I don't believe Cairo is on the Egyptian city list at all. Since Rome definitely can't be taken off the Roman Empire city list, it wouldn't have to be on a Italian-Renaissance city list. There aren't any duplicate cities that I can think of with the same names. Ra-Kadet and Alexandria are the same city, but in different languages, where Roma would still be called Roma in the Italian version of the game probably.
Is it really such a show stopper if two different civs were to have the same city name? to me the best solution (if Italy were in) is to have two Romes and let people deal with it.
I don't believe Cairo is on the Egyptian city list at all. Since Rome definitely can't be taken off the Roman Empire city list, it wouldn't have to be on a Italian-Renaissance city list. There aren't any duplicate cities that I can think of with the same names. Ra-Kadet and Alexandria are the same city, but in different languages, where Roma would still be called Roma in the Italian version of the game probably.
If the point of including Rome is to represent the Papal States, then a simple solution would be to use Vatican City. However, most discussion on this thread has been about a civ representing the Renaissance Italian City-States, not the modern nation-state of Italy, so Rome is a moot point.
If that was the case then Roma should be part of the Roman city list since the names of the cities are in Latin. If the Italian city list was in English then Rome should be used.
Not if the leader would be from somewhere else, like a doge of Venice or a Medici from Florence. Berlin has always been the capital of Germany but now it is Aachen with Frederick. Same thing with St. Petersberg and Peter from Russia instead of Moscow. It would depend on the leader.
I don't think Italy as a civ will happen soon. Shared capital with Rome and overall Rome being "Italian civ" makes it problematic. Also, most of the leaders aren't that big (except probably Mussolini, who is too controversial). Surely, Medieval Italian city-states could donate some cool leaders, but having Venice or Florence as Italian representation and capital could be stretch too far.
If that was the case then Roma should be part of the Roman city list since the names of the cities are in Latin. If the Italian city list was in English then Rome should be used.
Ludicrous things are always entertained on the forum. Rome has, is and always will be the capital of Italy.
I'm sorry to say but you're wrong, even if you consider only the country of Italy unified in 1860, it had at least 5 capitals since now: Turin was the first capital at the proclamation of the kingdom then it was temporarily moved to Florence until Rome was conquered in 1871, then during ww2 even Bari and Taranto were for a while the capitals of the freed kingdom of Italy.
But that's besides the point, Rome has always been considered the capital of Italy since it is such an important city for European politics. And we all know that the cultural capital of Italy is Florence, the standard Italian developed from Florentine Tuscan, the Accademia della crusca that preserves the Italian language is located there, next to the Uffizi, probably the most important art gallery in Italy.
Not if the leader would be from somewhere else, like a doge of Venice or a Medici from Florence. Berlin has always been the capital of Germany but now it is Aachen with Frederick. Same thing with St. Petersberg and Peter from Russia instead of Moscow. It would depend on the leader.
No, because if that was the case they would have been around when Italy was not unified. 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. Furthermore, if what you said was true then Italy in a civ game would have been implemented many games ago. The only reason they have not done so is because of Rome. An Italian civ must have Rome.
I'm sorry to say but you're wrong, even if you consider only the country of Italy unified in 1860, it had at least 5 capitals since now: Turin was the first capital at the proclamation of the kingdom then it was temporarily moved to Florence until Rome was conquered in 1871, then during ww2 even Bari and Taranto were for a while the capitals of the freed kingdom of Italy.
But that's besides the point, Rome has always been considered the capital of Italy since it is such an important city for European politics. And we all know that the cultural capital of Italy is Florence, the standard Italian developed from Florentine Tuscan, the Accademia della crusca that preserves the Italian language is located there, next to the Uffizi, probably the most important art gallery in Italy.
Sure but when Rome has been part of Italy, the capital is Rome. When you ask any person to name an Italian city, I am sure they will say Rome by far and then Milan. I do not see how that can be disputed. As you said, even that is beside the point, Rome has always been considered the capital of Italy, whether officially or not.
No, because if that was the case they would have been around when Italy was not unified. 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. Furthermore, if what you said was true then Italy in a civ game would have been implemented many games ago. The only reason they have not done so is because of Rome. An Italian civ must have Rome.
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.
With Georgia in and European (I would argue) maybe Italy moved down the list for possibilities again. Tamar will probably be the leader with the ages ability so they did likely not put in a female italian leader from the Renaissance in there.
Is it really such a show stopper if two different civs were to have the same city name? to me the best solution (if Italy were in) is to have two Romes and let people deal with it.
I get the gameplay reason, and I like the solution of different spellings for the same name if popping up in different cities.
But if the same city name popped up in different civs, I can't help but imagine that someone would claim it "unrealistic" ... even though there are real-life examples...
It's absolutely possible to have the same city with different spelling/names in one game. Say what you want, but Constantinople and Istanbul are the same city. Yet, Byzance (which capital was originally Byzance (I don't know the real name in english) and give its name to the civilization... do not know what they didn't kept the same name) and Ottoman were in Civ V. Do not see the problem (except... exactly the same name could be confusing...)
But, moreover, if we do an Renaissance Italian civ in Civ VI, Rome is not compulsory at all. Orléans is not in the civ list of France, and yet it's the second city of the country in all aspects. When I think about Italy, I think Firenze, Milan, Venice and Napoli first. Rome come way after.
I say Zulu is still a possibility, but I think Willam Wallace is out.
I really would be surprised if we didn't get the Incas, merely because of the lack of representation from that region in their specific time (Aztecs are really the only ones in, since Cree are kinda fitting in with the later eras).
It's absolutely possible to have the same city with different spelling/names in one game. Say what you want, but Constantinople and Istanbul are the same city. Yet, Byzance (which capital was originally Byzance (I don't know the real name in english) and give its name to the civilization... do not know what they didn't kept the same name) and Ottoman were in Civ V. Do not see the problem (except... exactly the same name could be confusing...)
But, moreover, if we do an Renaissance Italian civ in Civ VI, Rome is not compulsory at all. Orléans is not in the civ list of France, and yet it's the second city of the country in all aspects. When I think about Italy, I think Firenze, Milan, Venice and Napoli first. Rome come way after.
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
