Carthage!

Fighter · August 16, 2002, 21:20

yeah, theyre bringing back my favourite empire.

What I cant figure out is what will be the second trait, obviously they will get Commercial. They were a merchant empire after all, but what will the second trait be?

What do you guys think?

I think its kind of obvious that Carthage will get a War Elephant for its UU, Firaxis likes to go for the well known.

As a side note, I realy hope Zama is included in the list of city names, it would just be cool to have Rome attack Zama and me beat them, kinda like cheating history.

Andrew_Jay · August 16, 2002, 23:34

I saw a spearman-type guy in one of the Celt pictures, and it looked like it could possibly be the Carthage UU.
You might want to check them, bottom left corner of one of them.

Coracle · August 17, 2002, 00:42

Elephants?? Hannibal defeated Roman armies with special swordsmen, mostly.

I made the Indian elephant a 3.1. Which is accurate.

Carthage might also be religious. They were a bit fanatical about it though. Pagan stuff and sacrifices.

Jon Shafer · August 17, 2002, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Elephants?? Hannibal defeated Roman armies with special swordsmen, mostly

That's what Carthage is most famous for, if Firaxis is as predicatable as in the past then we can count on them doing that.

Hmmm, commercial and religious?

Do we have one of those already? Certainly we must, but I can't think of it off the top of my head.

GoodFella · August 17, 2002, 00:50

India is commercial religious.

Fighter · August 17, 2002, 02:08

Yeah, India should have been Carthage in the original Civ3, it just makes sense. I mean, had Carthage won the punic wars, our history books would list Rome as a footnote and Carthage as a major focus instead of the other way around.

Spiffor · August 17, 2002, 02:36

Spain will get commercial/religious too. Hence, the second trait could be :
- expansionistic
- militaristic
- industrious
- scientific
I don't know enough of Carthage's history to know what it will be, but I think it won't be militaristic (after all, they lost the Punic wars).

NeoStar · August 17, 2002, 02:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

That's what Carthage is most famous for, if Firaxis is as predicatable as in the past then we can count on them doing that.

Not always predictable, though.

I'd thought the Greeks would surely have better galleys (that famous sea battle with the Persians I think) or those ancient cavalry units Alexander the Great used.

Fighter · August 17, 2002, 04:10

Greece shouldnt get great galleys, it was Athens that was realy known for Galleys.

Also, I dont think ANY civ should get sea units for uniques, since sea and air seriously suck in civ3.

NeoStar · August 17, 2002, 08:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
Also, I dont think ANY civ should get sea units for uniques, since sea and air seriously suck in civ3.

If you did give Greece a galley, it'd be worth it. At that early stage of the game galleys have alot of influence on the spread of an empire (provided you haven't set land to dominate, that is)

One more movement point or transport hold would make a real difference.

Palaiologos · August 18, 2002, 13:08

As i have posted in other threads the Carthaginian Unique Unit should be a special spearman, not a war Elephant.Although the Carhaginian Empire relied solely on mercenaries, they had a special military corps which the Greeks called the "Sacred Band".It was composed entirely of Carthaginian citizens of Phoenicean origin and fought in a phalanx formation.However these white dressed warriors were decimated at the battle of Tunis against Agathocles and never recovered.They did not appear in any of the tree Punic wars.We must have in mind though that Carthage, for the largest part of it's history was not an empire. They fought a lot of wars against the Greeks and Etruscans during their early days.

The second obvious choise would be a special galley.Phoenician triremes of early times were better constructed than the Greek ones.My ancestors were only able to overpower them through the use of better naval tactics.

But most certainly, not a war elephant.

The Carthaginian state was never ruled by a sole monarch,keeping the Phoenician tradition.Therefore "King" Hannibal is a highly improper title."Senator" would be a better choice.Moreover since Hannibal never acquired real political strengh,unlike his father, he should not be the leader of the Carthaginian civilization.He only became senator after the Punic wars
before finding enlistment as a mercenary general.

Their leader should be Hamilcar Barca,Hannibal's father,
and leader of the rulling Barcid family.

Caliban · August 18, 2002, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know enough of Carthage's history to know what it will be, but I think it won't be militaristic (after all, they lost the Punic wars).

Germany lost two world wars and is still militaristic, so...

Fighter · August 18, 2002, 16:35

However, Carthage wasnt very militaristic, sure they fought in wars but they mainly used mercs. Although Hannibal was a brilliant tactitcian, the Carthaginian empire was a merchant state more or less. I figure Commercial is a given and possibly Expanionistic, although with Hannibal as leader they may throw Militaristic to Carthage.

Jon Shafer · August 18, 2002, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Caliban
Germany lost two world wars and is still militaristic, so...

And they've also won quite a few before that too.

Nikolai · August 19, 2002, 02:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Pagan stuff and sacrifices.

Actually, they were quite civilized and weren't so bad as we use to think. Their only problem is, that the only sources we have, is Roman...

History Guy · August 20, 2002, 17:11

On religion? Oh yes, they were bad. They were very bad.

Remember how they would pass their babies through the flames for their bud Moloch? Remember how they'd toss women off tall buildings in sacrifice? The stuff that they'd do with infants was monstrous. Remember that one of the ways that the Roman leaders persuaded their men not to retreat in the face of Hannibal was to say to them: "Why should we run from these baby killers?"

SABRA · August 21, 2002, 09:00

It's a bit sad that Firaxis has not put more abilities in the game . Lets hope there are some new ones in Play The World .

TexasPride · August 21, 2002, 18:41

Well I personnally think that Firaxis is gonna give 'em commercial and militaristic. As for the UU, I'm thinkin' (based on prevoius stuff they've done) that they're most definately gonna give 'e the war elephant. It's a big part of what Hannible is famous for (whether it was his brother doesn't necessarily matter), marchin' elephants over the Alps.

A note on the Greeks: I've always thought the Hoplite was a good choice for thier UU. They were the only ones who could work that right. (The only reason Rome beat them was because the formation is extremely susceptible to flank attacks. The way I understand it is that there was a battle (I don't know where as I'm not that much of an ancient history buff) in which the Greeks were winning until they attacked and thier lines were movin down a hill in two seperate directions drivin the Romans all the way till some Roman Legionair saw that thier lines had separated in the middle in order to continue pushin them back and led his troops in breaking the Greek Lines. ) All the other nations of the time couldn't get thier men to stand and fight like that, there just wasn't the discipline. As for thier navies, yea they had sum spectacular victories but my understanding has been it was because of superior tactics. Just my $.02 worth on that.

GeneralTacticus · August 22, 2002, 03:24

Quote:

Elephants?? Hannibal defeated Roman armies with special swordsmen, mostly.

There was nothing special about Hannibal's troops. Many of them were actually quite substandard, until they got more experienced. The way Hannibal won against the Romans was simply because he was a better general.

Firebird · August 22, 2002, 08:00

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
On religion? Oh yes, they were bad. They were very bad.

Remember how they would pass their babies through the flames for their bud Moloch? Remember how they'd toss women off tall buildings in sacrifice? The stuff that they'd do with infants was monstrous. Remember that one of the ways that the Roman leaders persuaded their men not to retreat in the face of Hannibal was to say to them: "Why should we run from these baby killers?"

I don't know that much about the real Carthage, but shouldn't one be careful in judging them for what their enemy said (one might be able to, but care is needed). Furthermore in judging them by todays moral standards one might also compare them to there time. Rome wasn't excactly free of monstrous deeds either: Carthage got totally destroyed when Rome won the final war. The Roman gladiator-"games" was also a very brutal show without respect for life.

Not that any of this makes gladiator-fights or baby-killing right, but it just shows that there are more than one dimension to history.

Hagbart · August 22, 2002, 12:57

Why is Carthage your favourite civ? That's strange. Are you from the area?

Hagbart · August 22, 2002, 12:58

sorry double post

Caliban · August 22, 2002, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Hagbart
Why is Carthage your favourite civ? That's strange. Are you from the area?

Why is that so strange? There are many people who rather play "exotic" civs (aztecs, baylonians...) than the boring country they come from (if it is in the game).

Thank god Germany isn't boring...

Palaiologos · August 22, 2002, 14:22

The battle that texaspride is reffering to,is the battle of CynosCephalae(Dog's heads) in 198Bc.The Macedonian army, under King Philip V faced a larger allied army of Romans and Aetolians(a Greek people) which included 20 elephants.

A preliminary mercenary skirmish evolved into a full-scale battle, and while the Romans where victorious on the right flank with the assistance of the elephants,their left flank was on the verge of collapsing.Then a Roman tribune who history has not named,led six maniples(a Roman tactical formation) on his own initiative from the victorious right flank to the rear of the untill then victorious Macedonian right.Seeing all hope was lost the phalangites raised thier pikes in surrender but the uncomprehending Romans cut them down.5000 dead and 8000 prisoners on the Macedonian side while only 700-1000(not counting the Aetolians) to the Romans.

The final showdown with the Roman Empire however came 31 years later , at the Battle of Pydna where the last descendant of the Alexandrian army was crushed.

The Macedonian army in Alexander's times would never have suffered such defeats.it was an extremely mobile and flexible forces relying on combined arms and not on heavy infantry alone.In Greece the tendency was to heavier arms and armour and as a result to less mobility.
The army that had conquered the known world reverted
to the immobile tactics of classical Greece and when they faced a more mobile foe at Cynoscephalae ,the phalangites were not even able to turn arround and protect themselves.

Firebird · August 23, 2002, 05:09

Thanks Palaiologos.

One of the things I like about these civ3-forums is you get a lot of interresting pieces of history and often with many view-points. Better than history-lessons in my school-days actually

Coracle · August 23, 2002, 05:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai

Actually, they were quite civilized and weren't so bad as we use to think. Their only problem is, that the only sources we have, is Roman...

True!!

But I thought they also used to throw babies in fires, and old custom from Phoenicia. Worshipping Ba'al, consort of Tanit.

Hagbart · August 23, 2002, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Caliban

Why is that so strange? There are many people who rather play "exotic" civs (aztecs, baylonians...) than the boring country they come from (if it is in the game).

Thank god Germany isn't boring...

But why of all civs choose Carthage?
He probably likes Elephants.

I like 'exotic' civs too, and I never play my homecountry. To me Carthage seems to be the strangest civ to choose as a favourite. Rome or Egypt I could understand.

No offence to Carthage fans.

Palaiologos · August 23, 2002, 11:48

Actually i have made two errors, Firebird.The battle took place in 197Bc,and hence Pydna came 29 years later in 168Bc , and the Roman tribune led 20 maniples in the Macedonian rear, and not six that i have mentioned.

Thanks for your good words anyway.

Fighter · August 23, 2002, 13:49

Well, to explain my fascination with Carthage, I like the underdogs. I also like the audacious leaders, also explaining why I like the US Civil War. Hannibal marched to the gates of Rome unnoposed, and no one was their to defend Rome, he then marched through rome and continued running accross the country side burning and pillaging as he went. It was a clash of the titans, had Carthage one, they would have formed the next great empire, unfortunately they lost and Rome got that honour.

Hagbart · August 23, 2002, 14:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
Well, to explain my fascination with Carthage, I like the underdogs. I also like the audacious leaders, also explaining why I like the US Civil War. Hannibal marched to the gates of Rome unnoposed, and no one was their to defend Rome, he then marched through rome and continued running accross the country side burning and pillaging as he went. It was a clash of the titans, had Carthage one, they would have formed the next great empire, unfortunately they lost and Rome got that honour.

It was not like they lost because of bad luck, Rome had a much bigger empire. And I'm kind of happy that Rome won or else we wouldn't be here today.
But I like the story of Hannibal and those elephants too.