How about adding Italy as a playable Civilization

[jsciv69]

How about having Italy as a Civ. It may be in conflict with Rome. But an Italian Civ has been long overdue. Perhaps it would be a more modern alternative to Rome. The opera house would be a unique building. Not sure who the leader would be. But there's so much culture, tradition and great food for Italy to be ignored for so long.

 

[footslogger]

How about having Italy as a Civ.

I can't see them ever having both (and Rome pretty well has to be in). Too incestuous.

 

[Siptah]

I can't see them ever having both. Too incestuous.

I would love to have Italy, of course in a historically completely wrong way led by Lorenzo die Medici and with Firenze as its capital. I don't see why it would be too incestuous, since they had the Byzantine Empire and the Ottomans in Civ 5 which shared almost all cities (under different names) and historically also occupied a lot of the same territory. Renaissance Italy (and of course 19th century Italy when it was unified) is different enough from antique Rome for me. The only problematic city is Rome itself, almost all others have different names in latin and italian or could also be dropped for one nation (Milano-Mediolanum, Napoli-Neapolis and so on, just like Byzantine/Ottomans in Civ 5).

 

[Xen]

Try looking at the Europa Universalis series. Youre gonna have a good time!

 

[GeoModder]

Incestuous? What a weird thought.
You could as well say England and/or France can't be in the game because the Celts are. Or the Ottomans versus the Byzantian Empire.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Well if both Italy and Rome can be in the game then it may be time to add all chinese dynasties and all India empires as separate civilizations.

 

[Krajzen]

No, please no playable city states anymore. Venice in BNW was imo a wasted slot - at first all people were intrigued by it, then it turned out to be boring one trick pony (cannot build cities -> get tradition, money) and everybody quickly stopped playing it; in polls it got rated as one of worst civs and is totally unplayable in multiplayer or inland maps. AI also couldn't grasp them. All civs should be able to settle multiple cities.

(not to mention the fact I vastly prefer big oriental cultures and empires over very small western european ones)

If anything, I'd support Italian civ - as Siptah said united Italy ahistorically led by Lorenzo di Medici with Firenze as capital. Weird but no different (and actually making much more sense) than what civ5 did to Celts, Huns, Polynesia, Portuguese leader etc

Btw uniques you suggested are entirely based on civ5 gameplay, with gold gifts to CS as well as (iirc) cover promotion being obscolete ready...

 

[Civciv5]

Italy always felt like a missing civ to me. I know it was never unified until modern times, but most city-states in the peninsula did regard themselves as "Italian" and their civilization was around long before the country Italy existed. Besides, the Maya were never really unified either.

Well if both Italy and Rome can be in the game then it may be time to add all chinese dynasties and all India empires as separate civilizations.

Italy and Rome are fundamentally different, it's not like they were two different dynasties ruling the same area. Also: Romans ≠ Italy. Besides, the Byzantines were still calling themselves Romans and considered themselves as such when the Ottomans were besieging their city. Technically, Byzantium (Eastern Rome) and the complete Roman Empire could be considered one civilization.

 

[DarkAlabaster]

Well why including Spain, France, England, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Carthago/Northern Africa Civilization, Middle East Civilization and many other? You just have the Roman Empire at the time of Traian to represent them all.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I belive the case with Italy/Rome is quite simple. You can't have 2 civilizations share the same capitol.

 

[Siptah]

I belive the case with Italy/Rome is quite simple. You can't have 2 civilizations share the same capitol.

as said above: Rome doesn't need to be Italy's capitol, could (should ;-)) be Firenze.
Cairo has never been Egypt's capitol in any civ if I remember correctly
Brasilia is not Brazil's capitol in Civ 5 and VI
Den Haag is not the Netherland's capitol in Civ 5
Rabat is not morocco's Capital in Civ 5
and on and on...

And I do hope Berlin is not Germany's capitol with Barbarossa as a leader...

 

[Metecury]

The first capital of Italy was Turin as the papal state was still independent after unification so there is no capital clash

 

[WiseGreen]

Italy only makes sense ussing leaders from the 19th forward - Garibaldi, maybe?

If you want to use Medicis or Borgias or other Medieval/Renaissance figures as leaders, then Italy makes absolute no sense, it'd more reasonable to use their actual cities/duchies/kingdoms instead.

 

[Babri]

How about Mughal Empire instead of more European civs to the already Europe saturated civ roaster.

 

[Kerfuffle]

Italy only makes sense ussing leaders from the 19th forward - Garibaldi, maybe?

If you want to use Medicis or Borgias or other Medieval/Renaissance figures as leaders, then Italy makes absolute no sense, it'd more reasonable to use their actual cities/duchies/kingdoms instead.

Victor Emmanuel II could work. I know more specifically that he lead Sardinia-Piedmont, but he did unify Italy - That and Barbarossa leads Germany, so there's a precedent set there.

 

[King Jason]

I belive the case with Italy/Rome is quite simple. You can't have 2 civilizations share the same capitol.

The Ottomans and the Byzantines would like a word.

But really though, there is virtually no argument anyone can provide that is valid against the inclusion of any particular country, state, nation, or 'civ' in this game.

In one game (civ4), you had the Greeks, Byzantines, Romans, German, French, and Holy Roman empire.

Different combinations of those civs being in the game destroy the argument that you can't have Italy because of Rome. The Holy Roman empire when you have Germany and France? The Byzantines when you have Rome and Greece? The Byzantine empire was the Roman empire.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But really though, there is virtually no argument anyone can provide that is valid against the inclusion of any particular country, state, nation, or 'civ' in this game.

There are no solid arguments for/against inclusion of any certain civ, but there are some common arguments, which could be taken into account.

 

[Metecury]

Seeing as we had Greece under Alexander the great of Macedon representing the various Greek city states and now we will get Barbarossa (who ruled over the HRE) leading Germany I see no reason to not have italy in the game and have it cover both renaissance and risorgimento italy same way germany covers both a united and divied Germany.

 

[Civciv5]

I belive the case with Italy/Rome is quite simple. You can't have 2 civilizations share the same capitol.

You mean like the Byzantines and the Ottomans?

Just have the capital called Rome and if both are in game the second Rome gets called "Roma" like in its native language.

 

[How to know]

Speaking of the overlaps on City Room... Why cab't we finally have Papal States? With history depth compare to the modern Italy. In fact, I would say all these Italian City States deserve their own Civilization.