Byzantine unique units are bad

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

Byzantine unique units are bad. It’s not normal that for 3 out of 4 of the unique units, I’d rather have the stock version than the unique one.

Cheirosiphon

It was already bad before the ram nerf (read https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe4/comments/1949g9w/cheirosiphon_paying_for_style/), but now the ram cost has been reduced by 20% for all civs (250w → 200w) EXCEPT for the byzantines. 14% reduction only. Yay. Still a 100g cost for a ram that performs worse. And the worst is that it has less HP than a normal ram, so it’s now SUPER FRAGILE. Because we’re now supposed to make more rams, the problem is cheirosiphons performs worse the more of them you have (read the link above). How the eff can you not think about that when you make changes to rams?

I figure the balance team makes it weaker because there is this quirky mechanic that varangian guards increase its armor when they’re inside it, but there’s something you need to understand: no one puts effing varangian guards inside a ram. In feudal, because you don’t have them. In castle/imperial, because I don’t have 16 varangian guards to waste just to get my ram to an acceptable armor level.

Varangian guard

The 40g cost is insane. The unit has 140hp instead of the standard 155hp, in exchange for +1 melee armor and an ability that you better not press otherwise your already weaker MAA version gets shredded by archers. The role of the MAA is to be a tanky frontline. Except in very rare cases (japan’s ball of infantry), the +1 melee armor is not worth it because the main source of damage to MAA is going to be the backline.

Cataphracts

Its cost is insanely high. Impossible to mass. No charge. Sloooooooooow, the onna-bugeisha has the same speed. It’s impossible to raid with it due to all of the above. Trample is definitely not worth the cost, it gets stopped by spears. And the rare cases where I’d really want to use them, to snipe the effing ottoman great bombards… they get hard countered by jannissaries.

Conclusion

I’m so mad at this design & balance. I bought the game & expansion to play the byzantines, and it just feels like the balance team is a bunch of random people who don’t even play the game. All of the points above and all the other balance issues are very common knowledge on reddit and the forum, it’s just insane that it takes so long to get us patches that feel like very small bandaids on the game issues. We waited 2 months for the byzantines to be fixed, and you just added more problems while fixing just a few ones.

2 Likes
2

Other than Cheirosiphon, I think lower rank is encroach in their duty.

  • Limitanei take some tanking role from MAA (Varangian guard) through shield wall
  • Varangian guard take role of knight (Cataphracts) in charge and kill enemy through Berserk skill
  • Cataphracts after role of charge and kill taken by Varangian guard, have only flank and crush back line which enhance through trample skill

With role taken by lower rank, mean mass more lower rank which cheaper and use resource saved to create some Cataphracts to deal against siege from flank.

1 Like
3

I think the Cheirosiphon is meant to be balanced by how it can supposedly deal damage to other units. The problem is how inconsistent it is, and how effectively impossible it is to force. I’ve found that if you maneuver Cheirosiphon into melee range, it will cover itself in fire which should damage all who attack it to be the only consistent way to use this ability. The issue is that, they are very, very weak, and the damage is subpar. This means just a handful of units will absolutely destroy Cheirosiphons before they ever take a significant amount of damage (2 per second).

There is also a weird angle where they deal an absurd amount of damage, but I couldn’t find any reliable way to trigger it. I suppose if you want to idle 16 whole Varangians, it’d make the Cheirosiphon hard to kill if you cover it in its own fire. But, that is for castle age, and it just doesn’t function consistently nor is it any efficient way to siege something.

As for the rest, I agree. On paper Varangians are decent, but they’re too heavily balanced towards Imperial and could do with some love in Castle Age. The 40 gold cost is too much. And I completely agree with the comment above noting how quickly Byzantines uses gold up.

Trample needs to be useful. It just isn’t at its current iteration. All in all, these units feel rushed to me. Sad times.

4

Cataphrachts are op with their trample ability they can pass all meele units and attack your archers its amazingly stong also they bring your units hp to half with good numbers.

5

I think the opposite :slight_smile: I think all the Byzantine unique units are very good. The Byzantines have everything to shine with this new update.

1 Like
6

You “think” but you didn’t elaborate on any of the points I listed. The units are not worth their cost. Any of those 3. You’re welcome to put your arguments forward if you have any.

7

I just think :slight_smile: … I played with the Byzantines and I feel like they’re doing really well with the new patch. Just guesses really.

It’s just my impression which, without a doubt, could be completely wrong.

Narute has already made some good arguments above.

1 Like
8

I don’t really have an argument for the status quo, the units as I’ve used them and seen them used fill the roles they are designed for and require little to no tuning. This discussion feels more subjective than objective, if the feeling of balance isn’t enough to have a discussion how could we turn the subjective ‘it is shit’ into an objective statement? Resource and stat comparison to standard unit variants? Cost comparison to resource generation between other civs? Applied logic with attached gameplay examples?

Maybe they are designed to be more expensive because of the augmentation of olive oil and the value/synergy those units provide. As it is from my own experiences they feel balanced in play, Cheirosiphon notwithstanding.

1 Like
9

Heavy disagree.

No civilization in the game has a “Knight” replacement to the degree of Byzantines. Both Knights, Varangians and Cheirosiphon cost an absurd amount of resources. These aren’t Elephants or Camel Archers, units that fill other niches and that don’t replace anything; they are mainline units that cost way more resources to produce.

I frequently get to lategame having little to zero gold after having mined most of the map (with many nodes not having any Cisterns at all due to the absurd aquaduct ength needed to get a simple bonus). There is no actual reason for these units to require so many more resources. The idea that Mercenary units are there to supplement your main army is fine; but it isn’t fine if your main army is designed WITH a handicap in mind, just so you can have Mercenaries. Ottoman doesn’t have this, so why does Byzantines?

100 gold for the single worst unit in the game (Cheirosiphon). Two times the amount of gold for one MAA. 50% more for Knights that aren’t even cost efficient. The idea that one makes up for the other is also just invalid. If you want to build Knights to deal with MAA, Varangians are NOT going to “do the job” better than Knights. Sure, they’ll deal damage–then they’ll fucking die because thats how they are designed. That is NOT a Knight replacement and neither are Cataphracts that completely wreck any form of economy the game has.
It’d be one thing if one of these units cost a lot of gold. But, its all three–three vitally important core units to the game. They compete in gold, for basic functions that every civilization has.

Byzantines is seriously the only civilization whose units have more drawbacks than bonuses. Even civilizations like Delhi, who has Elephants that are NEVER used, have fewer drawbacks and are simply not used due to cost. In Byzantine’s case it seems like whoever designed them, legitimately hates fun.

EDIT: Unrelated tangent.

If they wanted these units to cost more gold, Cisterns should’ve at least increased resource drop off rather than gather rate. It is paradoxical that this civilization, with zero defensive landmarks and zero defensive bonuses is forced to keep expanding just to keep their basic function going. Rus, another civilization that needs space and to expand at least has bonuses that make it easier. Byzantines struggle for basic survival on top of their convoluted economy and completely worthless units. It is sad.

Anyone who tries to convince me that all of this is balanced and fine because they get a boom of a bunch of random units in castle are also fooling themselves. Who thinks of that as fun and engaging gameplay anyways? The Golden Horn is singlehandedly the only thing keeping this stain of a civilization afloat, and they completely glossed over EVERYTHING that makes Byzantines as an idea, as a civilization interesting. No religious bonuses, no defensive Roman bonuses, no interesting buildings. The Landmarks are seriously the worst in the game, with the Imperial ones basically delivering the same effect and not making any actual difference in gameplay.

Yeah, thanks for the completely useless idea of Aquaduct proxy that does fuck all besides increase some basic stats by 20%. Great fun guys. This civilization was beyond a miss than just units. It is a complete failure in design and philosophy.

2 Likes
10

I don’t know if we’re even playing the same game at this point, everything you’re describing is so confusing. No other civ has a knight variant that is unlike standard knight? Delhi never builds elephants? I’m so confused by what you’re saying I can’t formulate a coherent response.

Edit 1: Here, I’ll edit in what I consider strengths of each of the unique units that people seem to take most issue with: cataphract and varangian guard. I don’t think they are being used to their fullest abilities because of the direct reference to their analog. Allow me 45 minutes.

Edit 2:

Cataphracts: I’ve seen this unit used as a flanking unit in combat to move through enemy formations to attack more vulnerable units that get body blocked, think siege units and ranged units. Their increased health pool in tandem with the trample ability allow them to get directly to the place where they need to be and keep hitting through a lot of damage, this means that if the crossbows they move on to want to fight at the place the cataphract will slaughter them wholesale. Siege units stand no chance against them when they are on top of them, they will out move them and destroy them within two attacks easily.

Compared to base knight (English) (age 3 no upgrades)
Pros:

  • Has 360 health vs 230 health ( ~56.5% increase )
  • Deals 27 melee damage every 1.375 second vs 24 melee damage every 1.5secs (an increase of 3.64 dps, or 22.75% increase in dps)
  • Can use pilgrim flask to recover 150 HP (caveat: landmark dependent, limited uses)
  • Can use Triumph to increase move speed +10% (1.65 t/s (0.25 faster than knight)), attack damage by 4 (dps + 2.9), heal 2hps for duration (caveat: landmark dependent, limited uses)
  • Uses trample to out maneuver backline and siege units dealing 10 damage for each cataphract that moves through a unit, this can accumulate 100s of damage points in one optimized use (caveat: meant to be used in open terrain and not close quarters)

Cons:

  • Costs 180f 150g vs 140f 100g ( ~28.6% increase on food, 50% increase on gold)
  • Moves at 1.5 t/s vs 1.625 t/s (difference of -0.125 t/s or -8.33% difference)
  • Trains in 40 seconds vs 35 seconds (5 second difference or +14.28% difference)

Varangian Guard: This unit is deceptive in its stats, on first glance it appears to be an inferior front line unit, the role a MAA typically assumes, but its hidden strength is in its DPS. When they are not berserking they have an increased 15% attack speed with the unique research in the forge @ castle age. They have an increased gold cost but a slightly reduced food cost. This fits in line with what you can observe in the cataphract unit, increased cost of the byzantine specific unique units, and means that you cannot form an army from only byzantine units. I have seen their effectiveness in a burst of DPS that turns the tide of battle, they are not meant to defend the units behind them but attack the units in front of them (at strategic moments.)

Compared to base MAA (French) (age 3 WITH tear drop shields (100f 250g)
Pros: *(was basing this off of aoe4 world, checking in-game the attack speed is 1.12 with upgrade, previous values were without upgrade!)

  • Deals 13 melee damage every 1.12* second (11.6dps) vs 12 melee damage every 1.375secs (8.73dps) (an increase of 2.87 dps, or 24.7% increase in dps)
  • Can use pilgrim flask to recover 150 HP **THEIR ENTIRE HEALTH POOL (caveat: landmark dependent, limited uses)
  • Can use Berserking to deal +6 damage while reducing armor by 4 (dps increase *(16.96 dps) of 46.15% over their previous dps WHILE losing health at an increased rate)

Cons:

  • Has 140 health vs 155 health ( 9.7% decrease )
  • Increased costs 90f 40g (130 total) vs 100f 20g (120 total) ( ~10% decrease on food, 100% increase on gold)
  • Trains in 25 seconds vs 23 seconds (2 second difference or +8.7% difference)

In both of the above cases something is made clear with the design philosophy of Byzantines: You are meant to play defensively and move your defenses forward with the army. They have HUUUUGE benefits when they set the stage of battle and force the enemy to play on their terms. They have a MONSTER economy in the form of farms (which is technically a unique unit for them) with the synergy they have with mercenaries.

The main thing to notice here is that there is a lot of setbacks that they do receive in the form of training time and resource cost… but that is negated by their civ bonuses. Up to 26% gathering speed, and enough olive oil to train a single mercenary CONSTANTLY with 30~ farms at max cistern and level 2 gathering upgrade is nothing to ignore. For example: with 133% increase to training speed you pump out an average of ~3 longbows a minute continuously at no extra cost other than olive oil. That is more resources than you gain from ottomans, and that’s something you can achieve on 1tc at 12~ minutes into the match. There is a lot of nuance that is being overlooked and you’re kind of doing a disservice both to Byzantines and to the civs you compare them to to expect an RTS genre defined by its asymmetry to be the same across the board in so many ways.

Of course they don’t get a new unit that isn’t defined by another civ… you can train almost every other unique unit, INCLUDING camels and elephants, as the Byzantines. The mercenary mechanic is why you don’t see that. Carrying the expectation for them to get what everyone else has in addition to what no one else has is imbalanced and lacks perspective.

edit3: not sure if my math is wrong, but isn’t this +23.2% increased attack speed? Not sure if I’m just calculating the bonuses wrong, it would change a lot of what I know about other upgrades.

Varangian guard bug
Varangian guard bug1067×741 116 KB

2 Likes
11

Replacements.

Elephants do not replace anything. Neither do Camel Riders. They are “bonus” units, existing separately to the classical roster. This matters, because the classical roster of units are designed with a tightly linked counter system. They are the foundation of how to interact with the game, and the foundation to solve problems through economy. See a bunch of MAA? Make Knights or Crossbowmen.

Byzantines feature three mainline units that VASTLY differ in cost to their traditional examples. This isn’t solely about Unique Units, mind you. The most expensive Knight before the expansion was just as expensive as any other; 140 food and 100 gold. With Sultans Ascend, excluding OOTD due to their gimmick, Japanese has the second highest costing Knight at 250 resources. They cost 10 more gold than regular Knights, whereas the Cataphract costs 40 more on top of that in addition to 40 more food. That is 90 more resources needed to simply create one unit to serve one of the basic functions in this game’s counter system.

The costliest MAA was and is still the Ghulam, who costs 120 food and 30 gold. While it does cost more, food is something Abbasid has an abundance of, and the Ghulam also serves its job way better than most MAA. The Varangian on the other hand costs 40 gold–twice as much as a regular MAA and has stats that doesn’t make it particularly better or weaker at its job, having less health with a bit more damage. The Berserking ability doesn’t change this much at all, simply accelerating its function rather than giving a clear and vivid upperhand for its cost. Basically, the unit doesn’t in any way meaningfully need to cost a whole two times the amount of gold of a regular MAA. The importance here is that MAA have a real use in this game, and now the Varangian essentially competes with that heavy gold cost, with their other counterpart–the Knight.

The Cheirosiphon shouldn’t need any explanation. It is an awful unit who does bonus damage in the form of a Greek Fire debuff that does not stack. Putting that aside, the unit costs 40% more, and all of that in pure gold. It means any form of actual feudal aggression from Byzantines will make it significantly more difficult to go for Castle. Or if used in later ages, will seriously injure their ability to produce Cataphracts or Varangians.

Putting all of that aside as well, there is the fact that they need to upgrade their Mercenaries as well, throwing even more gold away into nothingness. It is just an absurd civilization and the economy is thoroughly #######

1 Like
13

Your reason boils down to “everything being bad is ok because eco bonus and mercenaries make up for it”. This is not some divine logic you’ve conjured up, nor is it even an opinion.

That IS how they’ve designed it. The question of why is something entirely different. I personally think it is tragic to water down a civilization to make space for subpar units that belong to another. Cataphracts, Varangians and Cheirosiphons sucking is not somehow FUN just because it gets made up by Mercenaries or gather rate.

Like I stated in the other comments above, there are issues with that in of itself. The ridiculous gather rate and system that is Cisterns necessitate the need for expansions. But, the civilization is built with absolute zero defensive features. Its landmarks are probably on average, together, the worst kit of landmarks of any one civilization in the game. They’re meant to expand as well as build an eco while being slow and having zero tools to deal with any of it.

How is that fun? How is that good design? You noted that, “of course they don’t get unique units outside the classical roster, because thats what Mercenaries are for!” But, I entirely reject and disagree with this notion. Keshiks, at a very very slow rate due to low oil generation, is not an adequate solution to not having Knights. The Cataphracts being insanely costly does not feel good as a result of having to depend on said Mercenaries.

I would argue that this type of design goes against the idea of Unique Units to begin with. For they’ve in fact designed worse units as a result of having to depend on the mass of Mercenaries. If Cataphracts have to suck and be expensive just because Mercenaries exist, all that does is make those Unique Units to Byzantines suck just so you can use units from another civilization. The logic here is entirely upside down. Is Byzantine its own civilization or someone else’s?

Byzantine’s own unique units should be the very core and center of their armies, like any other civilization. More importantly, these units specifically (Knight, MAA and Ram) are critical for the foundation of the counter system. There are no MAA or Ram Mercenaries, and the Keshik is an awful unit to somehow be taking the role of a Knight. As it stands, if they are unwilling to reduce the cost of Cataphracts, Varangians and Cheirosiphons so they can keep the high Mercenary massing, at least make the units good.

Cataphract trample is awful. The scenario where it can deal hundreds of damage is just that–a scenario. It realistically always deals less damage than a simple Knight charge, and there is simply no reason for it to not work in closed spaces–that is just lazy development.

Varangian’s Berserk should be a BONUS more than a drawback, like Longbow Arrow Volley, like Horse Archer Gallop, like Shaolin Body of Iron. There should be no question of when it is useful and it should be vividly obvious when it should be used. It is currently balanced to barely be useful in a ridiculously rare scenario–for its price, that is tragic.

The Cheirosiphon just has no excuses. If they absolutely want it to cost that much, give Byzantines the ability to direct that awfully inconsistent Greek Fire aura. While you’re at it, also allow Greek Fire to stack–it is awful, awful, awful.

Mercenaries should be a bonus, and not be designed in mind to be massed to the degree that it needs to nerf everything else about Byzantines.

14

Thanks for the very detailed additions, TheAnachronic.

MedicMaan, in response to your points:

Triumph has been aggressively nerfed (yes they could find it in them to do aggressive nerfs, but just for the byzantines lol), and unless you have accumulated a large pool of supply points and cavalry, it’s barely going to do anything. Besides, it’s a landmark ability, it shouldn’t be included in the unit comparision. Besides, most byzantine players build the winery anyway due to the previous nerfs, this should tell you how bad it is now.

Flask. Same as above. Literally no one builds this seriously because the supply is too limited except in very specific circumstances (castle timing attack where you plan to win in the next 3-4 minutes after castle).

The mercenary mechanic is why you don’t see that. Carrying the expectation for them to get what everyone else has in addition to what no one else has is imbalanced and lacks perspective.

That’s unfair. The other civs have the standard units at a standard cost or better, plus their bonuses. Show me one other civ where 3 of their standard units get nerfed in exchange for their bonuses? The only case I can think of is the Japanese yumi-ashigaru which requires a bannermen, and it’s only 1 of their core units, and they get insane infantry bonuses (+melee damage, bannermen units, deflective armor, onna-bugeisha comp). Byzantines get 3 shit units, and 2 of them fullfill the same role: the armored frontline. No really the units are poorly designed.

15

No I think if you take time to read through my post you will understand that I am not saying “everything being bad is ok because eco bonus and mercenaries make up for it”. I don’t particularly enjoy going out of my way to collect data and test things in game just for you to make this kind of argument. There are clear and objective cases that can be made that prove that what you are saying is false, and I’m honestly tired of seeing these same “it is bad because I have a hard time with it” style arguments. This is clearly a skill issue you are experiencing.

You are both focusing on the negative trade offs that are made to make up for the strengths the units carry. Saying no one takes advantage of a landmark because of some anecdote isn’t reason. Anyone can do this, and it’s lame. Make real arguments, with data and case examples. No one should have to subject themselves to the kind of trite argument that is being fomented here.

1 Like
16

I thoroughly understand these units beyond what you’ve written down. Yes, you argument absolutely boils down to how the civilization’s bonuses outweights these individual units downsides.

“Skill issue”. Who are you exactly? You came in acting like a sore developer a few months ago, always defending these crooked designs. The reality is that they’ve made Byzantines extremely unnecessarily convoluted. They messed up by making Mercenaries take up too much design space, which necessitated making the units for Byzantines weaker to compensate for their aggressively fast building economy.

If it isn’t clear; that is bad design. Something like this should be direct and simple. They’ve produced a problem with a bad system that had to be indirectly solved.

I also just want to mention, if you think Pilgrim Flasks have any place in this discussion then I don’t know how seriously I can take your feedback. If it was a core part of the civilization then that’d be one thing. But, it is clearly part of one of the worst landmarks in the game, even after the buffs.

17

My friend, if I may be frank, it is not personal. The issues you are bringing up are related to the execution that you have with both the game and the elements within. Asking broad questions like:

or extreme statements with no relevant data to support the claim:

is based off of the performance that you have observed in game, not its effective value or implementation.

It is entirely possible to state that the analysis you have made comes from a flawed perspective that may be tainted by your own execution of intended mechanics. It’s easy to see something as awful if your experience with it is the same.

18

You do understand that literally quoting the stats of something does not somehow build an argument? Because your counter point is just that “you play bad then it means you get bad results”. Your own point however does nothing to show anything good about the units. You’ve just shown that they have stats.

I don’t know how to get this across to you, but you’ve not really made any points here. Trying to assert that my take on its design is solely based on my experience rather than engage with the design discussion is just missing the mark here. Frankly, you’re talking across me.

This happened earlier too. Somehow stating what the design is around this civilization is not some kind of astonishing discovery. How they’ve designed the civilization is very apparent.

And what it is, is bad.

19

This is clearly a skill issue you are experiencing.

For the record, I started with the byzantines in december in silver, went up to diamond, plan to go to conqueror. It’s definitely not a skill issue, I’ve explored the civ a lot and played all the different strategies. I’ve played a bit the rus, delhi & ootd to have something to compare.

Saying no one takes advantage of a landmark because of some anecdote isn’t reason. Anyone can do this, and it’s lame. Make real arguments, with data and case examples. No one should have to subject themselves to the kind of trite argument that is being fomented here.

This is not an anecdote, this is observable. I regularly watch pro games and ladder games, people are now building the winery at a 8:2 ratio, and the golden horn tower at a 100:1 ratio.

20

I wasn’t forming an argument. I was laying out the data to understand the claims that the two of you are making, claims that by all appearances when compared with actual stats and gameplay don’t have a leg to stand on. I just want to understand the issues that you two are having, as I have not observed them. I genuinely thought I made that clear in the first sentence I posted.

3 Likes
21

Well, if you’d like to actually engage my point;

One Knight serving its function against an MAA is nice. One MAA serving its function in absorbing archer damage, or killing Spearmen/Horsemen is also nice.

Byzantines have to do mental gymnastics to replicate this simple endevour. For one, their Knights cost far more (in a game where counters, like Spearmen, have multipliers of 3x). It takes longer to collect the resources to make them, then to build them, and finally, they have less damage (no Charge) to kill that MAA. If you picked the Eastern contract, you can make Keshiks which due to low production, and kind of shoddy stats, badly help your Cataphracts replace regular Knights.

The Varangians, while dealing more damage individually, are outscaled by sheer mass. Again, using the Eastern contract and assuming that you’re not building Keshiks, you are spending oils to make 30-40% of your infantry mass Ghulams. This is just to barely compensate and balance out the fact that your Varangians are being outmassed 2:1, and that your Varangians are suicidal.

The Cheirosiphon, again, is a tragic attempt at just artificially nerfing Byzantines. If Byzantines is meant to have 26% gather rate, then what is the point of making everything costly? It simply cancels out and defeats its own purpose.

If you want to drink water, you drink water. Byzantines has to regurgitate it and then drink it again. The indirect design here is messy and flawed. I don’t mind complex or deep civilizations. But, Byzantines doesn’t really feel interesting in its complexity. It feels convoluted and it doesn’t achieve anything with it. I want to like them, but I fail to see how there is anything good about all of this.

EDIT: To put it in other words; it is almost like the Cistern mechanic doesn’t need to exist. If they didn’t have a 25% gather rate bonus, and their core units didn’t cost a ridiculous amount, Mercenaries could’ve function as their direct eco bonus (or the other way, no Mercenaries). Of course, this would need tweaking, but as it stands, there is too much artificial fluff that prevents the civilization from making sense in the format this game has developed. That is what makes these units bad. That is what makes Byzantines bad.

1 Like