???
Genoese were lombards
Thats not really true. Only ones that maybe do that are Goths
Nope. Genoese are not lombards. Lombards city are Milan, Pavia, Como, and the like. Genoa was different. They even wete culturally from two different cultures in ancient times were lombardy was colonized by celts while Liguria (the regions of Genoa) wasn’t
Werent all the integrants of the Kingdom.of Italy (the one of the HRE, not the modern one) Lombard Kingdoms?
FE won’t split original civs. I would bet they doing it on the forgotten expansion… but the italians are not that interesting and divided like India
2 Likes
Franks and teutons have already been split…
1 Like
Cumans and Tatars can also be seen as splits from the Turks.
1 Like
Umbrella splitting is already a thing with DE so obviously more civis will get split.
I don’t see this way. Bohemians and Burgundians were not even part of Teutons and Franks
3 Likes
Teutons and Slavs AI names included Bohemian rulers so…
1 Like
Burgundy is literally a french duchy and also was part of the HRE. Bohemia was also part of the HRE
I suggest playing through the Barbarossa campaign, it explains there that even in spite of the best efforts of the Emperor of the HRE, the Italian city-states remained relatively independent, militarily and culturally throughout the Reinaissance. It was only during the Napoleonic era that Italy as a country was subjugated and lost its independence.
No they never felt like One people. They barely started considering themself as one only After Battle of Legnano, but they stelle felt no bond to each other. Milanese hated people of other nearby cities just as much they were hated by them
And Genoa was pretty fare from these politics, living his whole Life on the sea, battling Pisa. They never felt lombards or anithing like that
Its not about feeling or not feeling. Portuguese may feel diferent from the rest of the Iberians, but they were just as diferent to Castillians as Aragonese
portuguese felt different and were different and infact we have them in the game. so why would Lombards be a problem if we rename “italians” into another civ like venetians or Sea Republics of Italy? other examples are like mongols, tatars and cumans, which were basically the same thing. all in the game as separate civs
or huns which were a made up population which was closer to goths than many may think, but still in the game.
Italians have all the rights to be splitted imho, then you might disagree of course
No lol. Not even close (culturally, that is). Cumans and Mongols werent close at all
They werent diferent from the rest of Iberians to be separated from them
And tbh I think it was arbitrary
this is merely your opinion. the fact that spanish and portuguese and tatars and mongols are in the games show that civ with little to no cultural diversity can be in the game.
those civs do not even feel like completely different when played tbf (both mongols and tatars have cavalry archer focus, both spanish and portuguese have gunpowder and naval), while lombards would have a completely different playstile than the italians we have in the game atm, and even a very unique unique unit available as a possiblity
but again, this in my opinion, you have all rights to have a different one, just do not say there is obsolutely no reason to split italians
Cumans and Tatars should have been one civ under the name Tatars. They would have represented all the steppe turkic peoples. The Cuman-Tatar split seem to be arbitrary, with Cuman trying to represent all the pontic-caspian turkic peoples, but the name doesn’t reflect it. Now you have people asking for Khazars as their own civ, when a single Tatars civ could have covered them perfectly.
Mongols don’t even share the same family language with Tatars and Cumans, I don’t see how they’re basically the same thing. Living in yurts doesn’t make them the same culture.
And about Italians, Lombards, Genoese, Papal States, etc… You think they deserve their own civilizations. Yeah, sure. They do. As the civs numer 150 or so (I hope we never get to that number). There are other priorites before that.
1 Like
If the Cumans are represented by the Turkic peoples in Eastern Europe and the north of the Caucasus, then should it be the Cumans rather than the Tatars who can perfectly cover the Khazars?
Indeed. Currently Cumans are also mean to represent Khazars. There are one or two AI leader names that were Khazar rulers.
But historically Cumans and Khazars were disctint peoples. Even Kipchaks were not cuman either.
What I tried to say is that Cumans is a very specific name meant to represent a subgroup of turkic peoples. While Tatars could have been used to represent all steppe turkic peoples.
Maybe because Cumans only represent the steppe people of the eurasian steppe (Khazars, Kipchaks, Pechengs), while Tatars represent the steppe people of central Asia (Gokturks, Oghuz, Kara Khanid, Chagatai)
2 Likes