Carthage

[Ziad]

These are the building props from a previous post I made.

Lighthouse

• +1 and +1 from Sea tiles
  
• +4 to Internal Trade Routes
• + 3
  
• + 1
• City Connection

Harbor

• +1 from Sea Tiles
• +1 and +1 from Sea resources
• + 2 and +50% range to Sea Trade Routes
• + 5
• + 2
• +15% towards Naval Units
• Tourism from Sea Trade Route completion

As I indicated in that post, the tourism bonus is almost irrelevant but otherwise it has quite a lot of nice and thematic bonuses for Carthage between naval unit production and trade route bonuses. You lost city connections and some gold on water tiles but otherwise it is a strict upgrade especially when you consider that you can get Lighthouses at Sailing for both.

The Great Cothon would already be buffed by +3 production activating immediately on coastal cities, so I don't think you'd need much in the way of buffing the building itself.

An additional trade route or two is good, or even a scaling trade route count component to really promote expansion but that's probably too much to ask.

Can make the UA no longer give gold and instead provide coastal city connections... or not and just tune Carthage accordingly. Won't hurt to decouple it from Progress a bit.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Because Carthage was a thalassocracy, and they didn't control territory that wasn't on the coast.
Phoenicians made new colonies mainly based on the presence and depth of a natural harbour, and access to fresh water. They didn't check for the presence of a natural Caravansary.

True, very true but not because of their preference but it was just the most efficient and accessible way to have control, to establish colonies and to transport goods and people as they were a maritime trade empire. But this necessity gave them their culture, their power and what we associate with them till now. Of course they eventually they did expanded inland to control half of the Iberian Peninsula. It was absolutely the same case with Greece (no inland holdings) and they also mostly lived from maritime trade around Asia Minor, Greece, Sicily, Italia, Black Sea and we don't make them double down on water. Map of Greek colonies and city-states maritime empire in reference to Carthaginian ones.
Of course natural caravansaries do exist, the same with natural harbors and natural lighthouses (so to speak, not directly of course). Ancient Empires thrived on that and it was the only thing they could expand and sea was a free highway. The natural power of Rhodes. Power of the Rhine in German and Dutch industrial and commercial power, Rotterdam is to this day the busiest and most important port of Europe, and Low Countries with Antwerp always had at least one of most important commercial ports in Europe from 13th century. The same with location of cities along the Silk Road that guarded for example mountain passages. The same with Caribbean for Early Modern Age, then some colonial cities and holdings only established as stopping posts for anval or land trade routes and railways, or military bases. The same with America's main thoroughfare before railways, Mississippi River. The same with former naval and commercial power of New York, it it the most extensive natural estuary in the world.

Even though they lost to the Romans, they were still considered the superior shipmakers and sailors. Generally, the better seamen prefer ramming, while the inferior navy opts for boarding. It just so happened that boarding was the stronger strategy overall, and heavily favoured the Romans. Know one could have known at the time that Roman marines' skill at hand-to-hand combat outweighed the Carthaginian's superior rowing, sailing, and navigation for winning a naval war.

Yeah, it's commonly told at military academies that we're inferior in naval warfare, while being superior in the land warfare (and numbers for production and troops) so they had just figured out to make naval warfare a land one. It worked.

Something to do with its mercenary/client-state troops could be done. Hannibal won his great victories in large part with non-Carthage troops.

They had 1 division of Phoenician/Carthaginian soldiers (the sacred band), and the rest were sailors. As you say, the Phoenicians employed local mercenaries for everything else.

I think you do not take into account the nature of ancient states. There was no direct centralization of power or effective means of exercising unity or control over vast territories so all those ancient empires were functioning more like a central capital or province which it had direct control of, and other regions which functioned more like puppets or city-states, not annexed and fully legally, economically, or socially integrated territories. It was not only the Carthaginians but most of ancient nations that had not direct unified, standing army (before late Rome and Martian reforms) and wielded only some native troops, the rest being allies who had they autonomy. It was the same in Rome, the same in Greece or Macedon's holdings and, of course, Alexander's army, the same in Persia and later Hellenistic Diadochi empires. Rome functioned the same as Carthage with alliances, treaties and occupations of other territories and cities around the Italian Peninsula, some of which switched to Carthage side like Capua. Roman Army were also mostly composed of those allied troops and Roman state. The same with Roman state, different constituencies provided different artisan's products, taxes, harvests, and of course troops during wartime and allegiance. Definitely Carthage did not had only one division of land forces though, though as with contribution of Eternal City, it remained small contingent of troops amid the masses of levies from allies and directly controlled rural territories. Alexander's army? Some Macedon core and other main Greece allied city-states, the vast majority (increasing towards the end of his conquests) other Asian Minor Greek allies, levies from conquered Persian lands, mercenaries.

 

[Ziad]

I mean if the concern is about a boost to trade routes, Harbors are basically caravansaries for the sea so it works either way.

If the issue is that they are still about coastal settlement, I personally think that's fine. That sort of asymmetrical gameplay is what makes it fun to begin with. My only issue with them is just how much flavor and intrinsic power they lack after Classical, and how much of a hit their theme has taken over time.

 

[pineappledan]

@Ziad
Once again, not to sound like a broken record, but Changing Spain would help Carthage in the flavor department. Spain’s sins are far greater than Carthage’s

@Drakle
complaining that Carthage is bad on Great Plains map is insane. Using such non-standard map settings is not a reasonable basis for criticism. Is your next game going to be to Turn off City states so you can complain about Austria?

EDIT: also, @Ziad, your lighthouse/harbor posts are inaccurate. The latest version removed defense from both and gave harbours +150hp

 

[Ziad]

Huh

Oh you're responding to Drakle.

 

[Cokolwiek]

complaining that Carthage is bad on Great Plains map is insane. Using such non-standard map settings is not a reasonable basis for criticism. Is your next game going to be to Turn off City states so you can complain about Austria?

Amen to that. Game is balanced around standard speed, standard, standard number of civs and city-states, continents, and it's tenuous already. Any reconfiguration to other settings would require tons of balance changes in abilities, policies, buildings, not only Carthage.
On pangeas game is largely playable but some things are off already like India's religion seem to be imbalanced due to pressure boost, and warmongering brutally favored, not to mention imbalance in naval versus land unique units.

And still, Carthage is definitely strong on pangeas and absolutely don't hurt for any buff. However I could see a point in free lighthouse if coastal or caravansary if landlocked city. I agree with pineappledan that Spain's sins are far greater than Carthage. Hey, they know it too, they patented inquisition themselves.

 

[Ziad]

I do agree that Carthage is strong. I play them after all. Strength isn't the issue here, although some argue that they are broken.

Carthage is just too frontloaded. I don't think any other civilization has that paradigm, and in fact VP had gone great lengths to make civilizations less one-dimensional in that regard. After the Classical Era there is almost nothing that says "I'm playing Carthage". It's just one trade route and +3 prod on Seaports. Gold on settlement quickly becomes irrelevant, and all the nerfs to expansion cost has made their design even weaker.

Right now Carthage's path is to just expand as fast as possible, but then post-Classical they become a generic civilization that would make vanilla Civ5 blush.

Even civs that have no visual uniques til later in the game (such as Germany) still have a UA that makes you feel like you're playing Germany. There's no part of Carthage's kit that is similar.

And all of this is on top of just how much of a thematic hit they took when they went from Harbors to Lighthouses. It works, but it's like moving Egypt's bonus to production on buildings rather than wonders. It's also strong and has a builder feel, but you just changed what their civilization is themed on.

I just think that since people have said they need to be nerfed, this is a good opportunity to reassess them and normalize their gameplay paradigm to be a bit less feast or famine while also restoring some of the themes. That's all.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Carthage is just too frontloaded. I don't think any other civilization has that paradigm, and in fact VP had gone great lengths to make civilizations less one-dimensional in that regard. After the Classical Era there is almost nothing that says "I'm playing Carthage".

Celts, Songhai, also Greece, Inca, and Aztecs to large extent.
There's a reason those civilizations are designed as this, as we don't have anything historical to draw from that could constitute midgame or lategame bonuses, so we buffed their initial ones that gives their earlygame a miles more flavor than Germany. And as even mediocre bonus early yields trample extreme strong late game yields I think we achieved balance in this. Of course I would like to see properly balanced and incorporated third and fourth component in the mod, but I don't think that we have a problem with balance on either mechanics nor thematic surface between early game and late game factions. If you want something that says "I'm playing Carthage" thematically pass Classical Era, get yourself conquered by Rome.

If we change their strong bonuses to something less powerful but lasting more I wouldn't oppose that and that could work. But what do you exactly propose? It should have alter their ability, as we don't have any historical warrancy for touching their unit and building. I don't buy that change of removing gold and giving free coastal connections anyway. I think we could add something either on faith (Baal's worship, golden statues of horned deities, child sacrifice and so on make recognizable cultural heritage of Carthage) or trade routes or luxes trading (maritime empire, more significant than one or two added) or bonuses for entering new era (just a generic thing we only have with Poland and would be relevant all the time).

 

[Ziad]

I get where you're coming from but it's simply not true in terms of implementation.

Celts have their pantheon effect and religious isolation for the whole game. Greece has city state benefits and instant yields for the whole game. Inca have scaling values on mountains. Aztecs have yields on kills and golden ages on war victory for the whole game.

Carthage has literally nothing but the trade route diversity modifier which might as well not exist and an on settle bonus that scales far more poorly than anything else we just listed. They are by far and large a vanilla civilization after the Classical Era.

They arguably had the unique privilege of crossing mountains in Vanilla.

 

[Cokolwiek]

A couple of afterthoughts:

I don't buy your response. Plus three religion in every city is as much only earlygame important as bonus gold from city founding. Religious isolation is really nothing special as they don't generate pressure. Celts either will build their potential early game, or lose. Exactly the same as Carthage.
Greece's city-state benefits are laughable. There's a reason why Carthage is one of the top factions for both AI and human players, while Greece always lags behind.
Aztecs don't have UB or UU more relevant than Carthage ones, while comparably powerful UA (in my opinion worse). Inca the same, even worse. Both are worse factions than Carthage is.
I don't see a reason for decoupling Carthage from Progress. Progress is a rather weak policy right now (though difficulty level affects that greatly) and Carthage is GREAT (MAGA level) delayed authority civilization. Much better for authority than progress. Especially if you have quite a coastal room for yourself, grab a Terracotta, and war only starting in medieval or renaissance. It is one of the best warmongering faction.
From thematic point of view Carthage has definitely more in line with tradition (city-state, governed from one capital) or authority (expansion, expansion, expansion). Progress may seem as aligned with Phoenician colonies but after all it is authority which represents desire for rapid expansion. And progress represents infrastructure and cultural assimilation which Carthaginians cared little beside their great capital as they were ethnocentric guys (which was one of the reasons Rome was winning with them on cultural and demographic level, which made its way to military superiority).
From historical point of view current Morocco unique ability is the most accurate for Carthage. Far more than for Morocco.
Pineappledan's additional components mods add perfectly balanced and historically themed things to Carthage, I've just checked this.

 

[Ziad]

My argument is mostly centered on theme so I suppose we agree on that front. I actually agree with you in that Progress being best for Carthage is also weird due to their cultural alignments.

I agree on Pineapple's mod it has done wonders for making me enjoy Carthage even more, and it even adds a scaling component despite it also being another notch on the early game. But at least now you can exploit that massive gold generation for scaling culture. You also get bonus XP for the whole game. It's fun.

As for your other points, I'm not alluding that other civilizations are more powerful. I'm just saying they have a long-lasting legacy til the Information Era. Celts faith on founding is arguably weak in scaling as you said but their pantheons surely are not for example. I'm not sure what level you play on as well but I find the other benefits to be pretty strong and relevant throughout the game, but I suppose that's an argument for another topic.

 

[Cokolwiek]

I actually agree with you in that Progress being best for Carthage is also weird due to their cultural alignments.

I don't think that progress is the best for Carthage. It's decent but on deity progress is the worst policy probably unless the stars align perfectly (well, peaceful progress is, when you war it becomes better than tradition). It's better for Carthage than for other factions, but Carthage has intrinsic synergy with development-focused authority. Progress being the strongest for them is a misconception, the same with Celts. How many games recently have you played with them with tradition or authority? I think it might be fun. I may do a photojournal. Trying to be tradition Carthage on deity. Statecraft would be obvious middle-game policy for the trade empire theme, but Carthage with both tradition and statecraft for role-playing might be a little too much to win this. Maybe artistry and cultural shot? We'll see.
I don't play that mod, I think it's broken. And it's not PAD's guilt, he did a great job. It adds just so many bonus yields and powerspikes from units changes to be balanced without meticulous control from big G. I don't know if he wants to balance and integrate it after we have golden version, that would be great. But current state is too wild.
I generally agree with you, they could see some smaller but lasting bonus. I don't like the Great Cothon though. I don't like wonders as uniques at all.

 

[pineappledan]

I don't think that progress is the best for Carthage. It's decent but on deity progress is the worst policy probably unless the stars align perfectly (well, peaceful progress is, when you war it becomes better than tradition). It's better for Carthage than for other factions, but Carthage has intrinsic synergy with development-focused authority. Progress being the strongest for them is a misconception, the same with Celts. How many games recently have you played with them with tradition or authority? I think it might be fun. I may do a photojournal. Trying to be tradition Carthage on deity. Statecraft would be obvious middle-game policy for the trade empire theme, but Carthage with both tradition and statecraft for role-playing might be a little too much to win this. Maybe artistry and cultural shot? We'll see.
I don't play that mod, I think it's broken. And it's not PAD's guilt, he did a great job. It adds just so many bonus yields and powerspikes from units changes to be balanced without meticulous control from big G. I don't know if he wants to balance and integrate it after we have golden version, that would be great. But current state is too wild.
I generally agree with you, they could see some smaller but lasting bonus. I don't like the Great Cothon though. I don't like wonders as uniques at all.

First, I would stress that 4UC isn't, strictly speaking, my mod. I would guess that I did maybe 15% of the work on it; I'm just active on the forum is all.
Second, I update 4UC roughly as frequently as VP does. I make updates with balance in mind all the time, and am receptive to balance criticisms, so I'm disappointed to see that work disregarded like that.

FWIW, I think progress is a good fit for Carthage, and I would dispute this claim that they were staunchly traditionalist. The government of Carthage republican by any definition, were far less absolutist than many contemporary cultures and kingdoms. While not purely democratic, Carthage had blended aspects of monarchy, oligarchy/aristocracy, and direct democracy with checks and balances and divided power for various government functions. Those institutions rose and fell in their relative power to each other, but several Greek writers (including Aristotle) praised the Carthaginian system and how it balanced centralized power against tyranny. While Phoenician citizenship was rooted in founding Phoenician heritage, belonging to an allied tribe, client state, or Punic colony held considerable societal clout, and the Carthaginians were very integrationist with their place names and cultural practices. The science and gold focus of progress reflects Phoenician/Carthaginian identity as well; they are credited with various major technological breakthroughs. The democratic, republican, experimental, and multiethnic nature of Carthage's empire were at various times more pronounced than Greek or Roman counterparts.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Second, I update 4UC roughly as frequently as VP does. I make updates with balance in mind all the time, and am receptive to balance criticisms, so I'm disappointed to see that work disregarded like that.

Don't take it personal. It just changes too much for me to discuss deity balance with other players for example or for my deity photojournals to be relevant. So that's why I don't use it. I honestly think it's really good, it just collapses under its own scope. Also, I think it meddles much less on normal difficulties than deity, on which any bonuses to the AIs are scaling out of control.

FWIW, I think progress is a good fit for Carthage, and I would dispute this claim that they were staunchly traditionalist. The government of Carthage republican by any definition, were far less absolutist than many contemporary cultures and kingdoms. While not purely democratic, Carthage had blended aspects of monarchy, oligarchy/aristocracy, and direct democracy with checks and balances and divided power for various government functions. Those institutions rose and fell in their relative power to each other, but several Greek writers (including Aristotle) praised the Carthaginian system and how it balanced centralized power against tyranny. While Phoenician citizenship was rooted in founding Phoenician heritage, belonging to an allied tribe, client state, or Punic colony held considerable societal clout, and the Carthaginians were very integrationist with their place names and cultural practices. The science and gold focus of progress reflects Phoenician/Carthaginian identity as well; they are credited with various major technological breakthroughs. The democratic, republican, experimental, and multiethnic nature of Carthage's empire were at various times more pronounced than Greek or Roman counterparts.

I would dispute that in turn. They had republican government, yes. But who did that government represent? The ruling oligarchy and elite of only one city? Most likely. Even if it encompassed representation of all men in Carthage itself, it would still be just ethnically close as possible for a plethora of nations living outside of the metropolis. Such an empire aligns itself more with authority because Iberians, Africans, others under Carthaginian rule had no say and Carthage used their resources to advance interest of only itself, it didn't see any value in assimilation (but my argument was mainly technical for authority, in terms of game-mechanics) and especially tradition. It's a city-state that made trading empire much like Venice. And this cultural exclusiveness is also much more pronounced in tradition, even the name implies that, than in inclusive-themed progress (which America would be the most obvious example, at least for the European immigrants, and science and commerce-driven). Progress would be a better thematic fit for... Rome! Republic for half of its history? Focused on infrastructure and development, science more than arts (in which Romans accepted Greece superiority)? Roman roads, aqueducts, arenas, courthouses, military bases (of which towns developed) were built not only in central city or native parts (like in Carthage) but also colonies and allied cities. With large foreign populations that were given Roman citizenship and land in exchange for military service for the Senate and People of Rome after Martian reforms? That's cultural, economical, societal, and political assimilation in one! Mass-land grants for poorer citizens? Check. Public offices available for many social classes? Check.
Also massive crucifixions and economical system based on spoils from war and enslaving whole territories and cities? Check. But many of ancient nations were found of that, so most of them warrant authority.

 

[Drakle]

Old UA

Phoenician Heritage
+125 Goldwhen founding Cities, scaling with Era.

All owned Coastal Cities receive a free Lighthouse.

The Trade Route Resource Diversity modifier is either doubled if the value is positive or halved if negative.

New UA

Okay, so free Harbor that provides city connections sounds pretty good.

The Trade route stuff is fine, I guess. Just generally a bonus that works away under the hood, without taking much real notice of. I can't really say how much if a impact it has.

Well I think the gold on settle, is somewhat boring and means a steep drop off in terms of bonus. Instead I propose a different idea. Instant gold yield upon first connecting a luxury (and maybe also strategic) resource, and also upon obtaining a monopoly. Resources from city states count for instant gold yield, but trading with civs does not.

So this instead grants instant gold bonuses, in a more spread out fashion throughout the game. More so if you keep expanding, either territorially or diplomatically. But even if you stay small, you get you nearby resources, your monopoly and the strategic resources as they unlock in tech.

Now historically, Tyre and Carthage were involved in a lot of trading monopoly on the Medditerrian, so it fits historically.

And it keeps the same general idea for their UA, without going into big later changes.

I think you do not take into account the nature of ancient states. There was no direct centralization of power or effective means of exercising unity or control over vast territories so all those ancient empires were functioning more like a central capital or province which it had direct control of, and other regions which functioned more like puppets or city-states, not annexed and fully legally, economically, or socially integrated territories. It was not only the Carthaginians but most of ancient nations that had not direct unified, standing army (before late Rome and Martian reforms) and wielded only some native troops, the rest being allies who had they autonomy. It was the same in Rome, the same in Greece or Macedon's holdings and, of course, Alexander's army, the same in Persia and later Hellenistic Diadochi empires. Rome functioned the same as Carthage with alliances, treaties and occupations of other territories and cities around the Italian Peninsula, some of which switched to Carthage side like Capua. Roman Army were also mostly composed of those allied troops and Roman state. The same with Roman state, different constituencies provided different artisan's products, taxes, harvests, and of course troops during wartime and allegiance. Definitely Carthage did not had only one division of land forces though, though as with contribution of Eternal City, it remained small contingent of troops amid the masses of levies from allies and directly controlled rural territories. Alexander's army? Some Macedon core and other main Greece allied city-states, the vast majority (increasing towards the end of his conquests) other Asian Minor Greek allies, levies from conquered Persian lands, mercenaries.

My point was that Carthage maintained a extremely diverse army, in terms of both culture and fighting styles, which was still effective. Rome on the other hand using them as a example, had it allies either follow the Roman model in terms of infantry, or just cover their military gaps in doctrine, such as cavalry. Rome was more 1 Roman legion, 1 auxiliary formation in general.


Back to the Cavarnsary. My point about the map, was a edge case one. But this is basically a less dumb version of justifying the base Civ5 Indonesia UA. Hey Indonesia was a bunch of islands, so anything that isn't is just ahistorical. And if you don't like that, than just don't play them or have them be a AI on all these maps. (Which means I need to pick AIs and can't allow some randomness). Having a Cavarnsary for inland cities still makes them absolutely worse than more coastal ones. But it makes the weakness just a tad less, and makes them more functional if they roll a bad spawn on maps, with coastline. Like being forced inland, on the other game I mentioned. Which was the main point.

 

[Cokolwiek]

This thread is sponsored by the free likes from Ziad. Help him build Carthage-like trade empire of likes, enlist today for crossing the Alps with Hannibal.

 

[Ziad]

I like what you all have to contribute to this discussion so far even if I disagree with some points. They're not free!

 

[Legen]

So, what I see people pointing lately are the following:

• Great Cothon is a weak UB.
  
• Carthage's uniques are frontloaded and don't scale well after Classical.
• Sailing is an undesirable tech due to Carthage already having free lighthouses.
  • Great Lighthouse is also unattractive due to the free lighthouse.

First, Great Cothon gives 2 extra trade routes, not one. And I'd argue that the strength of the UB is less tied to what it does and more to the Currency tech, which competes with Classical techs that unlock more desirable wonders. I think all that this UB needs to feel powerful is to move it to an even earlier tech (like Sailing) so that +2 culture on lighthouses is felt by the player.

Second, I need to verify how well the UA actually scales. Thing is, the base gold from trade routes was buffed in a patch to scale with era, which in turn means that the extra resource diversity modifier is also scaling. In theory, that part of the UA should be worth an extra 4-6 gpt per trade route by Renaissance, and 7-10 gpt per trade route by Modern. Before distance penalty, anyways. My experience with Carthage after that patch was always that I'd be making considerably more gold than other civs regardless of the era.

Sailing indeed feels like a weak tech as Carthage, as well as the Great Lighthouse. It is, however, the tech that unlocks cargo ships. I think moving the Great Cothon to Sailing and making it allow gold purchase of Cargo Ships (even if by having a free Harbor in the city) would be enough to make this tech desirable.

I don't really think Carthage is as frontloaded as it used to be. After the settler change to consume population, Carthage's ability to settle slowed down considerably; meanwhile, the UA was strengthened by the buff on trade route base gold.

 

[pineappledan]

First, Great Cothon gives 2 extra trade routes, not one

EIC gives 1 extra Trade Route. So Cothon gives 1 additional TR from what every other civ gives.

I think all that this UB needs to feel powerful is to move it to an even earlier tech (like Sailing)

So, to fix the problem with frontloading, you want to frontload the civ even more?
Also, you want to give Carthage 4 free TRs at the same tech every other civ gets their 2nd?

Sailing indeed feels like a weak tech as Carthage, as well as the Great Lighthouse. It is, however, the tech that unlocks cargo ships. I think moving the Great Cothon to Sailing and making it allow gold purchase of Cargo Ships (even if by having a free Harbor in the city) would be enough to make this tech desirable.

It's also that their unique trireme is unlocked earlier too, so the building AND the unit unlock are both moved off that tech for Carthage.

I think you're making an even stronger argument for Carthage getting free Harbors than @Ziad did. Free harbors would preserve the integrity of the Sailing tech, they would be able to purchase cargo ships at sailing, and we can preserve the Great Cothon's current tech position which helps pull Carthage's power spike through classical

 

[Ziad]

Hey if someone can make a better argument than I did, I'm all for it