Designing Byzantium for Civ7

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the Laura is appropriate to any Eastern Orthodox civilization but the most appropriate for Byzantium; if Byzantium has another unique, however, it is appropriate for Bulgaria, Russia, etc. (That being said, I really like the suggestion others made of the Pogost for Russia in Civ7.)

I think it was only appropriate because of the onion domes.
But I'd like to see Russia get something else so the Lavra could go to the Byzantines next time.

None of these had Siphon flamethrowers.
2. And 'Dromon' using 'flamethrowers' at long range isn't really accurate.
So i'd chose Chelande as a name for Byzantine UU and being melee unit with stronger attack (well unless naval ranged combats were modified so that Siphon flamerthrowers will not be used against land targets, but even so, flamethrowers are CLOSE QUARTER RANGED weapons).

Either way Byzantine Dromon and Byzantines Khelandion would be roughly the same unit in game, no matter what you call it, considering it was the Byzantines that used greek fire on their Dromons, and that's the main point behind the unit.

I know they're called "unique" units, but the very idea of a unit that's absolutely unique to one civilization is, essentially, ahistorical.

Good old Hussars come to mind.

 

[Zaarin]

Good old Hussars come to mind.

"You get a Hussar UU, and you get a Hussar UU, and you get a Hussar UU! Hussars for everyone!"

 

[Saint Leibowitz]

An oft-forgotten figure I'd love to see as a Byzantine leader is Pulcheria, who, unlike a certain other overused female Byzantine leader from Late Antiquity, actually governed and made major decisions. She was surprisingly influential in the development of early medieval Christendom and spent several hundred years as the go-to example of what a good and competent European queen should be like. I'd give her the option to add two extra beliefs to the Byzantine religion (one for each Christological council she convened) and leave the civ UU to be something else. I think every civ should get at least two leaders, so maybe the other one can be someone more medieval or military-oriented.

 

[Zaarin]

An oft-forgotten figure I'd love to see as a Byzantine leader is Pulcheria, who, unlike a certain other overused female Byzantine leader from Late Antiquity, actually governed and made major decisions.

She's awfully early. I mean, her name is Latin. There's always Irene--and when you're done talking to her, you can always tell her good night.

I think every civ should get at least two leaders

Ah, so Civ7 will have only 20 civs then. Does every civ need multiple leaders? Certainly not arguing that Byzantium doesn't merit it, but do we need two Powhatan leaders? Or two American leaders? Or, God forbid, two Australian leaders when it's bad enough they're in the game at all in the first place? If multiple leaders return, I do hope they're used more liberally, but I don't think every civ needs multiple leaders.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Lonecat...

I know they're called "unique" units, but the very idea of a unit that's absolutely unique to one civilization is, essentially, ahistorical. It happenec ocasionally, on the rare occasions where weapons and units used a technological wonder that couldn't easily be duplicated (ie, mostly greek fire), but by and large, the moment a civilization came up with a military concept, everyone else nearby basically copied it.

HK has the right idea in using "emblematic" rather than unique, but that's still what Civ Uniques represent: a unit or building that ismiconically associated with that civilzatiom - even if others also built it.

What kept a unit Unique was as often the Civic/Social Structure required for it as the Technology.
Hoplites required a large middle class from a coherent social group (the deme). The Legion required long-term training and therefore, expensive support from the state to maintain. Other states (Pontus, Persia) who tried to form their own Legions or Hoplites failed because they couldn't afford to change their own social/political/economic structures to accommodate them - so in Persia's case, they hired Hoplites as Mercenaries instead, bypassing all the problems.
Oh, and even the Hoplite was not exclusive to Greece: it was adopted by the early Carthaginians and Romans and the Etruscans and possibly some of the other early Italian 'tribes' - but note that early Rome, Carthage and the Etruscans all had economically-prosperous groups of citizens ("middle class") from which Hoplites could be formed: the social/civic structure required by the Hoplite system.

I'd rather regard Unique as meaning that you are the First to put together all the requirements for the Unit, reflected by the fact that your Civ gets it "automatically" while others have to modify their social, economic or civics systems and get the Technology to make the Unique Unit possible.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

"You get a Hussar UU, and you get a Hussar UU, and you get a Hussar UU! Hussars for everyone!"

I mean it's at least been true for non-Germany Central Europe the past two games.

Certainly not arguing that Byzantium doesn't merit it, but do we need two Powhatan leaders?

You mean you wouldn't want Powhatan and Pocahontas?
But yeah I agree that not every civ needs two leaders. Last time it happened was Civ 2 where they also gave every one a female leader as well, which is a whole separate issue.

 

[Zaarin]

I mean it's at least been true for non-Germany Central Europe the past two games.

See also Age of Kings, where all of Central and Eastern Europe except Bohemia has Hussars as a unique unit.

You mean you wouldn't want Powhatan or Pocahontas?

I was thinking more Opechancanough, but either way...No.

Last time it happened was Civ 2 where they also gave every one a female leader as well, which is a whole separate issue.

Ah, yes, it sure would be swell to see the return of Shakala.

 

[Saint Leibowitz]

She's awfully early. I mean, her name is Latin. There's always Irene--and when you're done talking to her, you can always tell her good night.

I do like to emphasize the Greco-Roman blend of Byzantium since otherwise I see it more as Medieval Greece. (Not saying I'd roll it into the ancient Greece civ; if anything I'd roll that one into a more Byzantine civ!) Irene could be interesting but how much of a lasting impact did she have besides ending iconoclasm and losing the position of Most Important Christian Ruler to Charlemagne?

Ah, so Civ7 will have only 20 civs then. Does every civ need multiple leaders? Certainly not arguing that Byzantium doesn't merit it, but do we need two Powhatan leaders? Or two American leaders? Or, God forbid, two Australian leaders when it's bad enough they're in the game at all in the first place? If multiple leaders return, I do hope they're used more liberally, but I don't think every civ needs multiple leaders.

Mmm... yes?

Okay I suppose I've gotten ahead of myself on the multiple leaders idea. I do have a fairly radical idea for reforming leaders that's gonna deserve its own thread (once I fully flesh it out) lest we get too sidetracked here. But the basic gist is that I'm in favour of simplifying leaderscreens somewhat to allow cheaper mass production of leaders -- replacing animation with nice 2D art like Civ5's wonder paintings, and probably just jettisoning voice acting and translation altogether (much as I like it there's been too many awkward cultural errors with it anyway). Two is actually my lowball number, I'm thinking big civs like China or France could get four or so. And then there's my ideas on leader agendas and unique goals and personal victory conditions, but I've probably gone wild enough in this thread...

 

[Zaarin]

I do like to emphasize the Greco-Roman blend of Byzantium since otherwise I see it more as Medieval Greece. (Not saying I'd roll it into the ancient Greece civ; if anything I'd roll that one into a more Byzantine civ!)

For me, Byzantium was at its most significant in the Middle Ages when it was a beacon of civilization while the rest of the world was falling apart so I prefer to emphasize that portion of its history. During its Graeco-Latin period, it was just "the other half of the Roman Empire."

Irene could be interesting but how much of a lasting impact did she have besides ending iconoclasm and losing the position of Most Important Christian Ruler to Charlemagne?

I think one can argue that Byzantium was probably a more important state than Francia up until it was sacked by Venice in the Fourth Crusade. At any rate, though, I'm not really championing Irene (though I wouldn't object to her); I just wanted to make a "Goodnight, Irene' joke. As in my design above, I want Alexios I Komnenos or another Komnenid.

But the basic gist is that I'm in favour of simplifying leaderscreens somewhat to allow cheaper mass production of leaders -- replacing animation with nice 2D art like Civ5's wonder paintings, and probably just jettisoning voice acting and translation altogether

I'd be out at that point. Traditionally animated leaders? Yes, please, I'd love that--but that's not saving any work. Static, noninteractive 2D leaders? Hard pass. It's not 1996; the devs can't get away with downgrading the production values at this point. Every game since the original has been improving the production values of the leader screens. Civ3 moved to very ugly primitive 3D abominations. Civ4 moved to better 3D caricatures. Civ5 created massive scenes, unnecessarily realistic models that look unnervingly like undead mannikins after aging for ten years, and introduced voice acting. Civ6 introduced more dynamic animations and, overall, hired better voice actors with more work put into finding people who speak the right languages--no more Ramesses speaking Arabic or Boudicca speaking Welsh. (There are still some errors, of course, but it's definitely better.) Civ7 can't get away with moving things back to Civ2 levels.

And then there's my ideas on leader agendas and unique goals and personal victory conditions

I hope agendas don't return. They were a bad idea that ultimately made Civ6's leaders less unique than Civ5's AI traits.