3UC/4UC for VP: Project Coordination Thread
- Thread starter Blue Ghost
- Start date
- Status
True, it’s a vanilla error. Very annoying, alas harmless.
But it can be fixed, i’ll post an sql for that once I get to my computer. It helps to have a clear log, to quickly spot new problems.
- I noticed that they are harmless so didn't care about them. But clear log would be a good thing.
- I want you guys to know that I made this Polder rework and there's one problem with this unique ability to stop enemy unit on its tile. When I click "m" on keyboard game suggest me some paths for my units and it clearly shows that I can go through Polder's tile. But then BAM! and unit stops and loses all moves. It's very big misunderstanding for player but also for AI. I wrote it in few lua lines, but if you know some other way to do it to also show paths correctly, I'm open for suggestions.
- Do you guys know some function how to change
Influence with city-state? I stucked here during Klepht changes.
Last edited:
Fix for annoying Invalid Reference on ArtDefine_Landmarks.LayoutHandler - "SPECIAL" does not exist in ArtDefine_LandmarkTypes
Code:
UPDATE ArtDefine_Landmarks
SET LayoutHandler = 'SNAPSHOT'
WHERE ImprovementType IN ('ART_DEF_IMPROVEMENT_MOAI_STATUES', 'ART_DEF_IMPROVEMENT_FEITORIA', 'ART_DEF_IMPROVEMENT_PONTOON_BRIDGE');
pineappledan
Deity
All we have for contemporary written accounts is the Roman and Greek sources, so while I agree that there is definitely bias, that bias is as much part of the history as anything else.
The numbers of children found in the graves would indicate the practice was rare, perhaps only accounting for 1 or 2 children in a given year. The tophets being as small and holding as few corpses as they do, often buried in jars with the remains of other commonly sacrificed animals, suggests that the tophets were NOT for children who died naturally. This was a popular theory which was debunked in the early 2010s. The common theory today is that the tophets were grave sites reserved only for the human sacrifices. In order to accommodate the children who died of natural causes, the tophets would be expected to be at least 50x larger.
To implement some sort of “in hard times” mechanic would be dangerous and abusable by the player, methinks. If it was tied to happiness then players could play hopscotch with unhappiness to trigger the benefit, and you would be punishing players for using the happiness mechanic as intended (ie, making it go up).
I had toyed with the idea of a bonus if the city were blockaded, but it didn't seem fun to have bonuses trigger based on the actions of another player
A nod to the Roman and Greek sources, who wrote that child sacrifices could be made as a sort of bargain for a boon from the gods.
The real reason is more mechanistic. The building needs to have some scaling aspect, as a 1st tech building. Any more than 1 culture on a building that early would ruin balance. I decided early on that making the faith game better for Carthage wouldn’t be a bad thing, but doubling their faith game a la Ethiopia was not in the cards. Carthage is mainly a gold and production civ
There’s also a hidden bonus in that the building has a very low HurryProduction modifier, so investing in the building is a good deal.
The -1 food because, hey, they be killin kids. Not a lot of them, but archaeological evidence shows that they were predominantly perfectly healthy children under 5 from the upper class.
The picture I selected was because:
- it is more dramatic to show the altar than the graves (and it's a shrine replacement)
- Contemporary pictures of the grave sites are dilapidated and aged, and the pictures should look contemporary
- Showing some headstones is not very descriptive and it doesn’t hint at the unique aspect of those grave sites: that they are the graves of human sacrifices
Last edited:
Maybe I didn't word my original post properly, but I wasn't denying that child sacrifice occured. The bit of text that I posted was the conclusion that it only happened during times of great stress, which is consistent with your statement that it happened a few times a year.
My issue is that you are basing an entire UB around this concept, and with the way VP (and vanilla) have handled the civilization traits and uniques, I'm genuinely confused why you think that what happened in Carthage is somehow unique and significant enough to warrant an actual building, built in every city... All ancient cultures practiced child sacrifice. Even the Bible has several examples of people going that way (Moses and Abraham's son being the huge examples). It was done in many Greek tales (such as Homer/Iliad). What's worse is that the balance appears to be unnecessarily unique too (a penalty of this manner is not present in any other UB) with an apparent implication that they traded their own children for money rather than when they needed to do it the most.
It just appears to be somewhat sensationalist in an otherwise brilliant mod that tries to bring out the flavors of the civilizations with a significant focus on what made them great as opposed to what they did when they suffered. We aren't making Shoshone/Iroquois reservation improvements. They didn't just kill kids left and right to get rich. The civpedia entry almost makes this disturbingly implied, based on Roman libel used to justify their brutal eradication of the Carthaginians.
All I'm suggesting is that you rework the bonuses and the flavor text in the civpedia to better reflect the reality rather than sensationalist propaganda. What I see now is the equivalent of giving Japan a kamikaze unit that kills itself to kill another unit.
----
I have to say that I do appreciate is bringing out the religious aspect of the Carthaginians which was actually quite significant for their time.
Carthage already has significant amount of gold throughput from instant lighthouses, connections, and resource diversity bonuses. I don't think adding another UB that brings even more gold is necessary.
Personally I think a focus on their highly developed agriculture might be the better way to go. Mago's treatise after all was translated into Latin and used throughout the Roman empire. It's ironic that the Romans are getting the agricultural improvement here lol
Perhaps an upgrade to the shrine/temple providing some sort of bonus to plantations and farms to account for this? Maybe a food and production bonus? Does any other civ do this? I don't think so. If you would prefer to keep a gold bonus, that would work too. This would build up on their imperialistic culture (that clashed with Rome), as it promotes some expansion to other continents to grab those precious resources (just like what happened IRL) and give boosts to resource diversity. It would also build up on the religious aspect (their religion was centered around prosperity and a lot of it was indeed agricultural). I think this would work yes?
You can even keep the name Tophet, as it was still a sacred site to the Carthaginians. Stelae would have been better, but that's already taken by Ethiopia.
If you would rather not go in this direction and want to stick with the Tophet for some reason, I would suggest scrapping the -1 food and scaling gold bonus. In return, make it so that the building provides faith, culture, and bonus attack/defense. This would synergize with Carthage's aggressive expansion, providing them some extra defense while they build their infrastructure without having to build a wall. The defense is justified in flavor by the sacrifice that would happen during a siege. Still a little on the nose and I would personally prefer to go with the option above, but it's better than the current iteration I think, both in flavor and actual gameplay synergy.
Last edited:
Rome is a civilization which gets a lot of free territory through the effect of its UA when conquering cities, but had nothing to exploit that territory more efficiently than other civs : by boosting nearby improvements and spawning new bonus resources, the Latifundia makes the Roman territory more and more wealthy during the Classical era, an era after which all that is left to Rome is what it acquired during this period, for no unique bonus will come help it against the growing threats at the border of the Empire. It also provide to the Roman player the opportunity to peacefully improve its economy if s/he wants to.
It is right to say that a lot of civilizations in history have performed better than Rome in the domain of agriculture, but few have practiced such form of "intensive" agriculture (through slavery) on so vast amounts of land. This is why Carthage, which had, like the Guaramantee in the same region and the same period, been the origin of major advancements in the domain of agriculture, won't benefit from bonus of this kind ingame (it already has more food and gold than most civilization in the early game thanks to the free lighthouse).
I like this idea of a defensive shrine a lot : it would provide to Carthage the ability to "forward settle" much more easily than most civilizations (the "colony in your face" spirit
), an ability crucial for a civilization which has no unique ways strenghten the terrain around its cities (except the early lighthouse, but this bonus doesn't last long) and is conditionned to research and colonize good coastal spots as quickly as possible.For the Sophet, I would like to suggest something : the current version of the UCivilian has an ability quite similar to what the Assyrian Siege tower has, and I think that, even though the name of the promotion brings me good memories, it should be changed from an offensive ability to a defensive one (the Sophet already has an offensive ability with its "ignore ZOC" aura). The Sophet were magistrats, administrators and military commanders at the same time : we could give them an ability increasing the defense of the city they are garrisonned in (I'm for a regeneration bonus for the city, but I don't know if it's doable). What do you think ?
Last edited:
Wouldn't you say that Carthage's benefits (Lighthouse and Gold) falls off pretty hard after a while though? Lighthouses come part of Pioneers I believe, and gold becomes pretty irrelevant pretty quickly especially for Carthage. They don't get any later boosts to their economies other than resource diversity at that point. So the argument you use for Rome also applies for Carthage. I do sometimes feel that Carthage is overly reliant on Progress to be anywhere relevant in the late game.
Still I do get the point that if we were to apply the bonus to shrine, it would basically be even more boosts to an arguably early game civ.. Would a temple replacement work better perhaps? It would also allow for some better balancing.
I like this idea of a defensive shrine a lot : it would provide to Carthage the ability to "forward settle" much more easily than most civilizations (the "colony in your face" spirit
To play devil's advocate (against it) though, I could argue that they already have a powerful naval unit in Quinquireme. Do they really need another buff to their expansion?
Again, I still prefer this to gold, but I still think that drawing on the Imperialism/Agricultural spirit by boosting Farms and Plantations would also work.
I agree. I think the spirit of the offensive nature is the infamous Alps strategy which plays into the zone of control theme. The rest could work the other bonus to a defensive one, as you would basically "station" them in cites.
However if we do this, wouldn't it be overkill with the defensive tophet?
Last edited:
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
Weird. I definitely see Carthage and Venice in the download. Are they showing up for everyone else?
pineappledan
Deity
You are right in saying that Carthage was not unique in having practiced human sacrifice. The practice was widespread, but most well-known in the ancient world through examples found in canaanite cultures (Phoenecian & Hebrew). Carthage is the only Canaanite culture in civ though.
Carthage is not so much unique in that human sacrifice existed, they are unique in the fact that human sacrifice remained as a mainstay of their religious life centuries after contemporary cultures had outgrown the practice. Phoenecia's closest cousins, the Hebrews, had moved away from the practice by the time of Solomon, more than 700 years before the fall of Carthage in 149 BC. In short, they aren't unique for having killed kids, they are unique for STILL killing kids centuries after everyone else had put that behind them.
There's also the fact that, frankly, the Roman and Greek accounts colour our perceptions of the Carthagianians, and that this series of games indulges in plenty of 'pop-history'. The fact that Dido, a mythical, and very likely fictitious person leads Carthage in Civ V is evidence enough of this
You might have to define what makes something unnecessarily unique, a slight, early game malus to growth in exchange for some rather noticeable boosts to faith, culture and gold is indeed unique. Where you lose me is in saying that's bad.
It also fits with Carthage's playstyle, which should be prioritizing settlers early, so they spend a considerable amount of time in city stagnation. The free lighthouse also more than compensates for the slight food reduction.
As I said, Roman and Greek propaganda are the only verifiable contemporary sources we have left. Recent archaeological evidence seems to point to the accuracy of those libelous claims more and more. I can tone down the civilopedia text though, sure. I specifically wanted to justify the inclusion of gold bonuses to the building though, which is why I used those Roman sources in the first place.
I will say this though. The Carthaginians don't need you to defend them. They're dead, unlike the Japanese of the Haudenosaunee. Discussing and depicting the more unsavoury parts of their history is not hurting anyone, nor is it, in my opinion, misinformation.
I boosted for the latifundia and the Sofa to be included because they are both references to widespread slavery as a cornerstone of those cultures. I don't think celebrating or educating on civs necessarily means we must engage in whitewashing.
India and Iroquois
I don't think making Carthage cities better defended works with their playstyle. They spread out, have lots of early boosts, and then they have to struggle with the fact that nothing in their kit helps them sustain or defend that empire. Adding defense to their cities would act against the core gameplay philosophy of this civ.
As for historicity, is it really better? I don't see how a tophet relates to a better fortified or protected city.
I am more in favour of scrapping that bonus entirely. The ZOC to units and the disembark/embark ability is more than enough to make the unit interesting and unique. I also don't think that the "flavour" of Hannibal at the Gates actually makes much sense. Hannibal patently did NOT take any cities, because he never was in a position to conduct a siege. Furthermore, he knew he never could take the Roman cities in a siege without more help from Carthage, which never came.
The suggestion of increasing defensive ability on cities hits 2 snags:
- Once again, it acts against Carthage's playstyle, where their point of vulnerability is specifically that their cities tend to be weak, overextended and indefensible. I think "shoring up" this aspect of the civ tamps down something that makes them interesting.
- The AI can't understand the benefit of garrisoning GPs in cities, so they wouldn't ever get to use such an ability. This is the same problem we had with that old Daimyo proposal
Last edited:
Let's be real they used Dido rather than Hannibal to provide more female leaders. Still, even if you want to argue that point, there's a difference in using a legendary figure and intentionally subscribing to the notion that the Carthaginians trade their children for money because that's exactly what's happening here when you justify subtracting 1 food then provide a gold bonus for prosperity
We know they engaged in some ritual sacrifice in times of great stress. Wouldn't you say that siege qualifies, which is where the bonus city defense would come into play?
It makes more sense than a sustained bonus to their gold income, which they really REALLY don't need. I think that's what bothers me as much as the flavor text. It's not that they continued the practice, but that they did it because they were greedy rather than desperate.
We know they engaged in some ritual sacrifice in times of great stress. Wouldn't you say that siege qualifies, which is where the bonus city defense would come into play?
It makes more sense than a sustained bonus to their gold income, which they really REALLY don't need. I think that's what bothers me as much as the flavor text. It's not that they continued the practice, but that they did it because they were greedy rather than desperate.
Last edited:
They are definitively showing up for me : I have begun a game with Carthage (and the correction files posted by pineappledan), and the UCs shows well.
However, some things to say about Morocco and Portugal : I have done some testing with the Corsair, and the "Razzia" promotion didn't work when pillaging TR or improvements (it worked well when killing units though) ; I did a full game with Portugal (Progress/Statecraft/Industry/Freedom => Diplomatic victory), and the "Age of discovery" promotion doesn't appear on naval units when the University of Coimbra is finished (the rest of the bonus of the UW works well). The Cacadores works well.
I agree with you on this : a general already provides a defensive bonus when garrissoned anyway. If the Sophet doesn't appear powerful enough in the future, then we could think about adding more bonus to the unit.
Whatever the idea you're trying to defend, please be more peaceful in your approach... It's not by adopting an inquisitorial tone that you can prove a point on a forum (in fact, in always damages your position, and not the opposite)... Please reformulate.
Last edited:
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
I'm kind of with Ziad on this one. Singling out human sacrifice as representative of Carthage's culture is somewhat disrespectful. It may be best to look into other options.
Oh dear, I'm sure I tested Morocco and Portugal. Guess I'll have to look at them again.
Oh dear, I'm sure I tested Morocco and Portugal. Guess I'll have to look at them again.
pineappledan
Deity
They probably did, but it means that the use of pop-history, even dipping into mythic history is not "out of bounds" as far as civ is concerned.
Well they obviously felt that "trading their children", as you say, was acceptable enough for some other divine boon.
You saying that they couldn't have rationalized the death of their children for safety and prosperity in their economic endeavors, though there is at least some, sources to suggest they did, libelous as it may be. Your argument is beginning to sound like so much pearl clutching to me.
If divine provenance could somehow make their walls taller, then I suppose? But there is nothing in the history of Carthage to actually suggest all the baby-butchering kept their cities from being razed to the ground.
The tophet wasn't my first pick, but honestly it was the only thing I could find even so much as a name for when looking for a building or improvement for.
I'd be fine with something to reflect their breakthroughs in agriculture, but I can't find a singular structure or organization to use to tack that on to, much less existing assets.
I'd be fine with some sort of barracks replacement to depict their (over)dependence on mercenaries. But I can't find anything attached to that other than the names of individuals or legislative bodies who paid for them.
What I did find, is that the widespread practice of child sacrifice in canaanite cultures forms the basis for judeo-christian beliefs about the afterlife, hell, and divine retribution and they continue to influence us to this very day. I even found neat artwork to go with it too.
Last edited:
v20 out.
I have one more issue in database.log file. This time it is lack of Chinese table. Once you helped me and it worked. Maybe one more advice?
- Please don't be mad if you find some (a lot of) bugs especially in Rome. It was real challenge and amount of aspects I needed to check was overwhelming. Good luck testers.
- I didn't rework Klepht because of problem I met (and described in earlier post).
- Few additional promotions reworked.
- Many balance changes and fixes.
- Next steps:
- probably England incorporation,
- more promotion reworked
- any balance changes and fixes I hope you quickly find
Spoiler v20 changelog :
Code:
[13428.363] no such table: Language_zh_CN
[13428.363] In Query - insert into Language_zh_CN('Tag', 'Text') values (?, ?);
[13428.363] In XMLSerializer while updating table Language_zh_CN from file Localization/IGE_ZH_CN.xml.
Last edited:
The point is that you are basing a unique building for Carthage on "some sources" on an issue that not only happened rarely, but also isn't really the defining feature of what makes their civilization great. It's basing a building on, ironically, the pearl clutching of other civilizations.
As opposed to baby-butchering somehow making them more prosperous?
Ok but don't we design uniques to account for that civilization's practices as opposed to how they impacted others?
I agree that their religion impacts us, which is why I am in favor of keeping that aspect. Just need to redirect it.
pineappledan
Deity
Disrespectful to who? 2000+ years dead culture? Should Lebensraum be removed as a policy in deterrence to the Germans? Should conquistadores be expunged in recognition of the genocide they inflicted?
I’ll remind you guys that encomendero was dropped, not because we thought it was mean to the millions of maya, Aztec, Inca, Tupi, and countless other cultures they massacred, but because we liked a UI better.
I hate to engage in whataboutism, but this is pretty strange
I think the impressions that a culture leaves behind are at least as valid, yes. For better or worse that is their mark on history
Whole Aztec Civ 5 flavor is based on human sacrifice. Why Carthage couldn't follow somehow similar pattern?
- Status
