I don't get the logic behind argument like "hey byzantines camels/paladins/infantry are good and balanced in old meta but now struggle with new civs"
in this situation, some nerf and new balance to the op new civs should be the way to go, any buff to the byzantines will kill the balance between them and other old AOC civs
Then the problem is the infantry being used too sparsely, not the Cataphracts.I think reducing the cost of the Logistica and Elite Upgrade, reducing the cost of the cataphract 10 food so it's 60f/75g (same as knight line), and either giving them 1 more pierce armor, or 2 more attack is what they need. The problem is, Cataphracts are great against infantry, which is rarely used. They lose to paladins and arbalest which are some of the most common units in any game. They're insanely expensive to tech into and once you're there they're not insanely OP. I'd much rather have 40 Mangudai or 40 Leitis or 40 Boyars even over Cataphracts.
Then the problem is the infantry being used too sparsely, not the Cataphracts.
Faster imperial than malay, italians, vikings, khmer, etc, care to elaborate?This thread is absurd. Byzantines already have the widest tech tree of any civ in the game, the cheapest trash in the game, and get to imperial age faster than any civ in the game. You want to give them *more*?
Also, 48% winrate does not mean they're underpowered. 45%-55% is balanced. In Byzantines's case, my guess is they're just getting picked more frequently by weaker players.
Their imp price is what makes byz extremely dangerous. If u want to buff anything from byz, the imp price HAS to be increased!
Is not even that much compared to the italian cheaper price per ageTheir imp price is what makes byz extremely dangerous. If u want to buff anything from byz, the imp price HAS to be increased!
Is not even that much compared to the italian cheaper price per age
Totally this. You can easily highlight this problem with free pick and winning rates in watermapsShould we look at the picked rate instead of the winning rate to see ppl's real preference? Imagine in a world where everyone goes Aztec and Huns except for Viper who sticks with his Organ gun masterpiece, the winning rate of Portuguese will be like 100%, but that for Aztec and Huns is still around 50%. I am exaggerating the scenario here but you know what I mean. Winning rate makes sense only when everyone goes random civ in every game imo.
give aoe dmg to their camels also in the UT
Totally this. You can easily highlight this problem with free pick and winning rates in watermaps
You have basically ~5 viable water civs which are used in 95% of games. Now these civs play almost entirely against eachother. The worst part of these "best 5" will have below avarage win rate. So just by winning % it would seem like there are 16+ better water civs than those.