Venice

[Atlas627]

So basically, you're saying that Venice in multiplayer is fine because you and your friends decided that no one is allowed to attack Venice?

I'm insulted that you seem to have not read my story properly or you have thought it merely a joke.

What I am saying is that changing the rules is GREAT FUN in multiplayer because humans can actually adapt to those changes. Having Venice in the game creates interesting scenarios that don't come up otherwise. Sometimes the Venetian player comes out ahead because of this, and sometimes they don't.

Nobody "decided" to not attack Venice. Whenever someone made that choice, they thought it was strategic. And it spawned diplomacy on a game-wide level because humans can do that.

Edit: Since this is apparently the only thing that concerns you, yes I think that makes them MORE balanced. Humans can say "oh well I know the Venetian isn't much of a threat so I'll worry about other things" or "Venice needs help so we can keep our trade partnership going, I'll defend them" and adapt to Venice's "weakness". Multiplayer inherently balances things that are weak or strong. Isn't that why we're talking in other threads about how the AI should do more to stop runaways?

 

[Funak]

I'm insulted that you seem to have not read my story properly or you have thought it merely a joke.

What I am saying is that changing the rules is GREAT FUN in multiplayer because humans can actually adapt to those changes. Having Venice in the game creates interesting scenarios that don't come up otherwise. Sometimes the Venetian player comes out ahead because of this, and sometimes they don't.

Nobody "decided" to not attack Venice. Whenever someone made that choice, they thought it was strategic. And it spawned diplomacy on a game-wide level because humans can do that.

Edit: Since this is apparently the only thing that concerns you, yes I think that makes them MORE balanced. Humans can say "oh well I know the Venetian isn't much of a threat so I'll worry about other things" or "Venice needs help so we can keep our trade partnership going, I'll defend them" and adapt to Venice's "weakness". Multiplayer inherently balances things that are weak or strong. Isn't that why we're talking in other threads about how the AI should do more to stop runaways?

I thought it was obvious that I was talking about competitive multiplayer.

 

[Strigvir]

Nobody "decided" to not attack Venice. Whenever someone made that choice, they thought it was strategic. And it spawned diplomacy on a game-wide level because humans can do that.

You said for yourself you were playing with scrubs. Any more-less informed player knows Venice weakness and won't even allow to "bully 7 players". More like you will be sitting at one city with zero trade-routes and no possibility to expand.

 

[Funak]

You said for yourself you were playing with scrubs. Any more-less informed player knows Venice weakness and won't even allow to "bully 7 players". More like you will be sitting at one city with zero trade-routes and no possibility to expand.

You are so blunt I'm going to have to name my warhammer after you

 

[Atlas627]

I thought it was obvious that I was talking about competitive multiplayer.

I, in addition to my anecdote about fun, mentioned that humans will inherently balance out a weakness by adapting to it and accounting for it.

You said for yourself you were playing with scrubs. Any more-less informed player knows Venice weakness and won't even allow to "bully 7 players". More like you will be sitting at one city with zero trade-routes and no possibility to expand.

The bullying was not when I played Venice. Some players wished to defend me because I traded with them, I offered them tribute, and/or we were not competing for space.

If the both of you are thinking of 1v1s, then I agree Venice is straight up terrible. I also think 1v1s are straight up terrible anyway. Otherwise, I think you are both missing my point and are interpreting what I've said in a way that fits the ideas you already have. And I don't agree with them, so please debate respectfully rather than toss my argument aside or be rude about my "scrub" friends.

 

[Funak]

I, in addition to my anecdote about fun, mentioned that humans will inherently balance out a weakness by adapting to it and accounting for it.

Except in competitive multiplayer no one is going to let you run trade-routes, because you benefit more from them, they are going to declare war on you to sabotage them and then they're going to attack and conquer your cities to get an edge vs the other civs, as you're not able to defend them since you can't produce an army.

I'm not saying that your circle of friends playing isn't proper multiplayer, I'm just saying that you can't compare it to competitive multiplayer.
I don't really have the time to explain to you why Venice is unplayable in multiplayer, and I really don't care enough about changing your opinion so I'll just bring up this instead.
The NQ(No quitters)-community have a standing rule that anyone rolling Venice in a random game is allowed to leave. You realize how bad that sounds? A group dedicated to rooting out quitters allows anyone rolling Venice to just quit the game, no questions asked. In the newer versions of their balance patch Venice was removed from the game.

 

[Atlas627]

Except in competitive multiplayer no one is going to let you run trade-routes, because you benefit more from them, they are going to declare war on you to sabotage them and then they're going to attack and conquer your cities to get an edge vs the other civs, as you're not able to defend them since you can't produce an army.

I'm not saying that your circle of friends playing isn't proper multiplayer, I'm just saying that you can't compare it to competitive multiplayer.
I don't really have the time to explain to you why Venice is unplayable in multiplayer, and I really don't care enough about changing your opinion so I'll just bring up this instead.
The NQ(No quitters)-community have a standing rule that anyone rolling Venice in a random game is allowed to leave. You realize how bad that sounds? A group dedicated to rooting out quitters allows anyone rolling Venice to just quit the game, no questions asked. In the newer versions of their balance patch Venice was removed from the game.

I understand. Not being able to found your own cities takes a lot of fate out of your hands. This is not necessarily a balance issue, but it is certainly against the competitive spirit.

2 ideas for keeping Venice unique like how it is and improving it just came to me:

The first is to give them a unique improvement: a trading post or whatever. This claims unclaimed land adjacent to it and cannot be built within 2 tiles of another trading post. Your Palace gains yields for each trading post you have (I assume a little gold/food/production would be reasonable), but does not improve the yields of the tile. This lets Venice claim resources and "expand" in a more traditional sense without actually giving them new cities. If possible, a razed trading post would cease to keep the land "claimed", or at least allow other cities to expand there naturally or with money (like how the American UA works, overriding ownership).

The other is to give them a unique "corporation" as part of their unique Palace. This will give more permanent bonuses to trading partners and makes their trading options more interesting, which is good when they have so many trade routes. Perhaps it provides tourism? Don't really have any ideas for what the corporation should do yet.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I noticed that there are now corporations associated with glass, porcelain, and jewelry. That is a thing that Venice can get, right?

I had an idea for a UI for Venice in place of the Palace.

Glassworks. Available at Guilds. One built per city. Gives production, gold, culture, Great Merchant points, and one copy of Glass. Have the yields increase if Venice gets the Glass monopoly.

 

[Gazebo]

Venice puppets are much more versatile now. Try them out. The ability to buy into the queue and rearrange the queue is pretty nice.

G

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Venice puppets are much more versatile now. Try them out. The ability to buy into the queue and rearrange the queue is pretty nice.

G

I definitely intend to. I don't know if it will be before the next iteration though. You move faster than I can complete games.

 

[Vinipac]

The city of Venice in civ gets a bunch of extra CS from the Doge's Palace, meaning it is usually a lot harder to conquer than normal capitals. Not quite as high as the number you suggested but it makes a difference.


Interesting, but having access to multiple uniques kinda breaks the core mechanics behind civ.

Isn't that the whole idea about Venice, though?

Having a playable city state should differ from normal Civ in almost every way!

Also, not being able to build cities is probably the worst "debuff" in the game.


The idea of the blockade is much more active than the current palace defense, and I hope that if the idea is followed, the other UBs to be active as well.

Also, a question for Gazebo, how easy would my idea be to create a submod of the CBP (or even vanilla) with someone with no modding experience?

 

[Funak]

Venice puppets are much more versatile now. Try them out. The ability to buy into the queue and rearrange the queue is pretty nice.

I understand that you feel that, but your changes didn't affect any of the issues I brought up, at all.

Also, not being able to build cities is probably the worst "debuff" in the game.

Not being able to build cities is the absolute worst penalty in the game. The second worst penalty is not being able to control your cities, Venice suffers from both of those.
These two penalties are offset by the double trade-routes, an ability that is so insanely powerful that it pretty much breaks the game.

 

[Enginseer]

The only problem I feel with Venice is that you can't play aggressively until you researched optics (or sailing?) to get your Merchant of Venice to purchase a city-state, so you can keep your unit supply high.

 

[Gazebo]

I understand that you feel that, but your changes didn't affect any of the issues I brought up, at all.


Not being able to build cities is the absolute worst penalty in the game. The second worst penalty is not being able to control your cities, Venice suffers from both of those.
These two penalties are offset by the double trade-routes, an ability that is so insanely powerful that it pretty much breaks the game.

I don't 'feel' it - it is the reality. They are more versatile now, objectively so, as you can control the queue a little bit. Whether or not that has bearing on balance is to be determined.

G

 

[Funak]

I don't 'feel' it - it is the reality. They are more versatile now, objectively so, as you can control the queue a little bit. Whether or not that has bearing on balance is to be determined.

Well it only affects investments, as they are the only things that get queued, and I never mentioned any problems with investments, so I really don't think it affects my optinion at all.

 

[pandasnail]

I really really enjoyed the building investment change. Guilds, barracks, national wonders and everything else getting to go where I want is delightful, and functioned perfectly. I mean, it won't fix them in multiplayer, I'm sure, but I think that's ok. There really are no more annoyances in the single player anymore for me.

Although, looks like tradition isn't providing a quick Merchant of Venice anymore, so I'll have to go right into Authority instead doing a meld. And then aesthetics I guess? I think that will be fine tho. I mean, a conquest civ being forced to play the conquest policy tree shouldn't be a problem. Makes The Great Pyramid even more important imo, but luckily it appears to quite low on the AI preference. Which makes sense, most civs aren't planning on massive road systems, and can get the settler otherwise obvi.

 

[Atlas627]

I really really enjoyed the building investment change. Guilds, barracks, national wonders and everything else getting to go where I want is delightful, and functioned perfectly. I mean, it won't fix them in multiplayer, I'm sure, but I think that's ok. There really are no more annoyances in the single player anymore for me.

Although, looks like tradition isn't providing a quick Merchant of Venice anymore, so I'll have to go right into Authority instead doing a meld. And then aesthetics I guess? I think that will be fine tho. I mean, a conquest civ being forced to play the conquest policy tree shouldn't be a problem. Makes The Great Pyramid even more important imo, but luckily it appears to quite low on the AI preference. Which makes sense, most civs aren't planning on massive road systems, and can get the settler otherwise obvi.

Does the Pyramids and free settler policy in Authority still give MoVs? I know they did in Vanilla but the tooltip was taken out somewhere along the line so I wasn't sure anymore.

Seems like Venice can go any tree, it just gives different boosts. Which is great! Progress as a whole seems bad for them, but the opener and building yield policy might be good enough to dip.

 

[pandasnail]

Does the Pyramids and free settler policy in Authority still give MoVs? I know they did in Vanilla but the tooltip was taken out somewhere along the line so I wasn't sure anymore.

They do, yeah.

Seems like Venice can go any tree, it just gives different boosts. Which is great! Progress as a whole seems bad for them, but the opener and building yield policy might be good enough to dip.

I've never done progress, but perhaps I should. They are after all the only civ that never has to stop city growth, which means more early bonuses. And if I succeed in conquering, all those individual city yields will be great. You're right, maybe I should try a progress/authority meld instead of worrying about a Medieval tree.

 

[Atlas627]

I've never done progress, but perhaps I should. They are after all the only civ that never has to stop city growth, which means more early bonuses. And if I succeed in conquering, all those individual city yields will be great. You're right, maybe I should try a progress/authority meld instead of worrying about a Medieval tree.

I don't think they want the whole Progress tree. The 1st policy on each side is useful, but the rest and the finisher don't work very well for them.

 

[Funak]

I don't think they want the whole Progress tree. The 1st policy on each side is useful, but the rest and the finisher don't work very well for them.

I don't think they would want to waste 3 policies in progress without finishing it to be honest .
On the topic of Progress, I can imagine the +2 food/production would help your worthless puppets quite a bit.