Are You Tired of European Civilizations in DLC(poll)

You are drawing the wrong conclusion from this poll. Its wording is very loaded. If you want to see a poll that uses neutral language and is therefore easier to interpret, please see [Polls] With regards to new civs II.


Here, let me post you another topic where the results did turn out in my favor.

Also, you don’t seem to understand the difference between this topic & that topic.

This topic asks you whether you are tierd/want European civs or not.
The other topic asks you what civs you prefer.

When it comes to whether the forum is more pro-European or anti-European this topic is more relevant.

Also, again in the topic you just linked me, @MUTYLATOR5553 made a poll asking this exact question.

The results? 15 yes for new European civs; 11 no for new European civs.


It’s not about new European civs for everyone, it’s about the timing, and that isn’t something this poll covers very well.


Your poll shows people arent against anothee European civ at some point down the road and thats it. The other poll shows that people would prefer something non European more though.

I dont think the civilization overview matters much now as the slavs have poland included in them as per the wiki.
While new kingdoms formed from the ruins of the Roman Empire in Western Europe, Slavic tribes settled the rich lands of Central and Eastern Europe and established formidable states of their own. Illuminate your populations with the teachings of Orthodoxy, recreate the rich farming and trade economies of Poland and Kievan Rus, assemble retinues of Boyars and Druzhina to defend the Russian principalities from the Mongols, or lead a charge of Winged Hussars to save Europe from Ottoman conquest!

1 Like

Superficial changes in this game can lead to drastic gameplay differences based on the overall balanced civ design intent, and those changes were spitball proposals I came up with them by looking at the Italian tech tree and looking over the Venetian wiki page. They were not a serious attempt at civ crafting. Are you wanting me to go the route of a LOTW civ and depart greatly from the existing formula instead, even though a lot of people seem to hate that type of style?

No, I want the civ to not just be an archer, gunpowder and naval civ with trade bonuses and such

1 Like

Then we agree, I don’t either. The Italians have that covered.

The way I envision Venice is that it would be a Naval/(Light) Cavalry/Defensive civ with a naval UU, a light cav UU, a trade bonus, and a naval bonus. That is mostly different than what the Italians offer, even allowing for a few overlapping areas between them. The bonuses wouldn’t be the same, the UT focuses wouldn’t be the same, the unit comps wouldn’t be the same, the build orders wouldn’t be the same. The only thing that is the same is the Naval civ classification and there being a trade bonus, and the bonus I have in mind for them is vastly different than cheaper trade units.

Venetians werent a light cavaory civ and if anything giving them Stradiot makes them.more like Italians. What I said is what Venetians would actually be like I believe and I honestly just dont see Venetians being made unique enough to be addef

1 Like

There were plenty of Italian states in the medieval era: Florenece, Naples, Sicily, Milan, Savoy, the civ “Italian” civ is clearly based on the Venetians already.

Also, I’d rather not open that can of worms again when we have a “Slavs” civ then: Polish, Bohemians, Bulgarians, etc.

1 Like

No its mainly based on Genoa.UU wonder coat of arms all are from genoa.


No. It’s mainly based on northern italy. It takes elements from the whole region.
UU, wonder and coat of arms from Genoa.
Navy oriented in reference to Venice and Genoa.
Condottieros from the whole northern Italy.
Cheaper age up in reference to the reinassance, which was prominent in Florence and Milan.
University bonus for the universities of Bologna, Padua, Roma, etc…

The italian city states and the papal states share a common cultural heritage. Even if “italians” is not an accurate term (A Kingdom of Italy existed in the middle ages as part of the HRE tho), it’s not wrong to group them all in a single civilization. Yes, even venetians. Yes, venetians were extremely relevant, and rich, and military powerful, but they still fit quite well sharing a civ with the rest of the italian cities.


I agree Italians are a representation of the whole region but the above poster is saying Italians are based off venetians mainly which is incorrect by looking at the game assets.Only thing venation about them is the full dock and 4 leader names.

I agree on this with everything except Venice. I see the Italians as the culmination of the former Kingdom of Italy and it’s successor city-states. there were 3 other major maritime states in this area for the duration of the Middle Ages, and they are all perfectly represented by the civ. Venetians, are not.

This sums it up perfectly.

1 Like

Lol their military totally fits Venice outside of the poor siege workshop and strong knights, and a weak siege workshop doesnt fit most Italian cities either.

Just leave them alone. Compared to Malay this isnt that bad at all

Then explain how they weren’t when they did use Stradiot, classified as light cavalry companies, in almost every major land military engagement to great effect as harrassers, flankers, etc? Part of the reason they became sought after in the west to begin with was their service record in the Venetian army, from where it eventually spread. I figure it’s a good way to reflect that entire point by using that classification.

Why, because they have FU LC? No it doesn’t. Magyars =/= Cumans just bc they both happen to have FU cav archers, different modifiers affect both of them, to a different degree, but you want to overlook that instead.

No, it really isn’t what they’d be like at all. It’s what you want them to be. Your bias is showing here.

It’s because you haven’t seriously tried. You’re just not willing to see it. I think I’m done trying to explain my reasoning to you, it just seems to me you’re dead set on them not being a thing so I’m just wasting my time now. Let’s just agree to disagree, okay?

Why, because I’ll seriously listen to you after you just talked down to me? No.


Italians have full upgraded Hussars.

Yes, they do? And is there no reason to think that, in a new civ, you could add something to differentiate the two? Either make a specific UU to address it specifically, or add modifiers to their line to differentiate it.

I know that that is the inclusion in the Italian tech tree that is meant to include the Venetians, but I honestly don’t think that just this does them justice.

I get why you would say that they are but Venetian cavalry itself sucked. Stradiots are mercenaries that arrived very late in the timeline

Because bad cavalry would be a good point to diferenciate them from Italy, and they just didnt have good native cav. And Cumans dont have good archers and thats one of the things that make them unique among steppe civs. If you give two civs diferent bonuses to the same focuses with a very similar tech tree they still feel sameish, like for example Bulgarians and Slavs.

Ok, from all that I have seen from them yes, they would be a lot like Italy. The Venetian concept in this forum made by a native Italian was really similar to Italy.

I believe that you see more than what they actually have, but I dont care much about Venice either. Just telling that from what I have seen in other civ designs they are just Italians

We have woad raiders from the iron age throwing axeman from the dark ages and hussite war wagons so where do you draw the line?

Bulgarians are slavs so they should have similar tech tress right? Venice should ideally have a tech tree similar to italians or byzantines with minor changes.

1 Like