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

[Evie]

Yes, but the whole point here is that Austria is a very plausible precursor for Germany (since the HRE is a mess), which Hungary very is not.

Modern Austria cannot be a Modern Germany (or Prussia) precursor.

(I would also add that the Modern era state SHOULD be Austria-Hungary - post-1918 Austria does not warrant inclusion for a long time, and calling 1800s Austria-Hungary "Austria" is more than a little faux-pas. If it's Austria alone, Exploration is the best fit; if it's modern, it should be Austria-Hungary.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

(I would also add that the Modern era state SHOULD be Austria-Hungary - post-1918 Austria does not warrant inclusion for a long time, and calling 1800s Austria-Hungary "Austria" is more than a little faux-pas. If it's Austria alone, Exploration is the best fit; if it's modern, it should be Austria-Hungary.

If the Modern Age starts around the early 1600s, I see no reason why it couldn't be called Austria, and let Exploration Hungary, or whatever Exploration Age "German" civ to go into it.
I'm more of a fan of 1700s Austria, under Maria Theresa anyways, so that's just my preference.

 

[gdr_willter]

I think Exploration Austria -> Modern Hungary seems more likely than the Austria-Hungary Civ regardless the Age. Not so critical reason, just I doubt the possibility that FXS will choose those long and complex Civ name.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

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 can see a Bavarian civ just to have a Oktoberfest celebration. Likely "community content".

Personally I would prefer Prussia over "Germany" is the list of civ abilities should not be long enough to describe "Germany".

 

[Evie]

I don't buy for a fraction of a second modern starting in 1600 given the unit tiers we've seen for modern - there wouls 't be room for multiple tiers of steel battleships in an era starting in 1600. The whole 1600 thing seems a gross stretch from "Mughals are included, so 17th century must be modern". 1700, perhaps, but even then it's clear the main focus is industrial-modern. I'd wager that the cutoff is in the 1700s at most, and that really the 1600s-1700s are more the exploration age end crisis (Thirty Years War, Colonial and French Revolutions, etc).

Mughals are most likely in Modern because a)you can't have a crisis-era civ, and b) they're the only vaguely recognizable 1750s-1800s Indian state that's not a colonial creation (the Marathas are way more obscure AND a caste name so possibly setting off caste system sensitivities).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't buy for a fraction of a second modern starting in 1600 given the unit tiers we've seen for modern - there wouls 't be room for multiple tiers of steel battleships in an era starting in 1600. The whole 1600 thing seems a gross stretch from "Mughals are included, so 17th century must be modern". 1700, perhaps, but even then it's clear the main focus is industrial-modern. I'd wager that the cutoff is in the 1700s at most, and that really the 1600s-1700s are more the exploration age end crisis (Thirty Years War, Colonial and French Revolutions, etc).

I'd put it between the earliest start date being 1650 and the latest 1700.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'd put it between the earliest start date being 1650 and the latest 1700.

Given that they jump in time, I’d say 1750-1800 for the modern start and 1600-1700 for the end of exploration

 

[ColtSeavers]

Yes, but the whole point here is that Austria is a very plausible precursor for Germany (since the HRE is a mess), which Hungary very is not.

Modern Austria cannot be a Modern Germany (or Prussia) precursor.

(I would also add that the Modern era state SHOULD be Austria-Hungary - post-1918 Austria does not warrant inclusion for a long time, and calling 1800s Austria-Hungary "Austria" is more than a little faux-pas. If it's Austria alone, Exploration is the best fit; if it's modern, it should be Austria-Hungary.

I think the HRE is a better precursor for Germany than Austria, because especially the Northern Germans do not relate to Austria very much. HRE basically covered Germany's entire territory from North to South (plus Austria, Switzerland, Burgundy, Bohemia, Lombardy etc.), whereas Austria's reach to Germany was limited to the Bavarian region, mostly. I also think, the Austrians wouldn't be to happy, if their country merged into Germany in the modern age, since there independence is pretty important to them.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I can see a Bavarian civ just to have a Oktoberfest celebration. Likely "community content".

Personally I would prefer Prussia over "Germany" is the list of civ abilities should not be long enough to describe "Germany".

Oktoberfests are pretty common throughout Germany nowdays!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the HRE is a better precursor for Germany than Austria, because especially the Northern Germans do not relate to Austria very much. HRE basically covered Germany's entire territory from North to South (plus Austria, Switzerland, Burgundy, Bohemia, Lombardy etc.), whereas Austria's reach to Germany was limited to the Bavarian region, mostly. I also think, the Austrians wouldn't be to happy, if their country merged into Germany in the modern age, since there independence is pretty important to them.

If it were up to me, I would prefer to have a Frankish/Carolingian civ which could then branch off into both modern-day French, German, Austrian, Italy etc.
My only problem with the HRE is I think in game the name would be too much, and I think that a Frankish/Carolingian civ could still fulfill that role. Of course, I guess a Frankish civ could always be Antiquity and lead into a proper HRE civ, but that to me would be weird if there isn't a great Exploration Age French to go into either, besides the Normans.

The other option I see is calling the civ the "Teutonics", based off of the Teutonic State, which could lead to Prussia/Germany, Poland, and Russia.

 

[Evie]

I think the HRE is a better precursor for Germany than Austria, because especially the Northern Germans do not relate to Austria very much. HRE basically covered Germany's entire territory from North to South (plus Austria, Switzerland, Burgundy, Bohemia, Lombardy etc.), whereas Austria's reach to Germany was limited to the Bavarian region, mostly. I also think, the Austrians wouldn't be to happy, if their country merged into Germany in the modern age, since there independence is pretty important to them.

Which is profoundly irrelevant to which civ should lead to which other civilization. Nowhere, nowhen, no one has ever suggested that "everyone in the modern state must identify with the precursor state", or that the precursor state should cover the entire territory of the successor state, or anything even remotely close to that. That's an inane standard that virtually no connections in the game actually meet - let's be serious here. Being able to go from one state to the other represent a link, a connection between the two states or civilizations, not a complete equivalency. And anyone, in Northern Germany or out of it, who proclaim that Germany and Austria are not (deeply) connected is living in pure denial and fantasy.

Holy Roman Empire is a multinational organization that included Germanic, Slavic and Italy people, and that rarely ever actually was any sort of unified state. Calling it a civilization is a stretch (though justifiable), and among people less versed in history it's likely to cause confusion with the Roman Empire even though the two have nothing to do with each other, and it's just outright cumbersome in a way that make Austria-Hungary look simple.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Which is profoundly irrelevant to which civ should lead to which other civilization. Nowhere, nowhere, no one has ever suggested that "everyone in the modern state must identify with the precursor state", or anything even remotely close to that. The goal is not to crate a perfect three-steps evolution where every civ is just really a cypher for Germany - if it's all just Germany, then we might as well end the charade of the civilization change system and go back to a single civ for the entire game. To give everyone three-step civ makes a mockery of the design of the game.

According to the Dev Diary there is a Civ Unlock, and I would think, that the Civ unlock means that the modern Civ should identify with its precursor state. What do you mean by "mockery of the design of the game"?

Holy Roman Empire is a multinational organization that included Germanic, Slavic and Italy people, and that rarely ever actually was any sort of unified state. Calling it a civilization is a stretch, and as a name it's far too cumbersome and unwieldy.

The HRE has been part of Civ before (Civ 4), whether you call it a Civ or not is just semantics, in my point of view. Agree to disagree.

 

[Evie]

Civ 4 also had the "Native American" civ. Civ 4 is an old shame to be ignored, not a model to be copied, when it comes to reasonable civ selection., The only positive contribution the Civ 4 civ selection has ever made to Civ was to be enough of a controversial fiasco (see again: Native Americans) that the Devs learned their lesson and actually started actually doing their homework on civ selection.

According to the Dev Diary there is a Civ Unlock, and I would think, that the Civ unlock means that the modern Civ should identify with its precursor state. What do you mean by "mockery of the design of the game"?

Actually looking at which civ unlock which civ would prove you wrong. Or do you think that the Chola (Dravidian Hindu dynasty in southern India) identify with the Maurya (Indo-Aryan Buddhist dynasty in northern india)? The Normans with the Greeks? The Japanese with the Majapahit in Indonesia? The Inca with the Maya? Songhai with Egypt? Even with something like the hypothetical Norman - Britain unlock, do you think the Scots identify with the Norman (heck, even the English don't identify with the Normans if the number of post asking for England to be added is any indication).

"The modern civ should identify with its precursor state" is your interpretation, not something anyone else has stated. It fits exactly one and a half connection in teh game: Han into Ming, for sure, and to a lesser degree Ming into Qing (because the modern Chinesse sure do not identy Qing with Ming; see the whole fiasco in the Modern Civs Bet thread). It fits no one else.

And it makes a mockery of the design of the game because the entire point of the game is not playing the same civ over and over again. You're supposed to play multiple civilizations over the course of the game, not have the same country under three somewhat different names. China (and probably a few others) are supposed to be exceptions, not rules.

 

[Zaarin]

According to the Dev Diary there is a Civ Unlock, and I would think, that the Civ unlock means that the modern Civ should identify with its precursor state.

I don't think the Mughals identified much with the Chola or Siam with the Majapahit. I have no horse in the race of what German civs are included, but I agree with Evie that objecting Austria because modern Germans don't identify with them (which is a quirk of our own timeline--without Bismarck, modern Germans might not identify with Prussia) is applying a standard the game design is clearly not following.

 

[uppi]

Holy Roman Empire is a multinational organization that included Germanic, Slavic and Italy people, and that rarely ever actually was any sort of unified state. Calling it a civilization is a stretch (though justifiable), and among people less versed in history it's likely to cause confusion with the Roman Empire even though the two have nothing to do with each other, and it's just outright cumbersome in a way that make Austria-Hungary look simple.

"Multinational" is a completely anachronistic term for the Holy Roman Empire. How can it be multinational when there was no concept of a nation? The HRE does not fit the modern notion of a nation state, but since it wouldn't be in the modern age that is completely fine.

 

[Zaarin]

"Multinational" is a completely anachronistic term for the Holy Roman Empire. How can it be multinational when there was no concept of a nation? The HRE does not fit the modern notion of a nation state, but since it wouldn't be in the modern age that is completely fine.

The concept of a nation is probably as old as humankind. The concept of a nation-state is a few centuries old. A nation is simply a group of people who are ethnically and linguistically related; classic example is the Hellenes understood themselves to be a nation, even if their political allegiance was to Athens, Sparta, Corinth, etc.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I don't think the Mughals identified much with the Chola or Siam with the Majapahit. I have no horse in the race of what German civs are included, but I agree with Evie that objecting Austria because modern Germans don't identify with them (which is a quirk of our own timeline--without Bismarck, modern Germans might not identify with Prussia) is applying a standard the game design is clearly not following.

"The modern civ should identify with its precursor state" is your interpretation, not something anyone else has stated. It fits exactly one and a half connection in teh game: Han into Ming, for sure, and to a lesser degree Ming into Qing (because the modern Chinesse sure do not identy Qing with Ming; see the whole fiasco in the Modern Civs Bet thread). It fits no one else.

I don't know guys, for me it is quiet simple. There are 3 possible unlocks: Gameplay (for players who do not care a lot about historic accuarcy); Leader (for players who identify with Leaders mostly, not the Civs) and a Civ Unlock (which, at least according to my interpreation, means exactly what I have stated before: "The modern civ should identify with its precursor state"). Obviously it is very difficult to implement the latter, but that's at least what I would expect, and I guess I'm not the only one (see the various discussions in the Content Spreadsheet Thread).

Still don't understand how you would define a Civ Unlock then?

 

[Zaarin]

Still don't understand how you would define a Civ Unlock then?

A civ that unlocks another civ. Just like Egypt unlocks Abbasids, Persia unlocks Mongolia, Maya unlocks Inca unlocks Mexico, and Greece unlocks Normans. There's no prerequisite for one civ to identify with another. It's still not clear who unlocks Hawai'i or whom Hawai'i unlocks, but in either case I can bet modern Hawai'ians don't identify with either of them.

 

[Evie]

...All the unlocks Zaarin and I talked about are either confirmed or suspected Civ unlocks. Every single one of them.

Gameplay unlock is "have 3 horse to unlock Mongolia" and leader unlock is "Unlock Songhai if you play Amina", neither of which anyone is takjing about here.

 

[ColtSeavers]

...All the unlocks Zaarin and I talked about are either confirmed or suspected Civ unlocks. Every single one of them.

Gameplay unlock is "have 3 horse to unlock Mongolia" and leader unlock is "Unlock Songhai if you play Amina", neither of which anyone is takjing about here.

That's not what I was asking. You said, my defintion of the Civ Unlock is wrong. So what is your definition?