The Carthage Thread

[Evie]

I’d argue Hannibal (tactician specialized in land warfare) never really was a great fit for what was primarily a naval commercial and colonial power - he just played to a completely different game.

So while I agree it’s a good point, I don’t think it does much in this specific case.

 

[reddishrecue]

Elizabeth has swapped in and out with Victoria a lot (and options for women leaders that no one will complain about are a lot rarer, so the fact that these two are the widely accepted two best choices for England means we’ll see them a lot)) and Napoleon having been leader for France too often is one of the thing most of us would very much like to end. And even then I still think England should get a break from Elizabeth/Victoria once in a while.

Anytime one civ fixate on one leader we lose out on a number of other good leaders from their history that could add variety to the game. So frequently reusing the same leader should be the exception, done for some good reason, not the rule.

Yeah.. I guess ur right.. maybe Carthage could have someone more culturally inclined rather than an expert warmonger.

 

[Patine]

I’d argue Hannibal (tactician specialized in land warfare) never really was a great fit for what was primarily a naval commercial and colonial power - he just played to a completely different game.

So while I agree it’s a good point, I don’t think it does much in this specific case.

There's also the problem that certain civ's - either by Firaxis' design, or by suggestions here, end up being shoehorned into tight roles compared to others. For instance, Rome, Greece, England, France, Germany, China, and India tend to be fairly versatile civ's to play with, while a few others (and more, if judging by many suggestions) become, "one-trick ponies," by comparison. Saying, "Carthage should be diminished in land warfare and military prowess and focus much more tightly on seafaring, comerce, and colonialism, because Hannibal's a cliche, and his part of the legacy should be quietly buried," is an example of this tendency.

 

[Evie]

Hm, you did see the post just before mine right? Where Alex was arguing that a leader with good synergy with their nation was more important than new leaders?

My post was in that context.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In regard to 'appropriateness' for leaders vis-a-vis Carthage, I'd like to remind everyone that Carthage as a pre-eminent naval power begs the question: Why were they a major naval power?

The answer is that they were also a major trading power and also extended their control or influence over both major islands in the western Mediterranean like Sicily and Sardinia and over the trade routes to Spain and the north African coast.

And while the Punic Wars are the best known, Carthage also fought the Greeks in Sicily for several centuries and interacted with the Etruscan kingdoms as well as Rome long before the 1st Punic War broke out.

So, to the specific names I mentioned earlier:

Mago (or Magon) I was the first of the Magonid Dynasty, and under him Carthage established itself as the dominent Phoenician city in the western Mediterranean, allied with the Etruscans to drive the Greeks out of Corsica and Sardinia, and closed off Spanish trade and any trade through the Straits of Gibraltar, to everyone except Carthage (and possibly Tyre, with which Carthage still maintained strong economic ties). Call him the emblem of Carthage's Militant Trade policy.

Hanno the Great (the first one, there was one in each of the 4th, 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE) is the Naval Military Carthaginian leader, commander of a fleet that decisively defeated the Sicilian Greeks led by Syracuse to maintain Carthaginian control over the western part of the island. This fleet was also the first Carthaginian fleet known to include Quadriremes and Quinqueremes, so the 'prototype' of the fleets that ran rings around the Romans at the start of the 1st Punic War a century later

Hanno (or Hannon) the Navigator may or may not have been a political leader in Carthage (the sources are few and not consistent) but he was famous for exploring the west coast of Africa, possibly as far as central Africa but certainly farther than any known Mediterranean sailor had ever gone before (modern critiques have placed the extent of his voyage as between 1100 and 4800 km, which is quite a range!). The stated purpose of the voyage was to found new Carthaginian (trading) cities and extend Carthaginian trade to the source of the African gold coming across the Sahara, a trade route which Carthage had an effective monopoly on at only the northern end. So this is the exploring, settling, trading part of Carthage - and 2Xs out of 4 in one Leader isn't a bad option, even without another naval/sea emphasis.

Sophonisba is more 'truthy' than historical truth, in that her name doesn't even show up until about 1600 years later, in the 15th century CE. Her original name, then, may have been Sophonisbe or Sophoniba or something entirely different. But she was no legend, because her story is related by the Greco-Roman historians Livy, Appian, Diodorus, Cassius Dio and Polybius, and they were not all simply quoting each other.
She represents the Diplomatic Carthage, in that she married Syphax, chief of an eastern Numidian tribe allied to Rome - until she brought him over to Carthage's side and kept him there. She has also probably been the subject of more paintings, plays, and musical renditions than any other Carthaginian, even Hannibal!

 

[Caesar of Bread]

(Potential) Non-Didoly-HannabalicCarthaginian Leaders:

Mago (Magon) I (first of the Magonid Dynasty)
Hanno the Great
Hannon the Navigator

and a 'real' female leader:

Sophonisba

I suggested Sophonisba a while back, would she be good to replace Hanno I?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I suggested Sophonisba a while back, would she be good to replace Hanno I?

She would be different, being potentially more of a Diplomatic Leader than the others I suggested. Hanno I would be more of a purely Naval Military Leader - more appropriate, I think, than Hannibal as a military-type Leader for Carthage, assuming you don't play on a Pangaea map that places a minimal importance on navies and sea at all.

The point being that Carthage has a lot more potential variety of Leadership than just Hannibal or Dido and the game should explore some other options.

And likewise, the options for Uniques and other Carthage special aspects should include not just Biremes and Elephants (Hannibal got one elephant over the Alps, from all accounts - for crying out loud, lets give the poor pachyderm a Rest!), but also their exceptional ability to trade with barbarians (or "Barbarian Camps" in Civ-speak) as they did on the African coast, their use of Mercenaries to both spare their own citizens and provide a wide variety of troops in their armies, and (cue Hannon the Navigator) their combining Exploration and Trade so closely in Africa and the Atlantic coasts of Spain to Cornwall.

 

[reddishrecue]

In regard to 'appropriateness' for leaders vis-a-vis Carthage, I'd like to remind everyone that Carthage as a pre-eminent naval power begs the question: Why were they a major naval power?

The answer is that they were also a major trading power and also extended their control or influence over both major islands in the western Mediterranean like Sicily and Sardinia and over the trade routes to Spain and the north African coast.

And while the Punic Wars are the best known, Carthage also fought the Greeks in Sicily for several centuries and interacted with the Etruscan kingdoms as well as Rome long before the 1st Punic War broke out.

So, to the specific names I mentioned earlier:

Mago (or Magon) I was the first of the Magonid Dynasty, and under him Carthage established itself as the dominent Phoenician city in the western Mediterranean, allied with the Etruscans to drive the Greeks out of Corsica and Sardinia, and closed off Spanish trade and any trade through the Straits of Gibraltar, to everyone except Carthage (and possibly Tyre, with which Carthage still maintained strong economic ties). Call him the emblem of Carthage's Militant Trade policy.

Hanno the Great (the first one, there was one in each of the 4th, 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE) is the Naval Military Carthaginian leader, commander of a fleet that decisively defeated the Sicilian Greeks led by Syracuse to maintain Carthaginian control over the western part of the island. This fleet was also the first Carthaginian fleet known to include Quadriremes and Quinqueremes, so the 'prototype' of the fleets that ran rings around the Romans at the start of the 1st Punic War a century later

Hanno (or Hannon) the Navigator may or may not have been a political leader in Carthage (the sources are few and not consistent) but he was famous for exploring the west coast of Africa, possibly as far as central Africa but certainly farther than any known Mediterranean sailor had ever gone before (modern critiques have placed the extent of his voyage as between 1100 and 4800 km, which is quite a range!). The stated purpose of the voyage was to found new Carthaginian (trading) cities and extend Carthaginian trade to the source of the African gold coming across the Sahara, a trade route which Carthage had an effective monopoly on at only the northern end. So this is the exploring, settling, trading part of Carthage - and 2Xs out of 4 in one Leader isn't a bad option, even without another naval/sea emphasis.

Sophonisba is more 'truthy' than historical truth, in that her name doesn't even show up until about 1600 years later, in the 15th century CE. Her original name, then, may have been Sophonisbe or Sophoniba or something entirely different. But she was no legend, because her story is related by the Greco-Roman historians Livy, Appian, Diodorus, Cassius Dio and Polybius, and they were not all simply quoting each other.
She represents the Diplomatic Carthage, in that she married Syphax, chief of an eastern Numidian tribe allied to Rome - until she brought him over to Carthage's side and kept him there. She has also probably been the subject of more paintings, plays, and musical renditions than any other Carthaginian, even Hannibal!

That's nice... I also appreciate culturally inclined leaders.

 

[jsciv69]

The point being that Carthage has a lot more potential variety of Leadership than just Hannibal or Dido and the game should explore some other options.

I can certainly see someone like Hanno I being an alternate option. And surely for an expansion game. But for the base game, if Carthage is to return, Hannibal and his War Elephants is the ideal choice. Just as Alexander The Great is used again and again for Macedonia, And Gandhi for India, and Genghis Khan for Mongolia. Hannibal is usually the first name to think of as Carthage goes.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’d argue Hannibal (tactician specialized in land warfare) never really was a great fit for what was primarily a naval commercial and colonial power - he just played to a completely different game.

I mean you could always use the gold you get by trading to hire mercenaries, which in context of Phoenicia/Carthage could be naval mercenaries.

Hm, you did see the post just before mine right? Where Alex was arguing that a leader with good synergy with their nation was more important than new leaders?

I didn't mean to imply it was more important. My point was there needs to be a compelling reason to justify a leader, whether old or new, for gameplay reasons and not just because people are tired of seeing the same face over and over again.

 

[pokiehl]

My point was there needs to be a compelling reason to justify a leader, whether old or new, for gameplay reasons and not just because people are tired of seeing the same face over and over again.

Gameplay for a faction really isn’t prescriptive. Practically any reasonable choice of a leader can be justified in the gameplay.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I can certainly see someone like Hanno I being an alternate option. And surely for an expansion game. But for the base game, if Carthage is to return, Hannibal and his War Elephants is the ideal choice. Just as Alexander The Great is used again and again for Macedonia, And Gandhi for India, and Genghis Khan for Mongolia. Hannibal is usually the first name to think of as Carthage goes.

He is an 'ideal choice' only because he is familiar - and frequently the only Carthaginian the majority of the public has ever heard of in any context.
But by that criteria, we should never have gotten Gorgo, or Catherine de Medici, or Barbarossa: when most people think of Greece, France and Germany, those are NOT the first names that would have sprung to mind before Civ VI came out.

I would argue that the other examples you gave make the point: Macedonian and Mongolian history in both cases divide into Before And After Alexander and Chingus: everything after them was utterly different from what had been 'normal' before. That makes them absolutely iconic to depicting those Civilizations. India is a different problem: there are no leaders of all of India before the colonial era - large parts of it at times, but never all of the modern state. So either you divide it up (which has been argued for frequently on these Forums) or you go with a modern leader, and modern leaders all have their problems, so you wind up, repeatedly, falling back on Gandhi.
But the whole point of the separate Leaders and all the graphic and voice-acting work that goes in to them, I would think, is the opportunity to vary the Civilization with the Leaders' Uniques and even provide a potential different style of play with the Civ based on the Leader rather than the basic attributes of the Civilization. Civ VI has numerous examples of this, from Kublai - Genghis to Gorgo - Pericles and Catherine - Eleanor and, of course, England's Victoria - Eleanor - Elizabeth. I suppose it's possible to play Greece in exactly the same way with either Pericles or Gorgo as Leader, but not very well because the Leader emphasis is so different, and that, I would think, is one of the prime points of having the Leader separate from the Civ.

And also is the prime point of providing several alternates to Hannibal or Dido for Carthage, leaders which potentially could allow for some variation in the Carthaginian Emphasis away from Elephants and Biremes only.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I still hold my grudge against Catherine D‘ Medici though

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I like Carthage being a separate civ of Phoenician because that makes us remember how strong was an African empire.

That's an odd way to look at a Levantine colony

 

[Henri Christophe]

That's an odd way to look at a Levantine colony

Yeah, Carthage could be just a Levantine colony, but it has his own history where they rivalized with Rome for power in the Mediterranean.
And if Byzantium is a separate civ of Rome, of course Carthage should be separete of Phoenecian.
Also, could have these both civs on civ7, Carthage because is a important African civ and Phoenician who are also important to inventer our letters.
Also, side note, in Arabic language Palestine is the same as Phoenicians. What should be cool to represent it also in a game.

 

[pokiehl]

Also, side note, in Arabic language Palestine is the same as Phoenicians

That isn’t correct.

Palestine and Phoenicia are both ancient Greek-origin terms referring to different places. Just wanted to point that out first because your post implies they’re the same.

In Arabic, Palestine is basically romanized as “Filastin” and Phoenicia as “Finiqia.”

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, Carthage could be just a Levantine colony, but it has his own history where they rivalized with Rome for power in the Mediterranean.
And if Byzantium is a separate civ of Rome, of course Carthage should be separete of Phoenecian.
Also, could have these both civs on civ7, Carthage because is a important African civ and Phoenician who are also important to inventer our letters.

There is really no need to have both civilizations. They'd basically have the same uniques.
If you want an African civ in the region, why not have native Berbers/Numidia instead?

 

[Patine]

Yeah, Carthage could be just a Levantine colony, but it has his own history where they rivalized with Rome for power in the Mediterranean.
And if Byzantium is a separate civ of Rome, of course Carthage should be separete of Phoenecian.
Also, could have these both civs on civ7, Carthage because is a important African civ and Phoenician who are also important to inventer our letters.
Also, side note, in Arabic language Palestine is the same as Phoenicians. What should be cool to represent it also in a game.

So, is, "Africa," racial or geographic to you? Take your pick, here.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Yeah, Carthage could be just a Levantine colony, but it has his own history where they rivalized with Rome for power in the Mediterranean.
And if Byzantium is a separate civ of Rome, of course Carthage should be separete of Phoenecian.
Also, could have these both civs on civ7, Carthage because is a important African civ and Phoenician who are also important to inventer our letters.
Also, side note, in Arabic language Palestine is the same as Phoenicians. What should be cool to represent it also in a game.

I mean it would be cool to see both, but I’m more on the side of representing Phoenicia and Carthage as the same. Also Carthage is not ethnically African as you want at least 50% of civs to be (you said once that you would be fine only including Rome as a European rep for VII)

 

[Patine]

I mean it would be cool to see both, but I’m more on the side of representing Phoenicia and Carthage as the same. Also Carthage is not ethnically African as you want at least 50% of civs to be (you said once that you would be fine only including Rome as a European rep for VII)

I'm being reminded of the, "Black Rameses," debate.