[Speculation] in the Venice Civ way! do we have a new CIV&CSA system on the futur?

[Menzies]

Ok. sorry the confusion.

the frontier between city state and civ is very straigth; we know that.

the concept of city state has been forged in several context and historic period ( antic greek, Rome formation), you're right. but venice still be a conformed definition of a city state before being a conformed definition of a civilization. city state means city which is independant of stronger power, like all this italian cities during the late medieval and renaissance period. instead of venitian founded few town, in order to increase and defend there trade routes.

Venice is more a city state than Vienne, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro and other's.

This is the main reason ( Venice would be the first historical and true city state to be envolved as a entire civ in this game.) I'm thinking of this new system that in my opinion, and far away the debate of the political nature of Venice, would be a really great option.... for the last CIV V expansion ( after BNW)

But Maybe thinking like this is a wrong way!

It's worth clarifying a few things:

1. Civilizations can be based around City States, i.e. Rome, Carthage, Babylon etc.
2. The city states in the game are actually more like "Minor Civs" than anything else, with city state seemingly referring solely to them being single cities, and not a relation to city states as such anymore (i.e. Sydney being a city state).

 

[Arachnofiend]

It's worth mentioning that in the XML files city-states really are referred to simply as "minor civs", affirming Menzies' explanation.

 

[cybrxkhan]

It's worth clarifying a few things:

1. Civilizations can be based around City States, i.e. Rome, Carthage, Babylon etc.
2. The city states in the game are actually more like "Minor Civs" than anything else, with city state seemingly referring solely to them being single cities, and not a relation to city states as such anymore (i.e. Sydney being a city state).

The second point is something very important, I think. Even in vanilla Civ5, a large number of the so-called CSes were capitals or major cities in various ciiilizations and cultures. At this point, wth BNW, the majoriity of them are - Buenos Aires, Quebec City, Kabul, Mbanza-Congo, Brussels, etc.

 

[carm3]

No, but it looks a lot like a city-state to me.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/city-state

As someone pointed out, it depends entirely what era of Venetian history you are talking about, and since the dictionary mentions the revival of the model in the 11th century I'd guess that that is the time period to which they are applying the label. Renaissance and early modern Venice, on the other hand, I think clearly goes beyond that definition, most obviously in having many overseas territories (vs. the city-state, which controls only the area in its immediate vicinity). The examples of Rome and Carthage that have been brought up are perfect examples of cases where what were originally city-states grew into entities to which that description no longer applied.

 

[lacond]

To my point, the concept of adding city state in CIV V is the result of the existence of city state in the history ( wich mean, state named like this by historian ) for sure Sydney is not, and the firaxis team does not follow a strict conception of city state but explore and reinventing the concept in order to increase the possibility for the game and these expansion ( at less the transition city state to civ on each expansion)
for sure the civ game city state aren't a historic reality!!!

at least the concept of city state is defensive or allied in the game: my point is that city state can form entire civ during the party, using the same logic that the formation of new civ for the expansions, would be a great developpement for the game. and I want to know if you share this idea of the introduction of Venice as Civ introduce this possility.

we can go on the debate of the nature of Venice, personnally I don't care about that. to my point venice was a strong city state, and served for model to insert the concept of city state in the fifht civ game.
and for this time if doge enrico dandolo is the leader, It may be the firts time that a great merchant ( ever existing in the game) become a civ leader.

 

[carm3]

at least the concept of city state is defensive or allied in the game: my point is that city state can form entire civ during the party, using the same logic that the formation of new civ for the expansions, would be a great developpement for the game. and I want to know if you share this idea of the introduction of Venice as Civ introduce this possility.

we can go on the debate of the nature of Venice, personnally I don't care about that. to my point venice was a strong city state, and served for model to insert the concept of city state in the fifht civ game.
and for this time if doge enrico dandolo is the leader, It may be the firts time that a great merchant ( ever existing in the game) become a civ leader.

Ah, fair enough! Not sure if I see it happening this time around, but I think it would be a cool addition (and would actually fit really well with the history of some of the city states we've been discussing). I'd be interested in seeing how it played out.

 

[Arachnofiend]

It would make for some interesting diplomacy. If a city-state could become a civ capable of standing on its own then it could stop giving its CS-related bonuses.

For an example, let's say you're allied with Florence and Assyria declares war on you. Florence actually amassed a nice military and manages to flank Assyria, taking a couple cities. Florence is reaching the threshold and will soon become the Florentine Empire; the problem for you is that, if they get to this point, they won't need you any more and will stop giving you culture. It may be in your best interest to neuter Florence somehow so they DON'T become your equal.

 

[werothegreat]

Technically, Concise Encyclopedia, Monaco, San Marino and Singapore are all, also, city-states. The Vatican is more of an "in-a-city"-state.

 

[Louis XXIV]

My speculation is very simple:
Venice is THE model and also the best definition of a what is a city state on CIV V.

Why? Do you consider Carthage, Babylon, or Rome to be City States?

Does the fact Venice is probably be the next new civ prefigure a new game system where city state can transform themselves as a entire CIV during the game?

Not likely since Carthage didn't create a new system where city states transformed themselves into civs.

 

[Luckystrike77]

Hehe, it's funny how the definition of what a City State is seems purely based on Civ5 game mechanics, by some people in this thread. Also funny to see that somebody seems to think a City State isn't a Civilisation, or that Rome, Carthage or Babylon didn't keep the political structures of the City State long after they grew to immense empires or where never City States at all.

But one of the good things about the Civ-series are they make the youth more intrested in learning more about history. Guess we can live with that some game features/mechanics confuses compared to real history.

 

[ehecatzin]

It would make for some interesting diplomacy. If a city-state could become a civ capable of standing on its own then it could stop giving its CS-related bonuses.

For an example, let's say you're allied with Florence and Assyria declares war on you. Florence actually amassed a nice military and manages to flank Assyria, taking a couple cities. Florence is reaching the threshold and will soon become the Florentine Empire; the problem for you is that, if they get to this point, they won't need you any more and will stop giving you culture. It may be in your best interest to neuter Florence somehow so they DON'T become your equal.

I'd like City State progression to be introduced with a third expansion. As they are now, CS are quite static, even with the missions, they dont do much else besides the bonus they provide, even in wars they just play it defensive.

Things like Maritime actually using their navy and setting colonies, Military getting their own UU and launching invasions, Religious calling crusades, Mercantile spy intel and smugling goods and Cultural Ideology push and cultural fliping. All could add a lot of versatility and immersion to the game. For example right now if Tyre declares war on you, its "meh", if however they could launch an invasion of UU's directed at you, Tyre declaring war suddenly becomes important.

It would be interesting if in the middle game CS could annex other CS in reunification wars or movements (forming a Nation State), however only with help from another civ. Say you are allied with Milan, and Milan comes to you, they want to launch a war of reunification against their neighboors, when the war starts another CS involved may call another civ to help them. All of a sudden mayor powers are locked in reunification wars started by a CS. If succesful your CS ally will now be bigger, have better bonuses and form part of your diplomatic block.

You could have religious wars where the new unified CS converts the new cities to your religion, ideologic cold war style wars to push your ideology, you could even have a pacific option for cultural CS, using Diplomats and Spies.

Then again the reverse is also true, you could push for liberation wars and movements against a Nation States.

The mechanics are already in BNW, I think they can be greatly expanded in a third expansion. The key here would be reunification wars, if CS just conquered each other on their own it would be a bit boring, but the moment you involve the Civs it becomes really interesting, and makes you think of CS as allies instead of bonus factories.

 

[PerceeP927]

city-states can already take multiple cities, and have settlers, they just can't settle. in my last game bucharest took adrianople, and I then captured bucharest. they continued to survive in adrianople (if you click on it its bucharest) until I took them too

 

[iconocast]

a previous poster told me to view it as the italy civ but seeing as rome already covers that area quite well, its a smart way to handle it. now they seem in my mind at least to gel quite well.

p.s. Troy is the ultimate city state to me ;D

 

[iconocast]

double post,

 

[lrdscorpio]

Everything was basically a city state until the very era this xpac is supposed to cover. Russia and the Ottomans may very well be the only exception. Even in the Kingdoms you know so well, the leaders real power very rarely extended past his capitol. It was the beginning of the renaissance where these leaders really solidified their nation states.

 

[gunnergoz]

Hehe, it's funny how the definition of what a City State is seems purely based on Civ5 game mechanics, by some people in this thread. Also funny to see that somebody seems to think a City State isn't a Civilisation, or that Rome, Carthage or Babylon didn't keep the political structures of the City State long after they grew to immense empires or where never City States at all.

But one of the good things about the Civ-series are they make the youth more intrested in learning more about history. Guess we can live with that some game features/mechanics confuses compared to real history.

Yep, that's one of the realities of dealing with gamers who learned their history playing Civilization and other games...they see the world in game terms, rather than learning real history. For a few it may be wasted time, but for others we can hope it leads to a life of learning and scholarship.

 

[Absolution]

It's just not a definition, man. It's every definition. Historians came up with the term "City-State" to define situations exactly like Venice (citing Venice as a specific example alongside the ancient Greek ones). If Venice wasn't a city-state, then there was never a such thing as City-State.

I'm not saying that Venice isn't going to be cool. I'm just not so sure that people understand what City-State means.

If the Republic of Venice was a city state, than same were the Carthaginian and the Roman republics.

The republic may had started as a city state but became much larger than that.
The examples of Babylon and Assyria are good.
They started in an area full of city states like Eshnunna, Mari, Ur, Lagash and many more, but those two gained such large territories and influence that made them an Empire rather than a city state.
The Venetian Republic was a large state, and an important and successful one.
It is different from the Greek city states or the republics of Florence and Genoa, which were still centered in the city, and sometimes even called themselves Greek or Italians in general.
The Venetian Republic was a large state standing completely for itself.
The name doesn't change anything. The republic was a centered in the city of Venice just like Rome did or just like any other European state did.

Naming a state after its capital doesn't make it a city state.
Would you call the Palmyrene Empire a city state too? Or Algeria?

 

[lacond]

If the Republic of Venice was a city state, than same were the Carthaginian and the Roman republics.

The republic may had started as a city state but became much larger than that.
The examples of Babylon and Assyria are good.
They started in an area full of city states like Eshnunna, Mari, Ur, Lagash and many more, but those two gained such large territories and influence that made them an Empire rather than a city state.
The Venetian Republic was a large state, and an important and successful one.
It is different from the Greek city states or the republics of Florence and Genoa, which were still centered in the city, and sometimes even called themselves Greek or Italians in general.
The Venetian Republic was a large state standing completely for itself.
The name doesn't change anything. The republic was a centered in the city of Venice just like Rome did or just like any other European state did.

Naming a state after its capital doesn't make it a city state.
Would you call the Palmyrene Empire a city state too? Or Algeria?

yes you're right for the process! this is what I'm would like to talk about in this thread!
give the possibility for city state to become a true civ during the game: for more ease, city state is the beginning of the game could be a mix between usual CS and capital of Civ who aren't busy to be AI civ. this last category could be transformed in true civ!


But there is a difference between venice and Rome, for example : Rome didn't share the same linguage than the "etruscan" neither the same faith. civilisation is a cultural concept which need linguage, custom, faiths, art, and many other dimension to existe. city state is a political situation who isn't synonyme of "minor", marginal and other pejorative conception.

Venice belonged in a biggest culture than her. Venitian linguage never existed, it's italian, venitian popular faiths were very closed to fiorentine, genoan and other for example. beyond the political fragmentation of the italian peninsule, beyond the success and the raise of venice itself, venice still a city state because of this member ship.

Maybe the cultural area is very important to rule what is a city state or not, what is civilisation or not, far away the concept of nation who appears after renaissance.

in this case, Venice is a city state instead of generating a lot of culture,trading and conquering some territory (but this point needs to be appreciate inside the strategic dependance in sea ) because she always shared the same culture than other italian city. that's also the reason why Machiavel observe all this policital entity as city states too, dreaming about a great italian state!

 

[turingmachine]

Venitian linguage never existed, it's italian

Veneto originated from a different linguistic group from Italian. It's only considered a dialect today because of political reasons and language/grammar spread after Italian unification and systemization of the Italian language. During the height of the Venetian Empire it was a very different language from the Italian dialects.

Also, you can make many of the same arguments comparing Venice to Italy as you can Portugal to Spain and the unification of Iberia. Portugal maintained its separation, Venice did not, so theres no question to people today that it is separate from Spain and not just another Iberian kingdom like Castile or Aragon, but there are still a lot of cultural and linguistic overlap between the two. Portuguese and Spanish are even partially mutually intelligible. Still, just because Venice in the end lost its independence (which many local Venetians still view as a controversial event) does not deny what Venice achieved when it was independent.

 

[lacond]

yes for sure.
as occitan, catalan, irish, yiddish and many other at this time.... hard to find other kind of linguage than dialect during this period! but there is a difference between veneto antic spoken linguage ( around the third century BC) and venitian: this last one is different from other italian dialect for the lake of celtic influence. and inside the venitian country, there existing many dialect.
the most important is that all these dialect didn't prevent trade and relationship!