Byzantine Empire?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I kind of agree that the dromon would be the truly distinct unit to go with, since Greek fire is truly a Byzantine creation. With that said, unlike the cataphract, it wasn't quite as broadly deployed due to logistical issues.

Considering both Brazil and the Netherlands have a unique unit based off of one particular ship that shouldn't be a problem. Besides I think the Minas Gerais saw no combat whatsoever in real life. Greek fire was a Byzantine creation so that's why I would like to see them implement it.

As for walls, well, UU's get replaced. And most times I don't go beyond ancient walls anyway. So I think that's okay, and an ancient wall UB could be potentially gamechanging based on how you did it. But given the slightly alt/eccentric aesthetic of Civ 6, I think they would consider going with theme as a UD replacement for encampments, especially if paired with a latter Byzantine empire.

If any civ was going to get an ancient walls replacement I'm sure it would be Babylon though I'm not the biggest fan of that either.

 

[The Civs 6]

Considering both Brazil and the Netherlands have a unique unit based off of one particular ship that shouldn't be a problem. Besides I think the Minas Gerais saw no combat whatsoever in real life. Greek fire was a Byzantine creation so that's why I would like to see them implement it.


If any civ was going to get an ancient walls replacement I'm sure it would be Babylon though I'm not the biggest fan of that either.

I'd like to see a tall and capitol focused Byzantine design. I think you could make it unique by making it exclusively available for your capitol/government plaza city or something like that. Then again that seems to go against the design idea of Civ 6 entirely, but I dunno, there are just some things that need to be in the game that calls itself a historical game. Constantinople is one of those things.

 

[Sostratus]

I'd like to see a tall and capitol focused Byzantine design. I think you could make it unique by making it exclusively available for your capitol/government plaza city or something like that. Then again that seems to go against the design idea of Civ 6 entirely, but I dunno, there are just some things that need to be in the game that calls itself a historical game. Constantinople is one of those things.

A government plaza Unique district would be a really cool part of the game if pulled off correctly. I don't know enough about byzantine society to come up with a name, but I'm sure there are many effects that one could conceive of. (Give it the ability to defend, boost districts within X tiles, even allowing it to somehow be built multiple times.)

I think if they repeated the civ4 theme and its amazing organ I would love the civ regardless.

 

[Nizou]

I think that if NFP encounters enough, success, a later similar expansion pack would arise, and Byzantium would definitively come out in one of these two (as for Italy, more Native Americans, More Mesopotamians, more Central Asian and more more). This civ has just so success in the community that it would be nerd to never publish them.
Now, in terms of gameplay/historical interest, I think Byzantium should be distinct from Rome in its high Medieval phase (Komnenos Restoration for instance), but could have a dual leader with Rome (i think Constantine, Justinian, Theodora). And by the way, I imagined what it could give : https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/design-your-own-civ-vi-civ.572811/page-40#post-15817221
I wouldn't mind a full religious civ, cuz I don't see what cool gameplay style could emerge (like some guys here), but more a globally strong civ with leaders specializing it (Byzantium in history did a lot of things, on cultural, religious, scientific and military plans). Each leader could give different UC so as to cover a large pan of Byz history.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

They were a larger and longer lived empire than half those that are in the game. I guess you could argue that the Romans are them effectively.

If there is only one "Egypt" and only one "China" in the game, each of which lasted about 3 millennia, and an "India" that lasted two milennia, a case can be made for only one "Rome" that lasted two millennia. While I acknowledge that examples like Scotland and Nubia leave open the possibility that we might still get two "Roman" civs purely for sake of marketability, I think it is somewhat eurocentric to be insisting that Byzantium be a separate civ while showing extremely little interest in how the Mughals or Chola or Old Kingdom or Manchu are portrayed in the game. We have absolutely no mention of Burma or Vietnam in VI, each wholly distinct from Khmer--more than the Byzantines were from Rome--and each lasted nearly as long, and yet I see very few people complaining about how poorly SE Asia is represented. But there's always some myopic "where muh Bizants?!?" thread of conversation being started somewhere.

It's not that people want Byzantium that irritates my camp, but the sheer entitlement that accompanies these sorts of threads. The fact is that the design of VI so far could accommodate either way. We could get a Byzantine civ, we could get a Roman alternate leader. Some of us would prefer the latter because we want to see design space opened up for fresh blood: Italy, Bulgaria, Romania. And although I am advocating for Bulgaria and think it's a perfect fit for VI, I'm not demanding it like Byzantium fans do. We don't actually need Byzantium to be its own civ, nor are we guaranteed it after Carthage got blobbed into Phoenicia and England has a leader who speaks Occitan.

Let me grant you some assurances though. Byzantium is stupid popular; the obsession of every sophomore history nerd. If by some chance Byz fans don't get what they want, there will be a mod. And the support for it will be so strong that it will likely be the best mod in the game, designed from the ground up, full assets and animations, extra uniques, maybe even better than the official Firaxis civs. Maybe even with custom recorded music. Byzantium will probably be fine.

 

[Nizou]

If there is only one "Egypt" and only one "China" in the game, each of which lasted about 3 millennia, and an "India" that lasted two milennia, a case can be made for only one "Rome" that lasted two millennia. While I acknowledge that examples like Scotland and Nubia leave open the possibility that we might still get two "Roman" civs purely for sake of marketability, I think it is somewhat eurocentric to be insisting that Byzantium be a separate civ while showing extremely little interest in how the Mughals or Chola or Old Kingdom or Manchu are portrayed in the game. We have absolutely no mention of Burma or Vietnam in VI, each wholly distinct from Khmer

I maintain the opinion of keeping Byzantium distinct cuz medieval Byz is very different from classical Rome. However I agree with the fact that there are blob civs which should be divised into several empires (because they also heavily changed through history), and also agree with lack of civs diversity (SE Asia for instance as you said). And if another pack expansion comes out in the future, everyone could be satisfied : enough to publish reccurent popular civs AND better represent some areas of the world

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A government plaza Unique district would be a really cool part of the game if pulled off correctly. I don't know enough about byzantine society to come up with a name, but I'm sure there are many effects that one could conceive of. (Give it the ability to defend, boost districts within X tiles, even allowing it to somehow be built multiple times.)

I think if they repeated the civ4 theme and its amazing organ I would love the civ regardless.

A Unique Government Plaza would be cool except that the NFP civs are supposed to be compatible with the Vanilla version, so no uniques dealing with the
Govt. Plaza, Water Park, Dam or Canal unfortunately.

It's not that people want Byzantium that irritates my camp, but the sheer entitlement that accompanies these sorts of threads. The fact is that the design of VI so far could accommodate either way. We could get a Byzantine civ, we could get a Roman alternate leader. Some of us would prefer the latter because we want to see design space opened up for fresh blood: Italy, Bulgaria, Romania. And although I am advocating for Bulgaria and think it's a perfect fit for VI, I'm not demanding it like Byzantium fans do. We don't actually need Byzantium to be its own civ, nor are we guaranteed it after Carthage got blobbed into Phoenicia and England has a leader who speaks Occitan.

I see it both ways.
I see it as a staple that should be included somehow because it has been part of the series for a longer time than others that have also recurred.
On the other hand I could easily see it be a Roman alt. leader though nothing past Justinian or Theodora would probably work out.

I prefer the former, but if we get the latter I wouldn't mind either especially if that opened up the door for Renaissance Italy. Honestly I think the combination of both Byzantines and Portugal possibly coming will be what shuts Italy out at least in the NFP.

I'd just like to see some sort of Byzantines in the game, and I'm sure we eventually will.

 

[Aurelesk]

Well, the Byzantine saw themselves Roman or the continuation of the Roman Empire. Charlemagne was "promoted" Emperor of the Romans, and the Holy Roman Empire (→ Germany) saw itself the continuation of the West Roman Empire. In the end, saying "the Byzantine doesn't deserve to be in the game because the Roman are in the game" gives the same feeling as if someone says "Germany doesn't deserve to be in the game because the Roman are in the game".

I think the main reason the Byzantine empire might not come back it is because it will feel like Macedonia: a rebranded Greek civilization, and we already have 3 leaders (Alexander, Gorgo and Pericles), 4 if we count Cleopatra. But it is unlikely: the Byzantine are iconic and a good selling point. In french, we even have an expression "c'est Byzance !" (literally: "it's byzantium!") to say that something sound or look luxurious, somptuous, magnificent.

 

[Sostratus]

But it is unlikely: the Byzantine are iconic and a good selling point.

I hate when threads get into "my preferred civ is more justified than yours" but the Byzantines are one of the most popular civs that haven't been included. I think that crown was with the maya but now we have Plantation Science Lady. They seem even more popular than Portugal. Just like we got GC due to being a huge ask, and australia, poland and brazil because, well - target markets!

A Unique Government Plaza would be cool except that the NFP civs are supposed to be compatible with the Vanilla version, so no uniques dealing with the
Govt. Plaza, Water Park, Dam or Canal unfortunately.

I think there is one or two that require RF/GS, they said. I wish it was less of a constraint because they are losing out on a lot of cool potential synergies. It's also not like that can't have slightly variations where necessary if you have certain xpacs, unit resource usage being one.

 

[The Civs 6]

If there is only one "Egypt" and only one "China" in the game, each of which lasted about 3 millennia, and an "India" that lasted two milennia, a case can be made for only one "Rome" that lasted two millennia. While I acknowledge that examples like Scotland and Nubia leave open the possibility that we might still get two "Roman" civs purely for sake of marketability, I think it is somewhat eurocentric to be insisting that Byzantium be a separate civ while showing extremely little interest in how the Mughals or Chola or Old Kingdom or Manchu are portrayed in the game. We have absolutely no mention of Burma or Vietnam in VI, each wholly distinct from Khmer--more than the Byzantines were from Rome--and each lasted nearly as long, and yet I see very few people complaining about how poorly SE Asia is represented. But there's always some myopic "where muh Bizants?!?" thread of conversation being started somewhere.

It's not that people want Byzantium that irritates my camp, but the sheer entitlement that accompanies these sorts of threads. The fact is that the design of VI so far could accommodate either way. We could get a Byzantine civ, we could get a Roman alternate leader. Some of us would prefer the latter because we want to see design space opened up for fresh blood: Italy, Bulgaria, Romania. And although I am advocating for Bulgaria and think it's a perfect fit for VI, I'm not demanding it like Byzantium fans do. We don't actually need Byzantium to be its own civ, nor are we guaranteed it after Carthage got blobbed into Phoenicia and England has a leader who speaks Occitan.

Let me grant you some assurances though. Byzantium is stupid popular; the obsession of every sophomore history nerd. If by some chance Byz fans don't get what they want, there will be a mod. And the support for it will be so strong that it will likely be the best mod in the game, designed from the ground up, full assets and animations, extra uniques, maybe even better than the official Firaxis civs. Maybe even with custom recorded music. Byzantium will probably be fine.

I'm fine with an alt leader for Rome, it's just sort of fun speculating about what a Byzantine civ would look like. But Constantinople needs to be in the game, however they do it.

And I agree with your comment about eurocentrism. The problem is specifically eurocentric/modernist centric view of this game. But that doesn't come from not including Constantinople (or Charlemagne, or William the Conqueror). It comes from frankly idiotic (in the sense of justification by their place in history, I'm sure they were great business decisions based on who actually has wealth in today's world) inclusions of Canada, Australia, Scotland, and the Dutch.

Finally, guess what? Firaxis is a Western company producing games for a Western audience. If there were successful video game companies in the Islamic world designing 4x games, I'm sure their sense of priority would be a lot different.

 

[The Civs 6]

A government plaza Unique district would be a really cool part of the game if pulled off correctly. I don't know enough about byzantine society to come up with a name, but I'm sure there are many effects that one could conceive of. (Give it the ability to defend, boost districts within X tiles, even allowing it to somehow be built multiple times.)

I think if they repeated the civ4 theme and its amazing organ I would love the civ regardless.

Yeah if anything having it be tied to the govt plaza makes it more thematically like "new Rome", as Constantinople was. I dunno it really just depends on whether you want to emphasize the religiosity, centralizing political style, or militaristic achievements of the Byzantines.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think there is one or two that require RF/GS, they said. I wish it was less of a constraint because they are losing out on a lot of cool potential synergies. It's also not like that can't have slightly variations where necessary if you have certain xpacs, unit resource usage being one.

As far as I'm aware it's only one leader that needs R&F, and it's assumed that the leader is for a R&F civ.
I do know that the game modes, such as the Apocalypse mode, do need the expansions, not necessarily the Civs that are released with the modes.

 

[Futumch]

My guesses for the remaining (unannounced) civilisations included the Byzantine Empire. I don't have a very good success rate in picking new civs so far though, so I hope that's not the kiss of death.

I've guessed Byzantine, Babylonian, Portugese, Celts, Israelites and either Spain or China getting the unannounced alternate leader.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm fine with an alt leader for Rome, it's just sort of fun speculating about what a Byzantine civ would look like. But Constantinople needs to be in the game, however they do it.

Yes I do acknowledge that Civ VI would feel incomplete without some playable form of Byzantium. Just like I think it would feel incomplete without some subset of Burma, Siam, and Vietnam being included as civs or city-states. While there are plenty of gaps on the map that I think deserve more attention, there are only a few which are so huge as to beg representation and Byzantium is one of them.

And I agree with your comment about eurocentrism. The problem is specifically eurocentric/modernist centric view of this game. But that doesn't come from not including Constantinople (or Charlemagne, or William the Conqueror). It comes from frankly idiotic (in the sense of justification by their place in history, I'm sure they were great business decisions based on who actually has wealth in today's world) inclusions of Canada, Australia, Scotland, and the Dutch.

I don't consider Canada idiotic; as far as modern accomplishments go, it's a good example of a modern "empire" or "superpower." And if we have USA, Canada, and Brazil, I guess Australia can come along, if only for lack of literally any large, organized native culture on that continent; it's hardly any more out of place in a game full of "empires" as the Maori.

I do struggle here and there to accept Scotland and the Dutch, though. I think both were primarily included for gimmicky uniques (polders and golf courses). The Dutch are...okay, even if they aren't that different from other colonial empires like England and Portugal (and for that matter I think Portugal is about on par with the Dutch), at least they had an empire. Scotland is easily the least imperialist/expansionist civ in the game, though, and if they were willing to stretch the definition so far as to include Scotland, I think Ireland might have been a stronger concept.

Finally, guess what? Firaxis is a Western company producing games for a Western audience. If there were successful video game companies in the Islamic world designing 4x games, I'm sure their sense of priority would be a lot different.

Sure, it's a western produced game, but it's also parading under a flag of global inclusiveness and cultural sensitivity. It kind of rides a line between gratifying nerds who want to see exotic parts of history brought to life, and educating laypeople about how much of human history isn't part of the western narrative. And that all feels disingenuous when we only get token representation of the Arabic and Indochine spheres. No Morocco/Berbers, no Oman/Swahili, no Timurids/Mughals, no Burma. It feels especially disingenuous when we got four new civs on the American continents and not a single new civ on the Asian continent since Scythia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I do struggle here and there to accept Scotland and the Dutch, though. I think both were primarily included for gimmicky uniques (polders and golf courses). The Dutch are...okay, even if they aren't that different from other colonial empires like England and Portugal (and for that matter I think Portugal is about on par with the Dutch), at least they had an empire. Scotland is easily the least imperialist/expansionist civ in the game, though, and if they were willing to stretch the definition so far as to include Scotland, I think Ireland might have been a stronger concept.

I'm really surprised to see people struggling to see the Dutch in the game, even without the cool inclusion of polders, considering their Golden Age.

It feels especially disingenuous when we got four new civs on the American continents and not a single new civ on the Asian continent since Scythia.

Do you mean Central Asia? Because we've gotten Persia, Khmer, Indonesia, Korea, Mongolia, Phoenicia and the Ottomans since Scythia was released in the base game, not to mention Chandragupta, in Asia.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Do you mean Central Asia? Because we've gotten Persia, Khmer, Indonesia, Korea, Mongolia, Phoenicia and the Ottomans since Scythia was released in the base game, not to mention Chandragupta, in Asia.

I mean the totality of Asia, but particularly non-Arabic Asia. Four new civs were conceived for the Americas (making for two more civs total in that hemisphere so far). Asia has China, Scythia, India, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Persia, Khmer, and Indonesia: all of which except Scythia were already in V. Even if you include Phoenicia, that's really just a Carthage rework. We haven't had a new civ designed for Asia, despite many promising candidates with more potential than the Cree.

(and that doesn't mean I think the Cree shouldn't have been included. Just that if we have a game where the devs go out of their way to include the Cree and Scotland, you would imagine they would make efforts to include the Timurids, Burma, Vietnam, Oman...)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean the totality of Asia, but particularly non-Arabic Asia. Four new civs were conceived for the Americas (making for two more civs total in that hemisphere so far). Asia has China, Scythia, India, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Persia, Khmer, and Indonesia: all of which except Scythia were already in V. Even if you include Phoenicia, that's really just a Carthage rework. We haven't had a new civ designed for Asia, despite many promising candidates with more potential than the Cree.

I get what you are saying now. You meant that there have been no newcomers for Asia at all. To be fair the Americas have always been one of the most unrepresented regions in the game considering Civ 5 was the first game that South America got two Civs at all and we got more than one Native American tribe, not including Civ 4's blob civ.

(and that doesn't mean I think the Cree shouldn't have been included. Just that if we have a game where the devs go out of their way to include the Cree and Scotland, you would imagine they would make efforts to include the Timurids, Burma, Vietnam, Oman...)

I'm pretty confident that they will cover at least one new civ in Asia in the NFP. East Asia wasn't in GS at all, so I don't think they will skip over it again.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I get what you are saying now. You meant that there have been no newcomers for Asia at all. To be fair the Americas have always been one of the most unrepresented regions in the game considering Civ 5 was the first game that South America got two Civs at all and we got more than one Native American tribe, not including Civ 4's blob civ.

The American representation is appreciated, but I still have difficulty swallowing any design philosophy that involves four South American civs and two Canadian civs, but still only has Khmer representing Southeast Asia.

I'm pretty confident that they will cover at least one new civ in Asia in the NFP. East Asia wasn't in GS at all, so I don't think they will skip over it again.

I think at this point they have to include Burma or Vietnam just because they are running out of unrepresented regions elsewhere. But even if we got one of those I would find SE Asia lacking in representation compared to how much they invested in America. At the very least we need Pagan/Hanoi/Bangkok city-states if the Muisca, the Taino, the Nazca, the Olmecs, the Zapotecs, and Mexico and Argentina are already represented. It just doesn't make sense to me how dense Latin America is right now with civs and city-states while we don't have any city-states near Khmer. Not even Kuala Lumpur or Manila or Dhaka. It just feels so wrong.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The American representation is appreciated, but I still have difficulty swallowing any design philosophy that involves four South American civs and two Canadian civs, but still only has Khmer representing Southeast Asia.

Is Indonesia not SE Asia?

I think at this point they have to include Burma or Vietnam just because they are running out of unrepresented regions elsewhere. But even if we got one of those I would find SE Asia lacking in representation compared to how much they invested in America. At the very least we need Pagan/Hanoi/Bangkok city-states if the Muisca, the Taino, the Nazca, the Olmecs, the Zapotecs, and Mexico and Argentina are already represented. It just doesn't make sense to me how dense Latin America is right now with civs and city-states while we don't have any city-states near Khmer. Not even Kuala Lumpur or Manila or Dhaka. It just feels so wrong.

I don't necessarily see the lack of representation if we get say a Vietnam or Burma Civ civ and either a Hanoi/Pagan/Bangkok city-state.
To be fair we also just got Singapore and to me city-states don't necessary matter when talking about is this area of the world represented. Playable Civs to me matter.

I don't want to derail the thread though talking about Asia in a Byzantine Empire thread. Though I guess to be fair the Byzantines had territory in Asia. I also forgot to mention that they did introduce Georgia after Scythia. Geographically it is Asia, even though culturally it's closer to being European, like the Byzantines.

 

[Sirsquier]

I think the reason for the lack of non Western civs also comes from a lack of knowledge on the eastern history. (I mean many Chinese leaders have destroyed entire libraries worth of history). However, I'd love to see some more Asian civs.