At that point, might as well give the MoV a wonder hurry, great work, and a science bulb too.
G
G
Venice
- Thread starter void_genesis
- Start date
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,548
I think just +1-2 Supply from expending MoV's is good enough.
pineappledan
Deity
Enginseer’s main contention, if I’m understanding it, is that MoVs have 3 actions: buy a CS, trade mission, and Colonia. Buying a CS is a unique action, Colonia are strictly better than towns, and that leaves trade missions, which aren’t any better than a standard GMerchant’s trade missions. So it appears that 1 of MoVs’ 3 actions is a bit of a lame non-choice.
As for the supply cap thing. Barring making new code to give Venice a new supply mechanic, slapping some flat supply on MoV is the low point over the fence. If you wanted to do a more bespoke solution, then that’s your prerogative
Last edited:
I've never tried diplo with Venice (it seemed contradictory to me to puppet CSs when diplo wants to ally them instead) but giving influence to MoV trade missions would certainly help boost the diplo path. I've only ever seen people talk about aggressive/authority Venice or tall/wonder spam tourism Venice so perhaps that influence boost would help make that path more attractive.
I definitely think +1 supply on MoV use would be a great initial change and it might be all that's needed, really. Having that extra supply might be enough to keep Venice from being preyed upon by default and the ripple effect of avoiding all that aggression (not losing trade routes, having an easier time making friends/alliances, etc) might put Venice in line with others.
I would be interested to know if CS puppets losing buildings when being bought via MoV was intended or if it's actually a bug. It doesn't make much thematic sense for a bought CS to lose walls/monument/etc, not that thematic sense overrides balance. However, losing those buildings when purchasing a CS might not be as big of a deal if Venice's supply cap is given some love.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,604
You don't lose buildings when you trade cities with other civs. I don't think you should lose buildings here, either.
Omen of Peace
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 404
I agree Venice's supply could use a little bump. I didn't have issues with it in my last game, but I nabbed Terracotta and Great Wall. With -3 or -6 I would have been in trouble.
I'll note that you took the most gold-poor policy trees. Authority and/or Statecraft and/or Imperialism or Industry would all bring in more gold.
I went Tradition/Artistry/Imperialism in a recent game, and with 5 puppets the early Imperialism policy that reduces puppet penalties and makes garrisons free gave me +100 gp/turn or so (though I was in a Golden Age at the time, so the steady-state increase was probably lower).
But I do agree it wasn't that easy to buy buildings in puppets for most of the game.
I should mention that I experience several botched starts beforehand - I lost a game where I started close to the Huns and Rome. I probably should have gone Authority, but I'm not even sure that would have helped - there were only two city-states nearby, and not that close, and the terrain around Venice wasn't defensible enough.
It's kinda hard to pick defensive terrain when you can only found one city... I'd be curious to know how Deity players handle that - I'm only at Immortal.
Overall I don't think Venice has a gold issue.
I'll note that you took the most gold-poor policy trees. Authority and/or Statecraft and/or Imperialism or Industry would all bring in more gold.
I went Tradition/Artistry/Imperialism in a recent game, and with 5 puppets the early Imperialism policy that reduces puppet penalties and makes garrisons free gave me +100 gp/turn or so (though I was in a Golden Age at the time, so the steady-state increase was probably lower).
But I do agree it wasn't that easy to buy buildings in puppets for most of the game.
I should mention that I experience several botched starts beforehand - I lost a game where I started close to the Huns and Rome. I probably should have gone Authority, but I'm not even sure that would have helped - there were only two city-states nearby, and not that close, and the terrain around Venice wasn't defensible enough.
It's kinda hard to pick defensive terrain when you can only found one city... I'd be curious to know how Deity players handle that - I'm only at Immortal.
You don't need more than two City-States. And you don't need defensive terrain if you are the attacker (and you should be, even if you are Tradition Venice)
Omen of Peace
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 404
Why pick Tradition if I know I'm going to attack my neighbour? Just curious.
I don't think I'm good enough to prevail against a 5+ city Hun with his UU and with unfavourable terrain. I'm at peace with that; you haven't convinced me yet that Tradition Venice wins in this situation.
I don't think I'm good enough to prevail against a 5+ city Hun with his UU and with unfavourable terrain. I'm at peace with that; you haven't convinced me yet that Tradition Venice wins in this situation.
You take Tradition to get more Great People (you play Tourism right?). You attack to get cities, that you otherwise can't build. Even if you are Tourism Venice - you need 4-5 cities to be able to survive. Also you have nothing to build anyway, with Tradition you'll have such a huge excess in of hammers that you easily can afford to build 2-3 Horsemen and 3-4 Archers. That is enough to capture 3-4 cities.
You should attack before his UU, his UU is Skirmisher, you should win him with Horsemen vs Warriors and Archers (yes you should plan it ahead, rush Military Theory, build Pasture, etc). Timing is important
I'll see if I can find the save, but I won as Tradition/Artistry/Industry/Freedom Venice against a Mongolia that had swallowed an entire continents worth of CSs, two entire other civs, and most of a 3rd. I think 30+ cities, and they eventually decided to attack me, but I had set up forts/citadels at the very edge of Venice and held them off. After they tried that twice they just kinda gave up attacking me, they never killed a single military unit. I had adopted their religion, forced them to accept my ideology, and had enough positive modifiers and a massive army due to Freedom's +supply, they just stopped bothering. And in this game my 2 other cities were literally across the ocean, they just happened to be the only CS I could get to.
I disagree that you need to conquer cities though; although more cities is always better. I can't think of any recent Tradition Venice game where I had more than 3 cities at the end, it just really isn't that hard to defend a capital.
Omen of Peace
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 404
In my later, (overwhelmingly) successful game as Tradition Venice, I did take the cities that the Ottomans and Arabia helpfully settled near me. But the terrain was more favourable (a small peninsula for myself), the luxuries as well (tea), and I got Terracotta.
In the Hun game I had sea luxuries, so difficult tech path choices to make.
Note that I did hold against his UU, barely, now that I remember it, at the cost of some pillaging, but I gave up when he came back with Knights and I didn't have the right tech.
@Bhawb: one of the few games I lost in Emperor (as Russia) was against a huge Denmark empire / army with lots of cruisers. You may have been lucky, because citadels won't do much versus them.
Anyway, I'm derailing a thread meant to talk about balance - sorry. Back to Venice's supply cap issues!
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,548
Would be too much supply cap probably.
soupwithsauce
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 25
I’ve noticed Venice is usually dead last by a big margin in most of my games. It appears the AI is set on picking Progress instead of Tradition, which really gimps Venice.. is there anyway to force the AI to go Trad? I would love to try and ally Venice but they’re always losing so hard.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
Ive noticed, that civs with relative passiv UA, those which get triggered by "normal" play, are those, which perform most time the best. (like China, Korea, Ethiopia....)
While civilizations which need some effort to get a use of their UA, are more vulnerable to fail, the more the necessary playstyle differ from "normal" play.
You see that very good for the Aztecs, Denmark or Siam. And especially for Venice. They can be still very succesful, but its much more unlikly, cause they need the right circumstances.
I think, Venice should get disabled for AI or be the target of a rework. A lot of people are already disabling Venice in their game by AdvancedSetup, cause the appearance of Venice creates so much disturbance in a game. (lot of free space enables every neighbor to expand and snowball much easier)
People are disabling Venice because they hate the peaceful-gobbling of city-states allies. Venice AI once dominated the game at a certain phase when puppets had no yield penalties.
Last edited:
This may surprise you, but everyone does better in general with civs with a passive UA. That's just the nature of the game. It's not a problem unique to the AI.
G
BiteInTheMark
Deity
First, I was only talking about AI, not about a AI and human.
Second, this would lead to the conclusion, that civs which need an active part of you are in general weaker than those with a passiv part. But thats not what we are aiming for, or?
I do feel like Venice is particularly weak, outside of human hands at least. I've had them in a couple of games in the last few patches and they have consistently gotten trampled by a neighbor at some point and became perma-vassals. I wonder if Venice needs some AI tweaks?
Similar threads
- Locked
