Germany needs a buff: my ideas

[Randall Turner]

Well, you could do worse than give the Germans an industrial special ability. My point is that you can't support it with statistics from the post-unification period without acknowledging that the UK and US deserve it more.

NicTeos - First of all, Taegen's post is just incorrect. He's giving incorrect information. The USA's gross national product did indeed exceed that of the rest of the world combined right during the period we're talking about, ie, from Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" indirectly through a US Navy historical website:

Spoiler :

from:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

excerpt:

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the sleeping giant was awakened and came looking for trouble. And even though the majority of America's war-making potential was slated for use against Germany (which was by far the most dangerous of the Axis foes, again for reasons of economics), there was still plenty left over for use against Japan. By mid-1942, even before U.S. force of arms was being dramatically felt globally, American factories were nevertheless beginning to make a material effect in the war's progress. The U.S. churned out seemingly endless quantities of equipment and provision which were then funnelled to not only our own forces, but to those of Great Britain and the USSR as well. By 1944, most of the other powers in the war, though still producing furiously, were beginning to max out their economies (i.e. production was stabilizing or plateauing). This resulted from destruction of industrial bases and constriction of resource pools (in the case of Germany and Japan), or through sheer exhaustion of manpower (in the case of Great Britain and, to an extent, the USSR). By contrast, the United States suffered from none of these difficulties, and as a consequence its economy grew at an annual rate of 15% throughout the war years. As scary as it sounds, by the end of the war, the United States was really just beginning to get 'warmed up.' It is perhaps not surprising that in 1945, the U.S. accounted for over 50% of total global GNP.

Note that Taegen's superficial graph cherry-picks GNP, avoiding peak USA production years, and that GNP is a poor representative of industrial power (or at least, very approximate) as it includes irrelevancies such as service industry etc. and doesn't take into account CapU, as mentioned in the "Grim..." site above. (Read it all, it's interesting, and Kennedy's book is a good overview.) It's (GNP) more of a nation's measure of gold-making, actually, than hammer-making potential in Civ V.

Likewise, your post re: exports is only tangentially relevant. Especially for countries like the Soviet Union, which while it had a powerful industrial capability was a bit of a dog vis a vis international markets.

Basically, Uniform Sierra, black humor aside, you got it right. When we think of Germany, we're not scared of raw production. I'm not afraid of them making stuff, I'm afraid of them making stuff and hitting me with it.

The USA will just frickin' bury you under a pile of materiel.

You're right, NicTeos, about the USA and Germany chasing the UK in industrial development. But the time period you pick, while Germany does well economically, the USA does stellar - then keeps it up into the present time period. You can't justify giving Germany a bump w/o addressing the USA.

(And by the by, how can we say Germany is weak w/o noting that the USA might be the most underpowered civ in the game?)

 

[CossackProblem]

Perhaps a war-activated UA? Something like when at war Great People production +50%; or hammer-production +10% etc. The UA needs changing, though. It's either overpowered, letting you steamroll early, or totally useless. Ottomans need a different one as well as they certainly have the most worthless UA in the game.

 

[Randall Turner]

Perhaps a war-activated UA? Something like when at war Great People production +50%; or hammer-production +10% etc. The UA needs changing, though. It's either overpowered, letting you steamroll early, or totally useless. Ottomans need a different one as well as they certainly have the most worthless UA in the game.

I agree. I'm coming to the conclusion that there are a few very powerful civ UA's and then a few that are essentially worthless.

(Though I'm not sure Germany's is the absolute worst, there are a few dogs.)

 

[aatami]

If you didn't know, the German UA is there because of (ancient) historical reasons.

 

[T_KCommanderbly]

Both the Ottomans and the Germans UAs rely on barabarians which is why they are so bad, the reason being it is to inconsistent and barbarians honestly mean little to nothing after the classical era IMO.

My Suggestion:
Blitzkreig: All Mounted and Armored get the "Logistics" (Two attacks) promotion.

 

[Jim Bro]

germany is one of the strongest civ. what are you talking about? the landsknecht cost half of pikemans and no other unique unit does that to begin with. plus their unique ability is one of the best too for the beginning of the game. to have 10 barbarians without production costs is priceless.

 

[Randall Turner]

It may be that their national attribute vis a vis picking up barbarians is better than some of us are giving it credit for, these things always depend on play style.

The impression I'm getting is that most of those that feel Germany is underpowered tend to play an infrastructure-building strategy.

 

[NicTeos]

The impression I'm getting is that most of those that feel Germany is underpowered tend to play an infrastructure-building strategy.

yes, I generally tend to play an infrastructure-building strategy. Also because you can't really use the brutes at begin to conquer too much, happiness and so. And with landsknecht you also can't conquer that much. They are good maybe good at defense, but not to conquer.
And for the brutes you have to play on a map with a setting, which allow many barbarians, and even then I would prefer other civs.

However with this UA, it would be better to rename them to germanic tribes, give them arminius as leader and old city names, but not modern.

 

[Randall Turner]

Hey, I have a question for you, Nic.

I'm in the modern era right now, and I've turned off computer battle simulations. I'm at war with Bismarck, and he's got a mix of panzers and modern armor.

I'm trying to keep my artillery and SAM units a safe distance away from their armor.

Question - when Bismarck upgrades his panzers to modern armor, do they keep their +1 movement? ie, do I need to allow for "5" movement on both their armor types, or just their actual panzer units?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, just a quick aside here.

Edit: yeah, I play infrastructure too. Just more fun for me.

 

[NicTeos]

actually I never played germany past renaissance, normally units keep all their upgrades/promotions, if it's a promotion, they should keep it- but actually don't know it exactly.

However I want to show that the UA don't fit, and even landsknecht.

Some nations make more sense other less.

Good examples :
Rome - not italy, ancient city names, augustus as leader for the empire, roman UU, and UA fits good to rome ( they are known for building much infrastructure and civilizing the world ( civis )) . If it would be Italy, it wouldn't fit that well. Rome isn't Italy.

Ancient egypt : ancient city names, ancient leader, ancient leader is also known for building much big buildings but also for a economical,cultural age - UU and UB are also good known. If the leader would be Cleopatra, maybe some stuff could need a change, but it isn't mamluk and I guess not that modern egypt. What could fit for both and over time would be something about the power of the nile.

middle:
right UA, but wrong leader, and may wrong name for the UA : france : ancien regime and napoleon. Ancien regime ended with french revolution in 1789, before napoleon. France however was the culture center, speaking french in the renaissance was a sign of culture and every other king tried to life like the french. Louis XIV, the sun king would be the best leader for the UA, but may find another name therefor.
Napoleon is known for code civil and his genious in politic,military. Liberté, égalité, fraternité , french revolution, democrazy in europe, but this also is a little bit against napoleon again. France have many faces.

Also like USA, the UA fits to the leader, but may this isn't USA at its highest power.
Washingtion and the war of independence, and going west. minuteman and the 25% discount on tiles fits good to this, while the +1 sight range is something which fits for USA for any time good. Scouting + special obs. Giving Washingtion industrial power wouldn't fit. Abraham Lincoln would represent more about slavery and the Union, strengthen the centralsm, the wild west, begin of industrialization ( cowboys and US cavalry). And Roosevelt however would represent the industrial,economical, military powerhouse. USA had for it short time very many faces, and a roosevelt-represented USA would make me happier in game. Still some + scouting, but also it's especially economical strength. Or some other more funny UA bonus : the need for oil : every unit, which need a ressource can also use oil instead, except uran . ( stealth bomber with oil and oil-driven horses )

india: maybe wrong UB.
India wasn't united* all too long in its history, like many modern nations. While Ghandi stands for peace, pacifism and india for its large population - it's UA fits very good, they are also well known for their elephants, but the mughal fort I would change to something towards caste system and it's spiruality.

worse : just wrong:
Germans - modern leader, modern city names, ancient UA, medieval UU, which breaks with modern germany's professional towards armies.
Bismarck stands for the german empire and the fight for its place under the sun. so 1870-1945 with breaks. A germany represented by Adenauer or Karl V or Arminius shows each another germany. German barbarian tribes aren't HRE isn't German Reich isn't federal republic of germany. There are many aspects of the long history are mixed into something rather senseless to the game.
With german tribes it could also represent : England, Netherlands, Switzerland,Austria, northern Italy*, Scandinavia*, Franks. With HRE still many other Nations. And with germany it represents west germany and east germany and in some way also austria.

Also China would have to need other UA/UB/UU with Mao.
Russia with Stalin is soviet union.
Victoria would change England towards commonwealth.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk would show turkey.

Some Civilizations just don't fit at the moment

--

And I hardly ever play game to the end.

 

[Randall Turner]

The problem with Germany is that they're trying to represent such a long history. They're trying to cover the early period (barbarians), medieval (Landsknechts), and modern (panzers). They can only pick one leader, Bismarck isn't such a bad choice.

The problem with America is that the defining national characteristic is ignored. re: Minutemen - The USA only had a militia-based military for a few decades, which ended with the War of 1812. re: LOS bump - honestly, that's not an expansion-based trait, it's more of a military ability.

As for the USA going "industrial" late - A lot of people think the US industrial development happened later than it did. The US was second in the world only to Britain during the Civil War, and by 1900 led the world. ie,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution

"By 1900, the leaders in industrial production were the U.S. with 24% of the world total, followed by Britain (19%), Germany (13%), Russia (9%) and France (7%)."

The modern assembly-line was even named after America, ie, "the American System of Manufacturing" -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_system_of_manufacturing

This was also known as the "Armory System" due to it's being perfected at the Springfield Armory in the 1820's - barely 50 years after the revolutionary war! It was then exported to Europe and other parts, but the USA held the lead in production throughout the industrial age by a large margin. (Not necessarily in military production, though - the USA hasn't had serious domestic threats to security like the European powers.)

And that, in a nutshell, is why I'm reluctant to see Germany's primary trait become industrialization - there's another country/civilization with a far better claim to it.

Concentrating Germany's special abilities more on the post-unification modern era - well, that's supportable, but it'll result in ignoring a large part of Germanic history.

 

[Talim [own]]

germans dont need buffs lmao

 

[NicTeos]

Concentrating Germany's special abilities more on the post-unification modern era - well, that's supportable, but it'll result in ignoring a large part of Germanic history.

not ignoring, but to get an image of a civilization, where each part fits together. Look at the examples and tell me other nations with such a senseless mix ? So it is not any germany.

 

[Randall Turner]

Not many others are significant through such a long span of time, though, Nic. When the Germanic tribes were giving the Roman Legions hell in Teutoburgerwald, most of the other countries weren't even a gleam in their mother's eye. Even France, the European country with the longest history, was a collection of Roman provinces.

Likewise, by Panzer time, all the classical civs were history.

The one that might compare is China, but they got sorta dominated by external powers in their later history (up until relatively recently).

Who else?

ps - Panzer movement - not sure, my Mandekalu cav loses their special ability on upgrading.

Edit: if you wanted a national ability that spanned centuries for the Germans, you'd probably go military. I know it's sort of a sore point with modern Germans, but you all were pretty consistently rowdy over the years.

 

[NicTeos]

france could be from franks on or even from celts. So a ancient UU, musketeers, De Gaulle as leader and getting Units from puppet city like from military city states ( from napoleon ). Won't make you happier.

The brits also from the celts on, over anglo-saxon, danish playground, england, British Emmpire. So the UU's they have, but as leader Churchill and as UA something with Norman conquest of England.

Mix Rome with Venice and Italy.

Mix Egypt with mamluk with egypt.

Mix atzecs with mexiko.

Mix persia - persia II - persia III- iran,

you can mix far more, but you won't be happy with it.

edit : with a national ability that would span centuries and would show the military aspect in better way than barbarians I'd be happier.

 

[Randall Turner]

There's a pretty significant cultural discontinuity with most of those examples. And/or that the civilization in question wasn't significant except for a limited time period.

The Germanic peoples kept their discrete cultural identity better than anybody else, and were major players.

British - completely different culture pre- and post-Norman Invasion. And they're not a Celtic culture at all anymore.

French - actually, might be your best counter-example. They did go with "France the nation" vs. "French including Gauls".

Aztecs/Mexico, Rome/Italy, huge culture break there.

Egypt and Persia - just not significant post-Ancient.

As for being "happy" - shoot, I don't care. We're just talking. Far as I'm concerned you can have the post-unification Germany, just give me a reasonably representative USA while we're changing things.

I have an idea that might work. Allow the Germans to adopt policies from the Autocracy policy branch earlier, and without disabling other branches.

Frederick the Great's government was able to support a disproportionately large military, it would be not-so-unrealistic to allow it in by the 1700's, ie, say renaissance.

Also, almost nobody takes the silly branch now, because you have to give up so many other useful policies. It would be interesting to have one civ going that route.

 

[NicTeos]

the culture breaks also often in germany as in the most other nation.

While many north/western european nations can be seen as descendant from german tribes, they are something new. Parts of the history are the same, but each era of a civilization breaks with the former culture. Also because era starts and ends with a major change.

In some way mexicans can be seen as descendants of atzecs and spanish ( 60% mestizo , mexican population )

When germany will be represented with one era, you can have your roosevelt?-USA

 

[aatami]

Also, just to note, the Germans are a top tier competitive multiplayer civ. Especially in competitive play 2vs2.

 

[NicTeos]

Autocrazy policy idea would fit far better. Fear the germans at the end of renaissance, good military production, and this tree had been made for germans.
But in gamebalance, you need something useful before. And this UA will be too strong at the end.
would have to analyze how many other nations with 2 UU have rather timeless UA and which also have very time-based UA's,

edit : instead of analyzing just improvements.

UA's name : Prussian jingoism.
1. autocrazy policies don't disables other branches.
2. with entering ancient times. Germany gets Autocrazy for free ( 33% less maintainence ), but can't chose further tiers. also some way to represent the hordes ... however this should be the early gamebalance advantage of germany
3. when germany enters renaissance they can chose tier 1 of autocrazy : populism and militarism ( rise of prussia )
4. when total war has ended, the social tree will be abandoned and can't be ennacted again - ever, 3 free cultural policies can be ennact after

and replace landsknecht with prussian soldier or krupp artillery - some late renaissance,early industrial UU besides Panzer.

This would capture the rise and fall of germany ( especially the german reich ) very well - ( the militaristic and not industrial/scientific/cultural aspect. mainly one era with one aspect )