Hoax, or very early build?

[Dregor]

Can I pick hoax just because I want Venice to be a hoax?

 

[EulerMcE]

I didn't realise there was more screenshots than the civilopedia pages. It now seems extremely unlikely to me that it is a hoax.

 

[Ricardo_]

Seeing the 80 screenshots I think it's pretty plausible Venice and Shoshone are real.

 

[PhilBowles]

The only thing that is skeptical to me is that they both have two Unique Units and no buildings or improvements. Maybe its been modified since this was released though. Idk, they both seem like plausible civilizations

Actually this isn't especially unexpected, since people were expressing surprise that of all the civs revealed so far (including the modified France), none had two UUs while the ratio in the game to date has been close to 50%.

 

[PhilBowles]

To be very clear, I think Venice is in, but I'm starting to think hoax.

Venice would get a UU (MoV) that would require forfeiting another GP to do something a bit of military could do just as well.

The way the Khan requires forfeiting a Great General to do something a few stronger, faster units with the Heal promotion could do just as well?

What start bias would they have? Coastal to use the UU, be able to get nice trade routes, and grab coastal wonders? Desert so that they have access to Petra and the solar power plant?

In what possible way would Venice relate to Petra or solar power plants? Start biases are dictated mainly by theme, and Venice would have a coastal bias.

River so they can produce GP well (the MoV without gardens...getting GP slower than anyone else and using them to conquer CS's...YUCK).

Do the Mongols have a river start bias to produce Khans more quickly? You might as well say that any civ with a UU should have a hill bonus so that they have higher production and so get UUs out more quickly. It's inane.

They need too many different types of terrain to have access to different wonders. Specifically, a mountain would be very important (Venice needs that trade route income, it would appear). But it really does need coast, too, and...I just can't get over the damage not being able to have a garden in the ONLY city that can produce GP would have.

They don't need access to any of this. Civs playing OCC don't need any of this either. They can still get Pisa and National Epic, and few people go for Gardens as it is. Venice has double the number of trade routes that everyone else has - they have less need for extra gold from the Wonder if anything. And a coastal start bias just means they start with some coastal tiles - they might well have deserts, lakes or mountains in some games. As with any Civ game, a large part of the point is adapting to the terrain and situation you find yourself in, and this game has many ways of achieving the same bonuses. If a civ needed Macchu Picchu, it would lose every game where someone else builds it first. Dpn't imagine that because your particular idea of a Venetian strategy probably won't work, the civ must be poorly-designed.

I find myself wanting to play mainly Morocco or Indonesia, but Venice is definitely a civ I want to try.

 

[Rooftrellen]

The way the Khan requires forfeiting a Great General to do something a few stronger, faster units with the Heal promotion could do just as well?

In what possible way would Venice relate to Petra or solar power plants? Start biases are dictated mainly by theme, and Venice would have a coastal bias.

Do the Mongols have a river start bias to produce Khans more quickly? You might as well say that any civ with a UU should have a hill bonus so that they have higher production and so get UUs out more quickly. It's inane.

They don't need access to any of this. Civs playing OCC don't need any of this either. They can still get Pisa and National Epic, and few people go for Gardens as it is. Venice has double the number of trade routes that everyone else has - they have less need for extra gold from the Wonder if anything. And a coastal start bias just means they start with some coastal tiles - they might well have deserts, lakes or mountains in some games. As with any Civ game, a large part of the point is adapting to the terrain and situation you find yourself in, and this game has many ways of achieving the same bonuses. If a civ needed Macchu Picchu, it would lose every game where someone else builds it first. Dpn't imagine that because your particular idea of a Venetian strategy probably won't work, the civ must be poorly-designed.

I find myself wanting to play mainly Morocco or Indonesia, but Venice is definitely a civ I want to try.

No, it's not the same as losing one unit because you gain a UU in it's place.

Considering the confusion, perhaps some DLC changes things (I have only Civ 5 and G&K, nothing you can't get out of a box), but with only that, a Great General does not raise the price of other great people, so there is no cost of getting it. Great Merchants do raise the price of most other great people (Artists, Scientists, Engineer, and other Merchants).

As a result, I can only assume the MoV will come with the same cost raising as generating other great people. Producing a Khan increases the cost only of the next Khan.

The desert buildings are certainly less important than the mountain ones, and particularly Machu Picchu, as well as a river for the garden. Venice could vary wildly from game to game based on if they get lucky enough to be able to make a garden or not. To me, having a civ that could have such wild swings in power based on getting a nearby starting tile is bad design. Venice is the only civ that would be totally unable to set up a different city in which to build some things they could really feed on.

Given that every other civ can settle production cities to pump out units where they want, and great generals are produced by gaining exp (again, without DLC), I do agree that it is a silly argument.

Garden, Pisa, and National Epic is stronger than Pisa and National Epic. And perhaps I play a bit differently, but I like to set up a city that can have high pop and preferably a garden to generate great people. I honestly find it a little hard to imagine a normal game without at least one city working to make great people.

I also think they will want as much gold as they can get. Gold producing wonders should mean much more to them, because it will be how they can control their puppets. A gold producing wonder is more important for them.

You can say you don't need these in a OCC, but Arabia gets no benefit from the bazaar with war always on. That doesn't make it a useless building, nor does it make something that will benefit trade routes pointless for a civ that gets more than anyone else.

Maybe I am imagining wrong, and your strategy would work better than mine. I just think they'll want to bring in a lot of gold and buy things in puppets, generally fighting wars for moderately developed cities (to make up for the culture penalty of puppets).

The idea of poor design is how wildly they could differ in power from one game to the next. We're talking about a civ that, from what we have seen, would be much less consistent than even Spain, based on 24 tiles.

 

[VainApocalypse]

I holding onto some hope that it's some form of placeholder art. It's a horrible choice if it's the final version.

Why does everyone hate that icon but me? I think it looks a touch more majestic than the traditional lion of St. Mark.

 

[Menzies]

Can I pick hoax just because I want Venice to be a hoax?

Even if this were a hoax we already knew that Venice was in.

 

[Moraiwe]

Why does everyone hate that icon but me? I think it looks a touch more majestic than the traditional lion of St. Mark.

It's not the quality of artwork, it's the choice of using a rampant lion. Whether or not it's more majestic-looking doesn't really bother me. There are iconic images associated with Venice, and a rampant lion isn't one of them.

It's akin to using an obscure leader who is barely known and had little impact, instead of one who is universally known and is almost synonymous with the civ they represent.

 

[The Almighty dF]

It's not the quality of artwork, it's the choice of using a rampant lion. Whether or not it's more majestic-looking doesn't really bother me. There are iconic images associated with Venice, and a rampant lion isn't one of them.

It's akin to using an obscure leader who is barely known and had little impact, instead of one who is universally known and is almost synonymous with the civ they represent.

Like when China got the wife of one of its greatest leaders instead of said great leader?

Firaxis does this sometimes, either to play against expectations or because they want to diversify things visually.

 

[Menzies]

It's not the quality of artwork, it's the choice of using a rampant lion. Whether or not it's more majestic-looking doesn't really bother me. There are iconic images associated with Venice, and a rampant lion isn't one of them.

It's akin to using an obscure leader who is barely known and had little impact, instead of one who is universally known and is almost synonymous with the civ they represent.

...have you even looked at the colours they picked for Venice? Yes, they seemingly got them off the flag as it is on Wikipedia, but the colours are the traditional Venetian colours, and it seems that the flag on Wikipedia has it's colours slightly wrong. Having the image a bit off as well is hardly surprising.

 

[PhilBowles]

No, it's not the same as losing one unit because you gain a UU in it's place.

Considering the confusion, perhaps some DLC changes things (I have only Civ 5 and G&K, nothing you can't get out of a box), but with only that, a Great General does not raise the price of other great people, so there is no cost of getting it. Great Merchants do raise the price of most other great people (Artists, Scientists, Engineer, and other Merchants).

I don't understand why you feel this is any kind of novel restriction - yes, the MoV almost certainly will increase the cost of future GPs, but as you point out so does the GM it replaces. It's not as though you're going to want an endless stream of Merchants - smaller maps can have as few as 4 city-states, many civs get by with three or four cities in total (chances are, unless you go for Liberty just for the finisher, you'll play Tradition with Venice for the food production), and Venice is likely to be conquering cities more than puppeting them early in the game when merchant specialists are hard to come by.

The desert buildings are certainly less important than the mountain ones, and particularly Machu Picchu, as well as a river for the garden. Venice could vary wildly from game to game based on if they get lucky enough to be able to make a garden or not. To me, having a civ that could have such wild swings in power based on getting a nearby starting tile is bad design.

The only difference a Garden makes to Venice that it doesn't make to anyone else is that it can produce a couple of extra MoVs late in the game - that's less variance than the difference between getting a good or bad food start or the presence or absence of a maritime CS with favourable quests as a starting location is for settler production time for other civs. You're assuming for some reason that Merchant of Venice = Venice the civ, and that the latter's fortunes will rise and fall with its GP production, but there's nothing I see in the civ design that supports that.

If anything, playable Venice looks more akin to historical Venice - it will expand mostly through conquest, and with its powerful early ranged naval unit probably mainly through naval conquest. The MoV is just another option for expanding, should you want to do so at all.

Venice is the only civ that would be totally unable to set up a different city in which to build some things they could really feed on.

I think it's been confirmed that Venice can build both units and buildings in puppets - all it can't do is assign tile production and specialists. Only things with a city-specific effect that players need to centralise in the capital are needed in Venice, and of those only the Garden and Observatory are terrain-specific. And puppets can produce GPs, they just do so slowly because the AI's poor both at coordinating both the construction buildings with stackable effects, and the use of specialists.

Garden, Pisa, and National Epic is stronger than Pisa and National Epic. And perhaps I play a bit differently, but I like to set up a city that can have high pop and preferably a garden to generate great people. I honestly find it a little hard to imagine a normal game without at least one city working to make great people.

The whole point of Venice is that it doesn't play a 'normal game' - it's essentially a playable city-state (which is absolutely ideal and addresses most complaints about including or not including Venice as a civ - it is both a CS and an empire, as in reality). Go Patronage and farm GPs from city-states you don't annex. Prioritise GP-producing Wonders. Go heavy faith and buy GPs. There are multiple ways of achieving the same result.

I also think they will want as much gold as they can get. Gold producing wonders should mean much more to them, because it will be how they can control their puppets. A gold producing wonder is more important for them.

You only ever need a finite amount of any resource, whatever your strategy - gold costs are the same whatever the context, so any way of making enough gold to buy what you need works as well as any other. Venice may not get MP, but it gets twice as many trade routes, which produces an equivalent effect (presuming MP does what it does now - actually it will probably be rather weaker since doubling the output of the new trade routes would be rather too strong). More trade routes make it easier to spread religion, so you might race to a religion and get Tithe to maximise financial benefits from all those extra followers. More of your trade routes are likely to be coastal, so you rake in more money than inland civs. And puppets tend to be gold sources rather than gold sinks anyway, when building trading posts all around them.

If there was a single strategy that always worked best irrespective of context, there would hardly be any point in random maps...

You can say you don't need these in a OCC, but Arabia gets no benefit from the bazaar with war always on. That doesn't make it a useless building, nor does it make something that will benefit trade routes pointless for a civ that gets more than anyone else.

I never said it was pointless - chances are if I have a mountain and MP still affects trade, I'd build it as Venice. I said it wasn't essential, and doesn't provide anything you can't secure another way.

 

[Moraiwe]

...have you even looked at the colours they picked for Venice? Yes, they seemingly got them off the flag as it is on Wikipedia, but the colours are the traditional Venetian colours, and it seems that the flag on Wikipedia has it's colours slightly wrong. Having the image a bit off as well is hardly surprising.

Oh yes, I think I said it before - they've done such a good job with Venice that I now expect to have Dandolo speaking Italian instead of Venetian. Sigh.

 

[The QC]

I think it's been confirmed that Venice can build both units and buildings in puppets - all it can't do is assign tile production and specialists. Only things with a city-specific effect that players need to centralise in the capital are needed in Venice, and of those only the Garden and Observatory are terrain-specific. And puppets can produce GPs, they just do so slowly because the AI's poor both at coordinating both the construction buildings with stackable effects, and the use of specialists.

Some thoughts here:

1. Venice can BUY stuff in puppets, but they can't select the next building. It's close to the same thing, but they need money.

2. I think there's an interesting synergy in between puppet behavior and the Venice emphasis on Great Merchants. Puppets prioritize money above everything, so they normally will often use the Merchant specialist if they have the appropriate specialist slots. I hadn't thought about that before! Sounds cool.

 

[ollethegreat]

i wish venice was a hoax its sounds like a really bad idea for a civ.
but shouson sounds intresting.

 

[Menzies]

i wish venice was a hoax its sounds like a really bad idea for a civ.
but shouson sounds intresting.

Regardless of whether this is a hoax or not, we already knew Venice was in.

 

[Tinker]

It seems too incredibly thorough to be a hoax. It fits everything we know , even to the minor details (wikivenetia, alphabet theory, axeman, city-states). It seems kind of strange to me that they would pick the colours of the Sestieri on the wikipedian flag, but not use that very same icon as Venice's icon. It's distinct, not a lion, and works well enough.

 

[El Caballerion]

Ok, Colorfanatics & Venice Conspiracy Theorists. The reason they chose the light purple and light yellow is because there are TOO MANY CIVS with red and yellow! Case closed.

 

[tranger66]

I am reminded of the book 'The Thief of Time' where some entities trying to pass as human take colours as names and then start killing each other to claim the superior names.

 

[Tinker]

No-one's denying that. Thing is, the colours are picked from a strangely recoloured flag only found in this way in a specific rendition on Wikipedia. There's no actual historical basis for these colours whatsoever (not that there needs to be).