About Carthage

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Hey julianus, I was wondering what do you think of making Carthage economically stronger than it currently is. In all of the IB mods including yours, its economy doesn't reflect what it really was; and that makes me not to care too much if it slips out of my control. Obviously, that was not the case for the real Roman Empire. By the way, today I have fought amazing epic battles trying to stop Barbarians from invading my territory through the Rhenus fluvium .

[julianus heraclius]

Hey julianus, I was wondering what do you think of making Carthage economically stronger than it currently is. In all of the IB mods including yours, its economy doesn't reflect what it really was; and that makes me not to care too much if it slips out of my control. Obviously, that was not the case for the real Roman Empire. By the way, today I have fought amazing epic battles trying to stop Barbarians from invading my territory through the Rhenus fluvium .

I'd be more than happy to. Would you like to add some suggestions.

Thanks

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Well, what I was thinking about is not creative at all, let me warn you; but it is straightforward. Carthage is supposed to be a huge source of income for the empire, so it is logical to assume that its economic infrastructure was highly developed. In those terms, IMHO, it doesn't make too much sense that the city's farms are not well-developed yet, and that its ports (both in rivers and in the sea) are not the biggest around. Now, if the addition of such buildings create too much of a strain on the happiness of the population, some 'happiness' buildings could be added to deal with it. After all, Carthage might have been the third city in the whole empire. And that is what I suggest. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[beatoangelico]

one of my long-term goal is to generally revise the distribution of wealth along the map, including Carthage of course. It's a huge work and I don't know if it will be in IJ 3 since atm I'm doing something completely different.
Fully developed farms would be realistic, but the base pop growth is probably already too high and, furthermore, the RTW engine overstimate the importance of sea trade and understimate agricoltural production, so, considering how the RTW engine works, the best system to make Carthage a cash cow may be a hidden bonus to tax & trade along with a max level port.

I take the opportunity to say that suggestions of any kind are always appreciated, at least for me , so plese written them down if you wish.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

That is a very good idea, betoangelico. bonuses can be the solution for an already high pop growth.

[seriousbusiness]

I don't think this is a very good idea.

Carthage was brutally burnt to the ground and its land thoroughly salted after the Second Punic War. Carthage was permanently knocked out in the years following it as an alternatively powerful economy. Certainly trade continued, but Carthage's population never recovered and when the Vandals finally moved in they occupied ultimately an empty shell, a mere iota of shadow of the city's former power.

It should be possible to restore the Carthaginian economy somewhat (much better than other cities in the region) but politically, doing so was considered a death-wish. After all, Carthage was one of the only factions to ever seriously threaten Rome (twice!), so IMO not such a good idea.

[CIaagent11]

I think that is a good point. Carthage might have been burnt 500 years ago, but it wasn't even the largest/richest city in africa.
Lepcis Magna was. I would like to see it bigger than Carthage.

Here is my suggestion for balancing population growth.
Reduce all regions base farming level to very little.
Then instead have a lot of buildings that give a population growth bonus.
That way it can be deducted again.

And: No farm upgrades for the romans.
The fourth century wasn't like the early days of vanilla RTW.
I don't think there was much of an evolution in farming,
buildings were already there or they would not get build.

So, don't have the farming upgrade buildings at all.
Give population growth bonus upgrades in other cities instead.

[seriousbusiness]

I think that is a good point. Carthage might have been burnt 500 years ago, but it wasn't even the largest/richest city in africa.
Lepcis Magna was. I would like to see it bigger than Carthage.

Here is my suggestion for balancing population growth.
Reduce all regions base farming level to very little.
Then instead have a lot of buildings that give a population growth bonus.
That way it can be deducted again.

And: No farm upgrades for the romans.
The fourth century wasn't like the early days of vanilla RTW.
I don't think there was much of an evolution in farming

Good ideas overall, but I think one farm upgrade should at least be possible. It's not like it wasn't possible for them to improve agriculture (somewhat); they just had other priorities. This period generally was marked by civil wars and crisis so there was little to no growth regardless.

[CIaagent11]

I just checked my facts, and Lepcis magna was largely deserted after the third century crisis. Sorry.
So it should not be that big, but I think it should be a large city with a proconsuls palace, but very small population.

Good ideas overall, but I think one farm upgrade should at least be possible. It's not like it wasn't possible for them to improve agriculture (somewhat); they just had other priorities. This period generally was marked by civil wars and crisis so there was little to no growth regardless.

Right. There was crisis and decreasing populations.
I just want to reflect that. I thought that was a great way of doing that.
There may have been a litte farm upgrade building in that time.
But it was probably so little that we could leave it out of the game.

If not, then at least a high level of farm upgrades should already be build over most of the empire.
But that should not give a lot of pop growth.

Maybe we should have a lot of them already build, but you can't build anymore.

[beatoangelico]

you should read Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire, which sweep away some common misconception about the late empire and the IV century in particular. Most of the recent research is going into the direction of a general rethinking about the idea of "decadence" of the empire.
Carthage was one of the main cities of the empire, and the economical engine of the western half of the roman world. Heather speaks of an "economical boom" of Africa under the empire. This will be reflected in the game.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

First of all, welcome to the forum. Judging by your posts you are having a hell of a time with the mods, and who can blame you? IB mods are amazingly good.

I don't think this is a very good idea.

Carthage was brutally burnt to the ground and its land thoroughly salted after the Second Punic War. Carthage was permanently knocked out in the years following it as an alternatively powerful economy. Certainly trade continued, but Carthage's population never recovered and when the Vandals finally moved in they occupied ultimately an empty shell, a mere iota of shadow of the city's former power.

It should be possible to restore the Carthaginian economy somewhat (much better than other cities in the region) but politically, doing so was considered a death-wish. After all, Carthage was one of the only factions to ever seriously threaten Rome (twice!), so IMO not such a good idea.

It is true, Carthage suffered those terrible consequences you mentioned after her third, not second, war against Rome. However, Carthage was not ‘permanently knocked out in the years following it as an alternatively powerful economy’. Actually Carthage, as stated by beatoangelico, was a very powerful powerhouse of the Roman Empire; which, in the words of Peter Heather’s, is ironic if we take into account the past of the city. During Caesar’s time the region exported to Rome 50,000 tons of grain but a hundred years later was sending to the capital more than 500,000 tons, thus replacing Egypt as the granary of Rome. During the second century AD, olives and wine were added to the production of the African province. More than 15000 kilometers of roads were built both for military purposes and transportation of goods especially into the city, which then were sent by sea to different points of the Roman world, not only the capital. Since the African products were highly appreciated all over the Empire (wine amphorae have been found in places far from Carthage), the city’s port was a very active one and the navicularii were responsible for providing the port with enough ships for trade. As we can see, Carthage was indeed a very important city for the Empire; economically speaking I even dare saying more important than the City of Rome itself. That’s why when the Vandals took the city; the WRE was stripped of her main source of revenues. The Vandals did not take an ‘empty shell, a mere iota of shadow of the city's former power’, but the heart of Rome’s economy. The Carthage lost by the Romans to the Vandals had nothing Carthiginian in it, it was a Roman Carthage, and a very powerful one.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I agree with Pseudo-Romanus' comments above and beatoangelico's as well. It has been argued that it was the loss of Carthage and the African provinces which doomed the Roman Empire in the West due to lack of grain, tax revenue and the recruiting grounds. It was the motor which drove the economy of the Imperial apparatus and IBFD should reflect that importance. Securing the African provinces would be the first and most important step towards rebuilding the economy and building up a military infrastructure.

It should be remembered that several attempts were made to regain Carthage and Africa by the western emperors including a joint Eastern and Western Roman combined assault by sea and land which alas proved disastrous (oh, if only it had been otherwise!).

[CIaagent11]

you should read Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire, which sweep away some common misconception about the late empire and the IV century in particular. Most of the recent research is going into the direction of a general rethinking about the idea of "decadence" of the empire.

Thanks for reccomending it. I will do that.
After all the roman empire was conquered by force. It didn't just fall apart from the inside.
But the third century crisis had damaged the economy greatly.
That's why Lepcis Magna, once the third largest city in Africa, wasn't anymore.
It had been a trading post, and now it could not get it's merchandise out in the empire.
And at least in the western part, population was decreasing.

So while Carthage should be rich. The empire over all should be in trouble.

so, considering how the RTW engine works, the best system to make Carthage a cash cow may be a hidden bonus to tax & trade along with a max level port.

Is it possible for Carthage to get a 1000 percent trade bonus, or something like that, to reflect it's financial importance?
But then, that extra money should be deducted in some other province, or the romans be too rich.
How about Rome, in it's decadence, being really costly. I know, I know.
So, Carthage might have been big. But I don't think it was growing in the fourth century.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

So, Carthage might have been big. But I don't think it was growing in the fourth century.

Actually, it seems it was; and not only Carthage was experiencing an economic boom but, based on some archeological findings in the area of current Jordan or Siria (I'm not sure) some other areas too. I'm not trying to say that the Roman state didn't have financial problems among others, just that her circumstances may have been a little different than those we're familiar with.

[seriousbusiness]

I'm not trying to say that the Roman state didn't have financial problems among others, just that her circumstances may have been a little different than those we're familiar with.

I just checked and it turns out Carthage really was a financially crucial city and that it did indeed recover after the initial conquest by Rome. Fairly quickly too, but the Romans consolidated well, particularly culturally (as you implied). I wouldn't be so quick to suppose that the Vandals attacked out of greed, but possibly (but not necessarily) because other groups were coming West too (eg Visigoths, particularly) which put pressure on them to move somewhere else, although no doubt huge plunder was obtained.

I was exaggerating about Roman Carthage - probably should've done some reading first

Since only the Italian cities rivalled Carthage, so it would be fair to give Carthage a vast amount of trade and farm income in lieu of what Pseudo Romanus noted. Also it should be destructible though, making Carthage an ideal pillage target. Perhaps making it the target of attacks more often would also indicate that.

[seriousbusiness]

whoops, wrong quote, just realized *facepalm*

[CIaagent11]

Since this sort of turned into a discussion about growth rates I like to show you my suggestion.
This is my modification of growth for the roman empire, they have no farm upgrades at all, and I lowered a lot of base farming.
As you see population is decreasing fast.
I do not know what happens later, maybe it won't work in the long term because there's just nobody left.
I think this is an interesting challenge.

[beatoangelico]

this kind of decrease it's probably too much; remember, we are in the middle of IV century and that was a pretty good time for the empire. Even if the population on the whole was decreasing (and this is arguable), the real population drop happened much later.
Dropping base farming value is generally good, but this should be balanced by the availability of farming upgrades (maybe the top tier upgrades shouldn't be available in every province, but they should definitely be in somehow).

[CIaagent11]

Yes. I wanted to try it out as a gameplay challenge, not because it's entirely historical.
Now I am somewhat into my campaign, and I can see that my cities will not grow above a certain level, so made farm upgrades available again, but with tax and happiness penalties.

I still think that for a later version of the game you guys should think about leaving farm upgrades out.
Not only that it was entirely unusual for that time frame to build those enhancements. It was very unusual for the romans, even in the vanilla days.
They always tryed to keep things as they are in their farming.
I didnt like that building tree from the beginning.
Just like the senate. It was still there, but because it was so unimportant in this time it got left out of BI.
I think it should be that way with farm upgrades in the later empire. Pop growth bonuses could be given by other buildings, but farm upgrades should not be there.

[beatoangelico]

I still think that for a later version of the game you guys should think about leaving farm upgrades out.
Not only that it was entirely unusual for that time frame to build those enhancements. It was very unusual for the romans, even in the vanilla days.
They always tryed to keep things as they are in their farming.
I didnt like that building tree from the beginning.
Just like the senate. It was still there, but because it was so unimportant in this time it got left out of BI.
I think it should be that way with farm upgrades in the later empire. Pop growth bonuses could be given by other buildings, but farm upgrades should not be there.

farm upgrades cannot be deleted, first because they provide a stable income for the factions (not fixed, but much more stable than trade), second because the romans did improve their farming system as the example of Africa shows.