Just a thread for the discussion of the likelihood of an Italian/Papal States/Venician Civ, and speculation on it's unique elements.
So what do you think about Italy as a civ?
Spoiler :
Map of a Hypothetical Italian Civ
I think the inclusion of an modern italian civ is very unlikely. Modern (and renaissance) Italy are already represented in the game is the modern incarnation of the Roman civ. (The connection between modern and ancient Rome is much closer than that between modern Germany and the ancient Germanic tribes which are currently represented as one civ.)
Moreover, the Italian city states are a too good source of recognizable city states to waste on a civ that is already represented in some sense.
So modern italy? Probably never gonna happen.
I'd prefer the Venetian Republic myself.
But Italy here isn't a political entity. It's a concept made by unifying the Renaissance Italian states.The game isn't, and never has been about political entities. The USSR and Russia are different political entities, but it would be ridiculous to have a USSR "Civilization".
But Italy here isn't a political entity. It's a concept made by unifying the Renaissance Italian states.
Venice, on the other hand, is the Civ that I would rather of the three; as a Naval-Mercantile Civ which I wanted out of England. Granted, the Majapahit could potentially fill the role, but I'm more familiar with Venice. It would be nice if Venice's UA would allow for the hiring of mercenaries from City-States, but it could also certainly work with something orientated toward the new trade route system. As for Venice's chances overall I couldn't say, but I suspect it has a higher chance than a unified Italy (the tendency for crude amalgamations aside). That Italy may have been in the Scramble for Africa might indicate its inclusion, but I'm not sure the unified Kingdom best represents Italian culture-if only for that it came so much later than the peak of that culture.
I prefer Sardinia,whose capital was Turin and unified Italy.
To be honest, representing such a influential group of nations with City States isn't that great. There's no difference between them except for the name and song. The flaring up is just because the two of the major themes (culture and trade) fit the hypothetical civ perfectly.I find it odd that in the first game with City States which can directly cover the Italian City states that we all of a sudden have had this flare up since the announcement of this expansion pack.
To be honest, representing such a influential group of nations with City States isn't that great. There's no difference between them except for the name and song. The flaring up is just because the two of the major themes (culture and trade) fit the hypothetical civ perfectly.
To be honest, representing such a influential group of nations with City States isn't that great. There's no difference between them except for the name and song. The flaring up is just because the two of the major themes (culture and trade) fit the hypothetical civ perfectly.
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.We rather some weird duct taped together "Renaissance Italy" than have them as City States as they were, yet some slammed other "Civs" done in a similar manner at times.
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 bitI think Italy's chance is quite good. And that both cultural and mercantile focus could be explored (even at the same time, for a tall mercantile/cultural civ). Only the UU is a bit less obvious, but there are options (and it's not meant to be the most important aspecto of the civ, anyway)
Why do people undervalue the City States so much? They were City States, they were not Civilizations in their own right. The reason City States are in the game is from what I've heard because of them and their influence in that time period. We seem to have turned City States into "Minor Civilizations" here for some reason, and I don't quite get it. We rather some weird duct taped together "Renaissance Italy" than have them as City States as they were, yet some slammed other "Civs" done in a similar manner at times.
I have no desire to see an Italian civilization in the expansion, the Italian peninsula is already pretty well covered by the Romans and the city states of Venice, Florence, Vatican City, etc.
There are much more underrepresented geographic areas that should be populated instead.