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

[MooFreaky]

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!

Initially Rome was part of a larger culture. Early Rome gained power by forming alliances with other Italian city-states. Even during the Punic-Wars, it was Rome and her Allies (being the other Italian cities).
Most of their religion was common across the area, much of Italy and Greece shared similar religious backgrounds (and it had many similarities with Egypt's religion at the time, though they had veered in differing directions). Customs, art, etc were all quite similar across Italy, Greece and shared many similarities with Egypt, Carthage and Iberia (though there were significant divergences there too).

Rome simply then engulfed their neighbours with their own systems and beliefs.

EDIT: Also, does that mean America doesn't qualify, that it is just a Washington City-State? Since their religion, culture, art, language and everything else is from their English heritage?

 

[lacond]

yes.

venice formed alliance with neighbour too you're right. But she never took power on other italian cities states in order to form a largest state, which englobed the italian cultural era. and other point, Rome and etrusque or other greek italian cities, were very very different.. which wasn't the situation for venice and florence, or Venice and Genoa.

there's limit of historic comparative work too... first, eras and context too distanced canno't be compared. renaissance in Europe isn't the contemporany world.
America is clearly the mos important source of culture of the XX century, and moreover, america exported his owmn way of life all around the word and raised accross all the nation.

and, the origin issue never assure in a perpetual and cultural link.... in the UK and america case, this links was preserved by the diplomatic way, by the sharing of linguage and common interest. There's also exist distrust between this country.
and the singular identity of america was forged by 1) strong and plural Immigration and strong native people 2) atlantic separation. 3) very strong autonomy and huge landmark potential.

So, I just want to explore the possibility of new CS/AI Civ system!

for many people Venice is not a city state ( which I repeat, is not a reducing conception), right. To my point, introducing Venice now is a strong signal that the ( probably) third expansion will transforme the CIV/CS system who is too passive and boring.

I also try to found a presentation of CS system in 2010 ( but I don't remember if it's video or article) where firaxis explained the city state concept.
I'm not sure about that, but I may have remember that Venice was tooken as exemple....
Maybe I'm Strongly wrong... Maybe not!!!

 

[Absolution]

yes.

venice formed alliance with neighbour too you're right. But she never took power on other italian cities states in order to form a largest state, which englobed the italian cultural era.

So what? They took power over other areas in the Mediterenaean coasts.

and other point, Rome and etrusque or other greek italian cities, were very very different.. which wasn't the situation for venice and florence, or Venice and Genoa.

It was the situation.
The Romans were not more different from the Italians than the Venetians were.
In fact, less different.

From Wikipedia article about Italic languages:

Venetic (the language of the ancient Veneti), as revealed by its inscriptions, was also closely related to the Italic languages and is sometimes classified as Italic. However, since it also shares similarities with other Western Indo-European branches (particularly Germanic), some linguists prefer to consider it an independent Indo-European language.

This is about the ancient Venetic language.
And from the article about the modern Venetian language:

Although referred to as an Italian dialect (Ven diałeto, It dialetto) even by its speakers, it is in fact a separate language, not a variety or derivative of Italian. Instead, Venetian differs both in grammar, phonetics, and vocabulary. It is usually classified as a Western Romance language, a branch of Romance to which Italian does not belong. Some authors include it among the Gallo-Italic languages, but by most authors, it is treated as separate.

The Latin language is far more Italian than that.
So why do you call the Venetian Republic an Italian city-state, while you call the Roman Republic a state on its own?
More logical would be the opposite, although I think they both were firm states which stand completely for themselves.

Venetian people of the time didn't consider themselves Italians.
Nor did most of the historians.
In fact, they were only absorbed into Italy because of the political changes made by the French revolutionary wars and Napoleon's client states in Italy.
The Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy changed the whole history of the Venetians and blurred the separation between them and the other Italian states.



And about your idea:
There is a modpack for Barbarians civs in CivIV, in which civilizations are being created during the game from neglected Barbarians centers and large Barbarian cities.
Those large Barbarian cities transform into city state, who don't have a leader or any diplomatic option, and later they grow into a full civilization.
This feature also appears in other mods, in which all players start as city-states.
I don't think it is something that Firaxis can introduce in an expansion pack unless this is the theme of the expansion pack.
But we know that Brave New World deals with several other mechanics, so don't hope for such a mechanic to be introduced in BNW.
So as said before here, you can only add this one to your wishlist for CivVI.

 

[WChrisMullen]

I think the Civ V definition of city-state is wonky. I think that back in vanilla when most city-states were simply capitals of civs not in the game as full civs yet like Copenhagen, Seoul, or Vienna, city-states would better be called "minor powers." For example, the present-day situation between the United States and Israel would be in Civ terms an alliance between a civ and a city-state, even though Israel is not a city-state by any conventional definition.

 

[Menzies]

I think the Civ V definition of city-state is wonky. I think that back in vanilla when most city-states were simply capitals of civs not in the game as full civs yet like Copenhagen, Seoul, or Vienna, city-states would better be called "minor powers." For example, the present-day situation between the United States and Israel would be in Civ terms an alliance between a civ and a city-state, even though Israel is not a city-state by any conventional definition.

A term used in the XMLs a bit was "Minor Civilizations".

 

[WChrisMullen]

For people supporting a method for city-states to become full civs later in the game, what would their leaderhead be? I've seen someone somewhere mention that it could be generic, like a Great General for a militaristic CS, a Great Merchant for a mercantile CS, a Great Artist for cultural, a Great Prophet for religious, etc.

 

[lacond]

For people supporting a method for city-states to become full civs later in the game, what would their leaderhead be? I've seen someone somewhere mention that it could be generic, like a Great General for a militaristic CS, a Great Merchant for a mercantile CS, a Great Artist for cultural, a Great Prophet for religious, etc.

It would be great! Or other options, it could leaders of unactive civ in the game as the vassal system in CIV IV.

 

[lacond]

so..
excuse me about upgrading this thread, but the Venice civ, wich can not found city, is really closed to my idea. Do we give another chance for this debate?

 

[pilot00]

It has been explained, sorry for the post no need for it.

 

[pilot00]

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.

Until Athens and Sparta decided that they had imperial ambitions and formed the Athenian league and the Peloponisian alliance respectively. Empire building was never mutually exclusive to the city state form. If city states were powerful enough they did dominate. Athens 'sold' democracy and its arts and in essence achieved a cultural victory in the Aegean. On the other hand Sparta managed to unite the 'terrestrial' city states under its banner with the pretext to fight the threat of Athens. Then Phillip of Macedon decided that his own village (city state) was not large enough and that he could subdue the rest: Behold the first Greek empire.

Same with Rome, Carthage and others. Once their powers outgrew their borders they became empires. The central authority though was the dominant city. Always. Rome forgo that when it became Byzantium but thats an exception to the rule.

TLDR: There have been a lot of Imperial city states. Empire and city-state is not mutually exclusive. In fact thats the actual reason why Venice only puppets in the game. They keep the cities under their direct control by influence. Whatever influence that may be.

 

[Viregel]

In an ideal world, even city-states would have leaders with leader screens, but that is never happening.

 

[lacond]

In an ideal world, even city-states would have leaders with leader screens, but that is never happening.

this isn't exactly what I mean: I would prefer to prospect the possibility that cities state can become true AI civ during the game. to my point, the fact that Venice being a civ which can't settle or annex other citie, but just puppet, open a way to a new civ ad CS interaction.
For example we can imagine a mix of vassal system of civ IV and CS system. the vassal Civ could also win their own liberty. Or other possibility, as Venice, the city state could puppet ( they already can I know) other cities and become a true AI civ.

 

[Viregel]

this isn't exactly what I mean: I would prefer to prospect the possibility that cities state can become true AI civ during the game. to my point, the fact that Venice being a civ which can't settle or annex other citie, but just puppet, open a way to a new civ ad CS interaction.
For example we can imagine a mix of vassal system of civ IV and CS system. the vassal Civ could also win their own liberty. Or other possibility, as Venice, the city state could puppet ( they already can I know) other cities and become a true AI civ.

That is one feature that I would love. There could be a feature so that, from the Rennissance era onwards, the city-states act more and more like civs. I don't think that Venice should have this ability, but it would certainly make the game more interesting and make the city-states a bigger player in the game. Having not played Civ IV, I don't fully understand the vassal system, but it sounds like it could work very well with city-states. To expand on this, even city-states could have abilities, but would help the ally of the city-state.

 

[gunnergoz]

I'd like to see a mod or formal game expansion that allowed AI controlled city states to be more aggressive to the point where they can absorb other city states, but not actual civs. This would encourage gamers to have to come up with strategies to counter such expansive CS's, either by intimidation/domination or invasion and annexation. It would be interesting to see CS's also absorb goodie huts and barbarian camps into their "mini-empires" and in so doing pose a threat to the expansion of the regular civs.

As it is now, CS's are mostly targets but if one or more of them grew and got feisty, they could give the game player a much richer experience.

 

[Viregel]

Venice was both a city-state and an empire at different times, therefore it can be both. Just as modern Germany was once a collection of states around the same area, and Greece was a collection of scattered cities that only unified every time a war or a strong leader came along, Venice was both in its own right.

 

[JFD]

Some sort of mechanic for city-states to independently form leagues would be cool, which meant that allying with the leader of the league was just as profitable as allying with each individual member of that league (but not as much of a hassle, though more hotly sought by other civs). To keep it from getting too OP, there could be a limit in that city-states could only form leagues with their respective types.