Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Azzebox, May 25, 2020.
I meant diplomatically. Like how Austria worked in Civ 5.
So why not just Maria Theresa as a diplomatic and cultural German leader?
Bismarck didn’t randomly invade minor neighbours. His agenda was mostly keep Prussia stable and secure with a side order of German reunification within reasonable limits
He easily could have done an anschluss after Koeniggratz but didn’t for example
Viewing German history through a Civ VI lense, it’s basically playing Dramatic Ages and Germany getting a Medieval Dark Age that splinters most of the nation off into a jiggsaw of free cities
It’s finally reunified when the surviving Prussian part of Germany gets a big enough army to do so, and then Bismarck’s bonuses keep it togethet
And left a handful of stable free cities to the south. (I'm well aware he had pragmatic reasons for excluding Austria: by the mid 19th century it was clear that Germany was going to be unified and that either Prussia or Austria was going to be the one to do it--Bismarck was quite determined it would be the former.)
A loyalty pressure ability really feels off for Bismarck. I get what you mean by holding Germany together, but it feels like a pretty bland ability for someone who is chiefly known for unifying the German Empire. Annexing city states doesn't work, I agree (that's Fred), but there has to be something more thematic than loyalty pressure.
Do they? I think you have crossed the line of oversimplification by far with this comment
When I mean Bismarck annexing City-States diplomatically, I mean it like this:
Leader Ability: Realpolitik
Sending an Envoy to a City-State provides +20 Diplomatic Favor and Influence Points. Can annex a City-State with Gold or Diplomatic Favor* if Bismarck has been Suzerain of it for at least 50 turns.
For every City-State you are Suzerain of, generates +2 Alliance and Influence Points per turn.
*200 Gold or 100 Diplomatic Favor, scaling by +75 with each Era.
What exactly would you suggest? The traditional racist take of “Germans are frothing warmongers” really doesnt fit Bismarck as he spent most of his career keeping Germany out of wars unless a) it was neccessary to facilitate reunification and b) Prussia had a clear and overwhelming advantage
I mean he reined in the expansionist faction that wanted to dismember Austria after 1866, France after 1870, and opposed both the annexation of Alsace Lorraine and African colonies, and was pretty much right about all of it
Again, his biggest priority and impact after reunification was social and diplomatic stability.
On further thought, replace the extra diplo card with a wildcard. This both reflects Bismarck’s flexibility between war and peace, and throws Germany a badly needed bone for the crucial early game, as Germany basically gets nothing going for it there
I laughed at the thought of you cringing at that you had to include GC in this assessment (though GC does in general represent Latin American civilization). EDITS for grammar
The problem with Bismarck/Germany combination is that the popular image (which all too often is what Firaxis has embraced) is "The Iron Chancellor" or "Blood and Iron" militaristic Bismarck.
I think his far more important legacy was the Social Democratic system or Industrial Socialism he adopted from Krupp (of all people!) and which is still the basis for the German social system, even after such minor disruptions as World Wars One and Two and the Nazis. While I suppose a nod to Bismarckian Diplomacy is semi-mandatory, giving a bigger nod to his Internal stability, loyalty, civic and Social Policy achievements would be even more appropriate. Since he inherited the German/Prussian military system that gave rise to the 'warmongering' German meme, reflect that in the Unique Unit and Civilization Attributes rather than any Leader connection.
The irony is that Bismarck was usually the voice of restraint, especially after 1870
I'm not the best gauge of what's popular, but my image of Bismarck is the cunning diplomat who uses conflicting alliances as bluffs and shields. I'd hope the next time he appears that that is the angle that's emphasized.
I could definitely see an internal politics bonus, but I don't think generic loyalty is it (especially not the kind of loyalty from governors). And some unification-related ability does fit..
Bonus to housing. Cities generates additional loyalty and/or amenities based on their excess housing (there's social democracy leading to stability, the exact ratio would have to be worked out). When declared war on, Bismarck immediately has the option to annex the city state he is suzerain of where he has the most envoys (and there's unifying Germany by baiting Austria and France)
Which interestingly has War play a part in Bismarck's abilities *without* making him a warmonger - in fact you probably DON'T want to declare war as Germany unless you really have to, because that deprives you of the Free City State annexation.
Annexing a city state is often a worse option than being the suzerein, so this ability is really limited and kinda underpowered
The best representation for social unrest and harmony we have is the loyalty mechanic. Low loyalty reduces yields (people are rioting instead of working). Low loyalty also means it’s easy to “flip” cities, and hold them after you take them
Conversely Bismarck loyalty buff makes it easier to hold on to your gains
Bismarck DID NOT want to annex anything that wasn’t originally German. He didn’t even want Alsace Lorraine or Austria. Him blobbing minors is grossly ahistorical.
Bismarck flipping/ taking free cities is more representative I think
Loyalty is so underpowered in Civ6, though, that loyalty-based mechanics feel like having no ability at all 99% of the time.
True, which is why I figured Bismarck should also come with an extra wildcard slot
Loyalty is like a lot of Civ VI mechanics; the concept is pretty brilliant but the execution is basically a binary on/off. Either your city is loyal and you need do nothing or it’s gonna flip and can’t be helped
Loyalty would be excellent if the mechanics worked such that 100% is difficult to achieve, but a city could fluctuate up and down somewhere between the two extremes. Like say the average city scored consistently in the 80’s
That'S why the option has two ways for Bismarck to control the annexation: one, by simply ensuring that the most envoys are in a CS he wants to annex, and two, by still having the option to refuse to annex the CS.
As for loyalty: yes to using some level of loyalty, but loyalty from governors is the most bland and flavorless ability. It doesn't encourage any difference in gameplay, it doesn't encourage a specific strategy; it just gives you bonuses for doing something you would normally want to do anyway regardless of how you were actually playing the game (putting governors in the cities where you most need loyalty). That's what makes it bad design.
Hence why I suggested loyalty (and/or ammenities, which also represent internal stability) from housing. That more accurately represent the use of social democratic policies (represented by housing, eg, providing essential services) to create stability, while encouraging a different style of gameplay (building up a lot of housing to get loyalty and ammenities from it), and doing something unique.
I like the housing idea but Bismarck annexing rando minors is both weak and ridiculously anti-Bismarck
Separate names with a comma.