A direct word to Atari/Firaxis on the Byzantine empire
- Thread starter Xen
- Start date
casual_moose
that casual moose!
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 233
they should make you there uu
StabbingNirvana
because i can ...
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 138
cataphracts should be the unique unit! point and case. im right. xens right. greek fire would look pretty though ... and it WAS made by some guy in syria(?). on the other hand, the byzantines did conquer most of the western empire with the cataphract. some would say they were .... Stabbing Westward. go buy their cds. they rule. and so does the cataphract. long live the byzantines! ... and cataphract!
@StabbingNirvana- thanks for the support 
@Dargoth- perhaps... if I get an O.K from the mods (I sent a PM to Padma on the issue) to make a new thread on this topic in the other conquest subforum perhaps I'll make a poll with a Xen UU on it
@Dargoth- perhaps... if I get an O.K from the mods (I sent a PM to Padma on the issue) to make a new thread on this topic in the other conquest subforum perhaps I'll make a poll with a Xen UU on it
I wanted to throw out an idea. Make a cataphract available with horseback riding and make it equal to a knight. That is you need horse + iron and get the 4/3/2 with horseback riding.
The time might be a bit early but the Persians certainly used much more horse than western regions did. And the unit would probably be seen in a primitive state sometime after horseback riding would have appeared.
The time might be a bit early but the Persians certainly used much more horse than western regions did. And the unit would probably be seen in a primitive state sometime after horseback riding would have appeared.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Keep in mind this is also a game in which there needs to be variety and balance. 5 Knight UUs, 1 naval UU.
5 knight UUs
-1 dosent have a horse
-1 has a mount, but it isnt a horse
-2 represent light cavalry, and have a point of defense removed
-1 has no armour to speak of, but is still a knight
as you can see all of them take place of the knight, but are a far cry from a knight, what is wrong with making a distinction with a unit who is more similer, yet still very differnt from the knight?
-1 dosent have a horse
-1 has a mount, but it isnt a horse
-2 represent light cavalry, and have a point of defense removed
-1 has no armour to speak of, but is still a knight
as you can see all of them take place of the knight, but are a far cry from a knight, what is wrong with making a distinction with a unit who is more similer, yet still very differnt from the knight?
I don't think you need a *new* thread. I just moved this one to the Requests,Fixes, & Changes subforum. 
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
If you had UUs for all the civs replacing one unit even though they were all different in some way, that still isn't what I would call variety.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Xen: I've already said all I have to say on the Greek Fire/Cataphract question (except that someone ought to make a Byzantine scenario featuring both!), but I do think you're a bit hard on the Byzantine navy. They were the Mediterranean naval power for quite a while (6th and 7th centuries), and retained a relatively strong navy into the Comnenian era.
PS There's another C3C UU that's worse than the Immortal and Mounted Warrior combined - the Sumerian Enkidu Warrior. The Immortals probably didn't exist - the Enkidu Warrior isn't even popularly thought to have existed!
PS There's another C3C UU that's worse than the Immortal and Mounted Warrior combined - the Sumerian Enkidu Warrior. The Immortals probably didn't exist - the Enkidu Warrior isn't even popularly thought to have existed!
the imortals did exist, though only for 50-100 years, personally, i take the immortal as all of the persian guard regimets wrapped together, though I know that wanting it changed is folly, as there is no chance of it, better to focus on getting the new civs right on the first go I think, and as far as the Enkidu warrior goes, a bad name to be sure but...
Attachments
ChrTh
Happy Yule!
Actually, the Sumerians have the first* fictional leader of a Civ ... 'Enkidu' is Gilgamesh's companion so yeah, it's almost** pure fiction.
"Immortals probably didn't exist" ... ummmm, hello? Next you'll be telling me that Spartans are a myth ...
*some would say Joan is 'fictional' in terms of her leadership credentials, etc. ... I would say the saint is legendary, but at least a real person.
**there is a theory that the gods/myths of early times are actually personages magnified through time; thus Apollo, Athena, et al. were actual proto-Greek heroes that became legends and then gods in the mythology. It is possible that Gilgamesh is similar, although he never actually attains god status in the Sumerian mythos (perhaps because the culture didn't last long enough)
"Immortals probably didn't exist" ... ummmm, hello? Next you'll be telling me that Spartans are a myth ...
*some would say Joan is 'fictional' in terms of her leadership credentials, etc. ... I would say the saint is legendary, but at least a real person.
**there is a theory that the gods/myths of early times are actually personages magnified through time; thus Apollo, Athena, et al. were actual proto-Greek heroes that became legends and then gods in the mythology. It is possible that Gilgamesh is similar, although he never actually attains god status in the Sumerian mythos (perhaps because the culture didn't last long enough)
ChrTh
Happy Yule!
Wait a second...is that from the Met's exhibit on Early Civs? I just saw that in NYC a couple months ago!
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
Well this has been an enlightening read through. I have learnt a bit about a nation I knew nothing about.
I almost feel like I want to be a byzantine <checks history for ancestoral lineage>. Nope just bloody convicts sent over here by the poms in the early 1800's.
Oh well I'll just have to keep reading Zen's rants for now.
I almost feel like I want to be a byzantine <checks history for ancestoral lineage>. Nope just bloody convicts sent over here by the poms in the early 1800's.
Oh well I'll just have to keep reading Zen's rants for now.
Symphony D.
Deity
I'm gonna have to side with Xen here.
Why? The Man-o-War sucks. Why? Because naval combat in Civ3 is good for two things:
1) Getting people places.
2) Bombardment.
You will never take a city with a ship. The Byzantine Empire, was just that, an empire, and quite a large one at that. It had a large army. Now, if you're going to represent a civilization that was known for its army, and having a large land empire, would you pick a naval unit? If so, I question your sanity. Choosing a naval unit as the unique unit makes for a worthless unique unit.
It should not be "Unique Unit" so much as "Ultimate Unit", or something that defined the civilization.
Sure, Man-o-Wars were all well and good, but if I think of the British military I thin of Red Coats. When I think of the American military, I think of probably the M1A2, not the F-15.
And when I think of the Byzantines, I think of the Cataphract, not "greek fire", which is a weapons system to begin with.
UUs should not be something "unique" to the nation so much as represent what was a military unit at that nation's greatest extent of power. I mean, hey, the Russians had a flying tank. That's unique. It's not their UU though.
In short, it just makes more sense to give the Byzantines the Cataphract out of a sense of history and fun. I know if their UU was some stupid ship I'd never use it because there'd never be a need if it didn't bombard or transport.
Why? The Man-o-War sucks. Why? Because naval combat in Civ3 is good for two things:
1) Getting people places.
2) Bombardment.
You will never take a city with a ship. The Byzantine Empire, was just that, an empire, and quite a large one at that. It had a large army. Now, if you're going to represent a civilization that was known for its army, and having a large land empire, would you pick a naval unit? If so, I question your sanity. Choosing a naval unit as the unique unit makes for a worthless unique unit.
It should not be "Unique Unit" so much as "Ultimate Unit", or something that defined the civilization.
Sure, Man-o-Wars were all well and good, but if I think of the British military I thin of Red Coats. When I think of the American military, I think of probably the M1A2, not the F-15.
And when I think of the Byzantines, I think of the Cataphract, not "greek fire", which is a weapons system to begin with.
UUs should not be something "unique" to the nation so much as represent what was a military unit at that nation's greatest extent of power. I mean, hey, the Russians had a flying tank. That's unique. It's not their UU though.
In short, it just makes more sense to give the Byzantines the Cataphract out of a sense of history and fun. I know if their UU was some stupid ship I'd never use it because there'd never be a need if it didn't bombard or transport.
StabbingNirvana
because i can ...
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 138
i dont know how to quote and such, so here goes. the byzantines were the major naval power in the mediterranian becausethey were the only non barbarian people touching the mediterranean coast. i dont care what you people say. western europe is full of barbarians ... and in the 6th - 7th century they were just axe wielders ... please dont hurt me ...
Similar threads
