Carthage's colonies need a better law bonus?

[delra]

Carthaginian AI can't deal with Spain, it gets pushed out of there very quickly and easily - to never return. For the human player it's the other way round, he can conquer Iberia but then what - it's completely useless as it turns very little profit, all being lost to corruption. Similar happens when you try to expand towards Italy or the souther coast of France, you take cities that'll never earn much or be worth much. Even in Maghreb the cities you take are pretty terrible throughout the game.

I'd suggest we give Carthage's colonial governments some extra law bonus so it makes sense for Carthage player to expand overseas and create a network of these colonies. And so it's easier for AI to actually pose threat to anyone besides Massalia.

Or maybe give them a law bonus from ports, so it only applies to coastal cities and Cartage expands along the coasts while trying to not push too far inland?

[V.T. Marvin]

You are right that we went a bit over the top with the corruption money drain. Our intent was to make the game challenging and to prevent the snowball effect when large empires get into almost unlimited resources. However the current setting is clearly too punishing and demotivating people from playing as the more they expand the less money they have in the end. There needs to be a cap - it will be set high enough to preserve the challenge and a bit of realism, but a cap anyway - making the annoying problem of negative net income provinces less often.

[Thuycidides]

You are right that we went a bit over the top with the corruption money drain. Our intent was to make the game challenging and to prevent the snowball effect when large empires get into almost unlimited resources. However the current setting is clearly too punishing and demotivating people from playing as the more they expand the less money they have in the end. There needs to be a cap - it will be set high enough to preserve the challenge and a bit of realism, but a cap anyway - making the annoying problem of negative net income provinces less often.

And I thought it was me. My exact goal when I build an empire is to have a warchest of at least 200,000 mnai in case I need to quickly recruit multiple stacks in multiple places.

[QWE_asd]

You are right that we went a bit over the top with the corruption money drain. Our intent was to make the game challenging and to prevent the snowball effect when large empires get into almost unlimited resources. However the current setting is clearly too punishing and demotivating people from playing as the more they expand the less money they have in the end. There needs to be a cap - it will be set high enough to preserve the challenge and a bit of realism, but a cap anyway - making the annoying problem of negative net income provinces less often.

The level of corruption due to distance is reasonable, with or without cap. As a maritime power people in Carthage have easier access to their colonies from the capital, since every settlement they have at the start is connected to Carthage by sea and travel by sea is much faster than travel by land (I guess) for the same distance. But the game engine doesn't seem to distinguish between the two. I think Carthage's coastal colonies should be more resistant to corruption due to distance. To balance it out, I suggest give moderate +law/-happiness to Carthage colony buildings and make port required for Carthage colonies so Carthage has to establish Allied govs in inland settlements.
Also, the merchant trade branch of Carthage colony buildings need a buff, right now Allied gov is much superior than it in almost every aspect.

[Jervaj]

Yeah I have to partially agree. Iberia was a rich province that they wanted to conquer but in the game is actual more a trouble than anything. You need a lot of investment to have semi profitable settlements there and still you will lose a lot to corruption.

But it should be balanced properly or if not they can be very powerful from the very start with some mines in Iberia

[Doulkus Pontikus]

I've recently started a Karxidon campaign and i'm not really sure why there are two different colony branches.
Let me explain:
The first seems to be financial oriented and only gives happiness and some income, which is lost to corruption anyway, without conversion bonus.
The second, which is not in the building tree btw, works almost as the usual Greek colony. Results in military units, cultural conversion and better gov types.
The two branches are mutually exclusive.

Why would anyone go for the finacial tree?
What's the point?
Even if you don't have enough colony points, and you never do, what's the motive to waste 16 turns in order to build the Trade Outpost in some city, invest another 4,8 and 12 turns to build the financial colony tree and get almost nothing in return. Not even basic recruitment.

IMO there should be a better bonus to the financial tree. Some law bonus is definetly a need and some way to recruit native units would be nice.

[delra]

You are right that we went a bit over the top with the corruption money drain.

I like it that way, actually. I'd only offer some way to work around it with enough investment, and for some factions only - I wouldn't want tribes to start having overseas colonies. But Carthage being a proper maritime empire is sorta what everyone expects and desires.

So I'd boost certain government types for some factions and maybe give a little law to each/some of ports, mines, roads, trading facilities for some cultures...

[Jervaj]

I actually liked the idea of the port. They were a maritime power so maybe you should be able to control better sea locations.