Byzantines are already good on water (its pretty much the only place where they are good). Not top 3 or anything, but the fireship buff actually helps them a lot already in early engagements.
2 Likes
This is very similar to but better than the Italians
Franks bonus
I like the boiling oil idea though!
You could say the same about Aztecs. They are one of the worst pocket civs and even worse than Byzantines on flank (no thumb ring, no +3/4 armor).
They are not THE meta pick but they can hold their own (actually they are great at holding)
1 Like
check this out 
Aztec late-game falls apart indeed. Arbs miss Thumb Ring, and Jaguars are situationalā¦ But Iād still rather have Aztecs in TG than Byz. They can still do pretty well until post imp kicks in, and if all else, eagles will still do a good job at raiding the enemy eco/trade, but I donāt think theyāre worse than Byz on Flank. I mean, at least they donāt die in Feudal already 11
For me itās not even that they are not meta (Byz), I donāt mind anti-meta at all. Itās just that they fall apart in the early game too easy
Franks is come in faster. This is more.
To give a better comparison imagine britons and tatars sheep bonus.
Indeed, the Byzantine bonus would stagger, while the Italian is a standard 15% discount for all ages.
The Byzantines would save 510 food and 280g. Total 790 resources. Most of it for the Imperial Age.
The Italians save 345food and 150g. 495 resources.
But the Italians also get cheaper university and dock techs.
The French bonus is that foragers work 15% faster. Not that they can collect 25% more food.
Thanks!
Ah yes, I read it wrong! My bad! 
1 Like
Iām not sure if I understand your point. Why do Byzantines die in Feudal while Aztecs donāt? Also why would you prefer a civ with a bad team game unit (eagles) over a civ that has better archers than the one you are saying you would rather have?
We spent more than a year asking for a buff for Italians, before the uni discount. If such buff would have been possible and balanced (saving about 800 resources on age ups) donāt you think that they would have given it to Italians instead of the uni discount?
So I donāt think that itāll balanced for the byzantinesā¦
Ok but would it solve their problems? They have more food available in feudal age, but it doesnāt come in faster, and then what? How would it change their meta?
The Italians got an even bigger buff with that uni discount tech. They save close to 2.000 resources.
The bonus will be help them advance to the Imperial Age faster which is their power spike. The reworked age up discount bonus would save Byzantines 200 more resources.
The change to their UT will help them defend better while they are trying to get to the Imperial Age.
What suggestion would you have? Sorry if you posted it on this thread. I have missed it.
You never really need all that techs from the uni, so you never save 2000 resourcesā¦ thatās just an unrealistic exaggerationā¦
You usually saves 158 resources more in castle age and 166 resources more in imp, from ballistics and chemistry, and that helps mainly if you go for archers (which is also what you roughly spend for paviseā¦). You can add masonry if you want, the only other tech that is usually prioritized, which makes form another 108 resource saved. All other techs are researched usually far into imp, when you have spare resources, and so when the discount matters way less.
SE, which would be the only other important tech isnāt available, so while is a solid and good bonus, itās far from what you wanted to let people thinkā¦
Yeah of courseā¦ but if that was doable, maybe thay would have already done it for Italians, or maybe even sooner for the byzantines themselves. Instead they given just the imp cheaper because they also given byz all the necessary bonuses for defending themselves up to that point.
Because byz already have few defensive bonuses, and not the arguably best castles on the gameā¦
Answering a question with a totally different question is never a good signā¦ it makes me think that you didnāt thought that much about the effects that you suggestion would made if you donāt have a forecast of what the new meta will beā¦
But to answer your question, I mainly think that byz are fine. I onestly suggest for them to give them partian tactics, and I push such change mainly for historical reasons.
You contradict yourself here. At first you argue that it is unreleastic and then you say they save them in the Imperial Age. And resources saved are still resources saved. It doesnāt matter if it is in the late imperial age.
This is a hypothetical scenario and it is pointless discussing it.
I donāt see what the problem is here. That they have too many bonuses?
Goths have a large number of bonuses for their infantry.
Let me answer your initial question. The extra food would help them advance easier and faster or help them defend better until they reach the Imperial age.
If you think that the Byzantines are fine I respect your opinion. Thanks.
Sorry, Iāll explain it better. Itās unreasonable to think that you save all that resources in one game, and itās unreasonable to think that the resources that you save for the most in post imp have a big impact on the game, especially since it makes them still weak in earlier stages.
If that would be the case, you why you suggest for an early bonus (cheaper feudal and castle age, more food on berries) instead of buffing the imp discount?
That with what they have, they are already the best defensive civ.
If it works like the mayans bonus, you donāt get food faster, so you donāt age up faster.
More likely, you get more food deep into feudal age, which means that you could delay some farms until you have horse collar, and if you go for archers, more confortably you can sustain vill production even if putting more vills on gold and wood.
But what actually worries me, is that this bonus may greatly buff byz trash rush, an rare and difficult, but strong strategy that consists into spamming large quantities of skirms and spears in feudal age, which has only M@A as a counter, which again itās not the best optionā¦
Extra food plus cheaper trash isnāt that greatā¦
Because Aztecs have a decent eco, faster production buildings, soā¦ they can actually be the player that puts on the pressure 
As much as I used to love trash rushes, theyāre not really a thing anymore these days because micro has really made trash counters weaker in small numbers. Iām sure you can also recall microing down skirms with archersā¦
To help them fund their age up easier and faster.
The impact depends entirely on the economy management up to the point of discussion and the development of the game.
If an Italian player does a fast Imperial age, then once the player is in the Imperial age, the cheaper ballistics and chemistry is a massive bonus because of the weaker economy and lower stockpile. If the Italian player wants to dominate the water from the feudal age, the cheaper techs from the very beginning of the game are important. If you are in the late Imperial age and resources are tight, researching cheaper techs at the dock or the university is a massive bonus. Context is important.
Generalizations such as resource discounts donāt matter in post imp simply lack context.
That translate much as they have a win rate of 45% and are in the bottom 5.
https://aoestats.io/stats/RM_1v1
The bonus as I proposed it will provide them with 50 extra food. Thatās not enough to make their trash spam in the Feudal age overpowered.
So you are suggesting an early bonus, which is exactly the same reason of why the uni bonus for Italians (which came mostly in post imp) isnāt that great as you are selling itā¦
On how many games you research keep or BBT? Which are the 2 biggest techs contributing to the resources saved?
Also, on fast imp strategies, you donāt go for archers, so you donāt save even on ballistics.
Mine isnāt a generalization, is just observing what tech really have an impact on the game, and apart from 2, the other contribute just marginally,especially if you consider that most game doesnāt even reach imp.
So if Italians are fine, because they saves a lot of resources in post imp, and resources saved are saved, no matter when, why donāt you just buff the cheaper imp to 50%? You would save about the same as 10/20/30%ā¦
Sorry, the proposal wasnāt 25% more food on berries? If each bush have 125 food, this would mean that each bush would have about 31 food more, meaning that itās about 186 food more in feudal.
I am not selling anything. Whether you find my opinion on the bonus convincing or not is of no import to me. You are trying to falsely equate two bonuses which have different purposes and I am no longer going to entertain this discussion.
Yeap. But this suggestion was under my āmaybeā add. It can be lowered to 15% or not included at all for all I care.
I am afraid I consider it a generalization that lacks context as I explained above.
On your second point, for the same reason Italians have their age up discount spread and for the same reason that Malays age up 80% faster on all three age ups.
And to wrap things up. You do not agree with buffing the Byzantines. I want to see them receive buffs. I am here to discuss potential buffs. Not to debate whether they should receive them. For that I am convinced and I have no interest in changing your opinion on this matter I am afraid.
Thank you for your time.
For what itās worth, we are both out of topic, since the original topic regarded only the Greek Fire UTā¦
The original poster included ideas beyond the Greek Fire UT, like buildings healing nearby allies. So this is a thread about buffing the Byzantines basically.
1 Like
Both conversations are fine to have, itās alright to argue for or against buffs