[DLL] (8-NS) 4UC Carthage - Asamu instead of Tophet

[KlHannibal2]

You could move the UA "Owned Coastal cities receive a free Lighthouse" to Asamu and give them something else on the UA instead.

Something like "Receive a Free Cargo Ship whenever you gain a new Trade Route"

Or some yields based on number of controlled luxuries. Like 1 culture per luxury. If it's too strong, put it on the Cothon. It would be nice to have some benefit from HAVING luxuries, not just from GAINING them.

 

[azum4roll]

It would be nice to have some benefit from HAVING luxuries

That's on Netherlands.

 

[Pipiskus]

I feel like your proposal just seeks to eliminate UA's value. What is the point of gaining Gold from Luxuries if all gold would have to go on buying the settler, smth that other civs can build in multiple quantities in different cities at once. Make it atleast able to cross oceans (or/and buy more than just one at a time), maybe that would justify this unit somehow, though then it would sound like smth Polynesia ought to have. This is rather questionable UU addition even though UB is not that great

 

[Rosete]

I like the concept, but the gold cost is way too high. In the early game gold is so scared, between buying warriors/workers/rush wonders/tiles, now you have to somehow fit a settler in there too. If anything, the asamu will make Carthage expand much slower than other civ. I often made 3 settlers in the capital. With the proposed asamu, that would cost me 1200g for the first 3!

I think it would be better if the asamu costs 200g, scaling with era, with no city scaling. The happiness system is there to curb over expansion.

 

[KlHannibal2]

That's on Netherlands.

Netherlands has a bonus for each unique luxury, scaling. Carthage could have a bonus for each individual luxury, not scaling.

 

[KlHannibal2]

I feel like your proposal just seeks to eliminate UA's value. What is the point of gaining Gold from Luxuries if all gold would have to go on buying the settler, smth that other civs can build in multiple quantities in different cities at once. Make it atleast able to cross oceans (or/and buy more than just one at a time), maybe that would justify this unit somehow, though then it would sound like smth Polynesia ought to have. This is rather questionable UU addition even though UB is not that great

I also wondered if most or all of the bonus money would have to go into settlers. Would it be possible to make them buildable as well as purchaseable? That would keep the decision-making of where to put your gold intact.

 

[rkkn]

when settlers are costing me 600 gold I'll be wishing I had a normal settler, even if it does give a free lighthouse. And then it keeps going up. This is a UC that becomes worse than its replacement.

If it's switched to 300+100n, then it starts out worse instead of becoming worse. The first settler will be very slow since gold takes a long time to get early on. The UA gives gold, but you need a worker for that, and that's often purchased with gold.

 

[Hinin]

Finding the good cost balance to ensure the unit synergizes with the Carthaginian kit and not ends up worse than a normal Settler is paramount. I'll think about the different ideas today.

 

[CppMaster]

How about if regular settlers could also be produced? Then there is no downside to this UU.

 

[pineappledan]

And here I was about to make a suggestion for the Iroquois thread to address the fact that they are the only Civ with three UUs lol But with this line of reasoning, I can accept that now.

A unique great person is not a unique unit in my books.

The only exception is GGeneral and GAdmirals, because they augment combat directly by being placed on a battlefield, and they are generated directly via combat. Calling a unique engineer or diplomat a UU, especially if it has no direct combat bonuses is a category error, imo.

 

[CppMaster]

A unique great person is not a unique unit in my books.

The only exception is GGeneral and GAdmirals, because they augment combat directly by being placed on a battlefield, and they are generated directly via combat. Calling a unique engineer or diplomat a UU, especially if it has no direct combat bonuses is a category error, imo.

So UU has to be militaristic?

 

[pineappledan]

A UGP is either a delivery method for a unique improvement or an instant yield. It has nothing else that would define a UU. It has no Combat strength, it does not gain experience or get generated via combat, it cannot pillage, deal damage through any method, or perform any function on a battlefield. Also they do not obsolete like most UUs.

As an example, I think most people consider the Oppidum to unambiguously not be a valid component to fill a UU slot. If I had given celts a unique GP that built the oppidum and has a bulb, would that really make it a UU? I don’t see how that is consistent.

 

[CppMaster]

Well, yeah, because Oppidum is UI. What about Great Merchant of Venice? It's clearly unique and a unit. Also some unique units are unique not because of combat, but because of economy, like unique ships of Portugal iirc. So it's not really a hard rule that UU has to be militaristic even if in most cases is.

 

[pineappledan]

MoV is a unique great person. Not a UU as far as I am concerned, but it’s Venice and he’s weird.

Also some unique units are unique not because of combat, but because of economy, like unique ships of Portugal iirc.

If that’s all it takes to not be a military UU then any yields on kill ability would also be disqualifying (eg. Pictish warrior)

The nau has CS, gets XP, can kill units, pillage, obsoletes, etc etc. it is a UU. You could conceivably field an army of Naus, or Bandeirantes and get some sort of result. There is no military result from marching a merchant of Venice into a war zone.

 

[CppMaster]

MoV is a unique great person. Not a UU as far as I am concerned, but it’s Venice and he’s weird.

Ah, ok, this is what you mean. Then yeah, it makes sense. However, I'd treat Great Generals and Great Admirals as great people too, because that's what they are. Besides, what meaningful difference does it makes when it comes to unique components?

 

[Rekk]

Great Generals and Great Admirals

participate in combat.

 

[pineappledan]

And generated primarily via combat.

4UC is formulated in such a way that it adds 1 UU and 1 not-UU
- A UU is defined as anything capable in participating directly in combat by either doing damage directly or augmenting your army via auras etc.
- The other slot is defined by being literally anything else. A UB, a UNW and a UI obviously are incapable of participating in combat (with the possible exception of UIs via AOE damage, but they are still not selectable). A civilian unit like a worker, settler, diplomat, or great person that is incapable of participating in combat would also occupy one of these not-UU slots.

 

[CppMaster]

And generated primarily via combat.

4UC is formulated in such a way that it adds 1 UU and 1 not-UU
- A UU is defined as anything capable in participating directly in combat by either doing damage directly or augmenting your army via auras etc.
- The other slot is defined by being literally anything else. A UB, a UNW and a UI obviously are incapable of participating in combat (with the possible exception of UIs via AOE damage, but they are still not selectable). A civilian unit like a worker, settler, diplomat, or great person that is incapable of participating in combat would also occupy one of these not-UU slots.

Then why the distinction is UU and not-UU instead of militaristic and non-militaristic? It just creates confusion, that a unique unit is not actually UU, lol.

 

[pineappledan]

Because an ikanda could be considered a militaristic bonus even though it's a UB, and I'm sorry but that is a very dumb dichotomy to use as a guideline.

 

[CppMaster]

Because an ikanda could be considered a militaristic bonus even though it's a UB, and I'm sorry but that is a very dumb dichotomy to use as a guideline.

Icanda is a militaristic bonus, that's the whole point. Swedish UA is a militaristic bonus and it's not a unit also. That's why it's dumb to assume that unit=militaristic and non-unit=non-militaristic.