The Byzantine Empire

[Alexastor]

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.

A perfect substitute?

With the same logic you could argue that it's pretty bad to replace a unit that is supposed to resemble (one of) the first melee cavalry in history with a unit that was mostly used during the centuries AD (at least for the civ that has it as a UU). Especially as the Classical Era mainly has units from the historical Classical era right now.

The Cataphract definitely is a unit that somehow is fitted in between the Classical and Medieval era. It is neither a perfect replacement for the Knight nor for the Horseman.

Given the awkwardness I mentioned in my post above, it'd be (historically) more sensitive to make the Cataphract a medieval unit.

 

[elprofesor]

You can think of it that way: cataphracts were heavy cavalry in a time were most mounted units were on the light side, and existed up to the end of the Middle Ages. So right now cataphracts replace horsemen, and you can think of knights as late cataphracts, since there's no clear difference between the two.

At least that's my way I see the issue, the same way I think of horses as camels when I am playing Arabia, otherwise why would they need horses for a camel archer? To feed the camel?

 

[Alexastor]

You can think of it that way: cataphracts were heavy cavalry in a time were most mounted units were on the light side, and existed up to the end of the Middle Ages. So right now cataphracts replace horsemen, and you can think of knights as late cataphracts, since there's no clear difference between the two.

At least that's my way I see the issue, the same way I think of horses as camels when I am playing Arabia, otherwise why would they need horses for a camel archer? To feed the camel?

It's not a problem to have Cataphracts replacing either Knights or Horsemen per se.

The problem is that Cataphracts are directly competing with units of its predecessor civs, whereas making Cataphracts a medieval unit would be maybe a tiny bit less accurate if you look at the unit alone, but a lot less awkward in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Uberfrog]

I guess it's just a result of the unit placement in the technology tree.

The Dromon kind of comes between the Classical-Era Trireme and the Renaissance-era Galleass; the Cataphract between the classical Horseman and Medieval Knight (seeing as they were sort of proto-knights).

Since we don't have any sort of link between these units, and to be honest, there isn't really space for one in-game, it was always going to be awkward whichever one they replaced.

I agree that it would've been nice for the Byzantines to have something in the Medieval era, rather than making them contemporary powerhouses with the Romans and Greeks, but them's the breaks.

A larger problem is of course a Dromon losing its ranged promotions (assuming they are different from those of melee ships) when it upgrades. But then we don't know where the Galleass fits on the upgrade path between Triremes and Privateers/Frigates.

 

[Art Grin]

I just hope that the Dromon or Cataphract will be designed to still be useful in the middle ages as well. If they give the Cataphract extra strength and a bonus against infantry than it could work as a cheaper knight with no iron requirement. The Cataphract would be just as effective against longswords and siege units as a knight but wouldn't be capable of taking on knights.

When the Byzantines were announced I was so excited about them, since they were my favorite civ in Civ4, but now I feel less and less interested in them.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

Yeah, that's my biggest problem. We can split hairs all we want about what it technically lines up the best with, but they should be the successors to Greece and Rome, not contemporaries.

 

[Arkangelus]

In gameplay terms though, the Cataphract has a HUGE power advantage over its contemporaries - a 25% boost that will be the most powerful unit on the field until knights and longswords, that you can unlock very very early on. Although the Dromon is awkward, it'll also be the only sea-based ranged unit until Caravels. So they'll play very differently early on, as well as picking and choosing their religious boosts.

 

[Babri]

I just hope that the Dromon or Cataphract will be designed to still be useful in the middle ages as well. If they give the Cataphract extra strength and a bonus against infantry than it could work as a cheaper knight with no iron requirement. The Cataphract would be just as effective against longswords and siege units as a knight but wouldn't be capable of taking on knights.

When the Byzantines were announced I was so excited about them, since they were my favorite civ in Civ4, but now I feel less and less interested in them.

Knights don't have any iron requirement in ciV.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Not only that, but Cataphracts were covered head to toe in Iron, so that doesn't make sense even if it were an option.

 

[Art Grin]

That's odd, I was quite sure that knight required both horses and iron in Civ5.

Oh well, than forget the bit with iron. What I generally meant is that Cataphract could replace horseman and be as effective against infantry as knights but weaker against everything else.

 

[Louis XXIV]

In Civ5, everything only requires one resource. Since you tie up that resource for a unit, it would be disastrous to require you to spend one iron and one horse just to get one unit.

 

[fat_tonle]

Well then make those units all that more powerful... if you are securing multiple resources that obviously means your rivals aren't, and you should have a major advantage of the battle field. People with melee horses can easily be countered by amassing pikeman, hence one resource alone is useless as is. Iron melee units can be thwarted by horse based civs like Mongols and Huns which would only require the horse resource to begin with for their UU's.

 

[Calouste]

A solution would be to base the Dromon and the Galleas and the Cataphract on the Knight, make them both slightly weaker, and make them both available at an earlier tech (Optics for the Dromon and Civil Service or Guilds for the Cataphract. That would be the closest to historical accuracy, and would also have an interesting gameplay element in that a period of relative strength is followed by a period of relative weakness.

 

[prince_caspian]

Actually it isn't so bad if cataphract's strength was higher than CC but between the horseman and knight, to emphasize its late classical, early medieval advent. That would really make Byzantine a beast of an early game and still powerful medieval. Same with dromon though I'm not sure whether ranged promotions will be converted to its melee equivalents.

 

[Babri]

A solution would be to base the Dromon and the Galleas and the Cataphract on the Knight, make them both slightly weaker, and make them both available at an earlier tech (Optics for the Dromon and Civil Service or Guilds for the Cataphract. That would be the closest to historical accuracy, and would also have an interesting gameplay element in that a period of relative strength is followed by a period of relative weakness.

I loved this idea.

That would make a lot of sense, moreover there is no such unit right now which is available earlier than its replacement but we already have extra strength UUs. So that would add a bit more flavour + more historical accuracy.

 

[CYZ]

I mostly disagree with the catapract. To me the best description for that unit is ''early knight''. That's what I'd do, make it equal to the knight but just let it come at an earlier tech. Being able to get a knight-like unit before anyone else will be very powerfull, though they will also be relatively expensive.

Which all makes sense in a historic perspective.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Now I feel obligated to throw my own opinion in:
Cataphracts became obsolete when knights became widespread, so they should be inferior to them in some way and come earlier (like Caloute said CS or Guilds). But I don't think it would be good balance to have a UU with less base strength.
Instead they shoud be the same strength as knights and have a penalty against mounted, being too heavily armored to chase after light cavalry (like Persian Cataphracts during the Arab conquest) and not heavy enough to go toe to toe with knights in plate.
They'd still mop the floor with horsemen in most cases but they'd be less OP.
Having Siam as a direct neighbour would be pretty disastrous though (except you befriend them or destroy them before they get elephants).

 

[teks]

I only skimmed over this long thread, but I've done a research paper on the byzantine empire, and think I can give some insight on the byzantine empires strengths and weaknesses.
First about the recent posts about the Cataphract. It should replace the knight without a doubt. It was not considered heavily armored compared to light horsemen, oh no no no. It was considered the most heavily armored horseman in history. The downfall of the cataphract to the knight had more to do with the empires decline rather then the superiority of the knight. Compared to knights the cataphractoi would be slower, but rather then giving them a bonus to attack strength It might be interesting to portray their superior armor with cover promotion, and portray their armor-piercing maces with a bonus against mounted units. Cataphractoi and knights may have been similiar, but they were used completely differently. Compared to knights cataphractoi were more like tank-like and slow. Probably too slow to bother with flanking, but armored enough not to care.
Instead of the cataphractoi they could also put in the varangian Guard. Fearsome viking mercenaries who had full access to the royal armory. Imagine the fearsome viking soldier with his two-handed axe, and fighting skills. Now imagine that viking warrior with the most advanced armor, and weapons available at that time period. It must have been a sight to see.

The byzantine Empire's biggest strengths came from its professional army, its extensive use of mercenaries, and Constantinople.
professional army
While the other nations relied on feudal armies consisting of poorly armed militias combined with a few elite noblemen, the byzantines had a professional army. he decline of the byzantine empire started when they got rid of this professional army. Maybe in the game this could be portrayed as a reduced maintenance cost for military units, or maybe an increased supply.
Mercenaries
Any gaps in the byzantine army was filled in with mercenaries. In battles its safe to say the majority of their troops were likely mercenaries, and dang good ones at that. Turkish bows, hungarian horsemen, viking axes. Anyone and everyone. In the game I have no idea how you would portray this advantage.
Constantinople
There is so much that could be said about Constantinople. No city could match its defenses, nor its wealth. It had great aqueducts to support its large population. Everyone who saw this city would have to wonder if god himself built it. If you want the byzantine empire to play like the byzantine empire we all know and love their UA should probably focus on capital city advantages. Growth bonuses, trade bonuses, defense bonuses. In the game the byzantine empire should always have a powerful capital city.

Right. I hope this gives you all some more ideas, even though they probably already came up with their decision, and if its anything like giving America minute men, despite the fact that America's standing army lost the majority of their battles, I'm going to spit.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Great post and great points
It's a shame none of the Us of Byzantium will follow these

 

[prince_caspian]

Constantinople
There is so much that could be said about Constantinople. No city could match its defenses, nor its wealth. It had great aqueducts to support its large population. Everyone who saw this city would have to wonder if god himself built it.

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