[GS] Phoenicia Uniques Predictions

[PhoenicianGold]

Again, Carthage and Athens were but one highly influential city state. And perhaps in the past, Carthage and Venice were considered powerful enough to be their own civ.

But VI is a different beast. It is representing cultures rather than empires. Carthage is now part of Phoenicia. Greece is now part of Athens. And if Italy is in the game, it will be Italy, not Venice.

But whereas Phoenicia had but one highly powerful city state to merit the blobbing with a Dido leader. And Greece had two major city states that historically were the focal points of its many leagues, making for a very elegant two leader dichotomy. It would be exceedingly difficult to represent Italy with only one or two leaders/polities.

Geographically, I guess you could do Lombardy and Two Sardinias and cover most of it. But that would be to the complete ignorance of everything that makes Italy relevant. No Venice. No Florence. No Papal States. Just two underwhelming periods in Italian history. The problem only gets worse with a single leader like Umberto.

The fact is that Italy at its most relevant wasn't a unified nation. And unlike Greece and Phoenicia which are easily represented as a holistic culture, choosing one Italian city state over another feels disappointing no matter how you slice it. An Italy civ with Venice and Florence leaders without Genoa or Milan or Rome representation feels incomplete. And a modern Italian kingdom feels like it misses the point entirely. Whereas a Greece led by Athens and Sparta still feels like it mostly hits the idea without sacrificing too much.

I still think you are giving Greece and Phoenicia more credit as city states than the game design necessitates. Spain doesn't need to be Castile, Aragon, etc because a single leader works. We don't mind that the heptarchy is not represented because England spent a good deal of time as a unified culture. Same with Germany and France.
I grant that Phoenicia has room for a second Tyrian leader to emphasize two periods of growth in its history and its influence in both the east and west, I just do not see the mechanical/flavorful problems present in a consolidated Phoenicia that would plague a consolidated Italy. Phoenicia can get by within the current level of complexity. Italy would need more work and the city state idea seems to be the direction it would lean.

 

[Phrozen]

My apologies: our last posts apparently 'crossed' last night. I had not realized that your argument was based on the Political control and influence of the individual Italian city states, while I was arguing largely the cultural, scientific, and economic impact of the Phoenician and Greek city states.
Again, my apologies for mis-understanding your points.

However, that doesn't make the argument for a Greek/Phoenician 'city state' mechanism any less valid. The Italian states, even Genoa and Venice combined, did no major colonization: they formed trading posts, took over existing cities and towns, and extended Influence, but there were and are no 'Italian' city foundations outside of Italy. On the other hand, the Greek and Phoenician cities (NOT Greece and Phoenicia, which never existed as cohesive ancient/classical polities) founded cities all over the Black Sea, Mediterranean, and Spanish Atlantic coasts. Virtually none of these cities were politically tied to the cities that founded them, but all were tied to the cultural, religious, economic (trade) sphere of influence of the 'home' Civ.

Which simply means to show both the potential of individual cities being major political and economic powers (Italian cities in the Renaissance Era) and being major founders of new semi-independent cities but with far-reaching economic, cultural and (possibly religious influences (Classical Greek and Phoenician cities), we are probably going to need two different, or one modified, mechanism for a 'City State' type Civ.

Furthermore, I doubt now that the resulting Cities will resemble precisely the existing City States in the game: I would rather suspect they will be a 'bridge' between Civ and City State, in that they remain politically (militarily?) independent but can build Districts and possibly Wonders and share cultural scientific, and possibly religious influence.

I would like to point out that in fact, Athens did 'mirror' Genoa and Venice in having effective control over many other city foundations around the Aegean Sea just as Genoa controlled the Tyrrhenian Sea and Venice the Adriatic, and all three had extensive trade networks extending across the Mediterranean and Black Seas (Athens got a lot of her basic food supply from Greek Colonies on the Black Sea coast, even though Athens had not founded most of them). A case could probably be made that Carthage extended similar control over Numidia and Iberia, but I'm not familiar enough with the forms of 'political' control Carthage had in those areas to say for certain. What is certain, is that Carthage extended economic influence almost exclusively in those areas and recruited large parts of her military forces from both areas.

That means that all three groups: ancient Greece and Phoenicia, renaissance Italy, could produce individual cities with a far-reaching economic, military, and political influence, BUT in every case, they did not have the resources to maintain political influence for long against a cohesive political state: Athens along with all the other Greek city states fell to Macedonia, and Francis I and France went through the Italian peninsula like a knife through butter in the 1490s (admittedly, with the advantage of the first modern 'siege train' of artillery to vaporize city wall defenses - the parallel is almost exact since Alexander's father, Phillip, had the first 'modern' Siege Train of catapults and engines seen in Greece).
So, for game purposes, we'd have to include some kind of probably-less-than-historical mechanism to turn the City into a Civ at some point - incorporating other cities into the 'home' city as Rome did and the Phoenician, Italian, and Greek cities singularly failed to do, in order to have a viable in-game Civ.

And yes, I'm well aware that almost the same effect could be obtained, as now with Civ VI's Greece, by having Alternate Leaders/capitals within a 'regular' Civ, but that fails to show the 'unique' structure of the independent but related cities in the classical Greek, Phoenician and later Italian polities - or, for another example, the myriad semi-independent German cities and city-states that remained in existence until Napoleon snapped them all up and 'restructured' them after 1806.

This has been an interesting discussion, and thank you for it, but in less than 24 hours we'll get to see what the Firaxites have actually done, and then we can start expressing our admiration/consternation/condemnation of that. . .

There was both the Italic and Lombard league though they were relatively short lived and not all major cities were a part of the leagues and some even opposed them.

 

[Ziad]

I'm so excited to see what they have in store in less than 24 hours.

I also wonder what their theme will be

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm so excited to see what they have in store in less than 24 hours.

I also wonder what their theme will be

I am as well. I have been resentful every week when the hinted civ has been anything other than Phoenicia or Eleanor.

But now, my time has come. Firaxis has no other options. I shall be appeased.

At this point, I am getting more hyped over new civs than returning civs. We knew Inca and Ottomans and Mali would be great fun regardless of how they were designed. But Hungary and Canada and Maori are far better and more unique than anything I anticipated. I think Phoenicia will not disappoint. I tend to prefer settling coastal cities despite the inefficiency, and since the Dutch are so situational so far I've only had Indonesia supporting that playstyle.

 

[Isengardtom]

I agree
Since my last Indonesia game I’ve become a big fan of coastal civs

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree
Since my last Indonesia game I’ve become a big fan of coastal civs

I confess, even though Civ VI 'shortchanges' coastal cities ( or has in the past, GS may change that dramatically) I have always felt a little 'cheated' if I couldn't find a coastal spot for at least my second or third city, regardless of what Civ I'm playing (and if I don't get a coastal start for the first city when playing England, Norway, Indonesia or Spain, I restart!). Something about having access to the Ocean that just feels right for what one hopes will eventually be a World-Girdling Civilization.

Of course, when I'm playing Aztecs or Sumer, playing a bunch of coastal cities requires that I ignore anything resembling Historical Reality: Mighty Sumerian Fleet never appeared in any historical or archeological text anywhere!
All of which means I am very interested in what Phoenicia looks like tomorrow. . .

 

[Ziad]

I used the coastal improvement mod which adds some food to the city center per nearby coast and additional yields with harbor buildings. Made coastal settling a lot more viable and fun.

I'll probably remove it with the GS changes.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I used the coastal improvement mod which adds some food to the city center per nearby coast and additional yields with harbor buildings. Made coastal settling a lot more viable and fun.

I'll probably remove it with the GS changes.

I've never felt that coastal cities needed Buffing, although I appear to be in the minority in that opinion, With any coastal resources at all (fish, crabs, pearls, etc) you can generally get enough food to grow, and once you have a Harbor and adjacent Commercial District (which is almost always my choice pairing in a coastal city) you can generate a nice flow of Gold and Great Admirals, to keep your Naval/Oceanic benefits rolling in. So far, with the buffing of Sea Trade in GS, it looks like I'll be searching out Coastal Starts and City Sites even more . . .

 

[acluewithout]

Again, Carthage and Athens were but one highly influential city state. And perhaps in the past, Carthage and Venice were considered powerful enough to be their own civ.

But VI is a different beast. It is representing cultures rather than empires. Carthage is now part of Phoenicia. Greece is now part of Athens. And if Italy is in the game, it will be Italy, not Venice.

But whereas Phoenicia had but one highly powerful city state to merit the blobbing with a Dido leader. And Greece had two major city states that historically were the focal points of its many leagues, making for a very elegant two leader dichotomy. It would be exceedingly difficult to represent Italy with only one or two leaders/polities.

Geographically, I guess you could do Lombardy and Two Sardinias and cover most of it. But that would be to the complete ignorance of everything that makes Italy relevant. No Venice. No Florence. No Papal States. Just two underwhelming periods in Italian history. The problem only gets worse with a single leader like Umberto.

The fact is that Italy at its most relevant wasn't a unified nation. And unlike Greece and Phoenicia which are easily represented as a holistic culture, choosing one Italian city state over another feels disappointing no matter how you slice it. An Italy civ with Venice and Florence leaders without Genoa or Milan or Rome representation feels incomplete. And a modern Italian kingdom feels like it misses the point entirely. Whereas a Greece led by Athens and Sparta still feels like it mostly hits the idea without sacrificing too much.

I still think you are giving Greece and Phoenicia more credit as city states than the game design necessitates. Spain doesn't need to be Castile, Aragon, etc because a single leader works. We don't mind that the heptarchy is not represented because England spent a good deal of time as a unified culture. Same with Germany and France.
I grant that Phoenicia has room for a second Tyrian leader to emphasize two periods of growth in its history and its influence in both the east and west, I just do not see the mechanical/flavorful problems present in a consolidated Phoenicia that would plague a consolidated Italy. Phoenicia can get by within the current level of complexity. Italy would need more work and the city state idea seems to be the direction it would lean.

If Venice makes a comeback, I really hope it is part of an Italian Civ - perhaps by having Venice be implemented via an alt leader for Italy.

My hope is that Italy / Venice would be in a third expansion perhaps as part of an update of how City States work.

I am as well. I have been resentful every week when the hinted civ has been anything other than Phoenicia or Eleanor.

But now, my time has come. Firaxis has no other options. I shall be appeased.

At this point, I am getting more hyped over new civs than returning civs. We knew Inca and Ottomans and Mali would be great fun regardless of how they were designed. But Hungary and Canada and Maori are far better and more unique than anything I anticipated. I think Phoenicia will not disappoint. I tend to prefer settling coastal cities despite the inefficiency, and since the Dutch are so situational so far I've only had Indonesia supporting that playstyle.

Very excited about Phoenicia. Very excited about the new Civs generally. Very excited that some of the new mechanics may update the old Civs too. We’re going to have a really good mix of factions.

I confess, even though Civ VI 'shortchanges' coastal cities ( or has in the past, GS may change that dramatically) I have always felt a little 'cheated' if I couldn't find a coastal spot for at least my second or third city, regardless of what Civ I'm playing (and if I don't get a coastal start for the first city when playing England, Norway, Indonesia or Spain, I restart!). Something about having access to the Ocean that just feels right for what one hopes will eventually be a World-Girdling Civilization.

Of course, when I'm playing Aztecs or Sumer, playing a bunch of coastal cities requires that I ignore anything resembling Historical Reality: Mighty Sumerian Fleet never appeared in any historical or archeological text anywhere!
All of which means I am very interested in what Phoenicia looks like tomorrow. . .

Man. I love coastal cities.

 

[Prester John 2]

"If Venice makes a comeback, I really hope it is part of an Italian Civ - perhaps by having Venice be implemented via an alt leader for Italy.

My hope is that Italy / Venice would be in a third expansion perhaps as part of an update of how City States work."

That would be a truly revolutionary civ concept: Start as a city state, unite other city states under a league and pool certain ressources (gold, faith, science). The other CS still retain some autonomy but you can use part of their ressources (much like suzerainity, where you get hammer subsidy for building units in your district). If you capture other cities they are turned into city states.

 

[bite]

Well there is only a couple more hours left to sneak in your idea and see if you are right or not

 

[Navelgazer]

Well there is only a couple more hours left to sneak in your idea and see if you are right or not

Well, even if it's not the most likely, I like the idea of a coastal settling restriction + Cothon being a city center replacement district that also acts as a harbor too much not to throw in with it.

But I also expect some diplomatic favor tied to luxuries, hopefully with the bonus going up if you have a monopoly on said resource.

 

[Ziad]

~90 mins left. Hype!