Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Agreed. Iceland should NOT be the raider-berseker civ. The classical viking civ if we get one should be in antiquity and centered on rivers and raiding. Call it Norse, Norway, etc.
Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content
- Thread starter Giskler
- Start date
TheGhostEnthusiast
King
I can't believe that I'm going to be the "no fun allowed" guy this time around, but the more I think about it, the more I very much do not like the Pirate Republic. I hope that its appearance here is the result of a scenario or monthly event or something, even if I find that unlikely. Civ switching and the increased amount of Civ abilities have opened the gates for a fantastic level of representation of history. However, both the ability to somewhat comprehensively represent the world and the ability to please those hoping for more "historical" switching pathways depend on a prudent selection of Civs for the roster. The Pirate Republic was incredibly short lived, does not connect to other cultures well within the context of the Ages mechanic, and overall could have been sufficiently represented by Edward Teach as a leader. Will it be fun? Probably! Is it kind of interesting? Of course! Will I never stop chuckling at the sight of the fleets of Captain Confucius, Warlord of the Seven Seas? Without question! Would I have signed off on its inclusion before a Civilization that fits anywhere into the horrifying Aksum -> Songhai -> Buganda path? Before further representation for the currently Age-isolated Korea or Japan? Before the unmatched marketability and instantly region-completing nature of the Aztecs or HRE? Before the constantly-requested-by-people-who-aren't-me Nazca? I'm not a big fan of judgements of what Civilizations or Leaders "deserve" to be in Civ, but the question of what Civilizations or Leaders are practical for this system cannot be ignored, and the Pirate Republic does not pass that test.
I must admit, though, imagining all of the different Leaders as pirate captains has warmed me to the idea, however slightly... ah, imagine if the mementos could give visual modifiers! Blackbeard's hat would be near-mandatory... wouldn't Machiavelli look conniving in it!
Willie5000
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2016
- Messages
- 185
My guess is that they’re less of a specific Pirate Republic and more of a general Buccaneer civilization.
While I agree with everything here and, pragmatically speaking, the Pirate Republic shouldn't be a major civ (at least not now), I think its inclusion is more about appealing to a broad audience rather than history nerds. Any casual Civ player will be excited to play as pirates and imagine themselves as Jack Sparrow, so this is yet another marketing hook.
Personally, I still believe they should focus on filling the glaring gaps in Africa and Latin America, but it seems they’re not too interested in that at the moment. That said, I’m really excited for Tonga and the Māori!
Pirates could potentially be an interesting part of a crisis.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I would say that the addition of Tonga and Maori, if confirmed, precisely prove that they ARE interested in filling the gaps. But they are also interested in filling other gaps (Ottomans!) and putting things in the DLC that are good or cool marketing.
Which is the smart thing to do. Going all-in on less mass marketable civilization to fill regions and gaps on the map is more likely to result in less sales, less interest in making more content, and, probably, in the long run, in less holes fixed. Something that can catch the attention of the mass market (like pirates) is *good* to have to help sell the rest.
Which is the smart thing to do. Going all-in on less mass marketable civilization to fill regions and gaps on the map is more likely to result in less sales, less interest in making more content, and, probably, in the long run, in less holes fixed. Something that can catch the attention of the mass market (like pirates) is *good* to have to help sell the rest.
Jabberwockxeno
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 507
I truly hope the Atomic Age is cut content and isn't planned for DLC, I think adding more ages, ESPECIALLY a more-recent age, is a bad idea.
The act of adding any new ages is inherently going to further subdivide and spread the amount of content the game has across more ages. As is Civ 7 has only ~10 civs you can have active at any given time, we don't need the amount of playable civs, wonders, etc further spread thin across more ages
I think it's especially futile and a bad idea for it to be a more-modern age in particular. This is partly preference, in that I enjoy the series for ancient and medieval history and more modern stuff is kinda just there for me to wrap up with (Firaxis tried to streamline the Modern era to retain players during it, but my issue with it has always been thematic, not anything with late game gameplay. But I also don't abandon my late game games any more then my early ones, so maybe I'm not the target for those changes, and I certainly don't like reduced micro), so it would be frustrating to see a lot of development resources (perhaps as much as *half the game*) devoted to something I'm less interested in.
But (and this is more important/less subjective) it's also that I have a hard time imagining what the playable Atomic era civs would be: Like, there could be a playable USSR or modern Democractic France that the current Russia and Imperial France turn into, I guess, but is it really worth doing that? Or especially a more-modern USA, Mexico, Japan, etc? I struggle to see how you'd differentiate them especially when some of those already have 20th century themed bonuses, uniques, etc.
Lastly, it will only further alienate specific cultural regions which do not have more modern era nation-states to turn into playable civilizations. This is already an issue for Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations in the game's current modern era, where there would be very limited potential modern-era civs which retain a primarily Indigenous flavor (the only one I think even has a glimmer of a chance of a shot is Chan Santa Cruz and I still highly doubt it would be made playable, sadly), but a exclusively 20th/21st century age would only further that issue: I think you'd have a hard time with North American and Oceania Indigenous Atomic era representatives too, though there's certainly still ways to do it, it just becomes increasingly kinda iffy and arbitrary how to handle it.
Actually I guess there's no Oceania ones in the Modern Era currently either. Hawaii should really be there instead of the Exploration era, tbh
The act of adding any new ages is inherently going to further subdivide and spread the amount of content the game has across more ages. As is Civ 7 has only ~10 civs you can have active at any given time, we don't need the amount of playable civs, wonders, etc further spread thin across more ages
I think it's especially futile and a bad idea for it to be a more-modern age in particular. This is partly preference, in that I enjoy the series for ancient and medieval history and more modern stuff is kinda just there for me to wrap up with (Firaxis tried to streamline the Modern era to retain players during it, but my issue with it has always been thematic, not anything with late game gameplay. But I also don't abandon my late game games any more then my early ones, so maybe I'm not the target for those changes, and I certainly don't like reduced micro), so it would be frustrating to see a lot of development resources (perhaps as much as *half the game*) devoted to something I'm less interested in.
But (and this is more important/less subjective) it's also that I have a hard time imagining what the playable Atomic era civs would be: Like, there could be a playable USSR or modern Democractic France that the current Russia and Imperial France turn into, I guess, but is it really worth doing that? Or especially a more-modern USA, Mexico, Japan, etc? I struggle to see how you'd differentiate them especially when some of those already have 20th century themed bonuses, uniques, etc.
Lastly, it will only further alienate specific cultural regions which do not have more modern era nation-states to turn into playable civilizations. This is already an issue for Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations in the game's current modern era, where there would be very limited potential modern-era civs which retain a primarily Indigenous flavor (the only one I think even has a glimmer of a chance of a shot is Chan Santa Cruz and I still highly doubt it would be made playable, sadly), but a exclusively 20th/21st century age would only further that issue: I think you'd have a hard time with North American and Oceania Indigenous Atomic era representatives too, though there's certainly still ways to do it, it just becomes increasingly kinda iffy and arbitrary how to handle it.
Actually I guess there's no Oceania ones in the Modern Era currently either. Hawaii should really be there instead of the Exploration era, tbh
Last edited:
stealth_nsk
Deity
This idea was discussed many many times, first time months age when we understood what the current modern age is focused on XVIII-XIX centuries and ends in the middle of XX, plus there are no traditional civ elements like flight to Alpha Centaury. Since then we had multiple confirmations what Firaxis considers this idea - from Ed's hint to this discovery.
By the end of the current development cycle we'll have 13 civs per age in base game + 2 DLC packs. Much more later.
Many people, especially here on this forum, prefer more ancient history, but it's a matter of personal preferences.
Again, this was discussed several times and we had several variations of potential 4th age civs and they were pretty good. Yes, some civilizations will progress from their modern versions, but we have China and India doing this already, so nothing problematic. As an example of how American continents could be represented - in Modern with America, Mexico and Gran Colombia, while in Atomic with USA, Canada and Brazil.
I think the main problem with potential 4th age is to make it interesting from gameplay perspective.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
As a reminder to people who act like 13 civs per age (which is to say, 13 civs to chose from when you start a new game) as if it's some kind of huge number: that's still less civ to chose from at game start than even Civilization I (fourteen). We've never been this limited in our selection of civ at game start, and it's going to take a lot more before this game is close to the kind of game-start selection we are used to and want. Waving the "thirteen civs" around like they're some sort of massive improvement on the current problem of limited selection is just misunderstanding the problem.
Thirteen is nothing.
Additional eras will delay that ridiculously further. That the extra age rather than adding more and new diverse civs would need to add a bunch of doubled up civ (Russia/Soviet Union, America/United States, Great Britain/United Kingdom, French Empire/France, Prussia/Germany) where one is basically the other a few decades later, only make it worse.
sonicmyst
Emperor
With atomic age and pirates, it really seems like the modes in Civ VI and its last expansion is a testing ground for a Civ VII feature. Shall we expect zombies and secret societies soon? Lets hope not.
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,766
So modding begins now?
playshogi
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,556
Hopefully, zombies and other fantasy elements are in DLC and so can be avoided. Unfortunately, the fantasy element, Bermuda Triangle, will be forced upon us in a free update.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
How is "atomic age" in any way related to the modes and expansions in Civ VI?
Atomic age is a commonly used division of history covering (roughly) post-1945 history, from the first atomic bombs onward. It was present in Civ VI right in the Vanilla game (not added in the expansions), representing the time period of the Cold War.
They might have confused the Atomic age with the Apocalypse Mode.
I will say that all this information is conjecture right now, and we don't know how much of this will be included in the game at some point. Some things like Pirate Republic, Whina Cooper and Atomic Age might just end up like Genoa and Haida in Civ 6. Found in the game files but never officially released.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Comparing civs per age in Civ7 with total number of civs in previous games doesn't make any sense.
If you want to measure the variety of potential games, you need to count all combinations of leaders and civs, which is much higher than anything before.
If you want to measure how diverse are the cultures represented in the game, you need to count all civs from all ages and again, Civ7 is ahead here.
The reason why I use this metric - civs per age - is not to compare it with other civ games, but to discuss potential atomic age civ roster.
Vahnstad
Emperor
I agree that adding more ages is a bad idea. It is probably better to rework and lengthen the existing ages, a problem would also be all the civs that have to be moved in the right categories if we add more civs.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I see the logic of using combinations rather than civ to measure how many options the game offer, but with all due respect, you seem to be one of the few who buy into the extreme form of "you don't play the civilization"
Diversity of civilizations, specifically - not diversity of combinations - is something a lot of fans care about, legitimately so, and right now, diversity of civilization when you start the game is something that this game isn't providing.
(This being especially true given that the devs have explicitly stated - though they have not delivered yet - that single-age gameplay is a goal of the game. The ability to go with other civs in later ages is painfully irrelevant, then.)
Diversity of civilizations, specifically - not diversity of combinations - is something a lot of fans care about, legitimately so, and right now, diversity of civilization when you start the game is something that this game isn't providing.
(This being especially true given that the devs have explicitly stated - though they have not delivered yet - that single-age gameplay is a goal of the game. The ability to go with other civs in later ages is painfully irrelevant, then.)
Last edited:
moysturfurmer
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,558
I will from now on always punctuate my Lorem Ipsum with cuts and styles of meat
