German travesty, wiemar mod, and the limits of the golden age feature

[lord of the mark]

Golden ages (times of unusual productivity, leading to great acheivements) for a civ occur when their special unit wins its first battle. This is done to roughly sequence which civs have golden ages when EG egyptians early, americans in late game, etc. While this is not a feature I wanted in civ2's successor, in terms of what Firaxis was trying to achieve it seems like a fairly elegant solution.

But it also creates some problems.
Germany's unique unit is the panzer tank. Since they clearly wanted germany to achieve its golden age in the late game - competing with americans and russians - a unit like teutonic knight is ruled out. And what 20th c German military unit is most well-known? The panzer tank of course, and the performance of German armour in WW2 (Guderian, Rommel, etc).

BUT - this implies that Germany's "golden age" was the 1940's. This is an obscenity. It is even worse in that Germany had a true golden age just a little bit earlier - The period of the Weimar republic, (1919-1933) when Germany made more contributions to civilization, in the areas of art, literature, film, social science, architecture, natural science, philosophy, etc then any civ I can think of in such a short period of time. The panzer triggered golden age is an insult to the memory of Weimar.

Well, as so many here say, if you dont like it, build a mod.
Very well, how does one do so? I can think of many special attribtues Id like my Weimar civ to have, but cannot think of a MILITARY unit that goes with that era. Indeed Germany was not at war during those 14 years, and the distinctiveness of Weimar is that it was not a militarist regime, like those which preceeded and succeeded it. As far as I can tell, theres no reasonable way in a Civ3 modpack to give Germany a Weimar golden age.

LOTM

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd actually think that German Golden Age was earlier than that. In the late 1880s to WW1. With composers such as Wagner and minds such as Einstein. With rulers like Bismark, and a rapidly growing military.

[lupusmalus]

No military unit to go with a proper German golden age? Mymy, if that doesn't tell you something about German history... I actually don't think Germany ever really had a proper golden age, and it's certainly the first time I've heard someone suggest that it was the Weimar Republic. It may have seen remarkable cultural and scientific achievements but it also saw incessant economic plight and political radicalism and violence. 1871-1914 also saw major advances in all fiels, but here you also had a nation deeply divided against itself. Then there was the "Wirtschaftswunder", but under American dominance. The empire of Charles V "on which the sun never set" <=> beginning religous wars and ultimate failure of pretty much all of his hopes. Maybe the Prussia of the "enlightened despot" Frederick the Great? Or maby it's only now entering its golden age, with a stable democracy, a strong economy and aspiring to become the leader of a peacefully united Europe. But I totally agree that giving them the panzer as mark of their golden age is a total travesty.

[BeBMan]

Personally I think our golden age has - peacefully - begun in 1989.

I actually don't think Germany ever really had a proper golden age

Well that is a question of definition. You could say the same about every other country...

LOTM sas Weimar - I would support that at least partially. I can also imagine the time of Otto I., Barbarossa, Friedrich II. (the medieval HRE emperor, not the Prussian king ), or - also partially - 1871. But I agree, the Hitler time is the worst choice.

[lupusmalus]

Yes, I forgot the Hohenstaufen, especially appealing because they came close to crushing the papacy! Not so sure about Friedrich II in particular, though, the preceding interregnum had put paid to most of the imperial authority and in consequence he spent most of his time out of Germany. But anyway, let's take them and put the panzers into the tank!

[Jusbaummer]

Civilizations can have their golden age at peace in civ3 if they just defeat barbarian unit by their special unit.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lupusmalus
Yes, I forgot the Hohenstaufen, especially appealing because they came close to crushing the papacy! Not so sure about Friedrich II in particular, though, the preceding interregnum had put paid to most of the imperial authority and in consequence he spent most of his time out of Germany.

For me the time of Friedrich II. would be the ideal choice, when he was winning Jerusalem back (at least temporary) with a crusade against the will of the pope. I think Barbarosssa and F.II. weren´t the greatest rulers when we look on what they achieved finally, but in the eyes of the people they were - but yes, the following interregnum was a big step backward.

Hm, let´s see what leader they have chosen for Germany...

[Admiral PJ]

Maybe it would be better to do what one of the Firaxis guys said about being able to choose if you want an early golden age or late golden age, by choosing special units only once during your civilisation (or once each era) so then you get the change to do golden ages when you want.

Hopefully they'll have an option where your asked if you want a golden age when the unit wins a battle, then the more historically sensitive among us can try and have golden ages at realistic stages in the civs life.

IT would be nice to be able to edit godlen age conditions for scenarios at least, maybe having a high Culture civility rating for 10 turns would trigger your Golden Age...

Perhaps golden age isn't what people think of as a civs rennaisance, but more their Superpower stage in later centuries.

Maybe for the cold war, America and Russia the superpowers can be in their golden ages after 1950 when they've won ww2 or something, to simulate their dominance over the world economically, millitarily and culturally. What would be cool would be to have wars for small tribes/civs with both superpowers using diplomacy, millitary etc with communists fighting democracy/republics(anything but commy as was the case)

Admiral Peter (and yes i have a girlfriend)

[Admiral PJ]

I think its reasonable to have germanys golden age with world war2, as if like i said golden age equates with superpower, germany did become a superpower then with its empire across europe and africa, although it was nothing like a rennaisance as would normally be seen as a golden age.. although the Nazi's evil slavery and propoganda could be seen as improving their production and economy perhaps.
I know the Nazi system was based on the idea of corporations, though industry corporations weren't given any freedom they were practically nationalised , yet this system might have increased its infrastructures economy compared to primitve structures.

I don't think golden ages would be best to simulate germanys power in ww2, just the government of Fascism and some great leader units and the Special panzer unit should be enough, their generals skills were their main advantage over their enemies, although hitler did many stupid things like not bombing the ports, just the civilians(proove that evil never prospers maybe) when our good allies were assembling landing fleets for us to win the war.

If your wanting a less evil, more PC time for the germans maybe a good time was when the german states were united into a nation rather than the small burg city states of mediaval times, with industrial building and advancement.

Maybe Englands golden age should be the industrial revolution or before it, to give it the boost to make the empire.. otherwise the small civ wouldn't make it as far as it did historically.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I think its reasonable to have germanys golden age with world war2, as if like i said golden age equates with superpower, germany did become a superpower then with its empire across europe and africa, although it was nothing like a rennaisance as would normally be seen as a golden age.. although the Nazi's evil slavery and propoganda could be seen as improving their production and economy perhaps.

"Superpower" (at least European) - this would be also the case for 1871 or 1914 I think. Even for medieval times (Otto I. or the high times of the HRE in 12th/13th century)

And for me this is not a question of PC things - it is only that I believe our history has more to offer than 33 - 45, especially when it goes not only about military, but also scientific or cultural achievements

[lupusmalus]

Well, in my view "golden age" means that a civ is at the height of its creative power and influence, in all or at least a whole range of respects, not only militarily but also scientifically, culturally, economically, with a high degree of domestic stability and contentment, etc, and this has certainly not been the case in Germany at any time between 1871 and 1945, and especially not during the Third Reich, the Nazis pretty muched offed Germany as a culturally and scientifically leading nation, apart from a couple of other things they did.

[BeBMan]

in my view "golden age" means that a civ is at the height of its creative power and influence, in all or at least a whole range of respects, not only militarily but also scientifically, culturally, economically, with a high degree of domestic stability and contentment

In my eyes this was absolutely the case after 1871. Not that I don´t see the negative aspects of Bismarcks "Blood&Iron" policy, but the unification (after three wars) caused soon an economic&scientific boom, and a nationalistic euphoria (ok, this is not exactly contentment, but it goes in that direction) by most citizens.

[lupusmalus]

Nope, the notion that Bismarck united Germany is actually a bit of an exaggeration, the nation was deeply divided against itself, what with Kulturkampf (and he actually didn't want all those Catholics south of the Main but a Greater Prussia, he just couldn't help it), Sozialistengesetze, and the nationalistic euphoria was not exactly universal, either. I think you can make a good case that the aggressive foreign policy under Wilhelm II was at least partly to serve as a safety valve to let off the pressure that was building up internally. Apart from the fact that the governmental structure was a complete mess. And the aristocracy was actually very favourably surprised by the wide support they did indeed get in WWI, they had rather been afraid that a major war would lead to a revolution along the Russian model of 1904/05. And in the end they did get it anyway. And while Paul Kennedy ("The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers") thinks that Germany at that point may have had the wherewithal to shoulder its way into the front rank with the rising continental giants of the US and Russia, I'm not so sure about that, either. I rather think that Germany had enough ressources to make the bid but not nearly enough to pull it through. Anyway, it was certainly an era of great expansion and is a lot better as a golden age than the panzer era.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by lupusmalus
Nope, the notion that Bismarck united Germany is actually a bit of an exaggeration, the nation was deeply divided against itself, what with Kulturkampf (and he actually didn't want all those Catholics south of the Main but a Greater Prussia, he just couldn't help it), Sozialistengesetze, and the nationalistic euphoria was not exactly universal, either.

I haven´t forgotten the negative aspects, the problem is: then you can find some of them in every (so-called) "Golden Age", e.g one could say the USA have started their Golden Age after WWII, but another one could say the nation was deeply divided during the Vietnam war. Or one could say France had its Golden Age after 1789, but another one could disagree due to the "revolutionary terror" of the Jacobines (hmm, -sp?).

However, no big differences to your post(s)

[lupusmalus]

Hmmmmmm, maybe I'm just indulging in typically German soul-searching and self-castigation...