Germany general post

I’d consider them more as “HRE” not specifically Austrian.

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.


I think this statement sums up the reason why I would want a German split instead of going along with the umbrella version of Germany.


I’m not going to vote for any option that adds a new German civ but I don’t think “No Change” is correct either.
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.

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.

1 Like

You’re taking the word “revolt” too literally here. It can be interpreted as an evolution out of a larger umbrella entity into its own thing that appeared in the later stages of the game’s timeline.

Prussia was a small duchy, vassal of the Polish crown in the 15th 16th and 17th centuries. The lands that 18th century Prussia controlled were controlled by Poland, Sweden and/or various other german entities (Austria etc) in the previous centuries.

The Barbary coast didn’t revolt against the ottomans and Canada didn’t revolt to gain independence. Not all independence processes involve one single big revolutionary event like it was the case for the USA.


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

Problem with this poll is that your options don’t designate civilizations. You mention “German states”, “Austria”, “Prussia”, etc, but none of these are designation for actual civilization (in the game’s sense of civilization).

Before even talking about a German split, it would be necessary to properly understand what a civilization is and what it’s not. The Germans playable civ represents the German civilization, which includes all/most of the political entities mentionned in the poll. Picking a civilization in the game doesn’t mean that you get to play the political faction that is a by-product or a element of that civilization.

Civilizations are a way to pick what people, culture and origin you will start your game with, as if you were a departing military adventure from that cultural area, participating to the growth of the main/most representative/generic city of that picked civilization (nb: never the metropolis are mentionned as “capital city”, thus showing clearly the intent and meaning of “civilization” that is not “faction”, “state” or something of that sort).

Therefore, suggesting “Austria” or “Prussia” as a replacement for “Germans” doesn’t make sense in my opinion.

PS: I would remind people to keep in mind that the timeframe of the game starts at the beginning of the 16th century. When you start a skirmish game, it is intended that you start with 16th century units and techs. So whenever someone ends up suggesting something that would imply a civ having to rely on techs and units that are not part of the 16th century, such as this:

it shows that there is a problem, that the idea is fundamentally wrong and goes against the principles of the game.


The Barbary States has the Senussi Revolt and Algerian War later on (like how Finland is based on later events). Canada had the Northwest Rebellion. Prussia didn’t even have a hint of revolutionary sentiment to foment a hypothetical rebellion.

The point of the German revolutions was to unite Germany. There’s no reason to revolt if you’re already Germany.

1 Like

Principles you just came up with 5min ago.

If they combined Spanish and Portuguese as “Iberians” from the very beginning I can use every piece of your “principles” to defend it and neglect proposals to split it.
And by such “principles” Maltese, US and Mexicans would never have been added nor should Danes.


16th century techs meaning there is no weaponry besides the muskets carried by some guys wearing tricornes you called from the Town Center?
Followed by 17th century techs with bayonets and Napoleonic hussars but no artillery?

How do you explain that almost identical Nordic countries like Denmark and Sweden are separate “civilizations”?

Are you aware Mexico and USA are in the game? Civ representation is definitely more skewed to the centuries where they were most prominent, but that doesn’t mean they exclude earlier times. Prussia could easily have both Teutonic Knights and 18th century line infantry.


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


Danmark can be justified by the fact that it respects the original intent of the game, that is, colonization and adventure. But I have always stood against “Danmark”.

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.

All in all, DE devs have taken a distance from the original game principals, but the core fundamentals of the game are still here, and we have to be able to understand them in order to think about what would be correct or wrong. Having"Prussians" would be wrong. Having “Austrians” would be wrong. We have “Germans”. Let’s try to stay the most true to the original principles.

At least, if people really want more from the eastern Habsburg possessions and Hungary, we could go for a Danubian civ or something like that. Could it work? I don’t really think so, but why not.

1 Like

That’s exactly what an Austrian civ would be.

1 Like

Revolt could be given a more generalized name such as “independence” that still covers the original “colonies revolting from their home country” concepts, but also explains the later additions of nations that did not gain independence through revolts (eg Canada and South Africa) or did not in the game’s time period (eg Finland and Egypt, which gained independence much later but were long considered as a de facto separate nation).

Then it could also cover Germans turning into separate German States.

1 Like


That is my argument

The current German civ has Frederick the Great as ruler so they should be renamed and maybe a bit reworked to function as Prussia (as we all know, Frederick the Great ruled Prussia and not the Holy Roman Empire). Then add The Habsburgs as DLC civ and everyone is happy. I would even agree with Austro-Hungary instead of it.

1 Like

By the time you have turned the Germans into Prussia the civs identity is truly long dead and gone.


So it should not be another German civ. The current German civ should stay mostly unchanged. The additional Danubian civ would be centered mostly on Hungarian, Transylvanians, Vlachs, with elements of Serbian/Croatian regions, etc and only few German elements. But honestly I’m really not convinced that such a civilization would be relevant for the game, especially nowadays.

Any suggestions of name that would be suitable?

Current Germans civ renamed into Austrians civ with acces to “Danubian” content from Home City - this is the only logical, historical and fun option.