Why is Italy never in Civ?

[BlackSpy]

In a game that allows Rome/ Byzantium/ Ottoman and Germany/ HRE you can see Firaxis tolerate overlap.

Italian states did great things in the late middle ages and were fundamental in almost every field to the direction of Western European civilisation, and so world civilisation, ever since.

I think the only reason the cluster of Italian states isn't in is because they never have been in.

 

[mechaerik]

And the fact that Europe is already very overrepresented.

 

[negZero]

In a game that allows Rome/ Byzantium/ Ottoman and Germany/ HRE you can see Firaxis tolerate overlap.

Italian states did great things in the late middle ages and were fundamental in almost every field to the direction of Western European civilisation, and so world civilisation, ever since.

I think the only reason the cluster of Italian states isn't in is because they never have been in.

Okay I can see how Rome and Byzantine can seen as overlapping, but the Ottomans? You do realize that they were foreign conquers of latter with distinct history, culture, etc,.

If Italy gets in because of the work of individual accomplishments that private citizens did (often not for Italy), the Israel should be allowed in as testament of accomplishments of the Jews.

 

[Evie]

In a game that allows Rome/ Byzantium/ Ottoman and Germany/ HRE you can see Firaxis tolerate overlap.

Italian states did great things in the late middle ages and were fundamental in almost every field to the direction of Western European civilisation, and so world civilisation, ever since.

I think the only reason the cluster of Italian states isn't in is because they never have been in.

And also, for Civ V specifically, because City-States are in the game, and they represent the Italian States better than any other options.

 

[Drago Askani]

Italy the home of really fat people who love pasta! Yes I can see why it should be included.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Italy the home of really fat people who love pasta! Yes I can see why it should be included.

Don't forget the people who judge everybody by their respective stereotype

 

[Tommy1234567890]

I still find it mind boggeling that Spain hasnt been confirmed. I mean they greatly contributed to the world advance.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Well as someone of mostly Italian decent, I can say that my ancestors certainly do not warrant a place in Civ5.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Even some of the European civilizations in Civ IV were kind of insignificant on the world stage. The Vikings are just as well represented by barbarians as by a civilization, because the real Vikings NEVER got together into a nation. It didn't happen.

And yet they're there...

 

[Herrhals]

Even some of the European civilizations in Civ IV were kind of insignificant on the world stage. The Vikings are just as well represented by barbarians as by a civilization, because the real Vikings NEVER got together into a nation. It didn't happen.

And yet they're there...

you're an idiot...as your name suggests. Vikings DIRECTLY influenced the future of England, for example as soon as the Romans went away. Canute and later the William the Conqueror of the Normans (meaning northern men, who originially came from Scandinavia) were the only powers to really influence England early on. The Russians too (Novgorod, Moscow, and Kievan rus) were all Viking tribes...I could go on.

The only reasons Europe started unifying in the slightest during these times was because someone needed to defend against the endless viking raids...not that it helped much. The Viking era waned ended after their conversion to Christianity, and bribes in the form of land and tribute (Normans, f.ex).

again, someone else who needs to be quiet and go home.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Yes, because being a total a-hole is the BEST way to win an argument.

So tell me then, O wise man, who was the king of the Vikings? Where was the Viking capital? Who ruled as an overking over every Viking tribe? Well?

 

[Perfection]

Well, I don't think complete unification is truly necessary to be a civilization. Within the Vikings, there were certainly very powerful large nations.

I suppose we could draw a parallel between them and the Aztecs or Greeks.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Thank you. You made your point without ad hominem attacks or sheer jerkishness.

Oh, why are swear words censored here...

You are right, they are much like the Greeks and the Aztecs.

You could also draw parallels to Holy Rome.

I was wrong... but at least I was civil.

 

[Thyrwyn]

This argument could all go away if Civs were representative of peoples, not countries. Which would be the best way to go about it anyway. . . Then the Italian/Roman people could both be included in one fell swoop.

'Course, then you have to get into the whole "Napoleon wasn't french, he was Corsican" thing, but still. . .

 

[Charles Martel]

Italy fully deserves to be in. The objections I’ve heard so far are either weak, or prejudiced, or motivated by a narrow game mechanics:

• “Italy hasn’t been remarkable enough since its unification (1860)”: This is a weak argument. Italy’s golden age was the Renaissance. One could even argue that, in Civ4 terms, Italy won cultural victory back then.

• “Renaissance Italy was too fragmented to count as a major civilization, and it can be represented only by minor city states such as Florence and Venice”: This is a weak rejoinder. Ancient Greece, Medieval Germany, Celtic and Aztec society were fragmented too. Yet nobody thinks that Greece doesn’t deserve to be playable, but should instead be represented by minor city states such as Athens and Sparta. Any arguments to the contrary confuse civilizations with national states. Sid Meier’s civilizations are meant to be just that, they aren’t necessarily meant to be unified national states.

• “Europe is over-represented, Firaxis needs to make room for non-European civs”: this one is baffling. If this argument is any good all, then it applies to all European civs, not just Italy. Yet, I’ve heard nobody saying that France or Germany should be excluded because there already are too many European civs. I can hear some replying: “But Italy is second-tier!”. No, it’s not: Renaissance Italy is first-tier.

• “Italy is already in the game as Rome”: this argument is highly dubious. The game has no dynamic way of simulating the collapse of ancient cultures and the rise of modern ones. (Exception: Rhye’s mod RFC does precisely that, but for certain reasons I disagree agree with, Rhye doesn’t think that ancient Rome should dynamically change into modern Italy). Even though modern Italy may be regarded in some sense as the closest continuation of ancient Rome, the game is currently too unsophisticated to simulate such a continuation relation.

• “The Italian geographical area is already occupied by the Roman Empire”: yes, but that’s bogus reason for exclusion. By the same token, the geographical area corresponding to modern France was occupied by the Roman Empire. As it has already been noted, Civ4 allows for extensive overlap – examples: HRE/Germany and Rome/Byzantium.

The reason why Italy is not included in Sid Meier’s Civilization has nothing to do with Italy’s relative historical merits: the game mechanics is just too narrow - too few civs, no dynamic fall of ancient civs and rise of modern ones.

 

[Danielos]

What would you suggest be the unique unit for Italy, Charles? Frogmen that can put mines under enemy capital ships and disable them for a time (from WW2), perhaps?

I wouldn´t really mind modern Italy in. The problem is who you then have to take out, since Firaxis can´t make an unlimited number of civilizations. I want South America, Africa and Asia to be properly represented for completion.

 

[CornPlanter]

As it has already been noted, Civ4 allows for extensive overlap – examples: HRE/Germany and Rome/Byzantium.

Decisions are not based on one single aspect, be it overlapping or significance or whatever else. And that's why people gave more than one reason why Italy is not in.

Anyway, so far there are no two nations with the same capital city in Civ.

 

[Charles Martel]

What would you suggest be the unique unit for Italy, Charles? Frogmen that can put mines under enemy capital ships and disable them for a time (from WW2), perhaps?

As UU for Italy I'd sugges: Compagnie di Ventura aka Masnade (Mercenary Bands). These were experienced mercenary troops employed by Renaissance city-states.
As leader I'd suggest: Lorenzo the Magnificent, with a patronage flavour, e.g. great people oriented.

(If Italy were in, I'd rather put the emphasis on the Renaissance period. But for more modern scenarios I'd suggest: Cavour as leader, with a diplomacy flavour, and bersaglieri as unique unit.)

Decisions are not based on one single aspect, be it overlapping or significance or whatever else. And that's why people gave more than one reason why Italy is not in. Anyway, so far there are no two nations with the same capital city in Civ.

Yes, there are several bad reasons as to why Italy is not in, but I don’t see how putting all those bad reasons together makes up a good case for exclusion.

By the way, in Civ4 there are in fact three civilizations that have a capital city in common: Constantinople was the imperial capital of the Roman, Bynzatine and Ottoman empires.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

This thread reminds me of Poland.

 

[Chimera1804]

(emphasis mine)

• “Renaissance Italy was too fragmented to count as a major civilization, and it can be represented only by minor city states such as Florence and Venice”: This is a weak rejoinder. Ancient Greece, Medieval Germany, Celtic and Aztec society were fragmented too. Yet nobody thinks that Greece doesn’t deserve to be playable, but should instead be represented by minor city states such as Athens and Sparta. Any arguments to the contrary confuse civilizations with national states. Sid Meier’s civilizations are meant to be just that, they aren’t necessarily meant to be unified national states.

Key difference here between Ancient Greece and Renaissance/Modern Italy: The Greeks actually came together and formed a massive empire under Alexander the Great. Sure Greece STARTED as a collection of city-states but it was unified and became a world power (if not the world power of the time). Italy just hasn't done that. In addition to their militaristic conquests, the Greeks also would have achieved the "cultural" victory you said Italy would have achieved (Parthanon, oracle at delphi, Olympics, Statue of Zeus, just to name a few things).