Well, I want Sweden to be included. They were a major European nation for several decades.
Why is Italy never in Civ?
- Thread starter Tamed
- Start date
- Status
Well, I want Sweden to be included. They were a major European nation for several decades.
eireksten
Protective/Organized
While my opninion really doesn't matter, it goes something like this:
Apart from the greatest (most widely known for their influence on history) civilizations through time, I don't see why impact on history should be the lone factor in deciding who's in and who's not. Geography and cultural diversity is a lot more important when it comes to gameplay and fun.
So really, after adding the 3-5 most significant civilizations, I'd like the developers to aim for a geographically spread out distribution of civs. As long as they are significant compared to (or at least different from) their peers (like Songhai, the Incas, the Aztecs and the mongolians obviously were), I'm happy. More so than adding more second-tier european civs. No offense, but I don't consider Italy so important that they are a must.
Remember that this isn't some history simulation, but a remake. In our "new" version of history, the european nations/civilization might not become as influential, and science could be dominated by Montezuma, Ghengis Khan and Askia Muhammad
Apart from the greatest (most widely known for their influence on history) civilizations through time, I don't see why impact on history should be the lone factor in deciding who's in and who's not. Geography and cultural diversity is a lot more important when it comes to gameplay and fun.
So really, after adding the 3-5 most significant civilizations, I'd like the developers to aim for a geographically spread out distribution of civs. As long as they are significant compared to (or at least different from) their peers (like Songhai, the Incas, the Aztecs and the mongolians obviously were), I'm happy. More so than adding more second-tier european civs. No offense, but I don't consider Italy so important that they are a must.
Remember that this isn't some history simulation, but a remake. In our "new" version of history, the european nations/civilization might not become as influential, and science could be dominated by Montezuma, Ghengis Khan and Askia Muhammad
All the leaders included in civ5 represent the height of that civilization's achievement. Rome was perhaps one of the greatest/organized empires in history, and Italy is just the leftovers. It would be redundant to have both, and I dont think a sane developer would choose Italy over Rome in a civilization game. It has nothing to do with you feeling Roman, it is all about who would be fun to play for the majority of the civilization community.
Italy is important, and if Rome had never existed Italy would warrent discussion for being included. However Rome does exist, Rome was an Italian Civ, and Rome's achievements far surpass those of Italy. They were more successful militarily than Italy, they developed critically important technologies, and they developed a culture which has influenced greatly every civ that has followed them, including Italy.
Rome is the obvious choice when considering Rome and Italy. Both is not an option as it would mean double reperesentation for Italians, would over crowd Europe even further, and would result in another worthy civ not being represented at all.
Some people's nations don't have any representation at all. Be happy with Rome, and look at the added Italian city states as gravy on top of that.
Rome is the obvious choice when considering Rome and Italy. Both is not an option as it would mean double reperesentation for Italians, would over crowd Europe even further, and would result in another worthy civ not being represented at all.
Some people's nations don't have any representation at all. Be happy with Rome, and look at the added Italian city states as gravy on top of that.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Why is this thread missing the obvious answer; Italy as a nation didn't exist until the 19th century, and before then it was just a collection of rival states. So "Italy's" contribution to history as a unified entity? Minimal.
Italian city state (which had huge contributions to history and culture) seem likely to get plenty of representation in City State names.
Italian city state (which had huge contributions to history and culture) seem likely to get plenty of representation in City State names.
Ahriman
Tyrant
So?
Prussia (including big parts of Germany) exists for quite some time, so there is certainly a significant German nation going back to the 18th century, and even the HRE was more united than the Italian city states.
And Germany, since inception, has had rather more impact on the world than Italy has.
Its obvious to me that the reason for Italian exclusion is the inclusion of Rome combined with the non-existence of an Italian nation until recently (and a relatively unimportant history since then).
It would be rather like including Mexico, as well as the Aztecs. Mexico exists as a Nation before Italy does.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
It's a combination of a couple reasons:
Overcrowding on a real world map, overabundance of European civs, and the fact that Italy doesn't have a great reputation of success from 1860 onward.
Purtroppo, non penso che L'Italia sarà in Civilization.
EDIT:
Victor Emmanuel II if we're talking about the Nation-State of Italy. Lorenzo de' Medici, Ludovico Sforza, or Enrico Dandolo if they're talking about the Renaissance Italian culture.
What about their proud Renaissance accomplishments?
Overcrowding on a real world map, overabundance of European civs, and the fact that Italy doesn't have a great reputation of success from 1860 onward.
Purtroppo, non penso che L'Italia sarà in Civilization.
EDIT:
Victor Emmanuel II if we're talking about the Nation-State of Italy. Lorenzo de' Medici, Ludovico Sforza, or Enrico Dandolo if they're talking about the Renaissance Italian culture.
What about their proud Renaissance accomplishments?
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Have I mentioned no one EVER realizes Austria was one of the strongest empires worldwide in the last few hundred years? ;-)
Sorry, I'm not being serious!
But I totally agree, there have been just too many very important empires in europe to include modern Italy. And it's nice to have a good mix of various nations from all continents, even if some less important countries are included.
Sorry, I'm not being serious!
But I totally agree, there have been just too many very important empires in europe to include modern Italy. And it's nice to have a good mix of various nations from all continents, even if some less important countries are included.
HRE wasn't even that strong. The central government didn't have much influence over the individual city-states. How is that more united? But that doesn't matter. HRE had it's own faction. In civ4 anyway, don't know about civ5.
Okay, I'll agree that Germany had more impact, but this game isn't about impact or else Tokugawa wouldn't be in this game. Italy can have leaders like Cavour and Mussoulini. Cavour united Italy, just like Bismarck united the German people. Bismarck is in the game, but Cavour isn't. Mussoulini probably doesn't belong or else we'd also have Hitler.
"I would be rather like including Mexico, as well as the Aztecs. Mexico exists as a Nation before Italy does."
Are you arguing that whichever civilization came first should exist?... Italy came to existence before the German Empire did so Germany shouldn't exist according to your logic?
With the many other factions, there's no reason there isn't Italy.
Mango Elephant
Deity
Besides the fact that there is already Rome and that Italy is 2nd tier compared to all the other europeon nations like England, France, Spain and Russia.
bonafide11
Worker
There's plenty of European civilizations already. No offense Italy, but you can play as Rome, you don't need Italy in there too. Firaxis tries to make the game diverse so they include civs from different regions. Fortunately it's not just about European civilizations.
And whoever called the Zulus "savages" is an idiot.
And whoever called the Zulus "savages" is an idiot.
Sciguy001
CiV Great Scientist (duh)
Italy is the practically just the continuation of the Romans. In history, the Roman empire lasted till the 300s. In civ it can last from ancient times to the modern era. Likewise, Italy did not exist in ancient times. The Rome in Civ practically takes the place of the Italian city-states at this time. Most accurately would be to change the name of the Roman empire to the Italian empire at year X during the game.
Mango Elephant
Deity
^ I've always liked that idea, like at year X the city Nidaros is automaticaly renamed Trondheim, or Gaul is renamed France
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Culturally, politically, and linguistically, it wasn't the continuation of the Roman Empire. Only geographically can you make the argument (then again, the same would apply for the Celts and French, no?). You might kind of argue ethnically, but not really. Sure they continued the "tradition" of the Roman empire but so did the rest of Europe including Russia.
Still, if I may defend the OP slightly, there is a scarcity of "modern" civilizations, that is recently created countries. We have like what, Germany and USA? It would be fun with another newly founded civ, but I still think the Romans would have to do, since there is such a clutter of European civs anyway...
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
The problem is the most successful modern countries have a lineage to an older culture. Examples being China, the Soviet Union, India, etc.
Italy and Germany definitely don't fall into this category. Unfortunately, it's hard to say that they've been equally successful since their foundings. The only nation you might be able to argue is Brazil and I don't think they've done enough yet (maybe for Civ VII
).
Italy and Germany definitely don't fall into this category. Unfortunately, it's hard to say that they've been equally successful since their foundings. The only nation you might be able to argue is Brazil and I don't think they've done enough yet (maybe for Civ VII
).May I humbly suggest that you read Guns, Germs and Steel? I'm not calling racism here but you do seem to have a eurocentric view of anthropology and that kind of thinking just has no place in reality. I know this because I used to think that way too. I was mistaken and now so too are you.
CornPlanter
Emperor
As a matter of fact, plenty of reasons were already posted.
this is a useless thread, really. Modern, United Italy has been nothing but weak and corrupt since inception(period)
All there's there are beaches and corrupt politicians getting their noses broken.
Be happy with the Romans being a civ and stop whining. If someone was to whine, it would be me about not having the Scandinavian people represented if the the Vikings are not confirmed, or Korean people not having a Korean Civ, etc
Also, calling any people savages or barbarian is totally childish and a case of ignorance. EVERY group of people have had their days of misery and have been called barbarian or savages by someone else. So be quiet and go away.
All there's there are beaches and corrupt politicians getting their noses broken.
Be happy with the Romans being a civ and stop whining. If someone was to whine, it would be me about not having the Scandinavian people represented if the the Vikings are not confirmed, or Korean people not having a Korean Civ, etc
Also, calling any people savages or barbarian is totally childish and a case of ignorance. EVERY group of people have had their days of misery and have been called barbarian or savages by someone else. So be quiet and go away.
- Status
