Doesn't this apply to your first four founded cities? Or is that only for the free cultural building?
That would be another issue since you're wasting a policy on something that is only for 25% effective.
It's actually the first four cities that you acquire by any means. My fourth city was the enemies capital and it got a free amphitheater in a previous game of mine. Venice's first three puppets will get the culture building and aqueduct
In my tests legalism didn't gave free buildings to acquired cities, only in cities built by my own. But tradition finisher's free aqueduct goes to any first 4 cities when adopted, but does not provide aqueduct to cities I conquer thereafter.
I think the ability of Venice to have a steady supply of food and production coming in from its puppets via trade routes (it's got 'em to spare) will turn out to be one of their greatest assets. Venice could be the world's super-capital. And the military you could produce from a well-oiled capital city supplied by trade routes could be immense.
But if You would like to have wide puppet empire You would need a lot of gold to puchase items in puppeted cities, becouse You can't build enything outside your capital. Money is your top priority here. Food and production trade routes would be a waste imo. Domestic trade routes will be very sitiuational (for example additional hammers will be useful to build Big Ben, market, bank, Stoke Exchange or East India Company fast) but with all that buildings, SP, and wonders cash stream from trade routes in your capital will be stunning. Much more than all those hammers in caravans
I was responding to someone who said you need a lot of gold because you can't build things. We know you can buy things. I was just pointing out that you don't have to buy every single thing.
I was responding to someone who said you need a lot of gold because you can't build things. We know you can buy things. I was just pointing out that you don't have to buy every single thing.
I know it too Sorry maybe I wasn't precise enough.
Does it explicitly change the fact that gold revenue from trade routes will be top priority for Venice and it's better to have internalional trade routes generating gold than domestic ones with production and food?
I think it depends on the context. If you don't have major priorities at the moment and the buildings you want are the kind Puppets build anyway, redirect all available trade routes domestically. If you need an army or specific buildings that aren't likely to be built, send those trade routes abroad.
I think Venice will have the strongest effect from domestic trade routes of any Civ. They should take advantage of this whenever they can.
I would say that no matter what victory you are going for, always buy defensive buildings and science buildings in your puppets. Also, granaries and workshops so you can ship food and production to Venice. The puppets will build markets, banks, etc on their own over time.
They will have the strongest effect from trade routes in general
When we are talking about domestic trade with Capital as a big hub (what was mentioned in a post I replied) we turn to wide empire concept. Venice will have 6x2 trade routes in renesance era. Generally: more domestic routes, means more Cities, means more units, means more money It enforce you to focus on gold anyway. It is a simplification, but somehow shows basis of the problem. As I said. Domestic trade routes will be sitiuational, so I fully agree it will depend on the context. Good ballance, trade routes menagment and flexibility will be the key to succes here, but gold will always be a priority, and generally you will always have much more international trade routes than domestic ones. Generally...
I hope it's now more clear
Has anyone noticed that Morocco and Venice will, if either of the players are competent, be married to each other? Either Morocco will be begging Venice to send trade, or Venice will be begging Morocco to let them in.
Morocco is the Sweden of trade. They make more money and culture from incoming trade routes, and the originator of the route gets a bonus for trade sent to Morocco as well. Because this is additive and not capped, whoever has the most trade routes to send will benefit the most from this -- and benefit Morocco the most. Venice has more trade routes than anyone.
We've never really seen this before, where two civs have a very specific, built in symbiotic relationship.
Has anyone noticed that Morocco and Venice will, if either of the players are competent, be married to each other?
Morocco is the Sweden of trade. They make more money from incoming trade routes, but the originator of the route gets a bonus for trade sent to Morocco as well. Because this is additive and not capped, whoever has the most trade routes to send will benefit the most from this -- and benefit Morocco the most. Venice has more trade routes than anyone.
We've never really seen this before, where two civs have a very specific, built in symbiotic relationship.
That makes me think of a new reason for warfare: fight off the opponent of your biggest trading parter as his losses could affect your economy. Sounds very interesting.
I would say that no matter what victory you are going for, always buy defensive buildings and science buildings in your puppets. Also, granaries and workshops so you can ship food and production to Venice. The puppets will build markets, banks, etc on their own over time.
it sounds like it'll be important to know the building order for puppet cities if you play venice. is there a list somewhere? i know they focus on gold bonus buildings and a wall usually goes up pretty soon.
it sounds like it'll be important to know the building order for puppet cities if you play venice. is there a list somewhere? i know they focus on gold bonus buildings and a wall usually goes up pretty soon.
Has anyone noticed that Morocco and Venice will, if either of the players are competent, be married to each other? Either Morocco will be begging Venice to send trade, or Venice will be begging Morocco to let them in.
Morocco is the Sweden of trade. They make more money and culture from incoming trade routes, and the originator of the route gets a bonus for trade sent to Morocco as well. Because this is additive and not capped, whoever has the most trade routes to send will benefit the most from this -- and benefit Morocco the most. Venice has more trade routes than anyone.
We've never really seen this before, where two civs have a very specific, built in symbiotic relationship.
It's not that hard to win Domination on Immortal (and for others, Deity). In the Strategy & Tips forum, there is a War Academy sub-forum that speaks to this, as to many strategy threads on winning Domination, at various levels. Also there are Challenge games that are not all Deity. Any one of these can help you win Domination at Prince and above. These could still apply to BNW since it appears the basic mechanics and strategies have not changed (just most variety in the ways of doing such). Good luck.
Venice seems like they'll be an awesome civ to play. They're like a playable city state. I'm gonna be playing with them after my first game with Morocco to learn how everything works.
In my tests legalism didn't gave free buildings to acquired cities, only in cities built by my own. But tradition finisher's free aqueduct goes to any first 4 cities when adopted, but does not provide aqueduct to cities I conquer thereafter.
So I attempted a somewhat psuedo-Venice game while playing as Austria and never making other cities. I even changed Maria Theresa to Enrico Dandolo and Vienna to Venice.
Here's what I have learned:
+ Money. Lot's and lot's of money. I don't know if it was because I was playing on a lower level because I never played that way or the fact that most puppet cities are defaulted into Gold focused cities. With the double trade routes I can't imagine how rich Venice will be.
+ Capital becomes a mammoth city and can turnout soldiers within a few turns. National Wonders are much easier to make since it's only one city.
- Certain land that has resources you need cannot be settled due to Venice's UA. This was the biggest fault I found.
- less managing leads to a somewhat boring game. All I did was either: go to war or play around with my workers. Buying buildings in cities may change that somewhat.
It's a civ that is really for a certain play-style. One that isn't mine. I'll definitely try out Venice after playing the 8 or may try it sooner out of curiosity.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Sorry maybe I wasn't precise enough.
