So...No Germany Update?

[Louis XXIV]

I suppose it remains to be seen, but how often do you suspect a barbarian horseman or tomahawk will just be waiting in the camp instead of out pillaging

Given how often Archers are defending camps, I suspect it's just random chance.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Given how often Archers are defending camps, I suspect it's just random chance.

Hm, I must just be unlucky... It always seems to be warriors, spearmen, or pikemen. Archers only when I destroyed the last unit in the camp with a ranged unit and it spawns before I get to the camp

 

[Ryoga]

Hm, I must just be unlucky... It always seems to be warriors, spearmen, or pikemen. Archers only when I destroyed the last unit in the camp with a ranged unit and it spawns before I get to the camp

You can kill the defender with ranged units and wait until you get what you want, but of course this can be risky since a wandering scout could just snatch the reward of your hard work.

 

[zyx]

I think Germany will benefit from the reduced maintainance cost for units as gold will be not that easily available in BNW - at least at the start [ no gold from rivertiles ] - which was also the reason why they implemented it in vanilla: what is the use of joining units if you cannot upkeep them - early game?

The change that GG not being able to start GA anymore - which used to combine superbly with the papermaker: even more gold! - was a hard hit for China - I wonder who uses all the GG? - while BNW doesn't weaken Germany's UA, on the contrary: lack of gold makes reduced upkeep better.

Depending on how easily gold will be available in renaissance era or later eras, Austria's UA might become a theoretical chance: getting and keeping the CS allied, marrying and the CS's units cost gold. Of course it was too easy to marry CS at the start of GnK, but with BNW it could be too hard.

I wonder whether Venice will still recieve the bought mercantile CS's resources, as Austria didn't, which kept me from buying them altogether - does anybody know?

Although I understand the wish of some players for changed UA, UB and UU when gameplay changes with new and interesting features. Don't crave for Germany, England and US dominating the civ-world, enjoy the different playstyles, identify with who you play and not with names: like "Germany", "England", "France", etc.
Maybe you can see it this way: the Rise and Fall of Civilizations.And remember: it is only a computer game! ;-)

 

[JokerJace]

Although I understand the wish of some players for changed UA, UB and UU when gameplay changes with new and interesting features. Don't crave for Germany, England and US dominating the civ-world, enjoy the different playstyles, identify with who you play and not with names: like "Germany", "England", "France", etc.
Maybe you can see it this way: the Rise and Fall of Civilizations.And remember: it is only a computer game! ;-)

I think you mistake why people want changes. Nobody ever said I want Germany to be stronger because I like Germany or I'm German or I "feel" that Germany deserves to be stronger. Along with Japan there is simply no single reason to choose and play them comepetetivewise. And that shouldn't be.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, my biggest problem is ability overlap. The Zulu with the Reformation belief that allows for barbarian conversion, while certainly not exactly the same, is a little too close (and the Zulu ability is stronger, plus the Impi is better and they have a UB). Given that Germany overall is a little underwhelming, it would be nice to give them a boost.

That being said, I do think the addition of other kinds of barbarians helps.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Got an idea for Germany inspired by the Pathfinder ability:

Upon capturing a barb camp, you can choose between a few options. Once an option is chosen, it can't be chosen again until all options have been used. Like this:

You've received x gold from the encampment
- Convince the barbarians to join your civilization as a new unit
- Convince the barbarians to train your unit (+XP for the unit that cleared the camp, not subject to the 30XP cap)
- Retrieve additional gold from the camp
- Demand that the barbarians reveal the locations of ancient ruins (reveals nearest huts)

This would be fantastic as a UA, and would really emphasize the chosen civ's unique relationship to barbarian peoples. However, I don't think Germany is the civ it ought to go to. It would be perfect for a hypothetical Gothic/Vandal/otherwise classical-era Germanic tribe. (It would also be great for the Huns, whose empire grew more from conquering and absorbing other barbarians than from taking cities.) But for a civ based more on the Holy Roman and German Empires, I don't feel this would really fit.

Yes, I understand they cobbled Germany together from all eras of "Germanic" peoples--but when Austria, Denmark, and Sweden are now differentiated from it as more specific countries, the equating of specifically Germany with the barbarian peoples ancestral to them all seems out of place to me. In much the same way as we have Rome alongside its descendant nations like Spain, Portugal, France, and now Venice, I think an ancient "Germanic" civ would be just fine in the game--call them The Goths or whatever--alongside Germany and Austria and the rest. And this should be their UA.

 

[The QC]

my biggest problem is ability overlap.

Ability overlap has never been a reason for them to update civs, though. None of the changes that they made to civs ever had that as a reason. It was always about adapting to changes in the features of the game and, sometimes, about re-balancing.

Germany was overlapping with the Ottomans from day 1, at least as much as it overlaps with the Zulus now (if not more).

The number of overlaps has increased naturally as updates and DLCs came. Some civs have one aspect that is similar to others, some civs have a strong similarity in a core element (Venice and Austria, Netherlands and Arabia, to a lesser degree Shoshone and America/Russia)... Still, each civ (Germany included) has its own flavor from the combination of all their abilities and units/buildings.

Anyway, if a new civ concept would be too similar with an old one, it would be stupid to change the old civ instead of finding a new idea for the new one.

 

[Ikael]

The whole argument against Germany's overlap with other civs is that it is fundamentally bland. Germany's UA changes little, if anything, the way you play the civ, unlike other UA's that are really game-changing (sometimes in a quite literal fashion, a la Venice). That being said, If I were to dredesign Germany....


Germany

UA - Mittlestand

Land trade routes yields science equivalent to 25% of their gold, grants + 5 production if the city being connected has a factory present on it

UI - National science library (replaces landsketch)

It can be built by great scientists, engineers and merchants
+4 science, +1 culture, +1 culture with each passing era
It also yields +3 production if it is traversed by a trade route

UU- Panzer (remade)

In addition to the previous Panzer stats, panzers will start with the following promotion
Auftragstaktik: If this unit kills an enemy unit, it gains HP and one additional attack.

Comment:

Germany has been fully remade into a flavourful civilization which tries to make synnergies between Germany's most known 3 strenghts (science, industry and commerce), with an added dash of late era warfare too for a full representation of this complex civ.

Its UA gives a much needed boost to land trade routes while giving Germany a scientific edge and a more late era push as well (production bonus upon the arrival of factories). In addition to that, its UI, the National science library, aims to create synergies with its UA: it will also help you out with your science output, and you will need land trade routes to fully unlock the potential of this improvement (production bonuses). Note as well how this UI can only be built by great scientists, engineers and merchant, thus making Germany quite fond of the world congress "funding of sciences" resolution as well

Finally, The panzer has also been upgraded in order to compensate for its late game status, and in way for it to be synergistic with the Blitkrieg ideological tennant, thus creating a distinct enough civ (I think), which becomes stronger the latter the game progreses, but that it is distinct enough to notice an early difference when playing it.

 

[The QC]

The whole argument against Germany's overlap with other civs is that it is fundamentally bland.

The whole argument against Germany's uniques is that lots of armchair designers think they have better ideas.

Germany's ability - capturing units - was one of the most creative ones at launch and far from being bland. It is not bland now, either. What it is indeed is weak, although personally I see Germany as more competitive than America, for instance (YMMV).

I don't mean to be rude, but none of the millions of variants that people have proposed so far has convinced me that you guys know better than Firaxis.

 

[Rajjah]

I've never really asked Firaxis to remake old civs,that seemed like asking for too much. I was genuinely shocked to see France and especially Arabia changed so extensively. All Arabia needed was a tweak to thier trade route UA mechanic to make it work in the new system and they got a whole new UA. That's why I'm a little confused why there hasn't been minor tweaks to civs that are actually underpowered and bland. They were fine with altering the Ottomans and giving England a nice little addition to name a few from the past, so it was perfectly reasonable for us to hope and maybe even expect similar changes this time around.

It could be anything simple such as giving German XP buildings plus one hammer or making American settlers not completely stop growth or Giving Indian domestic food routes a buff or giving Japan a culture bonus for units built in a previous era. None of these involve a new unit, building, tile improvement, or drastic rework of the old UA.

I hope there are more changes that aren't revealed and I'm blabbering on about nothing but based on the quotes from the interview in afraid not :-\

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The whole argument against Germany's uniques is that lots of armchair designers think they have better ideas.

Germany's ability - capturing units - was one of the most creative ones at launch and far from being bland. It is not bland now, either. What it is indeed is weak, although personally I see Germany as more competitive than America, for instance (YMMV).

I don't mean to be rude, but none of the millions of variants that people have proposed so far has convinced me that you guys know better than Firaxis.

I generally agree, it would be nice if Germany were less of a pure warmonger civ, but

1. Capturing barb units if even better and more interesting now that there is at least one and possibly more barb True UU (ie better/unique stats: Hand-Axe)
2. The barbs can have horsemen (expanded barb unit selection)
3 the "reformation belief" about converting barbs seems to have been scrapped.. (and would require wierd play to be useful anyways)
4. reduced AI happiness penalties may keep the map from filling up quite as fast

I would just make the chance 100% and ditch the extra gold.(especially since it doesn't scale with game speed).. Every time you disperse a barb camp you get the last unit in there.

If they did want to change Germany to be less of a warmonger civ, then I'd suggest replacing the landsnecht with a UU.. the UA is interesting and should be kept.

 

[Carl5872]

Am I the only one that LIKES Germany's current UA?

I find it fun to not have to build any soldiers early on and to just overrun enemies in the early game. Not saying they're overly powerful, but I enjoy getting the brutes/archers/spears early on and driving my GPT to almost 0 then swarming my nearest neighbor. Leaves my capital free to focus on war buildings/wonders.

Then you get to shift to landshnecks next and again more swarming.

I can understand if this isn't your thing then there's no appeal, but I think its fun to steal the barbarians and unleash your horde on the world.

 

[Rajjah]

Except for France: What changes will there be to "old" civilizations in Brave New World? Especially now that the Zulu trait has become very similar to the German one e.g.

When I read the question I was so excited because I thought we would finally know and be done with this issue....but then they went back to talking about India and Arabia again.....>_<

They are either messing with us in a good way ( keeping these changes secret) or else rubbing it in, why else would they take a questing that mentioned Germany and not actually answer it. They could have had the same questioned asked in a way that didn't involve Germany and still got to wax on again about Arabia and that dinky Indian change

Edit* whoops wrong thread, but it still applies

 

[CleverFool]

Am I the only one that LIKES Germany's current UA?

I find it fun to not have to build any soldiers early on and to just overrun enemies in the early game. Not saying they're overly powerful, but I enjoy getting the brutes/archers/spears early on and driving my GPT to almost 0 then swarming my nearest neighbor. Leaves my capital free to focus on war buildings/wonders.

Then you get to shift to landshnecks next and again more swarming.

I can understand if this isn't your thing then there's no appeal, but I think its fun to steal the barbarians and unleash your horde on the world.

I don't entirely dislike Germany's UA personally, but I feel even increasing the conversion chance to 100% could be a gainful change. As is there are some games where you have no luck and all your barb hunting results in nothing.

 

[Ikael]

The whole argument against Germany's uniques is that lots of armchair designers think they have better ideas.

Oh, but I have seen far better ideas on this very tread ranging from minor tweaks to its UA to an overall redesign of the civ. Different tastes, I guess

Germany's ability - capturing units - was one of the most creative ones at launch and far from being bland.

It started by overlapping with another civ (the Ottomans and the barb conversion naval variant) since the days of vainilla Civ V. Not only it was redundant, but as you mentioned, weak, and pretty a-historical to boot (purely warmonger type of civ). Even if the designers wanted to evoke a Roman "germanic tribes" type of feeling, these were never known for their ability to make alliances and turn other tribes to their cause, with the whole "divide and conquer" being in full force for the Romans.

It is not bland now, either. What it is indeed is weak, although personally I see Germany as more competitive than America, for instance (YMMV).

I don't mean to be rude, but none of the millions of variants that people have proposed so far has convinced me that you guys know better than Firaxis.

Hmmm, the thing is, I believe that Firaxis can do better. I think that either the team in charge of this expansion knows his stuff better than people in charge of vainilla Civ V, or that they have simply become better at their job. It is already showing a lot; particulary in how the new civs are being designed VS most of the original civs of Civ V. In fact, they already did an outstanding job redesigning Arabia and France, so why not Germany? Firaxis can (and I think they will in this expansion) outdone theirselves

 

[Matthew.]

Am I the only one that LIKES Germany's current UA?

I find it fun to not have to build any soldiers early on and to just overrun enemies in the early game. Not saying they're overly powerful, but I enjoy getting the brutes/archers/spears early on and driving my GPT to almost 0 then swarming my nearest neighbor. Leaves my capital free to focus on war buildings/wonders.

Then you get to shift to landshnecks next and again more swarming.

I can understand if this isn't your thing then there's no appeal, but I think its fun to steal the barbarians and unleash your horde on the world.

Nah, I have no problems with it either. I also don't think Germany is weak, rather the game in its current state doesn't really play on Germany's strengths. The current "metagame" is to rely on as few ranged units as possible and Germany is all about building a lot of units, and heavy on the melee side (Landsknecht and Panzer).

Also people generally seem to dislike double UU's on Civs, which certainly doesn't help.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Here's an idea to help make Germany more competitive - Terra Cotta Army. Apparently it gives you one of each kind of unit you currently own. Now this is ambiguous as to whether it means melee, ranged, mobile or if it's more specific (horse, archer, warrior, swordsman, spearman). If it's the latter, you have the potential to get more units upon completion of that wonder - just capture a Brute and Handaxe on top of everything else. It would work well for a small early rush to overwhelm someone.

 

[The QC]

I hope I'm not being annoying, but I want to counterbalance the discussion a bit, so I'll make one more post in defense of current Germany. I want to make a few small points.

Not only it was redundant, but as you mentioned, weak, and pretty a-historical to boot (purely warmonger type of civ).

There are two things to say here. First, for each civ, Firaxis chose one aspect to emphasize, since they can't represent them in their entire complexity (and this would result in some civs that are too similar. Other civs that historically were not pure warmongers became that in Civ V. China and Japan immediately come to mind.

Second, I don't think that the representation of Germany is a-historical. There is a sub-set of people who want Germany to more narrowly represent one of their historical incarnations, but that doesn't mean that the choice Firaxis made -to represent all the eras that Germany went through - is invalid. It's actually pretty neat from a historical perspective, gameplay result aside. The UA represents the Germanic tribes, the first UU represents the HRE, the leader represents the unification of the country, while the last UA represents the WWII era.

Hmmm, the thing is, I believe that Firaxis can do better.

I agree that Germany is not the most successful civ design in the game. When each civ design is unique, it's unavoidable that some will be better than others. I'm still glad they took this path, instead of the bland combination of bonuses from Civ IV.

It's not useful for them to start messing with the design and change civs over time. They can make balancing passes (and they've done a few, although they never focused on this very much), but it's useless to go and outright change stuff that you don't need to.

They will have another chance at it in Civ VI.

 

[VainApocalypse]

Saying, "Their UAs are variations on one another; they should be changed," is akin to saying, "Mongolia and Arabia both have a ranged knight as a UU. They should be changed." There are other elements to the kit that make them enormously different.

The Zulu don't have Germany's ability to recruit barbarians early in the game, and they don't benefit from a late game unit.

Austria, despite being able to peacefully acquire city states, sill can't compete with Venice economically.

America's late game bombers make domination victories trivially easy; the Shoshone have no analogue.