That's true but I just wish the Byzantines were more biased towards heavier units than HA, that would make them more unique from other factions rather than being an Orthodox version of the Turks.
Printable View
That's true but I just wish the Byzantines were more biased towards heavier units than HA, that would make them more unique from other factions rather than being an Orthodox version of the Turks.
It is not really about balance. Everything the byz get the westerns get better and earlier. This is not fair on the one hand (i.e. indeed not balanced), but the main point is that it is not what you would expect from the byzantines. Right now they are a strong HA faction as that is their only advantage (until westerns can buy mounted xbows), instead of a versatile inf/cav heavy faction which one would expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
I cannot help but wonder if the Byzantine roster was deliberately designed this way to give them a different feel than their western counterparts. The European factions typically depend upon knights for the shock value, either as the main arm of a stack or with infantry to hold the enemy so the knights can charge the flanks.
All of the equivalent troops in the Byzantine roster are in some way inferior to their western counterparts. Chivalric knights are better in most respects than kataphractoi, Latinkon are basically feudal knights but come later, Byzantine Lancers and their dismounted versions both come later than the western equivalents do, and the spearmen are very close to being classed as bad. Only in the horse archers and naval areas do the Byzantines have the advantage, so anyone who recognizes this can play to those strengths.
By the way, I do not agree in any form that mounted crossbows are superior to horse archers. Vardariotai would mop the floor with them, and likely so would Byzantine Cavalry; because both are quite capable of melee and have higher rates of fire, they don't have to depend on just shooting.
I think that the Byzantines are probably underpowered. I also think that that is a good thing.
Think about it. The game runs from 1080 to 1530 (ish). At the start, the Empire had just lost the battle of Manzikert and, in the ensuing disarray, most of Anatolia. In the middle, Constantinople was lost to the Crusaders. A century before the end, Emperors and senior nobility were forced to fight for the Turks, effectively as vassals. In 1453, eighty years before the end of the game, the Empire was gone.
There were high points in amongst these disasters but it is fair to say that the game covers the decline of the Empire. Historically, no other faction had it as tough and no other faction was destroyed by the end of the game.
It therefore stands to reason that the Byzantines should be the most difficult faction to play for most of the game. It wasn't inevitable that they would be extinct by the end of the game and that is reflected in the fact that it is possible to survive and even prosper: but it should be very tough.
So Byz infantry can't withstand Turkish or Western cavalry in most circumstances; sounds correct to me. Byz cavalry struggles to compete with its peers much of the time; yep, that's right, too. No outstanding archers (except HAs); on the money as well. Over-reliance on mercenaries to strengthen weak domestic troops; oh yes - that's spot on, too.
If you want a balanced game, then complaints about the Byzantines are valid; if you want a (relatively) historically accurate game, then they're not. From my point of view, what makes the faction interesting is that they are so difficult and so different from the Western Christian factions; I wouldn't have it any other way.