Modscenario: Playable Byzantines, 610AD.

[BurnEmDown]

Well in this modscenario that would mean only Athens and if you lose Constantinople you're gonna lose the whole game anyway, so I don't think it will fit well here.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I routinely (meaning the 3 times I've played Justinian) build a strong production city on Belgrade's tile, that should count as Balkan, no? The benefit of having no civil war is not so clear though since you get a stability reset after it.

I've suggested the UP of Reconquest: every independent (not native) city or city with Byzantine culture that gets (re)conquered by Byzantines gives them some stability. Obviously, one can abuse it and conquer Persia/India/Ethiopia, but then expansion stability will overcome the initial city conquest stability. This helps because inevitably you get declarations of independence, so if you don't want a full fledged civil war, reconquering them quickly is best. This also includes the area represented by Rome and Venice which were part of the Exarchate of Ravenna at one time (even if the cities themselves eventually fell to other civs).

 

[FakeShady]

I like the reconquest UP. it would make a more realistic Byzantium IMO, haha.

However using the RFC Europe Byzantine UP but implementing it in a different way? An example will be:

Power of the Emperor: +10 stability points when Hereditary rule is used.

This will encourage the player to use Hereditary rule too and maintain the tradition of Roman emperors in Byzantium

 

[fireclaw722]

Could it be changed that the "old" Byzantines be used to represent the Western Roman Empire and make Rome spawn(or Respawn) in a late period to represent(not to stir up cortoversy over Rome being Italy) Italy.

I don't want to stir up any controversy, but i just wanted to give some ideas.

 

[TDK]

So, reading through the thread, why is there a 3 silk requirement? You can only trade for 1, and, although I haven't read up on my history for a while, I'm pretty sure the Byzantines never conquered Korea. I think a recreation of the Justinian conquests by, say, 1000 AD would be a much better condition. 1 city in Spain, 2 in Italy, 2 in Carthage, and 2 in Egypt, and 2 in Turkey/Near East? Is that doable?

The Silk condition is supposed to represent Byzantium controlling trade to the East, thus denying the western powers the lucrative trade that was the foundation of their power for 500 years.
And besides, it makes for a fun dynamic with the Arabs and Turks, and Indian Ocean or Silk Road.
And Korea is not the only way to get 3 Silk.

If you are still looking for a more useful and yet historical UP for Byzantium, these are some that come to my mind:

The Power of Themai
One of the main reason's for Justinian's military success during the early Byzantine Empire was its military organization. Emperor Herakleios divided the Empire into districts called "thema". The farmers who were allowed to settle in a thema had the duty to be militarily equipped and always ready for war. This was a lot more effective than the usual feudal drafting contemporary European states were using.
So the power would be: You can draft units in your city until the discovery of Nationalism.

The Power of Hard Currency:
With its Roman heritage, Byzantium had an highly organized minting system and provided the leading currency for the Eastern Mediterranean because of its stable percentage of silver.
We could implement this as: All your cities receive an additional trade route until the discovery of Economics.

The Power of Byzantine Diplomacy:
This is even idiomatic In essence, after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the Empire's sophisticated diplomacy was everything that saved them from being completely wiped out. To differentiate this from the French UP, one could do:
Other civilisations accept peace or tech trades for a lower price than usual.
This would help Byzantium to avoid multi-side wars and to keep up techwise.

I hope my ideas were helpful

1)I thought the Byzantines lost because their system was not very good or flexible?
2) I had this exact UP a few versions ago, it made the Byzantines even more powerful.
3)Very nice, I will keep it in mind.

Here's the UP from RFC Europe

"The Power of the Emperor"

While in control of Constantinople, there could be no civil war and the cities in the core (Greece) cannot declare independence.

I had noticed that, but I'm not sure I could code that.
Is "civil war" the same as collapse?

I like any of those 3 more than the current UP. But the byzantine diplomacy one looks a bit weak... dunno lol. But IMO greek fire is not really a unique power, just some invention/weapon.

Like the Royal Navy and Spanish UP?

I routinely (meaning the 3 times I've played Justinian) build a strong production city on Belgrade's tile, that should count as Balkan, no? The benefit of having no civil war is not so clear though since you get a stability reset after it.

I've suggested the UP of Reconquest: every independent (not native) city or city with Byzantine culture that gets (re)conquered by Byzantines gives them some stability. Obviously, one can abuse it and conquer Persia/India/Ethiopia, but then expansion stability will overcome the initial city conquest stability. This helps because inevitably you get declarations of independence, so if you don't want a full fledged civil war, reconquering them quickly is best. This also includes the area represented by Rome and Venice which were part of the Exarchate of Ravenna at one time (even if the cities themselves eventually fell to other civs).

Always the warmonger, eh? Don't you think that would be too powerful for an already powerful civ?

Could it be changed that the "old" Byzantines be used to represent the Western Roman Empire and make Rome spawn(or Respawn) in a late period to represent(not to stir up cortoversy over Rome being Italy) Italy.

I don't want to stir up any controversy, but i just wanted to give some ideas.

What? I'm not going to add Italy.
If you mean if the original Byzantine slot in RFC can be used to activate another civilization, I can only say, many have tried and failed. Why not just use one of the other inactive slots, like Babylon?

 

[FakeShady]

Greek fire is different from the English and Spanish UP. Those are actually UPs, while Greek fire is just an invention. Like the Chu ko nu.

Can you imagine this:

Chinese civilization:
Unique Power: Power of the Chu ko nu
All crossbowman start with 1 first strike and 20% collateral damage

That wont really make sense, don't you think? haha. well, the greek fire thing is the same haha

 

[FakeShady]

Another thing. If "Power of the Emperor" is to be implemented, Hereditary Rule has to be in use. After all, the byzantine citizens always took pride in the fact that their emperor is a true Roman emperor, and this will encourage the player to use Hereditary rule.

Yeah civil war is the same as collapse. the "core area" thing has to be changed though cos that means only athens

 

[FakeShady]

So in summary, i suggest this

"Power of the Emperor:
While using Hereditary rule, there can be no civil war and cities less likely to declare independance"

Take thaT Mr Turn 34

 

[kairob]

Ok, triple posting - not cool.

Also Power of the Emperor sounds good but HR isn't necessarily the only government civic with a King/Emperor, constitutional monarchies for example would use the representation or universal suffrage civics but would still have monarchs. Also it is not too hard to imagine a Police State led by an Emperor either (think WH 40K).

 

[AnotherPacifist]

If you don't win by the 1600 it's going to really hard to do so, and constitution is so far off that it's almost irrelevant. I don't like era-limited or tech-limited UPs in general (Greece, Maya) because it limits your science paths.
As to reconquest, it's a better UP because of no era limit and allows for more interesting late games. Greek fire is currently just not useful at all without extensive naval warfare that allows you to deal collateral damage.

 

[Leoreth]

1)I thought the Byzantines lost because their system was not very good or flexible?

Compared to European standards until the Late Middle Ages, it was better and more flexible, but more on account of internal organization. Themai were organized top-to-bottom, when most European armies were more of "collect the peasants and lead them to war".
The Byzantine power declined because the themai system was nearly completely destroyed after the battle of Mantzikert, where they lost most of Anatolia, which was Byzantium's most populous and fertile land. Most themai were lost consequently, and local nobles used the chance to force everything into a feudal system.

After that, their system became inherently ineffective, so that Byzantine Emperors started to rely more on mercenaries. That's one of the main characteristics of past-1071-Byzantium, but adopting that as their UP would be suspiciously similar to the Carthaginian one

 

[FakeShady]

Sorry just thought of one thing right after another.

Well ok then... Well in that case "Power of the Emperor" can be anything then, so long as its like something to do with stability or Constantinople being capital (or Hereditary Rule). But in all honesty any useful UP is good, so long as its actually a power and synergizes with UHVs

 

[FakeShady]

So errr.. i think there are more than enough suggestions made already heh. Of cos if you're still looking for one more suggestion we can always help So is the UP gonna be changed? sorry i'm really excited LOL

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I personaly think that Power of the Emperor is an interesting concept but how about instead having it be: "No stability penalty from musing HR after liberalism and other such techs that allow more democratic systems."

This would allow the HRE to go on being hereditary into the modern era.

 

[FakeShady]

After about 100 tries i realized that the devil in the stability is only the "expansion" category. Its useless to have a power that continues to improve the other aspects of stability (my economy is +100 for example) when the "expansion" category is still at best -20.

I would suggest that the Byzantines be given a totally new stability map completely different from the Greek one as its responsible for the forever negative Expansion category, but seeing that that will be A LOT of work (if not impossible) i think its fair to just make a UP that only inproves the "Expansion" stability. If the power is really strong, everyone should even be able to survive turn 34 comfortably.

That means that "Power of Reconquest" is actually a good idea, the only problem being that there arent many independant civs around (unless u collapse, duh) So a good idea would be to use the "Power of Reconquest", but instead of + stability with every independant city captured, change it to

"Power of Reconquest:
+ stability (expansion category) with every Mediterranean coastal city captured (or owned)"

This will make sense as the Romans used to control every single Mediterranean coastal city. This will also give u a reason to hold on to the crap North African cities at the start. (if u choose every city owned instead of every city captured)

OR

"Power of Emperor:
While in control of Constantinople as capital (or while using Hereditary Rule), no negative stability from civ size/number of cities"

This will make the "Expansion" stability category show a MUCH healthier number. Trust me, Byzantium NEEDS this power, with the turn 34 problem and the ridiculous Greek stability map.

Those two powers will solve the stability issues of Byzantium, maybe even solve turn 34, and at the same time it won't make Byzantium overpowered. And neither will we need a new stability map. So yep, tell me what you guys think

 

[Zagoroth]

That I believe would actually make them over powered. The only thing deterring players from expanding wherever they like would be research penalties, which are easily reduced by building a few key wonders. A Byzantine player could effectively unite the whole Rome Empire much easier than it is to keep it as Rome. Also the Byzantine player could, if their economic stability starts to drop, just build another city to improve land in. This could go on for the entire game. Personally, I have no qualms with the Byzantine stability. As long as it never collapses, in my games I have never collapsed fully, than cities revolting are just a temporary challenge. Since the UHV is winnable, it is not a matter of making it easier to be the Byzantines. I think the only change would be to edit the stability maps just to be historically accurate. If the human player does not expand past the Byzantine borders, the expansion stability should not drop since you do not hold enough tiles outside of the "Greek" historical boundaries though.

 

[FakeShady]

So to Zagoroth, you're saying that editing the stability map can be done? That wouls be PERFECT in my opinion, because i had thought editing stability map was very difficult if not impossible

EDIT: Another thing. Not everyone plays to complete the UHVs. Some of us like to play until end game, past year 2000 (like me). At that stage you'll know why the Expansion category of stability is unfair to the Byzantines

 

[Zagoroth]

Collapsing is not game ending though. In fact it can be beneficial to restart your stability. Also, since Rhye added the feature to keep more cities than your capital when you collapse, it is not so bad. You can also afford to lose some of the more, "pointless," cities in your empire. As the Byzantines you could effectively just play owning Athens, Chalkedon, Babylon, The Egyptian capital who's name escapes me, and possibly Jerusalem for extra commerce and Alexandria for the Great Library. The first four cities are part of Blizzrd's Greek UHV strategy. If you are playing for an end game you could intentionally collapse, or just prepare for your inevitable collapse, and clear out the cities detracting from your main cities. It is usually almost always better to have a few Mega cities as opposed to many medium/ small cities. That being said you might want to play the whole game as the Byzantine Empire was historically, so I don't know.

Anyways, I am sure the stability map can be edited. However I would assume TDK knows about this, so there might be another issue. The stability regions for civilizations are located in the Consts.py file under Assets\Python. To work with it you need to know the coordinates that correspond to tiles on the RFC map.

 

[FakeShady]

So you're saying TDK should edit it, or we should edit it ourselves...??

Anyway, is it possible to add colour to the Byzantines? I am bored of staring at a grey civ. Not just any grey, INDEPENDANT grey! Its like controlling an insignificant independant civ, lol. The byzantines in bts has their own colour, some kind of purple. I would like to have that added in too

 

[Zagoroth]

I wasn't saying either, just stating how it could be edited.