Where is Genoa and Italian city-states?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Mediolanum is in the Roman city list.

Oh okay, but it's still just the Ancient Roman name for it so the name Milan could still be used.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I suspect there were plans for Genoa early on, with other Italian city states on Genoa's city list; that would be why none were initially included. But Genoa got cut, leaving the possibility of having it as DLC or in an xpac. So they haven't added any Italian city states in anticipation of adding them as part of a major civ down the line. Just my guess.

And to guess further - and this is much more speculative than the paragraph above - Italy in some form has a low chance of actually being included. It's a fun possibility to have on the list when deciding what civs to include, so it was probably on the list for the first set of DLC if not the original vanilla list. But complaints about there being too many European civs plus the peninsula already being occupied by Rome pushed it to the first xpac list, and similar complaints pushed it to the second xpac list. I suspect they've finalized the second xpac list by now; we'll hopefully know in a few months if it got cut again. But with no DLC in sight, if the second xpac is the last, I predict it got cut again because there are too many other worthy civs to include. But the decision to cut came too late to add any of the Italian city states as game city states.

I would agree with this, but am slightly more optimistic about their chances. I would say that the fact that no Italian city-states were added in R&F to replace old ones suggests that at least at that point they were still seriously thinking about having some form of Italy in the game. I am still quietly confident we'll see some form of Italy before the last content for Civ 6 is released.

 

[luigilime]

I really hope they put some form of Italy in the game, Venice in the previous iteration was a step forward, but I don't want a single city state to come back because it's the Italian civilization not the Florentine, nor the Venetian nor the Neapolitan, they are subgroups of the Italian culture like we'll never get the pelenquean civilization or the tikalian civilization but we're going to have the Mayan, even though they never unified in their history.
Italy is the only major western European country that have never appeared in the game before, here in Italy we all want it in, let's hope firaxis listens To one of it's bigger markets

 

[Zaarin]

I don't want to see an Italian civ, but there's no reason it shouldn't be done. The Medieval/Renaissance city-states were not just a latter day Rome: the collapse of the Empire and the influx of Germanic "barbarians" (along with Arabs in Sicily and Southern Italy) changed the cultures of the Italian city-states radically. I'd say the presence of Frederic Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, is a bigger impediment to a Medieval or Renaissance Italian civ than Rome, and I don't really see Barbarossa as an impediment there any more than Philip II blocked the Netherlands or Victoria blocked Scotland. My biggest objection to Italy is do we really need another European civ, especially when much more important European civs like Portugal, Sweden, Austria, and the Byzantines are still missing? (I suspect the Byzantines, Austria, and Sweden will sit out this game simply because, assuming no DLC, we're running low on slots for new civs, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see Portugal at least in the next EP.)

 

[luigilime]

I don't want to see an Italian civ, but there's no reason it shouldn't be done. The Medieval/Renaissance city-states were not just a latter day Rome: the collapse of the Empire and the influx of Germanic "barbarians" (along with Arabs in Sicily and Southern Italy) changed the cultures of the Italian city-states radically. I'd say the presence of Frederic Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, is a bigger impediment to a Medieval or Renaissance Italian civ than Rome, and I don't really see Barbarossa as an impediment there any more than Philip II blocked the Netherlands or Victoria blocked Scotland. My biggest objection to Italy is do we really need another European civ, especially when much more important European civs like Portugal, Sweden, Austria, and the Byzantines are still missing? (I suspect the Byzantines, Austria, and Sweden will sit out this game simply because, assuming no DLC, we're running low on slots for new civs, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see Portugal at least in the next EP.)

you're underrating italian influence in european history, which is greater than sweden and comparable to austria and portugal and the byzantines, i don't get why everyone hates adding too many european civilizations, i mean asia's history is made of huge empires, so the choices are limited to the number of civilizations, china, india, mongolia, persia are huge and with them you cover most of the continent along with russia; an opportunity is SE asia that was more fragmented for most of it's history, but still.
africa's history is a big question mark, only a few written records arrived to us so you don't have a lot to work with. in the americas everything has been pretty much destroyed of precolombian history, not a lot to work with here either, oceania is a bunch of scattered islands that didn't do much for most of it's history, with some exceptions of course. europe is easy to develop, with a lot of it's history accounted for in detail.
and besides that, come on we should have the mapuche and scotland in the game but italy isn't important enough? i mean i can understand the need for native americans, but "fighting the colonial oppressor" is getting used too much as a reason to be in the game imo.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My biggest objection to Italy is do we really need another European civ, especially when much more important European civs like Portugal, Sweden, Austria, and the Byzantines are still missing? (I suspect the Byzantines, Austria, and Sweden will sit out this game simply because, assuming no DLC, we're running low on slots for new civs, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see Portugal at least in the next EP.)

Honestly I would want Italy before any of those referring to my signature. I still want the Byzantines and Austria though, and Portugal is guaranteed to get in the game anyway. In a perfect world we would get all of those with Sweden too and more from Africa, the Americas, and the Middle East, and a Polynesian Civ. East Asia to me is pretty much the only one filled up in my opinion.

 

[Zaarin]

you're underrating italian influence in european history

Not at all, I'm well aware that the Italian city-states were major players in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Don't assume I'm unfamiliar with Italian history simply because it doesn't interest me.

i mean asia's history is made of huge empires

I agree that East Asia is quite saturated by now, but East Asia is not the world. There are still a good number of Near Eastern civilizations absent, and the New World has been practically ignored.

i don't get why everyone hates adding too many european civilizations

I certainly don't, but Civ6 got front-loaded with Europeans so that we already have most of the major players. Portugal and Austria are really the last ones missing, and in some ways they are accounted for: we have the Hapsburgs (Phillip II), we have the Holy Roman Empire, and coincidentally Phillip II also ruled Portugal (as he informs you when you meet him). The other major players missing are the Byzantines (but we have a glut of Greeks by now) and the Celts (but Firaxis screws them up every single time), but I can blithely live without them.

africa's history is a big question mark, only a few written records arrived to us so you don't have a lot to work with.

We're still lacking Ethiopia.

in the americas everything has been pretty much destroyed of precolombian history, not a lot to work with here either

If that's what you believe about American prehistory, protohistory, and indeed history, I suggest a great deal more reading on the subject is in order.

and besides that, come on we should have the mapuche and scotland in the game but italy isn't important enough?

I think the Mapuche were a great addition, but I would have happily swapped out Scotland for Italy. But exactly how many second-tier European nations do we need before we start populating the other regions of the world?

i mean i can understand the need for native americans, but "fighting the colonial oppressor" is getting used too much as a reason to be in the game imo.

Not by me it's not. Again, if you think that's the only reason to include Native American civilizations I would suggest you learn more about the indigenous peoples of the New World and the impressive civilizations they created.

Honestly I would want Italy before any of those referring to my signature. I still want the Byzantines and Austria though, and Portugal is guaranteed to get in the game anyway. In a perfect world we would get all of those with Sweden too and more from Africa, the Americas, and the Middle East, and a Polynesian Civ. East Asia to me is pretty much the only one filled up in my opinion.

I agree with all of this, but this not being a perfect world and the remaining slots to be filled dwindling, I would honestly be a bit annoyed if Italy were included in the next expansion--especially if, say, the Maya, Inca, Byzantines, Ottomans, Carthage, or either Babylon or Assyria were not. The Italian city-states flowered as financial and cultural powers for a brief period, but then that flower quickly withered and the focus shifted back to Northern Europe. The same is true of Sweden, of course, and I'd prefer not to see Sweden this time around, either, for the same reason. I suspect we'll get Portugal in the next expansion (I'm personally indifferent about Portugal, but I think its inclusion is inevitable), and I suspect we'll also get a second European civ: I hope it's not Italy or the Celts, and I hope it is Austria, Hungary, or Byzantium. Given how many Greeks we already have in the game, Byzantium's chances are probably slim, but with luck Austria and Hungary still have a chance.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with all of this, but this not being a perfect world and the remaining slots to be filled dwindling, I would honestly be a bit annoyed if Italy were included in the next expansion--especially if, say, the Maya, Inca, Byzantines, Ottomans, Carthage, or either Babylon or Assyria were not. The Italian city-states flowered as financial and cultural powers for a brief period, but then that flower quickly withered and the focus shifted back to Northern Europe. The same is true of Sweden, of course, and I'd prefer not to see Sweden this time around, either, for the same reason. I suspect we'll get Portugal in the next expansion (I'm personally indifferent about Portugal, but I think its inclusion is inevitable), and I suspect we'll also get a second European civ: I hope it's not Italy or the Celts, and I hope it is Austria, Hungary, or Byzantium. Given how many Greeks we already have in the game, Byzantium's chances are probably slim, but with luck Austria and Hungary still have a chance.

I can understand however I'm an optimist and believe if we don't get any DLC we might possibly get a third expansion making room to fit in Italy as well hopefully reaching close to 50 Civs.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The main problem for me would be what from Italian history to focus on.
In an ideal civ (which I know we won't get) I'd like to see the Goths (maybe with separate leaders and city lists for Visi- and Ostrogoths), Lombards, Sicily (Normans to Bourbons), and modern Italy. Not sure about the Papal States or the city-states of the north, they'd be harder to fit into the civ model.

 

[Karpius]

I find it very disappointing that we still have discussions about which civilizations are more *worthy* than others, or why certain civs should be avoided because they come from an area already well represented.

I enthusiastically welcome any civilization offered because no matter how they might appear on the surface, or how seemingly small their role seemed to be in history, it is just another unique flavor to add to my experience.

The game is not called "Nation-State". It is called Civilization and a civilization is an identifiable people and culture that might exist across borders or within a small part of a larger polity. A Civilization may change several time within the same region over the centuries. While there seems to be some resistance to having "Italy" (concept or nation) in the same game as Rome, there is no such resistance for other former regions of the Roman Empire. Using just Italy as a convenient example for now, there are dozens of distinct civilizations that could be represented just from that boot and the surrounding islands. Even the city of Rome itself could be represented in many incarnations since Romulus and Remus first suckled on that wolf teat.

Likewise, to suggest that lacking the same detail of written history as some other civilizations should somehow diminish a civ's inclusion is...disappointing at best. While admittedly we have less written information on much of the Americas, Africa and other regions of the world, there is certainly enough information to bring any of the myriad (and mean ALOT) civilizations to life in our game. Nor should we overlook the many regions that existed under one rule, but still maintained a civilization of their own.

The important thing to remember is, no matter how big and influential your preferred civ was in real history, it is still only starting the game at the same point in time and advancement as every other civ spawning in that game. Thats the beauty of the game, and I believe, the very intent of it.

 

[sukritact]

The main problem for me would be what from Italian history to focus on.

But that's a problem with any civ. India has ancient Stepwells and elephants led by a 20th century Gandhi. Germany has WWI U-boats, a district representing the Hanseatic League of city-states, and a Holy Roman Emperor: yet you'd somehow expect a Prussian Bismark to fit into this equation.

There's no reason you can't have a single Italian civ, give them a Duomo UB/UD for the Renaissance, Bersaglieri UU for the early modern period, a Risorgimento UA, then throw whatever else you want to onto the leader for added focus, regardless of whether the leader is Victor Emmanuel II or Matilda of Tuscany.

If you can lump the Maurya empire, the Mughal empire, a gazillion other Hindu kingdoms and Islamic sultanates, and modern India into one civ, paving over five religions, two distinct language families* and three millennia of history, you can certainly do the same for the closely related Italian city-states and the modern nation state that arose out of Risorgimento.

*to give you an idea of how distinct they are, Hindi and English belong to one family (Indo-European). The other major language family used in India is Dravidian, which includes Tamil and Telugu .

 

[AmazonQueen]

But that's a problem with any civ. India has ancient Stepwells and elephants led by a 20th century Gandhi. Germany has WWI U-boats, a district representing the Hanseatic League of city-states, and a Holy Roman Emperor: yet you'd somehow expect a Prussian Bismark to fit into this equation.

There's no reason you can't have a single Italian civ, give them a Duomo UB/UD for the Renaissance, Bersaglieri UU for the early modern period, a Risorgimento UA, then throw whatever else you want to onto the leader for added focus, regardless of whether the leader is Victor Emmanuel II or Matilda of Tuscany.

If you can lump the Maurya empire, the Mughal empire, a gazillion other Hindu kingdoms and Islamic sultanates, and modern India into one civ, paving over five religions, two distinct language families* and three millennia of history, you can certainly do the same for the closely related Italian city-states and the modern nation state that arose out of Risorgimento.

*to give you an idea of how distinct they are, Hindi and English belong to one family (Indo-European). The other major language family used in India is Dravidian, which includes Tamil and Telugu .

You can and probably theres more continuity between the various periods in Italian history than in Indian history but personally I'd ideally like to have multiple Indian civs too. I know, never going to happen.

 

[sukritact]

You can and probably theres more continuity between the various periods in Italian history than in Indian history but personally I'd ideally like to have multiple Indian civs too. I know, never going to happen.

I don't mind lumping them given Civ 6 has alternate leaders: it'd provide and excellent base for modders to stuff a bunch of alt-leaders into. They could even pull a Greece and give us both a modern and renaissance leader. Or two leader for two separate city-states

 

[Zaarin]

two distinct language families

Plus several smaller families and isolates, and minority communities speaking Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, Austronesian, Semitic, and non-Indo-Aryan Indo-European languages (one of which, English, is an official language of India). India is one of the most linguistically diverse regions on the planet.

I'd like to see the Goths (maybe with separate leaders and city lists for Visi- and Ostrogoths)

If we ever get the Goths (which would delight me greatly), they just beg for dual leaders.