Germany Video

[Scaramanga]

I don't think any kind of historical statement is trying to be made with the U-Boat, it's just for gameplay/balance purposes. If everyone fielded their best land troop that had one, there would be a lot of double knockouts. Also, Frederick has enough military bonuses himself that with a land UU he could adopt Democracy and still destroy everyone in battle, but now you have to think big in order to leverage a submarine. The U-boat is so specific in its task of breaking up a hostile "Atlantic" trading bloc rather than becoming a naval power that the land power aspect should still shine through.

 

[King Jason]

I for one look forward to a Communist Germany.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I for one look forward to a Communist Germany.

If nothing else they'd have a great anthem

 

[stealth_nsk]

this picture is anachronistic too.
plate armor is a 15th century thing, that is 3 ages after barbarossa
its like george washington wearing a kevlar helmet with night vision goggles

Full plate armor is XIII century thing, which is within a century from Barbarossa and we have parts of plate armor from XII century during his reign. Barbarossa having one of the early prototypes of almost full plate armor is within historical possibility.

 

[cakes]

Full plate armor is XIII century thing, which is within a century from Barbarossa and we have parts of plate armor from XII century during his reign. Barbarossa having one of the early prototypes of almost full plate armor is within historical possibility.

i haven't done any specific research into the portrait that the character is based on but it was a convention of portraits to depict (early modern) leaders in armour even if they weren't a battlefield leader. it's anachronistic but it's not as ridiculous as the person you're replying to has implied with washington wearing kevlar because it's not a convention to depict leaders in kevlar.

 

[stealth_nsk]

i haven't done any specific research into the portrait that the character is based on but it was a convention of portraits to depict (early modern) leaders in armour even if they weren't a battlefield leader. it's anachronistic but it's not as ridiculous as the person you're replying to has implied with washington wearing kevlar because it's not a convention to depict leaders in kevlar.

So:
- Yes, that's anachronistic to have full plate in the XII century, but not that dramatic. We know about iron breastplates of 1190 and some other plate armor pieces.
- Your argument about portraying leaders in full armor is valid too. It may be more important for Civ game to show leader as he was remembered, not the actual person.

So, personally, I'm not concerned. Surely, that's totally subjective.

 

[zwei833]

However, I wish Germany had gotten a land UU. It just doesn't feel right for this Civ not to have one. There are a million good options, from the Teutonic Knight to the Doppelsoldner to the Uhlan to the Needle Gunner to the WWI Stormtrooper to the Panzer to the Leopard 2. I would've gladly scrapped the city-state combat bonus for any of those.

I like nearly all elements of Germany in Civ 6 but I prefer land units too, hope modders can make it come true.

 

[zwei833]

Plate armour of the emperor is history inaccurate but I'm glad to see it this time.

 

[killmeplease]

Full plate armor is XIII century thing, which is within a century from Barbarossa and we have parts of plate armor from XII century during his reign. Barbarossa having one of the early prototypes of almost full plate armor is within historical possibility.

really? maybe you're confusing plate armor with brigandine, it was made from the late 12th century but it was not solid-forged.
13th century plate armour - could you provide a proof?

 

[stealth_nsk]

really? maybe you're confusing plate armor with brigandine, it was made from the late 12th century but it was not solid-forged.
13th century plate armour - could you provide a proof?

We know iron breastplate of 1190 - I've found several sources mentioning it. That's the year of Barbarossa death. Some other plate elements of armors were known from this period as well. Of course, these aren't full plate.

 

[Tantor]

I see people cry for a land unit as an UU. I think the Uboot is perfect as it is to create some diversity. Even without a land UU the Krauts are formidable as a militaristic civ.

They get production boni via Hanse, they can increase the efficiency of their military through an extra military slot in the goverment, they can have military districts all over the place as their "bonus- district" and the can whip City-state ass better than anybody else.

Do they really need a landbased UU on top of that??????????

 

[isau]

Shrug on the plate armor, because in this game Barbie will be wearing plate in 4000 BC and still wearing it in 2050 AD. The armor looks like his picture and that is good enough for me.

 

[zwei833]

I see people cry for a land unit as an UU. I think the Uboot is perfect as it is to create some diversity. Even without a land UU the Krauts are formidable as a militaristic civ.

They get production boni via Hanse, they can increase the efficiency of their military through an extra military slot in the goverment, they can have military districts all over the place as their "bonus- district" and the can whip City-state ass better than anybody else.

Do they really need a landbased UU on top of that??????????

While I say I need a land UU, I just want to see a German land unit in history which I'm interested in, don't care about balance or efficiency or power or somewhat.

Don't know what other people think though.

Shrug on the plate armor, because in this game Barbie will be wearing plate in 4000 BC and still wearing it in 2050 AD. The armor looks like his picture and that is good enough for me.

I agree.

 

[Lord MacLeod]

Full plate armor is XIII century thing, which is within a century from Barbarossa and we have parts of plate armor from XII century during his reign. Barbarossa having one of the early prototypes of almost full plate armor is within historical possibility.

First of all, I'd like to apologize - this being my first post on this forum and directly jumping right into discussion - sorry, I don't want to alienate the community.

However, the depiction of Barbarossa in *full* plate armor ist completely wrong.

While many people believe plate armor is typical and iconic for medieval knights, it is not. De facto, FULL plate armor is an invention/on-going development in the so called "early modern age", while starting in the late middle ages. In Western Europe, plate armorer craftmanship reached its peak around 1550, while the 17th century slowly led to its decline (especially the 30 years' war proved them to be ineffective).

Full plate armor was an answer to increased firepower during the late middle ages, the English longbow and, of course, firearms, to name it.

You may somewhat call the "Battle of Agincourt" in 1415 a "watershed", which led to the urge to develop better protection.

However, Barbarossa died in 1190, he was a high middle ages contemporary.
During that time, those types of armor (mainly chainmail) would have been appropriate:



Especially Images 1-4

 

[zwei833]

First of all, I'd like to apologize - this being my first post on this forum and directly jumping right into discussion - sorry, I don't want to alienate the community.

However, the depiction of Barbarossa in *full* plate armor ist completely wrong.

While many people believe plate armor is typical and iconic for medieval knights, it is not. De facto, FULL plate armor is an invention/on-going development in the so called "early modern age", while starting in the late middle ages. In Western Europe, plate armorer craftmanship reached its peak around 1550, while the 17th century slowly led to its decline (especially the 30 years' war proved them to be ineffective).

Full plate armor was an answer to increased firepower during the late middle ages, the English longbow and, of course, firearms, to name it.

You may somewhat call the "Battle of Agincourt" in 1415 a "watershed", which led to the urge to develop better protection.

However, Barbarossa died in 1190, he was a high middle ages contemporary.
During that time, those types of armor (mainly chainmail) would have been appropriate:



Especially Images 1-4

I don't think this is worth to argue. Everyone knows Barbie's full plate is historical-inaccurate. Just some people think it is acceptable and some people think it isn't.

 

[Lord MacLeod]

I don't think this is worth to argue. Everyone knows Barbie's full plate is historical-inaccurate. Just some people think it is acceptable and some people think it isn't.

Of course you're right. It is highly unlikely Firaxis would change the model/outfit, so complaining is futile.

However, being a historian by trade, this is somewhat annoying for me. It hurts.

 

[Silverdawn]

Cmon man, no Panzers? CiV's Panzerkampfwagen VI was an excellent match. Although U-Boat is also historically relevant, I would prefer tanks over submarines.

Peter called tanks first. He wanted his T-34s.

"The T-34 was a medium tank produced from 1940 to 1958. Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II." (Wikipedia)

 

[mbbcam]

First of all, I'd like to apologize - this being my first post on this forum and directly jumping right into discussion - sorry, I don't want to alienate the community.

However, the depiction of Barbarossa in *full* plate armor ist completely wrong.

While many people believe plate armor is typical and iconic for medieval knights, it is not. De facto, FULL plate armor is an invention/on-going development in the so called "early modern age", while starting in the late middle ages. In Western Europe, plate armorer craftmanship reached its peak around 1550, while the 17th century slowly led to its decline (especially the 30 years' war proved them to be ineffective).

Full plate armor was an answer to increased firepower during the late middle ages, the English longbow and, of course, firearms, to name it.

You may somewhat call the "Battle of Agincourt" in 1415 a "watershed", which led to the urge to develop better protection.

However, Barbarossa died in 1190, he was a high middle ages contemporary.
During that time, those types of armor (mainly chainmail) would have been appropriate:



Especially Images 1-4

I have to say that when I first saw the picture on these forums, I thought it was Charles V they had chosen to represent.

 

[Lord MacLeod]

I have to say that when I first saw the picture on these forums, I thought it was Charles V they had chosen to represent.

Would have been a better choice in my eyes, if they desperately wanted to display plate armor on a ruler

Nevertheless, Charles V. would have been a bad choice for a "German" ruler; there's a famous (mis)quotation from him saying: "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse."

 

[historix69]

Peter called tanks first. He wanted his T-34s.

"The T-34 was a medium tank produced from 1940 to 1958. Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II." (Wikipedia)

The T-34 was a medium tank for mass production. The soviets built ca. 35.000 T-34 and ca. 29.500 T34-85 in 1941-45.
In comparison he Germans built around 6.250 PzIII, 8.250 PzIV, 6.000 PzV and less than 2.000 PzVI until end of WW2.
(all numbers from wikipedia)

The T34 was superior to german medium tanks in 1941, but Germany improved armour and armament of its medium tanks (e.g. Panzer IV) and developed new types of heavy tanks (Panzer V Panther and Panzer VI Tiger) which could destroy a T34 in 2km distance with one central hit while their front armour was impenetrable for the T34's gun. As a result the soviets developed the T34-85 with increased firepower.

It would be interesting to have 2 civs with tank UUs in a game, one with effective but cheap mass production medium tanks and one with an additional high quality and high cost heavy tank type. However in warfare difficult terrain, air superiority and artillery often negate a superiority in tanks.