Cannot Liberate City State from Venice?

[Jack Reaver]

Title

[Jimmy McGill]

Yes, they buy them not conquer them.

[just.nuke.em]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

Originally posted by Sinnaj63:

Yes, they buy them not conquer them.

That still seems strange that under any other situation you cannot raze a city state.

If Austria does their diplomatic marriage UA, then you can also raze CS's.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

Originally posted by just.nuke.em:

If Austria does their diplomatic marriage UA, then you can also raze CS's.

Well, either way very strange, I wonder if it was purposefully.

It's almost certainly intentional.

[mss73055]

When Venice buys a city state its 'city state' capital icon is removed.

But now here's a glitch: if you liberate Venice it will not become an independent city again, but it will be a puppet city forever.

[Jet City Gambler]

That's the benefit and risk from playng Venice, isn't it? Venice can buy CS's. It's not like they can send out Settlers. It's not "strange" nor a "glitch" just part of the game.

[dasaard200]

"Once you go purple, there's NO GOING BACK ". - Jeff Dunham

Once a CS becomes Austrian OR Venician, the CS loses its status AS a CS; they are now a WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDARY, RELIGATED TO A PROVINCIAL CITY .

There IS no 'liberation' for those subservient ex-CSs, they will be in somebody's Empire .

[just.nuke.em]

Originally posted by dasaard200:

There IS no 'liberation' for those subservient ex-CSs, they will be in somebody's Empire .

Nay, burn them to the ground.

[LAG]

when venice buys a city state the city state looses it's classification as a city state.

wouldn't be very fun if you bought a city state and somebody just liberated it and gained a free ally afterwards.

[dasaard200]

Originally posted by just.nuke.em:

Originally posted by dasaard200:

There IS no 'liberation' for those subservient ex-CSs, they will be in somebody's Empire .

Nay, burn them to the ground.

As a Leading Advocate for "RISK"style Super-Wide play, I see those po'boy former CSs as Oppertunities for Advancing Our Cause in the persuit of Victory; even though they DO cost time and effort to bring around, I just love how they contribute to the Hammer Races []

[LAG]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

Originally posted by LAG:

when venice buys a city state the city state looses it's classification as a city state.

wouldn't be very fun if you bought a city state and somebody just liberated it and gained a free ally afterwards.

It's also not fun when you lose an ally to a merchant of venice. Besides for Venice it leads to a worst outcome, I raze it to the ground so none of my allies are going to get screwed and by extension me.

difference is that you can found cities while venice cannot.

setlers are much easier to come by than MoW's and venice can't exactly "liberate" your cities so i see no reason for you to be able to liberate venice's cities.

[LAG]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

Originally posted by LAG:

difference is that you can found cities while venice cannot.

setlers are much easier to come by than MoW's and venice can't exactly "liberate" your cities so i see no reason for you to be able to liberate venice's cities.

Once again that just leads to me flat burning them down so then there is NO chance of Venice getting back that City State. City States are also not "my cities". They are neutral or small allies that are unable to be razed otherwise. "difference is that you can found cities while venice cannot." no the difference is liberating and razing, you capture a city state of the Ottomons you liberate it since it was captured via military, you capture a city state from venice you raze it because great merchant. "venice can't exactly "liberate"" just like I can't liberate their capital, they can still liberate any city states I've captured. Hell you could liberate cities of other empires which is much more likely for me to have and you could from venice as well because they can't use a great merchant for that.

venice taking over a city with a merchant is the equivilant of them making a setler and creating a city where the city state would have otherwise been.

It is not a military takeover and thus you cannot liberate it.

similarily, if you produced a settler and settled it in venice's vicinity they could not turn your city into a city state ally.

In practical format, being able to liberate venice's city states would basicly allow a warmonger to go around and claim free city state allies which would make venice trash tier.

no the difference is liberating and razing, you capture a city state of the Ottomons you liberate it since it was captured via military, you capture a city state from venice you raze it because great merchant. "venice can't exactly "liberate"" just like I can't liberate their capital, they can still liberate any city states I've captured. Hell you could liberate cities of other empires which is much more likely for me to have and you could from venice as well because they can't use a great merchant for that.

AFAIK if venice decides to conquer a CS using military force you can still liberate the city state.

The deciding difference is that you use military force to conquer a city state while venice uses a great merchant to buy the city state.

You can only liberate a city that has been taken by military force. Venice and austria does not take cities with military force when using their UA's and UU's.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

"The deciding difference is that you use military force to conquer a city state while venice uses a great merchant to buy the city state."

Why does that even matter, what I'm saying is it makes no sense there is a double standard for the special abilities.

You realize that EVERY special ability breaks the normal rules of the game, right?

[paugus]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

Venice actively changes the game rules

So what?

[paugus]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

Originally posted by paugus:

So what?

IF you are going to ask so what there is no point to you even being here. I'm criticizing the fact that a few civs get to do this. What's the point of a system being in play when it can actively denied by an ability. I mean it's not even a good Civilization to begin with.

I'm questioning the crux of your argument, because there's no rule saying a video game rule can't be altered or broken. It doesn't matter if it's "not a good Civilization" or if you don't like it for whatever reason.

It's basically like complaining that knights in Chess move in an L shape. None of the other pieces move like that! What's the point of a system being in play when a knight can just jump over a pawn and take my queen!?

[paugus]

Originally posted by Jack Reaver:

Except each piece in chess moves in a different way meaning that those are the rules well defined

Every Civ has different abilities that change their playstyle. I really don't understand what you're not getting about this, but I'm not gonna frustrate myself trying to wallop you about the head with reasoning when you're clearly very devoted to... whatever your stance is. I guess that everything should be the same, 'cuz variety is frightening? I dunno.