Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by labellavienna, Jul 18, 2016.
Based on the leader portraits, we probably won't even have Carthage on the vanilla.
See that 100 page All Leader Portraits thread? It will answer all your questions and cure you of your sanity. Yes, sanity.
Maybe I'm heretic, but I'd be fine with lack of Carthago at all in Civ6 ever, addons and DLCs included.
With all respect towards Carthaginian civilization, I feel they are in as "token enemy of Rome" (similarly to Boudicca and Huns) and Western popcultural version of history (where anything happening to Western or "Western" civs has bigger weight than major events of other areas history), and there are far more interesting/exotic/unique less known civilisations that could take place of Carthago, one trick pony "merchant sea civ".
Hannibal was pretty good military commander (though failed at logistics and strategic use of tactical victories, before being completely annihilated by Scipio in Zama ) but he wouldn't be that interesting leader in civ6 reality where "unique personality", "diplomatic agenda" and "unique approach to the game" matter much more than "good achievements of military general". He'd essentially be one more "lol much army" guy of "lol money and sea" civ.
Generally I'd be fine with lack of Carthago, Celts, Dutch, Denmark, Austria, Venice and Huns in civ6
Carthage has more weight because it is well documented in languages readily accessible to the makers of the game. If Civ were made in China they might have an abundance of China's early foes.
I agree with this. This is a little bit why I would be against having Tomyris of Scythia b/c I feel like the only thing we know about her is her as an enemy of Cyrus. I am all for fierce, strong female leaders, but not if their main claim to fame is dependent on a man...
In the sense of switching it up, they could include them as the Phoenicians in a expansion or two Carthage in and itself is fine, "ok", but not much more.
You know you've turned me. I'm always intrigued by Carthage. But when seen as taking a spot that can be occupied by an Asian, Sub Saharan African, or American civ, all of a sudden I don't want them in the game. It is a level of Western Bias that I didn't even notice.
It would be very interesting to see the chartaginian's colonizers, the Phoenicians this time around, but of course that i wouldn't mind both, i am a fan of ancient civs.
In Civ V it was always welcome to have Dido as a "special ally". If Cleopatra and Victoria are any indication of how female leaders are going to look, I certainly would not mind a return of Dido.
That's true, I would be down with the Phoenicians as one of the classical ancient civs.
Yeah, I'm with this. I've always been annoyed at the lack of Phoenicians in Civ. (As a linguist I was hoping for a final expansion to Civ 5 that would add a language mechanic, but alas.)
Eh, I think it's rather unfair to Carthage to dismiss them as "rivals of Rome." Carthage was a Mediterranean empire when Rome was in its infancy, Carthaginian explorers were the first to explore the Atlantic coast of Africa, and if Carthage is taken as the broader Phoenician civilization then it had colonies from Canaan to Cyprus to Spain. Carthaginian was also the only ancient language aside from Latin into which Greek plays were translated, and Carthage had a rich native literary tradition as well.
I'd prefer not to see Hannibal, however; I'd rather see his father, Hamilcar.
When we do get Carthage in an expansion/dlc I would like it to be Hannibal again.
However, having the Phoenicians instead would be my absolute highest hope.
I like Carthage because I'm always happy for more ancient civilizations (personally would love it if Civ allowed you to specify your ending era and have a full ancient game...would never touch any other mode personally).
But Phoenicia certainly "deserves" the place moreso than Carthage, for sure. Far more important in the long run. Carthage is ultimately just important as a foil for Rome.
As far as the Carthaginians were concerned, they were Phoenician; as late as A.D. 500 they still referred to themselves as "Chanani" or Canaanites according to Augustine of Hippo, and there are some reports that they still spoke Neo-Punic at the time of the Islamic conquest. Call them Carthage, call them Phoenicia: they're the same civilization. Only difference is whether your capital is Carthage or Tyre, and whether your leader is Hannibal/Hammilcar or Hiram.
I think Carthage would be fine as a city state and Hannibal as a Great General. If we need a mediterranean trader civ it could very well be the mentioned Phoenicians.
Exactly, that's why I wanted the switch. You can even have both with the multiple leaders in Civ 6 and the (possible) random city list.
Well, yes, Carthage was founded by Phoenicia. But I would much rather play as Hiram of Tyre than Hamilcar of Carthage.
Carthage developed as quite distinct from Phoenicia although they did recognize their roots, as it were (for quite some time they actually sent tribute back to Tyre even after gaining their own power). You might as well say the Normans were the same as Vikings. Distance from Phoenicia and the effects of time result inevitably in divergences.
Besides, Phoenicia had far greater long-reaching impacts on the Mediterranean as a whole than Carthage did (Carthage was one of those impacts).
Don't get me wrong, I'd be perfectly happy with both (more ancient civs ftw) but if I had to choose, I'd choose Phoenicia.
Whoa whoa whoa. While I wholeheartedly agree that most of those are controversial inclusions at best, the Dutch absolutely are not! They were vitally important to world history!
Separate names with a comma.