Why no Byzantium?

[Ozymandias Maximus]

That was one of my favorite cities to capture in RTW since it was a major trading port. I know this game takes place pre Constantine era and that is when it became more important, but the city was around long before that. I'm no history major, but was Anthea a greater settlement than Byzantium at that time?

[Dynamo11]

You got to remember the period Rome 2 wants you to play as isn't even Augustine, it's pretty much Mid-Republic. At that point Byzantium was pretty insignificant to include. Perhaps they intended to add it vie a Rome 2 Barbarian Invasion 2 expansion. Who knows

[Ozymandias Maximus]

Wasn't Rome 1 set in the same time period?

[AnthoniusII]

You got to remember the period Rome 2 wants you to play as isn't even Augustine, it's pretty much Mid-Republic. At that point Byzantium was pretty insignificant to include. Perhaps they intended to add it vie a Rome 2 Barbarian Invasion 2 expansion. Who knows

I have a humple request. I know internet allows us all to write anything we like but atleast please READ before post anything.
Vyzantion (Byzantium in Latin) was a major naval power right after the Persian finall defeat in 479BC in Mecale.
Vyzantion with Rhodos(Rhodes in english) were the main two major naval superpowers of the Aegean sea. Vyzantion became ally of Rome to hundle the Succesors agression and was a main ally of Rhodes against Demetrius Poliorcetes (the besieger). The city joined Panellinion right after the finall Roman prevail over all Hellenic (greek states).Panellinion had Thessalinike as capital!
Vyzantion had the larger naval fleet in the hellenistic world even after Demetrios builded his armada to conquer Rhodes!!!

Wasn't Rome 1 set in the same time period?

Yes..Lack of Vyzantion is just ANOTHER false desision of CA in this game!

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

Because CA and the whole world is split up into roman imperial provinces, talk about the lack of walls in Jerusalem and Syracuse.......
Vyzantion is replaced with a tiny fishing village, Why CA, why?

[La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham]

I have a humple request. I know internet allows us all to write anything we like but atleast please READ before post anything.
Vyzantion (Byzantium in Latin) was a major naval power right after the Persian finall defeat in 479BC in Mecale.
Vyzantion with Rhodos(Rhodes in english) were the main two major naval superpowers of the Aegean sea. Vyzantion became ally of Rome to hundle the Succesors agression and was a main ally of Rhodes against Demetrius Poliorcetes (the besieger). The city joined Panellinion right after the finall Roman prevail over all Hellenic (greek states).Panellinion had Thessalinike as capital!
Vyzantion had the larger naval fleet in the hellenistic world even after Demetrios builded his armada to conquer Rhodes!!!

Yes..Lack of Vyzantion is just ANOTHER false desision of CA in this game!

Excellent post old chap, thank you sir!

[nomercysniper]

Quick question, if it were to be included which faction would control it?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Byzántion wasnt insignificant at this time and its a serious waste for CA not to have included it. Perhaps they thought two cities on the bosphorus would have been too much, idk. But the city was involved both the Persian wars and the Ionian revolt. It was certainly just as significant as Tylis.

The faction that could control it could be an independent nation-state called Byzantion.

[daelin4]

Why no Byzantium?

Because CA made a region called Antheia. But I'm sure you can easily think up a way to redraw yet another portion of the campaign map to make yet another Greek faction fit into the game.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Why no Byzantium?

Because CA made a region called Antheia. But I'm sure you can easily think up a way to redraw yet another portion of the campaign map to make yet another Greek faction fit into the game.

You should not have limits on how many factions to have in a game. Oh there are already 2 greek (Sparta and Athens) factions. Limit is reached sorry no more. Sorry Corinth. Sorry Thessaly.

[RexImperator]

You should not have limits on how many factions to have in a game. Oh there are already 2 greek (Sparta and Athens) factions. Limit is reached sorry no more. Sorry Corinth. Sorry Thessaly.

Well both Corinth and Thessaly were in Macedonian hands so I don't think either of them really has a place in the game. Byzantium, Boeotian League, Achea or Aetolia? Yes. Argos, Messania or Elis? Why not? Heck even the Nesiotic league or Akarnania. BUt Corinth and Thessaly shouldn't really be separate factions, unless they are emergent.

[daelin4]

You should not have limits on how many factions to have in a game. Oh there are already 2 greek (Sparta and Athens) factions. Limit is reached sorry no more. Sorry Corinth. Sorry Thessaly.

Limit of factions is not the problem here. The limit is geography: redraw the campaign map to accommodate a Byzantium faction and then we can have a discussion. Until then, well the bottom line is there is no space for said faction.

As for yet another Greek faction, I think my point still stands. Until CA starts getting their heads screwed back on and put some creativity back in there, the only thing we can expect is another Greek faction with hoplites. Yay worth another five bucks.

[Border Patrol]

How many Thracian factions are there? How many Dacian? How many Greek. I think I'm fine with the decision they made. The map is all samey enough as it is.

[AnthoniusII]

The issue here is not the number of Thracian and Celtic tribes in balkans comparing with number of Hellenic/Greek factions.
Is about who the world powers were in that time.
Vyzantion grown so fast after the Persian wars that even Phillip II and Alexander the Great desided not to fight it directly!
Vyzantion should start with Altheia as 2ndary settlement (as Thrace province) with a strng fleet from the start!
The city /with Rhodes were the barriers that controled the Succesors states expansion. That is why both are crusial to exist!

[GussieFinkNottle]

I think it's probably because CA is going out of its way with this game not to just go for towns with name recognition. They were pretty heavily mocked for a few previous instalments, especially M2TW, in which they included towns that are well known now but were non-existent or insignificant then.

With R2 you can see this change in that Carthage is Carthargo, Carthago Nova is 'Qart Hadasht', the actual Cathaginian name for Carthage itself, Pella is Macedon's city even though it was really a palace not a city and Thessalonika would have been a better choice. This has led to some fairly unwise or inaccurate decisions such as the one with Byzantium, largely because they want to seem like they've done more research this time. We reap what we sow, because I'm sure there were threads like this in reverse on previous games.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Not hard to do research. I am willing to give the developers at CA the benefit of the doubt that they read up on some maps and understand what the world look like. However, they deliberately made the world like this for gameplay reasons. Removed a city/town there in favour of this one or whatever. My evidence is London. It isnt where it is in real life. Should be obvious CA knows where London is. And the distorted shape of the Near East that was distorted for gameplay reasons - according to CA themselves.

[Slaxx Hatmen]

You also have to take into account the city sprawling. Nicomedia is right across the Golden Horn from where Byzantion would be. In previous titles that wouldn't have been a problem since the cities didn't visually expand out over their tile when you developed them. Now that they do however CA couldn't fit too many settlements as close to each other as before since they'd just blob into one another and create a big graphical mess. This meant, as Mathias said, they had to omit certain cities simply because the other town next door was considered, gameplay wise, to be more significant to the campaign.

It's one of the reasons I can't stand city-sprawl in R2.(The other being that it looks stupid)

[Ozymandias Maximus]

You also have to take into account the city sprawling. Nicomedia is right across the Golden Horn from where Byzantion would be. In previous titles that wouldn't have been a problem since the cities didn't visually expand out over their tile when you developed them. Now that they do however CA couldn't fit too many settlements as close to each other as before since they'd just blob into one another and create a big graphical mess. This meant, as Mathias said, they had to omit certain cities simply because the other town next door was considered, gameplay wise, to be more significant to the campaign.

It's one of the reasons I can't stand city-sprawl in R2.(The other being that it looks stupid)

I would think the body of water between the two cities would make that a non issue.

I bet they are planning to add Byzantion as Constantinopolis in some 20$ 'Fall of the Empire' DLC.

Or wait, it won't be fall of the empire or anything like BI. It will either just be Aetius VS Huns or Valens vs Goths. Considering CA's focus on building campaigns about 'great generals' and not 'factions'. And it would have nothing more than Danube area and Thrace.

Sorry for half way scabbing your name. Turns out all the cool ones were taken

[Slaxx Hatmen]

I would think the body of water between the two cities would make that a non issue.

Think about it, once Nicomedia and Byzantion were built up it'd look like there was one city straddling both sides of the strait.

[puddingkip]

Not hard to do research. I am willing to give the developers at CA the benefit of the doubt that they read up on some maps and understand what the world look like. However, they deliberately made the world like this for gameplay reasons. Removed a city/town there in favour of this one or whatever. My evidence is London. It isnt where it is in real life. Should be obvious CA knows where London is. And the distorted shape of the Near East that was distorted for gameplay reasons - according to CA themselves.

London isn't in the game, the region is called Camulodunum or something like that because in 272 BC London had no significance.