Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[Sagax]

So apparently the game files contain some scrapped (?) clips of leaders, similar to the ones we see for civs at the end of each age. They are the basis for leader banners you get from customization unlocks.

文明7【全领袖事迹CG】_哔哩哔哩bilibili_文明6_演示

更多实用攻略教学，爆笑沙雕集锦，你所不知道的游戏知识，热门游戏视频7*24小时持续更新,尽在哔哩哔哩bilibili 视频播放量 33010、弹幕量 157、点赞数 408、投硬币枚数 37、收藏人数 220、转发人数 34, 视频作者 丸宝导师, 作者简介 人类+文明7+无尽帝国2の社区导师 无尽帝国2Q群：1025362983，相关视频：很好奇！文明7是咋把这些人才找出来的？，文明7征服胜利(击败所有文明)胜利动画...

www.bilibili.com

 

[Ryansinbela]

I already saw that

 

[Lord Shadow]

How I foresee the British isles developing, in the long term (ie many years), in order of most likely to least likely addition, based on the comment about "lots of content".

-Anglo-Saxons/Anglia in Antiquity is virtually certain to form an alternate start path to the Romans.

-Ireland or Scotland, maybe Wales in Exploration: the next most likely, and still very likely, as an alternate path to a united Great Britain via the Celtic world. 85% likely to happen. If we get only one I think Scotland has the slight edge but not much on Ireland and Wales is well behind, but I wouldn't sleep on the possibility we get two, in which case Wales actually seems very likely to take the second slot to me, between the chance for dragon banners, longbows and arthurian mythology references.

-Insular Celtic antiquity as a precursor to the one (or two) civs above will probably happen as well. My personal favorite there is Dal Riata, but it could be the Picts, the Iceni, the Brythons, or half a dozen other options. This is more of a long term addition.

-Tudor England probably waits until all of the above are done, and even then may be limited to only adding Elizabeth (or Francis Drake, or Walsingham, or Old Billy S.?) as a leader. And as I previously mentioned, I think we don't see Tudor England until we're up to a lot of civ in every era, like 40 or 50/era.

-A modern celtic inclusion appears very unlikely, since Ireland only appears very late in the modern era and the whole point of Great Britain is that it pretty much united everything else (and Ireland).

Taking a wild guess of one British civ per release cycle (with each release cycle being about a year), I'd say we're looking at Release Cycle I (pre-first expansion DLCs) having Great Britain, of course ; Release Cycle 2 (Rise and Fall) adding the Anglo-Saxons, Release Cycle 3 (Gatherin Storm) adding Exploration Celts, Release Cycle 4 (NFP) or 5 (Leader Pass) adding Antiquity Celts as well, and Tudor England if it happens being held back for a still later Release Cycle 6 or later.

I'm not speculating about any fourth age additions just yet.

From my perspective, the likely, simplest "all-Briton" full path would be Celts (wide, I know) for Antiquity, England for Exploration, and Great Britain for Modern.

The Antiquity slot can vary if they feel like innovating with other similar cultures (i.e. Boudica and the Iceni), but the existence of an Exploration Age Spain practically necessitates a contemporary England*. Possibly along with Francis Drake, taking advantage of the new "actual rulers optional" paradigm. Oliver Cromwell would be an interesting leader, too, but I wouldn't go as far as predicting his inclusion.

I'm not sure Wales would be particularly worthy, but Exploration Age Scotland would likely capture the period of most strife with its southern neighbor, assuming its inclusion, of course.

*The certain existence of the Normans creates a bit of a pickle there, though...

 

[Evie]

Your All-briton path is two-thirds Germanic, not actually Briton. The Celtic British path should go to just about anybody *except* England (or any England-adjacent civ) in Exploration, and the actual English path has no business emerging from a Celtic start.

As to the idea that Spain's inclusion require the inclusion of England, hardly. England got into the colonization game significantly later than Spain, and the brief Anglo-Spanish rivalry of the (later) Elizabethan years, while interesting, is not so crucial to world history to warrant inclusion (far more important to world history is the much longer-lived Franco-English rivalry).

In the presence of the Normans, who are the immediate predecessors of Tudor England, I doubt very much there will be a rush to add England to the game, or that there is even a particula rneed to do so. A leader from the Elizabethan period is more likely, in my opinion.

 

[evonannoredars]

So apparently the game files contain some scrapped (?) clips of leaders, similar to the ones we see for civs at the end of each age. They are the basis for leader banners you get from customization unlocks.

文明7【全领袖事迹CG】_哔哩哔哩bilibili_文明6_演示

更多实用攻略教学，爆笑沙雕集锦，你所不知道的游戏知识，热门游戏视频7*24小时持续更新,尽在哔哩哔哩bilibili 视频播放量 33010、弹幕量 157、点赞数 408、投硬币枚数 37、收藏人数 220、转发人数 34, 视频作者 丸宝导师, 作者简介 人类+文明7+无尽帝国2の社区导师 无尽帝国2Q群：1025362983，相关视频：很好奇！文明7是咋把这些人才找出来的？，文明7征服胜利(击败所有文明)胜利动画...

www.bilibili.com

Aye in base > modules > base-standard > movies - except for Tecumseh's which is in DLC > shawnee-tecumseh > modules > movies
Curious where the audio for them is (am aware none of the other movies play with audio) and where the movies are/were meant to show up.

 

[Potworny]

Aye in base > modules > base-standard > movies - except for Tecumseh's which is in DLC > shawnee-tecumseh > modules > movies
Curious where the audio for them is (am aware none of the other movies play with audio) and where the movies are/were meant to show up.

I wish there was a way to view texture files and hear the audio files. As far as I am aware there is none outside of the game (but maybe it could be possible to make an in game viewer mod or something? Sukritact made one for VI...). We do have subtitles for the movies in the form of .vtt files we can open.

 

[evonannoredars]

I wish there was a way to view texture files and hear the audio files. As far as I am aware there is none outside of the game (but maybe it could be possible to make an in game viewer mod or something? Sukritact made one for VI...). We do have subtitles for the movies in the form of .vtt files we can open.

There's a few viewable placeholder images hanging around in base > modules > base-standard > ui > ... including this fun little Confucius and a few other WIP assets in assets-temp and victory-progress

Curiously in images > backgrounds there's these:

Default, Greece, Han, Inca, Maurya, Mongolia, Persia and Rome 'Header Images' respectively. No idea what these were meant to be for, perhaps something to do with the little profile banner things? But that's all the images I know of so aye we'll just have to wait for someone to dig out the assets that actually made it into the game

 

[Potworny]

Yup, there are some .png files in the game files, and there are even ways to extract packed (or whatever it's called) textures and models whenever they appear in game. Here's a Firaxis logo hidden on one of them:

I have no clue what that texture is for, but it's there and looks neat I guess. I am more interested in the textures and models that DO NOT appear in game though...

Default, Greece, Han, Inca, Maurya, Mongolia, Persia and Rome 'Header Images' respectively. No idea what these were meant to be for, perhaps something to do with the little profile banner things? But that's all the images I know of so aye we'll just have to wait for someone to dig out the assets that actually made it into the game

Here's another look at Maurya one, not available in the form of a .png, it seems that the game still loads those "headers" but no idea where and why:

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

In the presence of the Normans, who are the immediate predecessors of Tudor England

*Cries in Plantagenet*

 

[Ryansinbela]

Yup, there are some .png files in the game files, and there are even ways to extract packed (or whatever it's called) textures and models whenever they appear in game. Here's a Firaxis logo hidden on one of them:
View attachment 720722
I have no clue what that texture is for, but it's there and looks neat I guess. I am more interested in the textures and models that DO NOT appear in game though...

Here's another look at Maurya one, not available in the form of a .png, it seems that the game still loads those "headers" but no idea where and why:

View attachment 720723

Maybe it’s the architecture textures?

 

[Evie]

*Cries in Plantagenet*

From where I stand, the Plantagenet (or rather, the non-Angevin Plantagenet, because up to the failures of John the Plantagenet were thoroughly Normans) seem more a transition period between England as part of a trans-Channel realm that was as much if not more interested in continental possessions (and where French was the language of choice) and England as the head of a realm centered on the British Isles, with little or no continental possessions, where English is the language of people and nobles alike. This change happened gradually over the Plantagenet period, but much of its elements remained in force until the end of the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses.

I'm not denying their existence, I'm just saying that in terms of civs, I wouldn't view Plantagenet as their own wholly separate civ in the same way I can agree the Tudor England and Normans are (and even then I still consider Tudors and Normans too close to justify having both of them in the game until we have loads and loads of civ).

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

From where I stand, the Plantagenet (or rather, the non-Angevin Plantagenet, because up to the failures of John the Plantagenet were thoroughly Normans) seem more a transition period between England as part of a trans-Channel realm that was as much if not more interested in continental possessions (and where French was the language of choice) and England as the head of a realm centered on the British Isles, with little or no continental possessions, where English is the language of people and nobles alike. This change happened gradually over the Plantagenet period, but much of its elements remained in force until the end of the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses.

I'm not denying their existence, I'm just saying that in terms of civs, I wouldn't view Plantagenet as their own wholly separate civ in the same way I can agree the Tudor England and Normans are (and even then I still consider Tudors and Normans too close to justify having both of them in the game until we have loads and loads of civ).

Fair enough - I agree they don't warrant being a civ in their own right, even if the Normans' inclusion stretches the exploration age concept.

Henry V has to be contender for leader in a future iteration of the game, though. England has previously not been favoured as a domination civ and now leaders are decoupled from their homelands, he could work.

 

[Evie]

Oh, a Hundred Years War leader would definitely be interesting to have - him or the Black Prince.

Of course, they would be less "Leader I play" and more "My personal punching bag" but hey! It still counts.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

How I foresee the British isles developing, in the long term (ie many years), in order of most likely to least likely addition, based on the comment about "lots of content".

-Anglo-Saxons/Anglia in Antiquity is virtually certain to form an alternate start path to the Romans.

-Ireland or Scotland, maybe Wales in Exploration: the next most likely, and still very likely, as an alternate path to a united Great Britain via the Celtic world. 85% likely to happen. If we get only one I think Scotland has the slight edge but not much on Ireland and Wales is well behind, but I wouldn't sleep on the possibility we get two, in which case Wales actually seems very likely to take the second slot to me, between the chance for dragon banners, longbows and arthurian mythology references.

-Insular Celtic antiquity as a precursor to the one (or two) civs above will probably happen as well. My personal favorite there is Dal Riata, but it could be the Picts, the Iceni, the Brythons, or half a dozen other options. This is more of a long term addition.

-Tudor England probably waits until all of the above are done, and even then may be limited to only adding Elizabeth (or Francis Drake, or Walsingham, or Old Billy S.?) as a leader. And as I previously mentioned, I think we don't see Tudor England until we're up to a lot of civ in every era, like 40 or 50/era.

-A modern celtic inclusion appears very unlikely, since Ireland only appears very late in the modern era and the whole point of Great Britain is that it pretty much united everything else (and Ireland).

Taking a wild guess of one British civ per release cycle (with each release cycle being about a year), I'd say we're looking at Release Cycle I (pre-first expansion DLCs) having Great Britain, of course ; Release Cycle 2 (Rise and Fall) adding the Anglo-Saxons, Release Cycle 3 (Gatherin Storm) adding Exploration Celts, Release Cycle 4 (NFP) or 5 (Leader Pass) adding Antiquity Celts as well, and Tudor England if it happens being held back for a still later Release Cycle 6 or later.

I'm not speculating about any fourth age additions just yet.

i think your suggestions are great for the UK. If they got this kind of support/representation i would be thrilled. looking at the current game, i think my main issue is the lack of historically accurate/believable paths. having more northern europe antiquity representation will definitely help to alleviate this. Anglo saxons led by Alfred the Great would be so cool. I would like to see them do a double pack with Afred/Viking leader/civilization for the viking/ anglo saxon conflicts. this would also sell very well.

do you think celts could be represented by gauls? i think gauls are definitely a top choice for a multitude of reasons, not least of which is they have already been in VI.

 

[Uberfrog]

I'm not denying their existence, I'm just saying that in terms of civs, I wouldn't view Plantagenet as their own wholly separate civ in the same way I can agree the Tudor England and Normans are (and even then I still consider Tudors and Normans too close to justify having both of them in the game until we have loads and loads of civ).

I think this is why the Normans would have been better depicted as a civ who excel at stealing other people’s land in the Exploration Age, incorporating features of not just the conquest of England but also Ireland, Sicily and Antioch. Rather than narrowly viewing them as a royal dynasty of England.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I think this is why the Normans would have been better depicted as a civ who excel at stealing other people’s land in the Exploration Age, incorporating features of not just the conquest of England but also Ireland, Sicily and Antioch. Rather than narrowly viewing them as a royal dynasty of England.

Their portrayal really bothers me.

I think they should have leaned just a little heavier into "naval castle-building conquerors" rather than "England lite."

 

[Uberfrog]

Their portrayal really bothers me.

I think they should have leaned just a little heavier into "naval castle-building conquerors" rather than "England lite."

I dunno, the actual in-game Normans are mechanically essentially naval castle building coastal conquerors. It’s more the Civilopedia and city names/traditions that skew heavily towards England. But city names in Civ 7 are a bit odd anyway - in the Game of the Month I am currently settling the new world Spain’s distant colonies of, er… Bilbao and Zaragoza.

 

[trev1972]

From my perspective, the likely, simplest "all-Briton" full path would be Celts (wide, I know) for Antiquity, England for Exploration, and Great Britain for Modern.

The Antiquity slot can vary if they feel like innovating with other similar cultures (i.e. Boudica and the Iceni), but the existence of an Exploration Age Spain practically necessitates a contemporary England*. Possibly along with Francis Drake, taking advantage of the new "actual rulers optional" paradigm. Oliver Cromwell would be an interesting leader, too, but I wouldn't go as far as predicting his inclusion.

I'm not sure Wales would be particularly worthy, but Exploration Age Scotland would likely capture the period of most strife with its southern neighbor, assuming its inclusion, of course.

*The certain existence of the Normans creates a bit of a pickle there, though...

This would possibly tip me to buying the game to be honest, it would allow me to play a british isles tsl for a start (and i have seen tsl maps appearing already)

I can see other posters discussing historical accuracy, but to be honest all that will matter to the developers is market potential (that is why they left Britain out for dlc, to sell dlc).
I have no idea if there is a demand for more british isle civs at all. To be honest the price of a civ and leader seems even more extortionate when you consider the civ only lasts 1/3 of a game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Your All-briton path is two-thirds Germanic, not actually Briton. The Celtic British path should go to just about anybody *except* England (or any England-adjacent civ) in Exploration, and the actual English path has no business emerging from a Celtic start.

That point is a little bit moot since the Norman Civilization can emerge from Greece, for example. Emerging from a Celtic Antiquity Civ such as Gaul is at least a little bit more justifiable, especially since the Normans also fill in for the medieval French, who are a direct descendant of the Gauls via the way of the Franks and the Gallo-Romans.

Ideally we get a separate Celtic path, but the cross-pollination between paths based on geographic proximity (such as Celtic/British/French) is just how the system has been designed to work from the get-go. It is what it is, best we accept that, rather than run in the same "Actually, Historically Speaking" circles like pedantic hamsters.

As to the idea that Spain's inclusion require the inclusion of England, hardly. England got into the colonization game significantly later than Spain, and the brief Anglo-Spanish rivalry of the (later) Elizabethan years, while interesting, is not so crucial to world history to warrant inclusion (far more important to world history is the much longer-lived Franco-English rivalry).

Moreover because the Normans already represent England, and Castile is the more iconic colonization and naval Civ anyway. Spain over England is the correct choice, if overseas expansion is the niche they were going for.

The Normans on their end, are an excellent choice for a romantic, chivalrous castle-and-knights Civ. (probably the second best after the Franks proper). The only quibble I have is that they're not the best-suited representation of the industrious and mercantile English, but that's what modern Great Britain is for.

In the presence of the Normans, who are the immediate predecessors of Tudor England, I doubt very much there will be a rush to add England to the game, or that there is even a particula rneed to do so. A leader from the Elizabethan period is more likely, in my opinion.

Two stages (Normans + Great Britain) is definitely enough for now. Tudor representation is better left by adding a leader from that Era (Elizabeth, Henry VIII, Drake, Shakespeare) while the devs focus on filling in gaps and niches elsewhere. Mods are going to fill up that gap eventually for those that care.

I'm expecting to see Elizabeth down the line, maybe even in the first major expansion alongside Alexander and Gandhi.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

This would possibly tip me to buying the game to be honest, it would allow me to play a british isles tsl for a start (and i have seen tsl maps appearing already)

I can see other posters discussing historical accuracy, but to be honest all that will matter to the developers is market potential (that is why they left Britain out for dlc, to sell dlc).
I have no idea if there is a demand for more british isle civs at all. To be honest the price of a civ and leader seems even more extortionate when you consider the civ only lasts 1/3 of a game.

there is a huge demand for british isles content. probably more than any other civilization if i had to estimate and based off anecdotal observation on these forums.