A direct word to Atari/Firaxis on the Byzantine empire

[The Last Conformist]

I'm not going to take anyone who claims that Herakleios/Heraclius is the only reasonable candidate as Byzantine leader entirely seriously, but, for the sake of form:

Greek Fire: Everyone's heard of it, and it was essentially uniquely Byzantine.

Cataphracts: Only history buffs have heard of it, and it was by no means uniquely Byzantine.

The choice would seem to be pretty obvious to me, especially considering there's already five Knight replacements, which is the slot a Cataphract would ought to take.

PS Yes, I'm perfectly aware that certain UUs aren't that unique (and in at least one case outrightly wrong - Mounted Warrior). But despite the best efforts by Libyans, Italics and others, hoplite warfare is forever associated with the Greeks. And what would the Mongols get if not a mounted archer? As for the Legionaries, while their individual tactics and weapons often were adopted from outsiders, the synthesis - the Imperial Roman Army - was certainly uniquely and distinctively Roman.

PPS OK, I'll concede that if they failed to make the Sipahi a Knight replacement, they've got precedent for placing also a Cataphract unit weirdly. But that should be cold comfort for those concerned with realism in these matters.

 

[Xen]

although I see your point, there is presedence for weird UUs' as well after all, what should trully represent the vikings- a Berserk, who by no means were the mainstay of thier forces, or a LONGBOAT-I'd say its the long boat, how many people know about the korean UU, the Hwa-cha, or whatever it is as opposed to the turtle ships?, or the french musketer as opposed to napolianc infantry, or even more importantlly, the cavalry? and then there is the persian UU, which is just blatantley wrong, and like it has been argued, would better go to a mounted archer, and of course there is the babalonian archer, who I'm sure no one would have guesses would be its UU if the they were coming out in the x-pac, and the chinese choice of UU just strikes me as a weird one anyway...

the very least they could do is start choosin UUs' on a real basis of what that civ used, and what troops were more important to it then others

 

[Civrules]

Originally posted by Xen
the very least they could do is start choosin UUs' on a real basis of what that civ used, and what troops were more important to it then others

But that is what they are doing, Xen.

To tell you the truth, I agree with The Last Conformist. I don't want a UU that nobody has heard of!

 

[Xen]

no they arnt!- if they were perhaps the Vikings would have a long boat, the korerans a turtle ship, the Americans a real UU, and a dozen others with a better UU choice, not least amoung them, the Byzantines! They have the oppertunity to correct a mistake before it happens, they should, and change at least the UU to more deserving unit, the Cataphract

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Civrules




I don't want a UU that nobody has heard of!

i don't want a uu that useless--navies in civ 3 serve very little purpose, i would rather have the varangain guard than a ship

 

[Civrules]

But sometimes they HAVE to do that. I also don't want a game that has only one ship UU.

 

[pawpaw]

Originally posted by Civrules
But sometimes they HAVE to do that. I also don't want a game that has only one ship UU.

i would love more ship types and uu if they would improve naval play, it would be great, if.....

 

[Xen]

but as it stands, not only would it be a compleatlly WRONG choice to give byzantium a naval UU, but it takes away from the fun, as the naval system in civ 3 sucks mightilly, and I for one would prefer NO naval UUs; AT ALL

 

[Civrules]

Exactly why we need more naval UUs! In order to improve the navy in civ 3 we need more naval UUs, Xen!

We will further burry the navy if Xen's idea comes true.

 

[Xen]

but it just dosent do justice to Byzantiums milatray herytage!, not to mention more naval UUs' isnt going to stop the naval sytem from SUCKING lets face it, aside from transports, and a few escort ships, there isnt even a need for a nvey in civ3- and if there are two UUs per civ,which is doubtful at best, it still makes no differce- the primary should be the Cataphract

 

[Civrules]

It DOSE do justice to your Byzantines because they were the only ones that used Greek Fire.

 

[Xen]

but it DOSENT do justice to great generals, and troops of the Byzantine empire- nor the fact that the empire was essentially a land power, and came to dominante as such, after all, it is like I said before- there is no fame for the admirals of Byzantium, only the generals, generals who commanded cataphracts

 

[Civrules]

You know what I would say. No need to say it now...

 

[Xen]

what would you say? I honestly dont know...

 

[Civrules]

If I were to say it, this conversation would never end.

Anyway, NO NAVIES have generals. But we NEED naval UUs.

There.

 

[Xen]

they have admirals in MODERN TIMES- there was not nesisarilly a distinction back then

 

[Civrules]

But you said there was.

 

[Xen]

thats right, there was-in other armies at least- I dont know about the naval hierachy of Byzantium, other then it was based on Romes, which DID NOT make a distinction between land comanders, ans sea going ones- when I say admirals in relation to the Byzantines, it is for clarifaction to modern audiences

 

[Civrules]

but it DOSENT do justice to great generals, and troops of the Byzantine empire

there was not nesisarilly a distinction back then [/QUOTE]

Hmm, what dose that mean? Well, doesn't that mean that Navies had great “generals” too, if there was no distinction?

I think you didn't make yourself clear on that one.

 

[Xen]

okay, here is what I meant

having a naval UU, representing the pinnacle of that civs milatary abilties, is VERY misguded for an empire like that of Byzantium.

we here ONE,SINGLE refernce to a great deed by them, and then nothing save minor mentions in other documents of the time,and we here nothing of the commanders of sea going forces- NOTHING!

and yet we hear all the time about the great land commanders such as Belasarius, and Narses, and so on, and they relied on not a ship, not even greek fire, but Byzantine Catatphracts to win there battles.

in light of this there is NO reason to make give the Byzantines such a UU, even if it is unique, so is the Byzantine cataphract.

and then we get involved in gameplay reasons, which if the creators of civ have trully been montering our little chats, would know that the naval system sucks, and even more importantley, they just arnt warrented, its land power which makes a civ rule in the game, not a sea based one, and Byzantium wa svery certainlly, a land power