Venice

[ExpiredReign]

I don't how they did it but in my last play AI Venice had amassed these Wonders by turn 128.
Great Library
Colossus
Great Lighthouse
Great Wall
Hagia Sophia
Hanging Gardens
Statue of Zeus
Grand Temple

Of note, Colossus and Great Lighthouse were completed on consecutive turns. (114,115)

All the while they were gathering CSs like they were apples on a tree and amassing a rather impressive navy.

Needless to say taking Venice became a priority.

 

[Funak]

I don't how they did it but in my last play AI Venice had amassed these Wonders by turn 128.
Great Library
Colossus
Great Lighthouse
Great Wall
Hagia Sophia
Hanging Gardens
Statue of Zeus
Grand Temple

Of note, Colossus and Great Lighthouse were completed on consecutive turns. (114,115)

All the while they were gathering CSs like they were apples on a tree and amassing a rather impressive navy.

Needless to say taking Venice became a priority.

They are pretty much investing in every wonder available because with one city investment is pretty much free.

Had them snowball out of control earlygame in a game as well, then they fall off during the midgame because they have no way of sustaining their empire.

The Colossus and Great Lighthouse thing was probably a great engineer

 

[Atlas627]

Can I just say that I HATE that settling a town is exactly the same as using a non-unique GM? Can we add to Venice's UA or UU and make Towns do something more?

 

[Funak]

Can I just say that I HATE that settling a town is exactly the same as using a non-unique GM? Can we add to Venice's UA or UU and make Towns do something more?

Or give the Merchant of venice a unique town?

 

[Zanteogo]

Or give the Merchant of venice a unique town?

Let is expand borders? Like the citadel?

 

[Funak]

Let is expand borders? Like the citadel?

Or just add another yield to it? Like culture or something.

 

[Atlas627]

Or give the Merchant of venice a unique town?

I said add to the UA or UU. The latter would be making a unique town.

The reason why I said it the way I did is because of programming reasons. It is entirely possible that a unique town is impossible to do, but modifying towns as a part of the UA is definitely doable.

 

[Funak]

I said add to the UA or UU. The latter would be making a unique town.

The reason why I said it the way I did is because of programming reasons. It is entirely possible that a unique town is impossible to do, but modifying towns as a part of the UA is definitely doable.

Sure, but the big difference would be that conquered towns would benefit from it.

 

[JungleBucks]

Let is expand borders? Like the citadel?

One of my biggest beefs with Venice is it's poor border expansion for City-States. If towns could force out the borders that would be great! (Or if I could just buy tiles in City-States.

 

[Funak]

One of my biggest beefs with Venice is it's poor border expansion for City-States. If towns could force out the borders that would be great! (Or if I could just buy tiles in City-States.

One issue with this is that the town already have plenty of tile-requirements. It needs to be on a road and on a traderoute.

 

[Atlas627]

One issue with this is that the town already have plenty of tile-requirements. It needs to be on a road and on a traderoute.

It doesn't NEED to be. And yes Venice would gain from conquering towns if it were part of the UA. And if it were part of the UU, other civs would gain from conquering Venice. One of those is a buff to, as I believe you have been arguing in the past, one of the weakest civs in the game hands down.

 

[Funak]

It doesn't NEED to be. And yes Venice would gain from conquering towns if it were part of the UA. And if it were part of the UU, other civs would gain from conquering Venice. One of those is a buff to, as I believe you have been arguing in the past, one of the weakest civs in the game hands down.

I think Venice is straight up a stupid design-choice, and I think the entire civ should be remade from scratch, beyond that my opinion on the civ doesn't really matter.
I still think a unique town would make a lot more sense, the MoV constructing better towns makes more sense than Dandolo being better at utilizing towns, at least to me.

 

[Gort]

I think Venice is straight up a stupid design-choice, and I think the entire civ should be remade from scratch, beyond that my opinion on the civ doesn't really matter.

What are your reasons for this? I kinda like having a "one city challenge" type civ.

 

[Funak]

What are your reasons for this? I kinda like having a "one city challenge" type civ.

Do I have to? This was about the MoV, not my feelings .


My issue does not lie with the OCC idea, it lies with the buying of city-states idea, a mechanic that makes no sense and is completely dependent on good map-RNG. The nature of the civ also make your starting-location extremely RNG dependent, last time I tried the civ I had to do like 15 restarts to get a naval start that wasn't in an inland sea, something that is fairly important.

I dislike the whole idea of MoV buying city-states for two main reasons, first of all it takes city-states out of the game, and there isn't really much of a counter-play for it. Second unless you have some god-like RNG you're not going to have the city-states close enough to build a defend-able empire, unless you're playing an island-map I guess.


Now can we go back to the MoV?

 

[JungleBucks]

The nature of the civ also make your starting-location extremely RNG dependent, last time I tried the civ I had to do like 15 restarts to get a naval start that wasn't in an inland sea, something that is fairly important.

I feel your pain brother. If The MoV could just BUILD new Italian City-States (probably with a hard limit of like...2 or 3). I'd never have a problem with the civ and would probably use them more, but the way they are, I'm always reluctant to go towards using them.

Building new City-States would be a crazy good buff though with the way they make gold, so I doubt that could even work unless they get a nerf to their trade money.

 

[Funak]

I feel your pain brother. If The MoV could just BUILD new Italian City-States (probably with a hard limit of like...2 or 3). I'd never have a problem with the civ and would probably use them more, but the way they are, I'm always reluctant to go towards using them.

Building new City-States would be a crazy good buff though with the way they make gold, so I doubt that could even work unless they get a nerf to their trade money.

I already put out a solution where you remove the MoV, re-add the great galleass, remove the interacting with city-states, remove the extra trade-routes, let venice build settlers, let those settlers found puppets that can't be annexed and make the UA buff up puppets to a level where they are actually useful.
Some variations included keeping the MoV around but giving it other abilities, and keeping some extra trade-bonus (but cutting down the power on it)

Anyways the idea was shut down, probably because of racism or something like that .

At least the time I've played Venice I've been way to dependent on AI settling cities near me that I could steal from them. It is imho a better way to expand, but it leaves the entire civ feeling kinda hollow.

 

[supracseduch]

Do I have to? This was about the MoV, not my feelings .


My issue does not lie with the OCC idea, it lies with the buying of city-states idea, a mechanic that makes no sense and is completely dependent on good map-RNG. The nature of the civ also make your starting-location extremely RNG dependent, last time I tried the civ I had to do like 15 restarts to get a naval start that wasn't in an inland sea, something that is fairly important.

I dislike the whole idea of MoV buying city-states for two main reasons, first of all it takes city-states out of the game, and there isn't really much of a counter-play for it. Second unless you have some god-like RNG you're not going to have the city-states close enough to build a defend-able empire, unless you're playing an island-map I guess.


Now can we go back to the MoV?

This is still the appropriate thread for expressing your grievances about Venice's design you know.

Anyway, there should be a counterplay to buying city-states. Can they buy city-state allies of foreign civs? If yes, perhaps that should be changed.

As to being able to build defensible empires, I think unit-spamming is the way to do it. And don't just buy off random city-states with terrible positioning (though you can still probably defend it, especially with Airports in the late game). You should be able to continuously produce units (preferably with bonus experience) if a city is under attack, given your tremendous wealth. Even in peace times, you shouldn't slack off in building units anyway.

 

[Funak]

This is still the appropriate thread for expressing your grievances about Venice's design you know.

Sure, and I tried once and then I gave up.

Anyway, there should be a counterplay to buying city-states. Can they buy city-state allies of foreign civs? If yes, perhaps that should be changed.

That would make the MoV really weak.

As to being able to build defensible empires, I think unit-spamming is the way to do it. And don't just buy off random city-states with terrible positioning (though you can still probably defend it, especially with Airports in the late game). You should be able to continuously produce units (preferably with bonus experience) if a city is under attack, given your tremendous wealth. Even in peace times, you shouldn't slack off in building units anyway.

The problem is that if you can't get your city-borders to connect, some AI is going to build cities in-between your cities, no matter how close they are. And one your cities are isolated you're going to need a full army at every city to keep it safe.
Again the clear counter-play to this is just attacking the guy settling cities between you and puppet them for a better, more connected empire. However this once again leaves Venice completely dependent on conquering, which I don't think Is a very interesting concept.

 

[supracseduch]

The problem is that if you can't get your city-borders to connect, some AI is going to build cities in-between your cities, no matter how close they are. And one your cities are isolated you're going to need a full army at every city to keep it safe.
Again the clear counter-play to this is just attacking the guy settling cities between you and puppet them for a better, more connected empire. However this once again leaves Venice completely dependent on conquering, which I don't think Is a very interesting concept.

I agree that the AI's settling between your cities is really annoying. Especially if they can't even defend that city well. I have no idea how to make them behave better in this regard though. For now, you can somewhat alleviate this by making sure your cities' borders expand a lot. Buy the key tiles, and invest in culture buildings.

 

[Funak]

I agree that the AI's settling between your cities is really annoying. Especially if they can't even defend that city well. I have no idea how to make them behave better in this regard though. For now, you can somewhat alleviate this by making sure your cities' borders expand a lot. Buy the key tiles, and invest in culture buildings.

You can counter this by settling cities closer together. And honestly I don't think this is some behavior that needs to be changed, I mean if some Ai spreads their cities out to much I'm going to take the moment to do the same thing to them.
The problem here is that by its core, Venice just can't deal with it, other than by declaring war.