I don't want to be too harsh here, but Carthage isn't changing. It's fine.
G
G
Carthage
- Thread starter Funak
- Start date
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 689
I would like to push back on this. What do you mean by fine? If you just mean balanced, then we’ve already said that balance is not the problem. It seems to me a bit presumptuous to say that a civ is fine when players are dissatisfied with it.
Players = 3-4 people? Carthage is designed to have a strong early start that can propel you into any number of strategies. Reducing that to allow for other effects just dulls the effect and turns Carthage into another trading civ. No other civ has as flexible a start as Carthage. These are solutions looking for a problem.
G
I fail to see how replacing the resource diversity mechanic with another mechanic that has to do with trade routes would eliminate the early game gameplay of Carthage. It would be just trading one trading aspect of it for another.
You just recently introduced a mechanic that seriously disrupted the latter half of Carthage's UA of intelligently choosing where to send trade routes in favor of sending trade routes to the furthest civ. Resource diversity barely has an impact anymore. You also reduced Carthage's uniqueness in its UB by effectively halving its contribution to it by buffing East India.
Honestly I don't understand how it's acceptable for a civilization to be allowed to be this flavorless after classical. None of the redesigned civs are like this.
P.S. I find the notion of "3-4" players amusing when this forum probably has like 10 active members at any given time. Seriously?
Mad Madigan
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2016
- Messages
- 403
Yes, each extra available trade route on top of what is available by default is a powerful boost in general yields and a massive boost in tourism output. You can't scale max # of trade routes to total # of cities because it then throws off the balance for map sizes larger or small than Standard. Plus, 1 extra trade route per 4 cities is way too good, even at Standard map size.
G has spoken, but I want to say again that I agree Carthage is "fine" as it is from a numbers balance perspective. It has a designated strategy in mind (expand early with your bonuses and ride the snowball through the rest of the game), but I am arguing that this intended design can be tweaked to make the Civ more enticing to human players without messing with its existing balance. I feel that the Civ is unusual in that its unique abilities, unit, and building provide almost nothing that makes a player want to adjust their strategy to suit this Civ once they've settled and expanded in the Ancient/Classical eras. The extra trade route and building yields the Cothon provides over the East India Company are minor in the long run, but that can be justified by balancing the Civ against its strong UA. However, the trade route component of the UA is so minor that it may well not even exist, but it's also the only part of the UA that matters any more once the player is done settling new cities. I can live with the Great Cothon being underwhelming, but I'd love to see the trade route component of the UA being changed to give Carthage players something to work with/towards in the late game. That's why I suggested the reduction in purchase costs based on the number of active trade routes, and I realize that such an addition would mean that something else about Carthage would need to be nerfed to balance out its overall power. I would suggest lowering the free gold on city settlement even further, maybe to the point that it is only 20-25% more gold than needed to invest in a city's first building (so that as the investment costs scale up as each new city is settled players can still use the gold to afford investing). This way players still get their free lighthouse (which is a huge early-game boost in and of itself for coastal cities) but they can only really rush-build a single building. This would reduce Carthage's ability to snowball early, but it would also make Progress less of an obvious choice for players that intend to be more aggressive with their settling and choose Authority instead. The reduction in costs from active trade routes would also support warmongers that need to gold-purchase units in the mid to late game.
More viable strategy choices leads to more fun!
G has spoken, but I want to say again that I agree Carthage is "fine" as it is from a numbers balance perspective. It has a designated strategy in mind (expand early with your bonuses and ride the snowball through the rest of the game), but I am arguing that this intended design can be tweaked to make the Civ more enticing to human players without messing with its existing balance. I feel that the Civ is unusual in that its unique abilities, unit, and building provide almost nothing that makes a player want to adjust their strategy to suit this Civ once they've settled and expanded in the Ancient/Classical eras. The extra trade route and building yields the Cothon provides over the East India Company are minor in the long run, but that can be justified by balancing the Civ against its strong UA. However, the trade route component of the UA is so minor that it may well not even exist, but it's also the only part of the UA that matters any more once the player is done settling new cities. I can live with the Great Cothon being underwhelming, but I'd love to see the trade route component of the UA being changed to give Carthage players something to work with/towards in the late game. That's why I suggested the reduction in purchase costs based on the number of active trade routes, and I realize that such an addition would mean that something else about Carthage would need to be nerfed to balance out its overall power. I would suggest lowering the free gold on city settlement even further, maybe to the point that it is only 20-25% more gold than needed to invest in a city's first building (so that as the investment costs scale up as each new city is settled players can still use the gold to afford investing). This way players still get their free lighthouse (which is a huge early-game boost in and of itself for coastal cities) but they can only really rush-build a single building. This would reduce Carthage's ability to snowball early, but it would also make Progress less of an obvious choice for players that intend to be more aggressive with their settling and choose Authority instead. The reduction in costs from active trade routes would also support warmongers that need to gold-purchase units in the mid to late game.
More viable strategy choices leads to more fun!
Txurce
Deity
Honestly I don't understand how it's acceptable for a civilization to be allowed to be this flavorless after classical. None of the redesigned civs are like this.
P.S. I find the notion of "3-4" players amusing when this forum probably has like 10 active members at any given time. Seriously?
You two are defining what it means to be arrogant, presumptuous blowhards.
I play Carthage a lot -- it's the only top-tier civ I use. As usual, your suggestions are well thought out and interesting. But they are complicated (costs based on routes) and arbitrary (I like the power of the early gold, and don't want to trade it). You are right that your suggestions would reduce Carthage's early snowballing... but they are about early snowballing.
This is unnecessarily hostile.
Txurce
Deity
As has been noted before, sarcasm is hostile. And your post is flooded with it.
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 689
... I’m sorry?
I fail to see how replacing the resource diversity mechanic with another mechanic that has to do with trade routes would eliminate the early game gameplay of Carthage. It would be just trading one trading aspect of it for another.
You just recently introduced a mechanic that seriously disrupted the latter half of Carthage's UA of intelligently choosing where to send trade routes in favor of sending trade routes to the furthest civ. Resource diversity barely has an impact anymore. You also reduced Carthage's uniqueness in its UB by effectively halving its contribution to it by buffing East India.
Honestly I don't understand how it's acceptable for a civilization to be allowed to be this flavorless after classical. None of the redesigned civs are like this.
P.S. I find the notion of "3-4" players amusing when this forum probably has like 10 active members at any given time. Seriously?
You're misinformed. We get tens of thousands of hits and downloads monthly. I had to move to MEGA because we were maxing out all other services. Ignoring the silent majority because you are vocal doesn't make you right.
Edit: the only reason Morocco was touched lately is that it was essentially untouched from vanilla civ. Carthage is already completely reworked, does very well in human/ai hands, and has a lot of interesting synergies and strategies. You are asking me to throw all of that out because it lacks 'flavor?' Not buying it.
Sounds like a perfect candidate for a modmod, though, I give you my fullest blessing and encouragement. Make Carthage what you want it to be!
G
Point me to the sarcasm so I can hastily dismantle that notion.
And yes I find it amusing when someone comments about the number of posters in a forum that barely has a comparatively small posting base.
I'm referring to the users that post not the users that play. I'm aware of the mod's popularity
And assuming that people that don't post aren't having an issue or don't agree isn't right. Most people just don't comment. I know I didn't until recently, and I've been using this blessed mod for years.
ElliotS
Warmonger
I suggest you make an unbiased strawpoll and place it in a separate thread in the main forum. As it is the % of people who care is unknown and a strawpoll lets people without accounts on the forums vote so we can get a decent representation.I'm referring to the users that post not the users that play. I'm aware of the mod's popularity
And assuming that people that don't post aren't having an issue is what's misguided. A lot of people just don't. I know I didn't until recently, and I've been using this blessed mod for years.
It's important to avoid poisoning the well if you want your poll to be taken seriously.
Or, counterpoint, when the primary mod manager and developer says 'no, that's way more work for a civ that I've already reworked, especially when we're feature-complete' you listen and accept.
G
With all due respect, you just made a few posts expressing disgruntlement about the trade route distance. I don't see you backing into a corner because not many people explicitly shared your opinion on the forum.
Or, counterpoint, when the primary mod manager and developer says 'no, that's way more work for a civ that I've already reworked, especially when we're feature-complete' you listen and accept.
G
You very recently added a few features (trade route distance penalty and East India trade route) that incidentally and quite uniquely put a dent in Carthage's own uniqueness.
Why can't that be acknowledged? Why can't it be ameliorated?
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 689
A poll would be a good idea. You can’t know what the majority thinks if you don’t ask.
I don’t have much stake in the discussion. It’s to be expected that not every civ appeals to every player. If the majority of people think Carthage is fine, and the numbers bear out, then it’s fine. Even if most people don’t like Carthage, “it’s too much work” is a perfectly valid reason not to change it. I just think that most of the points brought up against Carthage are valid, and want them to be heard for the sake of making this game the best it can be.
I don’t have much stake in the discussion. It’s to be expected that not every civ appeals to every player. If the majority of people think Carthage is fine, and the numbers bear out, then it’s fine. Even if most people don’t like Carthage, “it’s too much work” is a perfectly valid reason not to change it. I just think that most of the points brought up against Carthage are valid, and want them to be heard for the sake of making this game the best it can be.
OK I guess. It's all I care about too. I have no personal investment in Carthage's success. I just really love the game and appreciate all that Gazebo has done to it, and I find this one particular issue of concern.
Sorry for my harsh response.
