Why do people want to see Carthage as a civ?

[The Kingmaker]

Part of my reasoning for wanting to see Hannibal in Civ6 is that with the new art style he would be 1) epic/bada#$ and 2) possibly hilarious.

 

[Karpius]

The "Byzantine Empire" is most certainly not an original culture/civilization.

The Eastern Roman Empire was quite distinct from the Western Empire. As far as culture goes, I am not sure where you draw the line between what is 'original' and what is not. I suppose we could say very few of the civilizations depicted in Civ6 are truly 'original'.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Roman Empire fell in 1453. The "Byzantines" as you call them, called themselves Romans, and their empire the Roman Empire. The Byzantine Empire is more appropriately called the Eastern Roman Empire. Furthermore, the Eastern and Western halves of the Roman Empire were Christianized in roughly the same time frame. The "Byzantine Empire" is most certainly not an original culture/civilization.

If that is the case Carthaginians referred to themselves as Punics or "Phoenicians." Then there would be no reason to calling them the Carthage Empire and just make them part of Phoenicia.

Also, I'm assuming Arlington is somewhere important? I know almost nothing about the USA.

City across the Potomac river from Washington D.C., home of the Arlington National Cemetery. Unless it is Arlington TX, suburb of Dallas, where they would have to sail up the Trinity river for a while.

 

[Scaramanga]

Apparently part of the reason Carthage failed was they couldn't decide whether they were sea traders or a land empire. This could be a problem when putting leader and civ bonuses together: an agressive Hannibal with mercantile civilization. I think a Father of Strategy ability that doubles Great General points and allows mountain crossing after the first one would work for Hannibal. His agenda could be Tries to get Great Generals and likes those who do the same.

 

[steveg700]

I think a Father of Strategy ability that doubles Great General points and allows mountain crossing after the first one would work for Hannibal. His agenda could be Tries to get Great Generals and likes those who do the same.

Or hates those who do the same.

 

[Scaramanga]

Or hates those who do the same.

That could be tragic if the other civ earns more Generals than him.

 

[pgm123]

I'm not sure if I said this yet, but I'm pro-Carthage being in the game. They were a strong power in the Early Iron Age that dominated trade in the Western Mediterranean and fought many wars with Greece. I like that they're a fusion culture of Levantine, North African, and Ibero-Celtic in places. That said, I'm fairly anti-Hannibal. Hannibal did become the leader of Carthage after the Punic Wars, before the Romans eventually forced him into exile. But he was basically acting on his own during the Second Punic Wars and had some disdain for Carthage and its Oligarchic elite. Worse still, I imagine all his bonuses would be related to his war with Rome and not his competent governance of Carthage. Plus, he's been done before. I'd like him to remain a Great General and a different leader chosen. How about Mago I or Hasdrubal I?

On terminology, the Romans called the Carthaginian elected leaders "kings," but they were Sofets, which is related to the Hebrew "Shophet" (Judges as in the Book of Judges).

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm not sure if I said this yet, but I'm pro-Carthage being in the game. They were a strong power in the Early Iron Age that dominated trade in the Western Mediterranean and fought many wars with Greece. I like that they're a fusion culture of Levantine, North African, and Ibero-Celtic in places. That said, I'm fairly anti-Hannibal. Hannibal did become the leader of Carthage after the Punic Wars, before the Romans eventually forced him into exile. But he was basically acting on his own during the Second Punic Wars and had some disdain for Carthage and its Oligarchic elite. Worse still, I imagine all his bonuses would be related to his war with Rome and not his competent governance of Carthage. Plus, he's been done before. I'd like him to remain a Great General and a different leader chosen. How about Mago I or Hasdrubal I?

On terminology, the Romans called the Carthaginian elected leaders "kings," but they were Sofets, which is related to the Hebrew "Shophet" (Judges as in the Book of Judges).

In the format of Civ6 though how else could they include Hannibal? If he's not the leader is he just a Great General or infused into the civilization ability?

 

[pgm123]

In the format of Civ6 though how else could they include Hannibal? If he's not the leader is he just a Great General or infused into the civilization ability?

They would probably replace the Great General with a different one.

 

[steveg700]

In the format of Civ6 though how else could they include Hannibal? If he's not the leader is he just a Great General or infused into the civilization ability?

Well, in Civ V, Carthage got the ability to cross mountains after getting their first GG.

 

[Scaramanga]

Well, in Civ V, Carthage got the ability to cross mountains after getting their first GG.

But there was no clear division between the leader ability and the civilization ability in V. Is it the ability of Carthage or Hannibal to cross mountains?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Hannibal's ability should be to cross mountains and have a special leader-specific elephant UU. His agenda could be that he doesn't forgive early aggression to his nation. Attack him before the Renaissance and he'll hate you forever. The greater/longer the attack, the worse the penalty.

Carthage should have a naval UU, some kind of Pentekonter or Quinquireme. Their civ ability should have some bonus for trade routes over water and maybe something to do with recruiting mercenaries. Maybe can purchase units (with gold) that are available to any neighboring civs?

 

[steveg700]

But there was no clear division between the leader ability and the civilization ability in V. Is it the ability of Carthage or Hannibal to cross mountains?

Seems like the latter would be the clear choice.

 

[clapyourhands]

Dividing/naming civs has always been a bit arbitrary by necessity. Let's not forget we have "Germany" and "Indonesia", not to mention a Greece led by Alexander the Great for 5 games before deciding that "hey, he's gonna lead Macedon this time around". Then there's Maria Theresa leading Germany one game and then Austria in another, and the consolidation of every Indian empire into India but the separation of Rome and Byzantium. The separation or consolidation of Carthage and Phoenicia could honestly go either way with precedent supporting both.

 

[Scaramanga]

It would be hard to buy mercenaries who stay around for as long as you need them and then go away. Unless it's the same as citystate levy. But Gilgamesh already has a bonus to that.

 

[steveg700]

Unless it's the same as citystate levy. But Gilgamesh already has a bonus to that.

Does he? Thought his UA was as follows:

May declare war on anyone at war with their allies without warmonger penalties. When at war with a common foe, they and their allies share pillage rewards and share combat experience gains if within 5 tiles.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Does he? Thought his UA was as follows:

May declare war on anyone at war with their allies without warmonger penalties. When at war with a common foe, they and their allies share pillage rewards and share combat experience gains if within 5 tiles.

He can also levy city-state militaries for less gold.

 

[Very Mad Max]

Can move past mountains (with a GG, yes, but still), a bonus trade route is huge, and TWO unique units?

*cough England cough*

 

[steveg700]

He can also levy city-state militaries for less gold.

Damn. That is one fawned-on civ. And they're getting even more buffed from R&F IIRC.

 

[Scaramanga]

Dividing/naming civs has always been a bit arbitrary by necessity. Let's not forget we have "Germany" and "Indonesia", not to mention a Greece led by Alexander the Great for 5 games before deciding that "hey, he's gonna lead Macedon this time around". Then there's Maria Theresa leading Germany one game and then Austria in another, and the consolidation of every Indian empire into India but the separation of Rome and Byzantium. The separation or consolidation of Carthage and Phoenicia could honestly go either way with precedent supporting both.

The precedence has always been Carthage over Phoenicia, mostly because of our boy Hannibal.