Venice

[pineappledan]

No, you are limited to three settled puppets, plus any CSs you can/want to take. Venice no longer has to rely on CSs alone for second+ cities. They can settle in their vicinity. Venice is now guaranteed at least 4 cities in total that are hand-picked location-wise

after a few versions with this... I’m not convinced. I think it is an improvement, but this cap feels like an arbitrary half-measure. So, I think @randomnub had the right idea.

I would rather MoVs simply be allowed to settle cities with no cap. expending GPs to settle cities, but can’t make normal settlers is an interesting mechanic shift, but I sour at that limit. Furthermore, I hate how it frontloads Venice’s expansion. Venice can reach trade and settle its 2nd city faster than most other civs can pump out their first settler. If combined with pyramid rush/authority, Venice often can get its 3-4 city core faster than other civs

• They never have to sacrifice growth or population or build order
• Their secondary cities don’t contribute to policy cost, and they start with a monument, so reaching imperium is faster

In summary, I think removing the settling cap and changing the free MoV, pushing it back to another tech, or giving it free on construction of St Mark’s would limit Venice early expansion so they don’t feel so frontloaded.

 

[Gazebo]

after a few versions with this... I’m not convinced. I think it is an improvement, but this cap feels like an arbitrary half-measure. So, I think @randomnub had the right idea.

I would rather MoVs simply be allowed to settle cities with no cap. expending GPs to settle cities, but can’t make normal settlers is an interesting mechanic shift, but I sour at that limit. Furthermore, I hate how it frontloads Venice’s expansion. Venice can reach trade and settle its 2nd city faster than most other civs can pump out their first settler. If combined with pyramid rush/authority, Venice often can get its 3-4 city core faster than other civs

• They never have to sacrifice growth or population or build order
• Their secondary cities don’t contribute to policy cost, and they start with a monument, so reaching imperium is faster

In summary, I think removing the settling cap and changing the free MoV, pushing it back to another tech, or giving it free on construction of St Mark’s would limit Venice early expansion so they don’t feel so frontloaded.

I think @ilteroi accidentally removed the cap anyways?

G

 

[2506]

I think @ilteroi accidentally removed the cap anyways?

G

It seemed that way the last two times I played them. I assumed it had to do with allowances in later eras. I'd prefer that the original limit be reinstated, but it's not a big deal in terms of performance. By the time MOV's really start rolling out, most of the prime spots have been taken.

I don't see much point in playing Authority with Venice. Tradition (taking production) and cashing in the first MOV made it easy for me to gain Stonehenge and the Pyramids, plus build a military and infrastructure that put me ahead for good. Anyone too close was swiftly vassalized. With happiness issues off the table, both games wound up being accidental DV's while I led by 10 techs or so. One game finished on t299 (Emperor). After that I retired Venice. With that basic strategy, they are OP.

 

[stii]

Venice is still far worse than a normal civ but that is fine. It is ok for there to be a harder challenge mode civ.

Pretty sure there is no 3 extra city limit but I didn't try building the 4th.

 

[InkAxis]

Venice actually does pretty well in my games as an AI, usually top in score. I wouldn't be so quick to pass them off.

And maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think pdan's point was that they should get limited MoV settles, and then be nerfed, not buffed.

 

[stii]

Venice has a huge late game problem where it doesn't scale at all. A human can avoid that to a degree but its abilites are still worse than its drawbacks, a blank civ would be stronger.

They really need to be front loaded unless you want to make them even worse, a free city is nice but all your extra cities are pretty awful.

 

[youngsteve]

I haven't played Venice for a few versions & wanted to see if the biggest annoyance has been resolved, which unfortunately it hasn't. Basically, the puppet cities distinct to Venice. Just before Medieval Age & at war with Assyria, as well as building wonders & buildings, it is difficult to build all our needs, & would like the puppets to help out. We are now at 6 trade routes available, losing our only one to barbs. This was built by the first puppet city, which has built all its buildings & is sitting there making wealth whilst we have no trade routes. The other two are no better, & all 3 have Carnaveserys. I know you cannot expect them to build troops, but peaceful units like caravals/cargo ships should be possible. I know you can buy them but my money is going on military units as don't want cities to fall & haven't got funds to waste.

 

[stii]

I think it is just unavoidable because it would also be really annoying for a low production city to start building a trade unit and lock you out of it for ages.

Venice is just awful and I guess that is fine, it is the bridging step between normal play and OOC.

 

[2506]

Just before Medieval Age & at war with Assyria, as well as building wonders & buildings, it is difficult to build all our needs, & would like the puppets to help out. We are now at 6 trade routes available, losing our only one to barbs...I know you can buy them but my money is going on military units as don't want cities to fall & haven't got funds to waste.

Venice is just awful and I guess that is fine, it is the bridging step between normal play and OOC.

It may be that you don't know how to maximize Venice. I mentioned a few posts up that I played them for a few games and stopped because every game was quickly out of hand in my favor. Even more boring, I repeated the identical early strategy that launched my wins. My point is that if I can argue they are situationally OP, then there is no way they're awful. They're just tricky.

 

[youngsteve]

It may be that you don't know how to maximize Venice. I mentioned a few posts up that I played them for a few games and stopped because every game was quickly out of hand in my favor. Even more boring, I repeated the identical early strategy that launched my wins. My point is that if I can argue they are situationally OP, then there is no way they're awful. They're just tricky.

I don't think they are awful, & like the idea of how they play. It is just that I find Venice is having to build everything on its own. Now I accept that for military units but do think if they are needed puppet cities for Venice should be helping out with trading units, workers & work boats, which they only do very occasionaly.

 

[2506]

I don't think they are awful, & like the idea of how they play. It is just that I find Venice is having to build everything on its own. Now I accept that for military units but do think if they are needed puppet cities for Venice should be helping out with trading units, workers & work boats, which they only do very occasionaly.

Yes, it's pretty hopeless if Venice has to build everything by itself. My own difficulty with it is that if you focus on Wonders, which is easy to do, you don't have the time to build the necessary buildings for that era. That balance is what playing venice is all about for me. I find myself swimming in gold, so buying trading units, workers and workboats is easily affordable. But I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense for a happy puppeted member of your empire not to be producing goods or the people to produce and sell it. The problem with just changing that is it might make Venice too strong. A solution would be to allow Venice to buy those units in the puppets themselves. But I have a feeling that might be too hard to code.

 

[youngsteve]

Yes, it's pretty hopeless if Venice has to build everything by itself. My own difficulty with it is that if you focus on Wonders, which is easy to do, you don't have the time to build the necessary buildings for that era. That balance is what playing venice is all about for me. I find myself swimming in gold, so buying trading units, workers and workboats is easily affordable. But I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense for a happy puppeted member of your empire not to be producing goods or the people to produce and sell it. The problem with just changing that is it might make Venice too strong. A solution would be to allow Venice to buy those units in the puppets themselves. But I have a feeling that might be too hard to code.

That is what happened, built alot of important wonders, but struggled to keep up with the buildings, though puppets did okay. I made good money but spent alot on units & buying tiles, but then found I had little to buy/build traders, workers, & work boats, some of which were destroyed. Puppets sat there, with the main one firstly making wealth then going on defence. This would have made sense if they weren't half way around the world from front line. Abandoned not long after as made a bad mistake in playing on a pangeoa map. Puppets were ironically okay in good defensive coastal positions, but Venice wasn't & could see the future was going to be bleak with Russian cities all popping up to the south. Catherine likes her cities if given the chance.

 

[2506]

That is what happened, built alot of important wonders, but struggled to keep up with the buildings, though puppets did okay. I made good money but spent alot on units & buying tiles, but then found I had little to buy/build traders, workers, & work boats, some of which were destroyed. Puppets sat there, with the main one firstly making wealth then going on defence. This would have made sense if they weren't half way around the world from front line. Abandoned not long after as made a bad mistake in playing on a pangeoa map. Puppets were ironically okay in good defensive coastal positions, but Venice wasn't & could see the future was going to be bleak with Russian cities all popping up to the south. Catherine likes her cities if given the chance.

That's one big difference — I play on Communitu79 Continents. The other thing is that I try to keep my empire contiguous, partly because it's much easier to defend with a fleet, and partly because I prefer how it looks!

 

[youngsteve]

That's one big difference — I play on Communitu79 Continents. The other thing is that I try to keep my empire contiguous, partly because it's much easier to defend with a fleet, and partly because I prefer how it looks!

I normally do as well, surrounding my capital with cities, if not on coast, but unfortunately Venice is different, with preference for coastal cities & puppeted as well. I must admit most maps would have been preferable to the one I picked, but thought I could get by.

 

[youngsteve]

Beside my concerns about what Venice's puppets do/don't build, as a player you can make Venice quite strong in the right conditions. Unfortunately, this is much more of a problem for AI. As player the most important thing I do is to ensure the 3 Colonia Puppet cities are up & running as soon as possible, as if not you can be struggling. So, I build Pyramids for free settler, then go authority for another free one, as well as Trade to get the free one there. By doing that you should be able to get all three up & running up the time AD comes around if not before. The AI though is extremely unlikley to do this, as building the Pyramids & going Authority is not something Venice goes for, which I understand, as a Tradition sort of civ. So, to obtain the three puppet cities the AI has to hone in on to trade orientated techs to enable itself to obtain the GM to build these. By the time they have done this it is likely to be the Medieval age or further, with all prime sites gone, & putting Venice in trouble, if they haven't already been put under.

I am not sure what is the answer to this, but there does need to be a way for Venice AI to get their puppets up quicker to give them a better chance of surviving then prospering.

 

[azum4roll]

Venice AI usually does well in my games, even when warring, as long as it's not prolonged/against multiple civs. They can be a bit weak presumably in pangaea maps though, since multi-front wars are common there.

 

[stii]

It may be that you don't know how to maximize Venice. I mentioned a few posts up that I played them for a few games and stopped because every game was quickly out of hand in my favor. Even more boring, I repeated the identical early strategy that launched my wins. My point is that if I can argue they are situationally OP, then there is no way they're awful. They're just tricky.

I mean what are you doing as Venice you couldn't do any any other civ? It doesn't have any bonus to wonders so you are no better at building them, you just have nothing better to do due to your drawback.

It is possible to win with a civ with no abilities, that civ would clearly be awful and I would argue Venice is worse than that.

 

[2506]

I mean what are you doing as Venice you couldn't do any any other civ? It doesn't have any bonus to wonders so you are no better at building them, you just have nothing better to do due to your drawback.

It is possible to win with a civ with no abilities, that civ would clearly be awful and I would argue Venice is worse than that.

You haven't really argued anything, just stated that Venice is worse than awful. I disagree — no happiness issues and buckets of gold alone go a long way. So does a fast start fueled by cashing in the MOV and wasting zero turns building settlers. If you read back through the Venice thread, you'll find others outlining its strengths.

 

[Stalker0]

You haven't really argued anything, just stated that Venice is worse than awful. I disagree — no happiness issues and buckets of gold alone go a long way. So does a fast start fueled by cashing in the MOV and wasting zero turns building settlers. If you read back through the Venice thread, you'll find others outlining its strengths.

I agree. The trick is Venice is the most unique civ in the game, it requires a completely different mindset to play than normal. And yes if you are not working to its strengths, its a horrific civ, but if you play them properly they can be a lot of fun.

 

[stii]

You haven't really argued anything, just stated that Venice is worse than awful. I disagree — no happiness issues and buckets of gold alone go a long way. So does a fast start fueled by cashing in the MOV and wasting zero turns building settlers. If you read back through the Venice thread, you'll find others outlining its strengths.

That is because you haven't done anything another civ could do by just only making one city. You'd have no unhappy there either. You can run trade routes all external with other civs too. Your unique ability whatever it is will be better than 2-3 extra routes. Play as Arabia or any good tradition civ and it isn't even close.