Venice

[Gazebo]

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 is fun, and so balance is important in order to maximize enjoyment for the player, 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.

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 gitting gud at this game, like you do. You should be aware 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.

To be clear, no GPPs in puppets. I'm curious to see numbers on how many players actually spawned GPs in puppets. The AI, even before the change (and the reason I was okay with it) produced 90% of its GPs (rough estimate, but you get the idea) in the capital, because that's where all wonders ended up.

G

 

[Enginseer]

To be clear, no GPPs in puppets. I'm curious to see numbers on how many players actually spawned GPs in puppets. The AI, even before the change (and the reason I was okay with it) produced 90% of its GPs (rough estimate, but you get the idea) in the capital, because that's where all wonders ended up.

G

I'd gotten GPs from guild puppets and MoV in various puppets, but that's pretty much it.

Then again, I don't specialize my capital often enough to emphasize on more growth and wonder-production.

 

[pineappledan]

To be clear, no GPPs in puppets. I'm curious to see numbers on how many players actually spawned GPs in puppets. The AI, even before the change (and the reason I was okay with it) produced 90% of its GPs (rough estimate, but you get the idea) in the capital, because that's where all wonders ended up.

Oh absolutely. I'm not suggesting that the sluggish GP generation should change, but I'm concerned about the mental anguish generated by mechanics making things patently impossible.

You know how every MMO/shooter player hates escort missions because the AI will sometimes do things actively against their own self-interest? It's like that. Allowing the AI to spend your hammers on buildings they can't ever use, and then forcing the player watch the AI be an idiot... it hurts me... in my soul

At least with a wall or a constabulary I can bargain with myself.
"well, the defense stat COULD be useful if that city is ever seiged."
"Well, the spy reduction COULD be useful if an enemy spy is ever put there."

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

It's weirder to have a policy exist that does absolutely nothing though.

 

[ridjack]

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

Certain civs have phrases in their abilities about getting things at specific techs. (Venice and his Merchant at Trade, Korea's GPs buffs every other era.) Obviously different from policies (and maybe not even possible in the code?), but it's a precedent. Ish.

EDIT: Not for this situation, but this got me curious: Is it possible, code-wise, to have a Civ have it's own set of policies? Similar to Celtic Pantheons, but with SPs.

 

[Gazebo]

Certain civs have phrases in their abilities about getting things at specific techs. (Venice and his Merchant at Trade, Korea's GPs buffs every other era.) Obviously different from policies (and maybe not even possible in the code?), but it's a precedent. Ish.

EDIT: Not for this situation, but this got me curious: Is it possible, code-wise, to have a Civ have it's own set of policies? Similar to Celtic Pantheons, but with SPs.

No.

 

[tu_79]

I understand pineappledan. One thing is cutting one mechanic, like not allowing to build settlers, and another one is not allowing to use settlers after they have been produced. Imagine India is allowed to produce Great Prophets missionaries but is not allowed to use them. And all you have to say is, "don't be silly, stop producing useless Great Prophets missionaries". (aka 'Don't pick a policy that does nothing for Venice").

If puppets can't produce GPP, then they should not be able to build guilds, as a rule. But it's not that simple. Should zoos be ignored because they only provide happiness with a marginal side effect? That would prevent building stadiums in puppet cities, with a not so marginal tourism effect.

It's not a good idea to let puppets build things that do nothing for them, as is not a good idea to have a policy that does nothing for a civ.

I don't dare to suggest how to fix this, because I already think that puppets without unhappiness and without GPP were going to lead to trouble.

 

[De_Genius]

Guilds still produce a good amount of guild and culture, so they are not completely useless without the GPP part.

 

[Heavy Q]

I played a Venice immortal game that started out as a tourism run but ended up as a full conquest as my power started to pull away. I think the nerf to GP generation is more than made up by the buffed happiness/supply cap of having a lot more puppets. I wasn't micromanaging the puppets build order with purchases that much other than barracks/armories/walls, but I really like this new Venice warmonger playstyle.

 

[Gazebo]

Venice, doing quite well in an AI-only debug game:

 

[Owlbebach]

Venice, doing quite well in an AI-only debug game:

I've seen this only once or twice, more than a year ago (Deity only)

 

[pineappledan]

As @Mad Madigan pointed out, the reintroduction of puppet unhappiness by way of a new population scaling mechanic means that Puppet unhappiness is basically a core mechanic for venice. They are essentially playing a different happiness minigame than the rest of the civs. I think this is a step in the right direction, there simply wasn't enough to do is the last couple patches with Venice. I think people might have been tilting Enrico into warmonger out of sheer boredom.

Conquest is a valid playstyle with Venice, as much as I think it's janky for a CS civ to rule the world. The existence of the Arsenale all but confirms that as a design decision.

MM proposed reducing their scaling by pop to 1 per 6-8.

My proposal:

• Arsenale di Venezia could give 1 in city for every Harbour and Seaport on empire. This would specifically help the warmonger side, and reinforce Venice as a maritime empire, since their happiness scaling only is offset by coastal cities. Some other buffs would have to be given to Murano and Rialto so that Arsenale doesn't become the obvious choice.
• The -50% on yields in puppets means the tourism on villages from Murano Glassworks should be looked at again. The change from 100% yields to 50% yields means this aspect of the wonder got axed pretty hard. Maybe double it to 4 on villages. It will increase the yields in the capital, but if we have to keep up with arsenale that's probably okay.
  • Also, is it weird that a wonder called the glassworks doesn't give a source of the Glass luxury? I think it would fit well with the tourism focus of Murano-Venice if it could trade with 2-4 copies of a CS-exclusive luxury. It would also reinforce the playable city-state aspect of Venice.

• Lastly Rialto, the Diplo wonder. Why not just give the wonder the standard bonuses of the East India Company? +1 TR and double lux in city? It's pretty weird that Venice, the #1 Trade route civ is locked out of a national wonder that gives a free trade route. They aren't exactly hurting for TRs, but still.

The puppet system is probably going to get tweaked a second time in the near future, so no sense in worrying about any of this until the dust settles. Puppets should get working for the other 42 civs, then we can seriously discuss how Venice breaks the rules

 

[ElliotS]

The puppet system is probably going to get tweaked a second time in the near future, so no sense in worrying about any of this until the dust settles. Puppets should get working for the other 42 civs, then we can seriously discuss how Venice breaks the rules

This is the biggest point of agreement I have. The puppet balance discussion CANNOT be based around Venice, and we can't really 'fix' Venice until the puppet balance situation is finished.

 

[Stalker0]

This is the biggest point of agreement I have. The puppet balance discussion CANNOT be based around Venice, and we can't really 'fix' Venice until the puppet balance situation is finished.

Amen!

 

[ridjack]

Venice, doing quite well in an AI-only debug game:

View attachment 491905

@Gazebo, what do you use for the AI-only games like that? I've been running autoplays with FireTuner, but am so far unable to see score list, demographics etc. The observer 'player' is permanently unmet with everyone.

 

[harleysmoke]

Is it just me or does it feel like Venice does not get enough unit cap... Even with a rapidly growing population at about ~40 and like 8 puppet cities I cant seem to break the 27 unit limit with the tech decreases... and with so few units im constantly at war with 2 civs.

 

[Owlbebach]

Is it just me or does it feel like Venice does not get enough unit cap... Even with a rapidly growing population at about ~40 and like 8 puppet cities I cant seem to break the 27 unit limit with the tech decreases... and with so few units im constantly at war with 2 civs.

Supply cap is definitely a challenge with Venice, but it is solvable. Invest into Walls/Barracks/castles in all of your cities. And 27 Supply for 8 cities seems like an okay number, should be enough. This is 3 units per city, most if times it is enough to defend, except huge invasion on a flatland. And you do not need to defend all of your cities, right?

 

[Moi Magnus]

Continuing debate from: https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/4854

Some suggestions:
1) Replace all the TR stuff by "TR produce twice the usual yields". It simulate "more trade routes", whithout all the weird consequences of having a high number of trade routes, and without the cost of having to build twice as many trade routes. It may also help the Venice AI to prioritize TR, because currently they don't.
2) Venician Merchant give supply when expended (like GG and GA).
3) Give strenght bonus to Venician puppets, so that they can defend themselves longer without army.
4) [Pineappledan] Make Venician puppets able to generate GP

Question: Are any change needed for Venice? What do you think of those suggestions?

 

[pineappledan]

1) Replace all the TR stuff by "TR produce twice the usual yields". It simulate "more trade routes", whithout all the weird consequences of having a high number of trade routes, and without the cost of having to build twice as many trade routes. It may also help the Venice AI to prioritize TR, because currently they don't.

Hey guys I have a great idea. The big problem with Venice is there's too much to do! So let's give Venice even less to do.

Actually, should Venice even build buildings? I mean really, it's such a chore, why not just have them automatically constructed in your capital when you research the tech?

Joking aside, this would be a serious nerf to Venice's tourism and influence output. If you took away double TRs, there's no possible way Venice could compete for culture victory. RIP Glassworks.

2) Venician Merchant give supply when expended (like GG and GA).

This seems like a pretty good idea

3) Give strenght bonus to Venician puppets, so that they can defend themselves longer without army.

I have no opinions

4) [Pineappledan] Make Venician puppets able to generate GP

I have strong opinions

 

[Moi Magnus]

Hey guys I have a great idea. The big problem with Venice is there's too much to do! So let's give Venice even less to do.

Actually, should Venice even build buildings? I mean really, it's such a chore, why not just have them automatically constructed in your capital when you research the tech?

Joking aside, this would be a serious nerf to Venice's tourism and influence output. If you took away double TRs, there's no possible way Venice could compete for culture victory. RIP Glassworks.

This was more to get rid of the "Venice has an exception for TR city targeting" and "Should Venice TR be automatically recalled at war?" "The AI does not build enough TR". But you are right that it change too much the culture output, and puting "double instant tourism" or other stuff like that would be another set of exceptions. So no points getting rid of some exceptions to add new ones instead.

 

[pineappledan]

Should Venice TR be automatically recalled at war?

Umm.... Everyone's TRs do that already

Also of note, Venice's unique replacements for the EIC (glassworks/arsenale/Rialto) don't give a free TR, so Venice would have fewer TRs than any other civ.

One other small buff you could give Venice that would have minimal overall impact is give Venice +50% land/sea TR distance modifier, so they have more options for TRs more quickly. I wouldn't even bother writing it up, just make it a secret buff, like Rome's UB stealing