Furor Teutonicus = Poor choice

[JohnBlack]

IMHO your arguments for a "modern Germany" UA don't quite fit in, since this is a game where Japans UA is about their bushido code... And the list of similar examples continues on and on.

Again, it's about reflecting what is truly a civ's trademark quality. To me, and I'm sure to a lot of others, the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Germany is not the ability to recruit barbarians as conscripts.

As Naresh points out, Japan's unique ability is both familiar and a widely recognized stereotype, as well as it fits with Oda Nobunaga, who, if I remember my history, was a central figure in the unification of Japan in the early to mid 16th century. Bismarck holds a similar position in Germany history. He is a typical 'Landesvater', a pivotal historical figure whose leadership laid the foundation for much of what is modern Germany. I believe it would make more sense if Germany's "unique ability" reflected this era in Germany history, rather than some distant past during which there was no such thing as 'a Germany'.

I've vested way too much time in this. Believe me when I say that I don't care that much. I never even play as them

 

[plainoldavid]

Perhaps a better UA for Bismarck, to reflect his achievements as a unifier (of Germany) would be zero unhappiness for any city annexed by the Reich (second german reich mind you not nazi third). This would reflect his great unifying ability. If zero is too OP then perhaps half the unhappiness?

 

[Mesix]

Perhaps a better UA for Bismarck, to reflect his achievements as a unifier (of Germany) would be zero unhappiness for any city annexed by the Reich (second german reich mind you not nazi third). This would reflect his great unifying ability. If zero is too OP then perhaps half the unhappiness?

I like the idea to have something to do with unifying Germany which is what Bismark is known for. Perhaps something to do with City States (the game equivalent to the minor kingdoms, principalities, and fiefdoms which made up modern Germany in the 1800s), but any good CS idea might overlap with Alexander or Genghis Kahn.

 

[steveg700]

Meh. Recruiting barbarians = unifying the locals. Close enough.

In my only game as Germany I went bankrupt because the UA gave me so many Barbarians...

Well, Germany didn't start with the discount on unit maintenance. That was tacked on later.

And of course, if you have too many units, you can always pocket the cash for deleting them.

 

[ferretbacon]

I've been thinking of ways to improve Germany's lackluster UA; I would like to play them, but I just think they're a little weak.

Some ideas I've had both retain the current UA, but add a bit to it (assuming we stick with the militaristic flavor for their UA, as opposed to pursuing a bonus to production as you suggest):

Furor Teutonicus: Upon defeating a Barbarian unit inside an encampment, there is a 50% chance you earn 25 Gold and they join your side; this unit is maintenance free. Pay 25% less for land unit maintenance. When at war with more than one civilization, melee units receive a 10% combat bonus.

That can be all together, or seperated out if it is too much, but these would make the UA a bit better I think. I kike the idea of making the barbarians you recruit maintenance free, just so they're not a liability. The combat bonus is meant to reflect Germany's ability to not only wage war effectively, but also on multiple fronts, as they've done on multiple occasions.

Honestly, if I were to edit my UA suggestion, I'd say the superior half is the 25% less land unit maintenance/combat bonus against multiple civs. I'd do away with that whole messy barbarian thing.

I also wish, on a related side note, that they would put the Holy Roman Empire back in and give them the Landschnekt (sp?), and try to make Germany reflect its more modern incarnation, retaining the Panzer, but adding something else, perhaps a UB that increases production, maybe a factory replacement or something. This would satisfy your desire to showcase their ability to outproduce and outmanufacture many other countries.

Considering the long history of the central European region, it is difficult to make Germany both ancient and modern. So make Germany modern and add in the Holy Roman Empire to reflect the slightly older flavor of that region.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I like the UA, but I would agree that it's a bit...off for a country less than 200 years old. They also have a UU that suffers from the same problem...

Funnily enough they work together to make something special, with the barb spearmen you take upgrading to landsknechts for virtually nothing.

It's not the only UA that's off. Nobel Prize is a bit strange, and if they wanted Sun Never Sets as the English UA, Victoria was the queen they wanted, not Elizabeth.

Never mind Gandhi practiced celebacy, yet gets Population Growth, which, ironically, is also one of the best warmongering UA's in the game.

Sometimes it can be a matter of gameplay trumps realism, but it's not like they couldn't have given the German UA/UU feel to another civ. In fact, it would have been a creative way to portray Carthage (under Hannibal), but there are certainly other civs in the game and out of it that could have been used, leaving Germany to it's correct time.

I have to say I find it strange how they do seem to push some civs to an earlier time than they should, but rarely do they use something from later...though that may be due to the fact a decent number of civs used still exist today.

 

[woodshadows]

I don't care greatly for the UA, but I think it's a good choice for Germany. The Germany of CiV is an attempt to represent the Germanic people through their various stages of evolution. Given that the Germanic peoples weren't largely unified for much of their history, overrepresenting their modern day incarnation through a UA that emphasises their productivity might be a bit of a stretch. Rather, their UA represents their classical barbarism, known in history as fearsome tribes that made even the Romans afraid. The Landsknechts represent their value as mercenary soldiers in the medieval era, employed by various monarchies across Europe. Finally their panzer represents the huge impact they had during World War 2. I'm sure it'd be nice to fit in some other things, but overall I think this about covers the German peoples history nicely, without overemphasizing any one area at the expense of others.

 

[woodshadows]

Again, it's about reflecting what is truly a civ's trademark quality. To me, and I'm sure to a lot of others, the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Germany is not the ability to recruit barbarians as conscripts.

read some Tacitus or Gibbon, Germans feature often in ancient history. peoples ignorance of classical Germany and thinking of Germany as only the modern nation state of World War 1 and 2 fame is kind of a weak argument for not including those parts of German history.

 

[ferretbacon]

read some Tacitus or Gibbon, Germans feature often in ancient history. peoples ignorance of classical Germany and thinking of Germany as only the modern nation state of World War 1 and 2 fame is kind of a weak argument for not including those parts of German history.

All things considered, Germany as a nation is a recent invention. I feel like the developers stretched themselves too thin with the German civ in that they are spread out over so much time, more so than almost any other civ in the game (most are at their "prime" in a certain time period).

Take the French, for example; if you did to them what was done to the Germans, you'd have some sort of Gallic warrior in the ancient era and the French Foreign Legion later on. With France, however, they chose wisely to represent the Kingdom and Nation of France, as opposed to previous iterations of the people who have lived in the same area.

It should be more about era and not area. Another example is stretching Rome to include Italy as well; you'd have the legions in the classical age and a Lamborghini factory in the modern or something. It just gets messy when you stretch any particular civ over too much time. They lose focus and, ultimately, identity.

 

[subanark]

How about:
When you control a city state's capitol, you gain the bonus they provide at the friend level.
City states don't declare war on if you are at war with their ally.

 

[woodshadows]

All things considered, Germany as a nation is a recent invention. I feel like the developers stretched themselves too thin with the German civ in that they are spread out over so much time, more so than almost any other civ in the game (most are at their "prime" in a certain time period).

Take the French, for example; if you did to them what was done to the Germans, you'd have some sort of Gallic warrior in the ancient era and the French Foreign Legion later on. With France, however, they chose wisely to represent the Kingdom and Nation of France, as opposed to previous iterations of the people who have lived in the same area.

It should be more about era and not area. Another example is stretching Rome to include Italy as well; you'd have the legions in the classical age and a Lamborghini factory in the modern or something. It just gets messy when you stretch any particular civ over too much time. They lose focus and, ultimately, identity.

i'd make a distinction though, the idea of 'the french' is something that formed over time, the area of france was dominated by celts and various other tribes over much of history, the same can't really be said of germans who have always been called 'germans' and have inhabited the same geographical area since at least classical times. the fact that the germans struggled to form into the modern conception of a 'nation state' shouldn't detract from the value of german history prior to that unification. anyways, i guess its a matter of interpretations, in any event i like the fact that different periods of germanic history have been included in the civ as opposed to just representing a prussian dominated modern german nation state which only gained much fame for being involved in two large modern wars.

 

[Art Grin]

I'm not a great fan of "Furor Teutonicus" either, but I can see what the devs were heading for with this UA and other choices made for Germany. They were trying to cover all the different eras of German history from ancient times till the second millennium A.D. and they more or less did it successfully.

Although there are ways of doing the same with different leader, UU and UA combinations.

For example:

Leader: Some Emperor form the middle-ages representing the Holy Roman Empire. There are lots of option over here and it shouldn't be hard to choose.
UA: An economic UA representing modern Germany and the German Empire.
Panzer: Can't have Germany without a tank UU.
UU2: Some swordsman/spearman replacement named after the Goth, Vandals or some other Germanic tribe from ancient times.

 

[ferretbacon]

It would be asking too much of Firaxis and would give undue attention to a relatively small region, but, ideally, I wouldn't mind Germany being split into three different civs: the Suebi for the barbarians that menaced Rome (sort of an infantry based version of the Huns), the Holy Roman Empire to represent the medieval/Renaissance, and Germany to represent the modern incarnation.

I'd imagine the Suebi would get a UA that gave them barbarians if they conquered a barbarian encampment with free unit maintenance for those bonus units, which, combined with a theoretical early melee UU, would make them a fair menace to other civs early game.

The Holy Roman Empire would inherit the Landschnekt and perhaps get some sort of religious flavor UA or perhaps something diplomatic to represent the fact that the Holy Roman Empire was a conferation of various regions.

Germany would keep its Panzer, and the UA would be 25% less unit maintenance and a combat bonus when at war with multiple foes, with perhaps a UB that bolsters production. If you want to get real crazy with the UA, perhaps start at 5% for war against two, 10% for war against three, 15% for war against four, etc. Probably over powered and could be exploitative (for instance, declare war against civs on another continent that can't really engage you in war to get a huge increase in combat effectiveness against a neighbor), but for the sake of whimsy and suggestion, it sure sounds like fun.

 

[Rooftrellen]

It would be asking too much of Firaxis and would give undue attention to a relatively small region, but, ideally, I wouldn't mind Germany being split into three different civs: the Suebi for the barbarians that menaced Rome (sort of an infantry based version of the Huns), the Holy Roman Empire to represent the medieval/Renaissance, and Germany to represent the modern incarnation.

I'd imagine the Suebi would get a UA that gave them barbarians if they conquered a barbarian encampment with free unit maintenance for those bonus units, which, combined with a theoretical early melee UU, would make them a fair menace to other civs early game.

The Holy Roman Empire would inherit the Landschnekt and perhaps get some sort of religious flavor UA or perhaps something diplomatic to represent the fact that the Holy Roman Empire was a conferation of various regions.

Germany would keep its Panzer, and the UA would be 25% less unit maintenance and a combat bonus when at war with multiple foes, with perhaps a UB that bolsters production. If you want to get real crazy with the UA, perhaps start at 5% for war against two, 10% for war against three, 15% for war against four, etc. Probably over powered and could be exploitative (for instance, declare war against civs on another continent that can't really engage you in war to get a huge increase in combat effectiveness against a neighbor), but for the sake of whimsy and suggestion, it sure sounds like fun.

Might as well.

Spain is a civ, but before Spain, most of that land would fall under Arabia, and Rome before that...then a good part of it belonged to Carthage before THAT, and the Celts were there before them.

Rome also controlled all of Greece and Egypt, and they came to control good portions of what is now Germany and England too.

History is full of one group taking over another, though force or culture. The history of the land we now call Germany is a good example of that. I think pushing them all together in one civ would be like not allowing Greece into the game because of cultural similarity with Rome and the fact Greece was under Roman rule for a huge amount of time...we'd probably need to do the same to Egypt as well, following the logic behind the German uniques grouping.

 

[Art Grin]

All things considered, Germany as a nation is a recent invention. I feel like the developers stretched themselves too thin with the German civ in that they are spread out over so much time, more so than almost any other civ in the game (most are at their "prime" in a certain time period).

Take the French, for example; if you did to them what was done to the Germans, you'd have some sort of Gallic warrior in the ancient era and the French Foreign Legion later on. With France, however, they chose wisely to represent the Kingdom and Nation of France, as opposed to previous iterations of the people who have lived in the same area.

It should be more about era and not area. Another example is stretching Rome to include Italy as well; you'd have the legions in the classical age and a Lamborghini factory in the modern or something. It just gets messy when you stretch any particular civ over too much time. They lose focus and, ultimately, identity.

They actually did the same thing with France as they did with the Germans. Gauls have nothing to do with the modern French as they were just a people living in the area before the Franks(who became the French) arrived.

UA "Anciene Regime": Post Louis XIV France or maybe even the medieval Kingdom
Musketeer: France under Louis XIV till French Revolution
Napoleon: Revolutionary France and Empire
French Foreign Legion: modern France

 

[animalguy]

To be honest, I dont see the need to change the German UA, as regardless of unification, it is still aspect of the areas history. By your standards alot of the UAs would be changing, just because they were not a part of the leaders history. Losen up it is just a game, it is not like its going to turn out hidtorically acurate.

 

[MisterSaturnine]

I myself like the idea of changing the UA to something like "Prussian Ingenuity," reducing unit maintenancs by 1/4, igranting manufactories +2 production and engineer specialists +2 production and +1 GPP. The UU stay the same. I feel this represents Germany well through the ages, but I've always hated furor tectonicus so maybe I'm biased.

 

[woodshadows]

I don't really think of the Ruhr Valley industralism as being closely tied with Prussian history personally. When I think Prussia I think militarism, conformity.. kind of the opposites of ingenuity. Really Prussia would have done well with Ethiopia's UA, tiny Prussia did well against much bigger enemies through it's history.. suits them much better than Ethiopia, who (thought politically incorrect) could have gotten a Foreign Aid UA, +2 food in the capital +1 food in every other city for every declaration of friendship.

 

[Morningcalm]

Germany, Iroquois, Celts are way too contingent on specific situations/victory types--they need to be reworked.

 

[BSPollux]

I'd say the UA should point towards specialization. Over the years germany has produced quite some impressive personalities and it jumped from one extreme to the next in terms of economy and application of technology.

Think about Göthe, Einstein, Martin Luther or the huge industrial and trade familys.

Maybe something like one free specialist per city beginning with the discovery of 'Guilds' would be fitting, to represent those exceptional individuals that realy brought the nation forward.