Liberating Venice Puppets

[Hambil]

Don't know if this can be done without the DLL but it's annoying when you take a Venice puppet back and there is no liberate option. Especially considering how game breaking a mechanic puppeting city states is for a diplo victory.

 

[stackpointer]

This is definitely possible without the DLL. Try going to the CAT\AI\CEAI_Events.lua function DoAICaptureDecision and use it to hook a city:SetOccupied call which should make it possible to liberate the city states.

I believe the only cities that don't get the Occupied flag set to true when their owner changes hands is the Venice and Austrian UAs because they don't go through the normal city taking process/popup.

 

[mitsho]

So, can we fix that in general? That Venice and Austria can take City States out of the game is one of the bigger complaints on gameplay after all. It would make the two quite more balanced.

 

[SalemSage]

Isn't the fact that you can't liberate them a clue that they join those empires willingly and would rather stay that way, though?

If liberation is put in as an option, I would at least make it that you don't get nearly as much influence for doing it as liberating a CS that's been conquered.

After all, liberating a CS that's been conquered = freeing the oppressed people and letting them run their own lives once more.
Liberating a CS that's been married into Austria or purchased by Venice = "Hey, we know you consider yourselves part of Austria/Venice now, but now you're free!" "We always WERE free, weren't we?"

 

[mitsho]

Well, Austria might not be the best example historically, there was much unrest in Prague, Budapest and Sarajevo. Of course those weren't actually "married into" as the UA is a amalgation of the motto of the Habsburg Dynasty ("et tu, felix Austria, nube") with the Austrian Expansion into South/Eastern Europe.

Venice, whose merchants buy a majority share in a City State might similarly not the best example as well... If you go by history, Rhodes and Cyprus f.e. never felt truly Venetian after all!

But gameplay trumps realism any time and I feel the ability to take a CS out of the game doe infringe too much on Diplomatic Victory (by making it easier or harder depening on context) and if there is a easy (!) bug-free (!) way out of that, then it should be tested. However if it takes too much time and is shaky in use, then we by all means should just go on without this.

 

[wobuffet]

100% on board with "if it's relatively easy, do it!" camp; when it makes a big difference, gameplay should take precedence.

 

[whoward69]

By default, bought cities don't have the necessary data to enable them to be liberated, so you'll need to add your own mechanism(s) to reinvent that particular wheel in Lua

// For buyouts, set it up like a new city founded by this player, to avoid liberation later on etc.
if(bIsMinorCivBuyout)
{
  pNewCity->setPreviousOwner(NO_PLAYER);
  pNewCity->setOriginalOwner(m_eID);
  pNewCity->setGameTurnFounded(GC.getGame().getGameTurn());
  pNewCity->SetEverCapital(false);
  AwardFreeBuildings(pNewCity);
}
// Otherwise, set it up using the data from the old city
else
{
  pNewCity->setPreviousOwner(eOldOwner);
  pNewCity->setOriginalOwner(eOriginalOwner);
  pNewCity->setGameTurnFounded(iGameTurnFounded);
  pNewCity->SetEverCapital(bEverCapital);
}

 

[mitsho]

That's code from the game? (can't look it up right now) So then why did they decide to do it this way? Does it create some sort of bug with buyouts? Do you otherwise get the warmonger penalty? Because if it's only about deleting these first lines....

 

[whoward69]

That's code from the game?

C++ in the DLL

 

[stackpointer]

I probably should've taken a look at the source before stating such. None of those functions are exposed to lua so this would be a DLL project.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I would love to see both Venetian and Austrian city state acquisitions being able to be liberated.

In my last Earth map game, Samarkand had captured Attila's Court and was a super city state allied with me. Enrico just couldn't pass up the opportunity to purchase two cities for the price of one and gobbled them up with a Merchant of Venice. It made me sad.

 

[Delekhan]

I think this is working as intended. The city-states are becoming part of an empire by treaty, whether through diplomatic marriage or a Merchant of Venice deal.

To cite an example, Texas joined the US by treaty (it was once the Republic of Texas). Imagine if someone conquered the state and "liberated" it. Would Texans be overjoyed to be an independent republic again and thank the liberators? Maybe some, but most are happy to be in the US.

Taking City-States out of circulation like this adds some much-needed tension to the game. Civ 5 is already too easy and predictable, so why not let Venice and Austria players keep their way of shaking things up.

 

[AnthonyG]

I would love to see both Venetian and Austrian city state acquisitions being able to be liberated.

Agreed. I hate both civs and never play as either. If they are in my game, I use IGE. Also, don't like how the AI is burning city states now.

 

[ExpiredReign]

As much as I dislike not having ALL the city-states around, the procedure employed by the Firaxis' code is the correct one. Once Venice or Austria "take over" a city-state, it is effectively removed from the game. You cannot bring back something that is not there.

It is similar to the just mentioned AI habit of razing certain cities, do we expect to be able to re-build these cities?

You will have to re-evaluate the options available when taking over a city for yourself.
What do you gain/lose by liberating a city-state that isn't given by puppeting it upon capture?
Is the massive diplomatic gain really that much of an advantage?

The fact that Venice and Austria's ability is a pain in the proverbial is beside the point. They have that ability precisely because they ARE different. Our liking it or not is not the question.

Having said that, there is nothing stopping us making the actual acquisition of those city-states more expensive and thus reducing the angst we experience. But then, if I play as those civs I would not want my ability restricted in any way, just to make it less annoying to the other civs.
I guess it comes down to balance, sadly not my strong suit. As I see it though, although annoying, it isn't really broken.

 

[AnthonyG]

Speak for yourself. It's not beside my point.

 

[whoward69]

You cannot bring back something that is not there.

Try telling that to the many, many now sovereign states that were once part of European country empires. Belgian Congo, German East Africa, French West Africa, Dutch East Indies, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

 

[ExpiredReign]

Try telling that to the many, many now sovereign states that were once part of European country empires. Belgian Congo, German East Africa, French West Africa, Dutch East Indies, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

The difference with the game mechanic and these real experiences is quite clear.

The city-states in the game that become part of Venice or Austria are supposed to have taken that choice willing, peacefully, not as part of some colonial expansion. (although, for all intents and purposes, that is exactly what it is)
Our 'liberating' them, at least according to the game mechanic, is the aggressive action.
Yes. I agree with you that it is bad to have them removed, but that's the point. It is an action designed to give an advantage to Venice & Austria.

As to the point of the discussion. I thought that is what we are supposed to do? Give our own points of view.
If anyone would like me to speak their point of view, just ask, the answer will be no.