The Byzantines CIV VII Suggestions and Hopes

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

With the variety we can now see in how Civs are portrayed, I'd at least like a Civic relating to the Eastern Roman systems of bureaucracy. It's a large part of what kept the empire standing for so long and now that there's room for more than just religion and domination bonuses, I think it deserves a spot. With the new resource system, some bonus to being the destination of trade routes might also be neat (last stop on the silk road.)

 

[Patine]

Constantine I would be great, but Byzantium will undoubtedly have Greek words for its abilities, infrastructures and units in order to differ a bit from Rome, so an emperor that spoke Medieval Greek might be more fitting. Although Constantine I, Justinian I and Belisarius might have also spoken Greek, so depicting them like that might not be an issue.

A core defensive playstyle that can turn into an offensive one with an appropriate military leader would be the best design for the Byzantines. They were mostly on the defensive, but some emperors led successful military campaigns and reconquered lost areas of the empire.

Constantine I was late Roman, not early Byzantine, though. He was the last Emperor to solidly and firmly rule the WHOLE Roman Empire, and, I BELIEVE he was raised in a Latin-speaking family.

 

[Krajzen]

I really hope we get Byzantium soon, because it would be an amazing connector civ for a ton of civilizations, fitting multi-cultural hybrid civs of this game really well.

For ancient civs which can sensibly turn into Byz we have not just Greece and Rome in the same time but also Egypt, ancient Anatolia and Levant, Phoenicia/Carthage, and various "barbarian" peoples. On the other hand, Byzantium offers sensible predecessor civ for literally all of Orthodox Easterns European cultures, Ottomans and even Italy. If eras had been structured slightly differently it would have also worked as a predecessor to the Islamic civs in general.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If eras had been structured slightly differently it would have also worked as a predecessor to the Islamic civs in general.

I'm sure it might lead to at least one.

 

[Krajzen]

I'm sure it might lead to at least one.

I want to see Ottomans being one of the historical paths for Byzantium - if only to see thousands of byzantophiles, orientalists, eurocentrists and people creating lame Roman Empire memes scream in terror and despair

(though to be fair I'd still like to see an option for Byzantium to either survive till the modern era or evolve into Modern Greece - you know sometimes I am a little byzantophile myself)

 

[luca 83]

I really hope we get Byzantium soon, because it would be an amazing connector civ for a ton of civilizations, fitting multi-cultural hybrid civs of this game really well.

For ancient civs which can sensibly turn into Byz we have not just Greece and Rome in the same time but also Egypt, ancient Anatolia and Levant, Phoenicia/Carthage, and various "barbarian" peoples. On the other hand, Byzantium offers sensible predecessor civ for literally all of Orthodox Easterns European cultures, Ottomans and even Italy. If eras had been structured slightly differently it would have also worked as a predecessor to the Islamic civs in general.

To understand the Byzantine empire one must understand the period of military anarchy the tetrarchy of Diocletian the crisis of the tetrarchy and the rise of Christianity as a monotheistic religion following the persecutions to the successors of Constantine and the division of the empire and the barbarian invasions things that personalization of leaders , without simulation of profound events cannot be realistic

 

[Patine]

To understand the Byzantine empire one must understand the period of military anarchy the tetrarchy of Diocletian the crisis of the tetrarchy and the rise of Christianity as a monotheistic religion following the persecutions to the successors of Constantine and the division of the empire and the barbarian invasions things that personalization of leaders , without simulation of profound events cannot be realistic

Again, you have to grasp, that the terms, "realism," and, "simulation," are not high-priority goals in an iteration of a Civ game.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

To understand the Byzantine empire one must understand the period of military anarchy the tetrarchy of Diocletian the crisis of the tetrarchy and the rise of Christianity as a monotheistic religion following the persecutions to the successors of Constantine and the division of the empire and the barbarian invasions things that personalization of leaders , without simulation of profound events cannot be realistic

What is the roots of Dicletian tetrachy crisis? does it has anything to do with the competitions of faith between Olympianism (A religion that worships Olympian Gods, once an official religion of Rome and even Emperors of Rome became gods of this religion), and Christianity (which further divided into different sects based on geopolitics) ? What contribuited to Christian victory over Olympian Gods? Charity (or the lack of of the counterparts)?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

According to modern Civ7 rules. there are only two UUs, one is not for direct combat (commanders are considered non-direct combat). the other is a combat unit.
the UU should be Dromons. and the most advanced iterations should be either 'Galleass' type or of Galleon designs with Byzantine archetectures.

 

[Krajzen]

To understand the Byzantine empire one must understand the period of military anarchy the tetrarchy of Diocletian the crisis of the tetrarchy and the rise of Christianity as a monotheistic religion following the persecutions to the successors of Constantine and the division of the empire and the barbarian invasions things that personalization of leaders , without simulation of profound events cannot be realistic

For a second I thought this is gonna be the parody of "To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty" copypasta

EDIT I'm sorry please don't take this personally but I couldn't stop myself after all

Spoiler :

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Byzantine Empire. The history is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of social sciences most of the processes will go over a typical reader's head. The fans of Byzantium understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of this civilization, to realise that it is not just interesting- it says something deep about HUMANITY in general. As a consequence people who dislike Byzantium truly are fools- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Basil's "Bulgar Slayer" nickname. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Justinian's genius vision unfolds itself on the pages of their books. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have a Byzantine tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they can recite the full list of Byzantine emperors (with reign dates). Nothin personal kid

 

[luca 83]

What is the roots of Dicletian tetrachy crisis? does it has anything to do with the competitions of faith between Olympianism (A religion that worships Olympian Gods, once an official religion of Rome and even Emperors of Rome became gods of this religion), and Christianity (which further divided into different sects based on geopolitics) ? What contribuited to Christian victory over Olympian Gods? Charity (or the lack of of the counterparts)?

Flavius Valerius Constantinus - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

 

[luca 83]

Even leaders with specific characteristics unrelated to civilization are not enough to create an immersive idea, the Byzantines are a good example: from Constantine, to Julian, to Theodosius, to Justinian we arrived at the definitive economic and political division of the empire: economic and political factors, invasions, barbarians, social movements in civilization are inevitable.