The Merchant of Venice needs a limiting factor

[turingmachine]

Does anyone else think its absolutely ridiculous they can puppet cit-states for free regardless of their influence with the city-state or another civs influence with that city-state? Austria at least needs to be allied with the city-state for 5 turns first. As it stands, Venice just completely nullifies any civ whose ability relies on City-States (Greece, Siam, etc.).

Doesn't matter that you spent all your money allying with that city-state all game, Venice just moved his unit to it and took it over in one turn.

 

[Snes]

The limiting factor is that you can't just buy Great Merchants. You can only expect to get a handful of them over the course of the game, even if you are filling all your specialist slots.

 

[turingmachine]

The limiting factor is that you can't just buy Great Merchants. You can only expect to get a handful of them over the course of the game, even if you are filling all your specialist slots.

That's not much of a limiting factor seeing as you can get two for free relatively quickly and is even less of an issue the smaller the map you play on.

Plus, it's just bad design to completely ignore another player's investment. If someone has been working to ally a specific city-state all game, and has been their ally for a bunch of turns, it shouldn't be able to be instantly converted.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

That's not much of a limiting factor seeing as you can get two for free relatively quickly and is even less of an issue the smaller the map you play on.

Plus, it's just bad design to completely ignore another player's investment. If someone has been working to ally a specific city-state all game, and has been their ally for a bunch of turns, it shouldn't be able to be instantly converted.

That's opportunity cost though. Most of the time if Venice steals an early city-state then there's no easy way from them to defend their new investment. I can see where you're coming from, and maybe if they steal a city-state that should be an act of aggression (or possibly war) against said civ.

Overall though I haven't faced Venice enough to fully get a strong opinion on this.

 

[Buccaneer]

Yet Venice still only had one city and you allowed that one city to build units that could steal your city-states? Venice's limiting factor is only one city, not several cities.

 

[meowschwitz]

I actually put a wall of troops around a city state that was giving me aluminum and looked to be next (they had puppeted 3 in the area and that was the next closest. About 50 turns later it tried to get through, he asked for open borders since I shared some with the CS (i said no), and then he just went on to the next CS and puppeted that one.

But anyway, I think that it should be limited by one of two factors. Venice either had a trade route go from start to finish with that city state in the past or is currently friends+ within 30 influence of the highest influential player of the CS. That would limit the high amount of corporate takeovers and make incentive to really boost up your influence and make sure to pillage routes if you see him trying to set the seed of capitalism.

 

[turingmachine]

Everyone is also forgetting MP. Wait till Venice directly and purposefully steals your key-city states (and not the randomness of the AI).

Honestly, all I want is something as simple as can't steal a city-state that is currently an ally with another civ and has been that ally for x turns. You'd still be able to get virtually any city-state early game. Late game you can't negate another civs investment without investing some gold yourself (which you should have thanks to your double trade routes).

Yet Venice still only had one city and you allowed that one city to build units that could steal your city-states? Venice's limiting factor is only one city, not several cities.

The one city is not a limiting factor for the ability itself and Venice gets bonuses to compensate for that one city (mainly double trade routes and purchase in puppets). It's not an excuse to completely negate another civs investment and make it not worth playing as certain civs if Venice is in the game.

 

[Buccaneer]

Because Venice is in the game, a different strategy would be required.

 

[turingmachine]

Because Venice is in the game, a different strategy would be required.

It's bad design to implement a way to attack another player (and taking a key city-state is an attack) which the other player has absolutely no way to defend against. There is no strategy as there is no way to defend. You can't even declare war and retake-liberate the city-state and the city-state is treated as a regular city afterwards. This is a disaster for civs whose ability entirely revolves around city-states.

 

[Buccaneer]

If I am next to Greece, I ignore my plans and deal directly with them. It is not a disaster to have strong opponents, it requires playing to the map and that means probably not rely so much on a city-states strategy.

 

[turingmachine]

If I am next to Greece, I ignore my plans and deal directly with them. It is not a disaster to have strong opponents, it requires playing to the map and that means probably not rely so much on a city-states strategy.

That's not a strategy, that's relying entirely on random factors. What exactly should be done if you don't start next to Venice, instead they are on the other side of the map and there's no way to attack them early?

And "not rely so much on a city-states strategy" means not using your UA at all for certain civs.

 

[GreenThings]

There is a limiting factor. Enter Genghis Khan. The city-states shall burn, with that weak Venetian slime crying and foaming at the mouth. We are the great horsemen, we do not care about your money, we do not care about your merchants, we do not care about your culture and tourism. You shall burn, Venice shall burn.

 

[ahawk]

The limiting factor is that you can't just buy Great Merchants. You can only expect to get a handful of them over the course of the game, even if you are filling all your specialist slots.

I go back all the way to this quote. I actually think this is a pretty good point. Unless you have Tower of Pisa and a bunch of puppets already, it's not easy to get Great Merchants until fairly late. Even with the two free ones (for the Liberty Policy and researching Optics) it's not like you are going to get Great Merchants in any numbers right away.

Buying them with faith in the late game is what makes Venice even viable. Without Great Merchants via faith, I don't see them as even being all that good. But with those Great Merchants, you can buy up whatever's left of the CSes and then use the extra gold from trade missions buff the MoV gets and start cranking out gold from the last CS left (which, frankly, Venice should always leave one CS alone at the end, preferably one in a safe, secluded spot).

Otherwise, you'll desperately need Tower of Pisa for both the free Great Person choice as well as the buffed Great Person generation.

 

[turingmachine]

I go back all the way to this quote. I actually think this is a pretty good point. Unless you have Tower of Pisa and a bunch of puppets already, it's not easy to get Great Merchants until fairly late. Even with the two free ones (for the Liberty Policy and researching Optics) it's not like you are going to get Great Merchants in any numbers right away.

Buying them with faith in the late game is what makes Venice even viable. Without Great Merchants via faith, I don't see them as even being all that good. But with those Great Merchants, you can buy up whatever's left of the CSes and then use the extra gold from trade missions buff the MoV gets and start cranking out gold from the last CS left (which, frankly, Venice should always leave one CS alone at the end, preferably one in a safe, secluded spot).

Otherwise, you'll desperately need Tower of Pisa for both the free Great Person choice as well as the buffed Great Person generation.

But that's my point. The problem is not even early game. It's mid to late game when you can buy those merchants with faith, literally buy every city-state, and completely negate the investment of other civs with no consequence and no way for that civ to defend itself.

Again, all I really want is something like you can't steal a city-state that is currently an ally with another civ and has been that ally for x turns. If you still want to steal that city-state late game then you'd have to spend some gold to win the ally level over.

 

[Mercade]

The OP has a point. Regardless of the (lack of) ease to get a GMV late game, if someone can walk up to your allied CS and snatch it (without even as much as a diplo penalty) then it is not right on the side of the other player. It's not without reason that Austria was changed to require 5 turns of Allied because it prevents snatching. This ability to come out of nowhere and snatch an allied CS without recourse (except war, but then you end up puppeting the CS yourself since there's no liberation) it's more like a random event in the style of SimCity. Oops ... a giant tornado wiped out Brussels.

 

[ahawk]

But that's my point. The problem is not even early game. It's mid to late game when you can buy those merchants with faith, literally buy every city-state, and completely negate the investment of other civs with no consequence and no way for that civ to defend itself.

Again, all I really want is something like you can't steal a city-state that is currently an ally with another civ and has been that ally for x turns. If you still want to steal that city-state late game then you'd have to spend some gold to win the ally level over.

To clarify:

I see no problem with Venice in late game being able to get MoV's with ease. They have to survive that long to do it, and in the mean time they won't have a good set-up for quite a long while.

On the other hand, despite me disagreeing about their ability to get late-game MoV's, I do feel you are right in saying they should not simply be able to buy allied CSes. As someone else said, maybe the best solution would be to give them a global diplo hit for taking already-allied CSes away from other civs. That would mean that late-game, they could still take all the CSes, but they'd run a very high risk of mass DoW against them should they do it.

But they really have to be able to take allied CSes, otherwise Venice would be the worst civ ever at Deity, Immortal, and maybe even Emperor, as the CS scramble is not easy at those levels, even for AIs (given that Greece, Siam, Mongolia, Portugal, Austria, and even Sweden all have a vested interest in allying, protecting, or controlling CSes one way or another). It is highly unlikely that CSes won't have an ally by late game on those levels, and, in some cases, CSes may be flat-out gone (via Mongolia conquering them or Austria marrying them).

 

[Sidor1982]

Everyone is also forgetting MP. Wait till Venice directly and purposefully steals your key-city states (and not the randomness of the AI).

Honestly, all I want is something as simple as can't steal a city-state that is currently an ally with another civ and has been that ally for x turns. You'd still be able to get virtually any city-state early game. Late game you can't negate another civs investment without investing some gold yourself (which you should have thanks to your double trade routes).



The one city is not a limiting factor for the ability itself and Venice gets bonuses to compensate for that one city (mainly double trade routes and purchase in puppets). It's not an excuse to completely negate another civs investment and make it not worth playing as certain civs if Venice is in the game.

In MP other players will abuse the DoW on CS, attack, sign peace before the CS can attack back, repeat till the CS is conquered strategy, which works with every civ. So getting them with a Great Merchant is not OP.

 

[digrosz]

There is a limiting factor. Enter Genghis Khan. The city-states shall burn, with that weak Venetian slime crying and foaming at the mouth. We are the great horsemen, we do not care about your money, we do not care about your merchants, we do not care about your culture and tourism. You shall burn, Venice shall burn.

Too bad AI Genghis doesn't know how to attack CSs properly and generally ends up kicked out of the game... Maybe he has gotten smarter in BNW, I don't know; have to wait until Friday..

 

[CaptainUnknown]

Too bad AI Genghis doesn't know how to attack CSs properly and generally ends up kicked out of the game... Maybe he has gotten smarter in BNW, I don't know; have to wait until Friday..

It my current game he has captured a few already and is the biggest warmonger in that game. Additionally, I'd like to point out that the Assyrians love to kill CS. In my previous game he captured 4 in total. 2 early ages and 2 late game.

 

[Buccaneer]

This sounds identical to the G&K Austria debate and alas, they did tweak them a little in a patch.