Exactly. Byzantines plays differently. and that’s okay. i wish there was more civs with the tools to play defense into offense.
1 Like
It’s pretty much that Byz don’t really need a buff for the super-late game. If you do manage to survive to that point, your chances are fairly good, as nothing really hard-counters you. The civ might just have problems getting there, because it has nothing going for it in dark age, and the only bonus they get in Feudal is the trash discount, which is better than nothing, but it’s not as strong of an eco bonus, because you probably won’t make a huge army in feudal, all that is a big problem on Arabia (which seems to be the focus of discussion in this thread, although the Byz civ is very viable on a bunch of different maps as well)
um, this isn’t a problem at all. the problem is they have nothing to really help them boom. the only eco bonuses they get are cheaper trash which is back end savings basically, and a cheaper imp up.
They get cheaper imp, so this isn’t as much of a problem. It’s just that fast civs can rush them really easily in feudal.
Which is where this point probably comes in really. It throws off a lot of players that byz just play a bit differently than most others.
um clearly it is a problem. check all the best civs man. what do they all have in common? every single last one of them have one thing propping them up. what is it?
You have cheaper counter units in castle, and a cheap imp. You can defend and afford going up to imp. Don’t see the problem. A lot of the popular civs have an early eco bonus and the byz just don’t.
EXACTLY. which means those civs can put Byzantines behind by forcing them to make units, and then Byzantines, despite having generally cheaper units, is playing on the backfoot the rest of the game.
when offensive civs can spend resources to make you make units that are cheaper then their units and STILL get to castle age before you, that is a huge advantage for them.
Yep, so we’re not really disagreeing 
E.g. The top 5 civs for +1650 all have very solid bonuses for their early games.
except we are. because you’re saying
which isn’t true. if having cheaper imp made up for the lack of early game eco bonus, why is Byzantines winrate so low? think about this - both byzantines and vikings have solid, reliable, but generic arbs.
one has a winrate over 51%. one was a winrate just over 46%. whats the difference? one has a reliable early game economy bonus.
Circling back to my original point…
Their late-game is not their problem. Buffing their late-game even more doesn’t really help them (as much as any early eco buff would).
and yet when i said this
you said this
so no. were not on the same page.
Okay, cool, I don’t really have much else to add. Booming and early eco bonus are a different thing for me, I guess for you it’s not. That’s not something I want to discuss in this thread.
early eco bonuses help booming. period.
Lithuanians 150 free food helps them age up faster - meaning they get up earlier. meaning they can get TCs down faster.
Vikings don’t have to research WB/HC - which means they get free villagers from not having idle time - they also get resources coming in faster - which helps them age up faster.
Mongols bring in hunted food faster - which means they can age up faster.
You usually don’t make a big army of trash on arabia because it takes too much of toll on your Eco, and the enemy can simply switch to a different unit type. But as byzantine it’s possible to do so, and even push your enemy base.
It’s not a eco bonus per se, it’s an general help, that can be used defensively or offensively. Even you train just a few spears to defend you it’s enough.
Then in feudal you also have palisade and all buildings with more HP, which means that you can wall and your opponent will have an hard time to break in.
Then you have free TW, a nice tech difficult to research because it idle your TC, for free. Meaning that you can see the enemy sooner, and react appropriately.
Byz have feudal bonus, it’s just that are more HP for cavalry or faster berries, they are different and needs to be played differently.
If you can’t it’s fine, not everyone have to be good with all civs. I for example main just about 3 or 4 civs. I doesn’t mean that I don’t try other civs, only that I know very well how to play few of them.
It’s 45.43%, so in the range of 45-55%, it can’t be considered low, since it in the intended range.
Like any other civ when you they are attacked. Of you aren’t fully walled, anyone have to train some spears, skirms, or make a defensive tower.
You can go for scouts too, but if you want simply to defend trash units are better, and byz can do it with less resources.
I meant applied to scouts… I do not consider that feudal age bad, at all… that is why I am more for a late game buff
its at the absolute low end of the intended range. and with those outside of that range getting buffs then byzantines winrates will get lower.
but a lot of other civs have eco bonuses to help bring in more resources to defend with.
yes lets take a civ whose winrate only gets better as the game goes on…
and buff them at their absolute best. that’ll totally drag those winrates up.
Hmm a lot of the times the early bonuses just translate to a faster/more viable early aggression. But again, this is not the thread 
Unless you go for 3 tc boom every single game ever, which I doubt.
Yep, this is exactly why I think byz late game is fine. They have all the options, and can mix in super cheap counters. But they will be slower to produce any units in Feudal than some of the faster civs out there.
and if that early aggression isn’t costing me as much because i has an early eco bonus that is offsetting that cost, that means i’m still going up faster then the other person who has to spend resources they don’t get from an early eco bonus to defend with.
What buff would you suggest? I was fine with bloodlines if some other changes are applied.
Also cheaper unit upgrades is good, helping up to mid imp.
Are you for an eco bonus?