Byzantium

Okay then here is my proposal:

Cataphracts get normal base movement, +15% CS against other religions, and restore normal cavalry city attack strength penalty and they're fine. I would still prefer the extra sight and settling of the conquistador, but at least Cataphracts would be better on defense and never worse than a knight.

As for Basilicas: I would like to see them give normal temple base yields and +1 culture per 5 cities following your religion added onto the current building.

That would be really cool imo.

As Cata's coming earlier: IDK. 30 strength AND defense any sooner sounds like it would be too OP. If they don't have proper tools to manage it a few 30 strength juggernauts would likely 1 shot every unit they have. It sounds wildly OP. If you weaken it then you exacerbate the current problem too.

I think the elegant solution is to buff them and make them a more fight-y less recon/settle-y UU knight than the Conquistador.
I like your cataphract suggestions and will leave it at that. UU balance is something I can willingly ignore in gameplay if I don't enjoy a civs UU.

The Basilica change is an interesting idea, maybe too strong depending on map size. It would be nice to see a civ that capitalizes on the strong connection religion and culture often have. So either the culture per city or a culture specialist would be a good way to represent that.

Byzantium always struck me as a more 'religion and culture oriented' civ then anything else. Sort of how Aztecs and Spain are Religion/War and Maya are Religion/Science, but that may just be my view on things.
 
Okay then here is my proposal:

Cataphracts get normal base movement, +15% CS against other religions, and restore normal cavalry city attack strength penalty and they're fine. I would still prefer the extra sight and settling of the conquistador, but at least Cataphracts would be better on defense and never worse than a knight.

As for Basilicas: I would like to see them give normal temple base yields and +1 culture per 5 cities following your religion added onto the current building.

That would be really cool imo.

As for Cata's coming earlier: IDK. 30 strength AND defense any sooner sounds like it would be too OP. If they don't have proper tools to manage it a few 30 strength juggernauts would likely 1 shot every unit they have. It sounds wildly OP. If you weaken it then you exacerbate the current problem too.

I think the elegant solution is to buff them and make them a more fight-y less recon/settle-y UU knight than the Conquistador.

Damage v. other religious units isn't something I can code right now for units (as it would require a bit more logic for the AI than the blanket bonuses of the reformation beliefs).

Building function is also a religious thing, can't do that either.

G
 
Cataphracts get normal base movement, +15% CS against other religions, and restore normal cavalry city attack strength penalty and they're fine. I would still prefer the extra sight and settling of the conquistador, but at least Cataphracts would be better on defense and never worse than a knight.
If you want knights that take cities to lead your religious war, play Spain. This suggestion makes them a second rate conquistador. Right now cataphracts are stronger than conquistradors in combat against units, which is something I really value. If you are playing defense I would assert cataphracts are better.

For similar reasons, I don't want the UB to be faith purchaseable, its not a mission, it sounds like turning Theodora into a wannabe Spain. I have a lot of respect for Theodora as a flexible civ. She has the option to go tall, and her strong faith output is something no other civ can get going tall. That 1 culture per 5 foreign cities forces you into a spread religion strategy, why force Byz intoa specific strategy? I sometimes won't spread and just build Basil to reform, especially if I have beliefs like God-King. I'd just give the UB +2 faith and +2 culture as a base yield. If not passing on the promotions is a big problem, then let the UU pass on the promotions

Spain will do religious war better, sure, but Spain does other things like tall tradition play much worse. You need to play Byz differently than Spain, it seems like good design me. I 100% agree with the above point on power creep
 
If you want knights that take cities to lead your religious war, play Spain. This suggestion makes them a second rate conquistador. Right now cataphracts are stronger than conquistradors in combat against units, which is something I really value. If you are playing defense I would assert cataphracts are better.

For similar reasons, I don't want the UB to be faith purchaseable, its not a mission, it sounds like turning Theodora into a wannabe Spain. I have a lot of respect for Theodora as a flexible civ. She has the option to go tall, and her strong faith output is something no other civ can get going tall. That 1 culture per 5 foreign cities forces you into a spread religion strategy, why force Byz intoa specific strategy? I sometimes won't spread and just build Basil to reform, especially if I have beliefs like God-King. I'd just give the UB +2 faith and +2 culture as a base yield. If not passing on the promotions is a big problem, then let the UU pass on the promotions

Spain will do religious war better, sure, but Spain does other things like tall tradition play much worse. You need to play Byz differently than Spain, it seems like good design me. I 100% agree with the above point on power creep

Yep. I think an additional promotion for the cataphract (perhaps % defense modifier) and a base yield or two on the Basilica and it'll be fine. Byzantium is not supposed to be a heavy-conqueror and/or massively aggressive. They're supposed to be a mid-line between the offensive religion of Spain and the defensive 'me only' religion of the Celts.

G
 
If you want knights that take cities to lead your religious war, play Spain. This suggestion makes them a second rate conquistador. Right now cataphracts are stronger than conquistradors in combat against units, which is something I really value. If you are playing defense I would assert cataphracts are better.

For similar reasons, I don't want the UB to be faith purchaseable, its not a mission, it sounds like turning Theodora into a wannabe Spain. I have a lot of respect for Theodora as a flexible civ. She has the option to go tall, and her strong faith output is something no other civ can get going tall. That 1 culture per 5 foreign cities forces you into a spread religion strategy, why force Byz intoa specific strategy? I sometimes won't spread and just build Basil to reform, especially if I have beliefs like God-King. I'd just give the UB +2 faith and +2 culture as a base yield. If not passing on the promotions is a big problem, then let the UU pass on the promotions

Spain will do religious war better, sure, but Spain does other things like tall tradition play much worse. You need to play Byz differently than Spain, it seems like good design me. I 100% agree with the above point on power creep

I specifically mentioned that the penalty attacking cities should be restored... (because currently Cata's get a smaller malus against cities than knights.)

They're also weaker than Conquistadors against units imo, because the bonuses are only on defense, they don't have +2 sight, and they have 1 less movement. The lower mobility alone is makes me prefer Conquistadors for combat purposes.

Since my previous suggestions were impossible, how about this:

Catas: Regular 4 mobility, 30 CS, current defensive bonuses, 15% bonus to attack in enemy lands, Shock and Awe promotion. (same as feared elephant.) Bonus to attack in enemy lands and Shock and Awe carry over.

Basilicas: Base Temple Yields/cost, 1/2 pop faith, when you purchase with faith you get culture equal to 15% of the cost.

As for power creep: I think the only way to avoid it without being unfun is to be carefully examine all newly buffed civs and nerf them if they're now #1-3ish. Also only buffing in cases where we have a huge majority that think something is too weak. A 55-45 spread shouldn't be enough to buff something. Maybe not in regards to the specific suggestion, but if at least a third of the people talking about something think it's fine then it's probably not too weak.

The "nerfs only" approach to combat power creep is really unfun to me, and I would guess other people feel the same. (Feel free to correct me.)
 
I specifically mentioned that the penalty attacking cities should be restored... (because currently Cata's get a smaller malus against cities than knights.)

They're also weaker than Conquistadors against units imo, because the bonuses are only on defense, they don't have +2 sight, and they have 1 less movement. The lower mobility alone is makes me prefer Conquistadors for combat purposes.

Since my previous suggestions were impossible, how about this:

Catas: Regular 4 mobility, 30 CS, current defensive bonuses, 15% bonus to attack in enemy lands, Shock and Awe promotion. (same as feared elephant.) Bonus to attack in enemy lands and Shock and Awe carry over.

Basilicas: Base Temple Yields/cost, 1/2 pop faith, when you purchase with faith you get culture equal to 15% of the cost.

As for power creep: I think the only way to avoid it without being unfun is to be carefully examine all newly buffed civs and nerf them if they're now #1-3ish. Also only buffing in cases where we have a huge majority that think something is too weak. A 55-45 spread shouldn't be enough to buff something. Maybe not in regards to the specific suggestion, but if at least a third of the people talking about something think it's fine then it's probably not too weak.

The "nerfs only" approach to combat power creep is really unfun to me, and I would guess other people feel the same. (Feel free to correct me.)
Ah I misunderstood your comment on city attacking. Cata does get +33% CS attacking in open terrain, it terms of raw combat power they beat conquistadors and I think they have the most raw power of any unit in that time period.

I would have to vote no on bonus in enemy lands, why force Theodora into being offensive. The 33% on attacking in open is likely much better. There is already a knight UU with feared elephant as well. That UB idea is neat, I like it because it works for a variety of strategies. but I'd be fine with it just getting 2 culture
 
Since my previous suggestions were impossible, how about this:

Catas: Regular 4 mobility, 30 CS, current defensive bonuses, 15% bonus to attack in enemy lands, Shock and Awe promotion. (same as feared elephant.) Bonus to attack in enemy lands and Shock and Awe carry over.

As for power creep: I think the only way to avoid it without being unfun is to be carefully examine all newly buffed civs and nerf them if they're now #1-3ish. Also only buffing in cases where we have a huge majority that think something is too weak. A 55-45 spread shouldn't be enough to buff something. Maybe not in regards to the specific suggestion, but if at least a third of the people talking about something think it's fine then it's probably not too weak.

The "nerfs only" approach to combat power creep is really unfun to me, and I would guess other people feel the same. (Feel free to correct me.)

I agree it's important to not become unfun, but your cataphract proposal strikes me as power creep, and just a variation to other Knight UU's as well.
 
Ah I misunderstood your comment on city attacking. Cata does get +33% CS attacking in open terrain, it terms of raw combat power they beat conquistadors and I think they have the most raw power of any unit in that time period.

I would have to vote no on bonus in enemy lands, why force Theodora into being offensive. The 33% on attacking in open is likely much better. There is already a knight UU with feared elephant as well. That UB idea is neat, I like it because it works for a variety of strategies. but I'd be fine with it just getting 2 culture

I forgot they got a bonuses in open terrain. The wiki nor in game description mentions it. It's listed as an ability on the civipedia, but not the %.

In that case I'd be happy with just bringing them to 4 movement, and making the open terrain attack bonus carry over.
 
I specifically mentioned that the penalty attacking cities should be restored... (because currently Cata's get a smaller malus against cities than knights.)

They're also weaker than Conquistadors against units imo, because the bonuses are only on defense, they don't have +2 sight, and they have 1 less movement. The lower mobility alone is makes me prefer Conquistadors for combat purposes.

Since my previous suggestions were impossible, how about this:

Catas: Regular 4 mobility, 30 CS, current defensive bonuses, 15% bonus to attack in enemy lands, Shock and Awe promotion. (same as feared elephant.) Bonus to attack in enemy lands and Shock and Awe carry over.

Basilicas: Base Temple Yields/cost, 1/2 pop faith, when you purchase with faith you get culture equal to 15% of the cost.

As for power creep: I think the only way to avoid it without being unfun is to be carefully examine all newly buffed civs and nerf them if they're now #1-3ish. Also only buffing in cases where we have a huge majority that think something is too weak. A 55-45 spread shouldn't be enough to buff something. Maybe not in regards to the specific suggestion, but if at least a third of the people talking about something think it's fine then it's probably not too weak.

The "nerfs only" approach to combat power creep is really unfun to me, and I would guess other people feel the same. (Feel free to correct me.)
Cataphracts: I think Cataphracts don't need that much in buffs, give them normal mobility of a knight and they'd be great, maybe not best but solid.
Basilica: Not sure if the 'cuture on faith-buy' is a good idea it enforces a 'buy stuff or you're wasting faith' mentality and Byzantium is the 'generalist' pick for an adaptive playstyle. I think adding a culture yield to the building is more then sufficient.

I understand the fear against power-creep, but actually we've been on a nerfing high performers kick lately anyway. There's a certain point in balance where you also have to uplift the low performers. We're not trying to turn every civ into Korea, Denmark, and Rome. We just want all civs to be on 'loosely' even footing.
 
What if you took away the +33% CS when attacking and just gave them charge? Sounds simpler, it would pass on to lancers, who would then get to 4 movement.
 
Can't we just give up on the idea of a unique unit that moves slower than the unit it replaces? Extra movement is just so powerful of a trait that you can't really create a unit that's interesting and powerful enough while still remaining balanced, you're going to run into a situation where you just curse the civ for not having access to an important part of medieval warfare. Just the same situation that Assyria were in when they had no catapults, or the huns when they had no spearmen.

If the Cataphract gets normal knight moment they probably don't need anything else, in fact they could even lose lose something in exchange, because that's just how great movement actually is.


As for the discussion about powercreep, yes absolutely powercreep is definitely a very real problem but I don't think this specific case is in any risk of creeping the overall power of VP, unless the buffs really go out of control.
 
I think Cataphracts are really terrific as they are and even like them more than Conquistadors. Because of the ability to fortify, Cataphracts work well as a slow-pushing unit. I probably couldn't make use of an extra movement even if I had it.

That said, because they can fortify and have 30cs, there's no reason to build Longswordsmen or Pikemen. Most of the time I find myself building nothing but Cataphracts and a few ranged units and just brute force my way into enemy lines. The interaction of front-line, back-line, and flankers in war is lost. I think Cataphracts don't lose out on effectiveness, but fun.

I didn't know Basilica loses out on Temple base yields, which I don't like. I like the idea of having a faith building that scales, but tying it to population means a player can't make as much use of it as AI's can. Maybe it could give faith that scales with era? Byzantine could have a niche of having the best lategame faith generation.

Ultimately though, I think Byzantine is in a decent spot and isn't in dire need of changes.
 
Can't we just give up on the idea of a unique unit that moves slower than the unit it replaces?
So you must also dislike the Siamese and Indian elephants then? I don't think the idea should be given up, its interesting and opens up space to make really powerful units.

I'm fighting against conquistadors right now, and they are no cataphract. The cataphract has the most raw power of any unit, bar none, for a very long time.
 
So you must also dislike the Siamese and Indian elephants then? I don't think the idea should be given up, its interesting and opens up space to make really powerful units.

I'm fighting against conquistadors right now, and they are no cataphract. The cataphract has the most raw power of any unit, bar none, for a very long time.
I really do hate the Naga-Malla as well, but the unit they replace don't really fill an important role the same a knight does. They can't do the hit and run strategy of the cuirassier at all, and yes I've stated before that I really dislike it(especially their inability to move after attacking) but cuirassier aren't exactly used to counter anything specific, while a knight is used specifically to flank which is really important against cannons and crossbows.

As for the Siamese UU, to me Siam doesn't really exist.
 
Can't speak to the Cataphract, since I haven't played it as a Knight yet, but I personally think the Naga Malla is the worst unique anything in the game, if they required Horses, I'd rather have a Cuir for sure, and I still might. But like Funak says, that's more about attacking and moving than necessarily the three move as I do like the Naurie and the old Horseman Cataphract.

Also, want to just add my vote or whatever to a buff to Basilica that doesn't interfere with Byz' ability to use various playstyles.
 
Authority Theodora really seems like the way to go. Get God-King, enjoy having a religion despite it, declare war if cities are about to flip to another religion before Basilicas, use Basilica to build whatever you want with Faith. Diligence (+1P per 2) + (Holy Orders/Cathedrals/Thrift/+1F per 2/whatever) + Inspiration (+1C per 2) + Zealotry seems like a great combination, it synergises wonderfully with Zealotry as 50 billion Faith per city means it's a no-brainer pick. Mission/Ostrog are now definitely taking the worst UB spot as there's just no way Basilica is not up there with the best 10, not considering the unholy things it can do with Zealotry. Cataphract is awesome so Zealotry rushbuying lots of it really is a great idea. Do not let religion to spread to other civs, declare war and take them over if it's possible. That's one of many tactics that seem possible with the new Byzantium.
 
Authority Theodora really seems like the way to go. Get God-King, enjoy having a religion despite it, declare war if cities are about to flip to another religion before Basilicas, use Basilica to build whatever you want with Faith. Diligence (+1P per 2) + (Holy Orders/Cathedrals/Thrift/+1F per 2/whatever) + Inspiration (+1C per 2) + Zealotry seems like a great combination, it synergises wonderfully with Zealotry as 50 billion Faith per city means it's a no-brainer pick. Mission/Ostrog are now definitely taking the worst UB spot as there's just no way Basilica is not up there with the best 10, not considering the unholy things it can do with Zealotry. Cataphract is awesome so Zealotry rushbuying lots of it really is a great idea. Do not let religion to spread to other civs, declare war and take them over if it's possible. That's one of many tactics that seem possible with the new Byzantium.
Really still think you're selling the Mission short, and I actually still think the mission is better than the Basilica.

As for as the weakest UBs, hard to pick one but I can list a few that I think are worse than the Basilica at least (although I want to stress that I don't think they are necessarily underpowered):
Bazaar, Coffee house, Walls of Babylon, ostrog. And then there are some that are a bit more hit or miss, Ger, Ducal Stable, Wat, Longhouse.
 
Really still think you're selling the Mission short, and I actually still think the mission is better than the Basilica.

As for as the weakest UBs, hard to pick one but I can list a few that I think are worse than the Basilica at least (although I want to stress that I don't think they are necessarily underpowered):
Bazaar, Coffee house, Walls of Babylon, ostrog. And then there are some that are a bit more hit or miss, Ger, Ducal Stable, Wat, Longhouse.

Bazaar post buffs is not weak, it has IIRC +1 Science +3 Gold compared to the Market. You can't really have early GPT problems with Arabia, but you can with any other civ (excl. Carthage). Sure, later on it's not very important, but early on it's a true beast. Walls of Babylon are essentialy -1 Science Libraries with even more CS than Wall, so I like them and dislike starting next to Nebuchadnezzar as his cities are rather hard to break with early tools. Coffee House does suck though, yeah, I forgot about its existence just like I did Ostrog's. It's funny how a few eras earlier UB (Jelling) provides a smaller GP bonus but also has +2Culture, +C+P per kill included and access to Lighthouse outside of coastal cities which, while almost never useful, sometimes will at least give you some 3f 1g tiles to boost your early game on a fresh non-coastal city.

You are right about Mission though I consider Basilica way better because of +Culture and highly superior Faith, free -Crime in every city and having them all nearly impenetrable is neat though the second part is pretty much meaningless as you're meant to be the one attacking by using your Conquistadors, you shouldn't really be receiving enemy attacks outside of freshly acquired cities. Still, -Crime per city for some Faith that might be returned to you after a few citizens (but only if you go Shrine - Temple ASAP) is not that bad. About this UB, some days I think it's fine and good because of how convenient it is for me to just use Faith to raise a Castle and lower your Crime, but the others I look at the yields it just gave me despite nearly optimal religion choices, I divide the yields by number of turns required to get a citizen to get its true value and I am not impressed. It really does provide some of the weakest yields around even in the perfect conditions and I'm really a yield person, but it is definitely way better than Ostrog/Coffee House. Being buildable by Faith is its real saving grace.
 
Last edited:
Bazaar post buffs is not weak, it has IIRC +1 Science +3 Gold compared to the Market. You can't really have early GPT problems with Arabia, but you can with any other civ (excl. Carthage). Sure, later on it's not very important, but early on it's a true beast. Walls of Babylon are essentialy -1 Science Libraries with even more CS than Wall, so I like them and dislike starting next to Nebuchadnezzar as his cities are rather hard to break with early tools. Coffee House does suck though, yeah, I forgot about its existence just like I did Ostrog's. It's funny how a few eras earlier UB (Jelling) provides a smaller GP bonus but also has +2Culture, +C+P per kill included and access to Lighthouse outside of coastal cities which, while almost never useful, sometimes will at least give you some 3f 1g tiles to boost your early game on a fresh non-coastal city.

You are right about Mission though I consider Basilica way better because of +Culture and highly superior Faith, free -Crime in every city and having them all nearly impenetrable is neat though the second part is pretty much meaningless as you're meant to be the one attacking by using your Conquistadors, you shouldn't really be receiving enemy attacks outside of freshly acquired cities. Still, -Crime per city for some Faith that might be returned to you after a few citizens (but only if you go Shrine - Temple ASAP) is not that bad. About this UB, some days I think it's fine and good because of how convenient it is for me to just use Faith to raise a Castle and lower your Crime, but the others I look at the yields it just gave me despite nearly optimal religion choices, I divide the yields by number of turns required to get a citizen to get its true value and I am not impressed. It really does provide some of the weakest yields around even in the perfect conditions and I'm really a yield person, but it is definitely way better than Ostrog/Coffee House. Being buildable by Faith is its real saving grace.
Again, I'm not saying they are bad, I'm just saying that both the mission and the Basilica are better now.
 
Again, I'm not saying they are bad, I'm just saying that both the mission and the Basilica are better now.
Yeah, there's always going to be a best and worst building in the game. I don't think we should buff the bottom ones at this point, otherwise we're just pushing power-creep is a legit issue. The only building that might be too strong is the Jelling Stones, but Denmark overall is pretty balanced so I don't think so.
 
Top Bottom