Germany general post

[MatM1996]

@Bleed

Just because there’s been discussion of a Germans split for a few years, doesn’t mean that we’re gonna get a Germans split. Or an Indians split. Or a Chinese split. Or an Ottomans split.

Yes, better not to give ideas…

@Bleed

Or God forbid, a United States split.

@CanineCrown7153

Yet again?

*Dixie was playing in the background…

@Bleed

The Crimean Khanate deserves a spot on the roster? A country whose role in history was literally to just be the minor leagues for prospective Ottoman ########### and a glorified slave bazaar for everybody else in Eastern Europe. That civilization?

We already have the Tatars in general as a campaign-only civ, and their flag uses similar colors and iconography to the Crimean Tatar flag used today.

There’s a better chance, I kid you not, of an umbrella Australian aboriginal civilization making it into this game than there is of us getting a Crimean civ in any capacity.

@Silenos7315

We could have a generic “Tatars” civ (kinda like the Germans or Italians) that can represent the Kazakhs/Uzbeks/Crimeans/Dzungars from the central Asian steppes

Yes, I agree…that is, let’s call it Tatars in general, covering all the khanates of Central Asia and that opens the way for you to put the Afghans between Persia (which would go with Oman) and India…

@OperaticShip743

There are 2 AI entities in the game. When you choose 1vs2 or 2v1 a green AI entity appears. Those are the Sisilians. Their name is only shown if you defeat them. He says: “The Sicilians have been defeated”

@OperaticShip743

They do not appear in the campaign (as far as I remember).

Oh I understand I understand…

@Opdepov

There’s also the Potsdam giants card, death ride and scharnhorst reforms. All which are relatively new and ship or enable iconic Prussian units.

March revolution (not July) also happened in Austrian lands, the card would work just as fine in an Austrian civ.

House of Hohenzollern was renamed from Teutonic towncenters with the KotM release, the old icon is still in the files even.

@M00Z1LLA

Well historically, the German revolutionary civ should be Germany. Pan-Germanism was a major driver of the 1848 revolutions. It’s just tricky when there’s already an umbrella German civ.

@stephensundin

There is so much more to a civ than gameplay. Prussian elements are integral; they are things that have been attached to the civ since 2005. Renaming and reskinning everything that is non-Austrian or non-Habsburg in game would destroy the character of the civ. The gameplay might not change, but it wouldn’t feel or look like the same civ anymore.

The fact of the matter is that Germans are the Germans in game for very good reasons. The civ has elements of Prussia, Austria,and the greater HRE, and is better because of it, and it’s something that the devs have continued to reinforce. For the vast majority of the AOE3 period, thinking of them as distinctly separate was nonsense; leading up to the modern German state in the 1840s-1860s, it was a debate between a Prussia lead Germany (kleindeutschland) or Austria (grossdeutschland). It was a question of which king would win, not if they were German.

@Silenos7315

There is a French revolution for the French so… what is the problem?

Yes, I agree…lastly they could make a revolution similar to the French one that would lead to the German Confederation or the attempted German Empire of 1848…

German Confederation

(Includes Prussia, Austria, Liechtenstein, Saxony and Oldenburg (that is, you put the native and Danish units there))

German Empire (1848–1849)

@ArrivedLeader22

I’m talking about how easy it is to separate out the Prussian part. The thing is the Prussia part is not very related to the rest, and can be extended to a full civ on its own. Brandenburg-Prussia’s role in the thirty years war was marginal. When Prussia really became a major power HRE was already effectively non-functional.

And they are not integral to the gameplay. You will not see the leader when you play the civ yourself. If the leader has a different set of lines it would not change how the civ plays. Not to mention Fredrick the Great in-game does not have many lines that allude to Prussia but “German”. I would not feel any difference if they are read by say Charles V. You can rename the home city. The layout of the home city is generic (like all old home cities) and has no particular Berlin landmark. These are all very superficial.

Uhlan was common in most German states and also Poland and Russia. And “needle gunner” would not be a different unit if you call it something else. In fact it being a less impressive RG with only one hp buff card does not align with Prussia’s good skirmishers.

@ArrivedLeader22

These are “recent” changes (because they come from the past 2 major changes). And all are again superficial changes can easily be changed again like “macehuatin” without any affect on gameplay.
I think it’s safe to say the original Germans civ is not very Prussian. Of course they tried to make it more Prussian which I don’t personally like. But even with those the representation is still quite shallow.

A typical impression of Prussia should be good line infantry, grenadiers and skirmishers. Not late renaissance landsknechts or Hussite war wagons.

@ArrivedLeader22

If Austrian refers to Habsburgs = HRE then yes. But people usually talk about Germans of that time period as a “Habsburg monarchy/HRE” and “Protestant League”, and rarely separates out Austria even if it is a major Habsburg holding.
Like Wallenstein, Count Tilly, landsknechts, black reiters, etc. all belong to the HRE faction but we rarely consider them as “Austrian”.

For THE Austria proper or Austria-Hungary, the one that rivals Prussian in the 18th century when HRE had de facto disintegrated, I actually find even fewer references. The only one is “Spanish riding school”. Many of its units and entities are given to the Hungarian revolution.

@M00Z1LLA

In the context of removing Austrian references (or at least things that aren’t Prussian compatible) to make Germany into Prussia it would take a lot. Doppelsoldners, Settler Wagons, Black Riders, Church cards, etc are all very compatible with Austria and not at all with Prussia.

But yeah, in terms of things that are exclusively Austrian there isn’t a huge amount so I could have phrased that better.

@ArrivedLeader22

But yeah as @M00Z1LLA just said, they are definitely NOT Prussian so separating out Prussian and turning the Germans into Austrians is easier than the other way round.

@UpmostRook9474

If the current German civ is considered too close to Austria, it should do something as good a representation of Prussia as possible. It does need changes.

@M00Z1LLA

The current Germans don’t really lack Prussian stuff, and they aren’t overly Austrian. They do broadly represent the HRE, but there is a tension between the ethos of the major players like Austria and Prussia that can’t be resolved by just adding more stuff.

As explained in the comments above yours, the issue is that a proper Prussian feeling civ is not compatible with the core of Germany’s design that focuses on archaic units and lacks Musketeers.

Yes, you are right, this discussion will continue to exist until they put Prussia into the game and rename the Germans Austrians (it won’t be Habsburgs because they are a royal house) with Charles V as IA…

@M00Z1LLA

The Barbary States has the Senussi Revolt and Algerian War later on (like how Finland is based on later events).

That doesn’t fit into the chronology of the game…

@M00Z1LLA

Prussia could easily have both Teutonic Knights

@M00Z1LLA

Civs are an amalgam of iconic elements from different ages. The Teutonic Order is as much a valid part of Prussia as the nation of Frederick the Great is.

As long as they were the Teutonic knights of the 15th century…

@ArrivedLeader22

Fun fact: musketeers and grenadiers are both available at the beginning of the game (when you gained access to military).

Yes, but the grenadiers are from the 18th century, so they are not that early in the game…

@ArrivedLeader22

Multiple civs have skirmishers at the beginning too.

The skirmishers are from the 3rd age (Fortresses Age)…

@SalarAdin

Mexico seems to fairly well represent people of central America, but goes in conflict by being based on a Spanish colony instead of an actual civilization. Also, it should have been, as you let it think, more scaled to the timeline (or it should have never existed as itself and be merged with Aztec or something).

USA is a mistake, and most of us on this forum seem to agree on that. It should have stayed a campaign civ.
So all these civs are not good examples on which we could base our justifications for potential future additions or split.

Sooner or later they would have arrived anyway…

@SalarAdin

This is disappointing and proves once again that splitting Germany for Prussia should never be a thing. I’m not going to comment on every aspects, but first, the suggested Austrians civ doesn’t have anything Danubian, Hungarian and around except for a few mercenaries, 1 rev and a Grenzer. Second, about the Prussian civ, it’s horrible. Unique age-up mechanic?? It’s one another state age-up ala African/USA. Please, no! You suggest Teutonic Knights for Prussia, but the Prussia you suggest is mostly post 1700, when the order was not a thing for almost 2 centuries! Prussia was not even independent before 1657. Then it became the german thing you propose. Offizer as a hero, oh yes another general, please, no! Build a Berlin Church?? Doesn’t make sense, we play a new small settlement in a new location. Bavaria was never part of Prussia as far as I know, and even, allied.

Yes, it would be the United States of Prussia, although in its defense Germany is a federal republic, so it could be…

@SalarAdin

People should seriously revise carefully on what is the true essence of the game. Suggesting buildings like that, out-of-timeframe civs (or civs that ignore the 16th and 17th centuries, or when not, are inconstitant with their initial idea eg. the above ‘Prussians’), or even suggesting a removal of the colonial architecture… This is the whole point of the game ; you play a bunch of people, supported by and working under a metropolis, who are building on-the-job a new settlement to support skirmish, meaning a short military campaign. That’s why stuff like Basilicas and Wonders is a big mistake made by dev who didn’t understand the fundamental principle of the game, but the so-called colonial (it’s not even colonial, it’s “on-the-job”) architecture shouldn’t be removed, etc. If you want to remove these aspects that constitute the main essence of the game, then Explorers, Settler Wagons, Coureur des Bois, etc should get replaced by villagers, officers, etc. Then it’s not AoE3 anymore.

Yes, but in its defense, AoE 3 moved a little away from colonialism with KotM…there’s a reason why Italy fits in (the Renaissance and the Risorgimento and the Basilicas and the Asian Wonders), Revolutionary/Napoleonic France (and the European random and historical maps) and Malta (based on the Siege of Malta seen in the Blood campaign, although Malta in turn had colonies in the Caribbean)…with KotM and the new European DLC, AoE 3 is like it went from American Conquest to Cossacks 2…

@M00Z1LLA

The British have Longbowmen as a unique unit despite Great Britain not existing before 1707. How is that any different from Prussia having Teutonic Knights?

Longbows remained the main weapon of the trained bands, the home-defence militia of the Tudor period, until they were disbanded by Queen Elizabeth I in 1598. The last recorded use of bows in an English battle may have been a skirmish at Bridgnorth, in October 1642, during the English Civil War, when an impromptu town militia, armed with bows, proved effective against un-armoured musketeers.

@ArrivedLeader22

Ottomans for whatever reason they are included but they don’t violate any essence of the game for sure) building colonies in America.

They were added for the sieges of Malta and Vienna and for being a regional power in the Mediterranean…the only thing that was a little out of place until KotM (originally the game was going to have European maps, but they left it aside and focused more on American maps; this during development in 2004-2005)…

@ArrivedLeader22

Good thing is that we don’t have heartbroken “colonialism!!!” purists anymore after KoTM. So the purists’ “principle” does shift all the time as the game develops, however reluctantly. It’s a good sign no?

@OperaticShip743

I agree. AOE-3 deals with war conflicts in general during the modern age and the early years of the contemporary age, the discovery of America and colonization was only the opening of the game.

Also the theme of colonialism limited the focus of the game and being able to make new expansions… otherwise we would have stayed at TWC and little else…

@SirBarnzy1

For Prussia, it ‘starts’ as the Teutonic Order, has a fight with it’s own Prussian people as the people don’t like the harsh high taxes imposed on them, then has to deal with the Polish who go to aid the non-Order Prussians, then incoporates some of Prussia into Polish territory. By 1525 Prussia is a vassal of Poland then the Order Grandmaster becomes a Duke alongside going protestant and ditching the Order. Later is in a personal union with Brandenberg, bringing territory into HRE technically (but in reality not really - it was just seen as part of Prussia), then starts to become a military powerhouse (and free from Poland) in the late 17th century.

So TLDR, for me, Teutonic stuff is fine, as long as it’s not done as poorly as Hospitallers for Malta - i.e completely outdated 1200s chainmail armour and such. By the start of AoEIII’s timeframe, the Teutonic Order would being using Gothic plate armour (i.e. the Swiss Pikemen style in-game)

If there ever was a Prussia, I’d love to see their shtick as being merc-dependent and fairly archaic until you initiate ‘Prussian Military Reforms’ (a research tech at each military building?) which enacts a unit swap (kinda like the HC shipments, except more widely-affecting and available at buildings in the Fortress Age or something).

@SirBarnzy1

The Prussians could retain the trait of free Uhlans with shipments but their other identity would be this ‘gear change’ mechanic where you can modernise your army in one go (or per different military structure) which changes the gameplay style as your units won’t necessarily become more poweful than the previous line and their upgrades, but will become quicker to train, faster moving and more resource efficient (almost going into German stereotype territory here).

Yes, I think the Prussians may arrive at some point, but the devs must still be seeing it…