Why do people undervalue the City States so much?
Nah, we definitely need more of Europe, I mean, we only have:
Austria
Byzantium
Celtia
Denmark
England
France
Germany
Greece
The Huns
The Netherlands
Rome
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Poland
I mean, that's only 15 of the 35 known in the game...
But they have been done and I see no reason they would not continue "Duct-Taping civs". It honestly makes very little difference for gameplay what the Florentine city state is called. If it were called Angkor, there would be no difference in gameplay. A potential Italian/Papal/Venetian civ however, would effect gameplay greatly.
Technically we shouldn't have Greece in game then and instead have Athens, Sparta, Thebes and Corinth as city states. Yet we have Greece in game and people are happy. Even if people bashed on Polynesia for it's duct tape style, there are still more people who are simply happy about the civ then there are people who can't live with a Maori lead by Kameha.
Huns are hardly European.
Greece was a unified Empire, and Greece acted a whole in many points in it's history. The more important point though is that of Civilization against nations. Italy can be covered by a combination of Rome and the City States, to cover Greece with just City States would be rather odd considering it's history and that it had at times acted as one Civilization.
So would any other choice of Civ, and it wouldn't overlap with Roman Italia and needless create another duct taped Civ in Europe, the place that needs it the least. All the other cases, which were slammed by a few, have some genuine justification and were genuinely interesting choices that are interesting to play.
Greece was a unified Empire, and Greece acted a whole in many points in it's history. The more important point though is that of Civilization against nations. Italy can be covered by a combination of Rome and the City States, to cover Greece with just City States would be rather odd considering it's history and that it had at times acted as one Civilization.
Anyway; anyone think a Great Person UU would work for Italy?
For a few years under an arguably foreign ruler. The only other notable time they worked together was when Persia invaded. Otherwise, they fought. Meanwhile, Polynesia never acted as a whole.
I'm not attacking the existing civs! I'm just saying Italy is no worse!I suggest that you don't look into the history of any other Civilization in the game, you'd be horrified by the sounds of it.
Well, other than Condottieri, you could have Artigiani replace workers, or Schiavona/Schiavoni, replace Longswordsmen. I'm sure there are lots of other choices if you look a bit
Would a Papal Gonfalonier make sense as a Great General replacement?Maybe a Pavise Crossbowman. Or they could nod at the post unification period and use the Bersaglieri.
They could also use a naval UU, but because the galeass is already a unit for everyone I cannot come up with a specific proposal XD
Would a Papal Gonfalonier make sense as a Great General replacement?
Doing a bit of reading Pavisiers sound pretty cool!Maybe a Pavise Crossbowman. Or they could nod at the post unification period and use the Bersaglieri.
Would a Papal Gonfalonier make sense as a Great General replacement?
I don't think the problem is finding city states to replace the 5/6 Italian city states, there are endless options. I think the problem is that these CS were the inspiration for the system. It would feel like a waste if they introduced CS, just to later take Venice, Genoa, Florence, etc out.
Additionally, there's enough Europe as is. Poland is confirmed, and Portugal is likely joining worship. Assuming we get two Africans, three Asians, and a North American native, I would prefer the last spot be spent on a modern S. American like Brazil or Argentina.