DLC 04 anticipation thread

[nzcamel]

Yeah, IV was the only recent release to include Mongolia in the base game. Pretty sure they were in II from the start (dunno about I (1 lol), I saw it but never played it), but not III, V, or VI.

The Mongols break so many rules in history. John Green who presents Crash Course history calls them "The exception" time after time as a result!
Given that, I cannot wait to see what Beach does does with them, in terms of unique abilities etc.

 

[Haig]

The absence of italian city-states in the game could be an indication for a future addition of Italy to the game? With this wave of modern countries included for market reasons, I see as very possible the inclusion of Italy.

The problem is: How to solve the problem of having two Romes in the game?

But I still prefer Venice, Florence and others italian cities as city-states or civs.

There has been traces of Genoa civ in some Civ 6 files, and there are no Italian city-states, so maybe an italian peninsula double/triple DLC could make it's way some day. Genoa/Venice/Florence and a Condottieri scenario.

 

[DWilson]

Mongolia in V are DLC like the Aztecs in VI are, no-one had to buy them.

 

[Morgawr]

Yeah, IV was the only recent release to include Mongolia in the base game. Pretty sure they were in II from the start (dunno about I (1 lol), I saw it but never played it), but not III, V, or VI.

Mongolia was in Civ 1 as well

 

[Liufeng]

The absence of italian city-states in the game could be an indication for a future addition of Italy to the game? With this wave of modern countries included for market reasons, I see as very possible the inclusion of Italy.

The problem is: How to solve the problem of having two Romes in the game?

But I still prefer Venice, Florence and others italian cities as city-states or civs.

I wouldn't mind an italian civ. People argue that Italy should not be in the game because it is a modern state. But there is Something that must be clear : nation =/= civilization. Just like Germany, Italy is a rather modern state (1848 if I remember correctly), but a very old civilization that we can trace back at least up to the Xth century. During the Renaissance, we had several city-states, but most of them had the big dream of uniting Italy (after all, that's one of the thing advocated in Il Principe of Machiavel). Dante is considered the first great poet of italian language, but he lived between the XIIIth and XIVth centuries, far before the italian was created. So saying Italy should not be included because it's too recent is a bit of a biased opinion.
I personnally would love to see an italian civ with abilities about either the autonomy of their cities, the Renaissance art, or on their merchants.
About the name of the capital, it depends. Since Civ VI decided that capitals are linked to the leaders, so if the leader is Cosimo de Medici or Enrico Dandolo, it's not really a problem since the capital would be Florence or Venice. If it's a leader linked with Rome, I guess, as some have stated, that they could by the italian name Roma (although that would be troublesome for the italian localization of the game ...).

 

[Leyrann]

Ohhhh Nice, So we have Antarctica as the new civ, with the penguin as the UU, the UB will be an igloo. As for the UA, it could very well be, any outside unit who enters your territory during war, will take damage with each turn.

That's going to be quite the anachronism stew.

I wouldn't mind an italian civ. People argue that Italy should not be in the game because it is a modern state. But there is Something that must be clear : nation =/= civilization. Just like Germany, Italy is a rather modern state (1848 if I remember correctly), but a very old civilization that we can trace back at least up to the Xth century. During the Renaissance, we had several city-states, but most of them had the big dream of uniting Italy (after all, that's one of the thing advocated in Il Principe of Machiavel). Dante is considered the first great poet of italian language, but he lived between the XIIIth and XIVth centuries, far before the italian was created. So saying Italy should not be included because it's too recent is a bit of a biased opinion.
I personnally would love to see an italian civ with abilities about either the autonomy of their cities, the Renaissance art, or on their merchants.
About the name of the capital, it depends. Since Civ VI decided that capitals are linked to the leaders, so if the leader is Cosimo de Medici or Enrico Dandolo, it's not really a problem since the capital would be Florence or Venice. If it's a leader linked with Rome, I guess, as some have stated, that they could by the italian name Roma (although that would be troublesome for the italian localization of the game ...).

It's not that I'm against a renaissance civ from the region, it's just that I don't think it should be Italy. Venice, Genoa, Florence or something like that would be better.

 

[Civciv5]

It's not that I'm against a renaissance civ from the region, it's just that I don't think it should be Italy. Venice, Genoa, Florence or something like that would be better.

But why? Genoa and Venice aren't really civilizations more like just a part of the Italian one. And since Australia is of comparable age to a unified Italy the "not united" argument means nothing. Also, the Mayas were never united under one empire, and neither were the Scythians.

 

[God of Kings]

For an Italian civ based in Florence, it can have two leaders: Cosimo de Medici (economic focus) and Girolamo Savonarola (religious focus)

 

[Leyrann]

But why? Genoa and Venice aren't really civilizations more like just a part of the Italian one. And since Australia is of comparable age to a unified Italy the "not united" argument means nothing. Also, the Mayas were never united under one empire, and neither were the Scythians.

Because Genoa and Venice were independant. For Australia vs Italy; Australia was one of the major players on the Pacific stage of WWII and helped free a lot of countries, while all Italy has done after unifying is bring forth Mussolini, who did a bunch of good and a bunch of bad things and then decided to ally with Hitler and try to conquer countries (but needed Hitlers help on most of his attempts). And I'm afraid I can't say anything about the Maya or Scythia as I don't know enough about them. That said, Italy is unified now, which means that people would immediately think of modern Italy. The Maya and Scythia don't have this.

 

[Mat86rix]

I wouldn't mind an italian civ. People argue that Italy should not be in the game because it is a modern state. But there is Something that must be clear : nation =/= civilization. Just like Germany, Italy is a rather modern state (1848 if I remember correctly), but a very old civilization that we can trace back at least up to the Xth century. During the Renaissance, we had several city-states, but most of them had the big dream of uniting Italy (after all, that's one of the thing advocated in Il Principe of Machiavel). Dante is considered the first great poet of italian language, but he lived between the XIIIth and XIVth centuries, far before the italian was created. So saying Italy should not be included because it's too recent is a bit of a biased opinion.
I personnally would love to see an italian civ with abilities about either the autonomy of their cities, the Renaissance art, or on their merchants.
About the name of the capital, it depends. Since Civ VI decided that capitals are linked to the leaders, so if the leader is Cosimo de Medici or Enrico Dandolo, it's not really a problem since the capital would be Florence or Venice. If it's a leader linked with Rome, I guess, as some have stated, that they could by the italian name Roma (although that would be troublesome for the italian localization of the game ...).

You're almost right. ( 1861, Kingdom of Italy, "Regno d'Italia")
Don't forget that the first capital was Turin (1861 -1865 ).
From there started the unification with Vittorio Emanuele II and Garibaldi.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Because Genoa and Venice were independant. For Australia vs Italy; Australia was one of the major players on the Pacific stage of WWII and helped free a lot of countries, while all Italy has done after unifying is bring forth Mussolini, who did a bunch of good and a bunch of bad things and then decided to ally with Hitler and try to conquer countries (but needed Hitlers help on most of his attempts). And I'm afraid I can't say anything about the Maya or Scythia as I don't know enough about them. That said, Italy is unified now, which means that people would immediately think of modern Italy. The Maya and Scythia don't have this.

So were Athens and Sparta.

The Italian city-states (like the Greek ones) would be an excellent case for multiple leaders (especially since that way "Italy" doesn't have to have Rome as a capital.)

 

[Leyrann]

So were Athens and Sparta.

The Italian city-states (like the Greek ones) would be an excellent case for multiple leaders (especially since that way "Italy" doesn't have to have Rome as a capital.)

I can see what you mean this way. That said, I think that Athens and Sparta maybe would've been better as seperate civs too, then.

But yeah, if they'd release them with a Venetian, a Genoan and a Florence (Florencian?) leader, I think it'd be great. Would make a lot more sense, at least.

 

[Siptah]

I think that an Italian civ with a leader from/capital Florence, Milan, Genoa or even Pisa would be good idea. I don't think Venice should be linked with an Italian civ however. It's not typically Italian in my opinion. It's heavily influenced by Byzanz in many ways and doesn't have a typically Italian feel for me. Sure they had their condottieri and all, but still... Even the local language Venetian, which is closely related to Italian, is usually described as an own language instead of a dialect.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I can see what you mean this way. That said, I think that Athens and Sparta maybe would've been better as seperate civs too, then.

But yeah, if they'd release them with a Venetian, a Genoan and a Florence (Florencian?) leader, I think it'd be great. Would make a lot more sense, at least.

Florentine, I believe, is the term you're looking for.

 

[c4c6]

Mongolia was in Civ 1 as well

And they had the best Sound Track played by the build-in "pc speaker" (or beeper?? ) ...
Music was the most important criteria to pick a civ. Next was color of city squares & units ... gray mongolians, green babylonians ...

 

[Mat86rix]

Florentine, I believe, is the term you're looking for.

This was important city state in italy, but the unification didn't come from there.
So Italian civ should not have they as leader.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

This was important city state in italy, but the unification didn't come from there.
So Italian civ should not have they as leader.

I disagree. I like the idea that KrikkitTwo had. Multiple leaders from different renaissance city-states. Ignore the unified modern country the same way the Greek civ does.

 

[Siptah]

And they had the best Sound Track played by the build-in "pc speaker" (or beeper?? ) ...
Music was the most important criteria to pick a civ. Next was color of city squares & units ... gray mongolians, green babylonians ...

I liked that you could change anything in civ II. Leader name, how he/she is addressed, name of the civ, city names - even the style of buildings on the map! (What did we get to chose from? Classical, European, Near East, Far East? Or more?)

 

[Mat86rix]

I disagree. I like the idea that KrikkitTwo had. Multiple leaders from different renaissance city-states. Ignore the unified modern country the same way the Greek civ does.

I understand.
It's two different time.
But to me, you're missing the most important.
( I'm Italian and from Turin, so maybe I'm not neutral )

 

[Leyrann]

I understand.
It's two different time.
But to me, you're missing the most important.
( I'm Italian and from Turin, so maybe I'm not neutral )

What do you think would be best then, for a civ that is about (part of) the peninsula of Italy after the Roman Empire?