Carthage

[Ziad]

Yea I find that bonus relatively negligible.

 

[pineappledan]

I don’t really like that bonus, since it’s just a repeat of the UA. I would rather see a bigger, 100%-200% diversity mod on a Wonder, and the Cothon be given something else

 

[CrazyG]

I don’t really like that bonus, since it’s just a repeat of the UA. I would rather see a bigger, 100%-200% diversity mod on a Wonder, and the Cothon be given something else

Wait, the Great Cothon and the UA both have the double trade diversity?

My last game as Carthage with the UA, the Great Cothon, and Colossus my naval trade routes still generated pathetic gold and ended up using internal routes or trading with CS (solely for the science/culture) the entire game.

 

[Legen]

The Great Cothon has an additive +25% modifier; if your modifier from a trade route from that city is 200% before the Great Cothon, it becomes 225% after building it. The UA is multiplicative; if the modifier would be 75% for a generic civ, it is 150% for Carthage.

I'm not sure of the details behind the resource diversity modifier. From what I know (and I need to review it), here is how it works:

• The resource modifier is capped at +100% for a generic civ; Carthage's UA increases the cap to 200%, on top of multiplying the modifier by 2.
• The Great Cothon further increases the cap to 225%, on top of increasing the modifier by an additive 25%.
• The gold increases in the trade route tooltip seem to apply in the order they appear. If you have a base value, then a multiplier (like the resource fiversity), then an addition, the addition happens after the multiplication modifier.
• If it is indeed in the order it appears in the tooltip, it means the resource diversity modifier is one of the first ones to apply, giving it limited effect on the final gold output of the trade route if other additive effects (e.g. influence level) are present.

 

[Legen]

Can somebody explain how this works

I added more detailed info on the link that @CrazyG posted (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/whats-up-with-trade-route-gold.648935/).

International trade routes generate a base 1 gold, plus 5% of the gold output of each of the two cities, and the resource diversity adds a modifier on top of that. Each strategic and luxury resource connected on the city increases the modifier by 25% (50% if you have a monopoly of that resource) for your city and decreases by the same amount for the other city. The final modifier can be negative for your city; if your city ends with a -50% modifier, the above gold amount is reduced by 50%; if the city ends with +100% instead, it is increased by 100%.

Carthage's UA takes that final modifier and doubles it if it is positive, halves it if negative. A -50% final modifier becomes -25% for Carthage. Moreover, the Great Cothon adds a +25%; if it was, say -25%, it becomes 0% (a.k.a. no increase or decrease).

I'm pretty sure you sometimes get an extra gold from trade routes, maybe two extra. From what I can tell the resource diversity modifier tends to be extremely small even in a situation where the tooltips suggest it would be large.

I can tell you that playing as Carthage with the Great Cothon and Colossus in my capital, the external trade routes still weren't very notable in their gold output and I ended up using pure ITR until later on when a sent a few to city states, for the science and culture (the gold was still pathetic).

Yea I find that bonus relatively negligible.

The reason is partially from that small gold amount the modifier is applied. Base 1 gold doesn't compete with the food/production of an early internal trade route, and the 5% gold output from both cities means it takes 20 gpt on a city to increase the gold from trade routes by 1 before modifiers. Most cities need to reach Medieval Era to reach 20 gpt. It only starts to be noticeable when the city's gpt is in the hundreds; if your city generates 100 gpt (not including gold from trade routes), 5% of that is 5 , and having your resource modifier increased from +100% to + 200% by Carthage's UA means an extra 6 gold on that trade route (don't forget that base 1 gold). Great Cothon's +25% means another 1.5 gold in this case.

Thing is, most bonuses and modifiers in the game do not interact with resource diversity. Industry's +5 gold on trade routes doesn't afaik, nor does Economic Union's +6 gold. I think only Statecraft's +25% Yields from trade routes, plus the modifiers from river (if land route) and being a sea trade route interact with it.

Two notable factors that reduced the benefits of Carthage's extra resource diversity are that sea trade routes no longer have the gold income doubled (it's increased by 20% or 25% now) and that proximity between the two cities incurs in a penalty.

 

[Ziad]

And with the nerfs to Progress and early settling, I'm finding my games to be more feast or famine. I'd like to see some more normalization.

 

[pineappledan]

I’m really counting on some nerds to lighthouse in the next patch. Carthage is so lopsided, now that lighthouses do a little bit of everything now.

I think a free harbour would be a nice, thematic boost to the cotton, because right now, the cotton only unlocks earlier, gives the global lighthouse/harbour boost, and has 1 more free TR than the base EIC. It’s a very minimal, inconsequential UNW.

 

[Ziad]

Well I brought up my (minor) grievances in another thread towards the thematic issue with Carthage ever since the free building was changed from the Harbor (aka Cothon) to Lighthouse for gameplay balance reasons. I wasn't going to bring it here but I saw a notification of a new post here from pineappledan and after reading it I thought maybe I'd bring it up.

If we compare buildings:

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 we can see, ever since the change we've seen iterations and balancing towards the two buildings, and the Harbor (and the Lighthouse) are a lot more powerful than their vanilla counterparts.

When I think of what the Cothon was, the Harbor benefits just feel right. It's basically the Civ6 Cothon with tile food instead of housing.

If we were to theoretically change the free Lighthouse back to the Harbor, the effective changes would be:

Buffs

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

Nerfs

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

There are substantially more buffs than nerfs, so if this change were to be implemented, power would have to be shifted elsewhere.

We do however need to note that two of the benefits are tied to trade routes. The harbor is balanced with the assumption that you'd have quite a few trade routes already at that point (around 3-4). This blunts the effective power curve of the civ til they get the Great Cothon, which suddenly becomes a lot more valuable for the civ to really turn on these Harbors and get those powerful, long-range sea trade routes that again are thematically appropriate for the civilization.
---

A few patches ago I made a minor complaint about how Spain and Carthage have overlapping bonuses with on city founding. Perhaps we can scrap that bonus, change it to provide free on coastal cities, and change the Lighthouse to the Harbor instead.

This may actually effectively nerf the civilization as the on founding is a massive draw. But we have to consider the early stacking of Harbor and Lighthouse in those cities. If that's apparently not good enough, we can in turn look into buffing the Great Cothon to make it a lot more impressive than it is now. Maybe throw in another one or two trade routes.

This change would really push the civ towards an emphasis on Sea Trade Routes rather than just raw generation, complementing the other half of the UA. Another side benefit is making the Great Lighthouse a bit less of a "Feels Bad" for a civilization that supposedly would want to build it.

Perhaps we can experiment with this change for one patch and see how it feels.

Or not.

 

[Ziad]

I'm seeing people talking about how Carthage is somewhat OP right now and I'm inclined to agree, mostly cause you're inundated with gold in the early game and most of the bonuses are stacked.

But I'd also argue that all the power is concentrated in the early game, making the post-early game rush a lot more... generic. I can't think of another civ that drops as hard in unique ability scaling as Carthage. They rely wholly on the launching pad.

Even Spain getting on found/conquest is always relevant cause you get those cities being useful more quickly when you found them with Conqs. has much higher value in the early game and then falls off harder than anything else because of all the gold you'll generate from coastal cities.

I think my proposed change to drop the founding and returning to the free Harbor (Cothon!) would help alleviate this issue, as you get less immediate from sea tiles. You end up getting some nice scaling towards the mid-game as they can make use of those boosted trade routes earlier than other civs. Frankly I find the concept of having stronger/longer trade routes from early Harbors (Cothons!) a lot more historical than getting strong generation from founding/sea tiles.

And I'll repeat that as Carthage it's also REALLY weird that you outright avoid researching Sailing cause you don't need the Lighthouses (GL being partly wasted is another issue... ) despite it also having a trade route increase.

It's a little feelycraft (I'm confident but I could be wrong) but getting Lighthouses on top after Sailing won't make up for the early game gold losses fast enough to matter. We can arguably change the UA to just provide city connections (or not!) to cities on top of the trade route diversity bonus they have.

Between Harbors (Cothons), city connections, and a renewed focus on trade routes, we'd restore the historical flavor while simultaneously spreading their power throughout the eras.

 

[Melchizedek]

Is there a good reason to spread the power throughout the ages? Carthage feels OP early and then lackluster later....which I think is just fine. The current UA is quite strong, while the UB is rather weak. Fair balance can take various forms. Is Carthage OP as a whole in a way that gives it a much greater chance to win the game, or is it just tilted in an interesting way toward early expansion? I kind of like my current Carthage game.

 

[Ziad]

Well it would be nice if you could at least feel some semblance of playing your civilization beyond the Classical Era. I don't think any other civilization suffers from as much lack of character as Carthage does after the initial rush.

It's a very strong rush and can catapult them to victory, as I have done many times, but I also feel Carthage hasn't kept up with the imaginative changes to other civilizations and the new systems that have come out (such as happiness) over the years.

The UB is very weak. The UA doesn't scale well at all. It's all about the early game and after that there's nothing that says "I am playing Carthage". Compare that to Rome which continues to feel impactful with its focus on capital infrastructure and a bonus that is always relevant.

I feel a renewed emphasis on Sea Trade Routes and a return to free Harbors over too much gold in the early game would restore some flavor while balancing them out somewhat. You'd still have all the advantages of rapid expansion, but you'd also feel like you're Carthage well past Classical.

 

[Drakle]

Well it would be nice if you could at least feel some semblance of playing your civilization beyond the Classical Era. I don't think any other civilization suffers from as much lack of character as Carthage does after the initial rush.

It's a very strong rush and can catapult them to victory, as I have done many times, but I also feel Carthage hasn't kept up with the imaginative changes to other civilizations and the new systems that have come out (such as happiness) over the years.

The UB is very weak. The UA doesn't scale well at all. It's all about the early game and after that there's nothing that says "I am playing Carthage". Compare that to Rome which continues to feel impactful with its focus on capital infrastructure and a bonus that is always relevant.

I feel a renewed emphasis on Sea Trade Routes and a return to free Harbors over too much gold in the early game would restore some flavor while balancing them out somewhat. You'd still have all the advantages of rapid expansion, but you'd also feel like you're Carthage well past Classical.

You didn't say anything about the UU, which is a powerful Melee ship, and likely high-level ones at that, from Exploration EXP. If you start fighting navally in the classic, it is fairly easy to have some real city killers.

 

[pineappledan]

You can make harbours give city connections again. It’s just a Boolean value that you can switch back on. There shouldn’t be any issues with 2 buildings giving city connections, so if the instant connection is important, but people wanted harbours, there is a very easy way to split that baby.

With all of the absurd bonuses stacked on lighthouses at this point: military supply, base food yield, 1 to all sea tiles, giving a free harbour at turn 1 would actually be a nerf. Your trade routes would be worth less gold because of the range penalty, and your instant tourism bonus would be non-existent. The main advantage would be you could buy cargo ships, caravels, galleasses, and explorers as soon as you unlocked them, and you would have the long-term benefit of saving 2 on building maintenance rather than 1

The gold on settle could be reduced to a round 100 from where it is now. In exchange, I would add some power to the cothon, because Carthage’s UNW is basically 1 more trade route and an early unlock. That’s it.

 

[Ziad]

You can make harbours give city connections again. It’s just a Boolean value that you can switch back on. There shouldn’t be any issues with 2 buildings giving city connections, so if the instant connection is important, but people wanted harbours, there is a very easy way to split that baby.

With all of the absurd bonuses stacked on lighthouses at this point: military supply, base food yield, 1 to all sea tiles, giving a free harbour at turn 1 would actually be a nerf. Your trade routes would be worth less gold because of the range penalty, and your instant tourism bonus would be non-existent. The main advantage would be you could buy cargo ships, caravels, galleasses, and explorers as soon as you unlocked them, and you would have the long-term benefit of saving 2 on building maintenance rather than 1

The gold on settle could be reduced to a round 100 from where it is now. In exchange, I would add some power to the cothon, because Carthage’s UNW is basically 1 more trade route and an early unlock. That’s it.

Well yeah it's not as simple as a switch. I discuss the various buffs/nerfs that a switch would lead to a few posts above. You would mostly just lose the gold on water tiles without resources and city connections, but I did not consider the trade route being range being potentially a penalty. My original point is that the bonuses it provides would be more thematic (not to mention the building itself), and the power would be shifted from simply settling a couple of cities in the early game to something that is less snowbally but also scales better.

The UA could just outright be automatically connecting coastal cities (on top of the trade route diversity bonus), and then the UB could be in turn buffed to make up for the loss of gold on settle. + gold on sea tiles til you get Lighthouses. I would think making it provide more trade routes could be thematic... maybe even something creative with some scaling on the number you can field.

Honestly I just find this iteration to be much more appropriate as you restore the original intent (Cothons and trade route bonuses)..., not to mention you'd want to go for Sailing as Carthage rather than avoid it.... I mean it has a trade route count increase but it's arguably a waste to research first in the Classical cause you don't need Lighthouses and Great Lighthouse is partially wasted in the crucial early game. It's so ... odd.

 

[Ziad]

You didn't say anything about the UU, which is a powerful Melee ship, and likely high-level ones at that, from Exploration EXP. If you start fighting navally in the classic, it is fairly easy to have some real city killers.

I mean I could but that would make my point even more anyway. Their UU is ancient unit, so while strong it's another notch in their early game rush that dissipates as soon as you move past mid-Classical.

 

[pineappledan]

There was only ever 1 cothon, and it was at Carthage. The gold and free harbour are very historically relevant and thematic. With the connection moved to both harbour and lighthouse, and a reduced gold on settle, you could smooth out Carthage’s power curve and make some room for the cothon to have some more substantial bonuses. Some possibilities:

• +% production for All naval units (domain modifier, like military academy or military base)
• Global bonus XP for naval units
• Unique global promotion for naval units
• +2 vision on trade units

Some other possibilities (new code)

• A second copy of any naval unit you build or buy appears near the city
• Naval units within the borders of this city heal faster

 

[Ziad]

That's not a claim you can make. There was only one "Grand" Cothon that we know of in Carthage, but there are multiple Cothons being excavated throughout the Mediterranean such as Mtw and Kty.... and that's all we know of from archeology let alone what actually existed.

Regardless, I like your ideas.

 

[Drakle]

Why does Carthage need to double down on naval bonuses? I think its UU is enough of a naval bonus. I mean historically, they still ended up losing navally.

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


Also one thing. Carthage could instead get a Cavarnsary for inland cities. While Carthage was primarily naval, they did some overland trade with caravans. The historical reason isn't really the crux, more just that Carthage just does nowhere if inland. Which makes sense if there are so many naval bonuses. A Cavarnsary isn't really that much help, but a free building is a free building. And the Great Cothon, +2 Culture could just apply to the Free building, so Carthage get a guaranteed 2 culture even if inland. Otherwise, the UW is a bit lacklustre.

 

[pineappledan]

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.
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.
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.
The UNW that we have was a massive port and drydock, so it makes sense to give bonuses that are pertinent to that

Other possible bonuses could be related to Carthage's massive export of food. In the Roman era and later, the Tunisian coast continues to be an extremely productive wine and olive region, and exports lots of agricultural products. Mago, a Carthaginian noble, wrote one of the largest and most influential manuals on Mediterranean agriculture.

 

[Drakle]

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.
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.
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.
The UNW that we have was a massive port and drydock, so it makes sense to give bonuses that are pertinent to that

Other possible bonuses could be related to Carthage's massive export of food. In the Roman era and later, the Tunisian coast continues to be an extremely productive wine and olive region, and exports lots of agricultural products. Mago, a Carthaginian noble, wrote one of the largest and most influential manuals on Mediterranean agriculture.

As I said with the Cavarnsary, it isn't really for historical reasons, though there is something. It is for game balance reasons. Carthage was second last on my Great Plains game, and it is easy to see it is because they barely had a UA, and had no UU. Just the UB 3rd and 4th which isn't really that much of a boost. And on another game with limited coastline near their spawn, the AI Carthage got a couple of cities on the coast and then settled inland in a major way. All doing so without a bonus, but a gold on settlement. A niche Classic Trade building and their UNW helping all cities just makes them a bit more consistent. I like all random civs when playing, but seeing civs like Carthage just utterly flounder, is a waste.

And there is no 'natural caravansary'. Just like there are not any natural lighthouses. And Carthage Cothon style harbours didn't just appear out of nowhere. It took building upon natural terrain. It is a signal of being trade and connection focused as a civ. And Carthage did have territories that extended significantly inland, even if their empire was primarily naval and some of that control was client based. They weren't say Venice, who had nearly all their territories directly coastal or near enough.

But this is Civ5. It is historically inspired, not historical.

(also your sig is broken. 3rd and 4th Unique Components links to the following text, the Civ Tweaks).

As for the mercenary, while the use of them in a major way is nowhere near unique for civs, Carthage did very well in keeping them as a cohesive army.

Anyway, I think the Quinquereme is a solid enough UU, to represent their naval prowess. Particularly since if they get a free harbour, they would also get +15% production towards Naval Units, and so can pump out even more of them. Those two bonuses are enough.