Venice

[Gazebo]

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?

A UA is only one part of a civ's kit, though. The other elements of Venice's kit are fairly 'passive' in the strategy sense of the word. Realistically, though, Venice is such a strong exception to the rules of civ that I don't even feel that a comparison with other civs is worthwhile.

G

 

[BiteInTheMark]

A UA is only one part of a civ's kit, though. The other elements of Venice's kit are fairly 'passive' in the strategy sense of the word. Realistically, though, Venice is such a strong exception to the rules of civ that I don't even feel that a comparison with other civs is worthwhile.

If Venice is such an exception to the rule set, and can't be compared to other civs, how can this civ ever be balanced?
Denmark and Aztecs are also such special cases. To get the maximum of their UA set, you need to play different than the typical AI "attack and conquer" thing. You need to farm the enemies, and for me it's questionable if the AI Is able to directly use this strategy.

If you compare an AI and a human at the exact same skill level playing China, there isn't any big difference possible.

Venice in the hand of a warmonger player can be such an unbalanced beast.

 

[CppMaster]

I've also noticed that Venice under-performed in all my games. The solution could be additional bonuses based on selected difficulty if AI plays Venice or other active oriented UA civ. However this may require a lot of work and balancing.

 

[Gazebo]

Venice is fine as the black sheep. It’s just not a big deal.

G

 

[Hippie_Peace_man]

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.

I have some suggestions of how to fix Venice and this issue you pointed out. What if Venice’s capital had an increased city tile working range and minimum settle distance? I don’t think this would be too much of an issue for other players (maybe if Venice’s capital is conquered, this ability is lost) and it fixes the issue of Venice getting forward settled. Along with that, I think Venice’s MoV should no longer be able to puppet city states if Venice loses their capital. This doesn’t impact the Venice player, since once you lose your capital, your game is over anyway, and it creates an outlet for other players to deal with Venice being an annoyance (if you can’t take Venice’s capital, then Venice has earned the right to take your city-states). Thoughts?

 

[amateurgamer88]

I have some suggestions of how to fix Venice and this issue you pointed out. What if Venice’s capital had an increased city tile working range and minimum settle distance? I don’t think this would be too much of an issue for other players (maybe if Venice’s capital is conquered, this ability is lost) and it fixes the issue of Venice getting forward settled. Along with that, I think Venice’s MoV should no longer be able to puppet city states if Venice loses their capital. This doesn’t impact the Venice player, since once you lose your capital, your game is over anyway, and it creates an outlet for other players to deal with Venice being an annoyance (if you can’t take Venice’s capital, then Venice has earned the right to take your city-states). Thoughts?

I personally don't think Venice can really be fixed. I disable Venice because this AI gives its neighbors a big advantage by giving them more land to settle. If I'm near Venice, I know I can get more cities and use that to my advantage. If Venice is on another continent, some AI there will snowball very quickly. I just think that Venice for AI is too difficult to balance because the civ, while very unique, isn't good in the hands of AI while any changes can have unintended consequences.

 

[Bhawb]

If we want to "fix" Venice for AI it needs to be able to occupy enough land/have enough supply or supply-free units as a normal Tradition/Tall civ. Allowing MoV to found a city (which is puppeted) would allow them to take up a tiny bit of space. Or, a bit weirder of an idea that I'm not 100% sure is possible would be to allow them to buy settlers for CSs (some limitations obviously needed), who could settle cities that would later be picked up via MoV.

Otherwise Venice will have to remain as Civ 5's permanently banned red headed step child.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I think Puppets should just give regular supply to Venice, so both pop and buildings apply. It's not like they can really build units outside of capital, so it should be fine. Then, maybe add +1 of all yields to the base UNW because that'd make it more appealing.

 

[pineappledan]

Some sort of supply fix will have to be implemented for Venice... some day. Venice is such a weird civ that I don't think any effort needs to be made balancing it until all other aspects of VP are in a final form. A capstone

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Some sort of supply fix will have to be implemented for Venice... some day. Venice is such a weird civ that I don't think any effort needs to be made balancing it until all other aspects of VP are in a final form. A capstone

That means Venice will never have any balance changes, so I disagree. Throw it a supply bone, or a bunch of bones.

 

[crdvis16]

If we want to "fix" Venice for AI it needs to be able to occupy enough land/have enough supply or supply-free units as a normal Tradition/Tall civ. Allowing MoV to found a city (which is puppeted) would allow them to take up a tiny bit of space. Or, a bit weirder of an idea that I'm not 100% sure is possible would be to allow them to buy settlers for CSs (some limitations obviously needed), who could settle cities that would later be picked up via MoV.

Otherwise Venice will have to remain as Civ 5's permanently banned red headed step child.

I really like your first suggestion. Allow MoV to settle cities (which are puppets of course, and named after CSs not currently in game) so that Venice is capable of settling some nearby lands and having some consolidated territory. Allow them to still buy CSs as well the same way it currently works. I don't think it would ruin Venice's flavor too much. Hopefully it wouldn't be too hard to code Venice to settle its nearby lands before gobbling CSs?

Another alternative- if Venice is in game then the number of CSs is increased by X% to make up for their inability to settle lands.

I'd also fix their supply issue in whatever way is easiest to put them on par with other civs. Fixing their supply issue would at least make them more likely to not just be conquer bait every game.

 

[Rekk]

Is there an algorithm that can fill in land near Venice with extra city states?

 

[crdvis16]

Is there an algorithm that can fill in land near Venice with extra city states?

I thought about suggesting that, but my guess is that's handled by the map script?

 

[pineappledan]

Is there an algorithm that can fill in land near Venice with extra city states?

that would be a cool idea. Spalato could be added as an extra militaristic or cultural CS in a short distance from Venice. Probably not a possibility, but it would help fill in Venice’s immediate vicinity

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

what if MoVs were on lawnmowers so you could MoV your enemies down

 

[soupwithsauce]

that would be a cool idea. Spalato could be added as an extra militaristic or cultural CS in a short distance from Venice. Probably not a possibility, but it would help fill in Venice’s immediate vicinity

Yesyes as an Adriatic native this would be so cool

 

[Bhawb]

I really like the CS idea, actually. Keeps the flavor and addresses one currently annoying thing which is having no CSs you can easily target with early MoVs.

 

[Txurce]

I really like the CS idea, actually. Keeps the flavor and addresses one currently annoying thing which is having no CSs you can easily target with early MoVs.

I like it, too. But do you think it solves even half the "land for the taking" problem?

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Maybe give Venice a unique Settler type that doesn't settle cities, it doesn't settle even puppeted cities, but it settles new City States with Italian names that start at 60 influence with Venice (but no other bonuses towards Venice). Or have them have a chance to spawn a new CS-controlled Settler in their lands that will go to settle somewhere nearby, or maybe have the spawning of that CS settler be managed by some action, like building it, spawning a Great Person, process like Public Works (name it "attract competitors" or something) which spawns a new Italian-named CS in the closest possible location to Venice, preferably one that can't take Venice's tiles (so at least 6 tiles away from Venice).

This way, Venetian niche of not settling is kept where it is, but it can deny and indirectly take land by having a controllable way to spawn CS.

However even with that Venice still needs some actual Supply and preferably it's more Great Merchants points back, even if reduced...

 

[Bhawb]

I like it, too. But do you think it solves even half the "land for the taking" problem?

If Venice had 2-3 CSs settled nearby through some mechanic, whatever it is, that should be enough as long as it happens pretty early in the game. CS borders grow much faster than a civ's 2nd+ cities. The goal is just to make them take up similar amount of land as a tall empire that only settles ~3-5 cities.

And then definitely give them a bit better supply. I think any other changes can hold off until specialists are done, and then readjust Venice, particularly the UNW so they can properly play to the culture/war/diplo strengths.