[Speculation] Italian States/Papal States/Venice

Art Grin said:

This is to be expected.
There's always going to be somebody who thinks Benito or Adolf are "good" leader choices for Italy or Germany.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's sensationalism. The best response is to pay them no attention.

Back on Topic: I'd say if Italy is included it'll be led by somebody from the renaissance, most likely one of Medici.

Out of these two units, which one seems less broken/better?

Pavise Crossbowman:

• 13
• 15
• 2
• 2 Range
• 120 cost
• 460 cost to purchase
• Starts with cover 1 promotion
• Replaces Crossbowman, only Italians may build it

Condottiere:

• 16
• 3
• from defeated units
• 25% chance that defeated enemy unit joins your side
• 25% chance that defeated condottiere joins the enemy
• 120 cost
• 500 cost to purchase
• Requires horses
• Replaces Knight, only Italians may build it

Click to expand...

Looks like you lowered their ranged strength, and increased their gold cost but didn't change their production cost. Was that intentional? In terms of nomenclature, I would go with "Genoese Crossbowman". Use of the pavise was widespread, but the Genoese were to the crossbowman what the Swiss were to the pike. I wouldn't lower their strength. If anything, I'd bump it slightly. Maybe increase hammer/gold cost slightly as well.

Condottieri work best as a knight replacement to be sure, but they're kind of a pointless anachronism by the renaissance, more politicians and racketeers than genuine military. If anything, I'd let them pillage for free and give them extra gold for doing so, given that the condottieri preferred to outmaneuver rather than to engage the enemy. I do think the "turncoat" trait is a neat concept. Not sure how well it would execute.

The version I'm cobbling uses the Genoese crossbowman and probably the berseglierri (as one of those era-amalgamation civ's). Means the UA needs to be really good. Mostly waiting for the next info dump, which will hopefully tell us more about the workings of great artisans.

kaspergm said:

Wouldn't including Italian States as a civ sort of kill half of the purpose of having City States in the game in the first place?

Apart from what they add to the game in terms of game-play, I think the cool thing about City States is that they make it possible to have these cool cities that were important at some point without really making it to the civilization state in the game - Pisa, Venice, Bologna, Ravenna, Milan, etc. Same thing about Jerusalem, Lhasa, etc.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow you here. Kill half the purpose?

City-states aren't there as a consolation prize for the "almost-civ's" (whatever that might mean). They exist as an additional resoure to exploit and compete for, or as an obstacle to overcome. We're in no danger of running out any time soon, if that's what you're worried about.

steveg700 said:

Exactly. It's sensationalism. The best response is to pay them no attention.


Looks like you lowered their ranged strength, and increased their gold cost but didn't change their production cost. Was that intentional? In terms of nomenclature, I would go with "Genoese Crossbowman". Use of the pavise was widespread, but the Genoese were to the crossbowman what the Swiss were to the pike. I wouldn't lower their strength. If anything, I'd bump it slightly. Maybe increase hammer/gold cost slightly as well.

Condottieri work best as a knight replacement to be sure, but they're kind of a pointless anachronism by the renaissance, more politicians and racketeers than genuine military. If anything, I'd let them pillage for free and give them extra gold for doing so, given that the condottieri preferred to outmaneuver rather than to engage the enemy. I do think the "turncoat" trait is a neat concept. Not sure how well it would execute.

The version I'm cobbling uses the Genoese crossbowman and probably the berseglierri (as one of those era-amalgamation civ's). Means the UA needs to be really good. Mostly waiting for the next info dump, which will hopefully tell us more about the workings of great artisans.

Click to expand...

Actually I kept the ranged strength the same as a normal corssbow, unless the information on civfanatics units section is outdated, and improved their melee strength. They're basically a more robust crossbowman that can take a lot more pounding.

The Condottieri idea was that you'd send them against enemies they can one hit, making them look like tough heroes while not doing almost any fighting at all. For that they have a lower combat strength then the normal knight, but give gold from killed enemies. This is supposed to be show their habit of taking prisoners and ransoming them rather then killing foes. The 25% chance of defeated enemies joining you should be regarded as the Condottieri bribing the enemy force, while the 25% chance of joining the enemy after defeat is the Condottieri getting bribed or defecting because he doesn't want to die.
The Condottieri wouldn't really be a good unit for fighting, but instead they'd look impressive on the field of battle and steal all the glory(and money) from other units by doing the last hit against an enemy unit.
Also, the sheer sight of a Condottieri switching sides several times during a battle would be quite hilarious to watch.

I'm also waiting for the next info dump and hoping no Italian city-state is mentioned or appears in any screenshots.

Edit: Just checked out the wiki and it seems CFC has an outdated unit page for civ5. Crossbowman have 18 ranged strength and not 15. Going to go and rework the stats on the Genoese Crossbowman and Condottieri.

Edit 2: Reworked units.

Genoese Crossbowman
15
18
2
2 Range
120 cost
460 cost to purchase
Starts with cover 1 promotion
Replaces Crossbowman, only Italians may build it

Condottieri
18
4
from defeated units
25% chance that defeated enemy unit joins your side
25% chance that defeated condottiere joins the enemy
120 cost
500 cost to purchase
Requires horses
Replaces Knight, only Italians may build it

Art Grin said:

Actually I kept the ranged strength the same as a normal corssbow, unless the information on civfanatics units section is outdated, and improved their melee strength. They're basically a more robust crossbowman that can take a lot more pounding.

Click to expand...

The ranged strength of a crossbowman is 18, the strength of a knight is 20.

I'm also waiting for the next info dump and hoping no Italian city-state is mentioned or appears in any screenshots.

Click to expand...

I think I've gone from "slam dunk" to "slim chance". However, we seem to eventually get what we ask for, so I say let's keep promulgating the idea no matter what's in BNW. The whole "Rome" thing is a hurdle we have to help people over.

Yeah, I noticed. It seems the CFC unit section for Civ5 wasn't updated after G&K and I never bothered learning the unit strength so I didn't notice.
Went to the civilization wikia and used their stats as they seem up to date.
Now I've got a reworked Genoese Crossbowman and Condottieri in my other post. I hope the stats make more sense now.

Personally I prefer a Condottieri UU. Guess I just like them more.

Art Grin said:

Yeah, I noticed. It seems the CFC unit section for Civ5 wasn't updated after G&K and I never bothered learning the unit strength so I didn't notice.
Went to the civilization wikia and used their stats as they seem up to date.
Now I've got a reworked Genoese Crossbowman and Condottieri in my other post. I hope the stats make more sense now.

Click to expand...

As others have entrusted me with this invaluable resource, I do now entrust it to you. Use it wisely.

steveg700 said:

As others have entrusted me with this invaluable resource, I do now entrust it to you. Use it wisely.

Click to expand...

Thank you good Sir. I wish I had know of it earlier.

I'd like to throw in my two cents and say that while I'd like an Italian Civ, I'm pretty sure its not going to happen outside of a Scramble for Africa only civ. (btw, I'm pretty sure that Belgium will be similar). before brazil was announced i figured that it was a possibility, but now that there's only 6 civ slots left, as well the fact that they were planning the pueblo meaning that there is almost definitely going to be a native american civ, i really doubt it. anyways, if they do get in, I'd rather a Venice or Sardinia civ then a whole Renaissance Italy, which isn't very logical, tho i don't think Firaxis is known for logic in their civ choices as much as gameplay.

steveg700 said:

Not sure I follow you here. Kill half the purpose?

City-states aren't there as a consolation prize for the "almost-civ's" (whatever that might mean). They exist as an additional resoure to exploit and compete for, or as an obstacle to overcome. We're in no danger of running out any time soon, if that's what you're worried about.

Click to expand...

Well I guess we can disagree on that, then. Those Italian cities were just that, city states. Local governed areas consisting of one major city with some upland. In my optics, the beauty of having in-game city states is that it makes room for just these kind of cities. Throwing them all together into one civilization when they were in fact not a unity at the time of their highlight would to me work against realism and be an unnecessary clash with something that is already perfectly well handled in the context of the current game. But that's just my oppinion.

kaspergm said:

Well I guess we can disagree on that, then. Those Italian cities were just that, city states. Local governed areas consisting of one major city with some upland. In my optics, the beauty of having in-game city states is that it makes room for just these kind of cities. Throwing them all together into one civilization when they were in fact not a unity at the time of their highlight would to me work against realism and be an unnecessary clash with something that is already perfectly well handled in the context of the current game. But that's just my oppinion.

Click to expand...

Civilization is a game where you start at the ancient era, wearing wolf pelts and learning how a wheel works. Precious few civ's were built from a blueprint at this time, as they couldn't even write, much less draft a charter. They have to go through periods of being tribes, fiefdodms, city-states, commonweatlhs, and so forth until they eventually develop some kind of unified identity. Italy did this, but for whatever reason, some people begrudge Italy its pre-unification period as if this differentiates them from all the official civ's and disqualifies them from consideration.

I suppose a big part of that is that the game has so many Italian city-states. To me, that's an argument for their elevation, not disqualification.

steveg700 said:

For whatever reason, some people begrudge Italy its pre-unification period, but don't give it a thought for other civilizaitons.

A big part of that is that the game has so many Italian city-states. To me, that's an argument for their elevation.

Click to expand...

Indeed, we currently have a "Mayan" civ that was historically a bunch of Greek or Italian-like city-states (the Mayans have even been called now and then the Greeks of MesoAmerica (and the Aztecs the Romans)). On the European side, we have the Celts as a funny blob of various tribes and cultures, representing Celtic "civilization" from ancient times (via leader, UA, and UU), to early modern and modern times (the Ceilidh UB). Of all the reamining western European civ possibilities, besides Portugal, I think Italy - representing the medieval to modern iteration - would be worthy. Whether it will be in is another matter.

Let's not forget Polynesia, the never-was civ.

Which, btw, was a civ that was campaigned for with vigor by fans, and the UA ultimately matched the fan design. There's a lesson in that for us.

As was Poland ...

But yes, I won't dispute that this boils down to a matter of oppinion. Personally, there are civs I would rather see than Italy (but arguably also a lot that I would like less, some of which also have a quite prominent place on this discussion board ...)

While I wouldn't be thrilled to see a Italian civilization/culture either. Wouldn't Italy be well represented as the Kingdom of Sardinia? After all it is the legal predecessor to Kingdom of Italy and modern day Italy.

Blitzscream said:

While I wouldn't be thrilled to see a Italian civilization/culture either. Wouldn't Italy be well represented as the Kingdom of Sardinia? After all it is the legal predecessor to Kingdom of Italy and modern day Italy.

Click to expand...

I don't think Sardinia can represent renaissance Italy very well. If I'm not mistaken, Sardinia was either under Spanish or Genoese control for most of the renaissance.

Art Grin said:

I don't think Sardinia can represent renaissance Italy very well. If I'm not mistaken, Sardinia was either under Spanish or Genoese control for most of the renaissance.

Click to expand...

Probably. But with my limited knowledge of Italian history Sardinia was ultimately the victory in the Italian Unification War.

Blitzscream said:

Probably. But with my limited knowledge of Italian history Sardinia was ultimately the victory in the Italian Unification War.

Click to expand...

Yes this is true.
The ultimate winner was the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, although I think it's safe to say that Piedmont unified Italy as the political leadership of the Kingdom was from Piedmont.

So what do you guys think about the berseglierri? Are they fast riflemen, or cavalry that don't require horses, or what?

I like the idea of cavalry that don't need horses. It would make them more unique and it would give me a reason to build cavalry. I think there are too many rifleman/musketman replacements already and a cavalry UU would be more interesting.