Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Iceland seems like an outside the box choice for a "Viking" Civ, but did they did much raiding and pillaging in Europe? I still want Denmark and Sweden.

Not really. I envision that the true "Viking" civ would more likely be an Antiquity Norse civ. Once the Norse settlers reached Iceland they never really went out and raided, unlike the Danes and Norwegians back home.

Although, I will still hold out hope for a Denmark-Norway exploration age civ... or possibly the Kalmar Union under Margrethe I.

Kalmar Denmark for Exploration is what I originally was thinking.

 

[Xandinho]

I think that in the fourth era, the Scandinavian civ would be Finland.

Perhaps Iceland would be more focused on maritime exploration rather than raiding. If that’s the case, there would still be room for a Viking Norway centered on raiding and a Kalmar Denmark. Sweden, of course, would be modern.

 

[Uberfrog]

Small note, Tonga is an Antiquity IP and has been speculated as that Age’s Polynesia rep.

Of course! A mistype on my part!

 

[Evie]

Don't forget, Iceland has a long history of inclusive government and the major literary tradition associated with Scandinavian culture: as a Civ they can wear several hats and not just a Viking helmet.

As for the Ottomans, yes they existed until after WWI (barely) but if the game tends to represent Civs at their Peak, for the Ottomans that was the Exploration Age, at least up to the 1680s (Siege of Vienna). The fact that there's a lot of competition for that Age/geographical spot is, frankly, no different from the Mediterranean Coast/Classical-Antiquity Age, where the game has never had any problem including Rome, Greece, Egypt and (usually) Carthage all at once.

And if the Seljuks/Turkic Khanates are both considered Central Asian Civs, that would lessen the congestion in the middle east considerably: a Central Asian progression of Yamnaya/Scythian/Sarmatian/Xiong-Nu to Seljuk/Sogdian/Gok-Turk/Mongol to Imperial Russia would accomplish that nicely.

If the problem *was* crowding in Exploration, you'd be right. But it's not. Crowding in exploration is not the problem ; dearth of options in Modern is. Crowding in Exploration is then part of the solution.

At the core of the issue lie this observation: from 1750 to the First World War, everything Middle East west of Iran and north of Oman (so the overwhelming bulk of the Middle East) was either directly Ottomans, or at least under significant Ottoman (and or British) influence - or chaotic hinterlands. Considering the Modern Era is 1750-1950, that drastically limit our options for who we can have in the Middle East in modern : the Ottomans, the Hashemites, the Saud Royal House, and Muhammad Ali's egypt. Which range from possible but surprising (Ali's Egypt), to unlikely (Hashemites) to "is there even one demographic this wouldn't be a huge hot mess with" (House of Saud) - and all of them save the Saudi not exactly long-term major powers. The Ottomans are the behemoth in the ballroom of the modern Middle East, far more so than the Mughals with India (and the Mughals are still in modern).

At that point, the next question is, can exploration *spare* the Ottomans...and the answer is a rather obvious, well, yes, it can. Because there are plenty of other options in the region in that era. Hence the crowding is not a problem ; it's a solution to the lack of option in Modern.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Most likely, but I hope Firaxis gives it a Christian design this time with a cross on top of the dome, with fewer buttresses, without the four minarets, and with the column of Justinian adorning it on the side. It will be unacceptable if it is associated with the Byzantines with an Ottoman look. The Ottomans have other beautiful original mosques, so Firaxis doesn't need to portray the Hagia Sophia as a mosque too.
View attachment 718633


Or the Kākh-e Ardashir-e Pāpakān.
View attachment 718634

A potential solution could be to have an Overbuilding version of the Hagia Sophia.

 

[Uberfrog]

A potential solution could be to have an Overbuilding version of the Hagia Sophia.

But why do we need to? The Blue Mosque or Topkapı Palace are much better Ottoman wonders.

 

[marius_kaparius]

But why do we need to? The Blue Mosque or Topkapı Palace are much better Ottoman wonders.

Just putting it forward as it could be an interesting mechanic. There’s actually an Exploration age event where you can repurpose the Colosseum as either living quarters or workshops and I found that quite interesting.

 

[Pouakai]

Negative
- Whina Cooper does not excite me whatsoever, there is lots of great historical Polynesian picks and this feels super meh and politically motivated to me.

In the nicest possible way, this is a really poor take. Whaea Whina is actually a solid pick as a Māori leader given the wider interpretation Civ 7 is taking in that field:

• There wasn't a single Māori country / empire, rather Aotearoa was made up of several iwi (tribes). Having a prominent leader who is associated with one of these (eg. Te Rauparaha, Hone Heke, Tāwhiao) could lead to issues with the Māori being under a specific figure (eg. Ngāi Tahu probably wouldn't like being represented by the guy who committed massacres against him, or iwi who chose to not join the kiingitanga wouldn't want to be represented by the Māori king).
• The Māori Land March, which Whina led, was one of the main moments in the development of a strong national Māori voice. It set the stage for the Treaty of Waitangi to return to prominence as a core part of NZ's constitution, the recognition of te reo Māori as an official language, and several other prominent developments for Māori across NZ. If you want someone who represents Māori as a modern powerhouse, she's a really good pick.
• A lot of other options are much more militaristic, so Whina provides some nice variation there in focus
• Kupe, who also avoided the iwi issues I mentioned above, is literally semi-mythical and debated as to whether he existed. When you've got so many more options that unquestionably existed, it feels weird to go with one that might not have.
• Whina leading the land march and walking the length of the North Island at seventy-nine has her image baked into the minds of New Zealanders, with images like this and this part of the national consciousness. Seeing her portrayed in a civ game like that would be incredible.

 

[PorkBean]

All the civs seem really cool. Pirate mods have long been very popular in civ, I'll be interested to see how they do an official one.

A fourth age is a potential disaster for the game, especially one after Modern. For civ switching to work the game needs a really high density of civs, and splitting the roster even further across an additional age is potentially going to end up with all the ages feeling very thin.

 

[trev1972]

AssetCloud.env located in Base/Platforms/Windows/Config has a bunch of entries about content that was either cut or will be added:

4th age: the Atomic Age

Civs: Iceland, Tonga, Ottomans, Maori, & Pirate Republic

Leaders: Edward Teach, Sayyida al Hurra, Whina Cooper

Wonders: Asia wonders

It also includes all the DLC content already announced.

Blackbeard?
I should hate that idea, but i do not.

 

[Xefjord]

In the nicest possible way, this is a really poor take. Whaea Whina is actually a solid pick as a Māori leader given the wider interpretation Civ 7 is taking in that field:

I am sure there are plenty of reasons for this leaders inclusion, many of which you so clearly listed, but I am still in the camp that doesn't want leaders that existed past the second world war in general. Especially non-heads of state. I would still prefer other options. My kiwi friend I shared it with was not excited for them either compared to how they felt about Kupe in Civ 6.

If the point is to avoid controversial picks for various tribes, there are other options including non Maori Polynesian leaders. The idea that claiming this leader could be a controversial inclusion could get this post edited for "talking politics" is exactly why I don't want modern leaders.

That's just my opinion. And I will leave it at that and stop bickering. I am not totally against this person's inclusion anyway. It's just meh to me.

I will say I appreciate the details you included on your post though. A lot of stuff I didn't know.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Iceland seems like an outside the box choice for a "Viking" Civ, but did they did much raiding and pillaging in Europe? I still want Denmark and Sweden.

I have a speaking suspicion Iceland are meant to be the Nordic Antiquity Civ.

It doesn't fit Chronologically, but like Khmer and Mississipans could fit Thematically.

 

[The Fanatical]

A potential solution could be to have an Overbuilding version of the Hagia Sophia.

Just putting it forward as it could be an interesting mechanic. There’s actually an Exploration age event where you can repurpose the Colosseum as either living quarters or workshops and I found that quite interesting.

Since the wonder was created by the Byzantines, and it was at its most beautiful and elegant state during the Byzantine Empire's existence, there is no reason to have two versions. But if they did make another Ottomanish model with minarets that will only appear in place of the old Christian model if the city that housed it was captured by the Ottomans or another civilization, then I can see both versions in the game. Will Firaxis go that route, though? If I had to guess from past games they will probably make it a mosque, affix it to the Byzantine civilization and call it a day, but changes in building and unit designs I have seen in Civilization VII give me hope for an accurate Byzantine version.

If Firaxis wants to portray it as a mosque with a different name however, then fine, but it shouldn't be associated with the Byzantines. In such a case, the Holy Church of the Apostles (Imperial Polyandrion) or the Hippodrome of Constantine (if the Hippodrome isn't a Unique Quarter or Building for the Byzantines) can be the associated Byzantine wonder.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Yeah I feel like Norse could be a better antiquity fit

Although there is a chance that either they mislabeled another Nordic Civ or they misspelled Ireland
None of those seem likely but that’s just a theory. A CIV THEORY!

 

[Pouakai]

I have a speaking suspicion Iceland are meant to be the Nordic Antiquity Civ.

It doesn't fit Chronologically, but like Khmer and Mississipans could fit Thematically.

I would've thought that Exploration would be a better fit even beyond chronology - since the whole civ only exists because of exploration.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Just putting it forward as it could be an interesting mechanic. There’s actually an Exploration age event where you can repurpose the Colosseum as either living quarters or workshops and I found that quite interesting.

Considering the Hagia Sophia became a museum later, I could possibly see it being repurposed in the Modern Age to hold artifacts like a museum building.

 

[Evie]

I have a speaking suspicion Iceland are meant to be the Nordic Antiquity Civ.

It doesn't fit Chronologically, but like Khmer and Mississipans could fit Thematically.

Exploration is a far better fit given that Iceland had little to do with the raiding, but everything to do with Greenland and Vinland.

 

[werothegreat]

My main issue with a 4th age is, who do you pick for civs? You'd be restricted purely to nationstates that existed after WW2, and a lot of those are already represented in the modern era. Are you going to have a Germany distinct from Prussia? A United States distinct from America? A United Kingdom distinct from Great Britain? You could do the USSR and Communist China, maybe Cuba. But it would still feel weird to essentially use current countries as civs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Exploration is a far better fit given that Iceland had little to do with the raiding, but everything to do with Greenland and Vinland.

And was settled partly due to Religion, the other Exploration Age motif.

I'm currently reading a new book, Embers of the Hands, a compilation of material on the 'Vikings' that emphasizes all the non-Viking elements: role of women, trade, religion, culture, crafts, etc. From the start the book makes it clear that everything we think we know about Scandinavia before about 700 CE is strictly archeological: there isn't even evidence of Runes, let alone any other 'historical' material other than that implied by works written 500 - 700 years later by Post Viking Scandinavian Christians.

Which makes a 'real' Antiquity Norse/Norn/Scandinavian Civ very, very difficult. Not completely Impossible, but one which will inevitably include a lot of later material 'back-dated' to fit.

Since, by comparison, we do have a lot of contemporary historical (mostly by Greeks and Romans, admittedly) as well as archeological material for the Antiquity Age German and Celtic groups, even including such specific groups as Britons, Picts, Gauls, Goths, etc. I suspect that a future 'north European' Antiquity Civ might be from one or more of those groups rather than the much hazier Scandinavian possibility.

Not saying it's certain, because, as stated, they've gone outside the strictly chronological to find fits elsewhere, but where there are chronologically appropriate groups related in various ways to their Exploration Age successors why twist the game in knots to do it the hard way?

 

[GeneralZift]

My main issue with a 4th age is, who do you pick for civs? You'd be restricted purely to nationstates that existed after WW2, and a lot of those are already represented in the modern era. Are you going to have a Germany distinct from Prussia? A United States distinct from America? A United Kingdom distinct from Great Britain? You could do the USSR and Communist China, maybe Cuba. But it would still feel weird to essentially use current countries as civs.

My main suggestion, I still don't know why people don't acknowledge this, is just to change into the last* era without Civ switching. You know, like the old fashioned way?