I still can't see a two-leader leaderhead, so unless one of the Trungs could claim to be 'the' Vietnamese leader I doubt they'd be chosen to head the civ.
The Mississpians are a cultural designation for an extinct group of cultures, not a civ, and their one urban centre is already in the game as a CS (which I found an extremely welcome addition in G&K). As for extant native tribes, personally I don't see any reason or room for more tribal civs - the ones from North America aren't any more distinctive or 'deserving' than tribal peoples from other parts of the world, of which we already have many.
I'm thinking the Americans might get a second leader, I mean one of the new scenarios is American Civil War..
I'm very curious.
Why everyone seems to like the idea of a venetian civilization more than the idea of an italian civilization?
I mean, it would be like having a prussian civilization instead of a german one, or a catalan civilization instead of a spanish one.
Italy would be like Venice, but with more!
Mine is just curiosity, is it only because of the city states that should be changed?
I would love to see Venice as a civ in the game (I have kind of a venetian heritage myself ), but it would seem to me only a part of a civilization, not an entire one.
PS: I'm sorry if what I wrote makes no sense in english, I'm struggling with conditional mood XP
A Venetian civ would embody the Medieval and Renaissance periods with a mercantile focus whereas an Italian civ would probably be post Risorgimento. A civ based on Emanuele's unified, industrializing Italy would be very different than one based on Venice.
I bet you both of my kidneys that this won't happen.
-A native american civ would be nice since there is only one (Iroquois) so it would be nice to see another one.
The first reply in this thread was somebody voting "other" because they'd rather have "Florence" than "Italy". Then another guy votes "other" because they want "Venice". What a shame, because what does that fixation on semantics really accomplish? To my mind, it only serves to create the impression that there's less demand than there actually is. They've undermined themselves and others.
The elder Trung sister, Trung Trac, can be sort of considered the more important of the two - she was the one who decided to lead the rebellion against the Chinese in the first place, and the younger sister, Trung Nhi, sort of just followed along; and Trung Trac is, well, the older one anyways. Similarly to how Justinian or Theodora are chosen instead of both, I can see Trung Trac being chosen instead of both Trung sisters. That said, this thread is just for wishful thinking anyways, so having a two-headed leaderhead would be nice.
Well, again, this is just wishful thinking of course, which is the point of the thread. However, the Mississipians had several urban centers, of which Cahokia was the first; additionally, having a Mississippi blob is still in my opinion more sensible than the Polynesia aglamation of cultures that's already present in Civ4. Lastly, while we could debate whether they are distinctive or "deserving" (which would be somewhat pointless in this thread since this thread's for wishful thinking in my opinion), the north american native groups have a bit more clout in North America where a large amount of the sales are and would be more easily marketable for the devs.
I'm very curious.
Why everyone seems to like the idea of a venetian civilization more than the idea of an italian civilization?
I mean, it would be like having a prussian civilization instead of a german one, or a catalan civilization instead of a spanish one.
Italy would be like Venice, but with more!
Mine is just curiosity, is it only because of the city states that should be changed?
I would love to see Venice as a civ in the game (I have kind of a venetian heritage myself ), but it would seem to me only a part of a civilization, not an entire one.
PS: I'm sorry if what I wrote makes no sense in english, I'm struggling with conditional mood XP
The difference is these were different entities led by different centers of power driven by different cultures. They're just not the same. I am at least consistent on this point though (this thread is about what we each WANT, not what we think will happen): I'd LIKE to see the Celts broken apart into Celts and have a separate Scottish civ added. I see them as a different and unique culture with only similarities and some shared origin (but not a complete shared origin either)... cousins if you will.Is nomenclature really such an obstacle?
Calling the civ "Italy" is just a convenience. A cursory examination of the civilizations in this game establishes that civ's don't only represent the point in history after which they decided what to call themselves collectively. Germany's a prime example. The civ we have incorporates the Holy Roman Empire and the Teutons, among others. Of course, Germany wasn't Germany back then, but everyone seems to get it all the same. It's not a problem.
You can easily have an Italy that incorporates uniques from multiple eras. Genoese crossbowmen or condottieri from renaissance Italy, and industrial-era berseglierri or alpini. Numerous civ's span eras in this fashion. Or, you can have a bunch of stuff from pre-unification italy and still call it Italy, and it's still no biggie.
The first reply in this thread was somebody voting "other" because they'd rather have "Florence" than "Italy". Then another guy votes "other" because they want "Venice". What a shame, because what does that fixation on semantics really accomplish? To my mind, it only serves to create the impression that in this area there's not as much interest as there actually is.