Does Byzantium need a boost?

[Væringjar]

I am confused then. If the entire thread is read there have been many reasons given why it can be very difficult to establish a religion at the higher difficulty levels. Without a religion you have no UA, that is what this thread is about.

If someone has a way to ensure you get a religion with Byzantine, I for one am listening.

You're right. but, think about if they get religion bonus. They would be most powerful civ, right?

I haven't played on Immortal or Deity, just played a few games on Emperor. so, you might be right if it's not possible to get religion on these difficulties. but, on King diff you can easily get religion and +1 bonus belief is just great.

 

[Redaxe]

People that are now just weighing into this discussion claiming the Byzantine UA is fine really should read through the thread first before commenting as those objections have been covered already. It may be possible for the best players to nearly always get a religion on Diety but much of this discussion is also intended to help the AI. The proposals that
1. Allow Byzantine to adopt a religion if all are taken or
2. Work a specialist in the Palace to gain some extra faith
Both of these suggestions come with a price and are not intended to let you start a Byzantine religion for free. You still have to work for it, but it just provides an extra option to help you if as you say you get a 'bad luck' start.

 

[France]

Definitely, definitely! I have never ever played as Byzantium but they need a better ability, sometimes you can't find a religion because of many factors alike; loosing Stonehenge, only built a Shrine & plus your warrior died by a bunch of barbarians plus they took your settler & now you cannot build a shrine & wait until you get another settler AND in the mean time 4392832485904859048 pantheons got founded.

Point is - if you can't find a religion, you're in your own waste.
& if you could
You get the worst beliefs.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE AT A HIGHER LEVEL.

In my games, and I know it's different for everyone, but Theodora only has Nicaea, Adrianople, and her capital. FOR THE WHOLE GAME, IT IS RIDICULOUS. She is always at the bottom of the list if it weren't for religious points.

They need to change her AI AND her abilities COMPLETELY.

 

[beetle]

People that are now just weighing into this discussion claiming the Byzantine UA is fine really should read through the thread first before commenting as those objections have been covered already. It may be possible for the best players to nearly always get a religion on Diety but much of this discussion is also intended to help the AI. The proposals that:
1. Allow Byzantine to adopt a religion if all are taken or
2. Work a specialist in the Palace to gain some extra faith
Both of these suggestions come with a price and are not intended to let you start a Byzantine religion for free. You still have to work for it, but it just provides an extra option to help you if as you say you get a 'bad luck' start.

Emphasis added to Redaxe’s quote. I asked this recently about (2), but no one replied: Would an AI player take advantage of the Palace specialist slot in order to found a religion? I certainly don’t think it will help weak human players, and I doubt that it would be enough help at Diety.

What about the idea of temporarily (until they pop a GP) giving Byzantium extra faith per turn based on the number of religions founded in the game? Such a solution is passive (so the AI and weak players benefit) and does not change other game mechanics. The only detail is, what should the multiplier be? Two fptpr (faith per turn per (founded) religion), which was the value initially suggested, does not like it would be enough. But what about 10fptpr?

 

[Myomoto]

How about the Byzantines get a free great prophet after the first non-Byzantine religion is founded?

 

[Xahz]

But I think you summed it up in your post, you need a little luck. Would it be too much to ask that someone post in this a thread a how to get that religion for Byzantine. Instead there seem to be a number of 'Byzantine is fine you are doing it wrong' posts without really explaining why?

For me the Byzantines are the 'luck' civillization. They shouldn't have to rely on a start with certain terrain to work, yes I have had Byzantine starts without forests/hills. Should I just re-roll those starts? Maybe I am just unlucky, unfortunately that seems to prove my point. I have much better 'luck' when I play as Spain.

Are you kidding? The vast majority of civs in the game need luck, and yes you should reroll those starts. What about Celts not spawning near forest? Venice with no good city-states nearby? Carthage, Indonesia or Polynesia with no coast? Incas with no mountains? Huns, Mongolia, Assyria or any rush civ on a large map with rough terrain and no nearby enemies?

EVERY CIV has ideal starting conditions. Every civ also has terrible starting conditions. Would you pick Indonesia on a Pangea map? No? Then why do you play Byzantium against civs you KNOW are going to take a religion before you and snuff you out? You can pick the map, so why not pick the civs?

Me saying that Byzantium needs a little luck is not a profound statement. It's not something that's really even worth mentioning. You can have a crap game with a crap start with any civ. You can have your core wonders snatched out from under you 1 turn away and have you settlement spots taken at the last second and have that city-state expand over the natural wonder you wanted to build a city next to.

 

[greygamer]

Emphasis added to Redaxe’s quote. I asked this recently about (2), but no one replied: Would an AI player take advantage of the Palace specialist slot in order to found a religion? I certainly don’t think it will help weak human players, and I doubt that it would be enough help at Diety.

What about the idea of temporarily (until they pop a GP) giving Byzantium extra faith per turn based on the number of religions founded in the game? Such a solution is passive (so the AI and weak players benefit) and does not change other game mechanics. The only detail is, what should the multiplier be? Two fptpr (faith per turn per (founded) religion), which was the value initially suggested, does not like it would be enough. But what about 10fptpr?

From what I have read generally, the AI is not good at making use of specialists

 

[Quitzz]

Both of these suggestions come with a price and are not intended to let you start a Byzantine religion for free.

So free religion for Maya and Ethiopia (+ their usual UA) is ok but for Byzantium it's OP ?

 

[Beaver79]

People that are now just weighing into this discussion claiming the Byzantine UA is fine really should read through the thread first before commenting as those objections have been covered already. It may be possible for the best players to nearly always get a religion on Diety but much of this discussion is also intended to help the AI. The proposals that
1. Allow Byzantine to adopt a religion if all are taken or
2. Work a specialist in the Palace to gain some extra faith
Both of these suggestions come with a price and are not intended to let you start a Byzantine religion for free. You still have to work for it, but it just provides an extra option to help you if as you say you get a 'bad luck' start.

No it's been the same 5 people patting each other on the back about suggestions that would make Byzantium OP. You've ignored everyone who has mentioned that they are better off than a handful of other civs.

If you don't found a religion it was by choice.

 

[greygamer]

Are you kidding? The vast majority of civs in the game need luck, and yes you should reroll those starts. What about Celts not spawning near forest? Venice with no good city-states nearby? Carthage, Indonesia or Polynesia with no coast? Incas with no mountains? Huns, Mongolia, Assyria or any rush civ on a large map with rough terrain and no nearby enemies?

EVERY CIV has ideal starting conditions. Every civ also has terrible starting conditions. Would you pick Indonesia on a Pangea map? No? Then why do you play Byzantium against civs you KNOW are going to take a religion before you and snuff you out? You can pick the map, so why not pick the civs?

Me saying that Byzantium needs a little luck is not a profound statement. It's not something that's really even worth mentioning. You can have a crap game with a crap start with any civ. You can have your core wonders snatched out from under you 1 turn away and have you settlement spots taken at the last second and have that city-state expand over the natural wonder you wanted to build a city next to.

Sorry I just fell off my chair laughing so much, most if not all other civs can overcome all but the most terrible starting positions. This is because their UA does not depend on it.
So only play Byzantine if you pick your opponents seems to be what you are saying.
Celts can look for forest, not difficult as they have a forest start bias. Polynesia and Indonesia have coastal start bias

The points you make about the other civs can be challenged in the game (e.g. capture those spots or get those resources with a settler or capture). I had a run of Mongol starts without horses nearby, so I captured a city that had horses. If a core wonder is snatched from me, I fight to capture it!

If you want to even capitals can be taken in the Classic Era. Only Byzantine have a UA that can be made useless even if they make it the number one thing to do. You cannot capture and enhance a religion, maybe that should be their UA?


I know there are 200+ posts in this thread but they should be read because this is just going over old ground as was recently mentioned. The consensus was the Byzantine UA is too luck dependent and we have moved on to how the luck element can be significantly reduced or eliminated.

 

[Xahz]

Sorry I just fell off my chair laughing so much, most if not all other civs can overcome all but the most terrible starting positions. This is because their UA does not depend on it.
So only play Byzantine if you pick your opponents seems to be what you are saying.
Celts can look for forest, not difficult as they have a forest start bias. Polynesia and Indonesia have coastal start bias

The points you make about the other civs can be challenged in the game (e.g. capture those spots or get those resources with a settler or capture). I had a run of Mongol starts without horses nearby, so I captured a city that had horses. If a core wonder is snatched from me, I fight to capture it!

If you want to even capitals can be taken in the Classic Era. Only Byzantine have a UA that can be made useless even if they make it the number one thing to do. You cannot capture and enhance a religion, maybe that should be their UA?


I know there are 200+ posts in this thread but they should be read because this is just going over old ground as was recently mentioned. The consensus was the Byzantine UA is too luck dependent and we have moved on to how the luck element can be significantly reduced or eliminated.

Does Spain have a "start near natural wonder" bias? Do rush civs have a "start near weak enemy AI" bias? Biases also do not mean you will always get a decent start, especially when the map type disallows is. Why not disallow religious civs from being your opponent if you have so much difficulty with them? I assume you pick the maps and most of the starting conditions already.

Your argument is essentially "they are too luck based because I had a bad game with them and did not get a religion."

And please don't act like because you and a bunch of very vocal people have reached a "consensus" that the point cannot be argued further.

Oh, and lastly, a civ relying on luck, whether it's a little or a lot, is not a bad thing. There are over 40 civs in this game; having a couple that give you varying results every time you play is good gameplay. This game should be unpredictable

 

[HeresiarchQin]

Does Spain have a "start near natural wonder" bias? Do rush civs have a "start near weak enemy AI" bias? Biases also do not mean you will always get a decent start, especially when the map type disallows is. Why not disallow religious civs from being your opponent if you have so much difficulty with them? I assume you pick the maps and most of the starting conditions already.

Your argument is essentially "they are too luck based because I had a bad game with them and did not get a religion."

And please don't act like because you and a bunch of very vocal people have reached a "consensus" that the point cannot be argued further.

Oh, and lastly, a civ relying on luck, whether it's a little or a lot, is not a bad thing. There are over 40 civs in this game; having a couple that give you varying results every time you play is good gameplay. This game should be unpredictable

You're completely missing the point that Byzantine's UA can be effectively denied forever which can happen easily. No other civs' UA can be rendered useless unless you choose not to use at all during the whole game. Spain don't have natural wonders bias but so what, they always get the 2X output from NW and they get at least 100G when discovering one, whether you find and occupy one during classical or modern age. UA which are purely war focused such as China or Mongol may seem useless for a peaceful game, but they can be activated as soon as you want to start a war, whether it's ancient or industrial age.

Is luck involved for them? Sure, but it doesn't really matter, because at worst their UA becomes only dormant and can be used SOMEDAY. And their UUs can actually help them get a better result from the the UA. You know, synergy.

For Byzantine if you don't pursue a religion right from the beginning, you can be blockaded forever from ever activating your UA. And getting a religion fast requires a lot of luck. If your luck doesn't help you, your UA is not dormant, but DEAD. Their UU doesn't provide any synergy for activating their UA whatsoever as well, unless you consider wiping out neighbours with cataphract rush to prevent them from creating religions synergy. But then you won't be ever able to get a religion up and running in a timely fashion again.

Also, "requiring luck is a good gameplay" is not an excuse for bad game balancing. Currently Byzantine's probability at getting a religion is the same as every other civs except for Celt, Maya and Ethiopia. Which means if we reduce the luck involved variables such as terrain and ruins to a minimum (but not removed) and let all the players pursue a similar route of development including religion development, there's a good chance that Byzantine may never be able to get a religion running (or only getting a bad one), therefore having a dead UA. Now consider that all other civs have no such problem as they can always put their UA in use if they choose to. That means in a game of balanced luck, Byzantine being the only civ that may have no UA at all from the beginning till the end, is statistically weaker than every other civ.

This is not even a "bad gameplay" or "bad luck" thing. It's simply bad game balance. Byzantine's UA is statistically weaker than other civs. Byzantine is currently the only civ that can become BLANK post classical age because even their UU get obsoleted fast and their special skills don't last after upgrading. Sure! You may have fun and find it challenging playing as a handicapped civ. But it is a pure statistical fact that Byzantine is weaker than other civs and it SHOULD be addressed if Firaxis and players value game balance at all.

 

[echolalia]

Why not give Byzantium one faith per population in the capitol? This buff could disappear when they found a religion.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Why not give Byzantium one faith per population in the capitol? This buff could disappear when they found a religion.

That would be so overpowered, even more than desert folklore. And combine it with desert folklore on desert, it will be overkill. But an adjusted version could work though: something like 1 faith per 3 population could be doable.

 

[kaspergm]

How about the Byzantines get a free great prophet after the first non-Byzantine religion is founded?

I don't like this idea because it will not only secure Byzantium to get a religion, but will ALSO guarantee them founding second, which is unnecessary. Secure them a religion one way another, but give them the potential disadvantage of founding last with the good beliefs taken, so that they still have incentive to focus on early faith.

 

[Wodan]

Tonight I gave a go with Byzantine on Emperor...and completely realized how weak it is.

Ethiopian's Faith advantage was so much he simply outspammed me with missionaries....

I don't disagree with most of what you say but the above stood out to me.

If I've got Ethiopia as a neighbor, then no matter what civ I'm playing, sometime early to midgame, unless I want his religion, I dow and stay that way for the rest of the game. No need for Inquisitors, a simple warrior (or any military unit) does the trick much more effectively. Cataphracts work fine for chasing down those pesky missionaries.

 

[Wodan]

I'm not going to repeat arguments. But it seems like people keep suggesting things that have been successfully debated in the past 10 screenfuls. So we're just going in circles.

 

[Redaxe]

No it's been the same 5 people patting each other on the back about suggestions that would make Byzantium OP. You've ignored everyone who has mentioned that they are better off than a handful of other civs.

If you don't found a religion it was by choice.

Suggestions that have been raised are not intended to make Byzantium OP. If you have a suggestion to make the Civ more enjoyable and less luck dependent to play (and better for the AI) than please weigh in. If you play a game as Byzantium and get beaten to a religion most players would probably want to quit. By the time you miss out on religion, the Cataphract and Dromon are both likely to be obsolete so you're just stuck with a plain Civ for the rest of the game.
I can't see how being able to adopt a Civs existing religion is overpowered but please enlighten us. If you play immortal/Diety and you cant get stonehenge or any faith natural wonders or religious CS and you miss a religion the intention is that you can still get one from another Civ so your UA is still functional.
People want to play Byzantine to enjoy a strategy that more heavily focuses on religion. The key to a good Civ for the payer is if it is reasonably well balanced and enjoyable.

You're right to say that other Civs like America need attention as well, but this thread is about Byzantine more enjoyable to play. Then intention of the Devs in adding different Civs with 3 unique traits is so every Civ has a slightly different playstyle -That is a feature of Civ 5.
The devs have reworked Germany and Japan to have a more unique and interesting strategy. Not everyone likes the changes but they do give each Civ a more specialised niche than they were previously.

 

[greygamer]

Does Spain have a "start near natural wonder" bias? Do rush civs have a "start near weak enemy AI" bias? Biases also do not mean you will always get a decent start, especially when the map type disallows is. Why not disallow religious civs from being your opponent if you have so much difficulty with them? I assume you pick the maps and most of the starting conditions already.

Your argument is essentially "they are too luck based because I had a bad game with them and did not get a religion."

And please don't act like because you and a bunch of very vocal people have reached a "consensus" that the point cannot be argued further.

Oh, and lastly, a civ relying on luck, whether it's a little or a lot, is not a bad thing. There are over 40 civs in this game; having a couple that give you varying results every time you play is good gameplay. This game should be unpredictable

You're completely missing the point that Byzantine's UA can be effectively denied forever which can happen easily. No other civs' UA can be rendered useless unless you choose not to use at all during the whole game. Spain don't have natural wonders bias but so what, they always get the 2X output from NW and they get at least 100G when discovering one, whether you find and occupy one during classical or modern age. UA which are purely war focused such as China or Mongol may seem useless for a peaceful game, but they can be activated as soon as you want to start a war, whether it's ancient or industrial age.

Is luck involved for them? Sure, but it doesn't really matter, because at worst their UA becomes only dormant and can be used SOMEDAY. And their UUs can actually help them get a better result from the the UA. You know, synergy.

For Byzantine if you don't pursue a religion right from the beginning, you can be blockaded forever from ever activating your UA. And getting a religion fast requires a lot of luck. If your luck doesn't help you, your UA is not dormant, but DEAD. Their UU doesn't provide any synergy for activating their UA whatsoever as well, unless you consider wiping out neighbours with cataphract rush to prevent them from creating religions synergy. But then you won't be ever able to get a religion up and running in a timely fashion again.

Also, "requiring luck is a good gameplay" is not an excuse for bad game balancing. Currently Byzantine's probability at getting a religion is the same as every other civs except for Celt, Maya and Ethiopia. Which means if we reduce the luck involved variables such as terrain and ruins to a minimum (but not removed) and let all the players pursue a similar route of development including religion development, there's a good chance that Byzantine may never be able to get a religion running (or only getting a bad one), therefore having a dead UA. Now consider that all other civs have no such problem as they can always put their UA in use if they choose to. That means in a game of balanced luck, Byzantine being the only civ that may have no UA at all from the beginning till the end, is statistically weaker than every other civ.

This is not even a "bad gameplay" or "bad luck" thing. It's simply bad game balance. Byzantine's UA is statistically weaker than other civs. Byzantine is currently the only civ that can become BLANK post classical age because even their UU get obsoleted fast and their special skills don't last after upgrading. Sure! You may have fun and find it challenging playing as a handicapped civ. But it is a pure statistical fact that Byzantine is weaker than other civs and it SHOULD be addressed if Firaxis and players value game balance at all.

I was going to write a detailed reply to Xahz's post but HeresiarchQin has pretty much covered it, and nothing new in either of these posts really. As I wrote before we are just going over old ground. Multiple posts claiming the same thing doesn't add anything to the debate. Nor do Byzantine is fine responses, unless it is being suggested that their UU are so powerful that their UA should be throwaway or showing a better way to play them.

Spain is actually one of my favourite civs. I set-up 10 games with them using the same settings and only failed to settle a NW once. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12875014&postcount=278 Some of those starts were pretty bad anyway (cut off by mountains etc.) but were still winable because ...I can capture the tiles with Natural Wonders. This is because I based my early strategy around the UA. I haven't tested the same number of starts with the Byzantines but they do seem a lot more luck dependent imo.

Luck based civs tend to be un-popular, there was a big discussion around Spain based on this recently. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=512747
The consensus was Spain are not as luck based as you might like to think. Unfortunately Byzantine are, if there was a setting to eliminate other religious civs I might use it. However there is not, I prefer neutral maps that will allow all civs a chance to win rather than 'cooking the settings' to get an advantage but to each their own.

 

[Navelgazer]

I've had in my head for a while the concept of a "situational" index for the available civs. Don't know how to best calculate it (we seem to be tiring of elimination threads and straight-voting wouldn't really work) but the idea is that civs range from 0 (i.e. completely non-dependent on map start for their abilities to be of use) to 1 (i.e. totally dependent on a proper map start.)

No civ would truly be at either 0 or 1, but I imagine France, Ethiopia and Babylon probably being closest to 0, and Indonesia, Byzantium and Iroquois being closest to 1.* France mostly needs a capital. Ethiopia is built to go tall. Babylon's uniques are all terrain-independent. Indonesia needs not just coast, but worthwhile islands and iron to boot. Iroquois needs enough forest to create trade routes, and Byzantium, yes, needs to be able to found a religion.


*I am including start biases in my rough-estimates here.