The Carthage Thread

[jsciv69]

Carthage was also Phoenician city. I still don't understand the need to separate Carthage from Phoenicia, when they can both be part of the same civilization? And being a collection of city-states with similar cultures does not disqualify a group of people from being civilizations, such as Greece, the Maya, Sumerians etc.
I've even mentioned in my design the potential of Hannibal leading the Phoenicians, with his capital at Carthage.

The difference is the Phoenician City-States were independent states.. While Carthage became a Empire. While Carthage was founded by Phoenician Traders, it has it's own history and legacy. And having Phoenicia as a full Civ, while interesting, is just not historically accurate.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I myself would like having both Phoenicia and Carthage as full civs.

How would that work in the design of them?

The difference is the Phoenician City-States were independent states.

So were Sumer, Maya, and Greece which are also full civs.

 

[Evie]

Yeah. The idea that a full civ has to be a united political state has *never* actually been part of civ, and there's zero reason in-game to assume that requirement.

It's a common theme among some fans because the game gives you full control of all of your civ's city, leading to the (mistaken) assumption that you play as the actual ruler of a politically united state, so civ=state, but that's not the conceit of the game, and the idea that a civ means a politically united state is not supported by anything in the actual game.

 

[pokiehl]

How would that work in the design of them?

Phoenicia can be focused on trade and science (representing the importance of the Phoenician alphabet in other languages, and how it spread via trade). The unique infrastructure could be a royal necropolis.

Carthage gets the Cothon and a militaristic focus.

 

[Patine]

Phoenicia can be focused on trade and science (representing the importance of the Phoenician alphabet in other languages, and how it spread via trade). The unique infrastructure could be a royal necropolis.

Carthage gets the Cothon and a militaristic focus.

That would lead further into the problem I'd brought up earlier of the disparity of some civ's being robust in capabillity, while others are too specialized.

 

[Evie]

Assuming land militaristic (as that is what is commonly meant by militaristic), it also does Carthage, which was not particularly militaristic in any specific way, a serious disservice, pigeonholing them into the role they played that one time in Roman history rather than defining them by their own history.

You could make them *naval* militaristic, which would be more accurate, but naval military is a profoundly reviled part of the game, so you would need to actually make that worthwhile first so that a naval military Carthage actually has game relevance.

That said, there would be ways to make a separate Carthage work, I'm just not sure there's a particularly good reason.

 

[Patine]

Assuming land militaristic (as that is what is commonly meant by militaristic), it also does Carthage, which was not particularly militaristic in any specific way, a serious disservice, pigeonholing them into the role they played that one time in Roman history rather than defining them by their own history.

You could make them *naval* militaristic, which would be more accurate, but naval military is a profoundly reviled part of the game, so you would need to actually make that worthwhile first so that a naval military Carthage actually has game relevance.

That said, there would be ways to make a separate Carthage work, I'm just not sure there's a particularly good reason.

Or expansionist and militaristic in terms of mercenaries, aggressivelessly vassalizing city-states, and pushing trade assertively with military backing, which would be even more accurate.

 

[pokiehl]

Assuming land militaristic (as that is what is commonly meant by militaristic), it also does Carthage, which was not particularly militaristic in any specific way, a serious disservice, pigeonholing them into the role they played that one time in Roman history rather than defining them by their own history.

You could make them *naval* militaristic, which would be more accurate, but naval military is a profoundly reviled part of the game, so you would need to actually make that worthwhile first so that a naval military Carthage actually has game relevance.

That said, there would be ways to make a separate Carthage work, I'm just not sure there's a particularly good reason.

That pigeonholed role is the primary thing they're known for in history, so it makes sense to focus on it in Civ. There was more to Genghis Khan and Mongolia than horses and conquest too. I disagree that Carthage was not "particularly militaristic in any specific way" - they fought for centuries with Greece and then Rome, and their military activities resulted in their destruction.

I'm curious what you could point to as a reasonable, non-militaristic alternative design to Carthage that speaks to other specific aspects of its history? Yeah Carthage was a trading hub, but that's generic and boring.

 

[Evie]

I could see that, a more aggressive trader using mercenaries and city states vassals to pursue expansion vs Phoenicia as a more peaceful scientific trader. But I think that trade element is necessary to properly cover Carthage.

 

[Patine]

That pigeonholed role is the primary thing they're known for in history, so it makes sense to focus on it in Civ. There was more to Genghis Khan and Mongolia than horses and conquest too. I disagree that Carthage was not "particularly militaristic in any specific way" - they fought for centuries with Greece and then Rome, and their military activities resulted in their destruction.

I'm curious what you could point to as a reasonable, non-militaristic alternative design to Carthage that speaks to other specific aspects of its history? Yeah Carthage was a trading hub, that's generic and boring.

Focusing that strongly on, "what they were most known for," and neglecting the rest leads, again, to the disparity of robust vs. highly-specialized civ's, it gives a sense of pop-culture wonkiness.

 

[pokiehl]

Focusing that strongly on, "what they were most known for," and neglecting the rest leads, again, to the disparity of robust vs. highly-specialized civ's, it gives a sense of pop-culture wonkiness.

Sure; going too far the other way leads to esoteric, try-hard designs that don't resonate with what people know and expect.

Just like fighting games have character archetypes that fans expect, I think the same is true for Civ.

 

[Evie]

And the Greeks fought with the Carthaginians, and with the Persians, and with the Greeks, and the Romans fought with...well, Romans, Greeks, Gauls, Germans, non-Gaul Celts, Iberians, Numidians, Carthaginians, Libyans, Egyptians, Persians, Hebrews, and, again for emphasis, the Romans. The Persians...well, you get my drift. The point is, all major Mediterranean empire engaged in warfare and were relatively good at it. Carthage is not in that regard unique,

So compared to that backdrop - the context in which Carthage existed - was Carthage particularly militaristic in any specific way? As in, did it stand out as more notably militaristic compared to these other civilizations? I would contend that it didn't. That's what I mean by "not particularly militaristic". That there was nothing particular - or unusual - about Carthage's military culture and achievements.

Rome, yes. Rome was absolutely, unquestionably a particularly militaristic civilization. War was central to their identity, to their sense of worship, to their political life. There's more to Rome than that (witness their Civ V iteration which is basically not militaristic at all), but militarism is a cornerstone of the Roman civilization. Mongolia, yes - conquering the largest continuous land empire in history in the space of three generations is actually particularly militaristic. It stands out. It's especially notable. That doesn' tmean they have to be pigeon-holed in that role, but it does mean that they are especially suited to being a militaristic civilization. Carthage is not on that level.

As to "trading hub is generic and boring", I could as easily say I find militaristic abilities generic and boring, and with about as much accuracy. But trade was far more important to who and what Carthage was than warfare, so between generic and boring options, we shoudl at least pick the one that's more descriptive.

 

[Patine]

Sure; going too far the other way leads to esoteric, try-hard designs that don't resonate with what people know and expect.

Just like fighting games have character archetypes that fans expect, I think the same is true for Civ.

I wouldn't say, in any rational viewpoint, I've, "gone too far the other way," in my alternate suggestion. And, I am dubious of how many similar expectations there are between 4X strategy games and fighting games.

 

[pokiehl]

The point is, all major Mediterranean empire engaged in warfare and were relatively good at it. Carthage is not in that regard unique,

And they all engaged in trade and were relatively good at it.

I wouldn't say, in any rational viewpoint, I've, "gone too far the other
way," in my alternate suggestion.

Yeah I didn’t say you did, don’t worry.

And, I am dubious of how many similar expectations there are between 4X strategy games and fighting games.

Yeah not sure, except for archetypes people like to play as, as I said.

 

[Evie]

Carthage had much more success commercially than militarily, so, no, I don't think they can be equated.

Their diplomacy and politics were also largely centered on advancing colonial and economic interests.

I find the overemphasis on Hannibal in some ways comparable with the "Tragic Indian" take on US history - the overfocus of Native history on Native American leaders who led valiant, sometime even successful in the short term, but ultimately doomed resistance to American expansion, as part of the "manifest destiny" of America. Hannibal's place in popular history (and Vercingetorix's, for that matter, among others) are essentially much the same reductive view of a tragic adversary who could not stop the destined rise of Our Empire (tm), just with Rome instead of America.

 

[pokiehl]

Carthage had much more success commercially than militarily, so, no, I don't think they can be equated

Carthage’s military dominance is what led to its commercial success. They had the biggest navy in the world and a massive army—that’s precisely how they controlled trade, especially via controlling the Mediterranean Sea.

The one begets the other, so considering that plus their famous conflict with Rome and other myriad wars, a militaristic focus suits them perfectly IMO.

You should google to see what’s been written about Carthage by historians - there is FAR more historiography about Carthage’s military than its trade, and that’s even excluding anything involving Rome. It’s strange from that perspective to see anyone try to downplay this.

 

[Evie]

In which case we're back to talking naval power, which I specifically excluded from the sentence you took exception with:

Assuming land militaristic (as that is what is commonly meant by militaristic), it also does Carthage, which was not particularly militaristic in any specific way, a serious disservice, pigeonholing them into the role they played that one time in Roman history rather than defining them by their own history.

Emphasis mine, since you seem to have glazed over that part in your rush to protest my comment.
And from the same post, just to drive home that I have much less objection to a naval (read sea militaristic) Carthage as representative, here's another one:

You could make them *naval* militaristic, which would be more accurate, but naval military is a profoundly reviled part of the game, so you would need to actually make that worthwhile first so that a naval military Carthage actually has game relevance.

The obstacle to naval Carthage is not that it would be inaccurate ; it's finding a way to make it worthwhile in the game. If that can be done - if naval military operations can be made more than a gimmick - then I'm all for a naval military Carthage.

 

[pokiehl]

Emphasis mine, since you seem to have glazed over that part in your rush to take offense at my comment.

Not offended at all, calm down. We’re just talking about a videogame, dude. Not sure where you think I took it personally in any way.

And from the same post, just to drive home that I have much less objection to a naval militaristic Carthage as representative, here's another one:

Glad we can agree then

 

[Evie]

Mind you, I'd still think naval military *and* at least one or both of commercial/colonial would be even better. And give Carthage more diversity. But definitely, I can agree that naval military has a place in the game's take on Carthage.

Again, my point was never that we couldn't find a way to do Carthage separate from Phoenicia ; it was that Hannibal-land-military would not be a good representation of Carthage (1) and that I don't really see a need to separate Carthage from Phoenicia.

 

[pokiehl]

Sure; I should clarify that I certainly don't expect to ever see them in the same game. I was just saying what I'd like to see due to my personal interests. And if they did somehow end up together, it just felt screwy to me to have them both have a trade focus.

I am sure it's possible to think of an interesting trade mechanic for both of them separately, but in my hypothetical scenario here, it felt less redundant to give them different focuses.