The Byzantine Empire

[cakes]

I mean, I was thinking it wouldn't make sense to make Greek Fire a ranged attack at all, given that it is pumped out of a siphon. But it makes even less sense to make it a ranged attack that replaces a melee unit in an era before Greek fire even appeared. A unit that already has a unique version for someone else.

i would certainly think that pumping fire out at a ship is more ranged than ramming one or boarding one to attack the people inside. it's not as ranged as firing arrows but i think melee ships are reserved for ramming and taking over cities. anything that can't really do that i guess is ranged

 

[Glassmage]

Not every civ starts at the same "era". Aztec is in Ancient or Classical Era when Europe was in Renaissance. I think it make sense that Byzantium has early units rather than at Medieval. One thing I agree is that Dromon replacing Trireme is an annoying mistake. Why not let range and melee branch separately? >_>

 

[Calouste]

Not every civ starts at the same "era". Aztec is in Ancient or Classical Era when Europe was in Renaissance. I think it make sense that Byzantium has early units rather than at Medieval. One thing I agree is that Dromon replacing Trireme is an annoying mistake. Why not let range and melee branch separately? >_>

Best solution for historical accuracy would be to have Byzantium have the Trireme at Sailing like everyone else, and have the Dromon at Optics. Although that would be a fairly dangerous combination for small coastal cities.

 

[Bandersnatching]

It is weird that the Byzantines get ancient and classical era UU's when they began existence right before the Dark Ages of Europe - hardly ancient in terms of world technological and cultural development. I can understand the Cataphract being a Horseman UU - there are already a large number of Knight UU's and it isn't very anachronous historically - but the Dromon is... unappealing in terms of its placement on the tech tree and especially the unit it replaces. It makes the civ far too dependent on early conquest. I guess they were going for the whole 'only civilized European nation during the Dark Ages' feel?

 

[Xen]

I'm disappointed with how Byzantium panned out. Would have preferred a medieval powerhouse to another classical era contender.

Those worried about the current amount of knight UU's be damned - I personally don't care if every civ has a knight UU; as long as it has something different about it from the vanilla version, its a good enough justification. It's certainly warranted by the Byzantines actual history.

If you're going to force Theodora down out throats again, one might have hoped they would have otherwise kept the rather good depiction they had going in Civ4. Instead we have the most conservative kingdom in all Christendom lead by one of its most disdained Empresses, and portrayed as a kingdom of the classical era.

I am disappoint.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

Trireme replacement? Unexpected, especially as a ranged unit. Guess all the promotions we earn on it are going to be largely useless.

Also leaves the Byzantines with no melee ships in the early game and need to rely on melee units to capture coastal cities.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm disappointed with how Byzantium panned out. Would have preferred a medieval powerhouse to another classical era contender.

Those worried about the current amount of knight UU's be damned - I personally don't care if every civ has a knight UU; as long as it has something different about it from the vanilla version, its a good enough justification. It's certainly warranted by the Byzantines actual history.

If you're going to force Theodora down out throats again, one might have hoped they would have otherwise kept the rather good depiction they had going in Civ4. Instead we have the most conservative kingdom in all Christendom lead by one of its most disdained Empresses, and portrayed as a kingdom of the classical era.

I am disappoint.

The one thing I'll give them is that she's at least speaking (Medieval) Greek. That's not a lot, though.

I'm definitely strongly considering making a mod that changes the Byzantines. But even leaving that aside, I can't believe they didn't at least make their ship medieval.

 

[MadDjinn]

Trireme replacement? Unexpected, especially as a ranged unit. Guess all the promotions we earn on it are going to be largely useless.

Also leaves the Byzantines with no melee ships in the early game and need to rely on melee units to capture coastal cities.

It is weird that the Byzantines get ancient and classical era UU's when they began existence right before the Dark Ages of Europe - hardly ancient in terms of world technological and cultural development. I can understand the Cataphract being a Horseman UU - there are already a large number of Knight UU's and it isn't very anachronous historically - but the Dromon is... unappealing in terms of its placement on the tech tree and especially the unit it replaces. It makes the civ far too dependent on early conquest. I guess they were going for the whole 'only civilized European nation during the Dark Ages' feel?

The one thing I'll give them is that she's at least speaking (Medieval) Greek. That's not a lot, though.

I'm definitely strongly considering making a mod that changes the Byzantines. But even leaving that aside, I can't believe they didn't at least make their ship medieval.

Random point(s):

The Byzantines have the same issues as the Aztecs. They come 'later' 'time wise' but aren't actually technologically equivalent anymore.

The early Dromons (Wikipedia) date from at least the 5th century and replaced galleys/triremes (so about the end of the Migration Period, not the High Middle Ages). Given the tech tree choices, it makes sense that the Dromon replaces the galley, not the Galleass.

As per the Cataphract - it's mainly the same thing. So no, they aren't improperly set, if you dig a bit deeper and split the concept of 'time line' vs. 'tech line'. Some people thought of stuff long before others, but that doesn't mean that they would be 'later'.

 

[Babri]

Overall what should Byzantines focus for, religion, conquest ?? I think they are an all rounder civ, might be a good one for beginners. Cataphracts can help crushing rushes & help while you expand your empire. Dromon will provide protection mostly from barbarians. Religion bonus can vary from game to game.

 

[Calouste]

The one thing I'll give them is that she's at least speaking (Medieval) Greek. That's not a lot, though.

I'm definitely strongly considering making a mod that changes the Byzantines. But even leaving that aside, I can't believe they didn't at least make their ship medieval.

The Byzantium Empire was pretty much limited to the city of Constantinople and a few goat farms on the Pelopenessos by the time medieval ships came around. Technically the Byzantine Empire survived until 1453, but practically they were done as a power of significance after the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's a fair point. I guess it's really the Cataphract that bugs me because, once you factor in the Themes system, they were very similar to Medieval Knights. I guess the bigger problem is the squishing of time. The only thing is, if they were to get pushed in one direction because of time compression, it makes more sense to push them to the Middle Ages. That's at least when they existed and competed (the Aztecs did not have technological equivalents, so that comparison isn't quite right).

 

[Art Grin]

Random point(s):

The Byzantines have the same issues as the Aztecs. They come 'later' 'time wise' but aren't actually technologically equivalent anymore.

Actually the Byzantines had no technological disadvantages to their neighbours throughout their existence. It's definitely not the same as with the Aztec that had a great technological disadvantage compared to Spain.
IMO the Byzantines are clearly a medieval civ, their golden age was under Basil II in the 11th century and 1453 is often considered the end of the middle ages. It just look wrong when a civilization whose end is considered the end of the middle ages is supposed to be a classical era civ rather than a medieval one.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, the High Middle Ages was right around 1100. I consider that to be the peak of Byzantium. Right when William is conquering England, the Byzantines still own parts of Italy and are trying to conquer Sicily.

 

[Gali]

The height of the Byzantine Empire ended with the death of Basil II in 1025. Manzikert in 1072 was a fall Byzantium never fully recovered from. 1100 was an era of major but not total recovery under the Comneni dynasty. The Macedonian dynasty is the height of Byzantium or Justinian because then they actually held Egypt, Carthage and Syria-Palestine. In any case 1100 is far too late, no matter how much you like Alexius Comnenus.

 

[MadDjinn]

Actually the Byzantines had no technological disadvantages to their neighbours throughout their existence. It's definitely not the same as with the Aztec that had a great technological disadvantage compared to Spain.
IMO the Byzantines are clearly a medieval civ, their golden age was under Basil II in the 11th century and 1453 is often considered the end of the middle ages. It just look wrong when a civilization whose end is considered the end of the middle ages is supposed to be a classical era civ rather than a medieval one.

except, again, we're talking Theodora and Justinian - so pre 600 AD times, which is definitely not 'high middle ages'.

If Basil was the leader, then sure, it wouldn't make sense for it to be earlier. But the dev chose an 'early' ruler, which means most of the focus is on 'early' ERE times.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, no, we're not talking about Theodora, we're talking about Byzantium. Otherwise, take away all the German abilities (ancient era, Holy Roman Empire, World War II), the American Bomber (Washington didn't have those), all the French abilities (two associated with the Ancien Regime, one post Napoleon), the Indian UU and UB, etc.

Since when have we limited a Civilization's traits based solely on the leader?

 

[Art Grin]

I have to agree with Louis XXIV here. Many UA and UU don't have anything to do with the leader and should help represent the civilization as a whole rather than focus on one era.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Someone mentions Basil and I think Fawlty. Sorry.

But in all seriousness, Louis XXIV and Art Grin are right: there are plenty of examples of Civs which don't match their leader in terms of UX. England/Elizabeth is another example of a Civ for whom the leader doesn't in any way fit the UUs. You could argue that the age of exploration and the Spanish Armada marked the beginning of England's naval dominance, but the actual Ship of the Line didn't come into existence until the 18th century. Elizabeth's contribution might have been better reflected by a beefed-up Caravel, although Sun Never Sets sort of takes care of that. And the heyday of the longbow was long gone (although they would most likely still have been around; longbows were found on the Mary Rose a few decades before her reign, etc).

Somewhat OT but you get the picture. There's no need for a Civ's UX to match up with the timeframe of its leader.

 

[Alexastor]

I'm completely fine with the Dromon, not with the Cataphracts, though.

That's a fair point. I guess it's really the Cataphract that bugs me because, once you factor in the Themes system, they were very similar to Medieval Knights. I guess the bigger problem is the squishing of time. The only thing is, if they were to get pushed in one direction because of time compression, it makes more sense to push them to the Middle Ages. That's at least when they existed and competed (the Aztecs did not have technological equivalents, so that comparison isn't quite right).

Cataphracts were used until the high middle ages and I don't think Byzantines really had the typical knights of western Europe, so it definitely would make sense to make Cataphracts a knight replacement.

The biggest problem, though, is that Cataphracts compete with Companion Cavalry as well as Roman Legionaires.
Byzantium is to be seen (at least kind of) as successor of both Romans and the Greeks. It just doesn't make sense to give them UUs that directly compete with units of its predecessors. Especially as those civs as well used Cataphracts, but later in time than their own UUs.

This alone is (IMO) reason enough that Cataphracts should be a Medieval unit.

 

[DemonMaster]

I'm completely fine with the Dromon, not with the Cataphracts, though.

Cataphracts were used until the high middle ages and I don't think Byzantines really had the typical knights of western Europe, so it definitely would make sense to make Cataphracts a knight replacement.

The biggest problem, though, is that Cataphracts compete with Companion Cavalry as well as Roman Legionaires.
Byzantium is to be seen (at least kind of) as successor of both Romans and the Greeks. It just doesn't make sense to give them UUs that directly compete with units of its predecessors. Especially as those civs as well used Cataphracts, but later in time than their own UUs.

This alone is (IMO) reason enough that Cataphracts should be a Medieval unit.

Technically Cataphracts where used "up until High Middle Ages" and Knights "during the High Middle Ages". I don't in general like to quote from wiki but in this case wiki tends to be fairly accurate (that is not always the case).
I think this and what I know from history books makes Cataphracts a perfect substitute for Horsemen (since it was also used very early).
If making it a medieval unit, it will come way late (too late).

I have not studied (yet) so much about the Dromon.