Venice's power will depend on how good trade routes are. Twice as many trade routes could be very powerful gameplay wise.
|
New Civilization 5 Expansion - Brave New World
|
Considering how they also setup Civ5 so that you can win on only 2-3 cities, I can see Venice as still working. Just turn a few city-states into puppets that feed your super city and rush the Culture Victory, right?
MP
Pitboss Demo - Darrell's Tropical Trolls PBEM45G - Sareln
About Venice: There is already Austria in the game which can buy (allied) CS and can additional build Settlers and annex cities so I wonder why they had to introduce Venice.
That Venice will be dependant of their start is logical but nothing really new. The start has a huge influence in Civ5 (at least if you play it without the usual exploits). And I do agree with Ichabod that a lot of the new tings looks like merchandising. In that light the title Brave New World gets a nice ironic touch.
June 12th, 2013, 22:15
(This post was last modified: June 12th, 2013, 22:18 by antisocialmunky.)
Venice convinced the crusaders to sack Zara and Constantinople so the crusaders could pay the Venetians for their naval transport, got the whole Fourth Crusade excommunicated, and then used that wealth to help jump start the Renaissance. I'm perfectly fine with them being the Troll Civ because they were a Troll Civ in real life.
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." “I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” (June 11th, 2013, 11:48)Ichabod Wrote: I think they are just creating a bunch of random stuff to sell a lot of expansions. Let's see: I don't get the general hostility to Civ V and the expansion on this board. And I cannot agree with many of your points. 1. Why do you add any civilization to the game? Every expansion included new civilizations, so this is expected of them. When they choose relatively minor ones like Morocco people here complain that they are not historically significant. When they add important ones like Poland and Brazil, they are accused of pandering to the community. Which is it? This criticism is ridiculous, people expect them to add new civs and I don't see anything wrong with their choices. 2. Is there any big difference between the current cultural victory and a science/space victory? I don't think so, so I feel it is a good idea to try something different. Tourism is not an optimal name for this new mechanic but this is really semantics. It now benefits you to have trade routes, open borders and a shared religion as it increases your tourism pressure. Archaeology plays into this system as a way to obtain great works. So seeing them just as another set of goody huts is definitely the wrong way to look at them. This tourism system might not work out in practice but I can see it working much better than the current cultural victory. 3. You reveal your bias right here in your point about ideologies. I will quote you quoting: "- Unlocked in Modern Age OR(!) once you have built 3 factories; at which point you must choose an ideology" And then you say you cannot gain them if you don't build three factories and fling a barb against Venice, no matter that you can play every other civilization as a OCC as well, conflicting with your own quote that you can choose an ideology when you enter the modern era anyway. I myself like the concept of ideologies because they are closer to the government system in Civ4, but we will see how they play out in practice. 4. What is wrong with the X-Com unit? 5.a Venice. How many of those complaining are even playing the game regularly? Maybe Venice will not be competitive in multi-player, but Doviello are not competitive in FFH multi-player as well except in maps specifically tailored to them. In this case there is no point in complaining, because nobody forces you to play them. Do you even play single-player Civ V? Nobody is forcing you to play Venice there as well. If you don't like the gimmick of this civ, why are you complaining about them? What about people that like to play OCC and appreciate a civ specifically made for them? I dislike Keelyn in FFH because I simply cannot stand moving hundreds of puppets and summons around every turn but nobody forces me to play as them. Civ 4 included the option to play a One City Challenge. To alter the quote of Sulla, "did the makers of Civ4 understand the idea behind this series at all?" This is ONE civilization that might make your preferred play style impossible, but the reaction to that is insane. 5.b And people seem to misunderstand Venice anyway. You can still expand through conquest, though you cannot annex the cities, and you can puppet city states without war by using your great merchants (this is different from Austria). And people are underestimating the double trade routes as well. If I understand the changes correctly (mostly that river and coastal tiles no longer yield gold) then trade will be your prime income generator for a big part of the game. Double the trade routes means that Venice will most like be the richest civ in the game for long periods of time (if you don't cheat the AI our of their money with luxury trades). Combine that with Venice's ability to PURCHASE IN PUPPETS, and your puppets will be much more important than those of other civs, and the game will be much more like playing with barbarian world + no settlers in Civ4. I guess that was also stupid game design? Sorry that I come across as pretty aggressive but I just think that Civ 5 is treated very unfairly by the people here, especially by people who apparently don't even play the game anymore. I think the same as the majority on this board that Civ 4 is superior and that vanilla Civ 5 was quite a disappointment, but the game is much better now and Brave New World looks quite promising. Perhaps the tourism or ideology mechanisms don't work right, but this premature trashing of the expansion is simply not justified.
Hey, Katron. I think I didn't make myself clear with my previous post. Sorry for the snarky tone it had, I think it has almost become a meme in this forum to say bad things about Civ 5/talk about it in a bad light, so sometimes I end up doing it even when I don't actually mean it (that much - see it happened again).
Anyway, what I wanted to say in my post is that I find a lot of the revealed additions of BNW to be directed only to improve sales, not to make a better game. It's not the addition of Brazil or Ideologies that makes the game feel this way for me, is the whole package. I look at a lot of the proposed additions and I can't really see their purpose other than just be a new and shiny thing. As you can see, I'm ok with things like improved TRs and World Congresses, because I feel like they add something to the game. But I can't really see the purpose of things like Tourism and Ideologies, other than to be new. Why not just change culture and SPs (by the way, I find Civ 5 Culture Victory to be pretty interesting)? The problem with Venice is not that it's that particular Civ or that it's weak/strong on a SP/MP game. The problem with Venice is that it just seem like forced/bad design to try and show something new and shiny (or completely out of the hypercube or whatever they called it). A forced limitation on the player is just bad design, in my opinion, it's not something creative. If players want to limit themselves and play variants, I'm quite alright with it (as, I'd guess, all the players in this forum). But when you turn that into a rule of a specific civ in the game just to show it as a novelty, it's a problem, for me. Again, I wasn't criticizing BNW gameplay, which I have no idea how it'll work. I'm criticizing what I see as marketing reasons influencing design, which will never end in something good (BNW can end up being good, but it could be better without this). Maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions, but, for now, I'll keep my stance until proven wrong by the actual game. And, of course, this is not a Civ 5 only fault, the game industry nowadays seem to be having a lot of problems like these. Anyway, as a final statement, I'd like to make clear that I like Civ 5 with the Gods and Kings expansion. It fixed a lot of problems. But is frustrating to see the developers investing in things like Venice when they should be fixing the AI, creating an usable MP experience and overall polishing some badly made design/systems of the game (interface issues that gives you different yields than you actually receive, the absolutely confusing worker actions, the stupid way that already research bonus applies, etc.). I'm not dooming the whole game, I'm just questioning some decisions which I find questionable (with the traditional Civ 5 hate tone  ).If you want to discuss Civ 5 gameplay, feel free to chime in my thread in the Civ 5 PBEM 2 game, since I can speak more freely there, without the fear of spoilers (I made a post there about BNW changes there too, more directed to gameplay). P.S.: I misread the Ideology conditions, I've read the "OR" as an "AND", that's why it seemed a rather stupid condition. 
(June 13th, 2013, 10:56)Jowy Wrote: If the expansion was "only balance changes, no new civs, no new gameplay elements etc." the same people would be complaining that Firaxis are just ripping people off with the expansion because there's not enough new content. Meaningful new content is not a problem (e.g. Improved TRs, World Congresses). The problem is the "look how it shines" content. Well, there could be an argument saying that all DLCs and Expnasions are just ripping people off, but I don't think I want to go in there (nor that I'd agree with it, a priori). Of course, I can't speak for all the "same people". I'm just speaking for myself here. |
) and Writers will give Culture, because we had to separate both things.
