1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ 7 civ theories

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Connor_CivFan, Jan 19, 2019.

?

Would you rather have totally brand new civs or civs we have seen before (like Austria, Babylon etc)

  1. Brand new Civs

    8 vote(s)
    40.0%
  2. Civs we have seen before

    12 vote(s)
    60.0%
  1. Connor_CivFan

    Connor_CivFan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    89
    I don't care if anyone thinks that it is too early to speculate about Civ 7 already (with rumors about a 3rd expansion we really don't know when it will happen)


    (Give your reasoning for your poll answer) (Say what civs you want to see in Civ 7)

    I would love to see a return from the Celts, The Iroquois, and the Mayans.

    I don't want the Kongos or Sumerians in Civ 7
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2019
  2. awesome

    awesome Meme Lord

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    behind you
    We"re going to get both.
    We had Mali in West Africa in 4 and 6, and Songhai in 5, so I think they'll either go with Songhai or something new in 7, like Ghana or Kanembu. Maybe also Morocco, but hopefully they also put Carthage in again.
    I'm also expecting Babylon to return, and maybe either Assyrians or Hittites to round out the ancient near east.
    For Southeast Asia, I'm thinking we might get Vietnam, but we might also get Thailand again.
    For North America, I'm expecting either something new, or Shoshone (not Iroquois because of the next point, but I'd honestly like to see Haida)
    I'm also expecting all of the post-colonial civs so far to be series mainstays, like how Brazil was in 5 and 6.
     
    Plymouth likes this.
  3. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,518
    Either way, I want new civs. I really like VI's focus on globalist and culture, and frankly it's the only title I felt compelled to buy in the series. If it went back to boring Austria and Byzantium and Babylon I probably wouldn't buy VII.
     
  4. NukingGandhi

    NukingGandhi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2018
    Messages:
    69
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wishing he was back in Ohio
    I'd love to see the Shoshone as I am playing a Civ V game as them currently. Also, the Navajo would be cool to see as some more desert civs would be cool.
     
  5. Frugtkagen

    Frugtkagen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a game about civilizations, and frankly, 'old Austria, Byzantium and Babylon' have each individually contributed more to history, culture, science, literature and art than all of Africa put together. I'd like to see such important players in history represented in the game.
     
    Rhyno100 likes this.
  6. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,518
    It is first and foremost a video game. It needs audiovisual and mechanical variety far more than it needs all of the "important players."

    I see many on here being fairly myopic about "importance" while completely glossing over implementation. If a civ can't be adequately differentiated from existing civs, the devs have far less incentive to include it over a more distinct civ. Old or new.
     
  7. awesome

    awesome Meme Lord

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    behind you
    If I remember correctly, they originally wanted Navajo instead of Shoshone, but it kind of made that entire culture angry.
     
  8. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    5,202
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    It was the Pueblo that they couldn't depict.

    I honestly hope it will be a mix of old and new.
    I can see for the next series they would introduce say Ireland over Scotland for example. Maybe another Polynesian culture such as Hawaii over Maori next time.
    Some Civs such as Mali and Khmer I would like to stay staples though and then add other extra new Civs from that region such as Benin and Vietnam.
     
    awesome likes this.
  9. Buthera

    Buthera Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2018
    Messages:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Australia
    I'd like a mix, of course.

    I could see them throwing some vanilla curveballs a la Scythia, like including the Zapotec instead of Aztecs and an African civ never represented such as Benin or Madagascar, or even something wonderfully controversial like including the Etruscans instead of Rome.
     
    j_tilds42 likes this.
  10. Plymouth

    Plymouth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    24
    As pretty much everyone else here has said, we need a mix of both old and new.

    I think the vast majority of civilizations in CIV VI are really good/deserving and thus I would like to see them in CIV VII. The glory of the current trajectory of the civ games is that each game so far has added some number more total civilizations to the game. If Firaxis just decides to make lots of DLC/expansion content in the coming games, such as one or maybe a few more new expansions for CIV VI, they can reasonably build a large roster of deserving civilizations that would be much too much work to do all at once for the base game.

    There are some newcomer civs in CIV VI that I would definitely like to see become perennial, such as Nubia and Scotland. I would wager that all of the colonial civs we have now will continue to return in future installments as well, meaning America, Brazil, Australia, and Canada.

    On the other hand, I would also want future civ games to mix it up on occasion. I don't particularly need to see, say, Georgia in all future installments. Instead of Scythia next time around, perhaps the Parthians to represent Indo-Iranian steppe peoples. If we get some split form of the Celts, that too could alternate from game to game. For example, we could have the Gauls in CIV VI and the Iceni in CIV VI. And we needn't necessarily replace other civs: having two similarly-related peoples in the same area with different mechanics could be quite interesting. Maybe a formal Greek split, for example, where Macedon, Athens, and Sparta are all separate in the same game. Or modern India, Maurya, and the Mughals. In truth, the possibilities for included civs are endless. It was great to see new civs like the Kongolese or Cree who are clearly deserving of some representation in CIV VI, and I hope they continue to bring us new content in each title while preserving most of the new aspects they've brought in past games. We shouldn't have to choose between Austria, Babylon, and Byzantium or Benin, Tibet, and Lithuania: the glory of civ is seeing it all. Neither side is "boring" or "more important". It's all about getting a mix.
     
  11. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,518
    I don't think the Celts are happening in VI and possibly never again until/unless a Civ game swings hard toward including proto-polynesians tribes. Scotland is already kind of serving as a pseudo-Celtic stand-in, and juxtaposed against the rest of VI it seems Ireland is far more likely than Gauls or the Iceni.

    Actually, between Eleanor representing Francia and the very real possibility of Germania or Kievan Rus' alternate leaders, I don't think anything like the Celts will be in VI. No Gaul, no Germans, no Franks, no Slavs. The only "barbaric" civ that I think stands a decent if long-winded shot is the Goths repping the Visigothic Kingdom and Ostrogothic Kingdom under two leaders. They are also consequently the most used modded civ in V. But the Celts were always a loose justification under the "expansionist" paradigm to include something vaguely Scottish or Irish, and now that VI has established that smaller, culturally distinct and enduring civs are fair game I think Ireland jumped way ahead of any form of Celts on the devs priority list.

    I still disagree about Byzantium, Austria, and Babylon though. From a game design perspective none of them would add enough to VI to justify the development work. Byzantium and Rome would be better off complimenting each other as alt leaders of the same civ. The best parts of Babylon were already assimilated into Sumeria. And the more interesting part of Austria was always Hungary which is now included by itself. I think Bulgaria, Armenia, and Switzerland are more likely to appear in VI at this point, because they have far stronger identities as far as music, language, aesethetic. The devs are really pushing flavor over relevance this game and I am finding it far more refreshing than V, where some of the civs just felt barely passable conceptually.
     
  12. Plymouth

    Plymouth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    24
    To be honest, I was mostly talking about the direction for CIV VII or any future games beyond there. I personally don't care all too much about any of the classical barbarians or Celts/Germans in CIV VI. I really do prefer those smaller, more culturally distinct nations of people that CIV VI has been so fond of. In that light, though, I still must offer my support of those traditional nations like Austria, Babylon, and Byzantium.

    Byzantium as an alt-leader or separate civ is a wholly different discussion, so I'll stay off of that, but I do think there is reason to include Austria and Babylon. Austrian history goes a lot further back than the Dual Monarchy, and is rich in the High Middle Ages and Crusades all the way to the Enlightenment. There is most definitely a distinct difference between Austria and Hungary, as there is between Austria and Switzerland, and thus implementation would be less about its similarity to other civs and more about how and if it could be applied per se. I wouldn't be broken up not seeing Austria in CIV VI, I just think it is a deserving nation in that it does have that coveted unique national flavour and pride hat CIV VI values- which goes back to my original point, that both newcomers and veterans ought share the stage, and that choosing one over the other is unnecessary at best. I offer support for Babylon more due to the fact that it's been in every civ game as of yet, and has the veteran status that should be honored in some way. That's also the reason I'm fine with keeping Gandhi around.

    Overall, my feelings are really just that there are so many civs that meet these standards for what makes a "good civ" (unique cultural identity, longevity, and local historical importance) that it mostly comes down to Firaxis making what picks they think would be the best. Aside from some personal preferences, I would be just as fine seeing Armenia in a game as I would Babylon, for it to me is mostly about how the unique culture of an civ is applied in the game.
     
    Alexander's Hetaroi likes this.
  13. awesome

    awesome Meme Lord

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    behind you
    They could easily make Babylon different than Sumeria, but I feel like Nubia already has the "better archer" gimmick, though I guess they could always go with a better slinger, instead.
    As for Byzantines, they would make even more sense as a separate civilization than Rome in this game than usual, simply because Macedon is a separate civilization than Greece, but that also might be a reason why they're not in the game as a separate civilization---because there's too much going on with Greece. I wouldn't mind having all 5 (Byzantines, Greeks, Macedonians, Ottomans, and Romans) in Civ7, though.
     
  14. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,518
    Babylon or Assyria would really struggle to match the clean, iconic design of Sumeria though. Any proposals I have seen so far just feels less than and not worth the effort when Sumeria is so thoroughly and indisputably Mesopotamian.

    As for Byzantium, Macedon is really an exception to the rule being established by Greece, India, England, France, and Phoenicia, where civs with a common cultural heritage are consolidated and represented with different leaders. Macedon really was a unique thing historically in that it wholly revolved around Alexander. I think it really only exists because even after making a proper Greek civ, the idea of a purely narcissistic civ was worth exploring. So it exists more for Alexander's sake than it's own. Byzantium doesn't have that draw.
     
  15. Imaus

    Imaus King

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2016
    Messages:
    720
    Location:
    NYC
    VII might come out in the mid 2020s, for all we know. Civ can expand the 4X genre by taking from other 'grand strat' series; such as TW, Paradox, Supreme Ruler, etc, and surely the data exists to have bigger, well, everything. Civ Lists, civ leaders, maps, worlds, unit scales, eras, etc.

    One of the reasons I'm still a heavy Civ IV player is because V and VI aren't 'revolutionary' or 'new', rather, than they possibly could be. Not to say they're not fun, but seem like polished IVs; which probably to someone was just a polished III and so on.

    Civ VI may edge away from more 'secondary' Civs IMO, at least at first, to answer OP. I feel like VI pushing the envelope with stuff like Canada and Australia and Poland getting the spotlight outside of scenarios was a bold move, but Civ VI might have a more global aspect that tries to focus on Africa and Asia and America more?
     
  16. Vojvoda

    Vojvoda Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    @Imaus i agree on few points here with u. Civilization is was meant to emulate as close to relevant historical development of humankind unfortunatelly somewhere downline they lost the touch and even hastily put that space civ expansion which should be like crown jewel at the end of franchise. This tells u that they still are civilization devs wondering where the game should go and why still civ3 conquest and civ 4 are popular compared to civ 5 and civ 6.

    The only real help for civilization game is to combine total war grand strategy map and battle map into world based campaign map for civ 7. Here for example u could have lets say different divided units like civic units:merchants, spies, assassins, priest, diplomats, workers and princess as u have in total war now with addition of settlers from civs. u could generate few different starting world map based different period of history (i myself is total war forum member ) like u have in total war mods.
    Lets say early history 4000bc more relevant civilization for that period (civilization 4 was new sys of emerging faction introduced so when u start game lets say as sumer in 4000 bc eventually u will have either colapse of your state or u could take new civ (this is rly good stuff which was given in civ 4 for first time and thats also why i like to play more civ 4 than 5 and 6) now next human historical period should be around 1500 bc colapse of bronze age with relevant starting civs, which will allow game devs for cvi7 to add all desired "small" or "big" thru specific historical periods and not like now they spawning some civs without any order i mean Australia omg how came on idea to put Australia as civ. literately i was laughing like mad when i saw it. But this tells u that there is no rly or they are in denial by game devs that they cant move this game into new direction or they dont want to move the game anywhere.

    Basically like we have total war mods that have several different starting periods with different or similar civs is what civ 7 should look like so u would have civs for:
    4000 bc, 1500bc, 300bc, 100bc, 313ad, 476ad, 800ad, 1066ad, 1300ad, 1492ad, 1700ad, 1800ad, 1914ad, 1939ad, 1950ad, 1991ad, 2008ad this game starts would composed starting years with world map with specific civs for those period of time which will allow civ devs to utilize much add funding of game by releasing expansion between those starting years like: viking age 770ad-1066ad, crusaders 1095-1291ad, 100years war 1337-1453ad or greek rise in period of classiac age etc as more focused expanison for some parts of world.
    next thing s army based composion like in total war series they should allow creation of armies as which can combined various units into formidable force on map and move it as one and when u wanna click battle u can get either camping battle map clash like u already have in civ games or u can actually lead armies like u have in total war. Now here could be problem unit size so i would go like unit before BC era should not have more than 100 units strong for all infantry types of units andcavalry should have 50 units strong detachment UU should have lets say 30 plus depending is infantry or cavalry unit and for sea units sea battle same sys combining total war and civilization 1 ship 1 unit allow to creat small fleet out of 1 ship with capability to have 1 more ship in that fleet, train commodore ship which will allow 4 units of ship attached as navy fleet and admiral recrutied ship for 5 or 8 ships for grand fleet. Units after AD should 120 for all types of infantry cavalry should go to 80 strong except for UU should bring 40+ depending what unit is. UU navy units for specific civs should give more lets defence or attack bonusses or creation of small fleet of 3 ships. Units of modern era or to be accurate gunpowder era should go 120 infantry riflemans adn around 100 cavalry wwith +40 unit addition to specific type of unit. Navy units should still be same 1 ship 1 unit. Now in modern times u get planes and special forces so for example this what devs should give lets say small fighter or fighter bomber groups of 6 units bomber 4 units, stealth planes 5 units strong, helicopters 6 units to represent it on campaing map or even to try like they already have in total war flying battle map units reduced size accordingly to map size.
    Next means that combat units should be divided accordingly military strength so infantry 80 special forces 40 unit strong on map +20 units addition to as for UU for specific civ in specific period.
    Buildings and cities should changed and allow more complexity cuz if u familiar inside TWM2 modder community developed tool to change city look on battle map which was later saw and used as new way for city graphics sys in Warhammer TW where u have absolutelly amazing graphics of various factions.
    Here civ devs could use similar access point and create 7 different types of city looks depending is it middle eastern, Mediterranean, Asian, American, European, Indian, or African whatever they choose.
    About resoruces and sys game mechanics it should have basically follow accordingly to unit design and new civic units.Creation of independent TAB for scholars could be implemented so u keep craftsmen and security pop heads for city screen. Now city blgd sys should improve for purists who wants to micromanaging city build up this quite popular now in gaming that almost all micromanaging and city blgd game has very good game community which could allow civilization devs to approach and take some portion of those players by allowing city micromanaging and building as new city screen sys. Tech tree should allow more systematic approach to human development which honestly civ has maybe some additions for more realism.

    Note this should be good move in right direction for civ7 cuz IMHO i do really think that game devs are not moving anywhere cciv 6 is IMHO just fully upgrade of civ 5 sys which is rly upgrade of civ 4 revolutionary cuz it was first that introduced all new sys game mechanics etc compared to civ 3 which is full ultimate upgrade from civ 1. So next 3 civ series should move towards proposals that wrote and try to stay overthere for civ 8 civ 9 and civ 10 with concluding franchise and try to develop next direction into space exploration sci fi 4x game (which they tried but failed with space civ game few years ago) as crown jewel of franchise. Eventually they could move fantsy based game as CA and SEGA did with GW for WTW1 and WTW2 which tells u and i know that this companies rly have amazing game community and devs actually listening game communities not to mention that some of modders overthere are litterally IMHO better game devs than game devs hehehe.
     
    Imaus likes this.
  17. awesome

    awesome Meme Lord

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    behind you
    Better alliances doesn't seem to fit in with a region where everybody fought over land all the time. And more science, which would fit, is completely different and definitely not "less than" something that doesn't fit. I don't have a problem with Sumeria being the only Mesopotamian civilization this game, but your argument is basically that people not in charge of coming up with ideas for the game aren't very good at coming up with ideas.
    As for Alexander, there are other civilizations that have that same draw, even if Byzantines don't. They have a different draw. I won't be too upset if they're not in the game (and it looks like they probably won't be), but there's definitely a hole to fill that might not work as an alternate Roman leader, just like Alexander wouldn't have worked with Greece's ability.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2019
  18. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    5,202
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Most people, me included, do not like the design of Sumeria because it seems over the top, and has nothing to do with actual history, but of Gilgamesh’s epic aside from the UU and ziggurat.

    In that regard I think there is room for at least Assyria/ Babylon or even an Akkadian Empire.
     
  19. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,518
    They generally aren't. They look at parts of history in a vacuum without considering the global picture. They emphasize "importance" while glossing over implementation. Fans are as a general rule not good at designing games because they aren't spending a full-time paid job thinking through these things. Ninety percent of the time they are just spouting the first things which pop into their head.

    "More science" based on what? Sumeria already has the ziggurat? What Babylonian structure could be as resonant as that? It doesn't exist. VI has added more unique abilities per civ, and has generally tied them all to a visual asset. You can't just imagine a civ getting more great scientists anymore and call it good. You need a comprehensive art design, and one that doesn't overlap with Sumeria.

    So, you don't like artistic license and what has already been made, ergo design space exists. That is a complete non sequitur. Sumeria is already in the game and taking up design space. You can't just erase it and build Akkadia from scratch.
     
  20. Ezumiyr

    Ezumiyr Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    121
    I don't really care if they are new civs or not.
    What I'm sure of is that I want different mechanics for them. The civ itself is just the packaging.

    A mix like they're doing now is perfect. The old civs come with new ideas as well, and the new ones are generally well chosen (we don't have any generic civs anymore, which is nice, nor very controversial leaders).
     

Share This Page