I don’t even understand that. How can they withstand cannonballs after they are destroyed? And why are you attacking destroyed wall sections?
I still think it should just be stronger walls than other civs. Having to attack rubble after you destroyed a wall section is annoying imo
But hey, it’s cool for the defending player.
And annoying for the attacking player.
1 Like
I don’t mind if they have a Wall landmark as chinese… Maybe earlier ?
How about they start with massive fully upgraded walls around their settlement from age 1 already, but get no further upgrades.
would be interesting, it depend how strong are walls in the game
Sounds, again, OP. They are invincible from raids until the other player can get some siege out and they can just focus on economy. By the time the enemy can tear down the walls, the Byzantines will have a stronger eco, which translates into a stronger military
They could lack lategame units/tech/eco upgrades to compensate. It would be a safe early game civ, but if you dont end the game by castle age, you lose kind of thing
Except it wouldn’t fit the civ they are representing. A Byzantine civ being a strong early game civ and a bad lategame civ is ridiculous
1 Like
I don’t think so, considering they didnt exist by the late middle ages. Byzantine peaks of power were around 537 AD and later in the Macedonian renaissance (9-11th centuries). By the end of this game period (1400s and on), they were no longer a technological powerhouse and could not even afford the cannons that Orban built for the Ottomans, let alone maintain a professional military corps.
The Late Middle Ages or Late Medieval Period was the period of European history lasting from AD 1250 to 1500. The Late Middle Ages followed the High Middle Ages and preceded the onset of the early modern period. Around 1300, centuries of prosperity and growth in Europe came to a halt.
Seeing as they the fall of Constantinople is 1453, I would say they were around in the Late Middle Ages
You make a fair point but I still don’t think it makes sense for the civ, especially since the early game doesn’t have much variety from what we have seen. And I don’t like the idea that you are on the clock to win. No civ should have only a window to succeed, if you don’t you lose
1 Like
honestly it’s a bit a “shortcut”. Constantinople was almost “empty” when Ottomans attacked. Constantinople was no more the same after fourth crusade. Maximum only 50000 poeple living inside.
The technological decline come mainly from the sacking of fourth crusade
1 Like
What you suggested sounded super OP, I think I came up with some ideas that would be a bit more balanced
Walls build faster
Walls have 15% more HP
They could have a landmark that boosts all nearby defenses including walls.
2 Likes
This sounds perfect imo.
1 Like
I would extend this discussion to Castles:
Castles fell into disuses with the gunpowder age.
So i think it would be nice if for each era you could elige among some type of castles (maybe from cheapest to more expansive), and in imperial age able to choose for renaissance’s forts.
About this, i would insert:
- Fire Armor
- Armor against rocks or classic siege machines
- Armor against gunpowder siege units.
1 Like
Well no one called it eastern roman empire back then either, so it would not really be a big step forward. The state was known as “Romania” - land of the romans, or more formally Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn.
Sadly you probably can’t really call it Romania because people would confuse it with the modern state.
5 Likes
I dont have any knowledge of the history, but because of the constant spam about byzantinese I really hope they wont add it
I think having it being called The Byzantine Empire will fit better considering it was many cultures in this empire, Romans, Greeks, and whatnot, and having “Roman” in the name will make people believe that it’s only Romans.
“The Byzantine Greeks were the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans of Orthodox Christianity throughout late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.”
3 Likes