Would would the fans like from a Civ 6 Byzantium

[Redaxe]

Lets say Byzantium gets added (unlikely for release) but probably later in a DLC or expansion.

A lot of people like Byzantium because there were so many different ways you could add your extra religous belief to come up with interesting combinations.

Despite being a low tier civ in civ5 many players had a soft spot for it because there was so many things you could do with religion & the UA, compared to many other civs which you only felt like playing once.

My question is would would people still want to see a civ 6 Byzantium with the same extra free belief on founding a religion or would they want something different?

Civ 6 is obviously bringing in some new features & content but lets be honest much of the way the game plays is going to be quite similar to civ 5. Heck most of the policies and religious beliefs are straight out of Civ 5.

I don't mind this - keep what works and build on that.
We're expecting the same thing with Rome. They'll likely keep their road building utility from Civ 5 and it's likely it'll be expanded upon so they will probably get to build medieval roads before anyone else can....

Thus I'd be quite happy to see Byzantium back in Civ6 with the same UA so long as it got improved to raise it on par with other civs.
Lets be honest though for the most part the extra belief was pretty weak when it is contrasted to many civs eg. Egypt, Byzantium was far weaker. Egypt would give you essentially 2 platinum versions of 2 religious beliefs for free (20% to wonders vs Monument to the Gods.... & +2 happiness and maintenance free Temple UB vs Religious Center)...

So I'd go for something like this

Civilization Bonus: One God, One Emperor, One Empire!
Choose an extra belief when you found a religion. Byzantium ignores the restriction that prevents Civs from founding a religion if there are none left to choose from. Thus you are always guaranteed a religion.

Autocracy, Oligarchy and Classical Republic grant an extra social policy slot for as long your civ follows one of those governments.

I think something like the above would be interesting. You get guaranteed a religion that is potentially more powerful than your rivals and you get a better classical & medieval era government - it makes the older governments stand on par with the medieval governments . Thus Byzantium gets most of its benefits in the early mid game. An extra policy from Republic/Autocracy/Oligarchy lets you get some faith or other benefits to religion without having to sacrifice too many resources to generate faith and great prophets...
That was always one of the downsides to Byzantium in Civ 5. Faith was such a luck-driven resource that you often had very little control over how easily you could accrue it. Thus I think a religion based civ would need an extra early-mid game policy just to smooth things out. You shouldn't feel like your UA is punishing you for focusing on your religion, it should be complimentary and I think something like the above would work quite nicely.

What do other people think? Kongo I understand allows you to hijack another civs religion for your own benefits which is very interesting but I don't think we too many more civs that hijack religions.
An Armenian civ is certainly long overdue and could work in a similar way though...

Note to Mods: This isn't intended to be an ideas thread/topic but a discussion on how the playerbase feels about the Byzantine Civ and how well the Civ 5 version would function in Civ 6.

 

[BrokenSky]

Most of the time I just played with a mod which gave that extra belief bonus to everyone. It made the religion system way better.

But yeah I would prefer everyone to get the +1 bonus, maybe give Byzantium the "can always found a religion, can use beliefs even if they are already used by other religions" thing, maybe also get a great a free great prophet at theology? (assuming their building and unit aren't that great, similar to 5).

 

[Olleus]

The extra belief was nice in Civ5 (just didn't go with the rest of the civ what-so-ever), but there's no reason we have to with the same line in Civ6. I think something that gives extra amenities from faith would be nice. Hard to suggest something concrete when we know so little about the system though.

I'd also like them to get a UB that replaces walls. Maybe something like:
UB Theodosian walls (replaces walls)
Prevents districts adjacent to the city centre from being pillaged while the wall stands.


The idea is to make them a turtle civ. Expand a little right at the start, then sit back and defend. The UA would let your cities grow without hitting the amenities limit, while the UB would give you extra protection from attacks or raids.

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: Thread moved

 

[Halcyan2]

I look forward to (eventually) seeing the East Roman Empire!

However, I wouldn't bet on it having a religious theme.

So far, it seems like most of the civs from Civ V have done theme swapping rather than maintaining what they were previously like.

For example, France stole the espionage theme which was England's in Civ V. While England stole the Great Works emphasis that France had in Civ V.

India's taken the Candi mechanic that the Indonesians had in Civ V.

China took the Wonder emphasis that Egypt had in Civ V.

Egypt trade route ability feels very similar to Morocco in Civ V.

Although Germany's city state ability is just a small part of all their bonuses, it feels reminiscent of the Mongols in Civ V.

--------

On the flipside, Brazil did maintain its Great Person focus.

 

[Redaxe]

The extra belief was nice in Civ5 (just didn't go with the rest of the civ what-so-ever), but there's no reason we have to with the same line in Civ6. I think something that gives extra amenities from faith would be nice. Hard to suggest something concrete when we know so little about the system though.

I'd also like them to get a UB that replaces walls. Maybe something like:
UB Theodosian walls (replaces walls)
Prevents districts adjacent to the city centre from being pillaged while the wall stands.


The idea is to make them a turtle civ. Expand a little right at the start, then sit back and defend. The UA would let your cities grow without hitting the amenities limit, while the UB would give you extra protection from attacks or raids.

Yeah I don't think everything has to synergise too strongly.

Byzantium is often seen as a religious civ but i never mixed religion with state and politics like the Islamic Caliphates or the Vatican did...

It still inherited its culture from the the Hellenic-Roman tradition and operated under the largely secular Roman legal system.

The problem is Civ 5 was that religion was such a gamble to invest in that it often meant sacrificing a lot of opportunity to get an often weak product.
For Civ 5 Byzantium you'd often have to put early policies in Piety & focus your early cities on building Temples when you should be building other things instead...

I think guaranteeing you a religion in the UA takes some of this pressure off and perhaps an extra policy in the classical-medieval era can also help here.

I don't think the rest of the civ needs anything too faith or religous based - that can be used from the extra belief.

If we say Byzantium we immediately think
- Eastern Orthodox Church
- Complex Political/Legal system
- Hippodrome & Theatre
- Strong military

The Civilization Bonus should take care of the Religion & Legal side.

The unique infrastructure could be the Hippodrome or Walls. I tend to prefer Hippodrome but that's me...

The Leader bonus should probably focus on military and UUs

 

[Martinus]

I don't know how doable or playable it is, but it would be cool if Byzantium had some sort of a "Schism" ability, allowing it perhaps to start a new religion and "steal" some followers from an existing religion by doing so, retaining the some of the original beliefs of the religion they thus separated from.

Another ability could be to buy off invading barbarians (they have been rather famous for diverting an invasion of barbaric people by bribing them off - and for using foreign mercenaries, such as Varangians).

 

[SMcM]

I think it should definitely have some religion oriented bonus; a significant part of its legacy today is the spreading eastern orthodox church, today centred on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

I think Basil II should be leader; Justinian was far more powerful, but arguably not far enough detached from Rome, so I think a more recent leader like Basil, who ruled medieval Byzantium at its peak, would be a good choice. Basil's ruthlessness could make him interesting to deal with as a leader.

One of his best remembered acts of cruelty was his sending home of a blinded army of Bulgars in revenge for the death of his friend and adviser Botaneiates, which apparently caused their king to die of a heart attack at the sight of them.

 

[Redaxe]

I think it should definitely have some religion oriented bonus; a significant part of its legacy today is the spreading eastern orthodox church, today centred on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

I think Basil II should be leader; Justinian was far more powerful, but arguably not far enough detached from Rome, so I think a more recent leader like Basil, who ruled medieval Byzantium at tits peak, would be a good choice. Basil's ruthlessness could make him interesting to deal with as a leader.

One of his best remembered acts of cruelty was his sending home of a blinded army of Bulgars in revenge for the death of his friend and adviser Botaneiates, which apparently caused their king to die of a heart attack at the sight of them.

Yes agreed about Basil 2, although I think each civ will have 2 leaders? So Justinian could certainly be the second.

 

[Redaxe]

I don't know how doable or playable it is, but it would be cool if Byzantium had some sort of a "Schism" ability, allowing it perhaps to start a new religion and "steal" some followers from an existing religion by doing so, retaining the some of the original beliefs of the religion they thus separated from.

Another ability could be to buy off invading barbarians (they have been rather famous for diverting an invasion of barbaric people by bribing them off - and for using foreign mercenaries, such as Varangians).

Interesting thought but I can imagine any Orthodox Christians would be scratching their beards if they read this or saw this in Civ. In the orthodox view it was Rome that initiated the schism (in fact it actually was a papal delegation that excommunicated the Orthodox Patriarch at the Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople) and Rome over the years changed key tenets or introduced new doctrines outside of an ecumenical council; the Filoque, Papal Primacy, Just War, Limbo etc....

So that is a big can of worms you are opening there
one that is still squirming after 1000 years

 

[SMcM]

Yes agreed about Basil 2, although I think each civ will have 2 leaders? So Justinian could certainly be the second.

No, it was specifically stated on that some civs would have one leader, others multiple. I imagine modern nations with lots of well known leaders such as Spain, France, Russia, India, China and United States will have multiple leaders as there will be a lot of demand for them, but in the case of a historical nation like Byzantium which fewer are knowledgeable about, I think they might well stick to one leader.

I am fairly certain Kongo and Scythia will not gain extra leaders. If Norway is a civilisation, and Hardrada does not lead the vikings instead, I doubt that would get multiple leaders. Two leaders for Aztecs seems unlikely also, and if native american civs like Sioux or Apache were added, I imagine they would only get one leader.

 

[Redaxe]

No, it was specifically stated on that some civs would have one leader, others multiple. I imagine modern nations with lots of well known leaders such as Spain, France, Russia, India, China and United States will have multiple leaders as there will be a lot of demand for them, but in the case of a historical nation like Byzantium which fewer are knowledgeable about, I think they might well stick to one leader.

I am fairly certain Kongo and Scythia will not gain extra leaders. If Norway is a civilisation, and Hardrada does not lead the vikings instead, I doubt that would get multiple leaders. Two leaders for Aztecs seems unlikely also, and if native american civs like Sioux or Apache were added, I imagine they would only get one leader.

Ah ok fair enough. Either way there is certainly enough historical material to have 2 Byzantine Leaders.
I'd envision Justinian as having being more of a cultural/religious leader with a focus on Wonders, Relics, Holy Site Districts etc... Although that is only half the picture; for most of his rule his armies were on expansionist campaigns...

Basil 2 would get a much more militaristic & expansionist traits representing the Byzantine theme armies and the Skutatoi, Varangrian Guard & Cataphracts etc...

 

[SofNascimento_]

Instead of another Civ they should just give different leaders to Rome.

 

[Krajzen]

Instead of another Civ they should just give different leaders to Rome.

Instead of American civ they could just give different leaders to England.

Really man? Byzantium is regarded as separate entity from Rome not without reason - it was dramatically different regarding everything, including culture, language and religion (after Rome fell forever and Byzantium got isolated from western Europe) as well as military doctrine, administration model etc until it became the basis from the entire Orthodox civilization group (as opposed to Latin one)

Personally I'd just like to see two things
1) Greek fire (preferably on ships) - very distinctive "superweapon"
2) Some heavy defensive bonus, especially to the capital, so Byzantium feels like, well, Byzantium

 

[SofNascimento_]

Instead of American civ they could just give different leaders to England.

That's a very unprecise comparison.

Really man? Byzantium is regarded as separate entity from Rome not without reason - it was dramatically different regarding everything, including culture, language and religion (after Rome fell forever and Byzantium got isolated from western Europe) as well as military doctrine, administration model etc until it became the basis from the entire Orthodox civilization group (as opposed to Latin one)

By historians (and generally after the Arab conquest), not by them. And Christianity was very much a Roman religion and greek was widely spoken in the Empire and was part of Romans nobles' education even before that. Military doctrine? It depends which era of the byzantine empire you're comparing, and so administration model.

I suppose it depends which era of the Byzantine Empre we're talking about. The one before the Arabs conquest? Very much Roman, so if you're going to have Justinian as the leader, it makes little sense to create an artificial entity. But if you're going to have Basil II or Alexios I than it makes more sense.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd like to see Alexios I Komnenos as leader, just as a break from the eternal Theodora/Justinian. While I'd like to see Byzantium as a religious civ, I think Civ5 overdid it a little--what makes Byzantium so much more theologically complex that they get a bonus belief? I would like to see Byzantium have religious bonuses, but something different than what they had in Civ5. I'd also like to see them have culture and science bonuses: they were, after all, the most advanced nation in Europe for most of the Middle Ages and widely regarded as the pinnacle of European culture by the Western European civilizations.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would like Civ 6 Byzantium to be a Byzantine leader that can lead either the Greek or Roman civilization.

This way the continuity/ties with other civilizations are maintained, and Byzantium's unique flavor can be incorporated through the leader. (and the fact that it could have either set of civilization uniques.... so a West v. East Rome would be Rome headed by standard Roman leader v. Greece headed by the Byzantine leader)


I do agree defense and Greek fire should be included in a Byzantine leader's Unique...(it partially depends on what the Roman and Greek Uniques are.

Instead of American civ they could just give different leaders to England.

Well the big issue is America spent all of its important time with a separate, and somewhat powerful England.
But having the leaders of England be Teddy Roosevelt and Victoria would be interesting (although that might be a bit much of double imperialists with their overlap)...
A combined Anglo-American civ would probably be better to have Elizabeth and FDR.. that way they are both leaders when the two were working closely together, and one was the clearly dominant partner.
(The civ would get government and trade/money bonuses possibly foreign continent bonuses as well, naval bonuses with Elizabeth, industrial type bonuses with FDR)

The other issue is what to call it, ?perhaps the Anglosphere civ?

The reason one can do this well with Byzantines is
1. They called themselves Romans
2. It wouldn't be considered slightly racist to call Byzantium "Roman"... (calling the US and Anglo nation has some overtones there... but because no one lives in Byzantium anymore to complain about oppression it isn't an issue)
3. also the tie in with the Greeks makes a Byzantine leader separate from a standard Roman one (or a standard Greek one)

 

[Redaxe]

Really man? Byzantium is regarded as separate entity from Rome not without reason - it was dramatically different regarding everything, including culture, language and religion (after Rome fell forever and Byzantium got isolated from western Europe) as well as military doctrine, administration model etc until it became the basis from the entire Orthodox civilization group (as opposed to Latin one)

Personally I'd just like to see two things
1) Greek fire (preferably on ships) - very distinctive "superweapon"
2) Some heavy defensive bonus, especially to the capital, so Byzantium feels like, well, Byzantium

Greek Fire and defensive bonuses sort-of overlap with Civ 5 Byzantium a bit but you go to far to say Byzantium was a separate entity to Rome.

The legal code (Corpus Juris Civilis) was codifed Roman law and continued to be used to the end of the empire and was also reformed and re-codified at later dates.

The Byzantines had chariot races until the beginning of the 13th century, a laurel wreath was given to the winners.
Also the nobles still enjoyed to watch classical sports such as wrestling and road running still existed during the Vota ceremony which was in practice and is being mentioned in the De Cerimoniis.
Also Lupercalia still existed and was called Makelarikon by the people but officials like Constantine Porphyrogenitus still mention this ceremony as Lupercalia. So there were a couple of elements that had survived from antiquity at least till the 10th century despite the changes that the empire had undergone.

I don't think you can truly call Byzantium a separate entity to Rome any more than saying Rome as an early Republic was a separate entity to the style of autocratic rule imposed by Augustus and further established by Diocletian.

But for the sake of Civ 5 we can have a separate Byzantine civ because the focus is different from classical Rome and yes there are enough differences to have a separate civ.

 

[Redaxe]

The reason one can do this well with Byzantines is
1. They called themselves Romans

Many Greeks - particularly on Cyprus, the Greek Islands & under Ottoman occupation in the early 20th century actually still called themselves Romans even in the early 1920s.
I don't fully know why when Greece had its war for independence they reverted back to calling themselves Greeks considering they had called themselves Romans for nearly 15 centuries.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Many Greeks - particularly on Cyprus, the Greek Islands & under Ottoman occupation in the early 20th century actually still called themselves Romans even in the early 1920s.
I don't fully know why when Greece had its war for independence they reverted back to calling themselves Greeks considering they had called themselves Romans for nearly 15 centuries.

probably because it would be a bit weird for a "Roman Independence movement" to not include the location known as Rome.
(ie If we don't want to be ruled by faraway powers, lets use a name from the actual area we are in)....

Basically the same reason the US didn't declare itself the United States of England (even though they were mad at London for violating "their rights as Englishmen")


and I'm not sure there are enough differences to count for a separate civ.... it partially depends on what the civ/leader bonuses for Greece+Rome, but you could probably easily have a Byzantine leader whose uniques would show the development of Rome/Greek civs in the Medieval/Renaissance era