[GS] Phoenicia Uniques Predictions

[Zaarin]

Although the Greeks and Phoenicians were city-states, neither had city states which were major regional nfluencers.

I find this statement a little puzzling. Even before Alexander forcibly Hellenized the known world, the Greeks spread their influence throughout the Mediterranean, not just in Greece but also in Anatolia, the Mediterranean islands, Italy, and even as far as Spain; the Phoenicians did likewise. If you mean no one Greek city-state dominated the Balkans, that's true. That's not true for Phoenicia, however, where Tyre and Sidon had the lion's share of the influence in the coastal Levant.

 

[Ziad]

neither had city states which were major regional nfluencers.

What a weird thing to say. Herodotus himself said you could scarcely talk about anything without mentioning the Phoenicians. They pretty much controlled the Mediterranean for the longest time.

 

[pgm123]

What a weird thing to say. Herodotus himself said you could scarcely talk about anything without mentioning the Phoenicians.

I wonder if Phoenician Gold meant Regional Powers. I don't know if I'd agree with that--the Delian League was arguably a regional power, albeit a relatively small one. Carthage was as well. If it means influencer, then it's just false. The influence of the Phoenicians on the Greeks alone is enough. I don't know if we can say with certainty that any one state was paramount (though, it would almost certainly be Tyre)

 

[Ziad]

I'd say both Tyre and Sidon qualify but Tyre has the special honor of having the legendary Carthage as its colony.

Gebal (Byblos) to a lesser extent if you look further back. Their influence on Egypt alone is enough.

 

[pgm123]

I'd say both Tyre and Sidon qualify but Tyre has the special honor of having the legendary Carthage as its colony.

Gebal (Byblos) to a lesser extent if you look further back.

Tyre is also the most referenced by the Judeans, iirc.

 

[bite]

What I like about this thread is that I am learning a lot about the Phoenicians

 

[Ziad]

Phoneticians

Not sure if typo or linguistics joke

But yeah I appreciate everyone's input so far! The discussion has been great.

 

[bite]

Not sure if typo or linguistics joke

But yeah I appreciate everyone's input so far!

A tired auto correct

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I wonder if Phoenician Gold meant Regional Powers. I don't know if I'd agree with that--the Delian League was arguably a regional power, albeit a relatively small one. Carthage was as well. If it means influencer, then it's just false. The influence of the Phoenicians on the Greeks alone is enough. I don't know if we can say with certainty that any one state was paramount (though, it would almost certainly be Tyre)

What I mean is that generally the individual city states influenced each other more than they influenced neighboring powers, and usually their impact is viewed collectively rather than individually.

Yes, Athens and Sparta led Greek leagues, but the city states themselves didn't really hold land outside of Greece, establish colonies, make alliances, conquer. Their cultural legacy bled out but ultimately they never became superpowers outside of Greece. And even as we remember Greece, it was strongest not when the city states were. divided, but when they coalesced into Greece.

As for Byblos and Tyre, they were important to the Phoenician empire, but didn't do much on their own separate of the Phoenician empire. They were capitals, not city states going off doing their own thing, part and parcel of greater Phoenicia. The blobbing with Carthage kind of emphasizes that they were are all parts of a greater polity more than they were individual powers.

By contrast, just Venice or Genoa alone established the same scope of colonization as Phoenicia, completely separate of the other Italian city states and indeed each other. Their accomplishments weren't limited within the larger Italian identity, they were minipowers existing and competing alongside other kingdoms. It is much easier to treat them like individual civs because they a) were more strongly individualistic and b) never really represented either a league or a collection of colonies or any sort of cohesive community.

At the very least, even if we were generous and said that Athens and Sparta (and Corinth and Thebes?) were as influential outside of Greece as the Italian city states (or Byblos, Tyre, and Carthage)...they didn't have as many as Italy did and by the fourth city state you're already struggling to find another city to found with the same degree of power and identity. Whereas Venice, Genoa, Florence, and the Papal States were each HUGE powers, and Bologna, Milan, Naples, and Sardinia were only slightly less so.

The difference is that Italy at its strongest stillswasn't Italy. It was Florence, Venice, Genoa, etc. That is how much more influential those city states were individually than Greece or Phoenicia.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And yet the rest of the Maori is very consistent with the other GS civs. The marae replaces a building that it doesn't share much in common with, much like the bazaar and thermal baths, acting more as a replacement rather than a strict upgrade. They have two UIs, alongside Inca and Sweden, while Ottomans and Hungary get two UUs. And they have a chopping debuff much like Mali's production nerf, Canada's inability to wage emergency wars, and Sweden's granting of Nobel competitions as a handicap to other civs. The ocean start is new and perhaps the most novel thing in the expack, but it only affects the first few turns and above all else is not complicated. City State civs are on a whole new level and I guarantee that the other civs in expack 3 will be equally complicated.

So, the Maori get a novel start, Mali, Canada and Sweden get 'negatives' in their Uniques, where before we had Starts that were all the same and any Negatives were considered Anathema in a Civ design, but you don't think this means the Developers might be starting the stretch the design concepts? I disagree on the evidence.

I am aware of this. But this has no bearing on what the devs have developed or what they planned for GS. They may look to V for ideas, and obviously a CS civ is likely given their go at Venice in V. But the successes and failures of modders on the current game do not influence official content.

I don't think they do, either, but they should, or should at least the Mod and Fan community should be a source of Starting Points for the developers to work from. Any development team in any field that thinks all the good ideas are going to come from strictly within the team is almost self-evidently Incompetent: no team has a monopoly on good design and development ideas, especially for a development project as complex and multi-faceted as a Civ game.

Although the Greeks and Phoenicians were city-states, neither had city states which were major regional nfluencers. They mostly kept to themselves, barring the occasional league formation, which is why Athens and Sparta make great subdivisions of the Greek civ. By contrast, both Venice and Genoa each had their own pseudo-Phoenician colonial empire across the Mediterranean. Sardinia and Naples were a thing for a while. The Papal States were a political powerhouse. And Florence did some things too. The reason why Italy is by and far much more a CS civ is because each of several CSs were do important preunifucation that they each could become their own civ. This is absolutely not true of Phoenicia, if only as a consequence of not surviving until a broader European awareness emerged.

One of the main reasons we remember any of the Italian City States is because of the Renaissance - which was a rediscovery of Greek themes and writings in art and science (Aristotle's writings, for one, became the 'bible' of Renaissance science), some of them filtered through and modified by Rome. A Classical Education today does not mean Renaissance Italian, it means Greek and Roman.

Genoa and Venice had colonies or 'trading centers/posts' all over the Mediterranean and Black Seas, but the Greeks had colonies from Spain to Egypt to the mouth of the Don River and Phoenician cities had them on the Atlantic coast as well. The combined total of Greek and Phoenician colonies far exceeded the totals from renaissance Italy, and included Phoenician dominance of trade and colonization in Spain and Greek settling of cities all over southern Italy and half of Sicily (and the Phoencians had settled the other half of Sicily).The Italian City States 'invented' Banking - but the Greeks and Phoenicians had letters of credit, a form of shipping insurance, and pioneered long distance sea trade from the Black Sea to the western end of the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

And, glad you mentioned the Papal States, who for all their 'political' influence didn't even dominate the Italian Peninsula, and whose influence was based primarily on religion. A religion that was evangelized originally by St Paul, or Saul of Tarsus, a Hellenized Jew whose own intellect was honed in Stoic Greek philosophy and schooling and who wrote using an alphabet invented in Phoenicia and modified in Greece. How's that for 'regional influence'?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

So, the Maori get a novel start, Mali, Canada and Sweden get 'negatives' in their Uniques, where before we had Starts that were all the same and any Negatives were considered Anathema in a Civ design, but you don't think this means the Developers might be starting the stretch the design concepts? I disagree on the evidence.



I don't think they do, either, but they should, or should at least the Mod and Fan community should be a source of Starting Points for the developers to work from. Any development team in any field that thinks all the good ideas are going to come from strictly within the team is almost self-evidently Incompetent: no team has a monopoly on good design and development ideas, especially for a development project as complex and multi-faceted as a Civ game.



One of the main reasons we remember any of the Italian City States is because of the Renaissance - which was a rediscovery of Greek themes and writings in art and science (Aristotle's writings, for one, became the 'bible' of Renaissance science), some of them filtered through and modified by Rome. A Classical Education today does not mean Renaissance Italian, it means Greek and Roman.

Genoa and Venice had colonies or 'trading centers/posts' all over the Mediterranean and Black Seas, but the Greeks had colonies from Spain to Egypt to the mouth of the Don River and Phoenician cities had them on the Atlantic coast as well. The combined total of Greek and Phoenician colonies far exceeded the totals from renaissance Italy, and included Phoenician dominance of trade and colonization in Spain and Greek settling of cities all over southern Italy and half of Sicily (and the Phoencians had settled the other half of Sicily).The Italian City States 'invented' Banking - but the Greeks and Phoenicians had letters of credit, a form of shipping insurance, and pioneered long distance sea trade from the Black Sea to the western end of the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

And, glad you mentioned the Papal States, who for all their 'political' influence didn't even dominate the Italian Peninsula, and whose influence was based primarily on religion. A religion that was evangelized originally by St Paul, or Saul of Tarsus, a Hellenized Jew whose own intellect was honed in Stoic Greek philosophy and schooling and who wrote using an alphabet invented in Phoenicia and modified in Greece. How's that for 'regional influence'?

I feel like you are not only completely missing my point, but taking this argument in a totally hyperbolic direction.

No one is saying the Greeks or Phoenicians did not have a major impact on history. But you yourself haven't pointed out once in your entire rant an accomplishment that was uniquely Athenian or Tyrian. It was a Greek or Phoenician landmark. Historically we do not attribute as much to individual Greek or Phoenician city states as we do to Italian city states. And that's not because we are minimizing anyone; it's merely that the difference in political structure and individual impact was that stark.

In fact I would argue it is best to represent Italy in this way compared to Greece and Phoenicia. Because Greece and Phoenicia collectively were superpowers. "Italy," if and when it existed, was almost always exceptionally weak, in no small part due to its political disunity. Certainly the parts were worth more than the sum of the parts.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I would love to see Phoenicia main theme to be focused on good manufacturing and trade.
Example:
Phoenicians are able to produce three unique trade goods: Tyrian purple, glassware, and cedar timber
trade goods are produced in a special Unique Improvement Phoenician manufacture. You can build only one Phoenician manufacture per city and it must be adjacent to a City Center or a Cothon.
If you have working Fishing Boat in a city with Phoenician manufacture or Phoenician manufacture is adjacent to a sea title you grain Tyrian purple in a city
If you have working Lumber Mill in a city with Phoenician manufacture or Phoenician manufacture is adjacent to an unimproved forest title you grain cedar timber in a city
If you have working Quarry in a city with Phoenician manufacture or Phoenician manufacture is adjacent to an unimproved coastline title you grain glassware in a city
Each produced trade good gives extra gold and amenities in a city and additional gold from trade routes from this city.

 

[Ziad]

It seems unique luxuries is a popular belief.

I think it's more likely to see them if Phoenicia is indeed limited to coastal settling. Unique luxuries would make the value of city settlement be less reliant on natural luxuries in the area and more on its strategic position for trade and defense.

 

[pgm123]

I feel like you are not only completely missing my point, but taking this argument in a totally hyperbolic direction.

No one is saying the Greeks or Phoenicians did not have a major impact on history. But you yourself haven't pointed out once in your entire rant an accomplishment that was uniquely Athenian or Tyrian. It was a Greek or Phoenician landmark. Historically we do not attribute as much to individual Greek or Phoenician city states as we do to Italian city states. And that's not because we are minimizing anyone; it's merely that the difference in political structure and individual impact was that stark.

In fact I would argue it is best to represent Italy in this way compared to Greece and Phoenicia. Because Greece and Phoenicia collectively were superpowers. "Italy," if and when it existed, was almost always exceptionally weak, in no small part due to its political disunity. Certainly the parts were worth more than the sum of the parts.

I think the main difference in how we think about these is time. Italian city states are more recent in the memory and the actions of individual polities is better attested. If you were alive at the time, you would speak of the foreign policy of Tyre or Athens and not Phoenicia and Greece. Athens had an empire (the Delian League). It wasn't a Greek Empire with Athens as one of the capitals.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

The reason, I think, for which Italy would make a much more better city-state-civ than Phoenicia or Greece, is because, through the eurocentrist scope, Italy city-states had much more specific "flavour".
I'm not expert and what I say is probably false, but I have some History knowledge and probably the same kind of view of the world of Firaxis (being an european educated man with interest in obscure cultures). Phoenician and Greek city-states were powerful and very influential, for sure, but I didn't feel each city had a specific "flavour" except very few. Athens could be seen as cultural and Sparta as militarist, but pretty much every other cities were mercantile or militarist (in the Civ VI sense). Same for Phoenicia: Byblos, Tyre, Sidon and even Carthage were oligarchic mercantile republics/kingdoms with some militaristic sides. In fact, each city-State was all-rounder enough to be independent strong by themselves.
In Italy (powerhouse of cutthroat politics and hypocrit diplomacy), each city was more specific. Genoa and Venice were litterally plutocracies (mercantile city-states), Rome was a theocracy (religious), Florence dominated culture (cultural) even if its trade was famous, the university of Bologna was known in all Europe (scientific), Naples manage to be a conqueror (militaristic) and the artisans of Milan had their own specificities (industrial). If Firaxis is going down the road of City-State-Civ with each city being more or less independent with a city-State flavour, Italy would fit more because each city-State had its own "color".

IDK if I'm understood, it's kind of fuzzy to explain it in a different language than your own.

 

[Ziad]

If the argument is that Italian city states were more specialized then I am inclined to agree.

By the way I wonder if they'll use the original Phoenician city names, their Hellenized versions, English versions, or their current Lebanese versions.

Phoenician: Gebal (Byblos), Tsur (Tyre), Zidon (Sidon), Aynuk (Arwad), Qart Hadasht (Carthage)
Hellenized: Byblos, Tyros, Sidon, Aradus, Carthago
English: Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, Arwad, Carthage
Current: Jbeil/Byblos, Sour, Saida, Arwad, Carthaga

I'm leaning towards their Hellenized versions. Their standard says #1 but they might go for a hybrid possibly or just English.

I'm fine with whatever as long as Byblos isn't Gibelet. What an ugly word.

 

[Siptah]

By the way I wonder if they'll use the original Phoenician city names, their Hellenized versions, English versions, or their current Lebanese versions.

Phoenician: Gebal (Byblos), Tsur (Tyre), Zidon (Sidon), Aynuk (Arwad), Qart Hadasht (Carthage)
Hellenized: Byblos, Tyros, Sidon, Aradus, Carthago
English: Byblos, Tyre, Sidon, Arwad, Carthage
Current: Jbeil/Byblos, Sour, Saida, Arwad, Carthaga

I'm leaning towards the Hellenized versions.

Probably a mix But don't they just use english names for almost all civs (not for Egypt though for example)? They don't use greek names for Greece, right?

 

[Ziad]

True. Probably the English ones then.

 

[Alexadamz]

Well, Carthage is already written in its English version, as the CS before GS.

 

[Siptah]

Well, Carthage is already written in its English version, as the CS before GS.

I think all CS have been in English all the time. Some civs (Egypt, Arabia, Nubia, Norway, Macedonia, maybe more) do have names in other languages though.

I don‘t know how well this would be received with the general playerbase, but I hope civ VII presents leader names and cities in the language of the civ, when possible. Using the standard transliteration for non-western script would do, even if it might look funny for some civs. Or at least make this an option (and also original script). Pharaoh had the option to toggle between classical and Egyptian names in the 90s, shouldn‘t be too hard to do. And dynamic names seems a popular feature in EUIV.