Italy is a small territory in geographic size and population size, compared to the ones that the devs are debating on for a split (India, China, the whole east-Slavic territory…). If we start to split in many civs any territory that is comparable to Italy, we could end with 70+ civs. For an example, Iberia (Spain + Portugal) had such a mix of different cultures that it could deserve a split before Italy. A limit is needed, since we cannot find an infinite number of different bonuses for everyone.
1 Like
I don’t care about where the civ is, but unless you can use more of the underutilized units such as Lancers, Elephant units or Eagles then what exactly is being contributed to the game from a gameplay perspective?
If you can find such a civ in the middle of Europe that’s great but a unit only available to 2-5 civs is a war crime!
2 Likes
Italians don’t need a split, they just need something to make them a bit more exciting. To give them character, if it buffs them on land maps, then also a plus
As mentioned numerous times there’s almost nothing to attract players to play them.
Pavise doesn’t do much, and is worse than most archer civs natural bonuses.
Silk road is not that great and only useful in TGs.
Like it would be ok if one of their UTs was bad , so long as the other was amazing (Mongols) or if the civ itself had a lot of character so didn’t need defining UTs (Huns)
Italian bonuses themselves have neither character nor much impact. Every time we talk about Italians, someone defends them by talking about their tech tree. No one cares. Like literally a tiny minority of the player base picks a civ for it’s wide tech tree, and there’s better more exciting civs to pick.
They need something to incentivize picking them.
Example. Make italian condos better, but extremely gold heavy. So you get a proper powerspike, but unsustainable for too long. And infantry arent dominant in TGs, so they shouldn’t be overwhelming there either.
At the moment almost no one cares that Italians get condos. You’re more concerned about the Arb/BBC powerspike than a UU.
Italian civ bonus: condos +1/1 armour. + 3 damage
Condo price from 50/35 to 20/60
3 Likes
Other than Condos, Italians don’t need a buff, they are:
S tier on water
A tier on Closed and Hybrid
B tier on Arabia
Your weird obsession about mixing up unit lines for civis has nothing to do with my comment.
add 20 american civis they will all lack stable and will have the eagles to replace them not so different from the european civis or anyone else without these new unit lines.
Btw adding more italian factions can make the condo a regional unit.
1 Like
That’s true. But then neither did Saracens or slavs.
Sicilians, Burgundians, Incas didn’t need a nerf
But tbf I would be happy with at least just trialing some buff to italian condos
Slavs were weak, they needed a buff. Saracens got their useless feature removed, while Italians don’t have any of that. Inca villager rush was broken. Burgundian Coustillier one shoot anything even CA and Sicilians were broken with their 50 Serjeant First Crusade.
I think buffing this UT to apply to allies trade units will be good call. Reduce the discount to 40% if necessary.
In Imperial when gold is rare, it is actually a nerf.
Italians definitely do need some love on land maps to make them a bit more fun imo. I think the idea of Italians being able to train Archers/Crossbowmen/Arbalest from Barracks would be fun, unique and a buff on land maps. In return the fishing ship discount could be reduced from 15% → 10%.
What would people think of this change?
1 Like
Here’s a thing, You can’t blindly buff Condos because you can make Italians broken in early Imperial Age, long time ago Condos were used to kill all in early imperial because were too good at that, and very few units could stop Condos in early Imperial.
Stupidly broken, you won’t need to switch between buildings to go for archers and all you need is your initial barracks to start massing archers while opponent is building one to do that.
you won’t need to switch between buildings to go for archers and all you need is your initial barracks to start massing archers while opponent is building one to do that.
That’s the idea, gets a weak civ a couple units ahead
2 Likes
Archers from barracks/stable is mainly a arabia feudal boost, which the civ needs indeed.
Regarding the problem vs cavalry (no halbs) and the meh imperial UT, maybe you can just think of a UT buffing pikes in imp…
To follow up as to why Italy isn’t a priority, ebcause at most we’ll get three more DLCs if we are a blessed by the Gods, what we actually need are proper Viking, Persian CHinese and Korean hopefully Japanese Campaigns
Failing that while I HATED Szorza his campaign is pretty interesting. If we had another European DLC it wouldn’t be splitting the Italians, it would be Aragonese (who were definatel their own thing until more or less the War of Spanish Succession), the Serbs and maybe the Occitians in southernFrance, not split from the Franks any more than the Bugundians.
But honestly given the clamor, I’d take Armenia and Georgia if they could be included in a European pack.
As cool as a a fiver of
Venetians Aragonese Serbs, Armenians and Georgians would be it ain’t gonna happen. We only got the four in Indian Dynsties because the Pritivati only had to be retweeked not built.
And in any case, a DLC really needs to give the Asian lacks (Persia, China, Japan, Korea) their right and due
2 Likes
Its the Khmer bonus, it cant be that OP
1 Like
Khmer still needs to spend 50s to build archery range while this bonus allow training archer instantly upon hitting feudal. But considering 35s training time of archer, I am not quite sure will this bonus be OP.
2 Likes
Oh yeah, lets split Italians into 4 Archer and Navy civs with Monks 
Turn the game into EU4. You know, the concept of Italian Maritime Republics is a very common theme for them. Just making a civ because of some “Akshually” reasons, like “Didnt you know that Italy was not an united place but several independent city states”… That is not enough to warrant a civ. That you can tell in a campaign.
Like with that reason can split Teutons also into 10 civs because “Akshually the HRE were neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, just a loose idea”
Saracens also werent united, nor were Berbers, or Mongols, or Tatars represent 3 different things. So do Hindustanis.
Be aware what this game is about.
4 Likes
Well, some people ARE asking for a huge Teuton split, for some reason.
As for the Tatars, I actually think they are still way too umbrellaish. Look at how many different civs they stand as in the campaigns. However, I’m not sure the devs would have so many ideas to make Central Asia as diverse as it could be, with all civs getting their military focus almost exclusively on cavalry.
2 Likes
Teutons already got split though.
1 Like
Well, yeah, but you know what I’m actually talking about, don’t you? People advocating for a split into two or more German factions (not counting those who settled out of modern day Germany/Austria/Switzeland) can be quite vocal on this forum.
1 Like
Just because they would add civs from an area of the world doesn’t mean the region is being split up. Adding all of China enemies doesn’t mean Chinese civ needs to change. Filling up Mexico and South America doesn’t split the current civs from that area. I think the taking of this word is going a bit too extreme.
1 Like