Development pre 1.6

[cmakk1012]

Where did you get this idea from? Why did trade decline through Egypt?

Trade declined through Egypt because of the discovery of routes around Africa that allowed European powers to circumvent the Mideast entirely. This affected Venice severely because their predominant trading thrust was from the Mideast to Europe, and was IMO one of the main reasons of its power decline relative to the rest of Europe.

If Venice controlled Egypt, they could logically at least mitigate the detrimental effects of African-rounding competitors; this is all very hypothetical, but a Venice that set up shop in the Red Sea could try and force, say, the Portuguese out of the region in the same way that the Mamluks attempted to.

The suggestion for including the Straits of Gibraltar as well is to open up the Atlantic for Venice as well in the age of the lucrative New World trade, the same concept behind its current UHV3.

 

[Swarbs]

I have no qualms with giving them the same UHV and perhaps even the same date to complete it.

It's not really a unique victory if two civs have it. Particularly given that the idea of Venice and Genoa competing with each other has no weight if one of them is controlled by an AI which will almost invariably make no real effort to achieve that goal.

Pretty sure @AbsintheRed wanted to avoid two civs having the same UHV so you'd need to convince him of this.

 

[The Turk]

Trade declined through Egypt because of the discovery of routes around Africa that allowed European powers to circumvent the Mideast entirely.

So let me get this straight. Portugal sails around Africa to get some action of Indian Ocean trade, and all of a sudden trade through Egypt dries up? LOL. Does that even make rational sense to you? This is based on a very outdated belief that Indian Ocean trade dried up magically with the discovery of the New World. A very Americo-centric world view.

No, in short this is nonsense. In reality Indian Ocean trade through Ottoman domains remained strong for the majority of RFC Europe's time frame. The Venetians declined in power because the Ottomans wiped out their bases of operation, fleet and territorial holdings. The Ottomans and Hapsburgs became the undisputed naval powers of the Mediterranean by the 16th/17th c. The Venetians were forced to obey Hapsburg foreign policy goals in order to coordinate action against the much large Ottoman fleet (do note that the Ottomans simultaneously ran fleets stationed in the Black Sea and another in Suez for the Indian Ocean).

This is why the Venetians keeping hold of their historical territories, and having the largest fleet makes sense as UHVs.

Venice declined not because the Portuguese were able to get a pinch of the wealth from the Indian Ocean, but because they ultimately challenged the Ottomans navally, and failed in the attempt (1699 being a brief respite until ~1715 or so). The Ottomans in response opened up trade opportunities to the English and French, who became competitors to the diminishing power of the Italian trade republics.

See, Giancarlo Casale "The Ottoman Age of Exploration" and G. Scammell "The First Imperial Age"

 

[The Turk]

As for UHVs, I don't see why two civs can't have a UHV they compete over. If anything having them finish at different dates is fine. Have Venice's set to 1700 for instance to see if they can actually maintain trade hegemony for that long (which is obviously completely ahistorical, but that's the point of the 3rd UHV anyway).

 

[cmakk1012]

So let me get this straight. Portugal sails around Africa to get some action of Indian Ocean trade, and all of a sudden trade through Egypt dries up? LOL. Does that even make rational sense to you? This is based on a very outdated belief that Indian Ocean trade dried up magically with the discovery of the New World. A very Americo-centric world view.

No, in short this is nonsense. In reality Indian Ocean trade through Ottoman domains remained strong for the majority of RFC Europe's time frame. The Venetians declined in power because the Ottomans wiped out their bases of operation, fleet and territorial holdings. The Ottomans and Hapsburgs became the undisputed naval powers of the Mediterranean by the 16th/17th c. The Venetians were forced to obey Hapsburg foreign policy goals in order to coordinate action against the much large Ottoman fleet (do note that the Ottomans simultaneously ran fleets stationed in the Black Sea and another in Suez for the Indian Ocean).

This is why the Venetians keeping hold of their historical territories, and having the largest fleet makes sense as UHVs.

Venice declined not because the Portuguese were able to get a pinch of the wealth from the Indian Ocean, but because they ultimately challenged the Ottomans navally, and failed in the attempt (1699 being a brief respite until ~1715 or so). The Ottomans in response opened up trade opportunities to the English and French, who became competitors to the diminishing power of the Italian trade republics.

See, Giancarlo Casale "The Ottoman Age of Exploration" and G. Scammell "The First Imperial Age"

This is not about whether trade through Egypt dried up, its about the trade that Venice participated in specifically. The Venetians obtained their wealth and power by being middlemen between the Mideast and Europe, the last stop on the Silk Road and other transcontinental trade routes for goods from East Asia. When Africa was rounded and the Portuguese and others began trading that way, Venice’s niche in particular—not Egyptian trade in general—was made less significant.

EDIT: It’s more of a relative decline than an absolute one. Trade remained strong; but other parts of Europe grew stronger, and Venice couldn’t keep up in its niche, which the Ottoman wars only weakened.

The question I’m asking is, how can Venice accomplish something it didn’t historically? That is the usual point of a UHV3. Dominating trade in the Med was something they IIRC did actually accomplish at one point while the Genoese didn’t; therefore, it makes sense for the latter to have that goal as their UHV3 and not so much for Venice.

The things that Venice always tried and failed to do was establish its “Terra Firma” and defeat the Ottomans in the east. The former isn’t really easily represented on a map this size, so the latter has to do. Conquering Egypt and ruling Constantinople directly isn’t exactly historical, but it is a way of having the Venetians be comprehensively defeating the Ottomans in a way that focuses on trade.

 

[The Turk]

In 1700 they most definitely didn't dominate trade, and the Venetians continued to dominated well after Vasco da Gama landed in Calicut. So a UHV for trade power that is based that late, while having the strongest navy does make sense, if the end date for it is appropriate.

Anyhow I would greatly buff up the Ottoman AI at the moment (just for the AI). I see mega Hungary every single game, but I've never seen the Ottomans reach their IRL potential, ever. They should be a late game pitboss for the human.

 

[Baron03]

It's usually difficult striking a balance between gameplay and anything historical. I do like the "most trade route income" goal. If not that, due to overlap with Genoa, then maybe a "control X cities in the eastern Mediterranean and Black seas in 1700" goal instead?

I dislike the conquest of the Ottomans or Egypt as potential goals for Venice. That's far beyond the scope of its history. I would suggest a playable Latin Empire (Frankokratia) before implementing those. I don't even care for the conquest of Cnstantinople goal (I would replace the fourth crusade with a seperate civ entirely).

Venice declined for a variety of reasons though (Ottomans controlling eastern Mediterranean, development of alternative trade routes, and war to name three). The economic decline began between 1580-1590, and then more rapidly by the start of the 17th century. Those dates are a good place to determine an alternative third UHV that is based on wealth or trade.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Just wanted to say that I follow the discussion closely.
I agree in the need to further improve both the Genoan and Venetian UHVs.

It's not really a unique victory if two civs have it. Particularly given that the idea of Venice and Genoa competing with each other has no weight if one of them is controlled by an AI which will almost invariably make no real effort to achieve that goal.

Pretty sure @AbsintheRed wanted to avoid two civs having the same UHV so you'd need to convince him of this.

Indeed.
While I appreciate the symmetry because of the historic rivalry between those two, I would prefer to keep the gameplay UHVs as unique as possible.

 

[AbsintheRed]

2) Own Y ships (you can already check this in the victory screen I'm pretty sure)

You can't.
I recently added similar mechanics to the Aragonese UHV though.
But that's only for them, and for ships having cargo space.

Only think i can think of: allow no other ship in the mediterrean sea, then yours in 15xx. So you have to work toward privateers and actively do something. Ofc only ships on water count, not ships in cities. Nor workboats.

That seems a bit too hit and miss to me - one country launches one ship on the other side of the map on the day of the deadline and you lose. Also if there's to be a ship destruction aspect then I'd say it should be part of UHV2

Thats the point. You should be represented heavily everywhere on the sea, thus really dominating. Have vision where and what is build, to be prepared for it. Thats why its a challange. And absinthe can make sure that in the given date no barb ships spawn.

On general, a ship-building UHV (or part-UHV) for Venice sounds very fitting. Not only historically, but for gameplay too.
Producing a large navy have great synergies with the Grand Arsenal, and the need to have a big commerce-base to be able to maintain a huge fleet.
Also, there are no biggest-navy related UHVs yet.

How does an "ensure that at least 2/3 of the naval units are under your control" UHV or something similar sounds?
That would probably mean naval wars too besides production and wealth.
We can't have it at 100%, that would only be an annoyace. Very luck-dependant even if you play perfectly.

What percentage could work?
Only on the Mediterranean, or might even work with a lower percentage on the whole map?

 

[cmakk1012]

If the ship-building UHV is added (and I guess it makes sense in some ways more than An Egypt conquest), could there possibly be an EU4-like mechanic that actually boosts your trade income with ships out and about somehow? Or even just by owning ships, like a very small amount of added to cities’ trade route income per boat? Or is that too complex?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Has anybody experienced the game crashing after the historical victory?

I finished a couple games recently with UHVs, no crashes here.
Did you experience this multiple times? Do you have a save maybe?
Did anyone else have a crash on winning the game?

- I agree that an update to the Norwegian UHV would be a good idea, but I think southern Italy should not be unsettled even with a new UHV. One of the oldest settled areas in the Meditarinian should not be empty.

Sure, southern Italy will definitely keep the indy city spawns, no matter how (or when) will the UHV change.

- AI builds too few walls - even in big developed cities. They should have a higher priority.

Agreed, but it's always hard to improve on the AI.
Will try to adjust some values on AI building preferences though.

And/or make it impossible to remove all cultural def. modifiers - people defending their homes and families should fight always a bit harder. And more walls/castles, so the AI has more time to react to surprise attacks.

Worth considering, noted.

- Conquest in general seems a bit too easy. (I conquered all Hungary with just the austrian starting Army in a few turns - centuries too early). This is more of a general civ4 problem than of the Mod. I think one important solution would be to remove the City Raider Promotions. If you have some heavy promoted city raider units, cities are more of a death trap than an defensive advantage for the AI. This leads to city conquest without casulties and huge snowballing for the human player. The AI does not seem to use CR promotions regularly.

Not really sure on this one.
While I agree it might be very powerful for the human player (maybe even too powerful), I thought it's important for the AI, especially in conquests in the first half of the game.
Would need to get some statistics on this. If the AI does not really use, then I partly agree. Won't remove the CR line, but I'm more than willing to nerf it.
Why do say it's rarely used?

- England seems militarily too weak - at least against a human player. The Conquest of all England as Scotland was just a walk in the park. No walls, few units. They sacrifice their starting units against barbarians and independents and are an easy target after that.

The previous points should be heavily related to this.
Nevertheless I added a couple additional starting units to AI England.

 

[AbsintheRed]

If the ship-building UHV is added (and I guess it makes sense in some ways more than An Egypt conquest), could there possibly be an EU4-like mechanic that actually boosts your trade income with ships out and about somehow? Or even just by owning ships, like a very small amount of added to cities’ trade route income per boat? Or is that too complex?

I'm not yet sure what to do with the 3rd UHV.
Did not decide against a conquest goal for it.
ATM the two directions I'm thinking about is a commercial goal (which would result in adjusting the Genoan goal too) and something along the lines of your suggestion.

For the 1st and 2nd UHVs I like the direction in Swarbs' suggestion:

UHV 1: Control the Adriatic and Aegean Seas by 1204AD (UHV 1 and 2)
UHV 2: Have at least 30 warships by 1410AD (May need balancing)
UHV 3: Destroy the Ottoman Empire

So the 1st UHV will be more or less the current 1st and 2nd UHVs merged.
While the ship-building UHV will be the second one.

EDIT: Sry, did not respond to your actual question
Definitely not trivial to add.
Would have to look into it in detail, whether it worths the effort at all or not.

 

[AbsintheRed]

But it is not playable due to the constant frustration of how far you are behind, that nothing works out well, if something get straight by any miracle, the you are dowed or a plage kills all your army and workers.

Its no wonder ai used to colllapse or get vassalized.

Improved tech rate modifiers for Muscovy/Russia for both the human player and the AI

 

[cmakk1012]

Not really sure on this one.
While I agree it might be very powerful for the human player (maybe even too powerful), I thought it's important for the AI, especially in conquests in the first half of the game.
Would need to get some statistics on this. If the AI does not really use, then I partly agree. Won't remove the CR line, but I'm more than willing to nerf it.
Why do say it's rarely used?

One issue I could see with nerfing CR is that it would make precise conquest goals like the French UHV1 significantly more difficult, as well as civs that need to conquer early to survive like Genoa more tricky as well.

I'm not yet sure what to do with the 3rd UHV.
Did not decide against a conquest goal for it.
ATM the two directions I'm thinking about is a commercial goal (which would result in adjusting the Genoan goal too) and something along the lines of your suggestion.

Thanks for considering my earlier ideas as well!

I think it’s true that there should be a direct commercial goal since obviously that was Venice’s entire mode of operation. It should probably require you to stay in the Merchant Republic civic—because of the current conquest goals I often find it easier to switch to the Feudal set of civics.

EDIT: Sry, did not respond to your actual question
Definitely not trivial to add.
Would have to look into it in detail, whether it worths the effort at all or not.

Alright, it’s not that important to me.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Thanks for considering my earlier ideas as well!

Yeah, of course I do!
I said it a couple times before, but I guess it can never be said enough:
I read and consider all posts, even if I do not answer them directly (or answer them later, for one reason or another).
And I always make notes of the better ideas/suggestions.

Alright, it’s not that important to me.

Well, the question is that how much would it benefit the mod

 

[cmakk1012]

Yeah, of course I do!
I said it a couple times before, but I guess it can never be said enough:
I read and consider all posts, even if I do not answer them directly (or answer them later, for one reason or another).
And I always make notes of the better ideas/suggestions.

That’s really good of you!

Well, the question is that how much would it benefit the mod

Yeah, that makes sense.

The idea of there being an inherent value to boats beyond military strength makes more sense if a Venice UHV involves hoarding them, and “trade power” makes even more sense because that’s Venice’s whole deal. On the other hand, there doesn’t necessarily need to be a different advantage to boats because military strength at sea is pretty important...

 

[AbsintheRed]

Maybe something to do with having the highest total gold / commerce yield from companies? So not only does Genoa have to attract Bank of St George but they also have to make sure it produces more than Ausburg, Hanseatic League and Medici Banks?

Not sure it would be possible to code that?

An alternative would be to switch Venice's colonial goal to Genoa, as Genoa had more trade outside the Mediterranean than Venice, including with Flanders, Portugal and Morocco, so more historic access to the Atlantic

For Genoa, I like both of these.
Banks + highest gold+commerce from companies.
Or 1st colony.
Which would be preferred?
(Venice will lose it's colonial goal.)

 

[The Turk]

Have Genoa and Venice in competition with one another. Largest navy, historical colonies in the Mediterranean and Black Sea (where appropriate), and highest trade income.

 

[DC123456789]

Have Genoa and Venice in competition with one another. Largest navy, historical colonies in the Mediterranean and Black Sea (where appropriate), and highest trade income.

But the AI doesn't go for UHVs. So instead of being in competition for each other, you just have two civs with the same goals and that play much the same, which is kind of boring.

 

[gilgames]

In this save, you can see what excatly i imagined for the uhv.

The control x percent of ships is bad, due to ai behavior. They tend to stockpile ships in cities, makes hard to kill them.

I can also imagine something viking ponts like deal. Accumlate xxx points of trade power. 1 sunk a ship, 1 build a ship, 2 each costal city, 1 for OB, 1/trade routs, ect.
Where xxx is 200, 300 idk, needs to be tested.