Venice

[pineappledan]

I think there's an argument to be made for GPPs for Venice puppets is all. Nothing so extreme as what other people are suggesting, with new settling mechanics.

This is the current build for puppets:
- Not Venice: 75% / & 25%//// - no GPPs - 'Martial law' boosts (100%/, 50% the rest)
- Venice: 100% ALL YIELDS - no GPPs - No bonus from 'Martial Law'

Next patch, I would want to see this tried:
- Not Venice: Same as this patch (03-12) same % yields, no GPPs, etc.
- Venice: 75% ALL YIELDS - Puppets can generate GPPs - 'Martial law' boosts (100% ALL YIELDS)

Maybe G has tried a build like this on his own time? Maybe it didn't work so hot, but on paper, it would solve some wackiness w.r.t. Venice:

1. Guilds could operate normally for Venice, like they do for other civs (currently Venice only generates Artist/Musicians/Writers in capital, cuts him out of CV path)
2. GPP-related buildings are pretty dead to Venice (worst offender is Garden, which is a dead maintenance sink except for oasis improvement). If a puppet builds a garden for another civ, then at least if could be useful later if they ever annex.
3. Venice's kit is designed around the puppet city AI gold focus, so their unique MoV meshed well with the base puppet city mechanics.
4. Martial law is currently a dead policy to Venice. That's a shame to see. Venice gets a MoV from Imperium, so why allow a dead policy now?
5. If a wonder was built in a city, most other civs would annex, but Venice can't benefit from GPPs off wonders if not built in the capital.
6. Historicity points. Venice figured heavily in the Italian Renaissance, and Venetian colonies weren't short of great people of their own. (Giorgio da Sebenico, Marco Marulo, Giovanni Bona Boliris, Cristoforo Ivanovich, Ludovico Pasquali)

 

[tu_79]

I think there's an argument to be made for GPPs for Venice puppets is all. Nothing so extreme as what other people are suggesting with new settling mechanics, but yeah.

This is the current build for puppets:
- Not Venice: 75% / & 25%//// - no GPPs - 'Martial law' boosts (100%/, 50% the rest)
- Venice: 100% ALL YIELDS - no GPPs - No bonus from 'Martial Law'

Next patch, I would want to see this tried:
- Not Venice: Same as this patch (03-12) same % yields, no GPPs, etc.
- Venice: 75% ALL YIELDS - Puppets can generate GPPs - 'Martial law' boosts (100% ALL YIELDS)

Maybe G has tried a build like this on his own time? it would solve some wackiness w.r.t. Venice:

1. Guilds could operate normally for Venice, like they do for other civs (currently Venice only generates Artist/Musicians/Writers in capital, cuts him out of CV path)
2. GPP - related buildings are pretty dead to Venice (worst offender is Garden, which is reduced to a building maintenance sink with only oasis improvement)
3. Venice's kit is designed around the puppet city AI gold focus, so their unique merchant meshed well with the base puppet city mechanics.
4. Martial law is currently a dead policy, which provides no bonus to Venice. That's a shame to see. Venice gets a GMerchant from Imperium, so why allow a dead policy now?
5. If a wonder was built in a city, most other civs would annex, but Venice can't benefit from GPPs off wonders if not built in the capital
6. Historicity points. Venice figured heavilly in the Italian Rennaissance, and Venetian colonies weren't short of great people of their own. (Giorgio da Sebenico, Marco Marulo, Giovanni Bona Boliris, Cristoforo Ivanovich, Ludovico Pasquali)

I think removing unhappiness from needs on puppets would have been enough. Letting puppets have unhappiness if they are going to work specialists. That would have made happiness buildings still relevant for puppets. This 'no unhappiness from puppets at all' only leads to trouble.

 

[verybiased]

Looking at buildings alone a ton of them lose certain aspects for Venice's puppets. While it doesn't break anything and 99% are still worth building, I feel the patch plainly flattens a lot of elements. Also if my puppets still autoconstruct Guilds in this patch, which was questionable even before, the priorities should be adressed.

I made a list of buildings (according to wikia so may be out of date) that "lose" something. But of course that is very arguable. E.g. in theory Great Work slots are less desirable if you end up having less Great Works. Specialists without their GP point yield lose efficiancy. This diminishes the impact of everything that influnces specialists, and so forth. As you can see, it's tiny things.

My point is not so much that something becomes useless, but that it has less of an impact. It's just not as important what is getting build if the stakes are lowered across the board.

Barracks (need mod)
Market (specialist)
Amphitheatre (GP rate) (guild yield mod)
Aqueduct (need mod)
Arena (need mod)
Caravansary (specialist yield mod)
Forge (specialist)
Library (need mod) (specialist)
Temple (need mod) (Great Work slot)
Writers Guild (GP points) (specialist)
Armory (need mod)
Artists Guild (GP points) (specialist) (Great Work slot)
Castle (Great Work slot)
Chancery (specialist)
Circus (need mod)
Customs House (specialist)
Garden (GP rate)
University (specialist) (need mod)
Workshop (specialist)
Bank (specialist)
Constabulary (need mod)
Grocer (need mod)
Musicians Guild (GP points) (specialist)
Observatory (specialist)
Opera House (GP rate) (Great Work slot) (guild yield mod)
Windmill (specialist)
Factory (specialist)
Military Academy (specialist)
Museum (GP rate) (Great Work slot) (guild yield mod)
Public School (need mod) (specialist)
Seaport (specialist)
Train Station (specialist)
Zoo (need mod)
Broadcast Tower (Great Work slot)
Hospital (need mod)
Research Lab (scpecialist) (GP rate) (need mod)
Stock Exchange (specialist)
Wire Service (specialist)
Medical Lab (need mod) (specialist yield mod)
Police Station (need mod)
Stadium (Happiness) (yield mod)
Bomb Shelter (Happiness)

Civilized Jewelers Office (GP rate)
Giorgio Armeier Office (Happiness)

Cathedral (need mod)
Church (need mod)
Mandir (need mod) (Great Work slot) (assassination protection)
Monastery (specialist)
Mosque (need mod) (Great Work slot)
Order (need mod)
Stupa (need mod)
Synagogue (need mod)

 

[ridjack]

1. Guilds could operate normally for Venice, like they do for other civs (currently Venice only generates Artist/Musicians/Writers in capital, cuts him out of CV path)

I think you're grossly underestimating the power of Venice's trade routes for cultural victory. OCC Venice is literally the only game I've won on Emperor (as well as several times on King), and every time it's been with a cultural victory that occasionally felt laughably easy. It gets absolutely bonkers just how much tourism 30-40 trade routes can yield.

(This was before a lot of the recent changes, most notably the inability to spam one city with multiple routes. That's certainly changed the calculus, but I'd be willing to bet it's still a viable strategy.)

 

[ElliotS]

Can Martial Law give puppets the ability to produce GPP, and 25% extra GPP generation? (Only for Venice) This would avoid a dead policy and fix some of the complaints. I also don't think it's so good it would become a necessary branch, or a huge buff to Venice. Just enough to bring Imperialism back in line for them.

 

[bigcat88]

Can Martial Law give puppets the ability to produce GPP, and 25% extra GPP generation? (Only for Venice) This would avoid a dead policy and fix some of the complaints. I also don't think it's so good it would become a necessary branch, or a huge buff to Venice. Just enough to bring Imperialism back in line for them.

I like this, but without 25% extra GP rate(it is more then wonder gives). Just ability to generate GreatPeople will be enough.

 

[Gazebo]

Can Martial Law give puppets the ability to produce GPP, and 25% extra GPP generation? (Only for Venice) This would avoid a dead policy and fix some of the complaints. I also don't think it's so good it would become a necessary branch, or a huge buff to Venice. Just enough to bring Imperialism back in line for them.

I don’t think imperialism needs the buff. But I’m looking at giving it to Venice naturally.

 

[ElliotS]

I like this, but without 25% extra GP rate(it is more then wonder gives). Just ability to generate GreatPeople will be enough.

It would be pretty late so my thought is that they need something to catch-up on GPP. You've still got the 25% from National monument in capital, as well as other stuff. Number could be changed though.

 

[ElliotS]

I don’t think imperialism needs the buff. But I’m looking at giving it to Venice naturally.

I put the suggestion in this thread because I ONLY want that to apply to Venice. No one else gets GPP stuff. (Just Venice so the tree is fair for them, like Authority gives a great merchant instead of a settler.) Or are you saying Imperialism Venice is fine?

 

[Gazebo]

I put the suggestion in this thread because I ONLY want that to apply to Venice. No one else gets GPP stuff. (Just Venice so the tree is fair for them, like Authority gives a great merchant instead of a settler.) Or are you saying Imperialism Venice is fine?

It’d be very strange to give just one civ a bonus in the tree.
G

 

[pineappledan]

Then Venice's puppets would get 125% yields on puppets, correct? That's why I thought reducing the yields on all Venice's puppets to 75% made sense. People have reported that triggering golden ages is incredibly easy for them now, so the 20%/ and extra gold is more like putting venice up to full.

 

[ElliotS]

It’d be very strange to give just one civ a bonus in the tree.
G

I mean it's also weird to have one civ get no benefit from a bonus. Besides, it's Venice. I think weird comes with the territory.

I don't think it's too difference from them getting a great merchant when they would get a settler. The note could be in their UA so it wouldn't be as annoying for non-Venice players.

 

[ElliotS]

I mean if Venice isn't OP with the policy applying like normal, that's better. Somehow that sounds OP tho. ^.^

 

[ElliotS]

That's why I thought reducing the yields on all Venice's puppets to 75% made sense.

Sounds like a huge nerf they don't need. 25% yields for GPP is a terrible trade. It would also make Imperialism more-or-less required for Venice.

 

[Stalker0]

I think I would like to see more games on the current patch before we make more changes. As everyone has said, Venice is weird. They miss out on a lot of stuff that other civs get, but they are also ridiculously strong in other ways.

 

[pineappledan]

Sounds like a huge nerf they don't need. 25% yields for GPP is a terrible trade.

I don't think giving 125% yields from martial law, thus making puppets more productive than the capital, is what you want either though. My *purely speculative* suggestion that Venice's puppets could get +50%//// and GPPs in puppets from the start, bringing them to 75% on all yields, still look more attractive to me for the reasons below:

• Jumping 25% on yields from all puppets would feel like a required policy regardless of whether the jump is 75% => 100%, or 100% => 125%. unlocking GPPs at that policy would also only make the policy even MORE required for Venice, so it sounds like you're arguing against your own point.
  
• If you meant that the policy would ONLY unlock GPPs in cities for Venice, then I have other misgivings.locking GPPs behind a very late policy doesn't solve the particular issues I had in a manner that feels fun.
  • Doesn't solve the fact that Gardens and guilds are dead buildings to Venice outside capital. Now they would just be dead buildings until industrial era
  • Venice has no way to benefit from conquered wonders that give GPPs

It would also make Imperialism more-or-less required for Venice.

I don't see how the concept of "required policies" for any particular civ is a negative thing. Natural synergies with policy trees are inevitable unless you make all civs the same. Venice is a civ built around puppet cities. What policy tree buffs puppets?

• Majesty (Tradition) feels more or less required for Arabia
• Entrepreneurship (Industry) feels more or less required for Iroquois
• Tribute (Authority) feels more or less required for Russia

The synergies are not only inevitable, but a core aspect of the game. This point is like arguing against the very idea of policies.

The mechanics surrounding Puppet cities have been reworked, the policy tree which focuses on puppets has been reworked, but the 1 civ in the game that can ONLY puppet has not. A modification to Venice seems inevitable; too much has changed. As @Stalker0 said, however, I haven't heard back from anyone from a full game with Venice since the patch, we don't know what they need.

 

[Rekk]

I mean it's also weird to have one civ get no benefit from a bonus.

Is that true? Doesn't Martial Law give Venetian puppets 125% of yields?

 

[ElliotS]

So let's be clear. @Gazebo has said Venice is performing fine right now. That means that these changes should avoid significantly increasing or decreasing their power. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm also guessing that most of this success is with Rationalism or Industry, given that Imperialism seems like a worse choice.

My *purely speculative* suggestion that Venice's puppets could get +50%//// and GPPs in puppets from the start, bringing them to 75% on all yields, still look more attractive to me for the reasons below:

This is a bad choice. It You're reducing their yields in all secondary cities by 25% for the ability to generate GPPs? If you think yields are worth more than GPP in secondary cities you're just factually wrong. That's not debatable as far as I'm concerned, but feel free to try.

Venice can make a ton of GPs from their capital alone, the secondary cities produce very few GPs. In many, many, many games before this patch, even in the heyday of OP puppets, my puppets built gardens and never made a GP. Is there any difference between a city that can't make GPs building a garden and a city that can make GPs building a garden and then never making one? I'd posit that no, there isn't.

unlocking GPPs at that policy would also only make the policy even MORE required for Venice, so it sounds like you're arguing against your own point.

Once again you're just way off base. Your valuation of GPs in puppets is completely at odds with reality. I don't know how I can say this more clearly. I'm not arguing against my own point, because while yields from puppets are universally useful, GPPs from puppets are relatively niche.

I don't see how the concept of "required policies" for any particular civ is a negative thing. Natural synergies with policy trees are inevitable unless you make all civs the same. Venice is a civ built around puppet cities. What policy tree buffs puppets?

• Majesty (Tradition) feels more or less required for Arabia
• Entrepreneurship (Industry) feels more or less required for Iroquois
• Tribute (Authority) feels more or less required for Russia

Tradition Arabia is required. I agree. If I was going to design a civ I would try to avoid that, but with 43 unique civs I feel like it could be hard to avoid.
I completely disagree on the following two. Tradition Russia is extremely strong and synergistic. Hell you could go borderblob (nerfed as it is) and get both the tradition policy and authroity's policy. I think the Renaissance era is wide open for the Iroquois, regardless of the synergy on this one policy.

Those only case that matches is Arabia, and I think that's bad game design. (if not always avoidable.) We certainly shouldn't be moving towards that. G has stated he wants to make less "Required Trees" and I agree with that.

I think you're a really creative guy with some great ideas, but this one I think is completely wrong and counter-productive.

Is that true? Doesn't Martial Law give Venetian puppets 125% of yields?

No, it doesn't. That's part of the problem, it's unclear.

 

[pineappledan]

You seem convinced that I am primarily concerned with balance and power, and that I'm here to debate what's strong/not strong. I'm not. My concern is a coherent playstyle and enjoyability in the hands of a human player. Of course balanced civs are fun, and so balance is important for maximizing enjoyment, but it's not the only factor. All of your counterarguments are laser-focused on win conditions. I'm trying to say that too many mechanics have been stripped from Venice all at once and it's a damn mess.

Right now there are things in Venice's playstyle which, even if they are perfectly balanced for AI vs. AI play, are, in my view, absolute fun-kryptonite.

• No GPPs ever except for in one city, even though the rest of the game is built around the idea of a 3-city core for cultural GPs feels poopy.
• AI-determined build orders which could sink hammers and maintenance into buildings which offer literally 0 benefit, even hypothetically, feels poopy.
• Even if you are aware that GPs coming from your puppets is a rare occurrence as Venice, KNOWING that it is completely impossible, yet being powerless to stop a puppet from adding them to the build order feels poopy.
• Likewise, the city building things whose main impact is happiness, like walls or constabularies, feels poopy.
• Capturing a foreign city with a bunch of wonders in it that give yields you have no way of benefiting from or integrating. Ever. feels poopy.

My point re. policies is that there are synergies which you can choose to or not to use. No one has a gun to your head. However, finding the synergies and planning your empire around those synergies is a very definite source of fun for some of us. Your point regarding not being "railroaded" into specific policies is fair, to a point, but exploiting game knowledge, min-maxing, and fooling with mechanics is one of my biggest sources of enjoyment with this game. I have precisely 0 interest in playing deity and 'git-ing gud' at this game, like you do. You should be mindful that the notion that people might not WANT to play like you do doesn't make their opinions less valid.

There's just parts of the current Venice build which I see as sources of mental anguish for a human. Venice has always been based around cutting your normally available options and that can be really fun, but the changes to puppet mechanics have made it so the game effectively cuts MORE parts of the game from you, and OPENLY MOCKS YOU for not being able to engage in them. It used to be that Venice cut you out of city micromanagement. Now Venice cuts you out of both the traditional culture game (trade route culture is still valid), and the happiness management system on top of city micro. No GPPs makes GP/happiness - focused buildings into sour grapes.

Happiness was already completely scrapped for venice as a concept in this patch and Venice was already playing with a pared-down hand. Taking GPP points from puppets gives a Venice player even less to do. Keeping all those now useless buildings in the list for the AI to build while you watch them waste your hammers is the 4X equivalent of watching your AI companions glitch inside a wall in a shooter.

 

[Gazebo]

I think I would like to see more games on the current patch before we make more changes. As everyone has said, Venice is weird. They miss out on a lot of stuff that other civs get, but they are also ridiculously strong in other ways.

Oh definitely. 'Looking at' for me simply means 'it's not off the table if Venice performance falls off.'

G