Does Byzantium need a boost?

[greygamer]

I've had in my head for a while the concept of a "situational" index for the available civs. Don't know how to best calculate it (we seem to be tiring of elimination threads and straight-voting wouldn't really work) but the idea is that civs range from 0 (i.e. completely non-dependent on map start for their abilities to be of use) to 1 (i.e. totally dependent on a proper map start.)

No civ would truly be at either 0 or 1, but I imagine France, Ethiopia and Babylon probably being closest to 0, and Indonesia, Byzantium and Iroquois being closest to 1.* France mostly needs a capital. Ethiopia is built to go tall. Babylon's uniques are all terrain-independent. Indonesia needs not just coast, but worthwhile islands and iron to boot. Iroquois needs enough forest to create trade routes, and Byzantium, yes, needs to be able to found a religion.


*I am including start biases in my rough-estimates here.

I really like this idea. Do you have some starting values that could be posted in another thread that could be discussed further? Or possibly a thread could be started to discuss the weighting of factors.

Difficulty in Civillization already goes way beyond the level being played, map type/size, game pace and other options can have a profound effect on a number of civs. As a result a number of the recent vote threads have been difficult because few experience all the settings with all the civs and they devolve into simple popularity contests.

 

[Xahz]

I was going to write a detailed reply to Xahz's post but HeresiarchQin has pretty much covered it, and nothing new in either of these posts really. As I wrote before we are just going over old ground. Multiple posts claiming the same thing doesn't add anything to the debate. Nor do Byzantine is fine responses, unless it is being suggested that their UU are so powerful that their UA should be throwaway or showing a better way to play them.

So what adds to the "debate"? Only posts that agree with you?

The thread title is "does Byzantium need a boost". My answer is no. I'm sorry you think otherwise, but you don't get to just write off arguments because you think you own the thread.

I have never played a game as Byzantium and been unable to found a religion. I have played games where my religion got dominated and my UA was weak, but I've also played games as Portugal where I got embargoed and games as Songhai where there were no barb camps to clear. I don't know why people are having so much trouble founding religions. If you get horribly unlucky and for some reason get locked out of your religion, and don't feel like Dromons and Catas are enough to keep you playing, then just restart. Why is that such a problem?

You guys are making a huge deal out of the UA circumstantially having no effect, when many other civs have UUs, UBs, or UAs that might as well not even exist. Why not on them? Slingers and Atlatl are literally useless, but no one cares because the other bonuses those civs offer are enough to make up for it. I can just as easily say "I have never played a game as the Inca and used Slingers" as you can say "I never get religion when I play Byzantium".

 

[greygamer]

So what adds to the "debate"? Only posts that agree with you?

The thread title is "does Byzantium need a boost". My answer is no. I'm sorry you think otherwise, but you don't get to just write off arguments because you think you own the thread.

I have never played a game as Byzantium and been unable to found a religion. I have played games where my religion got dominated and my UA was weak, but I've also played games as Portugal where I got embargoed and games as Songhai where there were no barb camps to clear. I don't know why people are having so much trouble founding religions. If you get horribly unlucky and for some reason get locked out of your religion, and don't feel like Dromons and Catas are enough to keep you playing, then just restart. Why is that such a problem?

You guys are making a huge deal out of the UA circumstantially having no effect, when many other civs have UUs, UBs, or UAs that might as well not even exist. Why not on them? Slingers and Atlatl are literally useless, but no one cares because the other bonuses those civs offer are enough to make up for it. I can just as easily say "I have never played a game as the Inca and used Slingers" as you can say "I never get religion when I play Byzantium".

So are you saying Byzantine are a re-roll Civ? I very rarely do re-starts.
Your answer might be no, but others disagree and I am not convinced it is no. I am open to having my position on this changed but so far I haven't seen a good reason to do so.

So perhaps you can share the thing you do? Otherwise you are simply repeating arguments already put forward. Tell us something new please, simply saying no just re-start isn't really an argument to improve this civ and seems to support the case for the UA being looked at.

I am actually looking for answers, I am not sure what you are trying to say really?

PS shouldn't you really be arguing that a number of civs should be improved as well?

 

[Wodan]

The thread title is "does Byzantium need a boost". My answer is no.

I personally don't think it needs a boost, if by that we mean give it another bonus, but it does need tweaking, i.e., changing of its current benefits.

I don't know why people are having so much trouble founding religions.

Well the trite response to a statement such as that is to ask what skill level you play on.

You guys are making a huge deal out of the UA circumstantially having no effect, when many other civs have UUs, UBs, or UAs that might as well not even exist. Why not on them? Slingers and Atlatl are literally useless, but no one cares because the other bonuses those civs offer are enough to make up for it. I can just as easily say "I have never played a game as the Inca and used Slingers" as you can say "I never get religion when I play Byzantium".

If those are the best examples, then the claim is easy to blow out of the water. Slingers get a unique promotion that stays with upgrades the whole game. That, alone, is incredibly strong especially once you upgrade to gatlings and need to put them in the front line of battle. And Atlatlists are cheaper and don't require a tech... free hammers and being able to beeline your chosen strat? Sign me up!!!

 

[beetle]

I have never played a game as Byzantium and been unable to found a religion.

That is not the point. Please read more of the thread before commenting. Have you never noticed that the AI Theodora fails to found a religion in about half of your games?

 

[Beaver79]

That is not the point. Please read more of the thread before commenting. Have never noticed that the AI Theodora founds a religions less than half the time?

Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate?

This is what I find offensive about this thread. The pure arrogance of the peanut gallery. You disregard the points of others and then suggest that this thread was made to help the AI out. LOL. The Iroquois and the Russians have terrible UAs but they are usually my toughest opponents. I don't think changing Byzantine's UA would show any difference.

I'm trying to beat the game with each ruler on Immortal before I go up to Deity. I beat it rather easily with Byzantium. I had problems with America, the Iroquois, Russia, and Germany and Japan until they changed them. You guys might have a point with Byzantine. They could use a tiny boost but there are better off than a handful of other civs. Fix the others first.

 

[beetle]

This is what I find offensive about this thread. The pure arrogance of the peanut gallery. You disregard the points of others and then suggest that this thread was made to help the AI out.

Pot, meet Kettle. It’s a 10+ page thread. The discussion has moved on from the OP (which, I agree, was not particularly concerned about the AI) and to a more interesting aspect of the topic.

 

[budweiser]

It feels good I just won my first game ever with Byzantium and it was on immortal.

I bee-lined Theology and got Hagia Sofia and 3rd or 4th religion. Then I focused Aesthetics and won an eventual Diplo victory.

It was quite an interesting game, almost the whole world was forced to Freedom by the pressure of my culture.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

So what adds to the "debate"? Only posts that agree with you?

The thread title is "does Byzantium need a boost". My answer is no. I'm sorry you think otherwise, but you don't get to just write off arguments because you think you own the thread.

I have never played a game as Byzantium and been unable to found a religion. I have played games where my religion got dominated and my UA was weak, but I've also played games as Portugal where I got embargoed and games as Songhai where there were no barb camps to clear. I don't know why people are having so much trouble founding religions. If you get horribly unlucky and for some reason get locked out of your religion, and don't feel like Dromons and Catas are enough to keep you playing, then just restart. Why is that such a problem?

You guys are making a huge deal out of the UA circumstantially having no effect, when many other civs have UUs, UBs, or UAs that might as well not even exist. Why not on them? Slingers and Atlatl are literally useless, but no one cares because the other bonuses those civs offer are enough to make up for it. I can just as easily say "I have never played a game as the Inca and used Slingers" as you can say "I never get religion when I play Byzantium".

Xahz,

I concur with you on many of your points about Byz not needing an adjustment, that other civs can also encounter circumstances that negate one or more of their unique advantages, and that my answer to the thread title question is "no." However, I've acknowledged that this is the minority opinion on the matter, and continuing to go around in circles with it is fruitless; just banging your head against a wall. All we can do now is hope this gets addressed in a mod rather than a patch and simply don't download the mod.

 

[Wodan]

Pot, meet Kettle. It’s a 10+ page thread. The discussion has moved on from the OP (which, I agree, was not particularly concerned about the AI) and to a more interesting aspect of the topic.

Both viewpoints are accurate. It's correct that any fix of Byzantium should also work for the AI. But also it's correct that the thread has evolved and regardless who cares of some hazy definition of the "topic," what matters is the whole scenario.

 

[Redaxe]

Both viewpoints are accurate. It's correct that any fix of Byzantium should also work for the AI. But also it's correct that the thread has evolved and regardless who cares of some hazy definition of the "topic," what matters is the whole scenario.

Yes in retrospect the thread probably should have asked if Byzantine needs a rework rather than a boost outright. Anyway the thread has moved on from there and I think most points have been covered. Any more discussion will probably just keep taking us around in circles.

A number of people remain convinced that Byzantine is fine so unless the developers have plans it's probably best that a mod is developed that can provide an additional means to help Byzantine found a religion. Personally I like Kaspergm's idea at the top of page 10 where you can work 1 population in the palace to gain faith but perhaps with the yield modified to +2faith +2 gold. That is a strong enough penalty to early growth/hammers that would not make you want to use it any longer than absolutely necessary when starting out but not so bad that you wouldn't consider using it once your capital is large enough and has the infrastructure to support specialists.

Another idea that seemed to get popular support was for Byzantine to adopt a religion. I think is an intriguing idea but unless someone can mod it, it would probably take a developer patch or expansion to implement.

So unless someone has something new to contribute I don't think there's much point in furthering this discussion so I probably won't be adding any more posts.

 

[beetle]

All we can do now is hope this gets addressed in a mod rather than a patch and simply don't download the mod.

Sorry, but a patch is required. A mod won’t fix the problem of an AI Theodora not having an UA in half the games she appears in. Casual players won’t even notice that the AI Theodora is broken.

 

[KmDubya]

I really do not see a problem here. All civs are not equal, nothing wrong with that. This is not StarCraft where all three races need to be equal, you can not make 40+ civs equal unless they all end up the same shade of grey.

In the player's hands getting a religion is purely a choice. Getting Stonehenge pretty well guarantees getting one. Actively building an early shrine and then picking a pantheon that give faith works most times. There is also the choice of forgoing a religion to pursue conquest with your cataphracts and dromons.

If Byzantine was guaranteed a religion it would be overpowered.

If AI Theodora is bad so what? Somebody has to lose. I'd rather have the AI roleplay their civs and make non-optimal choices for flavor rather than have every civ do a four city tradition into rationalism into order super efficient strategy.

 

[Quitzz]

If Byzantine was guaranteed a religion it would be overpowered.

Explain why.

 

[greygamer]

Sorry, but a patch is required. A mod won’t fix the problem of an AI Theodora not having an UA in half the games she appears in. Casual players won’t even notice that the AI Theodora is broken.

I am not convinced that any of the AI are optimised to take advantage of their UA. I have seen games where AI Spain doesn't settle Natural Wonders for example (even when it is near to their starting spot). My impression is that the AI picks a VC and follows a pre-set strategy to achieve that, this strategy does not take into account UU/UB/UA. Of course I could be mistaken, so if anyone knows more please comment further.

 

[beetle]

I am not convinced that any of the AI are optimized to take advantage of their UA.

Emphasis added. There is a huge gulf between a UA being optimized (like a human would do, when picking a civ to play) and not using a UA at all. The AI Byzantium might as well not have a UA. The whole point of the UA/UB/UU is to give the different civs some flavor -- as worthy opponents -- not just for player civs. If this were not the case, then the UA would be disabled except when a human player was at the helm.

I really don’t understand the reluctance for so many folks to acknowledge that Byzantium is broken.

 

[greygamer]

Emphasis added. There is a huge gulf between a UA being optimized (like a human would do, when picking a civ to play) and not using a UA at all. The AI Byzantium might as well not have a UA. The whole point of the UA/UB/UU is to give the different civs some flavor -- as worthy opponents -- not just for player civs. If this were not the case, then the UA would be disabled except when a human player was at the helm.

I really don’t understand the reluctance for so many folks to acknowledge that Byzantium is broken.

It depends on the basic strategies the AI follows, at the higher levels they get bonus techs (unlock Philosophy earlier) plus production bonuses etc.. For some AI these are big bonuses for others not so much. Poland is a strong AI because it needs no special approach to get use from it's UA for example. Byzantine should have an advantage at getting a religion at the higher levels because of those bonuses especially if it gets Piety. I think we can agree that the AI in Civ V is not a strong point.
A broken UA is more of a factor when playing a Civ though. Fixing things from an AI perspective seems a distraction in this context.

 

[KmDubya]

Explain why.

Based on their UA Byz will get the most powerful religion, the extra belief policy is quite strong. It gets stronger the faster that Byz gets to pick the beliefs. Try a Byz game where you get two or three faith buildings and sacred sites for an example of the power. There are many strats that synergize well with an optimized religion.

How would it be implemented that Byz would always get a religion? Would they get it automatically such as when a tech was researched? Which tech? Too early and it will get a religion first, too late and it will reward lazy gameplay as you would be guaranteed a religion.If it was based on a palace yield or a unique specialist that could be worked it would allow Byz to get the first as well as the most powerful religion.

As it is now the player has to take a risk to get a religion, a bigger risk to get one fast. A first build shrine takes away from growth and has a cost. Going piety means you give up on tradition or liberty. The strategy decision for the player is how big of a risk will you take for getting religion early? Even the last pick of the beliefs can still make for a strong game due to the extra belief as long as their is good synergy with your overall strategy.

As far as making the AI better at using them I am not sure how to implement. For the player Byz makes for a fun and unique playstyle. There are other UA abilities that the AI just does not handle well such as Babylon (they always pop a tech instead of build an academy), and Mongolia (they attack CS and lose resulting in everyone hating them and getting destroyed).

 

[kaspergm]

Based on their UA Byz will get the most powerful religion, the extra belief policy is quite strong.

I disagree. Just because you get an extra belief you don't necessarily get the best religion. Many beliefs are situational, and the ones you need might be taken by the time your found. Other beliefs require you to spread your religion wide to get best benefits, and circumstances might not allow you (you might start next to Ethiopia or Maya, or someone who has a good faith-producing natural wonder). A major point of what has been discussed by many people in the later part of this thread is that if we guarantee Byzantium a religion (by letting them bypass the fixed limit and found even after the normal number of religions are taken), they will be secured a chance to use their UA but it won't be a change that gives them a huge boost because in those circumstances where this change will come into play - all religions are taken before Byzantium get to found - the number of available beliefs will be heavily reduced, the quality of the remaining beliefs will be much lower, and other civs will be much further progressed in spreading their religion, both factors meaning it will be very unlikely or at least very challenging for Byzantium to found a super-religion at this point.

 

[Quitzz]

Based on their UA Byz will get the most powerful religion, the extra belief policy is quite strong. It gets stronger the faster that Byz gets to pick the beliefs. Try a Byz game where you get two or three faith buildings and sacred sites for an example of the power. There are many strats that synergize well with an optimized religion.

How would it be implemented that Byz would always get a religion? Would they get it automatically such as when a tech was researched? Which tech? Too early and it will get a religion first, too late and it will reward lazy gameplay as you would be guaranteed a religion.If it was based on a palace yield or a unique specialist that could be worked it would allow Byz to get the first as well as the most powerful religion.

As it is now the player has to take a risk to get a religion, a bigger risk to get one fast. A first build shrine takes away from growth and has a cost. Going piety means you give up on tradition or liberty. The strategy decision for the player is how big of a risk will you take for getting religion early? Even the last pick of the beliefs can still make for a strong game due to the extra belief as long as their is good synergy with your overall strategy.

As far as making the AI better at using them I am not sure how to implement. For the player Byz makes for a fun and unique playstyle. There are other UA abilities that the AI just does not handle well such as Babylon (they always pop a tech instead of build an academy), and Mongolia (they attack CS and lose resulting in everyone hating them and getting destroyed).

All of your arguments are invalid. For sacred sites you have to go deep into Piety. And most of beliefs are weaker then UA and some of them just on-par with them. Even most of UB are = two beliefs.
Lets check:
Egyptian UB = Religious Center + local Church Property
Shongai = Choral Music + local Church Property
Celts = Asceticism + Religious Center
Maya = Improved Messenger of the Gods + Organized Religion

And everyone of them can be doubled by the "same" beliefs. On top of that you shouldn't care about "# followers" and other religious concerns.

Sorry but right now you have to correct UA of Maya, Ethiopia, Celts by adding "You will get one of first religions for free in addition to UA" and after that also correct Byzantine UA to something like "You will never get a first religion. And without hard focus on religion won't get religion (= UA) at all".

All ideas about adopting foreign religion is pure idiocy and historically inaccurate and whole idea of religions in civ 5 is that you can tailor what you need. For example there is no sense if you adopt tradition-like religion when your empire looks like republic.

P.S. And explain me: why imaginary "super" religion is so OP but Babylon's and Korea's sciense is an usual thing for you. The same for Zulu's warfare, Vinece's and Portugal's gold etc.