Byzantines: Great Civilization, or the Greatest Civilization?

[JustinianVII]

I don't quite understand why justin is imperial. Financial, organized, protective... all of those would be much better and more realistic traits for him IMO.

Historically, Justinian launched a massive campaign to retake the Western Roman Empire. Probably why he's classified as Imperialistic.

 

[Antilogic]

I've also noted all the "Roman" leaders: Justinian, Caesar, Augustus--all are Imperialistic.

 

[lutzj]

Historically, Justinian launched a massive campaign to retake the Western Roman Empire. Probably why he's classified as Imperialistic.

yeah, but it seems like the imperialistic trait in the game was intended to emulate the leaders who created vast colonial/vassal-based empires: Victoria, Cathy, Cyrus, Sulieman. Justinian was just trying to retake lost ground

 

[My Pet Hamster]

Yeah.

I think Byzantium is the best Civ by far. Indeed, if anyone can think of a better one, tell me. I will show you it's not.

 

[Iranon]

Begone, vile Necromancer!

And I seriously doubt Byzantium is in the top quarter.

No immediate yield-improving tech (The Wheel is good, but it's better when coupled with something that improves terrain. If you use Mysticism to tech for a religion immediatly, workers would have nothing to do.
For most others, the starting techs would be horrible; fortunately, Justinian is Imperialistic so Settler first is a viable opening if you can get 4 base hammers immediately.

Cataphracts are a nice military edge you can usually trade for, meaning you can fight well at tech parity. However, they won't allow you to walk all over your opponents as Rifles/Cannons/Cavalry would so you might be reluctant to take this path.
They are owhere near the stronger ancient/classical age UUs in power (turning an annoyingly close neighbour into a second capital is nice and easy barbarian defence can turn around otherwise lost games).

The UB can completely eradicate happiness concerns but doing so is costly. Normally I'd prefer a flat +2 happiness bonus (e.g. Ball Court).

Traits aren't bad... but I'd rather have one time/hammer saving trait (both SPI and IMP qualify) and one economic trait (FIN, ORG, PHI, possibly IND).

*

Inca, Persia, Rome, Egypt, Mali, Maya, Ottomans... there is no shortage of stronger civs, whether you're counting leader traits or not. I would hardly consider Byzantium average.

 

[Nares]

Spiritual/Imperialistic falls probably around the worst combo on a leader...

SPI and IMP are both strong. I'll agree that mysticism is a terrible starting tech, but it's still a strong leader.

More necro?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I made this thread two years ago! Please stop necro-ing.

 

[King Flevance]

And I seriously doubt Byzantium is in the top quarter.

Maybe on a smaller map, but on larger maps, Byzantine is top quarter IMO.

No immediate yield-improving tech (The Wheel is good, but it's better when coupled with something that improves terrain. If you use Mysticism to tech for a religion immediatly, workers would have nothing to do.

However your economy is now off to a great start and afte you found the religion, start teching mining > BW. Or Agriculture > Pottery. (Wheel is already in place.)

For most others, the starting techs would be horrible; fortunately, Justinian is Imperialistic so Settler first is a viable opening if you can get 4 base hammers immediately.

The key here is that the sentence even states "for most others". Building warriors or a barracks in the time to research Meditation or polytheism is still beneficial. And the long term effects of founding a religion will outwiegh having a worker a few turns earlier - 100 turns from now. And you can build a worker in the time it takes to research agriculture or mining so he pops out on time.

Cataphracts are a nice military edge you can usually trade for, meaning you can fight well at tech parity. However, they won't allow you to walk all over your opponents as Rifles/Cannons/Cavalry would so you might be reluctant to take this path.

I would never be reluctant to take Cataphracts. Using rifles, cannons, and cavalry only dominate by having a tech lead. Cataphracts will not only do the same but Cataphracts can stand to pikes very well. I disagree that you can't walk all over your opponents with Cataphracts in the same way. Flanking 1 and 2 and combat 1 armies (very easy to get out of the gate with imperialistic) can roll over very large empires without even a need for artillery. If you bring artillery (trebs or cats) it can be easier but will take longer. Running cataphracts means you need to get forges in place early and you need to get Guilds early and then the world is your oyster.

They are nowhere near the stronger ancient/classical age UUs in power (turning an annoyingly close neighbour into a second capital is nice and easy barbarian defence can turn around otherwise lost games).

This is just an example of how powerful a UU unit can be based on when you get them. If you can hold your own sufficiently to get to guilds, you hold the edge over Inca, Rome, Persia, etc.

The UB can completely eradicate happiness concerns but doing so is costly. Normally I'd prefer a flat +2 happiness bonus (e.g. Ball Court).

I somewhat agree on this but 10% culture is 2 and it increases meaning you can fully utilize the imperialistic trait by warring constantly and bypassing war weariness of which the ballcourt doesn't allow. And I would take cataphracts over a holkan any day.

 

[Grimberht]

I don't quite understand why justin is imperial. Financial, organized, protective... all of those would be much better and more realistic traits for him IMO.

LOL Everything BUT Financial. He nealry bankrupt the richest empire the world has ever seen

Mysticism or Protective would work better with other byzantine leader, even though Justinian did some religious reforms

Organized could work for the Justinian Code, and imperialistic is the trait that suit him best, his conquest to take back the Romain empire overwhelmed everything else he did.

yeah, but it seems like the imperialistic trait in the game was intended to emulate the leaders who created vast colonial/vassal-based empires: Victoria, Cathy, Cyrus, Sulieman. Justinian was just trying to retake lost ground

Well he did a bit more then trying. He conquered North Africa and ruled over Egypt and Syria, which they kept till the Muslim conquest 200+ yrs later, they establish a control over the Mediterannean (controled the isles), they took the south of Italy, keep Ravenna for a long time. They ruled land in 3 continents and never more then under Justinian, sound pretty imperialistic to me


Sorry I feel like my english is pretty bad!

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

And I hardly consider Mysticism a great starting tech: it doesn't matter if you have it on higher difficulties, the AI is still gonna fund all the early religions anyway.

Agree again. On Monarch, even if I start with Mysticism, and have a beginning tile producing a commerce, I usually get beat to Poly.

Mysticism is the worst tech at higher levels.

Grashopa, a deity player said the following:

Every Immortal Uni game that I could I have grabbed hinduism right off the bat. A bit lucky to get it every time, but your chance is very high if you work a tile with commerce - Also each game I have founded judaism as well (For OrgRel and missionaries). If you found both hiduism and judaism and buddhism was founded on another continent? Good times. Each time I have been told I'm lucky to get such a religion spread. (I play without events)

The reason the player can make his religion dominant easily is that the AI doesn't spread the religion intelligently. Once you found the religion, use your capital to spam missionaries. And send one to the capital of each civ. Then spam the civ that doesn't convert - hitting his biggest cities first. At currency pay him to convert and he will spread the religion himself to his other cities.

My last game I was getting 50 gold per turn from 2 shrines having built 22 missionaries. At wallstreet that is 150 per turn. This is typically worth losing a few city sites in the initial expansion as long as you get 6.

 

[Shorlin]

And he just looks cool.

Gilgamesh looks like some mythical beast offspring of a lion and a monkey.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Founding an early religion still tends to suck on high difficulties, so no talk of some great econ boost from it please. You give up a lot to get that bonus, usually more than it provides, if you actually get it by the way.

The traits are pretty solid for expansion + diplo though.

And the chance isn't *that* high to get a religion. I quit bothering teching an early religion after losing hindu multiple times as izzy working a 2 commerce tile. The AI can get it 2 turns sooner if it wants to, and you have no way of knowing that without picking leaders. Not only that, but having a holy city and no tile improvements 20-30 turns into the game isn't a solid basis for a "strong economy".

 

[King Flevance]

Founding an early religion still tends to suck on high difficulties, so no talk of some great econ boost from it please. You give up a lot to get that bonus, usually more than it provides, if you actually get it by the way.

...Not only that, but having a holy city and no tile improvements 20-30 turns into the game isn't a solid basis for a "strong economy".

Actually, against an opponent that is on equal footing (MP) the benefit is quite large. If things are held as irrelevant due to higher difficulty levels (because the AI gets "cheats" thus negating some benfits of something) does not automatically bunk it out.
I would say that you give up alot if you MISS that bonus. SO you have to weigh the gamble with the cost.

It provides more than the cost if you get it considering that building a worker takes about as many turns as founding a religion tech. And building an improvement takes about 1/4th the time of building a worker. So you are missing out on 3-4 improvements by this delay. In which you may have grown to a 2 or 3 max. So its possible you are wasting turns improving land that isn't even being worked.

The other part I understand where you are coming from as a person that enjoys playing the higher difficulties. I have only recently started to get back into Emporer and I doubt I will ever seek to go higher. As I view moving up in difficulty past that as a cost (streamlined playstyles, unusable game perameters, etc.) vs. benefits situation personally.

 

[kochman]

I recently read how awesome the Byzantines are in Civ IV BTS. Here is why:

1. Start with Wheel/Mysticism. Wheel is the gateway to many techs, and with Mysticism, you can be the first to found all the religions.

2. Justinian is Spiritual/Imperialistic. Spiritual: NO ANARCHY!!. (And half production speed of Temple). Imperialistic: Double Great General Speed. And -50% Settler Production is also pretty handy.

3. Hippodromes are a good culture boost and have a cool name .

4. Cataphracts are one of the best mounted units in the game!

5. Byzantium is just a cool name.

Now that you have the evidence, I must ask the question: Byzantium: Great Civilization or the Greatest Civilization?


(Please Post.......)

1) Wheel is great... Mysticism, not so much. Good luck founding all the religions in any level above Noble. Hell, good luck founding either of the first 2 at emperor, unless you have extra commerce from the start and play with few AIs...
2) Spiritual is so so at best... 1/2 priced temples is nice at higher levels, but not as nice as financial or organized! Imperialistic is a good one though.
3) Yes, these are great happiness helpers, agreed
4) During its time period
5) Yes

Great Civilization. Could be better if they swapped out Mysticism for mining, and Spiritial for Financial or Organized...
My $0.02

 

[kochman]

Yeah.

I think Byzantium is the best Civ by far. Indeed, if anyone can think of a better one, tell me. I will show you it's not.

I'll take you up on that, thrice.
Rome
Persia
Dutch (map dependent)

 

[Iranon]

Are we just talking civs (i.e. starting techs + Uniques) or the complete package with leaders? Either way, I could give a dozen I'd much rather have in the vast majority of games.