The vampire mythos and the impaling are often quite intertwined, and make up the bulk of Vlad's intrigue; beyond that he really wasn't that "interesting." And I don't find either very compelling, personally, since the impaling is just a slightly more accurate flavor of morbidity and terror that attracts the same sort of vampire fanatics. To what degree his monstrosity was fictionalized doesn't matter much when it's still the only thing he was known for. Also, given that we have had three years without a single civ that wasn't imperialist or expansionist, I think it somewhat deluded to believe that the devs would go for Wallachia/Romania over Bulgaria or even Serbia or Albania, civs which were actually empires and had massive regional influence. That Romania has a poor history of unification, being constantly fragmented and controlled by its neighbors, and was never unified under Vlad...it's all so much stretching to try to elevate Romania to something it never was just because people have a fetish for impaling--a concept, I might add, which would not translate visually or mechanically into any civ design, and if it could, would be avoided by the developers because this is a game for all ages. Maybe in a future civ game where we see smaller kingdoms like Ireland, Switzerland, Bohemia, Finland get a chance, I would think Romania might have a chance to shine. But that hasn't happened yet, and I would still prioritize all of those civs before Romania because they still have a stronger history of political and cultural unification and aren't resting on a single, dumb impaling gimmick.