Venice tips?

[Titan79]

So I'm going to start a game with Venice (in AGCEEP) and would like to get some advice from you. I've searched in this forum as well as in the EU2 Wiki pages but found very little info about this intriguing country.

The first thing is the overall strategy I should pursue, of course... but I've also got some specific questions. These are:

1) Should I go all naval (to reduce to 0% overseas penalty) and fully defensive?

2) What's the best way to wage a war with such a setup? I've always played with rather offensive and land-oriented countries. My guess is that I should land on whatever province my enemies leave unguarded and them stubbornly defend it, right? I'm afraid though that I'd be going to be wiped out in every subsequent pitched battle with such a low land morale...

3) Venice is a very trade-oriented nation. The problem, though, is that I've never really grasped (or maybe just liked) the way trade is represented in EU2/FtG. I mean, even when I've got a monopoly or two and earn some nice cash (>100 per year) I don't really "feel" like that money is really entering into my coffers. Is this just an impression or am I doing something wrong?
With taxation, you have a nice popup which tells you at a glance monthly and yearly incomes. With trade, all gets very misterious for me... I know the ducats I earn are displayed in the budget summary but it always seems to me like they were a lot less than they should... just like it wasn't worth the effort of (almost continuously! ) sending merchants to CoTs in order to e.g. keep a monopoly running.
I'm almost oriented to think that, at the end of the day, with trade I'm wasting ducats instead of gaining them, and I much prefer to invest on Infra with which you can clearly "see" the results of its improvement.

Thank you in advance!

 

[Toio]

So I'm going to start a game with Venice (in AGCEEP) and would like to get some advice from you. I've searched in this forum as well as in the EU2 Wiki pages but found very little info about this intriguing country.

The first thing is the overall strategy I should pursue, of course... but I've also got some specific questions. These are:

1) Should I go all naval (to reduce to 0% overseas penalty) and fully defensive?

2) What's the best way to wage a war with such a setup? I've always played with rather offensive and land-oriented countries. My guess is that I should land on whatever province my enemies leave unguarded and them stubbornly defend it, right? I'm afraid though that I'd be going to be wiped out in every subsequent pitched battle with such a low land morale...

3) Venice is a very trade-oriented nation. The problem, though, is that I've never really grasped (or maybe just liked) the way trade is represented in EU2/FtG. I mean, even when I've got a monopoly or two and earn some nice cash (>100 per year) I don't really "feel" like that money is really entering into my coffers. Is this just an impression or am I doing something wrong?
With taxation, you have a nice popup which tells you at a glance monthly and yearly incomes. With trade, all gets very misterious for me... I know the ducats I earn are displayed in the budget summary but it always seems to me like they were a lot less than they should... just like it wasn't worth the effort of (almost continuously! ) sending merchants to CoTs in order to e.g. keep a monopoly running.
I'm almost oriented to think that, at the end of the day, with trade I'm wasting ducats instead of gaining them, and I much prefer to invest on Infra with which you can clearly "see" the results of its improvement.

Thank you in advance!

my way

1. go all naval and defensive ..........naval will give you a random explorer later. Defensive will make you siege faster.

2. waging war, only invade non occupied lands, depending on if opponent has sea access, use the sea to invade. Venice was basically the second type of "marines" after the vikings that Europe saw. They had no slaves for oarsmen, they where fighting troops.
Guard the gulf of Venice with a decent fleet always and the veneto cannot be invaded. Your glory period starts from around 1470

3. send merchants only in bunches of 3 as this will guarantee that you will monopolize COTS . Never allow trade access with other nations, it lowers your income.

4. either ally with Austria and war in the Balkans or ally with the swiss or tyrol or even France and invade Italy.

5. Ensure that the big powers do not form alliances unless you are part of one.

 

[Titan79]

Thank you Toio, very useful!

But I'm still a bit puzzled about land battles... I'll be able to make quicker sieges, ok, but what if the enemy sends a relieving force? My army is very likely to lose the battle, right? So, apart from trying to land mainly on mountain, swamp or forest provinces with infantry to thwart the enemy's cavalry, is there something else I can do to "boost" my land forces? (apart from going all quality, which is what I'm going to do)

This applies generally to the defence of my provinces. Islands should not be a problem - my navy should be able to crush any serious attempt to land either in Crete or Corfù etc. But what about Dalmatian coastal provinces like Ragusa? How am I supposed to defend them, if e.g. the Ottomans should attack them...?

...and another question that has come up right now :

Would it be considererd "gamey" or could it be a good idea to seize Thrace early on, in order to deny the Ottomans a very rich and strategic province (as well as the future capital of their empire)?

 

[unmerged(145825)]

Would it be considered "gamey" or could it be a good idea to seize Thrace early on, in order to deny the Ottomans a very rich and strategic province (as well as the future capital of their empire)?

Anything not 'historical' would be considered gamey by some. For me its a great idea, I dont know about AGP but Thrace is Greek in Vanilla and Venice starts with Greek culture, so yeah, its a no brainer.


As for going defensive, I wouldnt do it personally...never ever, ever... I want tom win battles Good luck with it, Venice is a nice nation to play.

 

[unmerged(174860)]

ottomans have core on thrace for all game tho

 

[unmerged(94521)]

Definatly try to seize Thrace, it seriously slows the Ottoman empire down. The yo can easily wage war on them using your superior fleet to blok the strait and grap all of their European holdings, most of which are of an accepted culture.

What's tricky with Venice is the many strong neighbours, Austria, France, Hungary, Ottomans, so setting up alliances will be important in deterring any DoWs. But when that happens careful handling of the navy to save Venice itself can be a life saver.

The long term goal should be the conquest of Italy, it's rich and the rigth culture and religion. However it can be tricky if Spain and France get there early.

Since you start out with trade tech level 3 you can easily make enough money to be defensive-minded, since your land tech will be high. Full naval is not strictly necesarry but since it can help you guard your capital and get you random explorers (otherwise you have to sack Lisbon often), i think it's worth it.

 

[Titan79]

Thank you all!

I know, playing with a defensive setup (i.e. slider) is something very difficult to accept even for me; but I'll try and see how things unfold.

Another thing, which I've already stressed, is trade... it doesn't seem to me as an effective means to make money. Is there a way to actually tell the difference within my budget when I'm gaining many ducats? Maybe I'm just mislead by the fact that all of that money goes immediately to investments - so I can't "see" it. Maybe minting once when trade revenues are high, and another time when trade income is low, would show me how much difference there can be?
Still, I'm not fully convinced... :wacko:

Last but not least: Plutocracy or Aristocracy? The increased trade effectiveness and the decreased cost for warships makes me think that Plutocracy is the best choice, but what about the decreased diplomatic capability it carries along? Diplomacy plays also an important role for Venice...

 

[Therion]

I would never go for defensive. I don't see why sieges need to be quickened anyway. The most important thing in sieges is your army's ability to repel relieving forces and there's little chance of that happening with defensive doctrine. Siege time is irrelevant, especially if you tend to spend more time looting occupied provinces.

The other "advantage" of defensive is cheaper fortresses but I don't see any particular need of increasing fortress size in SP. Larger fortresses only mean bigger rebel stacks. Thwarting AI invasions is better achieved through high-morale armies than large fortresses.

The defensive-offensive doctrine slider is seriously flawed and the ability to modify the effects of DP sliders remains my top wish for 1.3.

--------------------

As for the rest of the DP sliders, it depends what course you intend to take. If you intend to annex large chunks of Europe, then you go for aristo/land/serfdom. If you intend to be a naval-colonial power, you go for pluto/naval/narrow and maybe free subjects if you stick to same-culture provinces.

 

[TheRipper69-PT]

I agree with Therion... defensive is pointless... In naval nations I like to leave plutocracy/aristocracy leveled, the penaltys on DIP are too big to allow the -2 no monarch :S

With Venice, you should go for macedonia when you get the core on it, it's really hard to get it, but if you annex athens and block the strait to the ottomans will be easier, after makedonia, go to thrace...

You can get the Albanian culture, if so go to Albania, and get the land connection to all greece, (by this time I would forget the "Naval" DP)

Diplo annexing genoa early would be awesome but almost impossible... =(

 

[The-Doc]

Another thing, which I've already stressed, is trade... it doesn't seem to me as an effective means to make money. Is there a way to actually tell the difference within my budget when I'm gaining many ducats? Maybe I'm just mislead by the fact that all of that money goes immediately to investments - so I can't "see" it. Maybe minting once when trade revenues are high, and another time when trade income is low, would show me how much difference there can be?
Still, I'm not fully convinced... :wacko:

I don't like it either, but early on your census taxes will be so low that you will have to mint if you are going to be funding serious expansion. Unless you really expand into Italy, this will likely remain the case as most of your traditional provinces are not particularly high tax yielding ones so trade can easily outstrip taxation and production as a source of revenue. You start out with such a huge lead in trade investment and efficiency settings that you will have little trouble outcompeting most of Europe, so use this to full advantage.

I am by no means an expert in this, but this is the general trade strategy I follow as Venice. At the start of the game send all your merchants into the Azerbaijan, Alexandria, and Veneto COTs. Those Eastern COTs are pricey, and later become a losing proposition, but early on those nations cannot even place merchants and most countries that can don't have all of them on the map. So you can secure some easy monopolies at least in the short term, which boost your efficiency and number of merchants elsewhere. To avoid the hassle of continually sending merchants and to make sure I am not overspending on trade, I like to send all my merchants out at one or two points in the year, and try to fund them entirely out of census taxes. Keep checking your ledgers for yearly income and expense to make sure that you aren't taking a net loss on trade, if you are hold off or find less pricey and competive COTs to use. As time goes on I would try and invest into other European COTs, Flandern and Tago are pretty good choices.

 

[Titan79]

Thank you both!

@ The-Doc:

I'll try your suggestion straight away (I'm still in the first half of XVth Century). I've got another question, by the way: I've read in the EU2 Wiki that Merchantilism should make merchants "stiffer" to competition. However, I'm fully merchantilistic right now and it doesn't seem to me like my merchants were so "though": they tend to be kicked out from CoTs still too easily IMO. So, is there something additional that can be done in order to improve this situation? It's both expensive and annoying having to continuously re-send them...

 

[Toio]

I would never go for defensive. I don't see why sieges need to be quickened anyway. The most important thing in sieges is your army's ability to repel relieving forces and there's little chance of that happening with defensive doctrine. Siege time is irrelevant, especially if you tend to spend more time looting occupied provinces.

The other "advantage" of defensive is cheaper fortresses but I don't see any particular need of increasing fortress size in SP. Larger fortresses only mean bigger rebel stacks. Thwarting AI invasions is better achieved through high-morale armies than large fortresses.

The defensive-offensive doctrine slider is seriously flawed and the ability to modify the effects of DP sliders remains my top wish for 1.3.

--------------------

As for the rest of the DP sliders, it depends what course you intend to take. If you intend to annex large chunks of Europe, then you go for aristo/land/serfdom. If you intend to be a naval-colonial power, you go for pluto/naval/narrow and maybe free subjects if you stick to same-culture provinces.

cheaper fortresses leads to getting stronger fortresses which has the benefit of more supply, this advantage is good for expanding .. more supply = less attrition

correct me if I am wrong , but supply number per province has a filtering effect on your owned neighboring provinces. that is they benefit also.

maybe MM can clear this up

 

[Toio]

Thank you both!

@ The-Doc:

I'll try your suggestion straight away (I'm still in the first half of XVth Century). I've got another question, by the way: I've read in the EU2 Wiki that Merchantilism should make merchants "stiffer" to competition. However, I'm fully merchantilistic right now and it doesn't seem to me like my merchants were so "though": they tend to be kicked out from CoTs still too easily IMO. So, is there something additional that can be done in order to improve this situation? It's both expensive and annoying having to continuously re-send them...

going full mechanism is Being fully mercantilistic will reduce your number of merchants received per year by -2, but also will cut their placement cost by 50%. It will allow you 10 trade embargoes without penalty to trade efficiency or research and will reduce your colonists by -1 per year.

I always stay around 7 or 8

 

[Toio]

I agree with Therion... defensive is pointless... In naval nations I like to leave plutocracy/aristocracy leveled, the penaltys on DIP are too big to allow the -2 no monarch :S

With Venice, you should go for macedonia when you get the core on it, it's really hard to get it, but if you annex athens and block the strait to the ottomans will be easier, after makedonia, go to thrace...

You can get the Albanian culture, if so go to Albania, and get the land connection to all greece, (by this time I would forget the "Naval" DP)

Diplo annexing genoa early would be awesome but almost impossible... =(

you only get albanian culture IIRC , if Albania still exists in 1468. Also, you lose that chance if you loose ragusa to the TUR which forces cultural change in ragusa to slavonic ( historically a bit early as they became slavic in the mid 16th century )

 

[Titan79]

going full mechanism is Being fully mercantilistic will reduce your number of merchants received per year by -2, but also will cut their placement cost by 50%. It will allow you 10 trade embargoes without penalty to trade efficiency or research and will reduce your colonists by -1 per year.

I always stay around 7 or 8

Yes, this is correct. But EU2 Wiki also states that «Regarding competition in CoTs, free trade will help your merchants enter the CoT, while mercantilism will help them resist competition (stick)» (see here).

Does this apply to FtG, too?

 

[unmerged(174860)]

doubt its been changed

 

[The-Doc]

Thank you both!

@ The-Doc:

I'll try your suggestion straight away (I'm still in the first half of XVth Century). I've got another question, by the way: I've read in the EU2 Wiki that Merchantilism should make merchants "stiffer" to competition. However, I'm fully merchantilistic right now and it doesn't seem to me like my merchants were so "though": they tend to be kicked out from CoTs still too easily IMO. So, is there something additional that can be done in order to improve this situation? It's both expensive and annoying having to continuously re-send them...

Can't be sure,but I don't think it works like that. Of course "merchant stickiness" is one of the most obscure facets of EU2-FTG gameplay as I don't think I've ever seen a proper explanation for its working. If I had to guess though I would think stickiness in this case refers to using your free embargoes to cut tough competion from your COTs, thus increasing merchant staying power. As I've seen merchant staying power is more affected by stability and monarch administrative skill, or at least there seems to be a corellation. There is little that can be done about the latter, but in the case of the former it can be worth investing in stability or holding back on trade when you are in the negative.

If mercantilism doesn't effect staying power in a concrete sense, it stil has some use for a small nation like Venice. Since you have your own COT, you can judicously use embargoes to keep enemies or strong trade competitors out. So if you notice someone like Genoa, Spain or Burgandy flooding the market you can freeze them out and give yourself some breathing room. Finally lower trading costs can easily outweigh extra merchants when your income is low like it usually will be.

 

[Toio]

Can't be sure,but I don't think it works like that. Of course "merchant stickiness" is one of the most obscure facets of EU2-FTG gameplay as I don't think I've ever seen a proper explanation for its working. If I had to guess though I would think stickiness in this case refers to using your free embargoes to cut tough competion from your COTs, thus increasing merchant staying power. As I've seen merchant staying power is more affected by stability and monarch administrative skill, or at least there seems to be a corellation. There is little that can be done about the latter, but in the case of the former it can be worth investing in stability or holding back on trade when you are in the negative.

If mercantilism doesn't effect staying power in a concrete sense, it stil has some use for a small nation like Venice. Since you have your own COT, you can judicously use embargoes to keep enemies or strong trade competitors out. So if you notice someone like Genoa, Spain or Burgandy flooding the market you can freeze them out and give yourself some breathing room. Finally lower trading costs can easily outweigh extra merchants when your income is low like it usually will be.

trade embargos give nations a cassubelli on you. Best is to flood one cot at a time and try to have 5 mercahnts in there.

poor stabity get your merchants kicked out quicker

 

[Titan79]

Can't be sure,but I don't think it works like that. Of course "merchant stickiness" is one of the most obscure facets of EU2-FTG gameplay as I don't think I've ever seen a proper explanation for its working. If I had to guess though I would think stickiness in this case refers to using your free embargoes to cut tough competion from your COTs, thus increasing merchant staying power. As I've seen merchant staying power is more affected by stability and monarch administrative skill, or at least there seems to be a corellation. There is little that can be done about the latter, but in the case of the former it can be worth investing in stability or holding back on trade when you are in the negative.

If mercantilism doesn't effect staying power in a concrete sense, it stil has some use for a small nation like Venice. Since you have your own COT, you can judicously use embargoes to keep enemies or strong trade competitors out. So if you notice someone like Genoa, Spain or Burgandy flooding the market you can freeze them out and give yourself some breathing room. Finally lower trading costs can easily outweigh extra merchants when your income is low like it usually will be.

trade embargos give nations a cassubelli on you. Best is to flood one cot at a time and try to have 5 mercahnts in there.

poor stabity get your merchants kicked out quicker

After playing some game decades with Venice I have to agree: mercantilism doesn't seem to improve merchant "stickiness", it only makes them cheaper to send. However, having less of them makes this a double-edged sword.

Maybe MichaelM could shed some light on this...?

Anyway, trade still remains an awkward business for me. I always wonder if the money I spend to send all those merchants is offset by the total annual income they generate; I'd much prefer not having to fuss with it. In my next game I'll almost surely choose a non trade-oriented nation...

 

[The-Doc]

Anyway, trade still remains an awkward business for me. I always wonder if the money I spend to send all those merchants is offset by the total annual income they generate; I'd much prefer not having to fuss with it. In my next game I'll almost surely choose a non trade-oriented nation...

Well this can be assessed by comparing the income/expense summary for trade and merchants in the ledger, but yeah trade can be a bit of a chore.