Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Agceep: Venice

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Norrefeldt said:
Venice starts with 3 cannons, with the only effect that they will slow down the AI's movement. They are to few to have any effect on sieges. I think they should be removed.
Venice also has too much map knowledge 1419. They know parts of the Indian ocean. There were no Venetian ships there 1419 AFAIK, I don't think they had pilots or maps of the area. At the same time Venice doesn't know of Armenia, and Jordan, places well known since Roman times for Italians. I think just reverting back to vanilla map knowledge would set things straight.
Click to expand...


Agree with cannons , less than 10 are useless.

Marco Polo - 13th century travelled from Venice to China via the Silk road. Venice had the knowledge. Polo on his return sailed via the northern part of the indian ocean , getting off at modern day Basra.(IRAQ)
 
And there is evidence of Genoese travellers and Venetians making trips to India. I don't think they should get them, because it'd be a precedent to reopen the 1421 debate for China.
 
Norrefeldt said:
Venice starts with 3 cannons, with the only effect that they will slow down the AI's movement. They are to few to have any effect on sieges. I think they should be removed.
Venice also has too much map knowledge 1419. They know parts of the Indian ocean. There were no Venetian ships there 1419 AFAIK, I don't think they had pilots or maps of the area. At the same time Venice doesn't know of Armenia, and Jordan, places well known since Roman times for Italians. I think just reverting back to vanilla map knowledge would set things straight.
Click to expand...

Agree on both accounts. Getting rid of the 3 cannons is the first thing a human player does as Venice, and as Hungary you get unfair advantage by slowing down the Venetian army.

Marco Polo was considered a man of too much imagination by his contemporaries. His house was called the house of the millions because of that. He was later rehabilitated after China was discovered by Europe. EU2 knowledge should represent functional knowledge by the society, not a very specialized knowledge by a few academics. Yet the Venetians knew the Levant very well even from before the crusades.
 
Fodoron said:
Marco Polo was considered a man of too much imagination by his contemporaries. His house was called the house of the millions because of that. He was later rehabilitated after China was discovered by Europe. EU2 knowledge should represent functional knowledge by the society, not a very specialized knowledge by a few academics. Yet the Venetians knew the Levant very well even from before the crusades.
Click to expand...
First I have to correct myself, we have the same knowledge as vanilla. I think it should be reduced.
What about this suggestion for the east:
Suez Sea zone-Jordan-Iraq-Basra-Kirkuk-Azerbaijan-Kurdistan-Armenia-Georgia. That would take away Indian Ocean, but add Jordan ann the Caucasus. (The rest should be the same.)
 
Again

I will again place this in for discussion.

I suggest that there be a venetian culture.

Since I have established that Venetian is an identity all of its own ie language, architecture etc. I think it would be justified to have a Venetian culture for EU2 gaming.


Venetian culture would only be in :

Veneto
Istria
Corfu.


No other nation to have Venetian culture or gain Venetian culture.

Benefits
Corfu will be as, what most people wanted in the last 2 years changed, ie removal of Greek. Venetian would be better than italian and better than Greek.

Venice will be harder to conquer (and if conquered will be harder to hold due to constant revolts.)

Can it make veneto harder to take, unsure.

downsides

I do not see any.

I would like some feed back and a simple NO is not acceptable for either this or any other discussions modders have regardless of topic.

In conclusion, have a good think about this as this could save very many future arguements in regards to the balkan and italian areas, :)
 
I dont think Italian should be divided, as I don't think Scandinavian or German should be divided. All these have some cultural differences, but smaller and smaller cultures doesn't make ahistorical gaming realistic or fun for me. Corfu seems to me the only real reason to do this, and I regard it as a minor thing.

EDIT: Would Veneto even be venetian with your culture setup? Would they be the majority of the province inhabitants?
 
Last edited:
I'm not up on every detail of the history of the area, although I'm heading into the Balkans research-wise now, but I'd definitely be in favour of this for Corfu.

Overall, though, I've found myself coming back to MKJ's controversial proposal about cultures. Considering the effects culture acually has in game, and the heated arguments that tend to pop up when culture is brought up, it makes sense to me.
 
chegitz guevara said:
It would just be easier to make Corfu Italian.
Click to expand...

If not Venetian, then I agree with you
 
Norrefeldt said:
I dont think Italian should be divided, as I don't think Scandinavian or German should be divided. All these have some cultural differences, but smaller and smaller cultures doesn't make ahistorical gaming realistic or fun for me. Corfu seems to me the only real reason to do this, and I regard it as a minor thing.

EDIT: Would Veneto even be venetian with your culture setup? Would they be the majority of the province inhabitants?
Click to expand...

As above , Veneto will be Venetian.

All Veneto spoke Ventian in the period of EU2

Venetian (spoken in Venice, Mestre and other towns along the coast). It has 24 phonemes, seven vowels and 17 consonants;

Central Venetian (Padua, Vicenza, the area of the mouth of the Po),

Northern Venetian (Treviso, Feltre, Belluno):

Western Venetian (Verona):

“Colonial” Venetian (according to the definition of the American linguist Bidwell): it has many internal varieties and is spoken out of the traditional Venetia, such as in Venetia Julia, in Istria, in Dalmatia and in other Adriatic areas (Corfu, Zante)which were dominated by the Venetian Republic.


2005 Veneto has about 7 million people of which 6 million are Veneti (includes venetians) and they all speak Venetian and italian. There are about another 1 million Veneti elsewhere in the world.
 
Last edited:
Toio said:
downsides

I do not see any.
Click to expand...

I will not argue that there is no Venetian culture. It is pointless since you can define culture any way you want to fit the size you want.

But I disagree that it does not have disadvantages to remove 3 provinces from the list of Italian cultured provinces.

One of the main factors cited by people to play a certain nation is that it has a combination of state cultures that gives them as many provinces as possible. The list of interesting cultures to hold includes German, Arabic, French and Italian in that order. So the Knights are a good nation because they have French and Italian. If they were Maltese only, they would be worth a lot less. By removing provinces from Italian culture you make it less valuable (enjoyable?) to players and you make all the nations that have Italian as state culture less valuable to players. Directly and by comparison with other cultures, so Brandenburg gains over Tuscany.

I would cite that as a major disadvantage.
 
chegitz guevara said:
Language isn't sufficient to merit a seperate culture. Venice is culturally a part of Italy.
Click to expand...

Culturally part of Italy in 2005. (actually Lombardia and Veneto are seeking cession from Italy since 1998 if they do not get federation status)
But not part of cultural Italy in the EU2 period.

I just see the introduction of Venetian culture scenario as a way of releiving great many problems that we have in EU2.

If I am voted against then I will not continue to persist for months .

The Italian for Corfu would be my next target as suggested by MJK and others.
 
The major cultural differences are between Northern and Southern Italy. The North was part of the HRE for a thousand years, while the South was part of Byzantium for almost as long. There's a lot more Greek and Arab influence in the South, German in the North. A lot of Northerner's don't consider Southerners true Italians. The reason the Nothern Alliance wants to split away, however, is economic, not really cultural, though as in so many cases, economic causes are overlaid with cultural overtones. Bascially, the inudstrialized North is tired of subsidizing the agrarian South.

During the period of EU2, Adriatic Italians on the East side of the Adriatic didn't seem to see a split between Venetian and Italian. When Venetian holdings fell, Italians were more than willing to go to the Kingdom of Naples rather than Venice.

As well, the Italian city-states and the Pope seemed to treat Venice as just another Italian city-state, albeit one which was not part of Imperial Italy. The question for seperating Italian and Venetian culture should rest on a couple questions.

Would Italians have had difficulty in ruling Venice and it's possessions?

Would Venice have had difficulty in ruling Italy?

Is the difference between Venice and Italy greater than between Northern and Southern Italy?

I would argue the answer to all three questions is no, and thus a seperate culture is not justified.

In addition, what does the splitting of culture serve? It's exceedingly unlikely that any ai Italian state is going to take Venice. Venice, with all it's islands, is a bear to take down. Since Venice would also have Italian state culture, it wouldn't stop the reverse, Venice ruling large swaths of Italy (not that lack of Slavonic stops them from ruling large swaths of the Balkans). The only non-Italian states to have Italian state culture: Athens and the Knights, aren't likely to take out Venice.
 
Keep venetian culture

I'm from Padova, in the heart of Veneto. Why scrap the venetian culture if the aim of AGC-EEP is to be historical? If we are talking about Victoria I can understand that in modern times venetian culture has been diluted into the italian culture thanks to the unification, but not during EUII times when venetian WAS a florishing culture of its own, with language, architecture, political system, etc. It dates back, if you want, to pre-roman times (the Veneti celtic tribe). During roman republican times, the historian Tito Livio was noted for his "patavinitas", since he was born in Patavium (Padua). So even the ancients recognised that there was something particular about the Venezie. Venetian culture was much more than a local branch of italian. When someone from Catanzaro (in Calabria) meet someone from Belluno (in Veneto) and they both speak dialect (their mother tongue) it's impossible without efforts that they understand eachother. Venetian culture was a unique mix of oriental/italian elements. It would be like thinking that nowadays there is not an american culture: it's just a sub branch of british culture, isn't it? Don't think so!

some interesting links:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spnorton/Platsis web page.htm

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/undergrad/modules/hi320/t5/

Please keep the venetian culture! Ciao fioi, ocio a no far casade ah? :p

PS: now translate that like it is italian!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back