Italy

[TDK]

Roman respawn is Italy. There is no reason that Italy could not be a colony of a stable European empire. It surely has shown a penchant for it in real history but for the lack of an organized European power. If it is easy to have rome respawn under the name Italy, I'd say hellz yea. But I'm a little opposed to any sort of other confangling with these mechanics.

Agreed, that would be great.
It's not like the italians ever forgot about the Romans. And the suggestions of Pizzarias, Football Stadiums and Architectonic Heritage suggests to me that Italy doesn't really need a seperate Civ.

 

[Panopticon]

Roman respawn is Italy. There is no reason that Italy could not be a colony of a stable European empire. It surely has shown a penchant for it in real history but for the lack of an organized European power. If it is easy to have rome respawn under the name Italy, I'd say hellz yea. But I'm a little opposed to any sort of other confangling with these mechanics.

This is 100% right and it is proven by the often vassal-like position of the Italian Kleinstaaterei around the 1400-1800 period.

It's quite easy to modify the XML/Text file for Rome's dynamic names to change the late names to refer to Italy rather than Rome.

 

[ScavengerType]

a pic and leader name change could be easy as well...

 

[onedreamer]

Agreed, that would be great.
It's not like the italians ever forgot about the Romans. And the suggestions of Pizzarias, Football Stadiums and Architectonic Heritage suggests to me that Italy doesn't really need a seperate Civ.

To me it suggests that you could use some read about the italian people from 600 AD to 2000 AD... you'll find out how much you're missing if you think that Pizzeria and Football stadium are what represent italians.

 

[TDK]

To me it suggests that you could use some read about the italian people from 600 AD to 2000 AD... you'll find out how much you're missing if you think that Pizzeria and Football stadium are what represent italians.

But these were the things that were suggested in the thread, and you'll have to come up with something better to convince me.
I just don't think it's justified to put Italy in there as a seperate Civ from Rome, which is not the same as saying that Italic people didn't contribute enormously to european history. It just wasn't Italy.

 

[onedreamer]

But these were the things that were suggested in the thread, and you'll have to come up with something better to convince me.

I already came up with something better in that very thread, it's just that you didn't read it carefully.

I just don't think it's justified to put Italy in there as a seperate Civ from Rome, which is not the same as saying that Italic people didn't contribute enormously to european history. It just wasn't Italy.

ITALIAN people, not italic people... it wasn't Italy ? That's your point of view, Germany wasn't a unitary country as well in the middle ages but it's there in RFC as Germany and none ever dreamed to say that it doesn't deserve its national identity. The fact that a civilization isn't unified under a single central nation, doesn't mean that that civilization doesn't exist. The italian civilization exists from after the mixing of romans, ostrogoths and langobards, and is hence in no way represented by the roman civilization. I'm really tired to hear this kind of silly argument, take the time to read up about the history of Italy and you'll realize that a little something has happened here in 1400 years and that italians are italians, not romans.

 

[Bonci]

D: I just proposed those things because that is what we are famous for...people tend to forget that Italy has one of the 8 (ok maybe not in this exact moment )most developed economies in the world or that Italy was one of the first founders of the EU...only to mention economic and politic factors...and there are many other examples.
If you want I can find something more "serious" for an UB/UP

EDIT: yeah onedreamer already proposed something better

 

[TDK]

I already came up with something better in that very thread, it's just that you didn't read it carefully.

That link was for a 5 page thread. You suggestions are much better IMO.

ITALIAN people, not italic people... it wasn't Italy ? That's your point of view, Germany wasn't a unitary country as well in the middle ages but it's there in RFC as Germany and none ever dreamed to say that it doesn't deserve its national identity. The fact that a civilization isn't unified under a single central nation, doesn't mean that that civilization doesn't exist. The italian civilization exists from after the mixing of romans, ostrogoths and langobards, and is hence in no way represented by the roman civilization. I'm really tired to hear this kind of silly argument, take the time to read up about the history of Italy and you'll realize that a little something has happened here in 1400 years and that italians are italians, not romans.

Well the Germans represent HRE, preussia and Germany, so isn't it okay for Rome to represent Rome, maybe some city states and Italy?

 

[onedreamer]

nope, because the people living in the german area of HRE were called GERMANS, and the people living in the italian area of HRE were called ITALIANS, not Romans.

 

[TDK]

nope, because the people living in the german area of HRE were called GERMANS, and the people living in the italian area of HRE were called ITALIANS, not Romans.

I don't really believe anyone cared much for the ethnicity or culture of a citizen in those days, so it was probably more a politico-geographic and lingual distinction. I see the civilizations as political entities, not cultures and "peoples", which only makes much sense much later in history.
-The "German" civ starts out a multi-ethnic empire(HRE) and becomes a German nation-state covering the same core area as it's predecessor.
-The "Roman" civ starts out a multi-ethnic empire(Roman Empire), collapses, and respawns as an Italian nation-state in the same core area much later. Or maybe it doens't collapse at all and turns into an Italian nation-state, after the advent of Nationalism?

 

[Rhye]

Though I know that it's what most people think from abroad, I'm afraid you all have a wrong perception from outside: Italy isn't ancient Rome.
Re-using its unused slot in 600AD is a good idea, but not to be confused with "they are more or less the same civ", cause Roman state died in 476AD and never came back.
From the mixture of italic and barbarian peoples, a new culture flourished centuries later around Roman ruins, and finally in 1861 evolved into a state, but it has little to do with Rome. Probably one of the few things left in common is hooliganism.

 

[TDK]

Though I know that it's what most people think from abroad, I'm afraid you all have a wrong perception from outside: Italy isn't ancient Rome.
Re-using its unused slot in 600AD is a good idea, but not to be confused with "they are more or less the same civ", cause Roman state died in 476AD and never came back.
From the mixture of italic and barbarian peoples, a new culture flourished centuries later around Roman ruins, and finally in 1861 evolved into a state, but it has little to do with Rome. Probably one of the few things left in common is hooliganism.

As I said, I think it makes sense to view the civs as political entities rather than cultures or peoples, and as such it makes sense that "Rome" counts as Italy.

Another civ that wouldn't make sense if viewed through the lense of the later "nation" includes England, which was invaded so many times that it only makes sense to view it as a political entity with certain geographical, not cultural or ethnic, features.

 

[ZachScape]

I don't think you completely understand this thread, TDK.
This thread suggests an Italian civilization for the 600 AD start and only the 600 AD start.
I think Italian could add some different culture and flavor in the region on a 600 AD game. It rose, or Rhose in real life, exactly as portrayed in the game. So I'm not saying add a new civ please, like the Austrians, Polish, Israeli, or Korean suggestion... I am proposing we do away with the Roman civilization all together (in the 600 AD mod ONLY!!!), and replace it, not add it, with Italy.

This is beneficial to gameplay in several ways:

Brand new UHVs
More diversity, and predictability at the same time
And modern UBs and UUs that actually fit towards the Italian civ.
I'm POSITIVE people will want to play as Italy, but they can't in the 600 AD start.
We don't have to add a new civilization, just tweak one.

BTW, the bold isn't me yelling. I use bold to highlight my major points.

 

[TDK]

I understand what you want to do and I'm fine with it. I just think we should be consistent.

So we should also replace Greece, India, Carthage in the 600AD. They certainly don't have more in common with their ancient carnations than Italy.

 

[Charles Martel]

I think that it’s all right for “Rome” to represent Italy in the game. People who disagree (including Rhye) seem to be confusing two very different questions:

Question 1: “Is ancient Rome the same as modern Italy?” Of course not!
Question 2: “Could ancient Rome re-spawn in the game as modern Italy?” Yes, I don’t see why not.​

Even if Italy and ancient Rome “are not the same civilization” (whatever that means), they occupy the same geographical starting location (sort of), so they would fill the same place in Rhye’s map. More to the point, there is no Roman Empire in modern times... so why not have Italy fill the gap in the map? All right, the Italians are “not the same” as the ancient Romans, but so what? The Abbassid caliphate, for example, it’s certainly not the same as modern Saudi Arabia, and yet they RFC represents them as being in the same civilization slot, namely “Arabia”. It's merely a matter of convenience: unlike Europa Universalis, Civ IV has a limited number of civilization slots. So, rather than leaving the "Rome" slot unusued in the 600AD scenario, I would recycle it as Italy.

I think that most people, especially Italians, are against taking Rome to represent Italy for a variety of secondary reasons that have nothing to do with gameplay mechanics. There’s a mixture of regional pride (somebody from Milan, from example, may not like being referred to as “Roman”), political feelings (nowadays, thinking of modern Italy as the successor of the Roman Empire may have fascist connotations), and some sense of historical identity (any Italian will say that Italy is not just about the Roman Empire, and that they have achieved so much in the Renaissance...). These are all valid reasons for resisting the identification of Italy with ancient Rome, but not for objecting to Rome’s re-spwaning in the game as Italy. After all, that is what dynamic names are for.

Note: In current RFC, Rome gets the dynamic name “New Roman Empire” when running the police state civic. That’s a clear reference to Mussolini’s dream to create what he called “nuovo impero romano”. If police-state Rome civic can be regarded as Fascist Italy, I don’t see why (post-industrial) universal-suffrage Rome cannot be regarded as contemporary Italy.

 

[TDK]

I think that it’s all right for “Rome” to represent Italy in the game. People who disagree (including Rhye) seem to be confusing two very different questions:

Question 1: “Is ancient Rome the same as modern Italy?” Of course not!
Question 2: “Could ancient Rome re-spawn in the game as modern Italy?” Yes, I don’t see why not.​

Even if Italy and ancient Rome “are not the same civilization” (whatever that means), they occupy the same geographical starting location (sort of), so they would fill the same place in Rhye’s map. More to the point, there is no Roman Empire in modern times... so why not have Italy fill the gap in the map? All right, the Italians are “not the same” as the ancient Romans, but so what? The Abbassid caliphate, for example, it’s certainly not the same as modern Saudi Arabia, and yet they RFC represents them as being in the same civilization slot, namely “Arabia”. It's merely a matter of convenience: unlike Europa Universalis, Civ IV has a limited number of civilization slots. So, rather than leaving the "Rome" slot unusued in the 600AD scenario, I would recycle it as Italy.

I think that most people, especially Italians, are against taking Rome to represent Italy for a variety of secondary reasons that have nothing to do with gameplay mechanics. There’s a mixture of regional pride (somebody from Milan, from example, may not like being referred to as “Roman”), political feelings (nowadays, thinking of modern Italy as the successor of the Roman Empire may have fascist connotations), and some sense of historical identity (any Italian will say that Italy is not just about the Roman Empire, and that they have achieved so much in the Renaissance...). These are all valid reasons for resisting the identification of Italy with ancient Rome, but not for objecting to Rome’s re-spwaning in the game as Italy. After all, that is what dynamic names are for.

Note: In current RFC, Rome gets the dynamic name “New Roman Empire” when running the police state civic. That’s a clear reference to Mussolini’s dream to create what he called “nuovo impero romano”. If police-state Rome civic can be regarded as Fascist Italy, I don’t see why (post-industrial) universal-suffrage Rome cannot be regarded as contemporary Italy.

You said it best.

 

[kairob]

I disagree with Rome representing Italy but do not consider myself to be confusing those two questions.

How about these Questions:
Is Rome an appropriate name for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Legionary an appropriate UU for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Forum an appropriate UB for an Italy Civ? No
Are Roman Emperors apropriate leaders for an Italian Civ? No
Do the Roman UHVs represent Italys political aims? No
Are the Roman Settler Maps, Expansion areas or City Names appropriate for an Italian Civ? No

By the same logic lets have the Turks spawn around the time of Greece representing the Hittites as they ocupy the same geographical region. I mean the are no turks in the ancient era so lets have the Turks being Hittites to fill the gap.

I do not think that having Rome representing Italy is a good idea. But I do not object to swapping Rome for Italy in the 600ad start.

 

[TDK]

I disagree with Rome representing Italy but do not consider myself to be confusing those two questions.

How about these Questions:
Is Rome an appropriate name for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Legionary an appropriate UU for an Italy Civ? No
Is a Forum an appropriate UB for an Italy Civ? No
Are Roman Emperors apropriate leaders for an Italian Civ? No
Do the Roman UHVs represent Italys political aims? No
Are the Roman Settler Maps, Expansion areas or City Names appropriate for an Italian Civ? No

By the same logic lets have the Turks spawn around the time of Greece representing the Hittites as they ocupy the same geographical region. I mean the are no turks in the ancient era so lets have the Turks being Hittites to fill the gap.

I do not think that having Rome representing Italy is a good idea. But I do not object to swapping Rome for Italy in the 600ad start.

So do you find that a re-spawned modern Greece is represented well by Alexander and Phalanx? And what about Egypt, Babylonia etc.?

What you are talking about would amount to removing the entire re-spawn system and make the 600AD and 3000BC games into 2 different things altogether, and that's fine, but let's take the discussion from the beginning then and see what civs we want in there.

As I see it we have at least 6 open slots:
INDIA=Mysore/Mughal/Modern India
GREECE=Korea
ROME=Italy?
EGYPT=Iroquois
BABYLONIA=Zulu
PERSIA=Maori?

Italy could be one, although I think it's quite a late starter. Modern India should definitely be another. Korea and Iroquois has been mentioned. Zulu would be a nice addition.

 

[Charles Martel]

Is Rome an appropriate name for an Italy Civ? No.

Dynamic names can take care of that.

Is a Legionary an appropriate UU for an Italy Civ? No

Is a Musketeer an appropriate UU for Napoleonic France? Legionaries are no longer around when Italy spawns, so I don't see what is the problem here. (There is however a related gameplay question, namely should a re-spawned Rome get an Italian UU such as bersaglieri? Similarly, should re-spawned Greece, Babylon, etc. get modernised UUs?)

Is a Forum an appropriate UB for an Italy Civ? No

The game lets Portugal build feitoria in modern times. Those anachronisms are commonplaces in a game such as Civ. Again, the real gameplay question is whether a re-spawned Rome/Babylon/etc. should lose the benefit of forum/garden/etc and get some other UB instead.

Are Roman Emperors appropriate leaders for an Italian Civ? No

No big deal. New leaderheads (say, Cavour) can be added.

Do the Roman UHVs represent Italys political aims? No

Does circumnavigating the globe represent modern Greece’s political aims? UHVs are tied to a time-frame. Ideally, re-spawned Rome/Greece/etc. should get a new set of UHVs conditions, representing their modern achievements and ambitions.

Are the Roman Settler Maps, Expansion areas or City Names appropriate for an Italian Civ? No

By the time Italy spawns most of the preferred areas in Rome's settler maps would be already settled by other civs. Also Italy's historical colonies, Libya and Eritrea, are likely to be already settled by other civs. As to the city names, yeah... it bugs me to see "Mediolanum" in modern times. But that's a more general problem with RFC, by no means specific to Italy. At some point, all city names should be modernised.

By the same logic lets have the Turks spawn around the time of Greece representing the Hittites as they ocupy the same geographical region. I mean the are no turks in the ancient era so lets have the Turks being Hittites to fill the gap.

If Hittites were included in RFC as a full-blown civ as opposed to independents, I would suggest to make them part of a broader "civilization" (understand that word in game terms), including Pontus, Armenia, or even, why not, Turkey. In that case, "Hittites" could be an early dynamic name of Turkey. Of course having two distinct civs would be better. But, as we know, the number of civs is limited, so if you want the Hittites, better conflating Turkey and Hittites than having no Turkey at all.

I do not think that having Rome representing Italy is a good idea. But I do not object to swapping Rome for Italy in the 600ad start.

Then we don't really disagree about the 600AD start. Our only disagreement turns on whether a re-spawned Rome in the 3000BC start represents Italy or not. I think it does, and that some aspects of the game (especially city names) should be changed in order to accommodate that.

 

[Louis XIV]

Personally, I would just be happy if the Romans ever spawned in the 600 AD version. I can't remember the last time I saw it happen, as Rome, Venice, etc. are either French, German or Independent in every game I ever play.