Humankind - Byzantines discussion thread

[Siptah]

I‘m more surprised that diplomatic is missing as focus to be honest, especially as something comparable to influence is a resource in the game.

 

[Zaarin]

I‘m more surprised that diplomatic is missing as focus to be honest, especially as something comparable to influence is a resource in the game.

I'm trying to think, though, of any of their past factions who have had a diplomacy focus, aside from Endless Legends' Drakkons. The Empire in Endless Space and its sequel gets a boost to influence, but it's primarily geared as an industrial/militarist faction.

EDIT: Forgot the Amoebas of the first Endless Space, who were kind of Space Drakkons. They ended up a minor race in ES2, probably because they were so crazy overpowered with their completely revealed map; the Sophons got to stay in but got nerfed.

 

[conorbebe]

Based on my knowledge of previous Amplitude games, I'd take a guess that Aesthete is religious.

It seems to be the closest equivalent we have, but aestheticism is more about art, music, and literature, although there is definitely some crossover. That being said, if Expansionist and Militarist can be separate, I would have thought Religious and Aesthete would be as well.

I‘m more surprised that diplomatic is missing as focus to be honest, especially as something comparable to influence is a resource in the game.

Isn't "Influence" essentially Humankind's version of Civ's Culture resource? That's the impression I got anyway. I do agree that "Diplomatic" would also make sense as a culture type too.

 

[Zaarin]

It seems to be the closest equivalent we have, but aestheticism is more about art, music, and literature

Yes, but all religious factions in prior Amplitude titles have generated Influence.

Isn't "Influence" essentially Humankind's version of Civ's Culture resource?

A cross between Culture and Diplomatic Favor, really, with a dash of Faith.

 

[conorbebe]

A cross between Culture and Diplomatic Favor, really, with a dash of Faith.

Sounds delicious!

 

[Gwydden]

When I think about it, the idea of some civilizations being "better" at religion than others strikes me as bizarre, particularly in premodern times when religion was an inextricable part of life. Personally, I am hoping HK eschews the approach of CIV6 in this regard and makes religion a more organic process, rather than something a society can manufacture and micromanage. I also never much cared for this concept of custom religions in a historically-themed game—it is hardly a step removed from custom civilizations and similarly defeats the purpose of said historical theme. Moreover, the mechanics in CIV6 (especially the religious victory) privilege universalizing religions which, despite their current geographical spread and historical importance, have generally been a minority of all belief systems.

So for Ancient/Classical/Medieval, a religious archetype would diminish the omnipresent nature of religion. For Early-Modern/Late-Modern/Contemporary, it would be rendered increasingly obsolete. Giving you fame for spreading a religion does not really make sense because 1. the culture within which a religion is founded is rarely the one primarily responsible for spreading it, 2. historically it only applies to certain religions in certain periods,* 3. it suggests that spreading a religion is inherently preferable to not doing so and therefore excludes ethnic religions, many of which remain famous and influential to this day e.g. Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the mythologies of the ancient Egyptians, Greek, and Norse.

*I'd argue world history's only major universalizing religions are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, all of which arguably peaked in terms of global influence between the medieval and early modern periods.

 

[Zaarin]

When I think about it, the idea of some civilizations being "better" at religion than others strikes me as bizarre, particularly in premodern times when religion was an inextricable part of life. Personally, I am hoping HK eschews the approach of CIV6 in this regard and makes religion a more organic process, rather than something a society can manufacture and micromanage. I also never much cared for this concept of custom religions in a historically-themed game—it is hardly a step removed from custom civilizations and similarly defeats the purpose of said historical theme. Moreover, the mechanics in CIV6 (especially the religious victory) privilege universalizing religions which, despite their current geographical spread and historical importance, have generally been a minority of all belief systems.

So for Ancient/Classical/Medieval, a religious archetype would diminish the omnipresent nature of religion. For Early-Modern/Late-Modern/Contemporary, it would be rendered increasingly obsolete. Giving you fame for spreading a religion does not really make sense because 1. the culture within which a religion is founded is rarely the one primarily responsible for spreading it, 2. historically it only applies to certain religions in certain periods,* 3. it suggests that spreading a religion is inherently preferable to not doing so and therefore excludes ethnic religions, many of which remain famous and influential to this day e.g. Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the mythologies of the ancient Egyptians, Greek, and Norse.

*I'd argue world history's only major universalizing religions are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, all of which arguably peaked in terms of global influence between the medieval and early modern periods.

This, 99%. (99% because Zoroastrianism was a universal religion; it became ethnic only after being marginalized by Islam.) But in principle, I completely agree with this.

 

[Patine]

This, 99%. (99% because Zoroastrianism was a universal religion; it became ethnic only after being marginalized by Islam.) But in principle, I completely agree with this.

Don't you mean the now defunct Manichaeanism as the universalist aspect of Iranian Dualism?

 

[Zaarin]

Don't you mean the now defunct Manichaeanism as the universalist aspect of Iranian Dualism?

No, Manichaeism was a syncretic Gnostic religion that grew out of a fusion of Mesopotamian paganism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Christianity. It's worth remembering that Zoroastrianism did not originate in Persia but in Afghanistan; also that the evidence that the Achaemenids were Zoroastrian is scant. They certainly reference Ahura Mazda, but the first clear evidence of Zoroastrianism in Persia comes from the Arsacid period. In the Classical Period, however, Zoroastrianism spread throughout Central and West Asia as well as northern India.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Based on my knowledge of previous Amplitude games, I'd take a guess that Aesthete is religious.

Yes, I defined the trait as cultured, and where religion/philosophy is rooted in the culture, hence why the Olmecs and the Zhou are Aesthete.
My initial thought was that the Byzantines would have been Aesthete anyway.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Hmm, I have some thoughts.

Of course it's nice to see the Byzantines make it into the base game, as there's no doubt they deserve a place in the Medieval Era lineup. That being said, I can't help but feel like there's a need for a seventh culture type here - "Religious".

When I think of the Byzantine Empire, the first thing to come to mind is the Hagia Sophia, and the various other Eastern Orthodox churches that were built by them. Constantinople was a stronghold for Christianity during the Middle Ages, and it was this dedication to religion and to God that fueled many of the empire's most impressive accomplishments, from art and science, to architecture and territorial expansion.

Hippodromes meanwhile were an ancient Greek invention, and is the Hippodrome of Constantinople even a hippodrome? Surely it's a Roman circus? Nevertheless, I'd hardly call it "emblematic" of the Byzantine Empire.

As others have stated, Religion is such a pervasive part of most cultures/Factions in the Ancient to post-Renaissance (and, on a more limited basis, today) that separating out some of them as 'more religiouser' is not easy.

And while Hagia Sophia was an architectural masterpiece, in sheer numbers of churches the Byzantine constructions were far outnumbered by the churches, pre-Gothic cathedrals, abbeys, monasteries, priories, etc built by members of the western 'Catholic' church in the same period, or the Byzantine-influenced Islamic mosques built all over the Middle East, Africa, and south Asia by Islamic factions. (I recently read an architectural history article which pointed out that the architectural features of 'traditional' mosques were all rom Persian or Byzantine models - only the minaret was an original feature).

As for the Hippodrome, it's a Greek word and invention, but the chariot-racing events held there were also held in the earliest 'gaming' venue known in Rome: the Circus Maximus. Since it was a place of horse/chariot racing, by definition the structure in Constantinopol was a Hippodrome in Greek, but since it was built, technically, by Romans (2nd century CE) it was a Circus. Gien the increasing 'Greekiness' of both Constantinopol and rthe Byzantine Empire, using the Greek word seems appropriate to me. And given the extreme popularity and influence of the Hippodrome/Circus races and the racing factions in The City (the infamous 'Greens', 'Blues', 'Reds' and 'Whites') it makes a very effective Byzantine Emblematic Quarter. Of course, given the equally-infamous Massacre in the Hippodrome that ended one notorious riot/revolt, I wonder if it could also have some kind of special Violent Return To Loyal Status effect on a city? (Remove one population point, everything goes quiet . . .)

 

[Krajzen]

When I think about it, the idea of some civilizations being "better" at religion than others strikes me as bizarre, particularly in premodern times when religion was an inextricable part of life. Personally, I am hoping HK eschews the approach of CIV6 in this regard and makes religion a more organic process, rather than something a society can manufacture and micromanage. I also never much cared for this concept of custom religions in a historically-themed game—it is hardly a step removed from custom civilizations and similarly defeats the purpose of said historical theme. Moreover, the mechanics in CIV6 (especially the religious victory) privilege universalizing religions which, despite their current geographical spread and historical importance, have generally been a minority of all belief systems.

So for Ancient/Classical/Medieval, a religious archetype would diminish the omnipresent nature of religion. For Early-Modern/Late-Modern/Contemporary, it would be rendered increasingly obsolete. Giving you fame for spreading a religion does not really make sense because 1. the culture within which a religion is founded is rarely the one primarily responsible for spreading it, 2. historically it only applies to certain religions in certain periods,* 3. it suggests that spreading a religion is inherently preferable to not doing so and therefore excludes ethnic religions, many of which remain famous and influential to this day e.g. Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the mythologies of the ancient Egyptians, Greek, and Norse.

*I'd argue world history's only major universalizing religions are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, all of which arguably peaked in terms of global influence between the medieval and early modern periods.

Civ's treatment of religion was very cool back in 2012 when it appeared, by it seems outdated in 2020 (maybe when combined with the unfortunate direction it took in civ6) and I have started to dislike it.
Religion is simply omnipresent, universal part of preindustrial human society, not yet another tool for global domination, yet another resource to accumulate and spend. Largely inseparable from culture, with probably only truly universal religions being those three (Islam is also sort of descendant of Christianity so that leaves us with two, although they are decent theories on influence of Buddhists India on Greek world before Christ...)

Civ's system seems also close to the idea that monotheism is usually some sort of progress, and that evangelising, universalist, intolerant religions fighting holy wars for global influence is some historical inevitable constant.
It fails to depict powerful polytheistic religions except Hinduism (I think thats arbitrary distinction based on its mighty survival), notably covers only religions from Asia, fails to depict peaceful and fruitful coexistence and syncretism of religions, and most hilariously - fails to depict any sort of secularism of late eras, which has always seemed very glaring to me.


If I were doing 4X game like this, I'd make every civ have some religion in the background and being tied to its culture, slowly evolving, with few general types of religion, each with its consequences and tenets. So you'd have "polytheist imperial religion", "universal religion", "ethnic religion", "confucianism-style religion", and lategame potentially introduces tensions with secularism and irreligion.
Only universal religion does this entire "convert the entire world also outside your borders" task, there is no religious vixtory, no separate faith resurce extracted from faith refineries, religion is not mechanically arbitrarily designer like a tool etc.

 

[conorbebe]

When I think about it, the idea of some civilizations being "better" at religion than others strikes me as bizarre, particularly in premodern times when religion was an inextricable part of life.

Surely you could make similar arguments against culture as well. Can any civilisation’s or people’s culture be considered superior to another’s? And can the artistic accomplishments of individuals really be attributed to the faction they belong to? Through trade, the movement of people, and change in authority, cultural traditions are spread across borders, evolving and mixing with others. It is fluid and difficult to control, like religion or any other concept that is propergated by the general populace of a nation.

 

[Gwydden]

Surely you could make similar arguments against culture as well. Can any civilisation’s or people’s culture be considered superior to another’s? And can the artistic accomplishments of individuals really be attributed to faction they belong to? Through trade, the movement of people, and change in authority, cultural traditions are spread across borders, evolving and mixing with others. It is fluid and difficult to control, like religion or any other concept that is propergated by the general populace of a nation.

Cultural superiority is subjective, true, but cultural influence not so much. For each era, I'd just give the Aesthete tag to civilizations whose cultural output was most influential to other civilizations or especially long-lasting. The Chinese make sense at pretty much any point, for instance; for the medieval era France makes a lot of sense to me (romances, chansons de geste, chivalry, and courtly love were all the rage in Western Europe and have had a lasting impact in contemporary culture and our perception of the Middle Ages, courtesy of the Romantics); and for the contemporary era I could see strong arguments for nations like America (curious how all of Amplitude's games are marketed mostly in English despite their being a French company) or South Korea (fear the Korean Wave!).

The problem with doing the same with religions is that you can't really tie the most widespread religions to specific cultures. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are forces unto themselves, which propagate independent of any civilization that may subscribe to them. Christianity was no more important to the Byzantines than to anyone else around that time. Any religiously-related achievements (except number of followers, which I believe should not be credited to individual civs for reasons outlined earlier) are already covered by the other archetypes.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I do not doub the importance and identity of Byzantium. But could not be saved some cultures like Byzantium and Carthage to sell DLCs/expansions? I mean, such big names could be delayed, meanwhile we use transcended Rome and transcended Phoenicia.

Also Varanginians seems redundant with Norse/Vikings. I would prefer Dromon with greek fire.

Wow, now that I think about it both Carthage and Byzantium left me a bittersweet feel. Meme-phants over Numidian Cavalry and Varanginian Guard over Dromon, well at least this leave Cataphracts free for anyother.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also Varanginians seems redundant with Norse/Vikings. I would prefer Dromon with greek fire.

I would of liked that too. In order of my preference it goes Dromon>Varangian Guard>Cataphract but I can understand why they went with the Varangian guard as they mentioned they wanted it to link with them. At least hopefully we can get the Dromon in Civ 6, if they show up, since we have so many unique mounted units already.

Wow, now that I think about it both Carthage and Byzantium left me a bittersweet feel. Meme-phants over Numidian Cavalry and Varanginian Guard over Dromon, well at least this leave Cataphracts free for anyother.

That just means Numidia can come with their cavalry for DLC.

 

[FinalDoomsday]

I'm really happy with Varangian guard but I am a sucker for cool looking infantry plus in all the video games I've played I've not seen them come up so it feels fresh.

I do not doub the importance and identity of Byzantium. But could not be saved some cultures like Byzantium and Carthage to sell DLCs/expansions? I mean, such big names could be delayed, meanwhile we use transcended Rome and transcended Phoenicia.

I think it's more important to get those big names in the base game to catch peoples attention you can't ignore how popular Byzantium is in medieval games like age of empires 2 or Crusader Kings. Civ 6 can get away with holding back popular civs thanks to it's market strength they can reasonably assume they will have several expansions. Humankind on the other hand is about to find out if the historical 4x has room for competition, if it were me I'd not be holding back favourites for dlc!

 

[Siptah]

I think that when you want to represent medieval times, the two empires of the Franks and Byzantines, plus their Caliphate counterweight(s) are essential beyond any others in these regions. So I'm very glad that it looks like we'll get all three of them in Vanilla.

I like the representation with the Varangian Guard and the Hippodromos.
I'm tired as well of a religion-focused Byzantine Empire in civ games, but given that the huge monastic movement in the Byzantine Empire (I remember reading about 1/4 of the total population), I could have lived with a EU connected to religion, such as a monastery, hermitage or basilica (the latter changed its meaning here and is omnipresent in Byzantine ruins).

Also, I don't have much doubt now that the heavily fortified city center with a greek structure on top is the byzantine one.

Concerning the first medieval culture, I'm curious. Umayyad as a culture name is odd, yet, "Arabia" would be just as well. It could also be the "Caliphate" and be revealed next week, but that's also not a culture.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

That being said, I can't help but feel like there's a need for a seventh culture type here - "Religious".

Cultural superiority is subjective, true, but cultural influence not so much. For each era, I'd just give the Aesthete tag to civilizations whose cultural output was most influential to other civilizations or especially long-lasting. The Chinese make sense at pretty much any point, for instance; for the medieval era France makes a lot of sense to me (romances, chansons de geste, chivalry, and courtly love were all the rage in Western Europe and have had a lasting impact in contemporary culture and our perception of the Middle Ages, courtesy of the Romantics); and for the contemporary era I could see strong arguments for nations like America (curious how all of Amplitude's games are marketed mostly in English despite their being a French company) or South Korea (fear the Korean Wave!).

The problem with doing the same with religions is that you can't really tie the most widespread religions to specific cultures. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are forces unto themselves, which propagate independent of any civilization that may subscribe to them. Christianity was no more important to the Byzantines than to anyone else around that time. Any religiously-related achievements (except number of followers, which I believe should not be credited to individual civs for reasons outlined earlier) are already covered by the other archetypes.

As others have stated, Religion is such a pervasive part of most cultures/Factions in the Ancient to post-Renaissance (and, on a more limited basis, today) that separating out some of them as 'more religiouser' is not easy.

And while Hagia Sophia was an architectural masterpiece, in sheer numbers of churches the Byzantine constructions were far outnumbered by the churches, pre-Gothic cathedrals, abbeys, monasteries, priories, etc built by members of the western 'Catholic' church in the same period, or the Byzantine-influenced Islamic mosques built all over the Middle East, Africa, and south Asia by Islamic factions. (I recently read an architectural history article which pointed out that the architectural features of 'traditional' mosques were all rom Persian or Byzantine models - only the minaret was an original feature).

I think this is fairly close to our own reasoning, though I have never specifically discussed "Why is religion not a source of fame" with the designers.
That said, some Cultures do interact with the Religion system in game, but you'll have to wait until we're ready to reveal that before we can talk about the specifics of this.

Based on my knowledge of previous Amplitude games, I'd take a guess that Aesthete is religious.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Aesthete is in fact not (necessarily) religious.

Hippodromes meanwhile were an ancient Greek invention, and is the Hippodrome of Constantinople even a hippodrome? Surely it's a Roman circus? Nevertheless, I'd hardly call it "emblematic" of the Byzantine Empire.

As for the Hippodrome, it's a Greek word and invention, but the chariot-racing events held there were also held in the earliest 'gaming' venue known in Rome: the Circus Maximus. Since it was a place of horse/chariot racing, by definition the structure in Constantinopol was a Hippodrome in Greek, but since it was built, technically, by Romans (2nd century CE) it was a Circus. Gien the increasing 'Greekiness' of both Constantinopol and rthe Byzantine Empire, using the Greek word seems appropriate to me. And given the extreme popularity and influence of the Hippodrome/Circus races and the racing factions in The City (the infamous 'Greens', 'Blues', 'Reds' and 'Whites') it makes a very effective Byzantine Emblematic Quarter. Of course, given the equally-infamous Massacre in the Hippodrome that ended one notorious riot/revolt, I wonder if it could also have some kind of special Violent Return To Loyal Status effect on a city? (Remove one population point, everything goes quiet . . .)

As far as I understand, the importance of the Hippodromes to the Byzantines could be summarized as: Horse Races were to them what gladiatorial fights were to the Romans, entertainment to win the favor of the population.[/QUOTE]

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As far as I understand, the importance of the Hippodromes to the Byzantines could be summarized as: Horse Races were to them what gladiatorial fights were to the Romans, entertainment to win the favor of the population.

My old Byzantine History professor described the Hippodrome races as "a World Cup Every Week" in their effect on the population . . .