Some bonuses for Carthaginians?

[Seleucids]

Carthaginians lack bonuses and they are quite a weak civ right now, compared to the others. They are too dependent on metal and mercenary. They are an archer civ but don't have the archer upgrades...

Some ideas:

• At least give them the archer techs?
• Numidian skirmisher cavalry run 10% faster than other civs, because they were known for speed and agility?
• Metal mining bonus, because they are a merc civ?
• Trading / barter / eco bonus, because they were the richest civilisation around the entire Mediterranean sea?
• A tech which increases the speed of units but reduces armour or something - new hit and run strategy. 

 

 

[Arup]

add the hans to the list of "need bonus" as well lol what is +30% trade bonus

[Player of 0AD]

- allow Carthaginians to train Champions in stables again. What is a stable which can train only skirm cav?
- maybe allow them to train infantry Champs in barracks as well.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Seleucids said:

Numidian skirmisher cavalry run 10% faster than other civs, because they were known for speed and agility?

I like this, with all the melee mercs and champs, the ranged cav gets very overlooked.

29 minutes ago, Player of 0AD said:

- allow Carthaginians to train Champions in stables again. What is a stable which can train only skirm cav?
- maybe allow them to train infantry Champs in barracks as well.

I set it up so they train from the temple for civ differentiation purposes. They were originally trained from the temple. While you can get them faster since temples may be built in p2, there doesn't seem to be much benefit at all to doing this.

Perhaps some way to make building temples less taxing economically would be good. I notice they take a very long time to build.

[chrstgtr]

11 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Perhaps some way to make building temples less taxing economically would be good. I notice they take a very long time to build.

I haven’t played carth in a bit. But didn’t we implement some tech that makes them cheaper and quicker to build? Maybe we revisit that if it isn’t working (not sure anyone has really tested it enough to see if a good build order is possible with it).

Couple ideas: Could also make temples build able in p1. Or give temples pop cap bonus like a23. Or make carth temples cheaper in res/build time  

 

[chrstgtr]

Also, the biggest problem with Carth’s bonuses is the lack of a real team bonus. If anyone has good ideas that would help 

[Seleucids]

54 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

They were originally trained from the temple.

I think we should follow weirdJokes' idea and move the champs to barracks and stables, because that is the standard of most A27 civs. Only training champs from temples nerfs the civ too much. 

The temples can be differentiated in other ways. For example, Carthaginian temples have faster healing rates or greater area of influence, for some rituals they practised. 

Carthage is already unique enough, no need for more weirdness. 

[Emacz]

Historical's got u covered

[real_tabasco_sauce]

25 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

I think we should follow weirdJokes' idea and move the champs to barracks and stables, because that is the standard of most A27 civs. Only training champs from temples nerfs the civ too much. 

The temples can be differentiated in other ways. For example, Carthaginian temples have faster healing rates or greater area of influence, for some rituals they practised. 

Carthage is already unique enough, no need for more weirdness. 

A commit before a27 made it so that champs trained from non-barracks buildings train 25% faster. I think it has helped justify making things like fanatics and spartiates, but not so much for carthage champs.

[Feldfeld]

I'm against moving champs back to barracks / stable. There can be so many ideas compared to just going back and uniformizing things. For example, decreasing the batch training time of champions (an underrated bonus by the way, large batches can train very quickly with such a reduction), having mines last longer (for example, getting 6K metal out of a 5K mine, however I was thinking of giving that bonus to Kushite Pyramid complementing the gather rate), better exchange rate on the market (but better handled than previously), cheaper market, making the unlock champion technology more expensive...

And remember at least one temple can be useful as healing so it is in a way better than other champion-training buildings. Healers can also be improved a bit, I have ideas for them.

[Emacz]

11 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

I'm against moving champs back to barracks / stable. There can be so many ideas compared to just going back and uniformizing things. For example, decreasing the batch training time of champions (an underrated bonus by the way, large batches can train very quickly with such a reduction), having mines last longer (for example, getting 6K metal out of a 5K mine, however I was thinking of giving that bonus to Kushite Pyramid complementing the gather rate), better exchange rate on the market (but better handled than previously), cheaper market, making the unlock champion technology more expensive...

And remember at least one temple can be useful as healing so it is in a way better than other champion-training buildings. Healers can also be improved a bit, I have ideas for them.

already have 6k metal in hisotircal. Great minds think a like!

[Feldfeld]

1 minute ago, Emacz said:

already have 6k metal in hisotircal. Great minds think a like!

Do you have it as a civ-specific bonus? I probably didn't explain properly, I imagine it would take some code to implement.

[Emacz]

13 minutes ago, Feldfeld said:

Do you have it as a civ-specific bonus? I probably didn't explain properly, I imagine it would take some code to implement.

No... all 5k mines now have 6k metal.

But sele has an option to switch to plundering temple (they were known for raiding/plundering their own temples) When temple is "plundering" it loses health, can not train an priest/research and priest techs but gains metal trickle.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

a better civ bonus for carth could be good. Maybe something stone-focused to help with the cost of apartments, temples, and the more expensive stone walls.

4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Also, the biggest problem with Carth’s bonuses is the lack of a real team bonus. If anyone has good ideas that would help 

mm I think the infantry merc train time is pretty substantial, but its true that it really only helps merc civs.

[Emacz]

"Markets build 25% faster, techs from market cost 25% less resources"

}

"Mercenaries -35% train time, -25% metal."

Edited February 22 by Emacz

[chrstgtr]

13 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

mm I think the infantry merc train time is pretty substantial, but its true that it really only helps merc civs.

Sure. But it is only as good as it is used. Merc inf is probably the least commonly trained class of unit and, as you say, only available to civs to begin with. 

[Emacz]

On 21/02/2025 at 8:49 AM, Seleucids said:

Carthaginians lack bonuses and they are quite a weak civ right now, compared to the others. They are too dependent on metal and mercenary. They are an archer civ but don't have the archer upgrades...

Some ideas:

• At least give them the archer techs?
• Numidian skirmisher cavalry run 10% faster than other civs, because they were known for speed and agility?
• Metal mining bonus, because they are a merc civ?
• Trading / barter / eco bonus, because they were the richest civilisation around the entire Mediterranean sea?
• A tech which increases the speed of units but reduces armour or something - new hit and run strategy. 

 

 

got your 10% speed for the Numidian cav

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

Sure. But it is only as good as it is used. Merc inf is probably the least commonly trained class of unit and, as you say, only available to civs to begin with. 

I think more civs used merc than are included in game....  almost all civs could have some form of merc which would make the cart bonus a little more useful.

[chrstgtr]

16 minutes ago, Emacz said:

think more civs used merc than are included in game....  almost all civs could have some form of merc which would make the cart bonus a little more useful.

Of course. The dirty secret that all “history” focused users don’t want to talk about is how all the civs share most of their “distinguishing” features. These civs shared their technological and social developments. Gauls had archers. Romans had slings. Athenians used mercenaries. Etc. 

But a game where all the civs look and play the same is boring. So there is a lot of generalization, reductionism, and abstraction that occurs to make the game more interesting. 

[Emacz]

7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Of course. The dirty secret that all “history” focused users don’t want to talk about is how all the civs share most of their “distinguishing” features. These civs shared their technological and social developments. Gauls had archers. Romans had slings. Athenians used mercenaries. Etc. 

But a game where all the civs look and play the same is boring. So there is a lot of generalization, reductionism, and abstraction that occurs to make the game more interesting. 

that's why you diversify a little   one of these days you might try historical and realize its not that bad.  In fact a couple things have made it into mainstream game already.  Ssytion pop bonus and ram garrisoned speed.

I havent given romans slingers yet... but they do have access to archers, and yes gauls/brits have access to archers.  However, each civ has to unlock different types of infantry.  So you still pretty much start out like in vanilla.  But they you decide if you want to invest in unlocking another type of infantry or not. Also some civ may have a basic version of a unit that doesnt promote.  Things like that.  You can still make it VERY interesting

Edited February 22 by Emacz

[Genava55]

Carthage deserves a rework, based on sources that are a little more researched than the usual superficial summaries.

I don't really understand what the Numidians are doing in the civic center. These were not Carthaginian citizens, but allied troops - in other words, auxiliaries - who fought for Carthage under political agreements. Several Numidian peoples were direct clients of Carthage, so I can see why they're part of the standard roster. But not in the civic center.

Slightly problematic are the Libyan lancers, who aren't necessarily at their best in the civic center. Carthage may have massively recruited Libyans into its armies, but the status of citizens for these troops was not systematic. In fact, Carthage mainly enlisted peasants from subjugated states. These peasants also worked in the fields of Carthaginian estates. Their status as peasants argues for integration into the civic center, but their status as foreign citizens argues for the opposite.

I find that it also lacks mention of Libyphoenicians. They made up an important part of the Carthaginian troops and were Phoenician citizens in the other North African colonies. Libyphoenicians were known for their cavalry. In this case they could be recruited in the civic center.

Edited February 22 by Genava55

[Emacz]

4 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Carthage deserves a rework, based on sources that are a little more researched than the usual superficial summaries.

I don't really understand what the Numidians are doing in the civic center. These were not Carthaginian citizens, but allied troops - in other words, auxiliaries - who fought for Carthage under political agreements. Several Numidian peoples were direct clients of Carthage, so I can see why they're part of the standard roster. But not in the civic center.

Slightly problematic are the Libyan lancers, who aren't necessarily at their best in the civic center. Carthage may have massively recruited Libyans into its armies, but the status of citizens for these troops was not systematic. In fact, Carthage mainly enlisted peasants from subjugated states. These peasants also worked in the fields of Carthaginian estates. Their status as peasants argues for integration into the civic center, but their status as foreign citizens argues for the opposite.

I find that it also lacks mention of Libyphoenicians. They made up an important part of the Carthaginian troops and were Phoenician citizens in the other North African colonies. Libyphoenicians were known for their cavalry. In this case they could be recruited in the civic center.

can you send me some reading material and Ill see what i cam come up with?!?