I still find the idea of Cataphracts replacing Horsemen very odd. They were in service throughout the entire middle-ages and only disappeared with the Byzantine Empire itself, if Cataphracts replace horseman than they should at least come with a anti-infantry bonus.
I'll just wait until we get an official confirmation on the Cataphracts being Horsemen.
Really? I thought it was Cavalry from closer to the 30 Years War. I thought "Cavalry" represented Napoleonic cavalry. I think this just shows the compressed timeline is messed up to a significant degree.
Yeah, cavalry represents the mounted infantry of the late 19th century (notwithstanding that they fire from horseback) specifically american civil war era which is an odd choice historically but i guess is there to appeal to the US market. Lancer again is strange pick as they only saw a brief and limited revival during the napolenic era and clash with 17th century musketmen model (as well as tercio, musketeer and janissary). A better fit would be a pistol and sword armed reiter or cuirassier.
I'm curious, has the civ series ever had a UU that had the same stats as the standard unit and its only special ability was coming a few techs earlier? Because that would seem like a good fit for the cataphract.
"Cataphracts, was known from the area around Aral Sea since 6th century BC., and was used later on by Sarmatians, Parthians and Sassanids. In the roman army, cataphracts was used from 2nd century AD. In the beginning of 4th century AD replaced by Clibanarii (also armoured cavalry)."
The above text was from the Swedish NE. Also since it is the early period that is represented (guess based on a leader screen that I may have seen of Theodora), I would say Horseman replacement. Also wasn't the idea of knights based on cataphracts, so shouldn't they be the before knights. Meaning so the knights have something to be based on.
I'm curious, has the civ series ever had a UU that had the same stats as the standard unit and its only special ability was coming a few techs earlier? Because that would seem like a good fit for the cataphract.
I believe there has never been one, and that I may be a good fit for the cataphract. But if knights remain as powerful in G+K as in vanilla, this would be way too strong. Chivalry is a difficult tech to rush, and there's a huge leap in power from horsemen to knight.
It might be a good idea for some other kind of unit (musketmen, horsemen, fighters or frigates, for example), but not for knights. They are just too powerful relatively to their previous tier of units.
You can click on the high-resolution picture in the Cataphract picture, the on the right, it goes to its stats, icon, etc, including which unit it replaces.
It has a price in faith (150) as well as production. I wonder if this is just the effect of the holy warriors belief, or whether the Byzantines get an extra perk in being able to buy Cataphracts with faith even without that belief.
It would be an extra dimension in light of their rather sparse UA.
Cataphracts being horsemen is odd. According to Civ Analyst they have a strength of 13, which would make them weaker than greek Companion Cavalry (14), something that just doesn't feel right.
Hmm, so, a 25% combat strength increase for a horseman, while we cant see if it has a city attack penalty, does this mean that the Byzantines will have no need at all for Iron? Stronger and more mobile than swordsmen.
Cataphracts being horsemen is odd. According to Civ Analyst they have a strength of 13, which would make them weaker than greek Companion Cavalry (14), something that just doesn't feel right.
Having the Cataphract stronger than the Swordsman is pretty neat IMO. I'm not sure if all the mounted units have had their vs city penalty removed like the archery units seem to have had.
It has a price in faith (150) as well as production. I wonder if this is just the effect of the holy warriors belief, or whether the Byzantines get an extra perk in being able to buy Cataphracts with faith even without that belief.
It would be an extra dimension in light of their rather sparse UA.
I notice the Mayan Atlatlists also have their cost listed in both hammers and faith. If you are able to purchase these units with Faith without needing to get Holy Warriors, that's actually a pretty powerful dimension to their civs.
Can anyone enlighten on whether the player had Holy Warriors in these 2 games?
Moderator Action: Please remember this thread is about Byzantines. If you wish to discuss Mayans, please start another thread for that.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Having the Cataphract stronger than the Swordsman is pretty neat IMO. I'm not sure if all the mounted units have had their vs city penalty removed like the archery units seem to have had.
Your memory is good because horsemen have (pre G&K) a Str of 10, most units will have a change of Str in G&K. I guess the strength of knights may have increased as well.
It has a price in faith (150) as well as production. I wonder if this is just the effect of the holy warriors belief, or whether the Byzantines get an extra perk in being able to buy Cataphracts with faith even without that belief.
It would be an extra dimension in light of their rather sparse UA.
The question is: Was the person able to buy Cataphracts simply because of the Holy Warriors Belief or is it possible without it due to a special feature of the UU?
The question is: Was the person able to buy Cataphracts simply because of the Holy Warriors Belief or is it possible without it due to a special feature of the UU?
No? you can purchase Pre-Industrial Era with Faith ONLY if you have Holy Warriors? I dno't even see your logic? It's a Civiolpedia page for Catapharct.
I believe what he means is you can automatically buy cataphracts with faith without having to choose Holy Warriors as a (second?) belief. Which is cool if it's indeed true - this would make the UA even more powerful since you can forgo one belief without losing out (at least for cataphracts) and invest the extra belief in other stuff.
All these leaks is making me believe that strong is an understatement for Byzantine. I know, I know, focus on topic, but compare that with what we currently know about Dutch and East India Company. Hmmm...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
