"Italy's unique ability is called 'Italo-Ethiopian War': for every tech or civic Italy has that its opponent does not have, its opponent gains a +5 bonus to combat strength. Its allies suffer a -5 combat penalty when both civs are at war with the same civ."
Greece also has the Athens-Sparta split - although not to much of a split in terms of government bonuses, UU, UD, etc - and IMHO that's a promising direction.
If I had to choose one I would choose Florence though, but at the same time I would feel bad about leaving Venice, Milan etc. out as well which is why I'd want to give it the Greek, Phoenician, and Maya treatment.
But the "Greek, Phoenician, and Maya treatment" amounts to nothing interesting at all from my point of view, I'd prefer Venice be 'left out' than have an aspect of it awkwardly inserted into a civilization with a Florentine leader for instance (e.g. unique units relevant to Venice). It's like Civ 5 Celts all over again, a ruler from England speaking wales with an Irish capital.
Nevertheless losing to Ethiopia and losing World War II for Hitler are kind of modern Italy's crowning achievements. You'll also note I said it was the civilization's ability.
I'm not just dying for Medieval or Renaissance Italy, but I can think of a good twenty civs from Europe I'd want over modern Italy.
Nevertheless losing to Ethiopia and losing World War II for Hitler are kind of modern Italy's crowning achievements. I'm not just dying for Medieval or Renaissance Italy, but I can think of a good twenty civs from Europe I'd want over modern Italy.
I'd rather they added an Italian city state than modern Italy like they did in Civ 5, but all I'm saying is if 'Italy' is added, have it ruled by someone who lead Italy, not someone who lead a city state covering a tiny fraction if it's modern territory as the leader of an amalgamation of a patchwork of distinctive states. It's not a problem in the same way for Mayans or Phoenicians, those various city states aren't nearly so well known individually and make much more sense to merge. But having Venice, Florence, Genoa, etc. as a single civilization I think just seems awkward, and I really hope they don't do it.
It's not a problem in the same way for Mayans or Phoenicians, those various city states aren't nearly so well known individually and make much more sense to merge.
I'd suggest that's a narrowness of perspective on your part, not something distinctive about Italy. Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Ugarit, Kition, etc. were as distinct as Sparta, Athens, Syracuse, and so forth or Venice, Florence, Genoa, Milan, etc., and the same is true of the Mayan city-states like Palanque, Naranjo, Tikal, and so forth.
I do hope they never make a civilization under a leader of one of the Italian city states representing all of the Italian city states to be honest, I think that would be a fairly ugly amalgamation. Florence instead of Venice returning or something would be cool, but a civilization representing all of the Italian city states fictitiously united I just find completely unappealing. I know there is the example of how Greek, Phoenician and Mayan city states are merged under one civilization, but doing that to Italian city states somehow seems even worse to me. Perhaps because so many of them are individually famous and seen as distinct, perhaps because they are more recent than those ancient city states, but either way I don't like it at all. Following the format of Greece where they were happy to split Macedon off and not have it a part of the broader civilization representing Ancient Greece, I think that individual representation for states like Venice or Florence isn't unreasonable. If there is an 'Italian' civilization make the leader Garibaldi or Victor Emmanuel II maybe, but not Lorenzo de' Medici.
except this is exactly what civ does for Greece, Cree, Maya, Phoenicia the specific iterations of Korea, Germany, ‘Persia’ and ‘Indonesia’ (I put them in quotes because Persia is just a Achaemenid civ and Indonesia is a Majapahit civ) and the Mapuche.
Culturally similar city-states or disparate dynasties of one nation, are lumped up into this game as one and often led by a representative of just one of those city states. It’s not any worse with Italy just because Italy was fragmented more recently.
(Also, Garibaldi would be a bad leader choice imo. He didn’t lead Italy, just it’s army. If you wanted a leader of united Italy, Vittorio Emmanuel II would be the best choice.) I would personally either do a Tuscany civ with Mathilda as the leader or a Renaissance Italy with Dandolo or a Genoan leader (if not Genoa or Venice independently)
I'd suggest that's a narrowness of perspective on your part, not something distinctive about Italy. Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Ugarit, Kition, etc. were as distinct as Sparta, Athens, Syracuse, and so forth or Venice, Florence, Genoa, Milan, etc., and the same is true of the Mayan city-states like Palanque, Naranjo, Tikal, and so forth.
Actually, having Venice as a city-state would probably adequately "represent" Italy in the sense that it was the de facto hub of the Italic League. Or I guess alternatively if you count Lorenzo de Medici's influence and Tuscany as kind of the heart of Italy then Florence would be fine. Either could work in a pinch, but the real question is whether that would be satisfying to players when we have empires like Venice and Genoa that qualify as empires for purposes of adding full civs.
Actually, having Venice as a city-state would probably adequately "represent" Italy in the sense that it was the de facto hub of the Italic League. Or I guess alternatively if you count Lorenzo de Medici's influence and Tuscany as kind of the heart of Italy then Florence would be fine. Either could work in a pinch, but the real question is whether that would be satisfying to players when we have empires like Venice and Genoa that qualify as empires for purposes of adding full civs.
i mean i think it’s one of those things that can work both ways. You can do a Kilwa civ or a Swahili civ which incorporates all of the swahili city states. You could’ve done a Tikal-based empire of Pacal (even if the info is a bit slim) or a total civ based on Maya. You can do a Delian league civ or a greek civ. Both work.
The same is true of Italy — a Florentine/Tuscan civ is definitely accurate, good, and would be amazing. The same is true of a Renaissance Italy civ with a Florentine leader, or a Venetian leader, etc.
Actually, having Venice as a city-state would probably adequately "represent" Italy in the sense that it was the de facto hub of the Italic League. Or I guess alternatively if you count Lorenzo de Medici's influence and Tuscany as kind of the heart of Italy then Florence would be fine. Either could work in a pinch, but the real question is whether that would be satisfying to players when we have empires like Venice and Genoa that qualify as empires for purposes of adding full civs.
To be clear, I wasn't arguing for separate Tyre and Sidon civs; on the contrary, I was saying that Phoenicia, Maya, and Greece work fine and a unified Italian city-state civ would also work just fine by the same metric. There's nothing so special about Italy that it deserves to be Balkanized where Phoenicia or the Maya don't. Any civ in the game could be Balkanized if one wanted to do so.
i mean i think it’s one of those things that can work both ways. You can do a Kilwa civ or a Swahili civ which incorporates all of the swahili city states. You could’ve done a Tikal-based empire of Pacal (even if the info is a bit slim) or a total civ based on Maya. You can do a Delian league civ or a greek civ. Both work.
The same is true of Italy — a Florentine/Tuscan civ is definitely accurate, good, and would be amazing. The same is true of a Renaissance Italy civ with a Florentine leader, or a Venetian leader, etc.
Oh I misread, but I guess my post works either way. I was thinking actual city-state, not city-state-as-civ.
Kilwa would work by itself because it was an actual sultanate, as would Venice or Genoa or maybe Tuscany. I'm not sure if Tikal would work by itself though? It's kind of in a reconstructed grey area where I'm not sure if Tikal governing surrounding city-states would still identify as "Tikal" or if at that point it's just what we've always called the Mayan empire. I'm not seeing a clear distinction between the two like with Kilwa, Venice, Genoa which all clearly acquired and controlled territory that was outside of their defined city-state, which didn't completely coincide with the idea of "Italy" or "Swahili".
To be clear, I wasn't arguing for separate Tyre and Sidon civs; on the contrary, I was saying that Phoenicia, Maya, and Greece work fine and a unified Italian city-state civ would also work just fine by the same metric. There's nothing so special about Italy that it deserves to be Balkanized where Phoenicia or the Maya don't. Any civ in the game could be Balkanized if one wanted to do so.
Gotcha. Although I still don't quite agree, given that the Italian city-states as a whole had a much poorer degree of cooperation than the Maya and Greece. Greece in particular had many leagues form and reform, whereas the Italian city-states were pretty fiercely independent once they broke off from the Byzantine/HRE and forming leagues was kind of an exception. It's arguably the central problem of developing a unified Italian civ since their period of unification was quite short and doesn't really highlight any of the great figures or accomplishments players expect out of an Italian civ.
That said, I would be totally fine with a grand tour Italian blob. Throw around a palazzo or piazza, slap a Matilda on it, and the thing is almost done.
As a Marathi person and an actual citizen of the modern Indian Republic, I'm perfectly content with the way India has been represented as a 'blob' in the Civ series. I've said this before, as have others, so at the risk of sounding repetitive (which what this thread, unfortunately has become in my eyes, reiteration of the same viewpoints by the same group of posters again and again), alternate leaders is the best way to represent different dynasties and polities of a culturally contiguous India in this game, including the Mughals as well as the Cholas and the Marathas.
except this is exactly what civ does for Greece, Cree, Maya, Phoenicia the specific iterations of Korea, Germany, ‘Persia’ and ‘Indonesia’ (I put them in quotes because Persia is just a Achaemenid civ and Indonesia is a Majapahit civ) and the Mapuche.
Culturally similar city-states or disparate dynasties of one nation, are lumped up into this game as one and often led by a representative of just one of those city states. It’s not any worse with Italy just because Italy was fragmented more recently.
(Also, Garibaldi would be a bad leader choice imo. He didn’t lead Italy, just it’s army. If you wanted a leader of united Italy, Vittorio Emmanuel II would be the best choice.) I would personally either do a Tuscany civ with Mathilda as the leader or a Renaissance Italy with Dandolo or a Genoan leader (if not Genoa or Venice independently)
Garibaldi may not have governed the Kingdom, but he was a living symbol of the unification movement and it was his popularity that enabled Italy to be united.
He was a larger-than-life personality whose exploits captivated the hearts of people, not just in Italy, but around the world.
In a way, he was much like Gandhi, who became a symbol for the movement to free India of colonialism.
He is exactly the kind of person Firaxis wants in a civ leader.
IMHO, if it's possible, having design/bonus/ability differences between (historically) centralized civs and decentralized/confederated civs in the future would be interesting, and can also adding more gameplay variations. Even make "decentralize" as a unique civ ability - a re-design of civ5's vessel system but only apply to one civ? - can be interesting.
I'm not really keen on wading into discussions which do not directly relate to the topic of this thread but this statement, in my experience, is not very accurate and therefore I couldn't resist responding to it. I've never met any Indian Muslim who disliked Gandhi. As far as my assessment goes none of Gandhi's opinions were in any way offensive or detrimental to the majority of Indian Muslims. You might be aware that as recently as the beginning of this year, Muslim civil society groups, amongst others, were protesting against a controversial law recently passed in the Indian parliament. Posters with Gandhi portraits and quotes on them were ubiquitous at those protest sites. Surely Muslim groups wouldn't carry Gandhi portraits while protesting if they disliked him as you seem to insinuate?
You thought you were calling my bluff, but in no particular order except as they occur to me: Byzantium, Bohemia, Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Ireland, Wales, Navarre, Gauls, Suebi, Denmark, Iceland, Saami, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kievan Rus', Austria, Francia led by Charlemagne, Etruria, the Kingdom of the Isles.
(Also, Garibaldi would be a bad leader choice imo. He didn’t lead Italy, just it’s army. If you wanted a leader of united Italy, Vittorio Emmanuel II would be the best choice.) I would personally either do a Tuscany civ with Mathilda as the leader or a Renaissance Italy with Dandolo or a Genoan leader (if not Genoa or Venice independently)
You thought you were calling my bluff, but in no particular order except as they occur to me: Byzantium, Bohemia, Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Ireland, Wales, Navarre, Gauls, Suebi, Denmark, Iceland, Saami, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kievan Rus', Austria, Francia led by Charlemagne, Etruria, the Kingdom of the Isles.
You thought you were calling my bluff, but in no particular order except as they occur to me: Byzantium, Bohemia, Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Ireland, Wales, Navarre, Gauls, Suebi, Denmark, Iceland, Saami, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kievan Rus', Austria, Francia led by Charlemagne, Etruria, the Kingdom of the Isles.
Garibaldi may not have governed the Kingdom, but he was a living symbol of the unification movement and it was his popularity that enabled Italy to be united.
He was a larger-than-life personality whose exploits captivated the hearts of people, not just in Italy, but around the world.
In a way, he was much like Gandhi, who became a symbol for the movement to free India of colonialism.
He is exactly the kind of person Firaxis wants in a civ leader.
You thought you were calling my bluff, but in no particular order except as they occur to me: Byzantium, Bohemia, Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Ireland, Wales, Navarre, Gauls, Suebi, Denmark, Iceland, Saami, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Kievan Rus', Austria, Francia led by Charlemagne, Etruria, the Kingdom of the Isles.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
