I would be surprised if we saw Tibet myself due to certain political reasons. Though if we get a fourth age, we’ll have to get a whole host of touchy civs so that argument may be out the window.
They were able to design Mississippians, for whom we have about as much or less extant archaeological evidence as the Indus Valley civilisation and the Olmecs.
Hm, I don’t know about that. In 1491 (the book), there’s a lot of info about ancient Mississippian cultural and religious traditions as well as agricultural practices that can be gleaned from the archaeological record. There was also European contact with Mississippians so I don’t think it’s quite the same as the Indus Valley at least. I could see them try for Olmecs maybe.
I would be surprised if we saw Tibet myself due to certain political reasons. Though if we get a fourth age, we’ll have to get a whole host of touchy civs so that argument may be out the window.
Hm, I don’t know about that. In 1491 (the book), there’s a lot of info about ancient Mississippian cultural and religious traditions as well as agricultural practices that can be gleaned from the archaeological record. There was also European contact with Mississippians so I don’t think it’s quite the same as the Indus Valley at least. I could see them try for Olmecs maybe.
Either Colombia/Gran Colombia, Perú or Bolivia. Of the three, we are more likely to see a return of Colombia/Gran Colombia in Civ7. The largest cities in modern-day Colombia are in the Andes, as well as a very significant percentage of its population (72%). Bogotá is currently the largest city on top of the Andes and the largest city at an altitude higher than 8200 feet over sea level.
Hm, I don’t know about that. In 1491 (the book), there’s a lot of info about ancient Mississippian cultural and religious traditions as well as agricultural practices that can be gleaned from the archaeological record. There was also European contact with Mississippians so I don’t think it’s quite the same as the Indus Valley at least. I could see them try for Olmecs maybe.
I suppose, but it's still an archaeological culture that's been strategically reconstructed—and the Civilopedia entry, most of all, makes it pretty clear how much of what went into reconstructing the culture for the game is speculative. It also emphasises the early-middle Mississippian period, ending its chronology in 1400, because it's a) centred on Cahokia specifically, and b) meant to thematically fit them into "Antiquity" even though the Mississippians were around after the Normans. I definitely think seeing the Indus Valley cities is in the cards—Harappa is even in the game already as an independent power—and the fact that archaeological cultures can be represented in Civ now is one of the best impacts of the civ/leader split.
I suppose, but it's still an archaeological culture that's been strategically reconstructed—and the Civilopedia entry, most of all, makes it pretty clear how much of what went into reconstructing the culture for the game is speculative. It also emphasises the early-middle Mississippian period, ending its chronology in 1400, because it's a) centred on Cahokia specifically, and b) meant to thematically fit them into "Antiquity" even though the Mississippians were around after the Normans. I definitely think seeing the Indus Valley cities is in the cards—Harappa is even in the game already as an independent power—and the fact that archaeological cultures can be represented in Civ now is one of the best impacts of the civ/leader split.
They’ve had Mohenjo Daro as a city state before so I don’t know that Independent People status specifically necessarily qualifies them to be a full civ (there are several indigenous Australian IPs and I would be pretty surprised to see them make it in), but I take your point.
Caral-Supe exists in Antiquity as well! I can imagine some future "Cradle of Civilization" theme with Harappans, Olmecs, and Sumerians, or something along those lines...
I'd love to have all of them, but in the end, I think we’ll only get Sumeria—and maybe, with a lot of creative liberty, the Olmecs. I’d add that the Minoans are also on the table. Nok is another archaeological culture I’d love to see, but unfortunately, it’s too obscure.
They’ve had Mohenjo Daro as a city state before so I don’t know that Independent People status specifically necessarily qualifies them to be a full civ (there are several indigenous Australian IPs and I would be pretty surprised to see them make it in), but I take your point.
We had the Great Bath in Civ VI too, remember! Indus Valley is one of the strangely most-represented civs in the franchise (in terms of "appearances") that hasn't been a full civ yet.
There seems to be a general trend with the civ choice for the current ages at launch. One from India & China, 2-3 European civs, 1 southeast asian, etc. Whats most likely imo is:
- Phillippines (southeast asia)
- Cuba or Chile (Latin America)
- Canada (we really don't need more America content)
- Modern India (Easy Ghandi plug)
- "China" (probably the trickiest to implement)
- Italy (if we dont get it as DLC in the modern era)
- Germany, France or Switzerland
- Nigeria or South Africa
- Soviets (there seems to be a lot of inspo from Humankind already in-game)
- Modern Japan ("Meiji Japan" sounds like the perfect set up for more Japan content)
- Tunisia or Modern Egypt (most other Arabic choices are either ripe for controversy or better in an earlier age)
On the topic of IPs being or not being hints at future civilizations, I find it weird that the only modern IPs in the Americas who aren't Native American is Colombia. There's no Argentina, Brazil or Canada, which featured as city-states in previous games before being included as civilizations, except for Argentina.
There seems to be a general trend with the civ choice for the current ages at launch. One from India & China, 2-3 European civs, 1 southeast asian, etc. Whats most likely imo is:
- Phillippines (southeast asia)
- Cuba or Chile (Latin America)
- Canada (we really don't need more America content)
- Modern India (Easy Ghandi plug)
- "China" (probably the trickiest to implement)
- Italy (if we dont get it as DLC in the modern era)
- Germany, France or Switzerland
- Nigeria or South Africa
- Soviets (there seems to be a lot of inspo from Humankind already in-game)
- Modern Japan ("Meiji Japan" sounds like the perfect set up for more Japan content)
- Tunisia or Modern Egypt (most other Arabic choices are either ripe for controversy or better in an earlier age)
I find it increasingly doubtful that any hypothetical future age will include new civs, as opposed to being an extension of the current Modern age in some form or another. If the devs wanted to include another age, it'd be easier to split Medieval off from Exploration—there's already Wars of Religion and the Black Death to (strangely) cap off Exploration, and many of the civs there are more properly medieval (ca. 600-1400AD) than early modern.
On the topic of IPs being or not being hints at future civilizations, I find it weird that the only modern IPs in the Americas who aren't Native American is Colombia. There's no Argentina, Brazil or Canada, which featured as city-states in previous games before being included as civilizations, except for Argentina.
Part of me thinks their absence is because they’ll be included in the Fourth Age in some way. That’s why Colombia is the only one to appear—if it ever becomes a playable civ, it will focus on Gran Colombia, which will almost certainly show up in the Modern Age rather than the Fourth Age.
Part of me thinks their absence is because they’ll be included in the Fourth Age in some way. That’s why Colombia is the only one to appear—if it ever becomes a playable civ, it will focus on Gran Colombia, which will almost certainly show up in the Modern Age rather than the Fourth Age.
I still hope we don't get to have a 4th Age, though. There's lots of history left to cover from the previous 2000 years, rather than from the last 100 years.
I still hope we don't get to have a 4th Age, though. There's lots of history left to cover from the previous 2000 years, rather than from the last 100 years.
I wholeheartedly agree but I am concerned that’s the reason they were left out. That said, there’s also no Port-au-Prince which would probably be Modern, not 4th Age so it could mean they just haven’t decided either way.
I still think a hypothetical 4th Age roster would be the dullest and most redundant slate of civs on offer and would take valuable dev time away from fleshing out the other three ages. I’d rather they just fudge Modern a bit and add the few modern nation states that are actually feasible like Brazil in there.
They were able to design Mississippians, for whom we have about as much or less extant archaeological evidence as the Indus Valley civilisation and the Olmecs.
The biggest drawback to Olmecs and Indus Valley in previous Civ games was the total lack of any language for either, and the lack of information or even names for any leaders.
Now that those are no longer required for Civs, the biggest stumbling block is constructing a city list for either. We literally do not have a single place name in Olmec and all the Indus Valley sites are also modern names of archeological sites.
On the other hand, having done the Mississippians, it's obvious that the lack of any 'real' city names is not an insurmountable drawback. - And we know, if anything, as much or more about the Olmecs and Indus Valley people from the archeology than we do about the Mississippians,
I'd just like to chime in and point out that we already have Antiquity Indian and Mesoamerican Civs in t he game, so these are 'nice to have' (and, to be honest, I would love to see either one of them!) but not necessary to fill in any progressions geographically or culturally. In comparison, the entire swath of central Asia from China/Mongolia to the Danube is completely unrepresented in Antiquity, and geographically could lead to Mongolia, Russia, or even Poland in Exploration.
Much as I'd like to see the Olmec and/or Indus Valley Civs, I'd be much happier seeing a central Asian Antiquity entity like Scythians, Xiong-Nu, Huns or Kushans to provide a more legitimate path to Exploration Civs already in the game like the above mentioned Mongols or presumably-in-the-works Ottomans.
I still think a hypothetical 4th Age roster would be the dullest and most redundant slate of civs on offer and would take valuable dev time away from fleshing out the other three ages. I’d rather they just fudge Modern a bit and add the few modern nation states that are actually feasible like Brazil in there.
We can simply add onto the tech and civic trees and change the legacy paths a bit to accommodate the later 20th century and beyond. If anything, the existence of the Modern Age gives ample space for nations like Argentina, Brazil, etc. for representation in Civ 7 when their (hypothetical) entry in previous iterations was a bit dubious compared alongside the likes of the Rome or Spain.
Splitting Exploration into two would be better way to get a 4th age. It would require a lot more work and care than just tacking on the Atomic Age but Civ 7 already needs that level care given its current shaky state anyway. Dividing Exploration into Middle and Early Modern (?) would help alleviate odd cases like the Mughals being in the last age too. We could add the Safavids too but only because I want all 3 Gunpowder Empires in and in at the same game age!
I'd just like to chime in and point out that we already have Antiquity Indian and Mesoamerican Civs in t he game, so these are 'nice to have' (and, to be honest, I would love to see either one of them!) but not necessary to fill in any progressions geographically or culturally. In comparison, the entire swath of central Asia from China/Mongolia to the Danube is completely unrepresented in Antiquity, and geographically could lead to Mongolia, Russia, or even Poland in Exploration.
I think splitting Exploration up might open some room for the Indus and Olmec. The route could be something like Olmec (Antiquity) to Maya (Middle or whatever you want to call it) to Aztec (Early Modern) to Mexico (Modern). We still have some temporal fudging to do but it wouldn't be the worse Civ 7 has...
I do agree though big chunks of the world are currently missing any representation, especially in Antiquity. But hopefully we'll get to where we need to get with more civs.
Hm, I don’t know about that. In 1491 (the book), there’s a lot of info about ancient Mississippian cultural and religious traditions as well as agricultural practices that can be gleaned from the archaeological record. There was also European contact with Mississippians so I don’t think it’s quite the same as the Indus Valley at least. I could see them try for Olmecs maybe.
It's a bit easier to justify the Mississippians since linguistically they sound "appropriate." With the Olmecs and especially the Harappans we can't rely on the names and practices of their descendants to inform their design for the game since even their own descendants knew so little about them.
I find it increasingly doubtful that any hypothetical future age will include new civs, as opposed to being an extension of the current Modern age in some form or another. If the devs wanted to include another age, it'd be easier to split Medieval off from Exploration—there's already Wars of Religion and the Black Death to (strangely) cap off Exploration, and many of the civs there are more properly medieval (ca. 600-1400AD) than early modern.
I generally agree. I wish the game launched with a 4 age Antiquity-Medieval-Exploration-Industrial lineup. The current Exploration age feels inconsistent with its identity. Some of the civs in Modern (mainly the Mughals, Qing, and Buganda) are better suited for the in-game Exploration age than the industrial-focused Modern age. The same can be said about the Khmer and Mississippians being weirdly slotted into Antiquity. But as it stands its unlikely. There'd have to be fundamental changes to make a Medieval age work without killing the flow of the game. Adding an Atomic age just takes way less work in comparison.
There was an explanation by one of the devs (or rather FXS's historian) why they opted for this. It has less to do with when these cultures had their pinnacle in real history, but that they form the first part of the respective regional line and were thus placed in antiquity. I'm sure you can find the post if you look for it.
The same could be said about the modern civs you mentioned. Avoiding contemporary civs (due to a potential atomic age or for other reasons), they fit quite well in the 3rd age as development of the two previous and predecessors of the contemporary states. Buganda doesn't have the buildup yet, but it might come in the future (e.g., from an Ethiopia exploration civ, Kongo, or Mutapa)
Gains a victory point for fabricating an empire that came before your neighbours conquered the region, perhaps?
Jokes aside, I hope they're still working on this stuff, it sounds quiet interesting.
It's a bit easier to justify the Mississippians since linguistically they sound "appropriate." With the Olmecs and especially the Harappans we can't rely on the names and practices of their descendants to inform their design for the game since even their own descendants knew so little about them.
There are modern languages spoken in the area (Mixe-Zoquean) that are 'related' to Olmec (how much is a subject of considerable debate). Whether city names in those languages would sound 'appropriate' is something else again, but at least could be attempted.
For instance, translating the modern (mostly Spanish) names for the Olmec sites into Mixe or Zoque gives the following potential 'Olmec Cities': Modern........................Mixe-Zoquean
La Venta........................ Minpa
Laguna de los Cerros.....Yaganka
Las Bocas.......................Hipa
Tres Zapotes...................Tugana
Castillo de Teayo.............Tukipaki
Obviously, this still isn't 'historically accurate', but it is probabluy no worse than the Mississippian City List.
The Harappans/Indus Valley people, unfortunately, represent a complete linguistic disconnect from later groups because those groups were a product of the Indo-European/Aryan migrations and so speak totally different languages. We are pretty much left with complete speculation for city names.
There was an explanation by one of the devs (or rather FXS's historian) why they opted for this. It has less to do with when these cultures had their pinnacle in real history, but that they form the first part of the respective regional line and were thus placed in antiquity. I'm sure you can find the post if you look for it.
The same could be said about the modern civs you mentioned. Avoiding contemporary civs (due to a potential atomic age or for other reasons), they fit quite well in the 3rd age as development of the two previous and predecessors of the contemporary states. Buganda doesn't have the buildup yet, but it might come in the future (e.g., from an Ethiopia exploration civ, Kongo, or Mutapa)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
