What's the basis of Austria's mission on Venice?

[Closet Skeleton]

Shouldn't Venice be able to use its massive navy to keep Austria out of the city? I would hope the AI knows that.

But that's just not what happened historically. Venice defended its capital with its navy sure, but in the Renaissance it was always expanding its land based holdings around Venice and held onto them right until the Republic's dissolution and that area remains a form of Greater Venice in today's modern Italian Republic. Venice almost completely collapsed in the War of the League of Cambrai, but it was fighting an alliance of the Pope, France and Austria on land and despite serious losses it managed to survive until the alliance collapsed first. Venice in EU3 can't even fight Austria evenly on land and has to hide in its capital with boats, this is inaccurate when the historical Austria needed allies and even then failed to rest the Po valley from Venice and instead decided that destroying Venice wasn't even in their best interest.

You can't have a League of Cambrai situation in EU because Venice just isn't a strong enough land power to ever need that kind of a coalition to stop it and Austria always puts down Venice's land expansion ambitions because of its over-powered army and completely achronological mission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneto

Venice is not just a city on some islands, its the capital of one of Italy's full sized regions. The 'we can always defend this island' model in EU is just wrong.

 

[Conch]

not a strange thing at all. In EU3 Austria almost always got Venice. Not only by Mission, more often it got the province on one of its random conquering sprees. In EU4 its still the same I think. And even if that Mission is in the game... there is nothing weird with it. This is not a game about the historical course of nations, it is about historical plausibility. And as Venice is rich, and Austria had ambitions in Italy in the games timeframe, it is plausible enough they could - sooner or later - get a Mission on Venice alone, or a Mission that includes Venice, like the earlier "Italian ambitions" missions in EU3.

And yes, Venice was part of Austria during the games timeframe... Austria annexed it first time in 1798 if I'm not mistaken. Austria even got almost all of the rest of northern Italy in 1814/15, which I guess is still in the timeframe of EU4, and Held it for more than 50 years.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

In EU3 Austria almost always got Venice.

This is not a game about the historical course of nations, it is about historical plausibility.

There's a problem there. A game that is supposed to be about alternate possibilities that almost always goes down the same a-historical line is just defective plain and simple. Austria always conquering Venice is as silly as Byzantium always surviving.

A small German state that did badly historically becoming this timeline's equivalent to Prussia is historical plausibility in a sandbox game, as it Poland or Burgundy surviving or Aragon and Castille never uniting. Austria always getting Venice is determinism.

 

[Beagá]

Hard to disagree with this.

IMO it´s all about the balance of power and any Áustria that tries to swallow too much land should face a league of italian culture countries backed by a power like France or Spain.

 

[coldsteel]

Austria always getting Venice is determinism.

Exactly. That was a problem in EU3, and from the preview build it looks even worse in EU4. I would understand that Venice might collapse every time towards the end-game unless it manages to turn into Italy as the Mediterranean trade nodes lose their value considerably, but in the mean time I expect it to put up a decent fight in the early game when it's rich and powerful.

it´s all about the balance of power and any Áustria that tries to swallow too much land should face a league of italian culture countries backed by a power like France or Spain.

Hopefully, the new aggressive overexpansion mechanic kicks in to help with that.

 

[Conch]

Exactly. That was a problem in EU3, and from the preview build it looks even worse in EU4. I would understand that Venice might collapse every time towards the end-game unless it manages to turn into Italy as the Mediterranean trade nodes lose their value considerably, but in the mean time I expect it to put up a decent fight in the early game when it's rich and powerful..

No... simply no.

In EU4 time isn't as crucial as it was in real life. That's just the same as in every other EU game. One could say that things develop much faster in the EU series, compared to real life history, and it's fine as it is. EU wouldn't be as interesting if you could, for example, found Prussia not before the 1700's, or if Venice would decline as slowly as it did in real life. As a Player, you can Speed things up considerably - even the AI can, sometimes. And, on the other Hand, the game cannot simulate the strength of nations historically correct - it is limited to its mechanics. This sometimes leads to weird situations like Austria blobbing into the middle east and siberia in EU3. Or to a Venice that falls much faster than in real life history. But then again, this is not a Simulation of history, and it never intended to be one. Some results are far from plausible - Venice falling to Austria isn't as much. Maybe it will happen too often too early, but that has to be tested in at least a Million of games before significant changes should be made. Just because the Player can always lead Venice to a great power. That the AI cannot, sometimes, survive the initial decades in gametime, doesn't prove anything.

 

[coldsteel]

No... simply no.

You are inconsistent. On the one hand you say that in EU time is compressed, so it's fine that Venice collapses at the beginning in every game. Then you say that it needs to be tested in a million games.

I haven't seen an EU3 game where Venice didn't become an OPM fairly quickly. From what I've seen from EU4, it seems this is even worse because of a specific mechanism (Austria's early mission on Venice). I don't mind ahistorical play, but I don't like ahistorical determinism of the sort where Venice collapses all the time in the early game.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

I'm not a big fan of the mission system at all. It gives nations too easy CB's and speeds up expansion all too much.

Only positive side I see is it can guide the AI towards historical conquest, but then it should be just that: historical conquest or historical claims. It's also a kind of guide line for newer players I guess, to give some hints about what they can aim for with their nation......

 

[Galaahd]

And yes, Venice was part of Austria during the games timeframe... Austria annexed it first time in 1798 if I'm not mistaken.

By that reasoning we can give missions to France to conquer pretty much half of continental Europe and get automatic cores, because hey, Napoleon did it. And who cares if it happens in 1400 instead of 1800. It's plausible!

 

[unmerged(584823)]

Agreed ! Let's give France this mission !

 

[Cymsdale]

I'm not a big fan of the mission system at all. It gives nations too easy CB's and speeds up expansion all too much.

Only positive side I see is it can guide the AI towards historical conquest, but then it should be just that: historical conquest or historical claims. It's also a kind of guide line for newer players I guess, to give some hints about what they can aim for with their nation......

You'll take mission system out of my cold, dead hands. It's one of my favorite features of the EU series.