"Build something that you believe in."... oh wait, let me play for you...

[Gori the Grey]

The game's appeal is now shifted toward aesthetics and civ-building

Except people don't report having any real fun building their cities!

Oh, and I'm interested in this:

casual-to-mid audience

I'm not challenging you, but are there casual Civ players? It's a long game that involves thinking about a whole lot of interrelated systems. It seems to me the kind of game that would draw almost only somewhat serious gamers in the first place. Are there very many people of a Candy Crush mentality who also want to play Civ?

 

[Zaarin]

It literally has been for 6 previous versions of civilization. I don't think this argument has any merit at all

Civ7 is the first time any archaeological culture, the Mississippians, has been featured as a faction; I don't think Harappa as a city-state really counts. I don't think including a Proto-Germanic or Common Slavic civilization in any earlier version of Civ would have made many people very happy.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Civ7 is the first time any archaeological culture, the Mississippians, has been featured as a faction; I don't think Harappa as a city-state really counts. I don't think including a Proto-Germanic or Common Slavic civilization in any earlier version of Civ would have made many people very happy.

I also don't think the Mississippians will be the last, although I suspect it will be reserved for regions that simply don't have strong antiquity options. For example, I think the Taino/Arawak are very likely to be the antiquity civ representing the Caribbean and Amazon region. If we ever get an antiquity civ for the coast of Guinea (separate from the more likely/expected Wagadu), I would say the Nok fall into this category as well.

For a contrasting example, I don't think we will see a Lapita or Vanuatu culture because Tonga/Samoa are adequate start points for "the idea of Polynesia." Same with Khmer versus the Funan.

It literally has been for 6 previous versions of civilization. I don't think this argument has any merit at all

See above. I do not think we will see tribal Scandinavians because the Norse are such an obvious antiquity wellfont civ.

I do, however, think the Slavs stand a decent chance as an antiquity civ. They have some things going for them, namely territorial sprawl and a massive cultural heritage, and there aren't really any more developed analogues in antiquity prior to Kievan Rus' and Byzantium, as far as I am aware. I think there are enough attested buildings that they could cobble together an antiquity "pantheon" civ distinct from the other "cavalry" antiquity civs. The biggest obstacle I see is differentiating the Slavs enough from a hypothetical Scythia; might be a bit of a Sophie's choice situation there. But I think they could pull it off, there is actually a lot to work with culturally.

I would further speculate that we may actually see a return of a more blobby "Celts" in VII instead of a specific Gaul or Belgicae civ, as I think the era design is much more forgiving for that kind of design in antiquity.

 

[Zaarin]

I generally agree with you, but...

I would further speculate that we may actually see a return of a more blobby "Celts" in VII instead of a specific Gaul or Belgicae civ

...with a few exceptions (notably the Mississippians) Civ7 has shown a preference for being specific with the name, sometimes overly specific, even where such specificity is jarring with the civ design (Prussia and Mughals both spring to mind). So I imagine we'll see Gaul again. (Here it's not even counterintuitive since the Gauls were essentially the apex of Antiquity Celtic cultures, and I don't think any of the others would really bring anything to the table except city names. Which, if Prussia is any indication, is something they can bring anyway...)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It literally has been for 6 previous versions of civilization. I don't think this argument has any merit at all

Not sure what you mean by that unless you mean at the start of the game all civs are "tribal" like with warriors and capital cities being no more than a larger version of the barbarian encampments mainly pumping out military unit?

I do, however, think the Slavs stand a decent chance as an antiquity civ. They have some things going for them, namely territorial sprawl and a massive cultural heritage, and there aren't really any more developed analogues in antiquity prior to Kievan Rus' and Byzantium, as far as I am aware. I think there are enough attested buildings that they could cobble together an antiquity "pantheon" civ distinct from the other "cavalry" antiquity civs. The biggest obstacle I see is differentiating the Slavs enough from a hypothetical Scythia; might be a bit of a Sophie's choice situation there. But I think they could pull it off, there is actually a lot to work with culturally.

Timeline wise it doesn't fit Antiquity, but gameplay wise they could always make Great Moravia the progenitor Slavic civ.

I would further speculate that we may actually see a return of a more blobby "Celts" in VII instead of a specific Gaul or Belgicae civ, as I think the era design is much more forgiving for that kind of design in antiquity.

They could but Gaul could easily just progress into a number of Western European civs too.

 

[Zaarin]

Timeline wise it doesn't fit Antiquity, but gameplay wise they could always make Monrovia the progenitor Slavic civ.

I take it you mean Moravia, not the capital of Liberia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I take it you mean Moravia, not the capital of Liberia.

Yeah, I just changed it while you were answering. Specifically Great Moravia.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Not sure what you mean by that unless you mean at the start of the game all civs are "tribal" like with warriors and capital cities being no more than a larger version of the barbarian encampments mainly pumping out military unit?

That is exactly what I mean. Every game has started in 4000bc with a progenitor form of your Civ that hasn't developed the things that are unique about it yet as a rule of thumb. Now Civ 7 has sliced this into 3 games.

I think you can do the core concept of Civ 7, civs changing over time, and still engaged the audience who wants generally historically plausible Civ transitions. And I don't think that would be alien or unpalatable to Civ players, because it could simply be additional flavour and customisation for your Civ as it grows and changes from 4000bc to 2000ad. Doesn't require this ages concept. Doesn't require Civ switching.

I hope they move away from ages and Civ switching going forwards, those game mechanics will keep me from buying any game with them in unfortunately. Just have absolutely 0 interest in that style of game. I am however interested in the idea of layering and building your Civ organically through the game. So with some mechanical tweaks they could get me back for VIII

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think you can do the core concept of Civ 7, civs changing over time, and still engaged the audience who wants generally historically plausible Civ transitions. And I don't think that would be alien or unpalatable to Civ players, because it could simply be additional flavour and customisation for your Civ as it grows and changes from 4000bc to 2000ad. Doesn't require this ages concept. Doesn't require Civ switching.

I know I'm in the minority probably, but I would have preferred leader switching to civ switching if we had to go with the concept of switching over time.
If you want to play as England start with Alfred the Great and he allows you to build Minsters which will start to advance your science and culture. Once you start exploring the oceans switch to Elizabeth to hire Sea Dogs. Once you have an empire switch to Victoria and control that empire with Redcoats.
Instead of tying them to ages though it would be easier this way if it was done whenever you change governments. Then again, I don't think I'd force anyone to change their leaders if they don't want to.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I generally agree with you, but...


...with a few exceptions (notably the Mississippians) Civ7 has shown a preference for being specific with the name, sometimes overly specific, even where such specificity is jarring with the civ design (Prussia and Mughals both spring to mind). So I imagine we'll see Gaul again. (Here it's not even counterintuitive since the Gauls were essentially the apex of Antiquity Celtic cultures, and I don't think any of the others would really bring anything to the table except city names. Which, if Prussia is any indication, is something they can bring anyway...)

I agree with the specificity, and I'm not saying Gaul won't be what we get. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see it return as the general representative.

However, between the likelihood of the game wanting Celts/Picts/Scots representation for the British lines, and possibly even at least some suggestions if not outright representations of La Tene/Halstatt cultures if we ultimately see a Switzerland modern civ...I think there are several ways they could design the Celts in antiquity.

And yes, I think the obvious/easy design would be a Picts/Scots civ and a Gaul civ, but (1) I'm not sure if it's worth mechanically parsing those two out from each other or blobbing them together, and (2) if it's fair to give those two regions express representation while the Halstatt culture gets doubly shafted. I would also argue that if we get the "Goths" and the "Norse," (instead of Visigoths/Ostrogoths or Norway), there would be a certain elegance to just juxtaposing them against a single "Celts." Although I do recognize that, like the Khmer, the devs have limits as to how far they want to stretch back into reconstructive history and perhaps Gaul and/or Scots/Picts is where the happy balance will lie.

I'm not super concerned about how it will shake out, but I don't think we can discern a clearly "best" design at the moment.

Not sure what you mean by that unless you mean at the start of the game all civs are "tribal" like with warriors and capital cities being no more than a larger version of the barbarian encampments mainly pumping out military unit?

Timeline wise it doesn't fit Antiquity, but gameplay wise they could always make Great Moravia the progenitor Slavic civ.

They could but Gaul could easily just progress into a number of Western European civs too.

Possibly something like that, yeah. I am not sure how compelling a prehistoric age could be made mechanically, it might not have much potential and be fairly boring. But I do think for some civs such as Scythia or Sumeria a nomadic/pastoral period with fewer "requirements" such as city-lists, associated wonders, etc. could be a lot more forgiving of design than trying to force them into a standard civ model. I do think it would shake out as as kind of "IP-plus" gameplay. I don't know, I'm not wholly convinced it could work, but I'm also not convinced it couldn't work yet, either.

My understanding is that Slavs could be pushed back just as far historically as Moravia. Although I wouldn't mind Moravia by any means, maybe even we could see a sort of blobby Slavs-Moravia civ in the same way VI had Celts-Gaul-Belgicae. Just like how that was Belgium's representation in VI, maybe a very Moravian Slav civ or a very Slavic Moravian civ could be Czechia/Bohemia's representation in VII.

(for this reason, I would not be surprised if we see "Belgium-as-Celts" return in VII again, depending on how the devs decide to assign civs across eras. The obvious counterpoint is quite similar to Moravia's situation: will we get Belgicae/Moravia in antiquity, or Burgundians/Bohemia in exploration? I doubt we will see both.)

 

[RedCourtJester]

I know I'm in the minority probably, but I would have preferred leader switching to civ switching if we had to go with the concept of switching over time.
If you want to play as England start with Alfred the Great and he allows you to build Minsters which will start to advance your science and culture. Once you start exploring the oceans switch to Elizabeth to hire Sea Dogs. Once you have an empire switch to Victoria and control that empire with Redcoats.
Instead of tying them to ages though it would be easier this way if it was done whenever you change governments. Then again, I don't think I'd force anyone to change their leaders if they don't want to.

Oh this is such an obviously good idea that I hope the devs retrofit it later on to VII, although I fear it might be too late. In an ideally designed game, we would have enough leaders, that in standard play they would be limited to their own era:

* Antiquity: Hatshepsut, Confucius, Ashoka, Himiko, Xerxes, Augustus, Trung Trac
* Exploration: Tecumseh, Pachacuti, Charlemagne, Machiavelli, Isabella, Ibn Battuta, Genghis Khan, Edward Teach, Sayyida Al Hurra
* Modern: Ben Franklin, Harriet Tubman, Jose Rizal, Amina, Catherine, Lafayette, Napoleon, Frederick, Simon, Whina, Lakshmibai

I think a major reason this wasn't in VII, or at least in VII at launch, is that a smaller roster of 21 just can't really be stretched out that far and gameplay variety would have suffered.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

I'm not challenging you, but are there casual Civ players? It's a long game that involves

Yes, of course, there are a majority of casual players in Civ. Just like in any game, they form the 99+%.

However, you are right that Civ is different in the fact that a single session can be quite long, while the game itself will take "several" hours.
Most of the younger generation will favour games that can be completed in a single session of below a half an hour (and then replayed).

 

[Zaarin]

However, between the likelihood of the game wanting Celts/Picts/Scots representation for the British lines, and possibly even at least some suggestions if not outright representations of La Tene/Halstatt cultures if we ultimately see a Switzerland modern civ...I think there are several ways they could design the Celts in antiquity.

I don't think we know enough about the Picts to make a civ around them. Although it's about 90% certain at this point, we can't even be 100% certain they were Celts. By "Scots" I assume you mean Scoti AKA Old Irish? I do actually think an Old Irish civ could be interesting, but I think it's far more likely we see Ireland in the Exploration Age coming from Rome and Celts (and maybe Greeks, who knows?). Egypt would be a deep cut (Ireland was Christianized by Egyptian missionaries) that I wouldn't say no to.

a very Slavic Moravian civ could be Czechia/Bohemia's representation in VII.

Since we missed out on Hannibal, I still propose Jan Žižka for our one-eyed general leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

However, between the likelihood of the game wanting Celts/Picts/Scots representation for the British lines, and possibly even at least some suggestions if not outright representations of La Tene/Halstatt cultures if we ultimately see a Switzerland modern civ...I think there are several ways they could design the Celts in antiquity.

And yes, I think the obvious/easy design would be a Picts/Scots civ and a Gaul civ, but (1) I'm not sure if it's worth mechanically parsing those two out from each other or blobbing them together, and (2) if it's fair to give those two regions express representation while the Halstatt culture gets doubly shafted. I would also argue that if we get the "Goths" and the "Norse," (instead of Visigoths/Ostrogoths or Norway), there would be a certain elegance to just juxtaposing them against a single "Celts." Although I do recognize that, like the Khmer, the devs have limits as to how far they want to stretch back into reconstructive history and perhaps Gaul and/or Scots/Picts is where the happy balance will lie.

I'm not sure the Antiquity Celtic civs from Great Britain are as big of a draw as Gaul. I do think what they could do is include a leader like Boudicca, who I think is the biggest draw to the idea of wanting the Celts from there. And since leaders aren't needed to include civs then I think I'd be fine with Gaul as the civ and Boudicca as the leader. Of course, Exploration could still get Ireland.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I don't think we know enough about the Picts to make a civ around them. Although it's about 90% certain at this point, we can't even be 100% certain they were Celts. By "Scots" I assume you mean Scoti AKA Old Irish? I do actually think an Old Irish civ could be interesting, but I think it's far more likely we see Ireland in the Exploration Age coming from Rome and Celts (and maybe Greeks, who knows?). Egypt would be a deep cut (Ireland was Christianized by Egyptian missionaries) that I wouldn't say no to.

Yeah I did mean Old Irish. I too, agree that we will likely see exploration Ireland and Scotland. But if that ends up being the case, I don't think Gaul would be as satisfying a starting point for them as either splitting off a Scots/Picts civ from Gaul, or otherwise expanding Gaul's blobbiness to be more generically Celtic.

I don't disagree with everyone's points that Gaul is far and away the strongest Celtic "idea" in several respects. But given that they weren't exactly a kingdom, I feel like that "confederation" idea could be expanded beyond the territory of Gaul if the devs really wanted to get some Picts/Scots or La Tene/Halstatt representation into a playable civ. I could even envision the Gaulish tech tree branches reflecting specialization into respective Celtic regions, perhaps.

Since we missed out on Hannibal, I still propose Jan Žižka for our one-eyed general leader.

Oh absolutely, no question. I'm not even going to point out that Hannibal or any leader could still theoretically happen, I don't want him and Zizka is like a billion times cooler.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah I did mean Old Irish. I too, agree that we will likely see exploration Ireland and Scotland. But if that ends up being the case, I don't think Gaul would be as satisfying a starting point for them as either splitting off a Scots/Picts civ from Gaul, or otherwise expanding Gaul's blobbiness to be more generically Celtic.

The devs have mentioned a couple times they don't really consider linking civs a priority, which is why I expect Gaul, with the Antiquity British Isles covered by Independent Peoples and perhaps a leader. (Please, not Boudicca. Anyone but Boudicca. If we need a British queen, how about Cordelia or Cartimandua?)

Oh absolutely, no question. I'm not even going to point out that Hannibal or any leader could still theoretically happen, I don't want him and Zizka is like a billion times cooler.

I would like Hannibal or some Phoenico-Punic leader, but Žižka would be a lot of fun. He has some pop culture spotlight at the moment thanks to KCD2, too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The devs have mentioned a couple times they don't really consider linking civs a priority, which is why I expect Gaul, with the Antiquity British Isles covered by Independent Peoples and perhaps a leader. (Please, not Boudicca. Anyone but Boudicca. If we need a British queen, how about Cordelia or Cartimandua?)

I'd rather them go the Ango-Saxon route anyways, either for civs or leaders for Antiquity British Isles. Aethelflaed was a Great General in Civ 6 so maybe she's on their radar?

 

[RedCourtJester]

The devs have mentioned a couple times they don't really consider linking civs a priority, which is why I expect Gaul, with the Antiquity British Isles covered by Independent Peoples and perhaps a leader. (Please, not Boudicca. Anyone but Boudicca. If we need a British queen, how about Cordelia or Cartimandua?)

They have said this, but I also am taking it with a grain of salt since a lot of it could just be PR spin to sell a half-complete game. Despite saying this, the immediate first additions and prospective additions to the game have reflected:

1. Adding the "other half" of the Norman's logical modern pathway with Britain.

2. Providing Spain and Songhai a better starting position with Carthage (which is also suspiciously designed as a likely Venice start point).

3. Giving Russia a second and arguably better exploration era transition civ in Bulgaria.

4. Making sure Trung Trac has a Dai Viet civ to move through.

5. Giving Hawaii a full logical pathway with Tonga in antiquity and Maori in modern.

6. Capping off Bulgaria and Abbasid paths with the Ottomans.

Yes, this doesn't totally cover some more isolated additions like Nepal, Iceland, Pirates, and Simon Bolivar, but if I were going by the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 rule I would say that they seem to be spending about 2/3 of their resources building out on existing pathways, and another 1/3 sowing seeds for even more pathways. I am not expecting 1:1, but I think a lot of regions will end up feeling a lot more cohesive than we think if Tonga -> Hawaii -> Maori are any indication. Hence why I do think the British Isles stand a decent chance of getting something better than Gaul in antiquity. Maybe.

 

[Xur]

The hoary old Civ concept of leading and building the same Civilization for 6000 years was and is a complete and utter Fantasy concept. It made everybody feel like they were some kind of Petty God, but it bore no relation whatsoever to any historical group, culture or civ. Whenever people blat about Civ 'never being a historical game', somehow they never seem to note this Whopping Big Fantasy that was the centerpiece of the entire game franchise

I'm glad it's gone: I would cheerfully bury it deep with a fork stuck through its shriveled little fantasy heart because it is Done, Finished, and I'm glad to see the tail of it vanish in the wind.

I'm sorry that you do not like civ games, but that is sort of the root of the problem. Some times it feels like the devs themselves hate the franchise. They see the same problems in previous games as fans do, but the cure is always worse than the disease. I would prefer if Ed Beach made a Civilization Revolution 2 for people like you and we got a real fan of the franchise to make a real civ game for everyone else. Firaxis needs a purge.

 

[Zaarin]

They have said this, but I also am taking it with a grain of salt since a lot of it could just be PR spin to sell a half-complete game. Despite saying this, the immediate first additions and prospective additions to the game have reflected:

1. Adding the "other half" of the Norman's logical modern pathway with Britain.

2. Providing Spain and Songhai a better starting position with Carthage (which is also suspiciously designed as a likely Venice start point).

3. Giving Russia a second and arguably better exploration era transition civ in Bulgaria.

4. Making sure Trung Trac has a Dai Viet civ to move through.

5. Giving Hawaii a full logical pathway with Tonga in antiquity and Maori in modern.

6. Capping off Bulgaria and Abbasid paths with the Ottomans.

Yes, this doesn't totally cover some more isolated additions like Nepal, Iceland, Pirates, and Simon Bolivar, but if I were going by the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 rule I would say that they seem to be spending about 2/3 of their resources building out on existing pathways, and another 1/3 sowing seeds for even more pathways. I am not expecting 1:1, but I think a lot of regions will end up feeling a lot more cohesive than we think if Tonga -> Hawaii -> Maori are any indication. Hence why I do think the British Isles stand a decent chance of getting something better than Gaul in antiquity. Maybe.

I mean, I hope we do get Tonga and of course we'll get Ottomans eventually, but at present Bulgaria and Carthage are really the only civs they've added that have improved connections. Nepal is a particularly surprising choice, and Dai Viet feels very redundant with SEA already being one of the best-represented regions in the game, compared to a dearth of West Asian, New World, and Subsaharan African civs. Qajar is just a baffling choice with Safavids sitting right there. (FWIW, I don't think those discoveries in the files mean much.)