Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: Civ VI Byzantines
-
2020-09-29, 01:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
Civ VI Byzantines
I've been playing with the new Byzantine civ lately, and I would like to voice a few things about it.
I've heard things to the effect of "DLC power creep" or matters of game balance, and while I think that such concerns may have merit, I do not wish to speak about them here. Rather, I am concerned with two related matters: how Byzantium's play style is to play and how it relates to their theme (no pun intended).
Byzantium under Basil II is geared towards a specific play style, combining religion with domination in a heavy cavalry push, spreading its religion in support of its armies until it has won a domination victory (or spreading its religion by means of its armies until it has won a religious victory; the two goals are accomplished by the same means and which one is taken will simply be a matter of which is most immediately convenient). Domination can get a mite dull after the midgame, in my opinion, but I do like how the ability to convert through field military victories streamlines religion, which tends to be like combat, but with fewer units and no ability to translate infrastructure into better units. Plus, you'll never find me saying no to dromons (even if giving them additional range doesn't make a lot of sense; they should just have given the quadrireme range 2 to begin with and exchanged range for attack strength with the dromon).
What I have a larger problem with is how off theme their play style is. Mechanically, they are good at two things and really only two things: spreading religion and steamrolling across the map. (Really, as I mentioned before, these are one thing, because the civilization is geared to do each thing as part of doing the other.) What's strange is that these are two things that Byzantium, particularly medieval Byzantium, which they're modeled on, was not historically good at. They were unable to rectify the schism that alienated them from the West (with dire consequences later on) or to prevent the Arabs and Turks from steamrolling them and converting their citizens. Representing the Byzantines as being particularly good at doing what was done to them seems a little like giving the Zulu the British royal dockyards and redcoats.
Now, one could rightly point out that the loss of territory was not constant, that there were periods of reclamation, and that the Byzantines did have success in both foreign wars and conversion (Basil is named the Bulgar-slayer for a reason). I would counter, however, that one, there's little reason to make the two synergistic, and that two, those successes were more exceptions to the rule, and focusing on these aspects doesn't produce gameplay that mimics the Byzantine experience. Where is Constantinople, city of culture and learning? Where are the tripartite crimson walls of Theodosius? Where is Constantinople, place of intrigue, manipulator of international politics? Where is Constantinople, center of trade and monopolist of silk manufacture in the West? As represented in game, Byzantium ignores much of what the civilization is known for* to focus on its long-term strategic weaknesses. And it isn't even as though this is all Basil's doing, and that an alternate leader (though unlikely) would offer a change; Basil's features are really just icing on the cake, which is at its core built around the religious domination play. (One could play without his cavalry focus and get along just fine with other units, having almost no change in general strategy.)
I feel as though the developers missed some real opportunities here. One could have made an espionage-based feature. Sure, Catherine already has espionage bonuses, but there are countless domination-centered civs in the game already, and that redundancy didn't stop the developers from adding another one. Perhaps the Byzantines could have additional espionage missions like stealing copies of luxury resources or altering grievance or relationship values. Or perhaps they could expand upon other recently-added features like the diplomatic quarter, or tie in somehow to the dark age/golden age system (reflecting the many dark points, seemingly of no return, from which the empire partially recovered).
What are other people's thoughts?
*Now, one can build Byzantium to be a cultural and scientific powerhouse, artificially take luxury goods from outside one's territory (if one earns the great merchant Colaeus), or build three sets of walls around the capital, but the civilization is neither abler to do those things nor gain more benefit from doing so than any other.
-
2020-09-29, 10:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Greece
- Gender
Re: Civ VI Byzantines
I haven't played the Byzantines with Civ 6. Their mix of religion and conquest sounds like a fun way to play the game, but I agree it is weird and pretty antithetical to their historical course. I feel it would have been much better if they had combined religion and diplomacy with their bonuses, as the expansion of Orthodoxy to the Slavs was diplomatic and not by the sword. Or, as you said, they had some bonuses to create a capital megacity to mirror Constantinople.
That said, it doesn't bother me all that much. Civ 6 seems to have gone out of its way to shake things. It is weirder by far, for example, that the only country with a unique Battleship is Brazil. It is obvious that historical accuracy, as much can be found in a Civ game, came second to the devs over delivering something novel.
What does bother me is that they decided to change the name of the "Cataphracts" to "Tagma". Tagma literally means battalion in Greek. In the modern Greek army you can find infantry battalions (tagma peziku). Ιn the Byzantium, Tagma was a unit of the core professional army. The Cataphracts were a Tagma, yes, but so were the Varangians and many other, more conventional, forces. It's the same as if they'd decided to name the English UU "Fleet" instead of "Sea Dog", or the American one "Squadron" instead of "P-51 Mustang". It's baffling, and I don't understand why they'd decide to change the name when there's a perfectly serviceable one they've used before. I can only chalk it up to preferring novelty for novelty's sake, as mentioned above.Many thanks to Assassin 89 for this avatar!
-
2020-09-29, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
-
2020-09-29, 02:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Civ VI Byzantines
I mean if you wanted a realistic Byzantium your troops would start a tech level above everyone else's, your walls two levels, and every time a war was declared by you or on you one of your cities or vassals would immediately switch to the other side. This would be random and could include Constantinople.
-
2020-09-29, 05:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Australia
- Gender
Re: Civ VI Byzantines
I'd hardly say the ERE was steamrolled. It was a long drawn out process that took centuries.
In this case I'd say they are modelling them at the time of Basil 2 who was one of the great emperor's whose conquests pushed the ERE to its greatest peak in 4 centuries. He was also responsible for christianising the Rus and founding the Varangian Guard.
So religious and military expansion works for Basil 2.
-
2020-09-29, 05:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Imagination Land
- Gender
Re: Civ VI Byzantines
I would say the most jarring thing I noticed in my game as the Byzantines was running into the Ottomans' capital, Istanbul.