Is Venice the mysterious 'Pro'-Civ? Is it designed as OCC-variant?

[Dragonflow]

Venice a OCC?
No, not really.

Spoiler :

 

[sukritact]

Larger Image and Translated Key

Spoiler :

1. Venice and the Dogeship
2. Territory at the Beginning of the 15th Century
3. Later Acquisitions
4. Temporary Acquisitions
5. Stretch of Sea dominated by Venetian Fleets at the Beginning of the 16th Century
6. Principal Venetian Routes
7. Major Centres of Trade and Commercial Colonies

Definitely more than a single CS

 

[anandus]

But isn't Ragusa already confirmed as a CS? That was part of the Ventian Empire was it not?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Maybe that's why it's being "upgraded" (if it is). Would make sense?

I don't think a Venetian nation would have city liek Genoa, Florence, Vatican City etc? So to remove one city state (Venice). would make sense, right?

But isn't Ragusa already confirmed as a CS? That was part of the Ventian Empire was it not?

No, it isn't, that's where the speculcation regarding Venice came from.

We initially though that it was Ragusa which was removed, but upon closer inspection I found out that Venice shares the same colour as Riga.

 

[anandus]

No, it isn't

Hmm.. I was under the impression that Ragusa was also part of the Venetian Empire, but apparently I was wrong.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Hmm.. I was under the impression that Ragusa was also part of the Venetian Empire, but apparently I was wrong.

It was part of their empire. It isn't a confirmed city-state as of yet.

 

[steveg700]

So, just catching up here, the translation of a German website had something about "Pro"-people, and on the basis of that one extremely vague remark, this thread exists to speculate that Venice is a OCC civ?

 

[cybrxkhan]

So, just catching up here, the translation of a German website had something about "Pro"-people, and based on pretty much that extremely vague remark, this thread speculates that Venice is a OCC civ?

That's what the OP's arguing, but as i said earlier the hint could mean literally anything and any civ.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'd really hate for Venice to become a full civ, over say, a unified Italy. It would completely invalidate the system of city states by including including a "super" city state as a fullblown civ, while all the others just stick around as lesser entities. Italy as a fullblown civ would be disappointing in a way as well, since the Italian city states make up such a solid proportion of the city states.

Rome, Babylon, and Carthage were once city-states and then they built an empire. Venice was exactly the same way. I don't see the distinction between Carthage and Venice here.

 

[steveg700]

I think on the whole there's some false assumption that the inclusion of a nation as a city-state denotes that it's too unimportant to be a full civ. We've seen enough city-states make the jump that everyone ought to know better.

One of the more interesting suggestions I've read in CFC was to take all the civ's that aren't in the current game you're playing and make them the city-states for that game.

 

[ahawk]

An easy solution to a few things:

Make Venice a DLC, and make it possible to disable the DLC. This way, if they are the alleged 'hard-to-master' civ that a couple of folks have conjectured, then you can:
- 1) Opt in to having them at all.
- 2) Turn them off whenever you aren't the one playing them, thus making the AI incapable of failing as them.

This would work for any civ that is 'pro' or whatever, in terms of being powerful but in need of complex strategies.

As to whether Venice actually is or isn't a 'pro' civ -- or will even be included at all-- I don't know. Since we know Portugal and Poland are already in, I'm not so certain we will be seeing any more European civs. With 3-4 civs left to fill (depending on if Morocco is in or not), and with already 2 civs from Europe and none thus far from Asia, I would think the last 3-4 civs might be Asian, with one last civ coming maybe from North America, South America, or Africa rather than Europe.

edit: For purposes of grouping civs, I count Assyria as 'Ancient' (along with Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia, and a couple of others). We could also see one more 'Ancient' civ, too.

 

[awesome]

I remember when people suggested that the Huns wouldn't be able to found cities. Just like them, I'm sure that if Venice is indeed added, they'll be able to found cities, too.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Huns would have been a better candidate too.

 

[Ikael]

If I would have to bet for a single city type of civ, it wouldn't be Venice, but the Khmer. Its capital, Angkor, was not only THE biggest city in the entire world with a whooping 1.000 square km of fully structured and infrastructure-equiped urban extension, but it held that title during the complete existence of the Khmer empire (6 centuries straight). Seriously, Venice can't even compare, we are talking about a city which was orders of magnitude bigger.

 

[awesome]

I guess. I'm not sure why you would want a civ that can never found any cities under any circumstances, though. I can understand a civ that works best with one or two cities (like India) but not one that absolutely has to be played like that

 

[Arachnofiend]

I think on the whole there's some false assumption that the inclusion of a nation as a city-state denotes that it's too unimportant to be a full civ. We've seen enough city-states make the jump that everyone ought to know better.

People don't assume that, it's that people who aren't learned in what Italy was doing between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance think that Venice has always been literally a city-state.

 

[SHaW1986]

how about a civ like the inuit where you have to settle on ice and you have seals as a resource added on ice tiles that only the inuit can access? that would fit the "hard to play" model of the OP and it would also take care of the civ with its own resource...

 

[Dregor]

No. Venice won't be a civ.

 

[strijder20]

No. Venice won't be a civ.

Sound argumentation.

 

[Dregor]

Sound argumentation.

It has as much truth to it as all the wild speculation.