Why Prussia instead of Germany?

[Haig]

I wss wondering the choice of having Prussia this time instead of Germany.

Was there a fourth age with Germany that they scrapped at the last minute?
Or was it a thematic choise to go with Frederick the Great?

 

[Navelgazer]

My guess is the former, and that we can still potentially expect a Fourth Age to come down the line at some point.

 

[untitledjuan]

My guess is the former, and that we can still potentially expect a Fourth Age to come down the line at some point.

I really hope there is no Fourth Age in the future, especially considering the current state of the game. They should instead focus on improving and expanding upon the existing three ages of the game, with more civilizations for the three ages. In all seriousness, who is going to succeed the USA, Britain, France, Mexico or Russia in a Fourth Age? Having Germany, Thailand, China, Iran, India, the Soviets and Japan succeed Prussia, Siam, Qing, Qajar, Mughals, Russia and Meiji seems extremely repetitive and redundant.

Prussia should have been in the Exploration Era and Germany in the Modern Era.

It seems as they planned the current Prussian civilization to always be a "Germany civilization" and they changed its name at the last minute to "Prussia" wrongly assuming that both were the same thing. Proof of that is the fact that, at launch, the "Prussian" cities in-game were just a unified-German city list (with cities such as Munich or Stuttgart being included, who were never part of Prussia). Also, the civilization symbol used for Prussia resembles the Reichsadler of the German Empire much more than the Eagle of the coat of arms of Prussia. The colours chosen for the "Prussian civilization" are also more generally associated to Germany than to Prussia. A black eagle on a yellow background is an obvious symbol of Germany, not of Prussia (which would be a slightly different black eagle on a blue background).

To summarize, they added Prussia instead of Germany as a last minute improvised move to introduce a "never before seen civilization" in the game, which was intended to be Germany all along. At least that's my guess, I could obviously be wrong about all this though.

 

[WillK96]

I wss wondering the choice of having Prussia this time instead of Germany.

Was there a fourth age with Germany that they scrapped at the last minute?
Or was it a thematic choise to go with Frederick the Great?

A casualty of their "every civ at their pinnacle approach," along with the ending of the Modern Age being WW2. I think the German Empire would've been fine for the modern age but it may have offending some of the PC sensibilities at Firaxis/2K.

 

[untitledjuan]

A casualty of their "every civ at their pinnacle approach," along with the ending of the Modern Age being WW2. I think the German Empire would've been fine for the modern age but it may have offending some of the PC sensibilities at Firaxis/2K.

Calling the civilization just "Germany" instead of "German Empire" would have been the right approach, "Germany" has already been on every Civilization game in the past, so I see no big deal going down that route. However, going down the "Prussia" path might hurt modern sensibilities in current-day Germany and elsewhere, considering how Prussia became the base for the imperialistic and colonialist German Empire and later on for Nazi Germany. Prussian militarism is currently not very much appreciated by some Germans and certainly not by the current-day German Armed Forces.

 

[WillK96]

Calling the civilization just "Germany" instead of "German Empire" would have been the right approach, "Germany" has already been on every Civilization game in the past, so I see no big deal going down that route. However, going down the "Prussia" path might hurt modern sensibilities in current-day Germany and elsewhere, considering how Prussia became the base for the imperialistic and colonialist German Empire and later on for Nazi Germany. Prussian militarism is currently not very much appreciated by some Germans and certainly not by the current-day German Armed Forces.

I think if you named a Modern Age specific civ "Germany" there would be more of a backlash. It is also not supposed to represent modern day Germany - just Prussia. The Modern age starts in 1750 and ends in ~1945. There are really only two options for a Polity representing what we refer to as Germany. The Kingdom of Prussia at its zenith (c. 1815) or the German Empire at its zenith (c. 1900). They couldn't use the Weimar Republic and certainly couldn't use the Third Reich. Given Firaxis decided to use the name of the polity rather than a more general civilization (i.e. American empire, British Empire, Imperial France, Meji Japan, etc...), Prussia was probably the least offensive option (note I am not offended by any of them - even if some Germans are ashamed of their history).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Prussia should have been in the Exploration Era and Germany in the Modern Era.

Basing a civ after the Teutonic Order and the Duchy, calling it Prussia, would have been nice. I still think it's a possibility that this could happen later, just not called Prussia obviously, but maybe the Teutonic State/Teutons.
If they went with the name "Prussia" in Exploration I still believe they would call the Modern civ the German Empire though, as that fits the naming theme for most Modern civs in the game, which is still using historical names like French Empire, instead of France etc.

 

[untitledjuan]

Basing a civ after the Teutonic Order and the Duchy, calling it Prussia, would have been nice. I still think it's a possibility that this could happen later, just not called Prussia obviously, but maybe the Teutonic State/Teutons.
If they went with the name "Prussia" in Exploration I still believe they would call the Modern civ the German Empire though, as that fits the naming theme for most Modern civs in the game, which is still using historical names like French Empire, instead of France etc.

I completely agree on you with almost everything here, an Exploration Era Prussia civs based on the Duchy of Prussia and its personal union with Brandenburg would have been awesome. However, I always found it weird that France in the Modern Era is French Empire but Britain is just Britain. I wished they found ways to render civilization names in a more consistent and simple way. For instance, having France, just France, in the Modern Era, and having the Franks represent medieval France.

(Btw, the 19th and early 20th century "French Empire" could also be seen as problematic, or even more problematic, than the 19th and early 20th century "German Empire", just saying)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I completely agree on you with almost everything here, an Exploration Era Prussia civs based on the Duchy of Prussia and its personal union with Brandenburg would have been awesome. However, I always found it weird that France in the Modern Era is French Empire but Britain is just Britain. I wished they found ways to render civilization names in a more consistent and simple way. For instance, having France, just France, in the Modern Era, and having the Franks represent medieval France.

Actually, it feels like Britain is just a renamed England, considering it doesn't have any Scottish or Welsh cities in their list. Maybe they are saving those for potential Scotland or Wales civ but to me that seems as much off-putting as putting non-Prussian cities in a civ called Prussia.

As for Exploration France, I feel that's what the Normans are partially supposed to represent. So, because they are supposed to represent part Medieval France and part Medieval Great Britain, I don't feel like we will be seeing the Franks, which to me could have also represented Medieval Germany as well. Something like Ancién Regime/Capetian/Bourbon France would with Chateaus and Musketeers would be cool, though not sure how plausible that would be either.

 

[WillK96]

I completely agree on you with almost everything here, an Exploration Era Prussia civs based on the Duchy of Prussia and its personal union with Brandenburg would have been awesome. However, I always found it weird that France in the Modern Era is French Empire but Britain is just Britain. I wished they found ways to render civilization names in a more consistent and simple way. For instance, having France, just France, in the Modern Era, and having the Franks represent medieval France.

(Btw, the 19th and early 20th century "French Empire" could also be seen as problematic, or even more problematic, than the 19th and early 20th century "German Empire", just saying)

I don't think its the imperial colonialist connotation that gives Firaxis pause Moderator Action: *SNIP* Please avoid political talk here. -lymond I think it is anything remotely touching the Third Reich.

 

[untitledjuan]

Actually, it feels like Britain is just a renamed England, considering it doesn't have any Scottish or Welsh cities in their list. Maybe they are saving those for potential Scotland or Wales civ but to me that seems as much off-putting as putting non-Prussian cities in a civ called Prussia.

As for Exploration France, I feel that's what the Normans are partially supposed to represent. So, because they are supposed to represent part Medieval France and part Medieval Great Britain, I don't feel like we will be seeing the Franks, which to me could have also represented Medieval Germany as well. Something like Ancién Regime/Capetian/Bourbon France would with Chateaus and Musketeers would be cool, though not sure how plausible that would be either.

If the Normans were chosen as the "Medieval French and English representation", then I still don't get why they went with the names "French Empire" and "Britain" instead of "French Empire" and "British Empire" or, much preferably, just "France" and "Britain"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If the Normans were chosen as the "Medieval French and English representation", then I still don't get why they went with the names "French Empire" and "Britain" instead of "French Empire" and "British Empire" or, much preferably, just "France" and "Britain"

France is a weird one because if you call it just "France" that could encompass the Kingdom all the way to the French Republic today. They obviously wanted to base it off of post-Revolutionary France and calling it French Empire I guess makes the most sense if they want to evoke Napoleonic France, without officially calling it that. I can't imagine leading a civ called Napoleonic France with Frederick the Great as Leader, potentially fighting against Napoleon.
It also leaves open the possibility of another Exploration France, even if the Normans are already present.

 

[Leucarum]

I dunno if I'd read that much into it. Deblobbing seems to have been a goal accross the board in Civ7. Germany is a particularly easy civ to deblob.

 

[Civinator]

To summarize, they added Prussia instead of Germany as a last minute improvised move to introduce a "never before seen civilization" in the game, which was intended to be Germany all along.

I have the feeling, too, that in Civ 7 there were some massive "last minute changes", especially in era 3 of the game. untitledjuan, your arguments about Germany in my eyes are very valid.

A similar problem is Britain and the ridiculous HMS Revenge, a ship that even in Britain was second class compared to other British warships of its time and that not even had its own graphics when released. It seems in those "last minute changes" in era 3 of Civ 7, history and technics were no longer important to produce something that could be released in time. This all also correspondences to the story of the desperate former UI designer of Civ 7 in the glassdoor interview.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I really hope there is no Fourth Age in the future, especially considering the current state of the game. They should instead focus on improving and expanding upon the existing three ages of the game, with more civilizations for the three ages. In all seriousness, who is going to succeed the USA, Britain, France, Mexico or Russia in a Fourth Age? Having Germany, Thailand, China, Iran, India, the Soviets and Japan succeed Prussia, Siam, Qing, Qajar, Mughals, Russia and Meiji seems extremely repetitive and redundant.

Prussia should have been in the Exploration Era and Germany in the Modern Era.

It seems as they planned the current Prussian civilization to always be a "Germany civilization" and they changed its name at the last minute to "Prussia" wrongly assuming that both were the same thing. Proof of that is the fact that, at launch, the "Prussian" cities in-game were just a unified-German city list (with cities such as Munich or Stuttgart being included, who were never part of Prussia). Also, the civilization symbol used for Prussia resembles the Reichsadler of the German Empire much more than the Eagle of the coat of arms of Prussia. The colours chosen for the "Prussian civilization" are also more generally associated to Germany than to Prussia. A black eagle on a yellow background is an obvious symbol of Germany, not of Prussia (which would be a slightly different black eagle on a blue background).

To summarize, they added Prussia instead of Germany as a last minute improvised move to introduce a "never before seen civilization" in the game, which was intended to be Germany all along. At least that's my guess, I could obviously be wrong about all this though.

The various traits and UU and stuff are very unPrussian to be honest, so ya either complete ignorance of anything approaching historical knowledge, or some desk muppet changing the name

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I've said this before on another thread, but my general perception of things is that the Modern Age isn't "Modern Age" but is really just Industrial Age, but because there is no official 4th age (yet, which I'm like 100% sure is coming eventually) they threw few things about in order to "make up" the difference, this includes giving Russia, Prussia, and Meiji Japan weird units, have the whole Space Race sort of tacked on last minute, and the weird temporal offset where the end-turns of the age are not nowhere near 1960s.

This, combined with the fact that the theme for America LITERALLY said "Colonial America", and if you look at all the art work of the age, you notice how Industrial Age oriented they are. There is no "Modern", it's really just the Industrial Age with the Modern Age tacked on last minute.

I expect that when the 4th age finally arrives, it'll for the most part shuffle things around for some of the base game content.

 

[Krikkit1]

I've said this before on another thread, but my general perception of things is that the Modern Age isn't "Modern Age" but is really just Industrial Age, but because there is no official 4th age (yet, which I'm like 100% sure is coming eventually) they threw few things about in order to "make up" the difference, this includes giving Russia, Prussia, and Meiji Japan weird units, have the whole Space Race sort of tacked on last minute, and the weird temporal offset where the end-turns of the age are not nowhere near 1960s.

This, combined with the fact that the theme for America LITERALLY said "Colonial America", and if you look at all the art work of the age, you notice how Industrial Age oriented they are. There is no "Modern", it's really just the Industrial Age with the Modern Age tacked on last minute.

I expect that when the 4th age finally arrives, it'll for the most part shuffle things around for some of the base game content.

It may not shuffle it too much.
Delving into the files revealed some "Atomic" age data which would be something that would start just as the current "Modern" age was ending.
ie 1750-1950

They should work on getting the Year:Turn ratios better so time lines to line up a little bit better, but otherwise it should work.

 

[Civinator]

It may not shuffle it too much.
Delving into the files revealed some "Atomic" age data which would be something that would start just as the current "Modern" age was ending.

Ed Beach´s old Civ 3 Conquests campagne mechanism (that in my eyes is the core of many Civ 7 features) has the place for at least nine different ages.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think we had similar discussion already. As I see it, the logic is the following:

1. Modern age civilizations are mostly chosen around XIX century - see Buganda, for example, or the choice of Iranian dynasty in the next part of RtR DLC. So, Prussia fits best here.
2. 4th age is definitely planned, or at least was planned - this could change. So, potential 4th age Germany is also likely to be considered.
3. Modern age includes ideological conflicts, ending in WWII, so the game needs some representation of Fascist and Communist regimes.
4. On the other hand, direct implementation of Nazi Germany is no-go, so it's pretty obvious decision to put some WWII units to Prussia to have indirect representation.

What convinces me that it's a deliberate solution and not just random decision is that exactly the same approach is used with Russia (WWII unit, but otherwise no USSR) and Meiji Japan.

 

[Krajzen]

I have the feeling, too, that in Civ 7 there were some massive "last minute changes", especially in era 3 of the game. untitledjuan, your arguments about Germany in my eyes are very valid.

A similar problem is Britain and the ridiculous HMS Revenge, a ship that even in Britain was second class compared to other British warships of its time and that not even had its own graphics when released. It seems in those "last minute changes" in era 3 of Civ 7, history and technics were no longer important to produce something that could be released in time. This all also correspondences to the story of the desperate former UI designer of Civ 7 in the glassdoor interview.

Honestly, as ridiculous as it sounds, I genuinely believe that glassdor guy's anecdote about one (or several?) of the lead devs deciding to throw away a lot of work and embark on the last minute radical changes after ahayauasca trip in Mexico. For those who don't know, ahayasca is an extremely powerful psychoactive drug and people from certain subcultures travel to Mexico like to Mecca to ingest it and "expand consciousness". It's also powerful enough to trigger dramatic changes in mindset. The reason I believe that the glassdoor guy has actually told the truth here is that the anecdote is so absurd yet so strangely specific that it fits the absurd yet strangely specific problems of civ7 quite well - from the crazy decisions regarding civ switching and specifics of the era system through the ridiculous HMS Revenge to the incredibly strange problems UI.

In the same vein, I sadly suspect that the lead devs genuinely expected civ switching to be loved enough for them to bank on the fourth era and the fourth set of disconnected civs, going as far as excluding USA and France from the 1950-2050 era because you can simply switch to Canada and Sweden. After all everybody knows how civ players are really attached to the leader, not the civ, right? Now that's a thought worthy of the ahayauasca-induced "enlightenment"...