Alex Vance
Basil II's Junior Emperor
Remember all those Youtube videos when Basil II was spoilered? How "insane" he would be, how fun, how easy it would be to win, etc...
I'm not here to disagree with that. I'm here to point out that the "average player" (i.e. people who go on TierMaker to broadcast their personal opinion) considered Basil II to be mid/low tier -- which kind of blows my mind.
I don't believe I've ever lost a Diety game when I've played Basil II seriously (as in, not messing around with an experimental playstyle). In any case, I win far more often than I lose; so long as I'm playing by his rules and not the standard, vanilla Domination build order.
Basil II requires a different approach to the game than your typical Domination-focused leader. That doesn't make him weak. If that isn't your thing, don't play him -- but don't call him weak because you dislike the play style.
If there is one leader that can go from zero to 100, it's Basil II. And I genuinely cannot think of another Civ that snowballs harder or more consistently than Byzantium.
Many naysayers focus on Basil II's only arguably weak spot: the extreme early game. But a good Basil II player will be taking entire empires with Warriors and Archers by the Classical era. By the time walls are relevant, your Tagma are pulling triple duty as Knights, aura-bots, and Siege weapons. You rarely face issues with Amenities because of how effective Hippodrome are at providing them (not to mention free knights/tanks with each Hippodrome + each upgrade to the Hippodrome) which means the ability to expand faster without overexpanding. And combining that with the option of winning via Religion means you can viably keep 5 allies to boost your trade routes and not have to backstab them in the end, instead relying on your raging Apostles to dominate the Religious front. Not to mention all the free Religious-based Wonders you'll be obtaining from conquered Civs not going to waste.
I'm not saying that Basil II is totally without weakness, or that he is overpowered. But I'm sure he is in the Top 10 Civs; probably more like Top 5 (imo) but I'm willing to compromise. In any case, I'm getting tired of newbs rating him low tier or at best mid tier, and I had to vent somewhere so... have at it.
Anyone else agree / disagree / play Basil II?
Moderator Action: Please help us keep our forums family friendly by using appropriate language. Have made edits to accomplish this. leif
I'm not here to disagree with that. I'm here to point out that the "average player" (i.e. people who go on TierMaker to broadcast their personal opinion) considered Basil II to be mid/low tier -- which kind of blows my mind.
I don't believe I've ever lost a Diety game when I've played Basil II seriously (as in, not messing around with an experimental playstyle). In any case, I win far more often than I lose; so long as I'm playing by his rules and not the standard, vanilla Domination build order.
Basil II requires a different approach to the game than your typical Domination-focused leader. That doesn't make him weak. If that isn't your thing, don't play him -- but don't call him weak because you dislike the play style.
If there is one leader that can go from zero to 100, it's Basil II. And I genuinely cannot think of another Civ that snowballs harder or more consistently than Byzantium.
Many naysayers focus on Basil II's only arguably weak spot: the extreme early game. But a good Basil II player will be taking entire empires with Warriors and Archers by the Classical era. By the time walls are relevant, your Tagma are pulling triple duty as Knights, aura-bots, and Siege weapons. You rarely face issues with Amenities because of how effective Hippodrome are at providing them (not to mention free knights/tanks with each Hippodrome + each upgrade to the Hippodrome) which means the ability to expand faster without overexpanding. And combining that with the option of winning via Religion means you can viably keep 5 allies to boost your trade routes and not have to backstab them in the end, instead relying on your raging Apostles to dominate the Religious front. Not to mention all the free Religious-based Wonders you'll be obtaining from conquered Civs not going to waste.
I'm not saying that Basil II is totally without weakness, or that he is overpowered. But I'm sure he is in the Top 10 Civs; probably more like Top 5 (imo) but I'm willing to compromise. In any case, I'm getting tired of newbs rating him low tier or at best mid tier, and I had to vent somewhere so... have at it.
Anyone else agree / disagree / play Basil II?
Moderator Action: Please help us keep our forums family friendly by using appropriate language. Have made edits to accomplish this. leif
Last edited by a moderator: