Byzantines need to lose Bombard Cannons

[SMUM15236]

@filtercoffee488

The viper’s opinion on byzantines is “don’t want to play as them, don’t want to play against them”.

Hera said the same thing about Cumans 1 or 1 and half year ago.

Byzantines is designed to be an early Imp power spike civ. Removing BBC will hurt their identity badly imho.

[Prokman7582]

1. Your own post is a perfect description of a proper Defensive civilization and how it should work.

2. Gameplay wise, Bombard Cannon is one of the most quintessential defensive units in the game. It is available to the Defensive civ. Byzantines. Makes sense.

3. Even TheViper will surely disagree to the proposal.

[CanineCrown7153]

I wouldn’t mind them losing BBC, but only if they get Bloodlines, Blast furnace, Masonry and Architechture, Herbal medicine, Siege engineers and Heated shot.

Yes, I like the Byzantines, how can you tell…

[filtercoffee488]

@SMUM15236

Byzantines is designed to be an early Imp power spike civ. Removing BBC will hurt their identity badly imho.

Ultimately, both of these are personal opinions. I find it annoying to play against them, you think it’ll hurt their civ identity. Fair enough.

I do have to say that I don’t personally find civ identity arguments particularly convincing for the most part. There are a few things you can justify, especially UTs and bonuses. Units are important, but only if they are the iconic or the most important units.

So, turkish bombards, or gothic infantry, or hun cav archers? that’s part of civ identity. Nobody hears Byzantines and thinks “oh, bombard cannons”.

@Prokman7582

• Gameplay wise, Bombard Cannon is one of the most quintessential defensive units in the game. It is available to the Defensive civ. Byzantines. Makes sense.
• Even TheViper will surely disagree to the proposal.

Your first point leans on a lot of assumptions. Historically, it makes 0 sense for them to have to BBCs. Gameplay wise, I explained why it sucks, your entire argument is “eh, is feels fine”. That’s not really an argument now, is it?

@Prokman7582

Historically, Byzantines used BBCs in warfare. What’s the problem?

Care to address my full argument? I am not a fan of cherry-picking and responding to only the parts you like.

[Prokman7582]

Historically, Byzantines used BBCs in warfare. What’s the problem?

[NastyHigh]

@HeBroGaming

I agree. Actually bloodline is fine. Just remove Forging, Iron Casting and Hussar so that their cav can only serve as their civ identity which is counter and tank

I agree with Bloodlines but no need to remove Forging. That would make their Cataphracts useless.

[Prokman7582]

@filtercoffee488

Care to address my full argument? I am not a fan of cherry-picking and responding to only the parts you like.

You raised issue of historicity (standalone subject); I commented on it. I have nothing to add gameplay wise; I am covered by others.

PS: And why you respond through edit of your previous post? Your reply to my post is supposed to be below my post.

[JokerPenguin593]

@filtercoffee488

@JokerPenguin593

But thet are balanced

Never said they weren’t. In fact, I explicitly said this:

@filtercoffee488

This is not necessarily OP, mind you. It is just extremely annoying and frustrating, at least in my experience.

My dude, I said this, and even made it bold:

@filtercoffee488

I’m fine with buffing them in another aspect to maintain the win rate.

Well, let me rephrase instead: if they arent broken, dont fix them

[SMUM15236]

@filtercoffee488

So, turkish bombards, or gothic infantry, or hun cav archers? that’s part of civ identity. Nobody hears Byzantines and thinks “oh, bombard cannons”.

IDK. If I hear Byzantines, I think “Arbs, Halbs and BBC” or “Cata, Skirms and BBC” depending on civ match up.

[HeBroGaming]

@NastyHigh

I agree with Bloodlines but no need to remove Forging. That would make their Cataphracts useless.

imho Cataphracts is still decent against infantry in terms of cost and pop efficiency even without Forging. As a countering civ this change will enhance this role more.

In above, without Forging and without Bloodlines is still OP
If with Bloodline and without Forging would be much better than current state. This change will make Cataphracts much better. If it will make Cataphracts useless, it means Cataphracts is already useless

[AbuzzJam4677680]

@filtercoffee488

This is to show how good they can be in castle age. In games going past mid-imperial, it is common to tech into catas as byzantines.

Byz can be good in the right hand but not broken. In these vids, there were only very few or no cataphracts except the second one. Byzantine players get significant lead in terms of map control, taking most gold mines in the maps. The opponent entered trash war while byz is not. To tech into cata, you need a lot of resources and lead. This is not common in 1v1.

@filtercoffee488

Pros won as byzantines in castle age, or got to imperial and then got catas.

Pros won as byz. Pros won with other civs as well. So? Would you mind share any pros suggesting Byz is too broken and need nerf?

[Grep0sofHeckels]

@filtercoffee488

1. Catas aren’t niche. I have listed some tournaments examples above. You think that because most games don’t go to imperial. Once you get to imperial, byzantines are pretty likely to tech into catas.

I’m just going to quote AbuzzJam as I don’t want to repeat what he already said.
“Byz can be good in the right hand but not broken. In these vids, there were only very few or no cataphracts except the second one. Byzantine players get significant lead in terms of map control, taking most gold mines in the maps. The opponent entered trash war while byz is not. To tech into cata, you need a lot of resources and lead. This is not common in 1v1.”

I’d also like to point out that describing Cataphracts as primarily good in Mid-Imp, Post-Imp whatever. Is describing them as niche by definition, given that you agree that most games don’t go to Imp.

@filtercoffee488

The both of you are making arguments on the level of “don’t let them get paladins” against franks or teutons, or “don’t let them get elite battle elephants” against vietnamese/khmer/bengalis.

How is that incorrect or unfair advice? The idea of “Prevent or atleast make it awkward for X Civ from getting Y Imp/Castle power spike on Z Map” is an extremely relevant one in plenty of matchups, the most iconic example is of course Goths Imp Infantry Spam, and it’s often the first thing that people advise Newbies to do that voice their struggles with the matchup.

@filtercoffee488

2. Why exactly did you focus on this? The entire point of that paragraph is that byzantines have powerful unit compositions. This is just a side tangent.

Because it’s due to, but not limited to things like: I have limited time and energy, other people may of already made the same point, I don’t disagree and I have nothing interesting to say regarding it, or I simply have not enough passion. I assume most other people operate under similar restrictions

So I choose to address specific parts that jump out to me , rather than making an extended half-hearted response to an entire short essay , especially when there is no ulterior motive for doing it, like say at school . Sorry if this sounds rude.

[NastyHigh]

@HeBroGaming

This change will make Cataphracts much better. If it will make Cataphracts useless, it means Cataphracts is already useless

Yeah good point but your scenario is just 1x Cataphract vs. 1x halberdier which is not a realistic fight. That fight would never happen in a real game.

[GermanAttorney8]

@HeBroGaming

Byzantines is the only civ that have both Siege Ram and civ bonus Halberdier

Celt cried in corner

[TungstenBoar]

Incas, Slavs and (I believe) Romans too

Also, neither unit are fully upgraded for Byzantines, so you could arhue its not that much better than Chinese, Bulgarians, Spanish or Sicilians

[filtercoffee488]

@SMUM15236

IDK. If I hear Byzantines, I think “Arbs, Halbs and BBC” or “Cata, Skirms and BBC” depending on civ match up.

You are talking about compositions, not units. Your thought process there is “what is a good unit composition which you can use in arabia 1v1”. I am talking about units which by themselves are symbolic of the civ. So, Persian war eles and trash bows are what I think of when I hear iconic perisan units, although you’ll never make war eles in 1v1 arabia.

@JokerPenguin593

Well, let me rephrase instead: if they arent broken, dont fix them

I am saying that they are broken. Not broken as in OP, but broken as in annoying to play against.

@Prokman7582

You raised issue of historicity (standalone subject); I commented on it. I have nothing to add gameplay wise; I am covered by others.

PS: And why you respond through edit of your previous post? Your reply to my post is supposed to be below my post.

I replay on the same post because I don’t want to bloat a thread, especially when I don’t have much to say as a relply. I was wrong, sure, Byzantines did use a few cannons towards the end of their era. But that’s just a side tangent.

If you had said, “I don’t care about history”, I’d have totally accepted that as valid.

@AbuzzJam4677680

To tech into cata, you need a lot of resources and lead. This is not common in 1v1.

What you are talking about, there, is valid if you get all upgrades. However, it is not necessary to get logistica for catas to stomp infantry, including halbs. You only need the elite upgrade.

That means, the cost is similar to getting elite battle eles, elite elephant archers, or heavy cav archers (somewhat more expensive, but not outrageously so).

@AbuzzJam4677680

Pros won as byz. Pros won with other civs as well. So? Would you mind share any pros suggesting Byz is too broken and need nerf?

Would you mind sharing where in this thread I said Byzantines are OP?

@Grep0sofHeckels

I’d also like to point out that describing Cataphracts as primarily good in Mid-Imp, Post-Imp whatever. Is describing them as niche by definition, given that you agree that most games don’t go to Imp.

The game has a natural progression which goes on till imperial age. So no, imperial age is not niche. Now, we can look at the stats to see how many games go on till imperial, but I can’t find those anywhere.

@Grep0sofHeckels

How is that incorrect or unfair advice? The idea of “Prevent or atleast make it awkward for X Civ from getting Y Imp/Castle power spike on Z Map” is an extremely relevant one in plenty of matchups, the most iconic example is of course Goths Imp Infantry Spam, and it’s often the first thing that people advise Newbies to do that voice their struggles with the matchup.

If your opponent is competent, it’s fairly likely that the game will go on till imperial. The “stop goth spam” isn’t just about preventing them from getting to imperial, it’s about limiting resources, and map control to stop them from getting enough resources to completely overrun you. You can let them get to imperial, and even get their UTs and still win.

@Grep0sofHeckels

So I choose to address specific parts that jump out to me , rather than making an extended half-hearted response to an entire short essay , especially when there is no ulterior motive for doing it, like say at school . Sorry if this sounds rude.

Fair enough, sorry if I was too harsh. It’s just that I see a lot of people doing this thing. I’ll write a paragraph to illustrate a point, like with that paragraph you responded, which is to show how powerful Byzantine army compositions are. But then, someone will pick apart one point, which isn’t that important to the argument. I could remove that reddit line from that paragraph and the contents are still fully valid.

If you had said “I don’t agree that byzantines have a strong army comp”, or “I do agree that they have a good army comp”, we could’ve discussed further, but there’s no point arguing over what redditors think imo.

@JokerPenguin593 @Grep0sofHeckels @SMUM15236 @AbuzzJam4677680
Look, if you think that Byzantines are fine as they are, it’s fine, we can just agree to disagree. I am not making a claim that they are OP, and never have made such a claim. If you go by win rates, they are actually a little underpowered.

My issue here is that I have given a lot of justifications and specific points as to why I think that they aren’t fun to play against, and some of you haven’t addressed that at all. For example, I haven’t seen a single comment here addressing my points about Chemistry directly. The closest I’ve got is from @SMUM15236, about how they are an early imp power spike civ.

[MSTVD]

What if they got scenario editor unit only “flamethrowers” instead?

[filtercoffee488]

@MSTVD

What if they got scenario editor unit only “flamethrowers” instead?

What does this do?

–20 char addendum–

[JokerPenguin593]

FLAMETHROWER vs EVERY GENERIC UNIT | AoE II: Definitive Edition

[HeBroGaming]

@NastyHigh

Yeah good point but your scenario is just 1x Cataphract vs. 1x halberdier which is not a realistic fight. That fight would never happen in a real game.

Given the fact that Cataphract have Blast damage, 1x Cataphract vs >1 halberdier would be much better