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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Civ Rev 2 does exist already.

Nepal is a particularly surprising choice

Nepal feels like a fanservice towards people that have been wanting Tibet, but instead they get something like Tibet which is Nepal. Not that it's a bad thing.

Qajar is just a baffling choice with Safavids sitting right there.

I do wonder what the devs reasoning will be other than they thought that the Qajar fit the time period of Modern better. Because having the Mughals, and probably the Ottomans in the same age, without the Safavids will feel weird.

 

[RedCourtJester]

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.)

Oh I forgot Qajar. Assuming that the dataleak was fairly reliable, I would say that Qajar and the Ottomans are being added to give us better Egypt -> Abbasid -> Ottomans and Persia -> Abbasid -> Qajar paths. I think that was a fairly obvious place to flesh out with a civ or two sooner rather than later.

 

[Mahi]

The iteration is really a big "L" for me so far. I know there is more content, which will be released later on but man.. I hate this gamestation based game which holds your hand most of the way. The game is bad at this point of time. This may be the one time where I'm going to favour an earlier iteration over the latest version. I can't come to terms with the era changes - The resets and automation which happens at era changes is not doing it for me at all.

 

[ThichN]

Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, England,
Did the Exploration Age.

This is not a worldwide phenomenon. It is actually pretty restricted, in the scope of countries concerned.
To paraphraze a previous poster, Zimbabwe did not colonize Canada, lol.

The "Exploration Age" is European in name only. Cultures worldwide experienced similar challenges, changes, and conquests. Look at the massive conquests the Ming pulled off in the 14th century. Islamic expeditions for spices. Morocco's invasion of the Songhai. A quest for resources, land, and autonomy from a larger state were absolutely not a singularly European phenomenon.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Oh I forgot Qajar. Assuming that the dataleak was fairly reliable, I would say that Qajar and the Ottomans are being added to give us better Egypt -> Abbasid -> Ottomans and Persia -> Abbasid -> Qajar paths. I think that was a fairly obvious place to flesh out with a civ or two sooner rather than later.

Assyria too.
I think considering Nepal and Bulgaria were in the same data leak I think that those civs are guaranteed and will be in Right to Rule. At least I think it's more reliable than the apparent cut content one involving Iceland and the Pirate Republic.

 

[Sagax]

I do wonder what the devs reasoning will be other than they thought that the Qajar fit the time period of Modern better. Because having the Mughals, and probably the Ottomans in the same age, without the Safavids will feel weird.

They could pull Prussia again and design a civ that is Qajar in name only.

 

[stealth_nsk]

They could pull Prussia again and design a civ that is Qajar in name only.

One important note is that Qajar weren't announced officially yet, so Firaxis could potentially rename them to Safavid if they see it as better fit

 

[j51]

They could pull Prussia again and design a civ that is Qajar in name only.

I’d be willing to bet it’s called Qajar but it’s really Iran from Safavid to Pahlavi.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’d be willing to bet it’s called Qajar but it’s really Iran from Safavid to Pahlavi.

In that case wouldn't it be better to just call it Iran if you aren't going to stick to just Qajar?
I'm not really a fan of all these little inconsistencies. I mean Great Britain only has cities from England.

 

[Zaarin]

I’d be willing to bet it’s called Qajar but it’s really Iran from Safavid to Pahlavi.

This is more or less what I'm expecting.

In that case wouldn't it be better to just call it Iran if you aren't going to stick to just Qajar?
I'm not really a fan of all these little inconsistencies. I mean Great Britain only has cities from England.

I can appreciate why Firaxis would be uncomfortable calling the Modern civ Iran (unlike Germany and England, especially since an Exploration England seems unlikely now). What I don't understand is why they'd choose the name of the weakest dynasty from the period when there were other options. Safavid is obviously on their radar because it's a Modern IP.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I don't understand is why they'd choose the name of the weakest dynasty from the period when there were other options. Safavid is obviously on their radar because it's a Modern IP.

I have a feeling Firaxis wants to focus on XIX century in their modern civ choice.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can appreciate why Firaxis would be uncomfortable calling the Modern civ Iran (unlike Germany and England, especially since an Exploration England seems unlikely now). What I don't understand is why they'd choose the name of the weakest dynasty from the period when there were other options.

Oh, I agree. I am just wondering why call it Qajar if they are going to also use abilities and uniques related to the Safavids? Sure, I guess some things like the Zamburak lasted throughout the various dynasties, but I guess I'll reserve judgement until we see all the things. After giving the Mughals stepwells I don't have high hopes.

Safavid is obviously on their radar because it's a Modern IP.

I thought it was an Exploration IP?

 

[Zaarin]

After giving the Mughals stepwells I don't have high hopes.

Same.

I thought it was an Exploration IP?

The wiki says you're right. Weird. I thought I remembered seeing it in Modern, and doubly weird when Sassanid is Exploration.

 

[Gorbles]

we got a real fan of the franchise to make a real civ game for everyone else.

Yes, anyone with different preferences isn't a "real" Civ. fan. In a game series known for making dramatic changes. With iterations so divisive that you have to go as far back as Civ III before you can really call the ongoing user activity - in 2025 - questionable.

(also, honourable shoutout to SMAC even though it's not a "real" Civ. game and us who are fans of it most definitely must not be "real" fans of the franchise)

Anyhow, I just want to end with this:

Firaxis needs a purge.

Yikes.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Assyria too.
I think considering Nepal and Bulgaria were in the same data leak I think that those civs are guaranteed and will be in Right to Rule. At least I think it's more reliable than the apparent cut content one involving Iceland and the Pirate Republic.

We actually don't know if the content was cut, so much as some of its prep code was pre-released. This does happen in many games where current patches accidentally reveal some surreptitious features of patches planned in the immediate future. This can happen for many reasons, whether content was developed at the same time and then meted out, or was initially planned as a larger package, or simply released in a different order than anticipated. We really can't know why, and we definitely can't presume all five civs and all three leaders weren't cut, but for now I think it is safe to suggest that the "general idea" of a "naval expansion" is probably planned at some point between now and the first major "expac-like" content release. If we don't see it within a couple years I think it will be safe to suggest it was cut/retooled.

The "Exploration Age" is European in name only. Cultures worldwide experienced similar challenges, changes, and conquests. Look at the massive conquests the Ming pulled off in the 14th century. Islamic expeditions for spices. Morocco's invasion of the Songhai. A quest for resources, land, and autonomy from a larger state were absolutely not a singularly European phenomenon.

Also MONGOLIA exists. I am generally okay with exploration era being depicted as treasure-fleety since we did see that in Northern Africa, the Middle East, India, Macronesia, Polynesia as well. It's a very one-dimensional portrayal of the era, but as I have already stated, I think the eras are deliberately oversimplified and will only be given more facets/nuance through specific civs, leaders, and wonders, rather than universally chock-full of analysis paralysis. We already see suggestions of this in Mongolia and the Bulgarian wonder.

Same.

While I am not defending the choice of the stepwell for the Mughals, because I 100% agree it is wholly improper for that civ, I am taking that design choice, as well as Nepal's overall mishmash, to mean that a lot of "edge case" civs actually stand a decent chance of being fudged into the roster. I am not sure where the line will end up being drawn for me at historical inaccuracy ruining the game, but so far the Mughals and Nepal are not it.

 

[Ornen]

remembering when they let you actually make interesting macro level decisions in these games...

 

[RedCourtJester]

1. I hope they bring back "Green" as some sort of ideology/policy, hehe.

2. I feel like the series would benefit from "Undertale" style endings, where if you are playing in ways which technically win the game but are objectively evil, you get "bad ending" accomplishments and meta benefits. Like, sure, you can raze every city or melt the ice caps, but we aren't going to pretend that's an admirable way to win at life.

 

[RedCourtJester]

No other mainline Civilization title has changed the formula so dramatically that they needed to create a new tagline for the title and looking at the peak playercounts and assumed sales of VII that fact is quite obvious.

Yeah, but the flip side is how many times do people want to buy the same game with a fresh coat of paint and a few swapped out analogues?

I actually think the tagline is less that Civ VII is going to look dramatically different from VI when finished, but more an attempt to try to sell the idea when it was only half-completed. I have a strong suspicion that if we see several years of successful expansion on the roster, a lot of players will start saying "oh now it's like what I remember" and start coming back.

I could, of course, be wrong. But so far a lot of the top-down design of the game is at least consistent with what could be a long-form plan to regain whatever playerbase is lost by the half-baked carte blanche start. I haven't seen enough utter disasters that suggest otherwise or cannot/will not be fixed in the first couple years.

 

[nickelion]

Nor was there an event at the end of the "Exploration Age", which every civilisation in the world entered simultaneously, that forced every civilisation to evolve into a new one at exactly the same time.

When climate change forces Canada to evolve into Zimbabwe, let me know.

Well, they're artificially forcing many countries to turn into Zimbabwe... So...

 

[RedCourtJester]

Well, they're artificially forcing many countries to turn into Zimbabwe... So...

Lies. Zimbabwe would absolutely be (part of) an antiquity civ, no one is "turning into" Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is turning into everyone.