Austria and Venice liberatable city states?

[Glassmage]

I asked this a few weeks back but since the new patch came out and the devs browse the forums more, I want to know if the city states married or buy out by Austria and Venice can be liberated?

 

[Ryoga]

I don't think it's something you can easily check from the data. That's not something written in the xml files so it's a lot harder to find.

I guess we will be sure only after someone can play the game.

 

[Yzman]

In the latest review the reviewer said that the city state count went down for diplomatic victory because of CS that Venice took. That is similar to Austria, meaning I believe they can not be liberated. Which makes sense, they are joining peacefully.

 

[FeiLing]

Austria: No. Venice: Most likely neither.

I think once they acquired the CSs they could even be razed if you conquered them.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

In the latest review the reviewer said that the city state count went down for diplomatic victory because of CS that Venice took. That is similar to Austria, meaning I believe they can not be liberated. Which makes sense, they are joining peacefully.

Its possible the CS count went down because the CS was occupied.. Ie they might have been removed from the count if someone conquered them, and restored when liberated.

 

[Yzman]

Its possible the CS count went down because the CS was occupied.. Ie they might have been removed from the count if someone conquered them, and restored when liberated.

From what I remember, that does not happen when a civ normally takes a CS, hence why I said it. I remember it being different for Austria than when someone just normally conquers a CS in how the game treats the diplomacy screen. I assume Venice will be same as Austria from what I said.

 

[gunnergoz]

I'm not sure it is logical to expect to be able to "liberate" a CS that "willingly" (i.e. was paid or persuaded by MoV) to join a regular civ, be it Austria or Venice. One that was conquered by force of arms is different.

 

[SamBC]

Its possible the CS count went down because the CS was occupied.. Ie they might have been removed from the count if someone conquered them, and restored when liberated.

Pre-BNW, occupied CS still counted for the threshold for DV.

 

[mitsho]

I'm not sure it is logical to expect to be able to "liberate" a CS that "willingly" (i.e. was paid or persuaded by MoV) to join a regular civ, be it Austria or Venice. One that was conquered by force of arms is different.

not logical, but it would be better for gameplay.

You can twist it though, see: You get the married city state in a peace agreement. It might be "logical" in that case to free the city again but give it to a different family (that Austria can again marry into if they so desire... ).

 

[Ryoga]

Depends on what is your assumed logic behind it.

A puppet city is not exactly "free" no matter how you slice it.

What the merchant actually does is up there for speculations right now. Perhaps he bribes the leader into submission (what kind of king would do that though?) or perhaps he funds a subservient party to take over the rightful regime.

 

[Nick Hynds]

mitsho: I disagree. Liberating Austrian city's from diplomatic marriage is both ridiculous realistically and is also bad for game play. Think about how you would feel if you spent a ton of resources to ally a city state and then even more resources to diplomatically marry into them and then some jerk declared war on you and 'liberated' the city state making the city state allied to the jerk and AT WAR WITH YOU.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

mitsho: I disagree. Liberating Austrian city's from diplomatic marriage is both ridiculous realistically and is also bad for game play. Think about how you would feel if you spent a ton of resources to ally a city state and then even more resources to diplomatically marry into them and then some jerk declared war on you and 'liberated' the city state making the city state allied to the jerk and AT WAR WITH YOU.

Well instead an Austrian diplo married city should recover its City-State status whenever it leaves Austrian control.

(so someone attacking Austria can't liberate it.... but someone attacking Them can)

That way City States don't just 'leave the game'

 

[Scaramanga]

Puppets by definition have an original owner to whom they can be liberated. This is the minor/major civilization that founded it. When Austria gets "married" to a city-state the city-state becomes as if it was originally founded by Austria. By contrast Venice puppets so it can't be the original owner. If the former city-state is not either who is?

 

[Yzman]

It is a city-state of the grander empire. People are looking too much into this.

Its like Texas and the USA. Texas was annexed by the USA peacefully. It no longer exists as its own entity. It is the USA now. The only way for it to no longer be part of the country would either be its conquered by someone else or succession. But since it was voluntary, succession doesn't make any sense.

TLDR: You can't liberate the willing.

 

[gunnergoz]

Depends on what is your assumed logic behind it.

A puppet city is not exactly "free" no matter how you slice it.

What the merchant actually does is up there for speculations right now. Perhaps he bribes the leader into submission (what kind of king would do that though?) or perhaps he funds a subservient party to take over the rightful regime.

If it were by subterfuge or bribery, it would make more sense to use a spy/diplomat to sneak into a CS and make it a new puppet. I think the use of the MoV indicates this is an economic move which would be seen as benefiting both parties if it happened in real life.

The phrase "puppet" here as it applies to Venice is more in game terms than, say, moral ones IRL. It is how to best describe the effect, but not necessarily the means or intention of the deal between the two.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It is a city-state of the grander empire. People are looking too much into this.

Its like Texas and the USA. Texas was annexed by the USA peacefully. It no longer exists as its own entity. It is the USA now. The only way for it to no longer be part of the country would either be its conquered by someone else or succession. But since it was voluntary, succession doesn't make any sense.

TLDR: You can't liberate the willing.

See CSA... Texas reconizes itself as an independent entity, that is also currently part of the US

I would be fine if you couldn't liberate From Austria (or Venice to a lesser degree).
However, the CS nature should be restored If they are not part of Austria/Venice.

(Mexico wouldn't liberate Texas from the US, but another country could conceivably liberate an indepedent Texas from an occupying Mexico.)...Texas might not auto-rejoin a US that couldn't defend it from Mexico,

So if a civ takes an Austrian diplomarried CS it should be handled as that civ conquering a CS ally of Austria. (Austria could liberate them, and then remarry them)