The Byzantine Empire

[cakes]

gameplay takes precedence over historical accuracy. ciV has only ever been about taking ideas from history, not trying to accurately represent it down to the finest details. even then, the east roman empire started to rise at the end of the classical era enough that it has been given powerful classical era units. cataphracts as horsemen is a perfectly fine idea especially considering it will save the unit from becoming Not Another Knight Replacement.

 

[Xen]

It's not going to harm gameplay to have another knight UU.

It just adds more flavor, if anything to already existing line up of knight replacements. And of course, is entirely justifiable in terms of rational conclusions made from study of the Byzantine military.

 

[cakes]

just as it is entirely justifiable and unharmful to gameplay to have the cataphract replace the horseman. it's nice to mix up the unit replacements

 

[Xen]

I value historical accuracy over needless meddling and trumped up justifications that are wind and nothing. So do others, from the looks of it.

 

[prince_caspian]

I value historical accuracy over needless meddling and trumped up justifications that are wind and nothing. So do others, from the looks of it.

"Historical accuracy", "needless meddling" and "trumped up justifications that are wind and nothing" are subject to your bias and personal opinion. Is CiV historically accurate? Does a game need to be historically accurate to the fine detail? Has spaceships ever launched in the 1700s in the history of the world? Who is needlessly meddling? Hard-working developers who have the right from the company to make the game? Or plain folks as forum posters who accidentally break taboos? How are justifications trumped up for a game where nothing is set in stone? Why do you say they are wind and nothing?

 

[Raiki]

I value historical accuracy over needless meddling and trumped up justifications that are wind and nothing. So do others, from the looks of it.

Well that's a bit passive agressive, eh mate?

Face it, Civ is a game. Yes, it is a game inspired by and related to history, but it's a game nonetheless. George Washington didn't build The Pyramids in New York in the 1500s. Yet that's what happened in the game I played today. Is it historically accurate? Not even a little bit. Is it a forgivable within the confines of the game? Of course.

Does it really matter if you get your UU on turn 30 or turn 70? Knowing how most people play, they're not going to be contemporary to most of the other units in the field at the time because we've beelined to them.

And frankly, I'm with Cakes, Gameplay>Historical Accuracy, Horseman=more fun than the 97th Knight replacement.


Edit: So, yeah, pretty much what Prince_Caspian wrote, only I type slower.

~R~

 

[Xen]

"Historical accuracy", "needless meddling" and "trumped up justifications that are wind and nothing" are subject to your bias and personal opinion. Is CiV historically accurate? Does a game need to be historically accurate to the fine detail? Has spaceships ever launched in the 1700s in the history of the world? Who is needlessly meddling? Hard-working developers who have the right from the company to make the game? Or plain folks as forum posters who accidentally break taboos? How are justifications trumped up for a game where nothing is set in stone? Why do you say they are wind and nothing?

Hard working developers with rights from the company aren't the subject of my scrutiny, and (likely) never will be for the sake of what they do. They certainly have brought me a game the satisfies me in many ways, though they have let me down on this issue. Not that one person is generally the reasoning behind any such choices - but every choice has a consequence, and their choice in this case has lead to my immense dissatisfaction.

To be blunt, if I purchase this x-pack, its not for the scenarios, it's not for the fixes, and its not for religion. It's for Byzantium, pure and simple. It's frustrating to see something you've wanted for years finally come to fruition, only to be not merely a little, but greatly under whelming when compared to what I had been expecting, and hopeful for.

So given its rather pivotal place in why I ever had interest in the x-pack to begin with, perhaps my dissatisfaction is a bit more understandable.

"wind and nothing" is a poetic reference to the Iliad of Homer. It essentially means inconsequential.

 

[Art Grin]

And yet in 1453 an Ottoman sultan blasted its thick walls putting an end to its legacy of invulnerability. So much to be said.

Yeah, but it took 1000 years for somebody to finally come up with a weapon to blast said walls.


About the horseman replacement:

As things stand the horseman is a very useless unit and so are his replacements. They come to late to be useful and are outclassed by every unit of their era. Their only use is for scouting. Spears and Swords easily destroy them. It simply makes no sense to train them and you'd rather wait until knights are available. Giving Byzantium a horseman replacement simply means that one of their UU is useless. Horseman UU fall into the same category as warrior replacements, they are simply to weak and don't last long enough to be useful. Knights on the other hand last quite a while and are still useful even during the renaissance.

 

[Raiki]

About the horseman replacement:

As things stand the horseman is a very useless unit and so are his replacements. They come to late to be useful and are outclassed by every unit of their era. Their only use is for scouting. Spears and Swords easily destroy them. It simply makes no sense to train them and you'd rather wait until knights are available. Giving Byzantium a horseman replacement simply means that one of their UU is useless. Horseman UU fall into the same category as warrior replacements, they are simply to weak and don't last long enough to be useful. Knights on the other hand last quite a while and are still useful even during the renaissance.

While I agree that horsemen are poorly placed, much of the tech tree's pacing has been adjusted (most notably with Classical now being 2 techs deep), so that may no longer be true. Also, if the horseman has unique or convenient promotions, it would definitely pay off to build some and then upgrade, rather than hard build/rush buy knights.

Just my 2.

~R~

 

[DemonMaster]

Yeah, but it took 1000 years for somebody to finally come up with a weapon to blast said walls.


About the horseman replacement:

As things stand the horseman is a very useless unit and so are his replacements. They come to late to be useful and are outclassed by every unit of their era. Their only use is for scouting. Spears and Swords easily destroy them. It simply makes no sense to train them and you'd rather wait until knights are available. Giving Byzantium a horseman replacement simply means that one of their UU is useless. Horseman UU fall into the same category as warrior replacements, they are simply to weak and don't last long enough to be useful. Knights on the other hand last quite a while and are still useful even during the renaissance.

Horsemen, useless?
A Swordsman will get a Str of 14. A Horseman will get a Str of 12. If we also take into consideration that it with G&K will take 3,5 attacks from a unit with the same strength in order for a unit to be killed. That means that it will take 3 swordsmen to take down a horsemen. The Horsemen can flee (more move) unless surrounded of course. It will take 4 Horsemen to kill a Swordsman and a horsemen can do the hit & run tactics, something that a Swordsman rarely can.
A Cataphract will get a Str of 15, that means and, sure will have a move 3, but that is still better than a Swordsman, so it can both flee and do the hit & run tactics.
I will hardly call them useless (meaning both Horsemen and Cataphract).
Against a Spearman they are surely less good. A Spearman will have a strength of 11, that becomes 22 if the still are +100% against mounted or 16,5 if they are getting for example +50%. Since the Spearman will become stronger in G&K (+4) than a Swordsman (+3) than a Horseman (+2), this lowered bonus against mounted is not impossible.

 

[Art Grin]

While I agree that horsemen are poorly placed, much of the tech tree's pacing has been adjusted (most notably with Classical now being 2 techs deep), so that may no longer be true. Also, if the horseman has unique or convenient promotions, it would definitely pay off to build some and then upgrade, rather than hard build/rush buy knights.

Just my 2.

~R~

My worries about the Cataphract are generally based on the current state of the horseman. I hope that the tech tree will be reworked so that horseman come at a reasonable time and last long enough to be useful. Maybe the Cataphract will have a nice X% damage against infantry promotion along with the strength bonus, that way they could still last well into the medieval age as a cheaper alternative too knights.

@DemonMaster:
Even with the changes to strength the swordsman is still a better investment than the horseman. Horsemen are weaker, can't take cities and aren't useful in defensive roles. With his extra strength the Cataphract might be more useful, but it still depends on whether or not the tech tree has been reworked so that knights and pikes arrive later than they do right now.

 

[Seek]

To be blunt, if I purchase this x-pack, its not for the scenarios, it's not for the fixes, and its not for religion. It's for Byzantium, pure and simple. It's frustrating to see something you've wanted for years finally come to fruition, only to be not merely a little, but greatly under whelming when compared to what I had been expecting, and hopeful for.

It would take three minutes to change the unit to be a knight replacement in the xml, no need to get that upset about it.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Xen, I think I'll see if it makes sense in game for gameplay. Then, when I want to make something more accurate, I'll mod it.

 

[DemonMaster]

@DemonMaster:
Even with the changes to strength the swordsman is still a better investment than the horseman. Horsemen are weaker, can't take cities and aren't useful in defensive roles. With his extra strength the Cataphract might be more useful, but it still depends on whether or not the tech tree has been reworked so that knights and pikes arrive later than they do right now.

I can admit that the pikes are very easy to come by. Knights are two (if I remember correctly) techs away and takes forever and you (at least I) starts to miss the techs that you could have had. But sure, if you really wants to.

Can't say that I have gone for the knights straight a head in any game or seen an AI done so either (they seems to like the melee line and Longswordsmen). Although I have gone for the Pikemen and some AI also seems to like them.

 

[Maximo the Xth]

If they haven´t changed the civilopedia´s style then we can see the cataphract won´t have the city penalty and will have terrain bonuses, but won´t be able to move after attacking. (You can see in the picture that under the horseman´s symbol there comes nothing so there wont be any special promotions)
So it would just be a faster and bit stronger swordsman.

 

[Art Grin]

I can admit that the pikes are very easy to come by. Knights are two (if I remember correctly) techs away and takes forever and you (at least I) starts to miss the techs that you could have had. But sure, if you really wants to.

Can't say that I have gone for the knights straight a head in any game or seen an AI done so either (they seems to like the melee line and Longswordsmen). Although I have gone for the Pikemen and some AI also seems to like them.

My thought about knights arriving later was more based on the idea that with chivalry arriving later horsemen would have a longer lifespan and could prove more useful.

 

[Xen]

It would take three minutes to change the unit to be a knight replacement in the xml, no need to get that upset about it.

If a change like that will bar me from being able to play multiplayer (something I like to do in civ4, though haven't done in Civ5 yet) with friends, then it remains a contention, sadly.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think he was refering to a patch, if people are THAT upset about it being a Horseman replacement, and if the devs find it bit unbalanced, they could very easily simply change what unit it replaces.

 

[Seek]

If a change like that will bar me from being able to play multiplayer (something I like to do in civ4, though haven't done in Civ5 yet) with friends, then it remains a contention, sadly.

Yes, unfortunately the change wouldn't apply to multiplayer.

@Oz I can't recall any patches that changed a UU's replacement. With no precedence, it's doubtful that Firaxis would start now.

 

[DemonMaster]

The Cataphracts used early by the Byzantine Empire was unique due to the fact that most used light cavalry or horse archers, the Cataphract that was employed later by the Byzantine wasn't that unique, a knight version. So looking at it this way I think it is good.

Then of course we can discuss that it is far too easy to use narrow researching and head away towards pikes and knights in this case. But that tactics has its pros and cons.

The ship on the other hand ...