Yes for history, yes for balance (Byz have no blast furnace, no Roman armour/tech/centurion) and also yes because the Two-Handed Swordsman and Champion look ugly and ###### ##
I think legionary is good enough since technically the legion system survived until the VII century as I said. If you add comitatensi then why not limitanei? Itâs more specific and less recognisable as a name.
Skutatous is the closest thing I can think of the legionary for a Byzantine civ.
As for the flamethrower if you remove the dragon I guess itâs fine.
If they do get Skoutatos next, it would be the first UU on spearmen line & also works in tandem with Byzantines civ bonus.
I still think the only apropriate second UU for Byz is Varangian, the most iconic Byzantine formation. Even Flame Thrower isnt that famous.
I actually made a flamethrower UU idea some time ago, but for cumans.
Idk if it would be that suitable for byz, as it was designed to counter pike/siege which byz already have a tool against.
Which brings me to answer the initial quuestion. And my anywer is:
Why anybody wants to make legionaries with byz? Itâs basically useless. To everything legionaries do, byz have a superior alternative. And it also serves no strategical benefit for them, it doesnât lead to anything byz wants to face to outplay the opponent.
If theres anything Byz would potentially like to have is better Siege. And itâs fine they donât get it cause Byz are fine as they are.
2 Likes
If you want to be more accurate,
- Cataphracts should be a replacement for Cavalier upgrade
- Varangian is the castle UU
- Legionary is the Romans regional unit or if the devs are generous instead of Legionary, we get the Skutatos as a replacement for Pikeman upgrade
Itâs to diversify units civ, also itâs to improve historically accuracy. I know Legionary disappeared after theyâre disbanded by Constantine I but the Legionary in Byzantines are to represent the Skutatos.
2 Likes
Why do you keep saying this? Itâs not true, comitatensi and limitanei were just different units and tactics but legions existed until the reign of Heraclius. Constantine disbanded the Pretorian guards, not legionsâŠ
1 Like
My bad, it was actually the Legionarries that got disbanded. Comitatensis & Limitanei are Legions but with different roles. Iâll correct it right away.
The in game split between byzantines and romans is actually more temporal than geographical.
The byzantines represents the thematic defensive system, which was adopted well after the split of the 2 empire even in the est, unti heraclius and the wars against the arabs.
And they should get partian tactics, as romans and byzantines used cavalry archers quite often.
I think itâs still correct to refer to them as legionaries since they fight as legions. Comitatensis were basically the field army so legionaries, while limitanei probably were often barbaric foederati defending borders. Praetorian guards were defensor of the city of Rome but by the time of Constantine Rome was not centre of the empire anymore, the centre in the dominate era was the emperor himself, thatâs why he replaced them with the palatini who were basically the emperor personal army. Being always at war to defend the limes meant Romans cannot let an army to chill in Rome anymore but rather troops had to follow the emperor and be mobile.
Thatâs what I would have think but in the game the Eastern Roman empire is represented by byzantines as early as Alaric so I think itâs geographical even if I agree that it was more a temporal thing in real history. The late Roman army wiki says it lasted from 284 to 640 in the east, as in the west the regular army disintegrated already by the time of Stilicho.
This is a fantastic idea
While Im unsure about this unit for Byz, if they did get it it feels loke they should get some sort of advantage over Rome besides Gambesons and Supplies. Roman legions have far more bonuses that these minor esges might not mean much especially without the pwoer of Blast Furnace.
Adding some effect From Logistics could be feasible but regionalizing Legionary would make it reach more potent
Im not clamoring for Byzantine legionary mind you but can anyone even think of another civ worthy of it? Honest question here
Funny thing, initially I thought Byz getting legionary would be cool but the comments on this thread have convinced me they shouldnât lol
2 Likes
The real important question is where else can we put this unit so it can get more places to shine
I mean thatâs my argument on another thread for removing the Cavalry Archer from most European civilisations & making it a regional flavour unit.
Itâs still better than their Champion & thatâs enough.
Also am I alone in thinking the Champion sprite looks like a dumb fantasy unit? Going from a unit with full armour, tunic & shield to big guy wearing pinstripes?
I actually donât even care if Byz get Legionaries. I donât think itâs historically accurate, but who bothers anywaysâŠ
From a civ design perspective it just doesnât matter. Byz are an amazing if not even the best lategame civ and donât need Militia at all. Most of the time they want their opponent to make militia, so they can unleash the mighty catas.
But I donât like arguments like these:
Youâre trying to double revert a point i made on me in threatening to take away something you assume I support of keeping. And youâre right in the regard that I want to keep CA in most civs.
But for different reasons. I support diverse tech trees that allow different playstyles. Especially when whe have such a narrow meta like atm where often even the âtopâ CA civs often opt for Knight (or xbow) instead.
So before we discuss about removing vertain units from civs cause they donât see much play we should first assess the state of the unit in general. If even the civs designed around that unit often donât make use of it, shall that mean we also should take away CA from civs like Huns, Tatars and Mongols?
Cause this could be the logical result of your foray.
1 Like
Goths maybe as they were fedorati?If vandals are added they can also use.
I personally dont want unique upgrade units to be shared to others,that automatically makes them sudo regional units.
2 Likes
Yeah I was thinking of goths too but thatâs it and still kind of a stretch.
Byzantines too having legionaries I mean idk⊠If you make them start from 330 (Constantinopleâs foundation) they should technically get them but lose them halfway (?) So I think all in all no itâs not a good idea.
I donât see the problem in a civ having two unique unit and Romans are like that.
If you really wanna add something to byzantines you can search for plenty of stuff more properly byzantine meaning medieval Greek rather than late western Roman meaning from mid 7th century on when, like someone already said, late Roman army and administration surviving in the East was replaced by the themata system where you can use skoutatoi, stratioti, tagmata, something with greek fire etc etc.
The themata system was eventually replaced too in the late byzantine âempireâ, under the paleologi, with other units, when byzantines/Hellenes were fragmented in different kingdoms after the sack of the city in 1204 and this last change would endure until the end.
Replace the militia line because itâs kind of awkward. Have it like the Sergeant and just increase damage as it ages until imperial age.
Historically speaking,
- Romans
- Byzantines
- Goths
- Franks (since they named them Franks not France)
- Britons
- Bulgarians
- Georgians
- Armenians
- Vandals (if they get added later)
Honestly imo, Romans & Goths are the only ones that still fit if they get Legioanry. I rather have Byzantines replace their pikeman with Skoutatos than another Legionary.