I think it was fine as it was in vanilla, but depending if we want to add something else to it it might need to be moved
Carthage
- Thread starter Funak
- Start date
I think it was fine as it was in vanilla, but depending if we want to add something else to it it might need to be moved
So Gazebo, what do you think of the state of Carthage? Any comments at all?
Really need more voices in here to actually get this going.
The free harbors element is more valuable now than in vanilla, as it effectively eliminates a source of unhappiness if city placement is managed well. That helps Carthage's early/mid game quite a bit.
The UA regarding mountains is somewhat cheesy, sure if nothing else, it might be worthwhile to reduce the damage penalty to -15 for Carthage when you end your turn on a mountain (to make army movement over mountains more viable).
The Quinquereme is unlocked a few techs before the Trireme, and is simply stronger than the Galley, meaning that Carthage can own the sea from the beginning of the game up to the dawn of Caravels in the late-Medieval period. That's pretty big for a UU, far more so than most civs. That alone makes Carthage potentially very potent.
To conclude, naval civs are risky by virtue of map types and the settlement habits of other civs, however I don't think that Carthage necessarily needs a UB. Adjusting their mountain trait will, I believe, round out their unique play-style enough to make them quite viable. I think we can safely say that Carthage is at the 'fiddling with numbers' stage of the leader balance project (as with most civs). In fact, to jump off topic, the only civ that I see needing a complete rethink is Indonesia, as the AI simply doesn't know how to use that UA (and that, by itself, weakens Indonesia a lot). My solution for that is to remove the 'on other landmasses requirement of their ability,' but that's a point for another thread...
G
The UA regarding mountains is somewhat cheesy, sure if nothing else, it might be worthwhile to reduce the damage penalty to -15 for Carthage when you end your turn on a mountain (to make army movement over mountains more viable).
The Quinquereme is unlocked a few techs before the Trireme, and is simply stronger than the Galley, meaning that Carthage can own the sea from the beginning of the game up to the dawn of Caravels in the late-Medieval period. That's pretty big for a UU, far more so than most civs. That alone makes Carthage potentially very potent.
To conclude, naval civs are risky by virtue of map types and the settlement habits of other civs, however I don't think that Carthage necessarily needs a UB. Adjusting their mountain trait will, I believe, round out their unique play-style enough to make them quite viable. I think we can safely say that Carthage is at the 'fiddling with numbers' stage of the leader balance project (as with most civs). In fact, to jump off topic, the only civ that I see needing a complete rethink is Indonesia, as the AI simply doesn't know how to use that UA (and that, by itself, weakens Indonesia a lot). My solution for that is to remove the 'on other landmasses requirement of their ability,' but that's a point for another thread...
G
It is pretty much comparable to the old Meritocracy policy, which is now gone. Yes, it helps, but it's not enough. And the same effect can be achieved with one policy from Might branch.
Gazebo said:
It adds nothing except flavor. It can lead to some fun things, like roads over mountains but the other part of the UA is there to make sure that you need no roads. It is a very minor thing which has close to no impact on the game. I have never seen anyone say "I won the game because of crossing mountains". And overall even if you do cross mountains you do it in one turn, so reducing the damage would only allow workers to build roads there quicker? This is such a fringe case that it's simply bad.
Gazebo said:
Quinqueremes won't take any city, maybe except something with 1 population and no walls - simply because they are a melee ship. I tried accomplishing something with both UUs a couple minutes ago when Denmark and France DoWed me at the same time - new patch downloaded, so 16 strength. Results:
- I tried using African Forest Elephants and Spearmen against a 5 defense Danish city. I spent 4 turns bashing with four units until they built walls and my units started hurting themselves more than the city. I only took half HP. To compare with the previous patch I tried playing Poland and I took an Aztec city with an archer and a warrior. It didn't build walls though. Yes, I know Elephants get the penalty against cities but they still had double the strength of the city.
- I tried taking a coastal city of Nappy with Quinqueremes... Since only two could attack each turn, they also got destroyed accomplishing nothing.
So the benefit of quinqueremes could be a defensive advantage at most, and still it doesn't last that long, as with the advent of the Galleass they start to lose. Cities have so much HP that melee units/ships simply cannot take them. Other UUs let civs go on a conquering spree. All the Quinquereme does is beat Galleys and Triremes (which also won't take any cities).
Gazebo said:
Carthage should definitely be an economic civ with trade emphasis and two UUs just don't cut it. Also, they way it is now the only long term advantage Carthage gets is 3 gpt per city, which is pretty poor. Yes, they have early game defensive bonuses and a gimmicky mountain thing which is more or less useless - it is only there for flavor.
Neither of the UUs is actually strong, as what ultimately matters is taking cities. Prevalence of spearmen earlygame makes elephants quite poor and the great generals bonus is wasted on an economic civ, just doesn't fit.
Overall, the only real advantage Carthage gets is the free harbor, and it is only significant in the early game. Since medieval they are a vanilla civ with 3gpt per coastal city. I would certainly not call that viable nor potent.
mitsho
Deity
I was going to argue, that the 'harbours remove isolation unhappines' side of things makes Carthage too similar to Indonesia, but you already point that out. So yes, well, it seems like an okay solution for Carthage (and no, I haven't read the wall of texts from before, sorry).
I'll disagree, if only because rarely do I ever 'win' a game solely based on my civ's UA. The issue here is viability - does this UA work, and does it provide a unique advantage - to which I would answer yes. Replacing it with something economic makes Carthage somewhat generic, as we already have quite a few other economic civs.
Sounds like we need to buff the Quinquereme further, then. Perhaps we can add in a city attack promotion.
Again, if the Elephants are weak, let's buff them. I'd rather work with Carthage's current UA/UUs than try to rewrite them, as there is a solid kernel of ideas here.
G
I agree to some degree, but adding something minor to balance the UA out wouldn't hurt. Also mountaincrossing can be removed for all I care, it is just stupid.
As mentioned before the Quinquereme needs to fill an actual role. And roles for early meleeships are rather limited, so it would be either scouting or taking cities.
Scouting could be handled with a unique promotion, 'plus movement and plus sight' or oceancrossing or ability to scout other civs territory without requiring open borders.
Taking cities would require a rather huge +city attack buff considering how bad meleeships are and have always been at taking cities.
Also I'd say it is rather important to have something that carries on when upgraded.
I've mentioned before how I'm not a fan of double UUs, especially when they are both pretty damn weak. Carthage was never all about war historically, and having 2 UUs and a pretty mediocre unfocused UA kinda puts them in that place anyways.
A gold/tradebased UB along with a minor costreduction when purchasing units would still keep them somewhat warfocused but would put more flavor into it.
I don't want to get into the habit of generating a UB for every civ that's a major balance issue, as UBs last the whole game. I'd rather work with what Carthage already has and make it stronger.
More on point, if melee ships have a hard time versus cities, why don't we increase melee ship strength across the board and grant them all a bonus to city attack? Seems like this would help the AI as well.
G
More on point, if melee ships have a hard time versus cities, why don't we increase melee ship strength across the board and grant them all a bonus to city attack? Seems like this would help the AI as well.
G
That's exactly my point, UBs are WAY better than UUs and that's why all civs should have one. It is unfair to all the double UU civs if other civs have UBs
mitsho
Deity
Variety is fun.
(Ideally, one would add a unique component to get the balance so that everyone has 3, however that is a nightmare for creative ideas and kills off compatibility with additional civ mods...)
So why not stay with the base line for a few civs?
(Ideally, one would add a unique component to get the balance so that everyone has 3, however that is a nightmare for creative ideas and kills off compatibility with additional civ mods...)
So why not stay with the base line for a few civs?
I don't think this is an effective way to deal with balance. We can do better. If Carthage's ability is widely disliked by the community, we need to work on that. UBs as a 'band-aid' for a civ's weakness is not a terribly creative solution.
G
Because there aren't actually that many civs with double UUs (not counting Great people since they aren't really units imo) it wouldn't be a huge step to just fix the last of them and get on with our balance?
On a more serious note, double UUs could work if the UUs are solid and upgradeable and the UA make up for the loss of sustained power. For carthage that clearly isn't the case.
Because there aren't actually that many civs with double UUs (not counting Great people since they aren't really units imo) it wouldn't be a huge step to just fix the last of them and get on with our balance?
On a more serious note, double UUs could work if the UUs are solid and upgradeable and the UA make up for the loss of sustained power. For carthage that clearly isn't the case.
Fair enough, so let's buff the UUs, and improve the UA. If the free harbors are good, why don't we add in a bonus for Carthage every time they settle a city? Perhaps a large sum of gold, or GA points, or both? Carthage was a seafaring/trade civ, but they were also a highly colonial civ (historically). Playing into that would distinguish Carthage a bit more from other expansionist civs.
Edit: UA could look like this:
G
Gazebo, that sounds almost like the UA from the mod "Carthage Improved". I listed changes made to Carthage in many mods in my second post in this thread. If you have the time and patience to go through them, it might be useful.
Overall I proposed many ideas - which Funak regarded as too strong, and I am inclined to agree on many of them being too strong - but they are still a bank of ideas to draw upon.
As for this different continent thing - Carthage's colonies were placed along the coast of the Mediterranean, that hardly counts as another landmass as everything was connected except the Mediterranean islands, so I think the different continent bonus is misplaced.
Also I dislike bonuses like that which are only available one time. This UA gives more upfront, but doesn't make up for the loss of sustained power as Funak pointed out.
Overall, the cities Carthage was founding were mainly meant as trade outposts to initiate exchange with the locals. Phoenician colonies were also often very dependant on their founder, but still retained a large autonomy - hence my puppeted cities ideas.
Also since Phoenicians were the greatest traders of the Mediterranean, I wanted to provide a bonus for that in form of a way to earn more trade route slots.
Overall I proposed many ideas - which Funak regarded as too strong, and I am inclined to agree on many of them being too strong - but they are still a bank of ideas to draw upon.
As for this different continent thing - Carthage's colonies were placed along the coast of the Mediterranean, that hardly counts as another landmass as everything was connected except the Mediterranean islands, so I think the different continent bonus is misplaced.
Also I dislike bonuses like that which are only available one time. This UA gives more upfront, but doesn't make up for the loss of sustained power as Funak pointed out.
Overall, the cities Carthage was founding were mainly meant as trade outposts to initiate exchange with the locals. Phoenician colonies were also often very dependant on their founder, but still retained a large autonomy - hence my puppeted cities ideas.
Also since Phoenicians were the greatest traders of the Mediterranean, I wanted to provide a bonus for that in form of a way to earn more trade route slots.
Well, perhaps rewording it 'landmass' instead of continent would assuage your concerns? Looking at this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Carthage#mediaviewer/File:CarthageMap.png) we see that Carthage was scattered all over the islands of the Mediterranean, and into continental Europe.
Having newly founded cities grant a boon of gold or golden age points, and come with a free harbor, seems to capture the 'trading post' concept you describe (well, at least in civ-terms it does). The bonuses may be temporary 'boons,' but they also snowball into other strategies (large boost to gold gives you the money to buy a trade unit, or a defensive unit, or a market, etc.).
Having cities start as puppets is a bit odd, and the AI wouldn't exactly understand what was going on (the AI is bad about prioritizing courthouses at the wrong time, and thus would be punished by this). A few custom civs do this, and the AI tends to suffer as a result.
Edit: we don't want to step on Venice's toes regarding trade routes – that's their big advantage, and really their only advantage.
G
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
I think it would play too similar to Venice which also does the "everything's puppeted" even if it can't settle.
I like the bonus-on-settling, though. Feels fun. I'd scrap the continent bonus, though (it feels fiddly) and perhaps steal Civ:BE's Hutama ability: bonus trade route(s). Starting with an extra trade route or two gives you a very strong starting bonus (but do not allow more than 1-2 extra trade routes).
Alternatively: free trade unit in capital whenever you unlock a new trade route? Means you can instantly trade. Weak, but only supposed to be a complementary effect.
We could give Carthage a faux UB (i.e. a generic Palace) that has a free trade route attached to it to give it an extra trade route without having to code in a new trait.
Edit: we also have an unused trait: gain x yield every time an owned trade unit moves. Could be interesting, and definitely supports a trade-empire concept.
G
Difference from Venice would be that the cities can actually be anexed, and you settle them and choose the location yourself and you wont be able to buy stuff in them.(also you're not getting double traderotues obviously)
Pros for settling puppeted cities would be that they don't increase culturecosts and we could tune the UA so they don't affect sciencecosts as badly. This would give carthage the ability to expand like crazy without getting too behind in culture/tech. This also synergises with their double UUs since captured puppets would also benefit from the bonuses.
They would be more like claimed areas/tradingports than actual cities which kinda fits with what I know about Carthage.
Pros for settling puppeted cities would be that they don't increase culturecosts and we could tune the UA so they don't affect sciencecosts as badly. This would give carthage the ability to expand like crazy without getting too behind in culture/tech. This also synergises with their double UUs since captured puppets would also benefit from the bonuses.
They would be more like claimed areas/tradingports than actual cities which kinda fits with what I know about Carthage.
