Civ: Germans (Cimbri, Suebians, Goths)

[Genava55]

4 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Maybe not use histrionics when devising your criticisms. 

In this thread, I've seen one constant. People beating their brains out over difficulties they've created for themselves. You want to separate the Germans into several factions when it's particularly difficult to produce a distinctive and unique architecture for them. You can't manage to integrate into a single concept the fact that weaponry and equipment have evolved over the course of their history. At first, you decide to focus on one people but you soon realise that the most interesting historical figures are not part of that people (like Arminius). You soon realise that archaeology isn't going to be able to help you much, because at the outset the Germanic civilisation was a very sober one with little artistic production. All of a sudden, you decide to go for the original game's idea of separating the factions into two periods (before and after the Christ). All this to choose an unknown people with incomplete information about them. But all of a sudden, you have to use this people to generalize about all the Germanic peoples. All because you've included different peoples as heroes of the faction (obviously reluctantly, because of the lack of information). Using the diversity of peoples as an asset is a very good idea, but fascinatingly you've managed to turn it into a bad idea. You should have thought of that beforehand. The original mistake was the Suevi.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 minute ago, Genava55 said:

In this thread, I've seen one constant. People beating their brains out over difficulties they've created for themselves. You want to separate the Germans into several factions when it's particularly difficult to produce a distinctive and unique architecture for them. You can't manage to integrate into a single concept the fact that weaponry and equipment have evolved over the course of their history. At first, you decide to focus on one people but you soon realise that the most interesting historical figures are not part of that people (like Arminius). You soon realise that archaeology isn't going to be able to help you much, because at the outset the Germanic civilisation was a very sober one with little artistic production. All of a sudden, you decide to go for the original game's idea of separating the factions into two periods (before and after the Christ). All this to choose an unknown people with incomplete information about them. But all of a sudden, you have to use this people to generalize about all the Germanic peoples. All because you've included different peoples as heroes of the faction (obviously reluctantly, because of the lack of information). Using the diversity of peoples as an asset is a very good idea, but fascinatingly you've managed to turn it into a bad idea. You should have thought of that beforehand. The original mistake was the Suevi.

Ok and?????

I think we have a good idea now that fits 0ad and is cool. It brings interesting hypotheticals and conveys some of the unknowns in the civ description.

Where are you going with this?

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

In this thread, I've seen one constant. People beating their brains out over difficulties they've created for themselves. You want to separate the Germans into several factions when it's particularly difficult to produce a distinctive and unique architecture for them. You can't manage to integrate into a single concept the fact that weaponry and equipment have evolved over the course of their history. At first, you decide to focus on one people but you soon realise that the most interesting historical figures are not part of that people (like Arminius). You soon realise that archaeology isn't going to be able to help you much, because at the outset the Germanic civilisation was a very sober one with little artistic production. All of a sudden, you decide to go for the original game's idea of separating the factions into two periods (before and after the Christ). All this to choose an unknown people with incomplete information about them. But all of a sudden, you have to use this people to generalize about all the Germanic peoples. All because you've included different peoples as heroes of the faction (obviously reluctantly, because of the lack of information). Using the diversity of peoples as an asset is a very good idea, but fascinatingly you've managed to turn it into a bad idea. You should have thought of that beforehand. The original mistake was the Suevi.

 

Calm down.

[Genava55]

2 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok and?????

I think we have a good idea now that fits 0ad and is cool. It brings interesting hypotheticals and conveys some of the unknowns in the civ description.

Where are you going with this?

If you bring in a faction called ‘the Germans’, people expect to see ‘the Germans’.

People are either going to be disappointed, or they're not going to care.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

3 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok and?????

I think we have a good idea now that fits 0ad and is cool. It brings interesting hypotheticals and conveys some of the unknowns in the civ description.

Where are you going with this?

If you bring in a faction called ‘the Germans’, people expect to see ‘the Germans’.

People are either going to be disappointed, or they're not going to care.

I don't think many players know what "the germans" looked like in 100bc.

Is "German alliance" or "Cimbrian Alliance" better? What is the alternative, what is the way forward? Suggestions?

Edited Sunday at 23:34 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok and?????

I think we have a good idea now that fits 0ad and is cool. It brings interesting hypotheticals and conveys some of the unknowns in the civ description.

Where are you going with this?

I think it's better to let him be.

He has his vision like each one of us.

I think he's upset.

[Genava55]

19 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I don't think many players know what "the germans" looked like in 100bc.

Many players only know Arminius for the early period. It was a national hero. Netflix recently made a series about him. Arminius is closer to the timeframe than Boudicca. So yeah, players don't know the look of the Germans. But they know a few things about the Germans.

Spoiler

And even the Romans didn't know what "Germans" looked like in 100 bc because nobody is called "Germans" at this time. The first to mention a people called "Germans" is Caesar. The earliest accounts mentioning the Cimbri called them Celts (it is Florus in his epitome). It is only after understanding the nuance that the Roman authors distinguished the different people. By the way Caesar is the first to correct this misconception by associating the Cimbri to the Germans, it is not very explicit but he understood they came from approx. the same place. So he is both giving us the concept of Germanic people and the first association of the Cimbri to the Germanic sphere.

Edited Sunday at 23:52 by Genava55

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Ok, then maybe players will learn about something before armenius and the famous battle of teutoberg forest. Maybe their pre-conceived ideas on what the civ should look like will be challenged. I think that would be fine, no?

[Genava55]

10 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok, then maybe players will learn about something before armenius and the famous battle of teutoberg forest. Maybe their pre-conceived ideas on what the civ should look like will be challenged. I think that would be fine, no?

The problem is that it's not a campaign. It's a playable faction. In themselves, the Cimbri are an interesting part of the story. But I think it's reductive to represent the Germans solely with them. And I think players are going to ask questions. Especially casual players.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I think we're spoiling a faction that could have been a nice surprise for players.

Call them Germans, publish them and let's see what happens. In any case, our players are used to this kind of things.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Well it’s not solely with them. There are Teutonic units and teutobod, ambronian and tigurnian units. But most are cimbrian.

with the regular city building approach and the semi nomadic abilities unlocked with techs, we represent both the likely home the people left (as obscure as it is) as well as the migrations they took across Europe.

so the design is not just about units but what the civ is capable of doing.

Edited 12 hours ago by real_tabasco_sauce

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I’ll add that the civ and battles with the Roman could make for a very cool campaign.

[Ultimate Aurelian]

19 hours ago, Genava55 said:

That's true but the Gauls in our game is not only the Gauls of the sack of Rome, or the Gauls of the Punic Wars, or the Gauls of the Gallic Wars. They depict a civilisation over a time span of four centuries.

Why it is so difficult to grasp a civilisation that knew some diversity and evolution in its history?

They are separated from the Britons.

Not sure if there is enough differences between the Germans to justify something similar (compared to Suebi, the Cimbri seem more nomadic, more influenced by Gauls and with heavier equipment).

[Ultimate Aurelian]

7 hours ago, Genava55 said:

And I think players are going to ask questions. Especially casual players.

 

Well that is to a certain point always going to happen in a historical game like this; players will be introduced to new concepts that might sometimes confuse them at first.

There are already a few civilizations that are not very well known, or different from the stereotypes some people might have (IE Ptolemies instead of more stereotypical Egyptians like in RTW, Romans in the vanilla game based on the Republic).

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Ultimate Aurelian

[Genava55]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I’ll add that the civ and battles with the Roman could make for a very cool campaign.

But I don't think we should sacrifice that aspect. I just think that if we're going to have a Germanic faction, we might as well think about how it can include as many things as possible and be complete. I don't think we should leave out the people involved in the Gallic War. I also think we should include the wars with the Roman Empire and I even think we should include the late elements that correspond to the time when Germanic culture was at its most mature and richest. I don't think the Romans and Hellenes should be the only ones to have reforms in the game. I think that, with a bit of imagination, you could easily represent the two or three periods of Germanic history within the same faction. I can still understand separating the Goths, because they weren't called Germans by the ancients. But for the rest, it's a shame to miss out on all their history.

5 minutes ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

They are separated from the Britons.

The Britons has never been called Gauls. It is even not certain the ancients viewed them as Celtic. And their material culture is indeed different from the Gauls.

7 minutes ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Not sure if there is enough differences between the Germans to justify something similar (compared to Suebi, the Cimbri seem more nomadic, more influenced by Gauls and with heavier equipment).

There is no evidence for any weapon in the Suebian sphere before the very late phase of the Republic and early Roman Empire. No evidence. They practiced a form of cremated burials and they didn't put any weapons in their grave. The Jastorf culture is particularly sober in this regard.

In Jutland, there are both evidence of local weapons (one-edged blades) and imported weapons from the Celtic sphere.

In a similar situation, the Przeworsk culture practiced a form of cremated burials but in their case, they did add weapons in the burials. In their case, there is also a mixture of local weapons (one-edged blades) and Celtic weapons. The Przeworsk culture is probably the most Celtized culture.

The Poienesti-Lukashevka culture who established itself in Moldova and seems to be related to the Bastarnae, included Celtic weapons in their burials too.

And when the Suebian sphere started to add weapons in their graves, with the Großromstedt horizon/culture, it included Celtic weapons too.

The Celtic sword was basically the Kalashnikov of the ancient time, you find it everywhere.

But it doesn't mean the Cimbri were more Celtized than the Suebi. Celtic items were found in the Suebian sphere, simply it was not weapons. It is mostly fibula, arm-rings, collars and belt pieces. Here La Tène B (380-260 BC) finds outside of the La Tène sphere:

A significant part of Germany was maybe populated with Celts we didn't know much about but the area of the middle Elbe was not Celtic obviously.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree with Genava.

Factions should have some overhauls to their mechanics.

One faction must mutate into another faction.

This is a good example why we should.

One faction becomes another. That way, nothing is wasted.

A faction becomes a new experience when it reforms. History is not static and peoples and war change.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I think I see your complaint, @Genava55. You're worried that using the Cimbrian wars to set up the "Germans" civ closes the door to the later germans.

I'm afraid that's true for the current version, but nothing is ever set completely in stone. I think it would be reasonable for some content to represent post cimbrian war germans, setting up what players would probably expect as "Germans" like you said earlier.

I'm not sure what that would look like or how it would work, but I'd be fine with it conceptually. It just has to make gameplay sense. Could change a hero, wonder.

for now though, I think we should solidify what we have already done so we can get it over the finish line.