highish bribing cost.

The rebels are cheaper to bribe mainly because their generals are usually 0 loyalty.

I had this nutty idea.... adding an eçuivalent to the papacy for muslims. That is, not as in excommunication, but as a "keep reappearing" faction, with the Nizaris. My idea was giving them Syria, or a piece of Syria, at least, and making Nizari units exclusive for them, plus using the Grand Inçuisitor to allow them to build a super-assasin. Ideally they'd start messing up with their all Nizari footsoldiers/Fedayeen forces, and harassing and assasinating people, until the factions around them wiped them out, after which they'd have a resurgence, and restart the cycle (pay no attention, I am just toying around with the concept :p)

You mean a real "Assassins" Faction? This could be done in fact, and small province could be sandwiched between Antioch and Tripoli. A Muslim Inquisitor agent may be possible but may also start carrying out Inquisitions using the same info pic and text as the Catholic Inquisitors.

[The Unknown Guy]

You mean a real "Assassins" Faction? This could be done in fact, and small province could be sandwiched between Antioch and Tripoli.

Yes, pretty much what I meant. A resurging, harassing, assasin-using "Assasin" faction. I think it would add an addittional interest point in "Holy Land Troubles" besides crusades, Jihads, and hypothetical Byzantine reemergences.

A Muslim Inquisitor agent may be possible but may also start carrying out Inquisitions using the same info pic and text as the Catholic Inquisitors.

Now that wouldn't fit too well, would it? :/.
How big is the Syrian Assasin bonus? Maybe it would suffice by itself to make them a threat. If they got conçuered, it could be assumed that the conçueror's hired assasins were actually putting funds for the warchest of the eventual "Hasashini reemergence", which would take place eventually, making it necessary to retake the province again, thus avoiding explotation of the bonus by long periods of time (if they had a comeback timer like the Papacy)