What is your opinion on Venice possibly being included as a civ?

[cybrxkhan]

I think they want a civ with a unique language. Venice will be speaking Italian. Hungary didn't make the cut because as a nation it probably never rivaled Venice at its height and is already overlapped by Austria.

A Venetian leader should be speaking Venetian, not Italian. Or at least the Venetian dialect of Italian, but Venetian would be better.

 

[Gucumatz]

You are magnifying everything.
For every 3 civilizations you say that are missing in America I can bring up 6 that are missing in Europe and Asia.
So what if some are missing? You can't include every civilization. Just the very dominant ones.
And these are the Aztecs, the Maya and the Inca.
You can rightfully say that the Toltec or the Huari were indeed important and influential, but we don't have enough information about them and there are no known leaders of them, so they are in a lower priority.
I think that civilizations like Afghans, Kushans, Tamils, Burmese, Khmers, Gokturks, Hittites, Seljuqs, Xiongnu, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Bulgarians, Venetians, Congolese, or Malagasy are much more important AND documented, and also can represented a not fully represented area (except the Khmers and Venetians), those are in a higher priority to me than some more Mesoamericans.
Adding more of those Mesoamericans that you mentioned are similar to adding the Akkadians or Elam to the current game - they were important, but people will rightfully say - "there are greater empires for their spot, their area and their culture is already fully represented."
However I do support adding more CS like Teotihuacan (which is a classic CS).



Please, don't compare Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica.

Except there are documented leaders for the Toltec (several), the Huari/Wari (a few), and one big one for Tiwanaku. Look at the civs you listed lol... As we can see Venice has limited support. Many of the civs you listed have various problems with them (Tibet not possible because of Chinese market, overlaps, etc.)

Neither their area or cultures are fully represented either. And why not compare Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica, practically any respectable Archaeologist/Anthropologist does so. A city like Tula (Toltec capital), was grander than Hattusa for example. We have 4 Mesopotamian civs. We don't get the same ones every iteration of civ, but we do have more diversification. Toltec culture IE is greatly different than say the more barbarian/Chichimec Aztecs.

The majority of the civs you listed are both less important in general in their respective regions and about as equally documented. And for every 2:1 (That's called a ratio...), then explain to me which civs come on par with the ones I have listed then that are possibilities? Because certainly you haven't. Now not only are you not driving a point, you ignore the fact that diversity is taken into consideration and we do lack Native American civs. Should we have more Asian and African civs? Of course. Vietnam, Congo, Benin, Zimbabwe, the Swahili (As a confederation), would all be great civs

But don't compare a dichotomy, because you show both hypocriscy and a lack of historical knowledge by bringing up the civs you do and "lack of leaders"

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

A thousand years it was european economic and diplomatic power, so whats the question? Great choice for me. One of my favourite.

 

[JFD]

As the Official Nitpicker of Wording?

I meant as a Science Professor, IIRC, but that'd work.

 

[PerceeP927]

would be the worst choice of all time, good thing they didn't put Venice in

 

[Louis XXIV]

I am now slightly worried about the nature of Venice's possible inclusion due to the Hyperbole civ...

Honestly, I think the hypercube comment is so vague as to not be entirely worth guessing on. To me, Venice is much like its neighbors, so I'd be hesitant to think it were them too. That being said, in connection with the pcgamer comment about the bombshell civ, I do think it'll be Venice.

 

[codepoet]

A hypercube is a cube in extra dimensions... that unfolds into a set of six 3D cubes in the thought experiment (like a 3D cube unfolds into a set of 6 squares).

So if you run with the description to its extreme, the new civ is a civ that contains other civs eh?
Sounds like HRE (but that doesn't work with the alphabet theory)

 

[sukritact]

would be the worst choice of all time, good thing they didn't put Venice in

Do we KNOW they didn't?

 

[Yzman]

Do we KNOW they didn't?

No, people just seem to love stating their own desires as facts.

 

[sukritact]

Honestly, I think the hypercube comment is so vague as to not be entirely worth guessing on. To me, Venice is much like its neighbors, so I'd be hesitant to think it were them too. That being said, in connection with the pcgamer comment about the bombshell civ, I do think it'll be Venice.

Bombshells....

Maybe they can blow up wonders and cart them home as GWs?

 

[Cyanfunk]

would be the worst choice of all time, good thing they didn't put Venice in

 

[Cyanfunk]

Bombshells....

Maybe they can blow up wonders and cart them home as GWs?

Well, Venice did actually do that to the Parthenon.

 

[EulerMcE]

A hypercube is a cube in extra dimensions... that unfolds into a set of six 3D cubes in the thought experiment (like a 3D cube unfolds into a set of 6 squares).

Strictly speaking that's an example of a hypercube. Lines, squares and cubes are also hypercubes (and vertices/points if they're not defined out).

 

[Bfoxius]

I personally am on the "Okay, Venice sounds okay, but I would have liked something else" camp. I admit that I was harsh when criticizing the Italians on my early days on the forum. I personally like my civs geographically diverse and interesting, gameplay-wise. That's why I supported Cuba and the Iunit, despite their low importance compared to Italy. With the Iunit, we had a snow/tundra based civ, which is representing north Canada, a region frequently asked for with the Canadian civ requests. With Cuba, we had an almost perfect combo of ideologies and tourism, despite it's low significance. I disliked the idea of an Italian civ due to it being in the same region as Rome, and most likely representing a Renaissance-era Italy due to the Great Work system, despite Renaissance Italy being a collection of city-states. I believe that a Civ 5 Italy would be to me, a Holy Roman Empire (existing in places already occupied by other civs,) and a Native American Empire (lumping many civs/city-states into one). A united, modern Italy would be cool, but I do not think that it would be popular, due to the possible inclusion of Mussolini as its leader. I support Venice now because it does not fit the criteria of Italy, except for the geography one, and just barely. I still believe that they will shock us, and include the Empire of Svalbard and the Empire of Hati however.

 

[DonStamos]

A united Italy could be represented by its king, Victor Emmanuel II, to be fair. Or Garibaldi, or Cavour.

Overlap is also not a good argument against inclusion for any Civ whatsoever, since as people including myself have stated hundreds of times, if we disqualify civs on overlaps, we'd be left without a game. If the culture is different, then geographic location shouldn't matter.

 

[phaethon16]

I think they want a civ with a unique language. Venice will be speaking Italian. Hungary didn't make the cut because as a nation it probably never rivaled Venice at its height and is already overlapped by Austria.

Hungary owned most of Eastern Europe at its height, and helped bring down the Frankish Empire. Additionally, they were one of the few true kingdoms in Europe during the Middle Ages rivaled only by Muslims and the Vikings. Also, technically Venice was owned by Austria for a number of years and never gained the same prestige within the empire that Hungary did. I'm sorry, but even to people who support Venice, you have to admit that Hungary in its hay-day trumps Venice. The only reason they're not in instead is because they're too similar to Poland and it would be weird to have 2 eastern European civs in one expansion.

Sorry for the largeness of the picture, I don't know how to make it smaller.

 

[Peasley]

I don't like Venice much. I remain unpersuaded by the maps that everybody keeps plastering around whenever somebody questions whether Venice was an empire. "Look how much territory they control!" is always how the maps are presented, but it always looks piddly to me.

Whether the Venetians and their efforts to sack Thessolonica and Constantinople helped topple the Byzantines shouldn't matter. People kicked up a frenzy when the Huns were included for the reason that they were the scourge of Rome; this reasoning is really no different.

I smirked hard whenever people tried to make the absolutely-pitiful argument that this game is Native America-centric as opposed to Eurocentric. We have, by my count, 14 civilizations that represent Europe through the ages, not including the likely Venice. Compare this to one precolonial North American civ, two precolonial Mesoamerican civs, and one precolonial South American civ. Mesoamerica and the Andean highlands are as much a birthplace of civilization as Mesopotamia, but yet we tend to lump them together or diminish their own importance.

On that note, we have a grand total of two subsaharan African civs and two southeast Asian civs. These places are also woefully underrepresented.

That aid, Venice is still far better than some awful choice like Canada or Australia. I have some cool playstyle ideas for Israel, but I would venture to say that Venice is a better inclusion than them.

Overall? Venice isn't the worst thing, but they take up a spot that could go to any number of more interesting and diverse candidates.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't like Venice much. I remain unpersuaded by the maps that everybody keeps plastering around whenever somebody questions whether Venice was an empire. "Look how much territory they control!" is always how the maps are presented, but it always looks piddly to me.

Actually, the map gets posted in response to those who think that Venice had no other cities. The point is to show it wasn't a mere city-state that controlled only its surrounding territory and no other cities.

 

[Scaramanga]

Italy is more than Rome and Italians will be the first to tell you so. Italy is first and foremost a collection of semi-united regions and cities, joined by a common government and a common (official) language. Local sentiment and dialects still prevail over national ones. Communal memory is long and still revered.

The selection of Venice as a civilization is astute; Venetians self-identify with their unique city, culture and dialect. Their history as a self-governing entity predates that of the Italian state. Their contribution to Mediterranean history and particularly the history of the Renaissance is extensive. They invented modern banking practice, among other things. At their peak, they reached far beyond the borders of their own city and had influence in all the major capitals of Europe. Their representatives reached the Far East and brought back products and ideas never seen before in Europe.

In terms of cultural and scientific influence during and after the Renaissance, Venice may only have been eclipsed by Florence, but the latter did not have the economic reach or strength that Venice possessed in its heyday. I would have loved to see Florence in the game as a civilization, but the factors arguing for Venice's inclusion seem to me to be persuasive and undeniable.

Rome may be the capitol of the modern Italian state and seat of the Vatican, but Italian history did not center around the city of Rome after the Roman Empire collapsed. Even the construct of "Italy" as a state is a fairly modern one, still debated in Italy itself. So I disagree with your premise that Rome is the sole proper representative of the many cultures on the Italian peninsula.

Roman civilization is not the end all and be all of Italian civilization, that's a straw man. I'm saying that Rome is the logical capital associated with Italy.

 

[DonStamos]

Hungary owned most of Eastern Europe at its height, and helped bring down the Frankish Empire. Additionally, they were one of the few true kingdoms in Europe during the Middle Ages rivaled only by Muslims and the Vikings. Also, technically Venice was owned by Austria for a number of years and never gained the same prestige within the empire that Hungary did. I'm sorry, but even to people who support Venice, you have to admit that Hungary in its hay-day trumps Venice. The only reason they're not in instead is because they're too similar to Poland and it would be weird to have 2 eastern European civs in one expansion.

Sorry for the largeness of the picture, I don't know how to make it smaller.

Venice was independent from roughly the first half of the 800s to 1797, when it was conquered by Napoleon. Only later that year did it become part of Austria-Hungary, and then only by treaty with Napoleon.