Germany/Prussia, Holy Roman Empire, and Goths will likely be DLC civs

[King of Prussia]

The "its not that well known" argument kinda goes out the window with Civ. I doubt most people who play Civ know most of the civs/leaders well. That is one of the best parts about the Civ franchise. You get to learn/experience new history every iteration.

 

[Evie]

Not that well known is not a great argument.

The problem is more the facst that having Prussia pretty much having no Germany because having both Prussia and Germany is duplication of civ to make Greek and Macedon blush. There is no excuse acceptable for having both of them in the same game.

Judging by how that'S pretty much what the Normans are to England, and yet people are pushing "But England need to be represented anyway" up and down these forums, makes me think replacing well known, beloved civilizations with more obscure alternatives is not going to sell for very long.

 

[mitsho]

What if we do Exploration Germany into Modern Prussia? Cause I agree, HRE is a bad name. It feels out of place. Teutons is also a bit made up. Maybe it really is best if they go somewhere adjacent like Bohemia, Burgundians or the Habsburgs? But the best name for Exploration Germany is „Germany“. It is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation after all if you spell it out completely.

 

[Siptah]

It is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation after all if you spell it out completely.

Only in the early modern era though. But I think this is the name that should be used, even when the base is an early or late medieval HRE. I don't think the HRE is a weird idea at all. Certainly better than going from Teutons to Prussia or a Prussia-based united Germany. That's a waste of possible diversity, geographically and from civ focus. Teutons might be religious besides militaristic, but that's it. A civ based on the Hanseatic League (not really a civ, I know, but neither are Mughals, Normans, Ming, and you can make cases that even someone like the Persians aren't a civ) would bring something different to the table (maritime/long distance trade) and (IP) diplomacy (buildings in foreign cities) that would fit the Exploration era very well imho. It's also covering a bit more ground geographically.

Aside form the HRE (which would probably also focus on diplomacy, IP interaction, and trade/economics), the "German" options in the exploration era are somewhat limited for civ scale and usual thinking (not for its history itself - there's 800 years of fascinating regional and supra-regional history). The best candidates are the leagues of cities, imho. The Hanseatic League is just one of them, other options are the Rhenish League, the Swabian League, or the old Confederacy of Switzerland (which was basically a league that the emperors didn't manage to get rid of). Lombards are out for Germany imho.

I don't see Prussia at all, simply because it would be a replacement of modern Germany, and I don't think that is worth it. It's like having Sardinia-Piedmont instead of Italy in the modern era. Or Ardabil instead of Safavids (with a bit of hyperbole).

 

[Prester John 2]

I would dearly love the game to have a separate mechanic for depicting Supra-national or multi-cultural entities throughout history like the Hanseatic League, Holy Roman Empire, or Alexander's or Chingis' Empires before they fell apart (in less than a generation!) - in so many ways they are just different from the usual language/culture monoliths under a native aristocracy which is what most states boil down to.

Maybe by Civ XXV . . .

Yes, that would be great. I could see two implementations: One political, where you form a supernational entity and vote for common policies, have common defensive pact etc. Maybe similar to what they did with the Apostolic palace in Civ4. And one commercial entity, similar to corporations in Civ4, where you as a player (or via traderoutes?) create branches in other cities and these cities (or a headquarter) gain increased gold (boring) or can build certain units (trade ships/treasure ships, pirate ships that can blockade other cities). Maybe someone will mod that.

In general, I would prefer a HRE/German empire in the exploration age that is diplomatic and economic (Hanse) and then the transition to a modern age Prussia (similar to Mughals and Ottomans) who are militaristic and diplomatic.

 

[ColtSeavers]

But the best name for Exploration Germany is „Germany“. It is the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation after all if you spell it out completely.

No it is not, simply because of the fact, that there was no "Germany" during the Exploration Age. "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" stands for an Empire, who was multi ethnical and multi lingual (although dominated by German speaking people), which strechted from the Baltics to Italy, sort of a predecessor of the European Union, if you will. I would find it interesting to have it the game as a contrast to the other national states at that time.

 

[Siptah]

No it is not, simply because of the fact, that there was no "Germany" during the Exploration Age. "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" stands for an Empire, who was multi ethnical and multi lingual (although dominated by German speaking people), which strechted from the Baltics to Italy, sort of a predecessor of the European Union, if you will. I would find it interesting to have it the game as a contrast to the other national states at that time.

Arguably, the "regnum teutonic(or)um", or Kingdom of Germany is a better name than Byzantium or Mississipians, because it was actually used during the time. It was only official for a short (and controversial) time iirc, but continued to be used well into the modern era. The concept of a Germany or german lands also existed from the middle ages on at least, and is to be found in many titles and documents. I'm not at all for including a Kingdom of Germany civ in the exploration era, I just wanted to point out that, at least unofficially, this existed for many centuries before Germany was united as a national state.

I would also say that there are hardly any national states yet in the Exploration era, so the HRE is not odd against the Normans (which adapted a lot to local culture in different places), Spain (quite a multilingual and multicultural conglomerate of separate Kingdoms led in personal union), Inca (also multilingual and multicultural), Songhai (same), Abbasids (I'm not even starting with this one), Mongols (or that one), Chola or Majapahit. None of them comes close to a nation state. I don't know about Hawaii, maybe they would qualify as a nation state before its time (similar to e.g., Portugal or 17th century Netherlands).

 

[ColtSeavers]

Saxony is probably the best choice for a German sovereign state in Age 2 yeah (other than going for a blobby amalgamation like HRE, Teutons, Habsburg). Also a great example of a leaderless Civ that fits better in C7's style.

Prussia proper absolutely deserves to be in Civ however, and the third era is the best spot for it. I don't buy into the "people haven't heard of it" argument. You're playing a game based on history. WHAT HARM IS THERE TO LEARN?

(not to mention the description would open with "This is Germany" or similar. Reading is good for you, y'all should try it!!!)

Not sure why so many here are pushing for Saxony or Bavaria as a German Civ. The fact of the matter is, neither of these states even came close to dominate the German speaking kingdoms. Prussia controlled most of the German territory and people during its heydays (and I'm saying this as a Southerner where Prussia never was in charge! ). Frederick the Great is an iconic leader who would suit perfectly, too.

 

[Krajzen]

(and I'm saying this as a Southerner where Prussia never was in charge! ). Frederick the Great is an iconic leader who would suit perfectly, too.

That's interesting, I've always had the impression that southern Germans have really disliked Prussia, Prussian domination of Germany, the modern city of Berlin etc. Would you say that despite of all this Frederick the Great is still a well respected ruler in the south, and even southern German players are fine with Prussian Germany and don't need no Bavarian (or Badenian) dominated Germany?

Bonus question: if you had to choose one leader (doesn't have to be a political leader) "leading" "Germany" in the 18th or 19th century, who can't be a Prussian ruler or Bismarck or kaiser, who would that be?

 

[Uberfrog]

I don't know about Hawaii, maybe they would qualify as a nation state before its time (similar to e.g., Portugal or 17th century Netherlands).

No, there was no unified Kingdom of Hawai’i until Kamehameha I conquered the until then separate island kingdoms of Maui, O’ahu, Kaua’i etc from 1795–1810. In retrospect we call the entire people Hawaiian due to their shared language and culture, but I don’t think there would have been any sense of nationhood until well until the 19th century.

 

[LastSword]

No offense, but you obviously have no idea about European history at all, and "Medieval Germany" would be the most ridiculous Civ name ever. There never was a "medieval Germany", and just because you apparently have no idea what the HRE was or represented, doesn't make it "ridiculous"!

There is no point in starting an offensive rant with "no offense". That's cowardish.

Thanks for pointing out that my post has vague phrases "medieval germany" and medieval kingdom of germany". You have quite incorrectly interpolated from it that I suggest "medieval germany" as a name. I was thinking more in lines of "French empire" => "Kingdom of France", therefore "German empire" and "Kingdom of Germany". However I have to admit that it is utter nonsense. I was caught out in this stupid notion that every european civilization has to have some "pathway" or deserves multiple era of representation. Kingdom of Germany would be terrible choice. Same goes with Saxons - a prime candidate for independent.

However I quite clearly wrote that "Holy Roman Empire has a ridiculous name", not is "ridiculous". That is quite a serious overinterpretation. Almost fighting with windmills.
I stand with my opinion. Holy Roman Empire is terrible, goofy name, to the point that many people just use acronym.

Such harsh words! No idea about "european" history at all. There is no counter-argument to that.
To be frank I am totally aware I have a vast lack of knowledge. On the other hand it can apply to everyone on this forum. Like opening post (and civ4) suggesting that Charlemagne is a leader of Holy Roman Empire. I also know that what is "important" in history changes very quickly when you just cross a border. I am sure that german historians of XIX and XX centuries cooked out very objective "european history".
I have even read this historical pulp of statement that "Holy Roman Empire is a precedessor of European Union" before. I don't share this sentiment.
Neither its multiethnicity nor multilinguality is anything exceptional - quite the opposite, it was a standard for a long time before and after.

Anyway I am sorry I do not like your personal favourite. After carefully reading arguments in your post I decided to not change my subjective opinion about their inclusion. At this point I hope for Normans into German empire (which is still very much likely to happen in base game) and we are set for multiple expansions. Europe is already too crowded, there are much better choices.
Remember just because you read a book about Normans it doesn't mean they must be in the game.

 

[Siptah]

Not sure why so many here are pushing for Saxony or Bavaria as a German Civ. The fact of the matter is, neither of these states even came close to dominate the German speaking kingdoms. Prussia controlled most of the German territory and people during its heydays (and I'm saying this as a Southerner where Prussia never was in charge! ). Frederick the Great is an iconic leader who would suit perfectly, too.

I don't think it's necessary that a civ dominated the realms of the next civ. Take the Indian civs in civ 7. Maurya didn't dominate the heartlands of Chola at all, they weren't even present. And the same is true vice-versa, the Chola Empire didn't get to Northern India. And then the Mughals have considerable overlap with Maurya geographically, but don't have cultural continuation (or even belong to the same culture group, to use a Paradox term). Bavaria > Germany isn't worse in any way than Chola > Mughals.

Otherwise I agree with you: Frederick is clearly the best non-medieval ruler (I'd still prefer the other Frederick II), and Prussia dominated Germany pre-unification. But Prussia's ascend is modern, it falls into the period when the HRE didn't function properly anymore and after it was abolished, hence it would only work as a replacement of Germany - something I strongly dislike. As I said earlier, my 100+ civs dream path is Germani + Goths > Hanseatic League + Switzerland > Germany + Austria. I would have argued for Switzerland to be Modern (its Golden Age is clearly after WWII and in the present), but with the "early" focus of the Modern era in civ VII, it might be better for Exploration. Of course, it's also possible to have a HRE-based Duchy of Austria in Exploration instead of the Austrian Empire in Modern.

 

[Siptah]

That's interesting, I've always had the impression that southern Germans have really disliked Prussia, Prussian domination of Germany, the modern city of Berlin etc. Would you say that despite of all this Frederick the Great is still a well respected ruler in the south, and even southern German players are fine with Prussian Germany and don't need no Bavarian (or Badenian) dominated Germany?

Old Fritz well respected? I'm not sure he ever was (aside from around the 1820s-1945). Not by his contemporaries, and neither by historians nor our contemporaries. He was a special character, in many ways not your "regular" King (and especially not your regular Prussian king) - a genius ruler completely unfit for ruling. Where he usually gets respect is that everybody knew/knows, he never gave in to the pressure to be a orderly ruler, and he could apparently live with that, being openly a normal human being in private and in office. He was always looked down upon and admired at the same time. Funnily enough, some of the later Hohenzollern (but not the emperor line) "ruled" in a similar way, but they lacked the surprise and disbelief that Frederick had on his side in his time.

Bonus question: if you had to choose one leader (doesn't have to be a political leader) "leading" "Germany" in the 18th or 19th century, who can't be a Prussian ruler or Bismarck or kaiser, who would that be?

There are revolutionaries (e.g., Robert Blum) in the 19th century, and a row of very good choices from the early 20th century, from the Weimar Republic era. If we go earlier, I think the 18th century isn't that great aside from rulers of mostly local importance (Augustus the Strong would probably be the best choice, and he would somewhat fit civ 7), as I don't consider any of the Emperors post Maximilian and Charles V as fit for a civ game. I think the 16 and 17th century offers much better rulers in the regard.

 

[King of Prussia]

If the modern era didnt start until late 1800s or 1900 in CIv7, then i think Prussia would be a lot more likely in the exploration age. Its ascendancy to becoming a major European power comes around the same time the era changes. With it being so close, i think the German Empire is more likely.

HRE for the exploration age is more likely at some point imo. I can see religion and diplomacy with city states being main themes of it. If we get an Austro-Hungarian Civ for modern, they would also benefit from coming from the HRE.

Of course we could get a Bavaria again, as we got ludwig in Civ6.


With all this said, how much focus should germany area get?

 

[Krikkit1]

If the modern era didnt start until late 1800s or 1900 in CIv7, then i think Prussia would be a lot more likely in the exploration age. Its ascendancy to becoming a major European power comes around the same time the era changes. With it being so close, i think the German Empire is more likely.

HRE for the exploration age is more likely at some point imo. I can see religion and diplomacy with city states being main themes of it. If we get an Austro-Hungarian Civ for modern, they would also benefit from coming from the HRE.

Of course we could get a Bavaria again, as we got ludwig in Civ6.


With all this said, how much focus should germany area get?

I really think 4 civs is enough
ancient Goths?
Exploration HRE
Modern AH and Prussia/ German empire

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Why do we think they are avoiding modern country names, when Mexico is right there…

Maybe the Devs know something we don't about whether Mexico will still exist by Feb 2025...

 

[Evie]

Wouldn't be surprised (as much as it would disappoint many) if we got Exploration Austria into modern Germany. Unlike Prussia, Austria's historical roles stretch way further back in time and does set it up as an earlier German civ - Prussia has to compete with Germany in the Modern era; Austria can be in exploration as a precursor. And we know pathways are not, in fact, about "this country became that country".

(You could then still have a separate Austria-Hungary in modern later down the road if you want that too).

 

[King of Prussia]

I really think 4 civs is enough
ancient Goths?
Exploration HRE
Modern AH and Prussia/ German empire

idk personally if the goths are the group for ancient era as i dont know enough about it, but the other 3 are good with me.

If we only get 3, then HRE/Aus for exploration is doable imo.

 

[ColtSeavers]

That's interesting, I've always had the impression that southern Germans have really disliked Prussia, Prussian domination of Germany, the modern city of Berlin etc. Would you say that despite of all this Frederick the Great is still a well respected ruler in the south, and even southern German players are fine with Prussian Germany and don't need no Bavarian (or Badenian) dominated Germany?

Well, that's acctually not that easy to answer. Culturally Prussia certainly does have some kind bad reputation in the South, especially the so called "Prussian values", i.e. strictness, discipline and order (I'd say non Prussians consider themselves more "relaxed" on that front. ) The atrocities during WW2 are also wildly associated with Prussia, although obviously all German states share their burden here. Most Nazis in American Movies act and speak like typical Prussian soldiers too, by the way. "The name "Prussia" is not used in Germany anymore, because a lot of people associate it with the Nazis and the crimes they have commited.
On the other hand, especially under Bismarck, Prussia united all German states and forged Germany as one of the most important and ecomomically successful countries within Europe. Most German states suffered hugely during the "30 years war" in the 17th century, because they were too weak to defend themselves against counties like France or Sweden. A united German nation state therefore was desired by many.
Furthermore, what used to be called Prussia, is now one of the poorest and less densely populated regions within Germany, especially due to the Sovjet occupation after WW2 (now called Brandenburg, which used to be the Prussian heartland around Berlin). So it doesn't feel very "threatening" anymore, if you know what I mean?

So in my opinion, if you want to pick one state instead of the HRE or Germany, you have to go with Prussia. The other states like Saxony or Bavaria never were remotely as important or impactful as Prussia was for German history (for good or bad), that is just a fact, you can not ignore.

Bonus question: if you had to choose one leader (doesn't have to be a political leader) "leading" "Germany" in the 18th or 19th century, who can't be a Prussian ruler or Bismarck or kaiser, who would that be?

I guess I would go with one of the revolutionaries of 1848. If they had been successful, the German and European history could have been much different (and less violent). I'm not an expert here, but I guess Carl Schurz, Robert Blum or Emma Herwegh are proably among of the most popular figures there.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not sure why so many here are pushing for Saxony or Bavaria as a German Civ. The fact of the matter is, neither of these states even came close to dominate the German speaking kingdoms. Prussia controlled most of the German territory and people during its heydays (and I'm saying this as a Southerner where Prussia never was in charge! ). Frederick the Great is an iconic leader who would suit perfectly, too.

If we must have another "German" civ, beside Germany or Prussia in the Modern Age, it should be Austria.

Wouldn't be surprised (as much as it would disappoint many) if we got Exploration Austria into modern Germany. Unlike Prussia, Austria's historical roles stretch way further back in time and does set it up as an earlier German civ - Prussia has to compete with Germany in the Modern era; Austria can be in exploration as a precursor. And we know pathways are not, in fact, about "this country became that country".

(You could then still have a separate Austria-Hungary in modern later down the road if you want that too).

I could see that happening, though I'm not sure I'd like the idea of Austria or Hungary in the Exploration going into Austria-Hungarian Empire in Modern, personally. I think I'd prefer Hungary into Austria.