Byzantines Underpowered?

I'm at about turn 110 in my vanilla 1.2 Byzantine campaign. I own northern Italy, coastal areas of the Balkans, and all of the middle-east except Baghdad and Yerevan northwards.

Caesarea is my most advanced castle-settlement. While I can train very strong armies, I'm a little disappointed at some of the units. For example, Latinkon have stats of 10/15, and despite being almost exactly the same in appearance and being recruited from the same level of Castle building, Normans Knights have stats of 13/17. And at the highest level stable I get Kataphractoi. These are very strong, 13/16 IIRC. However, these are still weaker than Norman Knights, except perhaps their armoured mounts giving a slightly higher mass value.

And while Vardariotoi kick @$$, and are available very early on, I would have thought some Kataphract Archers would have been brilliant for the Byzantines.

And despite the Byzantines historically having excellent spearmen, the Byzantine Spearmen unit in game is poor, equal only to the basic Sergeant Spearmen of western factions. I've had trouble holding bridges against the Mongols with them, not as issue in my Venetian campaign. Looking at other melee infantry, I think CA may have been aiming at creating sort-of proto-legions, and while Dismounted Byzantine Lancers and Byzantine Infantry are cheaper than Dismounted Feudal/Chivalric Knights, they are significantly poorer troops.

In terms of missile units, the Byzantines do get strong HA early on throught their Byzantine Cavalry, and Vardariotai are superb. But for their infantry units, while Byzantine Guard Archers are very strong archers, they still struggle against western crossbowmen or longbowmen etc.

It seems the only redeeming feature the Byzantines military has is its Varagian Guard. Stats of 20/15 look very promising, although I've only just recuited some and am currently shipping them off to the battlefront in Italy, where the Papacy and a very strong Milan are snapping at my territories.

Having been distracted by the Mongols and a tough but fun campaign so far, I've finally got a nice organised army, on its way from Caesarea to Rome. Composed of:

1x General's Bodyguard (+1 armour)
3x Kataphractoi
6x Vardariotai (+1 armour)
4x Varangian Guardsmen (+1 armour)
6x Byzantine Guard Archers (+1 armour)

Looking forward to steamrollering southern Italy (held by Papacy) and the surrounding islands...

I completely agree with you (as I wrote it here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=97455), espiecially in the light that it takes a hell lot of effort to get those troops (VG, and catapracts). The problem is, in a sense, that vards are very good, and it is very easy to beat up the AI with HA armies. This might be good for the player but it hides the other weaknesses.
So practically early on byz is nothing more than a HA factions with mediocre infantry and some decent archers. IMO more like the turks rather than what it was in historcal terms.
BTW, VG is significant improvement over BI and dism lancers (esp. in terms of moral) but there are better infs in the game (JHI, DCK).

It's very hard for me to think of any faction with strong HA as underpowered. Byzantine infantry and archers are slightly harder to use than some of their western counterparts, but they're still far superior to, for example, same period Egyptian infantry.

All of the factions have impediments. I think the Byzantine advantages, especially in terms of starting position, outweight their negatives comfortably.

:egypt:

@Cheetah
JHI and DCK better than VG?

VG: 20/15 (7+5+3) (skill+armour+shield) (charge 6) AP; morale: 11; cost: 520/175
JHI:10/12 (5+5+0) (charge 4) AP, AC+4; morale: 11; cost: 840/175
DCK: 13/22 (8+8+6) (charge 3); morale: 9; cost: 610/225

JHI have AP and AC bonus, but die like flies under enemy missile fire (no shield).
DCK have an effective defence of 18 against VG and JHI. They will own JHI because of better attack and defence, but not VG, since VG have +7 attack and only -3 defence, plus better charge. Additionally, VG and JHI have equal morale, better than DCK. Speed wise, I do not know, but I would assume that it is defined by the unit armour, so VG = JHI, both faster than DCK.

On paper, how could VG loss on 1 vs 1? (I have to admit I have never matched them up, but JHI have been a pitiful disappointment compared to the battlefield killers of MTW)

To top it up, VG have the lowest cost and upkeep.

OK, it takes longer to get them, but that will be another issue.

Well stats don't show the whole story in M2TW, animations can be even more important. I'll try my VG out today...

You are right, someone has reported some bug for two-handed units when fighting infantry. As I said, I have not match them together. Maybe that is way JHI did not impressed me at all, and my Turkish halberd militia was eaten alive by Mongol foot arches when defending walls?

PS: of course I mean units who use both hands to wield their weapons, not unit that actually have two hands :yes:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

And despite the Byzantines historically having excellent spearmen, the Byzantine Spearmen unit in game is poor, equal only to the basic Sergeant Spearmen of western factions.

---

To speak the truth, Byz spearmen are worse than sergeant spearmen. If I remember correctly, their stats are similar to those of (Byz) spear militia, even though the unit card clearly states that Byz spearmen are a step up from militiamen. I've modded them to have slightly higher attack, defence skill and morale. I also changed the price to reflect these changes. Now they can at least hold their ground pretty well. I need decent spearmen for playing legions-style.
Other than that, I cant say the Byz are underpowered. Great archers and cavalry, especially HA, reliable sword&shield infantry and the great Varangian guard. My favourite faction atm.

I started a campaign in 1.2 as the Byzantines, and stopped it rather quickly. It devolved into Me vs. The World™ very quickly. As England, I was able to keep my reputation up, and this allowed me to maintain peaceful relations with most of my neighbors for a long period of time. As the Byzantines, this just didn't work. Apparently it's hard coded that Hungary, Venice, and the Turks hate you. Because you're orthodox and they're catholic or muslim, the inevitable war with them also drags down relations with the rest, bad relations drags down your reputation, low reputation makes diplomacy difficult to impossible, and I didn't want to play that game by blitzing.

no faction able to field vardariotai can really be underpowered can it?

but the line infantry leaves a lot to be wanted when they have no real line-holding spear unit able to receive a cavalry shock. I dont know a lot about the historical medieval byz army, but surely you would think they had some semi-professional, well armored spear or polearm unit?

the dism lancers and byz inf are nice, and a clear advantage against factions who go heavy on the swordmen, but they cant hold a line aqgainst the cav charges in m2tw. varangians are a bit dissapointing against dismouned knights, but good for å devastating charge from the flank.

imho the worst letdown is that you cannot get good charging cavalry before citadel level, latinikon, thatys a big disadvantage aginst the westerners bringing mailed and norman knights from day one.

btw can somebody please give a walktriugh of the new byz units from kingdoms, maybe thers some nice pikes or spears there?

You can try this link for Kingdoms

http://files.filefront.com/FAUST+Kin.../fileinfo.html

Also for M2TW standard campaign:

http://files.filefront.com/FAUST+Gra.../fileinfo.html

And now for M2TW rebalanced with Kingdoms stats (I think Lands to Conquers uses them for example):

http://files.filefront.com/FAUST+GC+.../fileinfo.html

by brandybarrel . All of them very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guru

Other than that, I cant say the Byz are underpowered. Great archers and cavalry, especially HA, reliable sword&shield infantry and the great Varangian guard. My favourite faction atm.

---

Their archers and cavalry are simply not great compared to other factions. Fair point on the HA though, Vardariotai and even Byzantine Cavalry are excellent quality troops. The infantry are decent, however they are inferior to other factions infantry which are available even earlier on, and do not require a Fortress / Large City to get. I didn't get to try the VG today unfortunately, but I still had a very fun TW time...

And on a side note, I fought an absolutedly incredible battle against the Mongols today. They were reduced to 3 full stacks, 1 led by a Captain, the other two by the faction leader and faction heir. The two general-led armies attacked my main Byz army at a river crossing in the Yerevan region. There were some cliffs on my side of the river, and I lined them with my archers, using spearmen to hold a little gap in the cliffs just to the right of my side of the river, the only way the Mongols could get to me. So the first Mongol stack crossed, and was slaughtered fairly comfortably with my troops taking minimum casualties. However my archers used nearly all their ammo, and when the second Mongol stack came, this time with Rocket Launchers and Trebuchets, I had to send them into melee to aid the depleted spearmen. My troops by this point were all "Tired" or worse, and eventually casualties reached 83% on both sides. Then the Mongol artillery came within range, and starting blasting away at my army, hitting many of their own troops in the process. As the Mongols pushed their way up the cliff, I had to send in my General to aid my troops. After making many kills, my 10* was killed by a flaming rock or whatever the trebuchets hurl, and my units all started to flee, except the remainder of the Bodyguard. So by this time the Mongols were reduced to their artillery and a few units of Mongol Foot Archers who had stayed out of the melee. All I had left was my Bodyguard unit and about three, one-quarter full units of Guard Archers that had regrouped. By this stage I was ready to accept defeat, even if it was actually the final nail in the Mongol coffin and was a somewhat Phyrric victory for them. But my Bodyguards charged to enemy archers, who were too busy trying to snipe my troops from a distance to actually brace themselves for the charge, and they all routed pretty quickly. By the time I mopped up these routers and only the artillery remained, I had about 50 men in total left on the field, and just left the remaining enemy artillery until the timer ran down. Without doubt the single best, and longest TW battle I have ever fought. I had about 50 out of 2,000 men left, they had just over 200 out of over 3,500.

Of course, the Mongols spawned a crappy new General into that last Captain stack, so now I just need to mop him up and then "faction destroyed"!

The war against the Mongols has consumed my treasury for almost 40 turns now. I've had four full good quality stacks camped around the Yerevan regions since the Mongols arrived. I mights just have time to build some new armies to prepare for a Timurid invasion. This time though I will be much wealthier, and will have Varangians, Kataphractoi, and Bombards to prevent any passive AI (really annoying) and take care of those elephants.

And if all goes well against the Timurids, I'll relax and have some fun against the Aztecs...:smash:

A good story, CR.
The English, for example, dont have any ranged cavalry units. Having 3 different HAs is a great advantage. Byzantine lancers arent great when comparing to real knights but they'll do their duty well enough. The Kats can make knights cry because of their good armour and AP maces. If byzantine units were all great when comparing to other factions, the game wouldn't be very balanced now would it? Treb archers are very good ranged troops with long range missiles. The Danes for example lack long range missiles. Byzantine guard are elite archers, many other factions have great missile troops too, but that doesnt make Byz archers weak or anything. I'm playing LTC by the way.

with the varangian guard having a shield bonus and a unit like the vandoreitta? horse archers and the excellent trebizonds and byzantine guard i really dont see how.

the big weakness is the lack of any effective anti-cav infantry.

exactly my point too, if they had anything that could hold a line against cav they be a great combined arms faction, but you cant have everything, and working around a factions weaknesses and using their strengths is half the fun.

btw, is it just me, or are the treb. archers very good at killing bogged -down bodyguards? had the trebs ( for lack of other troops) receiving bodyguard charges from behind rocks and trees and assaulting them in settlement streets in four battles in a row yesterday, and performed exellently, winning all the time..

@Guru: Good point on the maces there, never noticed that. That should be very useful for when the Timurids arrive...

@pike master, anders etc: The only department in which the Byzantines are particularly strong is their HA. Other than that, they have few good quality units until they have at least a Fortress.

Comparing to a standard Catholic faction, off the top of my head BTW, so not 100%:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spearmen:

Byzantine Spearmen: 5/7 (Lv.2)
Sergeant Spearmen: 7/9 (Lv.2)
Armoured Sergeants: 7/14 (Lv.3)

Infantry:

Byzantine Infantry: 11/18 (Lv.4)
Dismounted Lancers: 11/18 (Lv.4)
Dis. Latinkon: 13/21 (Lv.5)
Dis. Feudal Knights: 13/21 (Lv.4)
Dis. Chivalric Knights: 13/22 (Lv.5)

Archers:

Trebizond Archers: missile 9 + long range (Lv.3)
Guard Archers: missile 9 + long range (Lv.4)
Peasant Crossbowmen: missile 9 + AP (Lv.3)
Crossbowmen/Pavise Crossbows: missile 12 + AP + long range (Lv.4?)

Melee Cavalry:

Byzantine Lancers 8/13 (Lv.3)
Lantinkon 10/15 (Lv.4)
Kataphractoi 10/16 + AP secondary weapon (Lv.5)
Mounted Sergeants 9/14 (Lv.2)
Mailed Knights 10/14 (Lv.2)
Feudal Knights 10/16 (Lv.4)
Chivalric Knights 13/17 (Lv.5)

All this means that the Byzantines can only outclass western factions in the HA department, otherwise they must get at least a Fortress before they even get close to rivalling them elsewhere.

Actually mounted xbows are better in the archer duel than any HA, so once westerns have mounted xbows the byzantines are outclassed in all department. Not to mention guns, musketeers and pikemen ...

Just because the AI cannot handle any of these troops (and thus the player will never or rarely ancounter them and even those time the AI will mess it up) it does not mean that the byz army is at the same level as the armies of western factions because it is not.

Good point forgot about the mounted xbows. But I suppose only a few Catholic factions get those.

Actually almost all of them has mounted xbows, except Hungary which has HAs (which became just as outdated as the vards when the other factions can get mounted xbows), France (which has mounted brigands), and England, Scottland (which is AFAIR are the only catholic factions without a mounted ranged unit).

In my Venice campaign I used one third stack with general, few mounted crosbows and few knight hopitallers (which btw. nullify italian supposed lack of good cavalry). They managed to conquer few cities (general hired few mercs to push siege equipement) and won lot of small field battles (IIRC never encountered full enemy stack) before they suffered loses that made them go beck to replenish their numbers.
From this I modeled armies I used in north africa (lot of land to cover).

So my perception of mounted xbows is that they are REALY strong (but probubly any normal ranged cav would work in this example).

btw. are HRE's pistol using cavalry worth using? I guess that they could be better than m-x only aginst oponents with shields (I somewhere read that both guns and crosbows are armor piercing, but guns skips shields).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpedar

btw. are HRE's pistol using cavalry worth using?

---

Absolutely. They are not your basic ranged cavalry, they are more like knights with pistols instead of lances. They fire a volley or two before charging in, and the morale shock is terrible. Charging heavy cavalry and pistols volley at the same time.

To be honest, I've almost never seen the AI use mounted x-bows. When under human control, almost any army or faction is overpowered when comparing to the AI. I've even seen the AI create a huge empire as the Byz, around 25 regions and leader in most faction stats and I see AI empires pretty rarely. Again, I must say that it doesnt matter if some unit doesnt beat its better western counterpart head on, one on one. If their dism. knights are better than your professional swordsmen, charge them knights down with your bodyguards or Kats or even lancers. Or mod the Kats to be available from the cheapest stables and raise their attack to 30. See where I'm coming at? If your units outclass the AI's troops it'll give you a huge advantage in addition to you brains, something the AI lacks. Then you'll have to make up rules like 50% militia in every army to get even a little challenge.

never used the western mounted xbows, but the polish streclzy are great allover, mobile, AP-missiles and AP axes for close-ups with knights, retains their usability longer than the horse archers as they are AP.

Just got the armourer building that upgrades armour to "Kataphract", and WOW!

I now have some of the coolest looking armies I've seen in TW, the helmet with the mail covering the face is soo cool. And the Latinkon get a nice scale armour.

I sound like a n00B

Yes, the Byz have great looking units, especially when upgraded. I think the Orthodox factions are blessed with great outlooks when it comes to units. Russian Tsars Guard, those masks rock. Dism. lancers can also be upgraded so that chainmail covers the face. I like their professional army style outlook. I used to experiment with custom battles, just to see what different units look like when upgraded.

The Byz are basically a downgraded Sicily with HA support... my new army comp after getting citadels is:

1 Gen
1 kat
4 latinkon
3 byz cav
6 dismounted byz lancers
4 dismounted latinkon
2 artillery

Basic strategy is to lure away enemy cav with byzantine HA, then line up infantry directly behind kats and latinkon. Use trebuchets to fling cows, then charge with calvary. The latinknon instantly rout all non-spear units, then the foot infantry mop everything else up. On VH/m I destroyed the Hungarian army of 2000 with only 60 losses.

That might sound promising, but I could have done the same on turn 20 as Sicily using Norman Knights. The Byz spearmen are AWFUL, there's no way I'll stop the Mongols once they decide to stop beating up the Russians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guru

Yes, the Byz have great looking units, especially when upgraded. I think the Orthodox factions are blessed with great outlooks when it comes to units. Russian Tsars Guard, those masks rock.

---

I agree, I love the look of upgraded byz spearmen. But Russia is the best looking by far, especially the late-era general's bodyguard.

@Hoplite: There aren't any HA in that army...

And something to think about - should I use Kataphracts or Latinkon in the new world? With my current Citadel in Caesarea, my Kataprachts have attack 10, charge 6, can't remember defense. Latinkon have attack 10, charge 8, and -1 defense compared to the Kataphracts. The Kataphracts have the armoured horse, so that gives a little extra defense and makes charges more effective, but slows them down and will make them suffer larger heat penalties. Also, if the Kats have an AP secondary attack, does that not mean it will be slightly lower than the Latinkon's swords, since IIRC maces are generally less lethal than swords against unarmoured opponenets?

So while I will definetely use Kats against the Timurids, could Latinkon be better against the Aztecs?

I'd use latinkon since they're much faster than Kats and that would be a nice advantage against quick aztec infantry. HAs should work well too, since the aztecs are badly lacking in armour. HAs also make great rout chasers after the knights have broken aztec's line.
PS. Byzantine cavalry are HA.

Yes, the Aztecs have effectively no armor, so no need for AP. Any cavalry, even light cavalry or HA, will roll right over them with hardly a pause.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

And something to think about - should I use Kataphracts or Latinkon in the new world?
... could Latinkon be better against the Aztecs?

---

Bring your varangians!!! That is how real men fight it out! VG/byz guard archer combo vs the aztecs, now that is what I call a fight!!! :2thumbsup:

BTW, if you really want cavs bring the high charge one, it really does not matter what is the secondary weapon ....

Well the Latinkon have a higher charge bonus that Kats, but the Kats have a armoured horse and so should have a higher mass value, which IIRC improves the effects of their charge.

@Hoplite: Sorry was thinking of Byz Lancers when I read Byz Cav. Would Vardariotai not be better though?

@Cheetah: I still haven't had an excuse to use my Varagnians, although I can now train them on three cities and they're on two of my battlefronts, so I will surely use them tomorrow. But would VG be ideal for the Americas? It seems to waste their AP bonus, perhaps Dis Latinkon would be better?

If the byzantines are underpowered compared to some other factions, that's a Good Thing. Different factions should provide different challenges.

One of the good things about the TW series not having MP campaigns is that there isnt this need to get every faction balanced.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveybaby

If the byzantines are underpowered compared to some other factions, that's a Good Thing. Different factions should provide different challenges.

One of the good things about the TW series not having MP campaigns is that there isnt this need to get every faction balanced.

---

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.

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.