[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Kimiimaro]

So far the Renaissance Era has no representation in R&F.

Korea - Medieval
Netherlands - Modern
Mongols - Medieval
Chandragupta - Classical
Cree- Industrial (by leader's time frame)
Georgia - Medieval

What a great opportunity to add Inca leader and Ottoman Sultan from that period!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

What a great opportunity to add Inca leader and Ottoman Sultan from that period!

Precisely.

 

[Leyrann]

If you simply use Turks instead of Ottomons you can certainly have the capital of the civ not be Istanbul. Ataturk for example would have the capital at Ankara.

Isn't Ataturk pretty controversial though? Not sure if he was the ruler at the time of the Armenian genocide or if he came after?

 

[Gabhar]

I'm not sure how duplicate city names work in VI but if it's like V then you could have Rome in Italy's city, only for it to be unused if Rome is in the game as well (like Honolulu for America and Hawaii, or Nantes for France and Celts in V IIRC). The leader choice absolves them of any problem with two different civs sharing the same city name for their capitals.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not sure how duplicate city names work in VI but if it's like V then you could have Rome in Italy's city, only for it to be unused if Rome is in the game as well (like Honolulu for America and Hawaii, or Nantes for France and Celts in V IIRC). The leader choice absolves them of any problem with two different civs sharing the same city name for their capitals.

It hasn't been used at all, really. Ra-Kedet is the capital for Egypt, and is the Egyptian name for Alexandria, a Macedon city. That is the only example I could think of and it won't be that difficult when the Ottomans and Byzantines would come as well. Rome would be harder to implement, since Roma would already be used to depict Rome in an Italian version.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I would be extremely surprised if the Ottomans are not in this expansion, although with their popularity from the community perhaps they are being held to be announced last to build up a little more hype in the final push.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Isn't Ataturk pretty controversial though? Not sure if he was the ruler at the time of the Armenian genocide or if he came after?

Immediately after. He's not mentioned at all in the Armenian Genocide page on Wikipedia at least

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I would be extremely surprised if the Ottomans are not in this expansion, although with their popularity from the community perhaps they are being held to be announced last to build up a little more hype in the final push.

I am mystified what the last civ might be now. I was certain Georgia would be last.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not sure how duplicate city names work in VI but if it's like V then you could have Rome in Italy's city, only for it to be unused if Rome is in the game as well (like Honolulu for America and Hawaii, or Nantes for France and Celts in V IIRC). The leader choice absolves them of any problem with two different civs sharing the same city name for their capitals.

The Civ5 Celtabominations didn't have any Breton cities on their list, probably because France already claimed them or because the devs did absolutely no research and just stuffed in stereotypes and every Welsh, Irish, and Scottish city they could think of off the top of their heads. It's a wonder Boudicca didn't rule from Camelot...

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I am mystified what the last civ might be now. I was certain Georgia would be last.

Atlantis

 

[Prima Italia]

Civ 6 is different though, from what I pointed out. Berlin, Moscow, and Athens were always the capital of their respected Civs from 1-5. Now Aachen, St. Petersburg, and Sparta (depending on the leader) being capitals as well, have changed that idea. I'm not disputing that Rome isn't the capital now, since it clearly is, but it doesn't have to be of a Renaissance-era Italian Civ like I have been suggesting.

I have already explained why you are wrong. Per my previous post:

Even if that was still not the case and they got someone from the Italian Republic then Rome would still be in the city list.

Moscow, Berlin and Athens(if applicable) still appear in their respective city lists.

Italy did not exist as a unified country in Renaissance times. The country was unified in 1871. If you want a Renaissance era Italian city state that has already been implemented in Civ V as Venice. It does not make sense to have separate Italian city states and then call the civ Italy. People know Italy as when the country was unified not before.

Like I said, Italy would have been earlier games if it were not for the Rome issue. It is ludicrous to think Italy without Rome as its capital or even not in the city list.

 

[Zaarin]

Like I said, Italy would have been earlier games if it were not for the Rome issue. It is ludicrous to think Italy without Rome as its capital or even not in the city list.

For most of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Rome was the heart of the Papal States, which stood apart from the other Italian city-states. It is absolutely justifiable to leave out Rome, especially if the Vatican were once again added as a city-state.

 

[Guandao]

The Civ5 Celtabominations didn't have any Breton cities on their list, probably because France already claimed them or because the devs did absolutely no research and just stuffed in stereotypes and every Welsh, Irish, and Scottish city they could think of off the top of their heads. It's a wonder Boudicca didn't rule from Camelot...

I'm afraid you misremember. Here's a link to the Celtic city-list in Civ5. Nantes, Rennes, etc are on the list.

 

[Leyrann]

I have already explained why you are wrong. Per my previous post:



Moscow, Berlin and Athens(if applicable) still appear in their respective city lists.

Italy did not exist as a unified country in Renaissance times. The country was unified in 1871. If you want a Renaissance era Italian city state that has already been implemented in Civ V as Venice. It does not make sense to have separate Italian city states and then call the civ Italy. People know Italy as when the country was unified not before.

Like I said, Italy would have been earlier games if it were not for the Rome issue. It is ludicrous to think Italy without Rome as its capital or even not in the city list.

So if Renaissance Italy won't be added because it wasn't unified, that means you're talking about modern Italy right, which would have been included in earlier games if not for the Rome issue. What would make modern Italy worth of inclusion though? It basically got unified, became fascistic, tried to conquer Etheopia (sp?), tried to conquer the Balkan, required Germany's assistance in both, got conquered/liberated by the Allies, became part of the European Union and is now in deep depths.

No offense, but that doesn't seem a Civilization-worthy track record to me.

 

[luigilime]

I have already explained why you are wrong. Per my previous post:



Moscow, Berlin and Athens(if applicable) still appear in their respective city lists.

Italy did not exist as a unified country in Renaissance times. The country was unified in 1871. If you want a Renaissance era Italian city state that has already been implemented in Civ V as Venice. It does not make sense to have separate Italian city states and then call the civ Italy. People know Italy as when the country was unified not before.

Like I said, Italy would have been earlier games if it were not for the Rome issue. It is ludicrous to think Italy without Rome as its capital or even not in the city list.

everybody on the peninsula considered themselves italian at least since dante's time since he fantasizes for a united italy, then we had machiavelli that did the same thing, not only that technically a "kingdom of italy" existed at least until 1648 as a constituent kingdom of the hre, and napoleon revived that kingdom by crowning himself with the iron crown of lombardy. so italy had always existed-ish, kind of like germany always existed.

 

[Gabhar]

The Civ5 Celtabominations didn't have any Breton cities on their list, probably because France already claimed them or because the devs did absolutely no research and just stuffed in stereotypes and every Welsh, Irish, and Scottish city they could think of off the top of their heads. It's a wonder Boudicca didn't rule from Camelot...

It was a weird design-by-committee ordering. The city list cycled in the order Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man. The first cities were Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff, Truro, Nantes and Douglas, followed by Glasgow, Cork etc.

 

[krokobone]

Isn't Ataturk pretty controversial though? Not sure if he was the ruler at the time of the Armenian genocide or if he came after?

As to my knowledge, Ataturk had no role in the Armenian genocide at all. He founded however modern Turkey after the First World War, so he could be a valid leader IMO. I would prefer an Ottoman civ for R&F though.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Italy did not exist as a unified country in Renaissance times. The country was unified in 1871. If you want a Renaissance era Italian city state that has already been implemented in Civ V as Venice. It does not make sense to have separate Italian city states and then call the civ Italy. People know Italy as when the country was unified not before.

Like I said, Italy would have been earlier games if it were not for the Rome issue. It is ludicrous to think Italy without Rome as its capital or even not in the city list.

I agree with you that Italy would have been in earlier if it were not for Rome, but that isn't the case anymore in this version of Civ.
It doesn't make since to have separate city states of Greece and Sumer and have them united as well, but well it has happened, since the beginning for Greece.
I just don't see it as viable playing as just a single city-state in this game with the new mechanics, especially after Rise and Fall, and this is the best way to add the various Italian cities.

 

[Phrozen]

Isn't Ataturk pretty controversial though? Not sure if he was the ruler at the time of the Armenian genocide or if he came after?

He was a general during that time leading the newly founded Republic of Turkey but was fighting British backed vestiges of the Ottomon Empire and the various French backed armies including Armenians but no he did not participate or have anything to do with the genocide.

 

[Siptah]

I agree with you that Italy would have been in earlier if it were not for Rome, but that isn't the case anymore in this version of Civ.
It doesn't make since to have separate city states of Greece and Sumer and have them united as well, but well it has happened, since the beginning for Greece.
I just don't see it as viable playing as just a single city-state in this game with the new mechanics, especially after Rise and Fall, and this is the best way to add the various Italian cities.

Or the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Siena, Livorne & co. would make a nice city list.