Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[Bootstrapbilly]

To play Loki's Advocate here . . .

An Exploration Rus, Northmen or Norse with an emphasis on sea trading (including Navigable River trade, which is a New Thing in Civ VII and so with emphasizing) could model the Scandinavian expansion across Russia in that Age and thus act as another predecessor for Russia in Modern and provide another alternative Civ that can legitimately go after non-Distant Lands treasure resources. Think of it as a cross between Songhai and Bulgaria in that the Norse/Rus also raided when they could not trade.

It would also, of course, be a legitimate lead in to a Modern Age Sweden if and when they get around to it.

Iceland in Exploration (an Antiquity Iceland would be a Walrus or Seal Civ, since there weren't any people living there before 400 CE) would be a more thoroughly trade, exploration and possibly Cultural (the Eddas) Civ, and also a good predecessor to Modern Sweden or (long shot) America.

My personal take on the ideal paths for Scandinavia would be Antiquity Norse > Iceland > Sweden.

I think at exploration Rus/Norman/Byzantines should be the unlocks. Then at Modern Britain, Russia as the additional unlocks.

Id kind of feel Danes would warrant a spot more than Iceland - but feel the biggest error is to not have Norse in Antiquity yet. We need more historical paths.

I think the leader ideas are great, but not sure on having two pirate themed ones.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I hope we get at least Iceland. The raiding side of the Vikings is already very well represented in past Civ games, but the actual exploration side of the Viking age has never really been touched on in any Civ game. An exploration age Iceland would be perfect to represent that side of the Viking age, and they could also touch on the Althing, which is unique to Iceland.

Yes, Althing is interesting, but during most of its existence, Island was under Denmark rule. I wouldn't oppose Iceland, I just think we have a long list of more requested exploration civs.

My only problem with Iceland is we'd need to have a Viking/Norse civ in Antiquity as well, which I think we'll get anyways, presumably for them to progress into.
In that regards I'd rather them go with Denmark, which doesn't have to be heavily portrayed in the Viking Age during Exploration, instead of having two Viking themed civs.

I think for antiquity it's enough to have some Germanic civ, since Norse comes from Germanic tribes.

For exploration, the civilization need to be far enough from Normans, but I think both Denmark and Iceland would fit here, just not with high priority.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think for antiquity it's enough to have some Germanic civ, since Norse comes from Germanic tribes.

I think the Germanic people are spread out enough that there could at least be two civs. Antiquity Norse could represent the northern Germanic tribes, and the Goths could represent the southern ones that formed kingdoms in former Roman territories.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the Germanic people are spread out enough that there could at least be two civs. Antiquity Norse could represent the northern Germanic tribes, and the Goths could represent the southern ones that formed kingdoms in former Roman territories.

In theory yes, but if we set priorities, Europe needs at least 1 Germanic and 1 Celtic civilizations for antiquity, and providing how many other parts of the world need antiquity civs, I don't think we'll ever reach second Germanic ancient civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In theory yes, but if we set priorities, Europe needs at least 1 Germanic and 1 Celtic civilizations for antiquity, and providing how many other parts of the world need antiquity civs, I don't think we'll ever reach second Germanic ancient civ.

I'd still put the Norse as the priority, considering all of the other southern European civs could just as easily still come from Rome and Greece.

 

[Siptah]

I'd still put the Norse as the priority, considering all of the other southern European civs could just as easily still come from Rome and Greece.

Goths is really fine as a precursor to all possible Scandinavian and German exploration civs though, and it makes more sense in antiquity than Norse. It would be a really good move for disentangling Europe if there’s North (Goths), Central (Celts), and South (Greece, Rome).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Goths is really fine as a precursor to all possible Scandinavian and German exploration civs though, and it makes more sense in antiquity than Norse. It would be a really good move for disentangling Europe if there’s North (Goths), Central (Celts), and South (Greece, Rome).

I like how here on Balkans it's all compressed. Here were Germanic lands, 100 km south lived Celts and 100 km further south lived Greeks (with Dacians 100 km to the east from Celts)

 

[Siptah]

I like how here on Balkans it's all compressed. Here were Germanic lands, 100 km south lived Celts and 100 km further south lived Greeks (with Dacians 100 km to the east from Celts)

Yeah, germanics/goths and celts moved around a lot… as did Greeks. All can be found from around Spain to around Turkey.

 

[j51]

Yeah Goths and Gaul would be the best to fill in antiquity Europe. For exploration, I really hope they add the HRE or one of its constituent parts (Bohemia, Hansa, Burgundy) to fill paths in north Western Europe. Iceland doesn’t really work well for that and there are so many leaders and modern civs from that region that need a second bridge besides the Normans.

 

[queenpea]

Goths is really fine as a precursor to all possible Scandinavian and German exploration civs though, and it makes more sense in antiquity than Norse. It would be a really good move for disentangling Europe if there’s North (Goths), Central (Celts), and South (Greece, Rome).

I think they can just pull a Khmer here and add Norse in Antiquity for gameplay reasons, ignoring historicity. Norse --> Normans makes a lot more sense to me than what we have currently.

The only great I see against Norse in Antiquity is that shipbuilding and sailing kind of sucks during this Age.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The only great I see against Norse in Antiquity is that shipbuilding and sailing kind of sucks during this Age.

Don't worry, there's always the Berserker unit.
I could at least see the Knarr being their civilian unit as a unique trade ship that could also act as a settler, founding cities by entering navigable rivers.

 

[queenpea]

Don't worry, there's always the Berserker unit.
I could at least see the Knarr being their civilian unit as a unique trade ship that could also act as a settler, founding cities by entering navigable rivers.

Not another unique trade ship! Please!

 

[marius_kaparius]

I've always wanted a Viking unit that can serve as both a naval unit and land unit. I guess the Marine kind of does that for Modern age?

 

[wilcoxchar]

Yes, Althing is interesting, but during most of its existence, Island was under Denmark rule. I wouldn't oppose Iceland, I just think we have a long list of more requested exploration civs.

Okay, and? The Inca Empire only lasted about 140 years. The Aztecs didn't even last a century. Typically Germany's focus when it gets included has been on a span of at most 75 years. The Mongol Empire from rise to division was maybe 60 years. Heck, Gran Colombia barely lasted a decade and a half and it's considered worthy of inclusion. So clearly, the length of time the state that a civilization represents does not matter.

The era they would likely pull from for an Iceland civ would be the Icelandic Commonwealth, since that includes the period of exploration, the Althing, and the Eddas, all with great potential to base civ mechanics on. And that period is typically accepted as being from the 930s to 1262, or about 330 years. Which is about as long as other clearly justified civs like the Neo-Assyrian Empire for the Assyrians, the Spanish colonial empire up to Latin American independence, the Mughal Empire, each of the Ming and Qing dynasties.

Civ has always focused on specific periods of a country or culture's history when designing the civilizations or deciding which civs to include. Iceland being owned by Denmark for part of its history does not preclude it from being a worthy civ to include.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Okay, and? The Inca Empire only lasted about 140 years. The Aztecs didn't even last a century.

Inca and Aztec are one of the very few well-known anerican civilizations, Mongols built the largest single continent empire in history and so on.

It's not that Iceland is a bad choice, they are clearly interesting. It's just there are much more well known and impactful choices from the same region and time period.

 

[GeneralZift]

I hope I am not repeating myself in this thread because I remember saying that I wanted Norse in Antiquity. So hopefully I'm not a broken record.

But yea, Norse in Antiquity, I think it presents a unique and interesting gameplay opportunity above everything else, because you can raid as Vikings, raid early early game, and go up Rivers to drop Berserkers to Pillage.
They're a strong unique historical culture and a Civ game is not complete without them in my opinion. I'm certain they will arrive one day.

I don't think it makes sense for them to be in Exploration, as that part feels heavily focused on the New World, and so some of the modern Scandinavian Civilizations would fit better here.

Also I don't see how they are replaceable by Goths. Maybe from a historic standpoint, they were both Germanic, but in terms of the cultural aspect (particular popular culture), they represent two completely different types of people.
One were the ones that sieged Rome, the so-called Barbarians. The Goths had a heavy strength in numbers, right?
The others were heavy on the sea faring, iconic viking symbols like horned helmets and longboats, river use, raiding and razing, pillagers.

Anyway, filling the historical pathways is good, don't get me wrong, but it shouldn't come at the cost of the most iconic and interesting stuff, finally put to use in new ways.
We should have both. We probably will if Civ7 makes a comeback.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Inca and Aztec are one of the very few well-known anerican civilizations, Mongols built the largest single continent empire in history and so on.

It's not that Iceland is a bad choice, they are clearly interesting. It's just there are much more well known and impactful choices from the same region and time period.

But that's also an exact reason why they should pick a civ like Iceland for Civ 7 over other Vikings. They've done the standard raiding Vikings so many times before, and that element of the Vikings is already well known and present in a lot of other games. Just like with highlighting lesser known leaders, Civ with its reach has a chance to shine a spotlight on a lesser known aspect of Viking history to a general audience, and Iceland is a perfect choice to spotlight a lot of those less known elements. Look at for example how many people only learned about the Hittites because they were included in Civ 3, or the work Firaxis did with the Shawnee. They have a great opportunity to do the same with Iceland, and with how the exploration age is set up it's actually well suited mechanically for it too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But that's also an exact reason why they should pick a civ like Iceland for Civ 7 over other Vikings. They've done the standard raiding Vikings so many times before, and that element of the Vikings is already well known and present in a lot of other games. Just like with highlighting lesser known leaders, Civ with its reach has a chance to shine a spotlight on a lesser known aspect of Viking history to a general audience, and Iceland is a perfect choice to spotlight a lot of those less known elements. Look at for example how many people only learned about the Hittites because they were included in Civ 3, or the work Firaxis did with the Shawnee. They have a great opportunity to do the same with Iceland, and with how the exploration age is set up it's actually well suited mechanically for it too.

The thing is I'm sure if Iceland does get in at Exploration, I think an Antiquity Norse civ, that will be similar to the raiding Vikings of past games, would still happen.
Iceland would need a natural progression, and the Norse could progress into the Normans too.

 

[Krikkit1]

The thing is I'm sure if Iceland does get in at Exploration, I think an Antiquity Norse civ, that will be similar to the raiding Vikings of past games, would still happen.
Iceland would need a natural progression, and the Norse could progress into the Normans too.

I could see Antiquity Norse, but then I don't think there would be any other Germanics.... having Goths, Norse, And Gauls would have too much overlap for just non-Mediterranean Europe (They already have both Greeks and Romans)

What Would probably work is to have one Celtic group (Gauls/Bretons/etc.) and one Germanic Group (Goths/Norse/etc.)
I could see Norse because their river raiding provides a bit of actually unique gameplay (as opposed to the other Germanic/Celtic groups which would have some problems being distinguishable from each other.)

 

[ehecatzin]

Okay, and? The Inca Empire only lasted about 140 years. The Aztecs didn't even last a century.

Man I don't want to be that guy but...akchtually,*fixes glasses* the Triple Alliance yes..about a century, Tenochtitlan around 200 years, and the Mexica themselves probably were wondering the central valley since the XII century.

Now don't get me wrong, Im in your boat when it comes to Iceland. If anything I think I'ts really cool to see the exploration side of the Norse being given a chance to shine. I think Iceland would point in that direction.

If anything I think It's clear at this point they are mixing newcomers and some favourites on the DLC's, and saving the absolutely fan favorites for Xpacks. Iceland now doesn't prevent other Nordic civs from making it in. if anything I prefer it if we dont' get an all encompasing "viking" civ. and instead get more representation.