[R&F] Confused about Basil II and popular opinion

[Alex Vance]

So when Basil II was first reveiled, everyone was screaming about how overpowered he would be.

I tried him, I dominated with him, and even though he was somewhat of a challenge to master I am virtually unstoppable with him now (versus AI).

I did a quick tier list check on some random website that tracks popular opinion via submitted tier lists, and I was shocked to see him on the lowest tier and DEAD LAST! I'm talking horsehocky tier.

Now I don't place my faith in randoms from tiermaker.com, but is there a reason why people would about-face from screaming OP to placing him dead last? Is it just a lack of understanding how to play a relatively complex civ? Or did I miss a critical nerf?

 

[Buktu]

I think there was a small nerf so you dont get new heavy cav units when you repair pillaged hippodromes and its buildings for the first time in a caputered city. He should still be super strong though.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Don't trust those tier lists. They used to put Scythia in the bottom tier for SV in NFP, but when I publish a Scythian a no-chop-no-pillage-no-trade T197 SV on a random map, everyone in that thread alters their attitude and began claiming Scythia being too powerful in terms of Science.

 

[Victoria]

Even in a quite specialised site like civ fanatics we get a huge difference in ratings between players.

for a start the difficulty level can really affect civ play.
Then there is knowledge and skill even of the player. I have seen a very highly skilled player rate a civ as “worst ever” before they played it then a few months later post a shot of huge science gains by about T60 and how OP that same civ is.
Then there is playstyle, map preferences and all those other bit of bias a user has.
Then there is ‘rules’ about how to rate the civs and these ‘rules’ are bias and derived from the above.

placing one civ above another is pointless in my view but grouping them alphabetically into 3 or 4 tiers is useful to get a general feel but is still so dependant on so much else.

... just play and make your own mind up. I found the best games were the ones of discovery when I was still finding things out about the game or the civ.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

So when Basil II was first reveiled, everyone was screaming about how overpowered he would be.

I tried him, I dominated with him, and even though he was somewhat of a challenge to master I am virtually unstoppable with him now (versus AI).

I did a quick tier list check on some random website that tracks popular opinion via submitted tier lists, and I was shocked to see him on the lowest tier and DEAD LAST! I'm talking **** tier.

Now I don't place my faith in randoms from tiermaker.com, but is there a reason why people would about-face from screaming OP to placing him dead last? Is it just a lack of understanding how to play a relatively complex civ? Or did I miss a critical nerf?

Was the list by "power," but how much they're played or just how fun they are?

 

[Drivingrevilo]

I did a quick tier list check on some random website that tracks popular opinion via submitted tier lists, and I was shocked to see him on the lowest tier and DEAD LAST! I'm talking **** tier.

Pretty sure that site also thinks Eleanor is A Tier—which is frankly ridiculous to anyone who has ever played the game to a high level. Her loyalty gimmick is fun, but totally underwhelming compared to nearly every other option.

So yeah: don't read too much into it. Probably lots of non-experienced players voting for their favourite options rather than a genuine reflection of power levels.

If you want some proper tier-lists, have a look at some of the elimination threads held on this site (although none of them are recent enough for Basil to be considered).

 

[nmb93]

Given my penchant for deity domination wins (which I fully acknowledge is easy mode after you wipe your first enemy civ) and experience playing Basil a few times I have some thoughts. First and foremost, securing a religion and early war are near polar opposite priorities. Even with shameless re-rolling of start position, dramatic ages + tech shuffle can make the ancient era genuinely difficult. I've gotten the hang of it but have definitely given up on games where I missed the last great prophet. So given that self-imposed rule, Byzantium is actually one of the only civs I can actually 'lose' with.

This is not an original thought but basically, there are two types of domination civs. Those with bonuses to conquering early, and those that help you 'win more.' Byzantium would fall into the latter category. I enjoy and indulge in and enjoy far, far more 'sim city' than is actually necessary to win so I can't really comment on win speed. Their single strongest ability post-snowball is farming era score for converting cities mid war which functionally negates dramatic ages. Everything else is just gravy on a train that would arrive at the domination win con either way.

 

[Linklite]

Basil II is pretty powerful, but fiddly. You have to get a religion, get the crusade belief (I think), then for every city you take, you have to convert it using missionaries, then take it. If you don't get crusade, he's not actually as OP as he sounds - I didn't realise and ended up using catapults half the time anyway. However, once he's set up and you don't mind the faff of conversion, he becomes nigh on unstoppable. So if you don't do him properly, he's a let down - which might spoil his reviews.

 

[Sostratus]

A lot of their abilities come with religion, but just the Tagma by itself and the Hippodrome kind of hand you perhaps the best knight rush. It’s hard to grasp how good getting things for free can be, and the aura on tagma is crazy good for boosting each other, crossbows, etc.

Plus the EC-TS interaction means you can get nice culture out of the deal too.

 

[Depravo]

Basil II is pretty powerful, but fiddly. You have to get a religion, get the crusade belief (I think), then for every city you take, you have to convert it using missionaries, then take it. If you don't get crusade, he's not actually as OP as he sounds - I didn't realise and ended up using catapults half the time anyway. However, once he's set up and you don't mind the faff of conversion, he becomes nigh on unstoppable. So if you don't do him properly, he's a let down - which might spoil his reviews.

Last multiplayer game I got so used to Tagma + Crusade being god tier city levelling tools, that I forgot the bennies don't apply on open ground, overreached and got Manzikerted by an AI with higher military tech. The sudden urgent need to scrounge up an army and defences miles from home to protect what I'd thought of as a pacified area was an unexpected challenge.

 

[Equilin]

popular opinion

That's it. Popular polls not on dedicated areas tend to be voted on a favorite basis rather than what the poll is supposed to be about. So people probably vote other civs that they know more of.