The Byzantine Identity

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Hello,

First-time poster here, but I’ve been active on the Steam discussions for a long time. Some of my takes are probably middling to good, some of them probably kind of bad, but this is one I’ve put more thought into over many, many years. Consider this OP a foreword more than an actual suggestion.

I’ve been playing Age of Empires 2 since shortly before The Conquerors expansion came out, I cut my teeth in online gaming on the Zone, and managed a decent 1100-1200-ish ELO. Nowadays I can’t quite reach that anymore, I’m not really keen on learning hot keys (the focus swaps get too visually jarring) and I feel like I’m “past the hump’“ age-wise for any sort of competitive play.

So, the thread title. The Byzantine Identity. It has been a long time issue of mine that the Byzantines were always the civilization with the rather thankless role of being “the standard for comparison”. I feel like from the start the developers should probably have made an all-tech no-bonus devkit civilization for that purpose rather than force one to always be sort of immune to most large-scale rebalancing. A rebalancing I feel is sorely needed for them, much in the way their original foe have received since; The Persians.

The Byzantines are sort of cursed with having some of the most identifiable bonuses in the game, but at the same time not really being granted much of an identity through them. They have very sturdy buildings, probably one of their most distinguishing traits: Their hit points are amazing, but they lack the +2 armour/pierce armour bonus, and +6 building armour bonus that a civilization with Masonry and Architecture would have, having the unique effect of allowing their health pools to more efficiently absorb siege weapons while granting quicker-attacking non-siege units a far greater advantage against buildings than they would normally have! This bonus is A+, no notes, chef’s kiss.

Their focus on efficient levies is the second most-recognizable in my opinion, and they come in the form of two bonuses, not just one! First, they have cheaper counter-units, both trash units which are fully upgradeable aside from Blast Furnace, and cheaper camels that absorb the lack of Blast Furnace or Bloodlines with a camel that only barely costs more than Hussars, split between food and gold. The second bonus is free Town Watch and Town Patrol, something that is at most just convenient rather than useful, but you could argue its territory control purposes are just plain nice to have. Thematically? This all is fully on point, and this gets an A.

Navy gets a lot of benefits here, with Dromon that can actually defend themselves and thereby become much more versatile of a unit in the new Navy rebalancing, and Fire Ships that are probably second to none, thanks to the attack speed bonus AND the additional range from Greek Fire. The Byzantines are the masterclass when it comes to compound bonuses, and that’s pretty much undeniable. The Bombard Tower bonus, however, is… eh? Meh? More a “nice to have” than anything, it’s not what you’ll be researching Greek Fire for. Again, an A, I think Byzantines probably have one of the top 5 navies in the game, but that might be wrong. This is more feeling than fact.

With that lengthy summary over, here we get to the point of what I would actually like to see changed about them, if you’ll allow me… The Byzantines are perfectly serviceable, and they are plenty balanced, but they lack an identity that I think the developers will never give them by virtue of their role as yardstick. Below are things that might upset that balance, and I’m very well aware of that, but it would help their identity! I’ll place this into a separate post to keep things more readable.

2
  1. Unique Units

The Cataphract is one of the originals, one of the greats, the hole-in-ones. It is a heavy (arguable) cavalry unit and the main shock cavalry unit in the game. It’s the final answer against infantry, with only Samurai able to really punch back in a meaningful way. The counter to that is that they suffer bad trades with cavalry, take harder hits from archers, are kind of countered by cavalry archers, and rather ineffective against buildings. If I had to compare them to any other unit in the game I’d feel they have that all-in feel of their long time rivals, the Goths’ Huskarl.

But, in terms of identity, the Cataphract isn’t really… right? Cataphracts in antiquity bore lances named Kontos, and charged into battle to overwhelm foot soldiers, and this is seen in how the technology Logistica is applied, giving them +5 trample damage around them. But… the Cataphract in the game uses a sword, a double-edged blade on the model, but more likely to be a Spatha or Paramerion, likely a nod to later Cataphracts which were dual-purpose, circling the enemy while firing on them with bows from horseback, or engaging them with shock tactics before retreating to fire upon them (literal Parthian Tactics). As envisioned, Cataphracts currently are fairly accurate, but incomplete, as such here are some suggestions:

  1. Cataphracts become a Ratha-like unit, given access to either Cavalry Armour or Archer Armour, switching between their melee attack (weaker due to a lack of access to Blast Furnace) and a lower ranged attack due to their high hit points and armour (4 base, 5 elite) with 65-75% accuracy. Possibly gaining access to Parthian Tactics, but reduced trample damage (25%, or 3-4 damage) in the process.

  2. Cataphracts become more like their shock cavalry origins, suitable in time period to Tarkans, Centurions and Savar. They are given their Kontos and become a lanced cavalry unit, but do not get a +1 to their range as to not interfere with their trample damage. Essentially, this is mostly just a sprite change.

This would have effects across the board, the Cataphract essentially becomes a more expensive to upgrade Cavalry Archer, but gains the benefit of being able to fight in melee. Byzantines already have Heavy Cavalry Archers, only missing Parthian Tactics, the absence of which never really made sense considering they’re positioned smack-dab in the middle of the Persians and Turks, both of which receive the tech and share a great deal of regional and, to some extent, cultural overlap with the Byzantines.

There is also the other, better (in my mind), option of removing the Cataphract as a Castle Unique Unit, and moving them to the stable as an upgrade to the Knight in Imperial Age, much like the Persian Savar. The Paladin as it is, is not useless, but just kind of sits there as a very expensive option, like a Cataphract that is vulnerable to pikes, just for that 1 extra pierce armour. A case could also be made for the Byzantine Cavalry Archer to upgrade into the Bucelarii as well, trading their +1 attack bonus for armour values, whether 1 melee, or 1 pierce armour (or, both, but that seems like too much) and 75 hit points instead of the Heavy Cavalry Archer’s base 60 (still 5 less than a Heavy Cavalry Archer with Bloodlines).

What would replace them as the Castle Unique Unit, though? The answer is simple, and has been there all along. There is a unit as-iconic, if not more, and that is their Varangian Guard. I know they already exist in Age of Empires 4, but it makes so much more sense to have them trained at a Castle, considering they are specifically the personal bodyguards of Byzantine emperors as well as capitol peacekeepers. In essence, they would be a medium-heavy infantry unit like the Serjeant, minus the ability to build Donjons. I imagine them to be a unit with high hit points (80 base, 95 elite) and medium armour (2 melee/1 pierce base, 2 melee/2 pierce elite), medium attack (10 base, 12 elite) and below-average speed (0.88), costing 60 Food and 55 Gold

In terms of possible gimmicks, they could be affected by Logistica in a different way, in that they would gain +0.01 speed per two infantry units in a 10-tile radius, up to 12 times, bringing them up to the Spear unit base speed of 1 if in a group of infantry totalling 24 strong or greater. Logistica could retain the original bonus as well, or trample damage could be removed from the Knight-line Cataphract, to be included with the Imperial Age Cataphract upgrade at the Stables.

3
  1. The Gimmick

As I had explained before, the hit points bonus to Buildings is what I consider their most iconic trait, and them missing out on the additional armour of Masonry and Architecture is inconvenient, but only further strengthens the identity of beautiful architecture, not designed to be constantly stressed by war. I would argue that Byzantine walls certainly would know that stress, however, but the end result is still that they’re stronger, especially since the disadvantage of infantry massing up on gates and walls is a lot more difficult to exploit due to space constraints. Nothing would change here, but I can think of one addition:

Repairing. This one is a little difficult, since the Georgians are also a defencive civilization with a 25% reduction in resources for repairing buildings, and the Jurchens already regenerate defencive structures at 500 hit points per minute. Instead, Byzantines should repair quicker. Their buildings are already stronger, so the bonus should probably be fairly small, at 5% starting in Castle Age, and 10% in Imperial Age. I feel like this wouldn’t advantage them too much, but I may be wrong in this regard.

For the rest, there are some changes to features and technologies I’d like to suggest, that feel more “in the spirit” of the Byzantines, but might drastically alter them. These are the following:

  1. Outposts: When Town Watch and Town Patrol are researched (automatically), they become a building with a more stony appearance and higher base hitpoints, the Watch Post (650 base hit points, 1 melee/4 pierce armour) and the Guard Post (750 base hit points, 2 melee/6 pierce armour). Both upgraded Outposts retain the normal vision range of their respective age and gain a 5 unit garrison, but they cannot fire arrows.

  2. Champions: If the Byzantines gain the Varangian Guard Unique Unit, then access to Champions would be a little overkill. If the bonus of Varangian Guards is that they become faster if other infantry is around, the barracks main infantry line’s purpose becomes more a cost benefit role against the more-expensive Unique Unit.

  3. Husbandry: In line with the Teutons, the focus of Byzantine cavalry is to be heavy, not fast. This also balances out gaining access to Parthian Tactics, making Byzantines the second civilization to have Partian Tactics but not Husbandry, behind the Cumans.

  4. Heated Shot: I don’t know why Byzantines don’t get access to this, with how many great coastal cities they had, and how navy-invested they are, they really should gain access to it.

4

Here’s the thing other than land siege and hand cannons every unit that exists to counter another Unit type specifically has a direct bonus to give you a reason to go for it even if the melee counter units are incomplete.

This alongside chonky buildings is why they are firmly called a defensive civ.

It works super well and the cataphract is essentially also a counter unit that throws a wrench in the typical rock paper scissors game vs cavalry as it eats spears isnt really weak to camels but gets most effectively shredded by archers but it’s also your win button if your opponent lets you apply some expensive trample logic!

even at sea it has this counter logic or did with fire ship focus.

It’s a fine civ probably one of the most unchanged even with the Dromon and additional Bomb tower blast radius

It doesn’t have a good early eco but you can push your opponents with a focus on a countermeasure to any unit they go for

Even if they might be fits for Legionaries as Roman heirs I’d say leave this civ alone

Also due to the bonus HP being so high the Byzantines DO repair quicker as the heal rate is proportional to max health

5

I’m not particularly against the concept of balance. I think balance is important, and an important part of a game’s enjoyability, but I feel I have to stress that this is about the historical identity of the Byzantine civilization first and foremost, with balance as a secondary consideration to the historical suggestion.

I agree, and am aware, that the Byzantines are very well-balanced in pretty much any given year of Age of Empires 2’s run, but a part of that is because they are the civilization that other civilizations were balanced around. And the point of this thread was that this made, or even makes, them ineligible for historically accurate updating, such as the numerous overhauls that have happened in the past few years, giving more regional- or civilization-specific Unique Units.

The purpose of this thread is to express interest in Byzantines being perfectly fine candidates for this treatment in the future, even at the risk of making them something that might require future balancing. I think they deserve that treatment, rather than leaving them alone just for the sake of game balance, in an era where flavour is so much more on the forefront of each civ.

6

They have fires and Dromons and a versatile army likely to sense the mercenaryization of an empire in decline. Their walls have the most HP at any point to say that yes without your precious imperial Ottoman siege power you can’t turn our double wall Constantinople into Istanbul just yet! Only thing left would be Legionaries to be the true eastern Roman Empire civ but giving them logistical trample and I nope the heck out of here

Although lacking Blast Furnace and 1- melee armor by compare means they’d still probably be a little worse than Romans even if they have Gambeson missile armor to help out a smidge

7

The developers were smart enough not to give these techs to the Byzantines.

Masonry/Architecture does not apply to walls, unlike the Byzantine bonus. You would always go with the almost unbreakable house walls, which would not only break the balance, but also the historicity. Theodosian Walls certainly weren’t house walls, and their value diminished over time after the invention of gunpowder.

Cataphract is never going to be changed in such a drastic way unless the devs lose their minds.

No Parthian to the Byzantines either.

Yeah.

After they receive Masonry, Architecture, Parthian Tactics, Bloodlines, Blast Furnace, Heated Shot, Siege Engineers, Siege Onagers, Varangian Guards, and all the Turk/Persian bonuses, they will finally find their identity.

8

yuksely1992, I do have to ask if you’ve read the entirety of the thread or are otherwise being hyperbolic, because I haven’t brought up asking for Byzantines to have Masonry, Architecture, Bloodlines, Blast Furnace, Siege Engineers, Siege Onagers, or “all the Turk/Persian bonuses”. Furthermore, if you’re choosing to engage with my thread I would appreciate not misrepresenting my point? I think that’s not an unreasonable thing to ask.

I have, in fact, mentioned why I think they shouldn’t have Masonry or Architecture, as the lack of it defines their defencive identity so much! Being a defencive civilization, I also think they already have far better siege than they should, with accessibility to Siege Ram, and Bombard Cannon (despite losing access to Cannon Galleons). Parthian Tactics, however, is simply a thing that they… were famous for?

They fought the remnants of the empire for which it is named. They used the tactics for many centuries. It is a part of the Byzantine identity. Some of the main written works that exist ON Parthian Tactics are written in Byzantine Greek, and it was the defining tactic used by the Equites Numeri (among which the literal Order of the Cataphractarii count their number). It is defining of all post-6th century Byzantine military doctrine and to exclude it would be as if you forbade the Britons from having Bracer (Thumb Ring, however, is appropriately inaccessible for the Britons, because the Yeomen Archers famous for the longbow’s use were specifically trained to perform well without need for it).

Lastly, I don’t think I mentioned them getting any Turk or Persian bonuses at all, so I don’t know where that comes from? Unless you specifically meant access to Parthian Tactics, which would be redundant since you’d already mentioned that.

1 Like
9

hyperbolic is the name of his game.

Anyway back on topic I unfortunately don’t think Parthians would make horse archers see much use without Bloodlines to go with it!. Even if you were to adjust phract HP downwards by 20 to compensate now puts stable focus play on the map more than you might want it to be since even without Blast Furnace the cavs will be pretty substantial… not even talking Paladin. Hussar and most of all the cheaper Camelry.

1 Like
10

The big shame is that the Byzantines don’t really benefit all that much from their complete unit techs. Paladin are too expensive to tech into for an end result that gets beaten by most fully-upgraded Cavaliers, especially when even the standard Cataphract gives you a solid resistance to the spear-line bonus damage. I feel like Champion usually isn’t worth teching into when you can combine spears with cheap camels or the excellent fully-upgraded Arbalesters, unless I’m missing some hidden gem there? I hardly need a special emergency razing unit, but I can see them being useful for that in particular, but is that worth the investment?

Bloodlines is kind of a badly flavoured technology, every nation that used horses had bloodlines and most of them had domestic breeds, so it’s hard to really make a historical argument there. I think it’s just an additional benefit for civilizations that are meant to go into cavalry hard? It feels kind of like The Conquerors included it as a reaction to the French knight line (exclusively) having their +20% hit points bonus, and it would have been better if they just reduced the bonus down to 10% or 15%. I don’t think Byzantines need Bloodlines, though, the Cataphract lags behind dedicated Paladin- and even some dedicated Cavalier civilizations, but that just emphasizes their cavalry being a bad matchup with them.

The Bucelarii suggestion would have some consolidatory hitpoints without a need for Bloodlines. As it stands, going Heavy Cavalry Archer right now is sort of viable for the Byzantines, but kind of an expensive dud at the same time? The “we have the most armoured cavalry” civilization doesn’t get the armour technology for one of their most-used Cavalry units (in a historical context, not in-game, for obvious reasons).

Hussars are, lastly, kind of weird? I think Byzantines might have some of the worst scout-line units in the game, and the only thing that prevents me from saying “the worst” is that Korean Hussars exist. They’re not included in the cheap trash, but without Bloodlines scout cavalry suffers hard, Byzantine Hussars have 75 hit points and 9 melee attack, Teuton Scouts have 65 hit points, 9 melee attack, but +2 melee armour from their unique bonus, meaning that the +0.1 second attack speed advantage the (B) Hussar has over the (T) Scout is not enough to turn the tide. 15 hits over 30 seconds for the (T) Scout, 22 hits over 41.8 seconds for the (B) Hussar. It’s downright pathetic.

11

Shock units. If eagles are nearby a greatsword salute is perfectly viable.

I never did like Bloodlines or think 10 Hp per age tech breakdown would feel far more reasonable but that is me. Historicity aside it still is a game otherwise a sneezing horse auto cripples your American enemy

1 Like
12

Shock unit makes sense, but you’re Byzantines. Even in Imperial age, a stock standard Cataphract without the Elite upgrade or Logistica will still mop up Eagles with zero actual investment. You get 40 more hit points, an extra melee armour, and 1.35 base speed, at the cost of 5 attack plus your attack bonus against building armour.

Also, removing Bloodlines and reducing the Franks cavalry’ hit points bonus would be a heavy buff to the Meso- and South American civilizations, yeah. I don’t actually think that should be a change, I just think it was possibly a mistake back when The Conquerors came out. It’d be far too late to change now.