Thoughts on Byzantium's awesome adaptability and why religion is an awesome system.

[El Caballerion]

First, regarding Byzantium's UA.... their UA gives them perhaps the best advantage not only in terms of gameplay, but for realism also.

Think about it... if you play as Byzantium and found a religion, you can tailor it in ANY way for ANY map you might be playing on in a more competitive way than any other civ. On the contrary, if you play as England or Ottomans on a map like Highlands with no oceans, your sea-based UA is useless, though most of us already know this.

For my other reason regarding realism. I think all CIVs should gain and choose their UA DURING the game, as all civilizations in real life were shaped by the world around them. The Byzantines reflect this, but no other civ has the ability to let the world and starting situation transform their UU in a unique way. The Huns without pastures loses a big chunk of their UA. The Aztecs without a close enemy loses cultural sacrifices. Alexander with no nearby city-states is not as effective, etc.

Yes, I know any civ can found a religion and the Byzantines just give you one slight addition to that system, and if they don't found a religion in a given time, then their UA is useless too. But I guess I just like the ability to craft your advantages as you immerse yourself in the world around you. There have been too many times in CIV that I've chosen CIV A only to find that after exploring the map for 150 turns that CIV B would have been a more valid choice. The Byzantines really allow you to shape the world around you and easily become the most adaptable civ in the entire game.

With that said, do you think UAs should stay civ-centric (as they are now) or more like the religion system (mold-able and based on the world around you)

Thoughts?

 

[ahawk]

I think any civ has to be looked at holistically, though, as a single organic unit.

Byzantium's UA is always worth while, but are its units? They have a naval unit; put them on Highlands, and though maybe not as much as England or the Ottomans, they lose a bit of what makes them better.

England now gets an extra spy, so its UA is always going to give it something these days. And the Janissary for the Ottomans is a great unit (although, according to the 'pedia, the text claims it still heals fully while the bonus icon actually says 'Heal 50 HP Upon Kill').

And beyond that, the Byzantine UA is actually not so good as you claim, since you still have to get Faith going enough to get the UA to be useful. So Byzantium starts the game with a UA that is guarenteed to be useless during critical early-game turns up until you get a Great Prophet and found a religion. Compare that to Polynesia: I can send my warrior out riding the waves right from turn 1.

 

[Gilkanese]

This is certainly a good idea, and I'd personally like to be able to adapt like that, but it kinda ruins the point of having a selectable nation and leader. The point of the nations having a UA is to guide you to generally follow in their footsteps.

 

[draaibaar]

.. I think all CIVs should gain and choose their UA DURING the game, as all civilizations in real life were shaped by the world around them...

I found this a very interesting point. I would like to extend this to ... well in fact to everything in the game: CIVs as a whole should be shaped by by the world around them. Not only their UA, but everything. If you have a coastal start, your UU will be a ship eg, or when horses are nearby (or if horses are the first resource your scout will engage, let them be visible from the start), your UA will be mounted, and your next science to develop will be horseriding etc. After some time you will discover: wow, now I' am playing a CIV that looks like (in real life) ... The Netherlands eg. A CIV will not be able to learn a naval science unless they have a coastal city, not learn horse riding unless they have horses as resource. You get my point.

 

[Atlas627]

I found this a very interesting point. I would like to extend this to ... well in fact to everything in the game: CIVs as a whole should be shaped by by the world around them. Not only their UA, but everything. If you have a coastal start, your UU will be a ship eg, or when horses are nearby (or if horses are the first resource your scout will engage, let them be visible from the start), your UA will be mounted, and your next science to develop will be horseriding etc. After some time you will discover: wow, now I' am playing a CIV that looks like (in real life) ... The Netherlands eg. A CIV will not be able to learn a naval science unless they have a coastal city, not learn horse riding unless they have horses as resource. You get my point.

You could do this, but there are 2 problems.

As a gameplay mechanic, Unique abilities per civilization make more interesting decisions. You have to try to play with the cards you have been dealt (including your civ's abilities and the environment) to win. Perhaps you know some of the cards (UUs) and can try to get other cards to complement them (play to your civ's strengths). If you only had the civilization mold to the environment, there would be fewer decisions to make as you would simply go with the flow.

In terms of realism, the tendency for cultures to be shaped by their environments is already accounted for, but from the top-down. Instead of being an island nation pushing England to build a strong navy, CiV encourages you to build a strong navy because it is more cost-efficient. To do this you will need to grab the right terrain and form the correct culture (social policies) that would have created your objective organically in history.

This is a game. In a simulation, obviously the environment dictates the lifestyle. But in a game, the point is for the player to make decisions. What decision is there to be made if the RNG creates the map and everything else flows from there? No, the RNG can only be one part of the equation. Other factors (like UAs) should be totally independent, so it is up to the player to find ways to make them work. If you could adapt to every situation by evolving your civilization organically (like IRL) then where are the tough decisions?

 

[Exterminas]

Byzantinums weakness is their rather low early faith production. They don't generate more faith than anyone else.

So If you play on a map with the celts and ethiopia and have some bad luck regaring faith-ruins, then that whole "I built my perfect religion"-thing, kinda starts to become relative.

 

[draaibaar]

@ GamerKG:
What you say is that now the game has been made somewhat artificial to make tough decisions possible. But don't you think in real life civilizations had to make tough decisions? And I don't like tough decisions like: my UU is a horse but there are no horses nearby. This is nonsense and makes me quit the game. Or: I am going to research straight to Printing Press: this is not how history works. I would like to see a game developed in the way I described, if this game will be tougher or not I don't know. But I get your point.

 

[OmniPotent42]

@ GamerKG:
What you say is that now the game has been made somewhat artificial to make tough decisions possible. But don't you think in real life civilizations had to make tough decisions? And I don't like tough decisions like: my UU is a horse but there are no horses nearby. This is nonsense and makes me quit the game. Or: I am going to research straight to Printing Press: this is not how history works. I would like to see a game developed in the way I described, if this game will be tougher or not I don't know. But I get your point.

If you were to do this it would be like creating a unique civ from scratch every time, making leaders and uu's and ua 's obsolete. One thing you have to consider though is that civilization, like history, is not meant to be fair. You just have to play the hand you are dealt. The reason that Europe conquered all of the New World and much (but not all) of Africa was because they got a lucky hand. Watch the National Geographic documentary Guns, Germs, and Steel. It helps you understand how history works.

 

[OmniPotent42]

You could do this, but there are 2 problems.

As a gameplay mechanic, Unique abilities per civilization make more interesting decisions. You have to try to play with the cards you have been dealt (including your civ's abilities and the environment) to win. Perhaps you know some of the cards (UUs) and can try to get other cards to complement them (play to your civ's strengths). If you only had the civilization mold to the environment, there would be fewer decisions to make as you would simply go with the flow.

In terms of realism, the tendency for cultures to be shaped by their environments is already accounted for, but from the top-down. Instead of being an island nation pushing England to build a strong navy, CiV encourages you to build a strong navy because it is more cost-efficient. To do this you will need to grab the right terrain and form the correct culture (social policies) that would have created your objective organically in history.

This is a game. In a simulation, obviously the environment dictates the lifestyle. But in a game, the point is for the player to make decisions. What decision is there to be made if the RNG creates the map and everything else flows from there? No, the RNG can only be one part of the equation. Other factors (like UAs) should be totally independent, so it is up to the player to find ways to make them work. If you could adapt to every situation by evolving your civilization organically (like IRL) then where are the tough decisions?

Well, said, sir!

 

[merubhanot]

I liked the Byzantine boat WAY more than their UA, since I've found religion in general to be slightly underwhelming/difficult to use effectively on higher difficulties. But an early ranged boat? You can just farm EXP off of barbs and early wars and by the time you upgrade them to Galleas you get Range and Logistics. Assuming you're not playings a very land heavy map, they're one of the best UUs I've played with in a while.

 

[draaibaar]

If you were to do this it would be like creating a unique civ from scratch every time, making leaders and uu's and ua 's obsolete. One thing you have to consider though is that civilization, like history, is not meant to be fair. You just have to play the hand you are dealt. The reason that Europe conquered all of the New World and much (but not all) of Africa was because they got a lucky hand. Watch the National Geographic documentary Guns, Germs, and Steel. It helps you understand how history works.

I indeed would like to create a unique civ from scratch! But it's not my intention to make it 'fair' as you say. I think you don't understand me: to play the hand you are dealt is just what I want, and this hand is the environment you start. And I do have the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

ps @El Caballerion: sorry if this discussion is not in line with the OP.

 

[Nerdstomper]

Is it just me or is the Byzantium start bias to give them an awful awful start? I've reloaded 10 times and there's no sign of a decent city location. One load was just forest/jungle and a single gem.

 

[black213]

Is it just me or is the Byzantium start bias to give them an awful awful start? I've reloaded 10 times and there's no sign of a decent city location. One load was just forest/jungle and a single gem.

IIRC Byzantium doesn't have any special start bias so it's just bad luck.

 

[iconocast]

a ranged trimarene is kind of a big deal now.

 

[themascarasnake]

Is it just me or is the Byzantium start bias to give them an awful awful start? I've reloaded 10 times and there's no sign of a decent city location. One load was just forest/jungle and a single gem.

I think the problem is your standards. Stop rerolling your start and just play with the hand you're dealt.

 

[Arkangelus]

Interesting - I got a massive jungle/mountain/river start and I thought it was amazing, Jungle pantheon, the much earlier Hydro Plant, thought it was perfect.

 

[BobDole]

Is it just me or is the Byzantium start bias to give them an awful awful start? I've reloaded 10 times and there's no sign of a decent city location. One load was just forest/jungle and a single gem.

I think the problem is your standards. Stop rerolling your start and just play with the hand you're dealt.

This. There's really no such thing as a "bad" start in my opinion. You're always given something pretty nice. Maybe not perfect, but whatever, deal with it.

With that said, do you think UAs should stay civ-centric (as they are now) or more like the religion system (mold-able and based on the world around you)

UAs are a huge improvement, in my opinion, from the traits in Civ IV. They make each civ unique, but aren't so restrictive that a certain victory type is impossible. UAs are fine as is, no sense in fixing something that isn't broken.

 

[blackcatatonic]

a ranged trimarene is kind of a big deal now.

This. Plus, FIRE!

I'm underwhelmed by Cataphracts. I still kind of feel they would be more worthwhile as Knight replacements. Even on mid to high difficulties it seems you need to really make a point of getting Horseback Riding as early as possible to make good use of Horseman units as the AI seems to beeline for Civil Service now. Pikemen = minced Cataphracts.

 

[Ulthwithian]

I'll say that the real strength of Byzantium is not their UA, but the Dromon.

Early Ranged Naval unit is very good. While it is slightly more defensive (i.e., it can't take cities), it's pretty ridiculous for naval supremacy. Doesn't the Dromon get a +50% bonus against other Naval units?

 

[Vatras]

I find that religion has the potential to turn a bad starting area into a good one, no need to restart over desert or jungles.