Civ 7 Needs One Big Patch

[Lord Lakely]

I'm personally fine with whatever direction Firaxis takes, but I will note that the suggestions in this thread are generally good and would indeed improve the game.

So instead, I'll hyperfixate on the one thing I want most: I 'd really like to see more Civs. More leaders as well, but specifically more Civilizations. The game is called Civilization, after all.

So on that note, these are my personal requests in terms of this:

• Expanded 'Origin' Civs in Antiquity
  • Examples: Pueblo, Caral-Supe, Tonga, Celts, Norse/Anglo-Saxons, Goths, Scythia/Xiongnu, Hittites, Ghana/Wagadou, Bantu, Champa, Heian or Yayoi Japan, etc...

• The addition of Exploration Civs that bridge gaps, continue Antiquity Civs in Exploration or are an acceptable predecessor to existing and/or planned Modern Civs
  • Examples (Ancestors): Ottomans/Seljuqs (Turkey), Frankia (France/Prussia), Aztecs (Mexico), Ruthenia (Russia), Edo Japan (Meiji Japan)
  • Examples (Descendants): Byzantium (Rome/Greece), Aztecs (Maya), Venice/Tuscany (Rome), Goryeo (Silla),

• Modern Age end points for the major Civilizations of Antiquity/Exploration that feel like worthy destinations when you start a new campaign:
  • Examples: Misr (Egypt), Piedmont (Rome), Malaysia (Majapahit), Cherokee (Shawnee), Oman (Abbasids), Romania (Bulgaria/Greece), Oyo (Songhai), Maori (Hawaii), Maratha (Maurya)

• The reintroduction of important Civs that don't fall into the above categories:
  • Norse: Denmark, Sweden and/or Old Norse
  • Celts: Gaul, Ireland or Scotland
  • Netherlands
  • Modern Ethiopia
  • Iroquois
  • England proper
  • Portugal and Brazil
  • Poland
  • Mesopotamia: Babylon, Sumer and/or Akkadians

• The introducion of NEW Civs that haven't been featured before but could, due to their history, socology and/or geographic location, provide added value and freshness (see also: Nepal & Bulgaria)
  • Examples for Africa: Ashanti, Berbers, Swahili, Xhosa, Zimbabwe
  • Examples for America: Argentina, Caral-Supe, Cherokee, Hait, Métis, Muisca, Navajo, Pueblo, Taino, Tlingit
  • Examples for West Asia: Akkad, Armenia, Oman, Tatars, Yemen
  • Examples for the rest of Asia + Oceania: Burma, Champa, Jurchen, Malaysia, Noongar (or another aboriginal tribe), Philippines, Tonga, Xiongnu
  • Examples for Europe: Albania, Belgium (or Flanders), Bohemia, Kievan Rus (or Ukraine), Minoans, Picts, Tuscany, Yugoslavia (Croatia, Serbia)

A big kicker contemporary nation such as Australia and Canada is something I can accept, but am not particularly looking forward to.

I do not feel like Civs need to be introduced SPECIFICALLY so that they can be attached to a Civ-less leader. I feel like that undermines the premise of the unclipped leaders - the entire point is that you can now add notable historical figures as leaders without having their questionable civ taking up a slot in the roster. Examples of such leaders that I'd like to see (re)added to the game include:

• Zenobia without Palmyra!!
• Vlad Tepes without Wallachia!!
• Tamerlane without the Timurids!!
• Spearthrower Owl without the Tenochtitlan!!
• Lautaro without the Mapuche!!
• Tamar without Georgia!!
• Attila without the Huns!!
• Shaka without the Zulu!!

and in the current roster, i feel like this principle should apply to Amina (Songhai instead of Hausa), and Machiavelli (instead of Tuscany he can be given another Italian Republic) and even Charlemagne (who can conceivably lead any Franco-Germanic nation) and Bolivar (who can conceivable lead any Latin American nation). Definitely not to Rizal who is so intrinsically tied to the Philippines that adding him without his Civ just makes him feel pointless and naked in the current leader pool.

Finally, a selection leaders I'd like to see added regardless:

• Returning 'Big Dogs': Alexander, Elizabeth, Gandhi, Hannibal, Shaka
• Leaders for the following major Civs: Assyria, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Greece, Indonesia, Korea & Polynesia.
• Leaders for the following major Civs following their Civ's introduction to the game: Babylonians, Dutch, Malinese, Portugese, Turks
• Second leaders for the following major Civs: British, Chinese, Greeks, Egyptians, Japanese, Persians & Romans
• New leaders:
  • Africa: Dihya (or Sayyida al Hurrah), Fumo Liyongo, Mandela (the Civ community is not ready for this *fantastic* choice though), Sundiata Keita
  • West Asia/Middle East: Abbas I, Arwa al Sulayhi, Enheduanna, Muhammad Ali Pasha, Solomon
  • East Asia + Pacific: Gajah Mada, Liliuo'Kalani, Rajendra Chola, Sejong, Tamerlane
  • America: Anacaona, Crazy Horse, Eréndira, Louis Riel, Spearthrower Owl, Toussaint L'Ouverture
  • Europe: Alfred Nobel (everyone is allowed one objectively bad choice, and Nobel is mine), Anna Komnene, Edward II, Emilia Plater, Garibaldi, Jan Hus, Margrethe I, Maria Theresa, Scipio, Simeon the Great, Vlad Tepes.

I don't need all of these but you know... a few of those would be appreciated.

I don't like the idea of adding in leaders that couldn't have conceivably led a nation of their own, unless they bring something truly unique to the table. In that sense, I'm okay with Ibn Battuta, but not with Machiavelli or Lovelace whose kits fit Wu Zetian and Sejong respectively. However, I'd like to see Alfred Nobel just to unclip the 'Nobel Prize' thing from Sweden and allowing that Civ to reach its full militaristic potential.

Finally-Finally, as a closing note: ALLOW FOR DUPLICATE CIVILIZATIONS. Two AI Euro leaders playing Greece in Antiquity is perfectly reasonable, representing a fractured culture, and this applies to any Civ really. But no more nonsense such as Machiavelli leading Silla or Napoleon defaulting to Meiji Japan or Charlemagne as leader of Hawaii because OOPS we ran out of Euro Civs to assign them to. Just duplicate the Civs, it's fine.

 

[UWHabs]

I think if you added all the nations you wanted, then you really wouldn't need to worry about duplicates. We still run into problems of repeats because we still only have 13 per age right now. Any standard map with 8 players and you're guaranteed repeats.

When they announced the game and the split by age, I was kind of expecting (hoping?) for like 15 civs per age. I feel like in the current setup, that should be the minimum you need to get some diversity going. Even there you're going to get repeats frequently. It's not until you're up to like 20 per era that you're really going to feel like you truly see variation, and start getting that "oh I forgot about that civ, it feels like forever since I saw them" feeling.

Like, the fact that I have not played every leader yet, I'm still maybe just over halfway through the list (played a couple of them more than once, but often try to play new ones), but the only civs I haven't played yet are the ones that were only just released, means that for me, if I could pick a DLC balance, I want about 20 new civs, and would be happy with maybe 4 or 5 leaders.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think if you added all the nations you wanted, then you really wouldn't need to worry about duplicates. We still run into problems of repeats because we still only have 13 per age right now. Any standard map with 8 players and you're guaranteed repeats.

When they announced the game and the split by age, I was kind of expecting (hoping?) for like 15 civs per age. I feel like in the current setup, that should be the minimum you need to get some diversity going. Even there you're going to get repeats frequently. It's not until you're up to like 20 per era that you're really going to feel like you truly see variation, and start getting that "oh I forgot about that civ, it feels like forever since I saw them" feeling.

Like, the fact that I have not played every leader yet, I'm still maybe just over halfway through the list (played a couple of them more than once, but often try to play new ones), but the only civs I haven't played yet are the ones that were only just released, means that for me, if I could pick a DLC balance, I want about 20 new civs, and would be happy with maybe 4 or 5 leaders.

I think 20 civs per age is very realistic. We probably could expect 2-3 DLC packs before the first expansion, that's +3-4 civs per age, bringing the number to 16-17 already. Any expansion not focused on 4th age (and if we'll have 2 expansions, one of them won't) will bring like 4 civs per age minimum, so even if we'll stop there we'll get 20 per age minimum.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think if you added all the nations you wanted, then you really wouldn't need to worry about duplicates. We still run into problems of repeats because we still only have 13 per age right now. Any standard map with 8 players and you're guaranteed repeats.

When they announced the game and the split by age, I was kind of expecting (hoping?) for like 15 civs per age. I feel like in the current setup, that should be the minimum you need to get some diversity going. Even there you're going to get repeats frequently. It's not until you're up to like 20 per era that you're really going to feel like you truly see variation, and start getting that "oh I forgot about that civ, it feels like forever since I saw them" feeling.

Realistically, not all of those Civs will be added. At least not for the foreseeable future. Allowing for Civ duplication in the meantime can amend it until the roster is sufficiently large.

But yes, I think the game should work towards having around 20 Civs per age, roughly. Which is still a lower number than the amount of Civs we had in 6 at the end of the development cycle, but it's a start.

EDIT: actually, this is just adding 7 Civs per Age, so that is something we can request and define. So for each Age, I'd like to see the following:

Antiquity: 1. Celts // 2. Goths // 3. Pueblo // 4. Hittites // 5. Tonga // 6. Taino // 7. Ghana
Exploration: 1. Byzantium // 2. Denmark // 3. Venice// 4. Aztecs // 5. Edo Japan // 6. Iroquois // 7. Joseon
Modern: 1. Ottomans // 2. Cherokee // 3. Philippines // 4. Ashanti // 5. Austria-Hungary // 6. Ethiopia // 7. Maori
Leaders: Alexander, Elizabeth, Hannibal, Muhammad Ali, Shaka [+ Whinna Cooper]

Bear in mind that I don't necessarily want to play *every* Civ or Leader they add to the game. The advantage of Civ7's mix-and-match approach is that you can do whatever you like, and if a Civ's kit doesn't do it for you, you can easily go for something else. But if you want showcase Civ7 as providing a ~broad historic spectrum~ like Firaxis likes to pretend, they'll need to deepen the pool.

Like, the fact that I have not played every leader yet, I'm still maybe just over halfway through the list (played a couple of them more than once, but often try to play new ones), but the only civs I haven't played yet are the ones that were only just released, means that for me, if I could pick a DLC balance, I want about 20 new civs, and would be happy with maybe 4 or 5 leaders.

Me neither. I largely blame the fairly bland bonuses for this, as well as the Legacy Paths that are tied to the leaders themselves. Optimally, you specialize in playing the same 4-5 leaders over and over again. I've played multiple games (well ages, rather) as Lakshmibai, Tecumseh, Catherine, Trung Trac and Himiko. I've played most of the others once at best. Hatshepsut, Genghis, Emperor Napoleon and Red Xerxes I haven't not even bothered with at all.

There's plenty of other stuff I don't like about how the game handled the leader and Civ roster. I strongly dislike Memento's for instance. Leader Persona's (which DECREASES the roster for the sake of what is essentially a reskin) I don't like either. it is what it is, I suppose.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Antiquity: 1. Celts // 2. Goths // 3. Pueblo // 4. Hittites // 5. Tonga // 6. Taino // 7. Ghana

I'd try to push Armenia somewhere in Antiquity, plus some Scythian civ is needed, but I understand the problem with too many choices and tight geography. Also, maybe Babylon instead of Hittites and Gauls instead of generic Celts?

Exploration: 1. Byzantium // 2. Denmark // 3. Venice// 4. Aztecs // 5. Edo Japan // 6. Iroquois // 7. Joseon

Not sure if Joseon is that needed providing Korea already have some representation. Maybe something from Africa instead? Also, Venice was in Civ5, maybe Genoa could be used this time (it was planned for Civ6, based on leftovers, but never appeared).

Modern: 1. Ottomans // 2. Cherokee // 3. Philippines // 4. Ashanti // 5. Austria-Hungary // 6. Ethiopia // 7. Maori

It's sad how many civs don't fit the number...

 

[UWHabs]

Realistically, not all of those Civs will be added. At least not for the foreseeable future. Allowing for Civ duplication in the meantime can amend it until the roster is sufficiently large.

But yes, I think the game should work towards having around 20 Civs per age, roughly. Which is still a lower number than the amount of Civs we had in 6 at the end of the development cycle, but it's a start.

EDIT: actually, this is just adding 7 Civs per Age, so that is something we can request and define. So for each Age, I'd like to see the following:

Antiquity: 1. Celts // 2. Goths // 3. Pueblo // 4. Hittites // 5. Tonga // 6. Taino // 7. Ghana
Exploration: 1. Byzantium // 2. Denmark // 3. Venice// 4. Aztecs // 5. Edo Japan // 6. Iroquois // 7. Joseon
Modern: 1. Ottomans // 2. Cherokee // 3. Philippines // 4. Ashanti // 5. Austria-Hungary // 6. Ethiopia // 7. Maori
Leaders: Alexander, Elizabeth, Hannibal, Muhammad Ali, Shaka [+ Whinna Cooper]

Bear in mind that I don't necessarily want to play *every* Civ or Leader they add to the game. The advantage of Civ7's mix-and-match approach is that you can do whatever you like, and if a Civ's kit doesn't do it for you, you can easily go for something else. But if you want showcase Civ7 as providing a ~broad historic spectrum~ like Firaxis likes to pretend, they'll need to deepen the pool.




Me neither. I largely blame the fairly bland bonuses for this, as well as the Legacy Paths that are tied to the leaders themselves. Optimally, you specialize in playing the same 4-5 leaders over and over again. I've played multiple games (well ages, rather) as Lakshmibai, Tecumseh, Catherine, Trung Trac and Himiko. I've played most of the others once at best. Hatshepsut, Genghis, Emperor Napoleon and Red Xerxes I haven't not even bothered with at all.

There's plenty of other stuff I don't like about how the game handled the leader and Civ roster. I strongly dislike Memento's for instance. Leader Persona's (which DECREASES the roster for the sake of what is essentially a reskin) I don't like either. it is what it is, I suppose.

I like leader personas, as long as you mentally treat them more as a bonus than as a roster spot. ie. currently we have 25 leaders plus 5 personas. If you think of it as 30 leaders but they cheaped out on 5 of them, yeah, then I would be disappointed. I don't use mementos either. Also, the way the civ development cycle works is that often the launch set of leaders have more basic bonuses, and later leaders added tend to have more interesting. Partly because they may have planned some of these leaders a few years ago, they may not have been sure what bonuses were possible then, so they opt for simpler options.

But more civs are dearly needed, especially to fill the gaps in geography. Like we desperately need a South American civ in antiquity and modern, an Exploration era Central American civ, etc...

 

[Krikkit1]

I'm personally fine with whatever direction Firaxis takes, but I will note that the suggestions in this thread are generally good and would indeed improve the game.



Finally-Finally, as a closing note: ALLOW FOR DUPLICATE CIVILIZATIONS. Two AI Euro leaders playing Greece in Antiquity is perfectly reasonable, representing a fractured culture, and this applies to any Civ really. But no more nonsense such as Machiavelli leading Silla or Napoleon defaulting to Meiji Japan or Charlemagne as leader of Hawaii because OOPS we ran out of Euro Civs to assign them to. Just duplicate the Civs, it's fine.

I think that is ok as long as it is an Option...

some players would prefer
Rome Augustus and Rome Napoleon and Rome Fredrick in a game (take Prefered Civ even if Duplicate)

Others would prefer Rome Augustus, Greek Napoleon, and Persia Fredrick in a game (take Most preferred civ available)

Others might prefer Maya Augustus, Aksum Napoleon, and Silla Fredrick in a game (take truly Random civ to start)

If they had the options when you assign a leader a civ: Preferred (default), specific civ, or Random... (with "duplicates OK" as an overall option) they could make everyone happy.

 

[Leucarum]

I am surprised duplicate civs isn't already an option TBH...

That said, the quickest way to up the number of available/suitable civs would be to let civs be played out of era.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'd try to push Armenia somewhere in Antiquity, plus some Scythian civ is needed, but I understand the problem with too many choices and tight geography. Also, maybe Babylon instead of Hittites and Gauls instead of generic Celts?


Not sure if Joseon is that needed providing Korea already have some representation. Maybe something from Africa instead? Also, Venice was in Civ5, maybe Genoa could be used this time (it was planned for Civ6, based on leftovers, but never appeared).


It's sad how many civs don't fit the number...

I'll gladly take all of those AND the suggestions I made

 

[stealth_nsk]

I like leader personas, as long as you mentally treat them more as a bonus than as a roster spot. ie. currently we have 25 leaders plus 5 personas. If you think of it as 30 leaders but they cheaped out on 5 of them, yeah, then I would be disappointed. I don't use mementos either. Also, the way the civ development cycle works is that often the launch set of leaders have more basic bonuses, and later leaders added tend to have more interesting. Partly because they may have planned some of these leaders a few years ago, they may not have been sure what bonuses were possible then, so they opt for simpler options.

But more civs are dearly needed, especially to fill the gaps in geography. Like we desperately need a South American civ in antiquity and modern, an Exploration era Central American civ, etc...

The main problem with personas is that 2 personas of the same leader can't appear in the same game. So it's not something which could be used massively. It's ok to use them as bonus content as they are used currently.

 

[Krikkit1]

I am surprised duplicate civs isn't already an option TBH...

That said, the quickest way to up the number of available/suitable civs would be to let civs be played out of era.

I think Duplicate Civs is already possible... but only if there are no other options (ie in 12 player games with no Antiquity DLC)
Making 'Duplicates OK' is definitely an option that could improve the game a lot.

 

[UWHabs]

The game could get away with a "duplicate in antiquity, with the duplicates spread by continent" too. I don't really care if a distant land civ is Rome or Greece, I won't interact with them until the next age anyways when they have moved on to someone else.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I'm personally fine with whatever direction Firaxis takes, but I will note that the suggestions in this thread are generally good and would indeed improve the game.

So instead, I'll hyperfixate on the one thing I want most: I 'd really like to see more Civs. More leaders as well, but specifically more Civilizations. The game is called Civilization, after all.

So on that note, these are my personal requests in terms of this:

• Expanded 'Origin' Civs in Antiquity
  • Examples: Pueblo, Caral-Supe, Tonga, Celts, Norse/Anglo-Saxons, Goths, Scythia/Xiongnu, Hittites, Ghana/Wagadou, Bantu, Champa, Heian or Yayoi Japan, etc...

Super nit picky but Ghana realistically falls in between Antiquity and what Civ 7 considering “Exploration”. They should just do Mali despite the fact it has a lot of overlap with Songhai. They don’t have to do Mansa Musa either. I think doing his predecessor and focusing on the supposed expedition across the Atlantic Ocean he launched (Though Michael Gomez argued Musa made it up to cover up a possible assassination) could be a neat fit.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Super nit picky but Ghana realistically falls in between Antiquity and what Civ 7 considering “Exploration”. They should just do Mali despite the fact it has a lot of overlap with Songhai. They don’t have to do Mansa Musa either. I think doing his predecessor and focusing on the supposed expedition across the Atlantic Ocean he launched (Though Michael Gomez argued Musa made it up to cover up a possible assassination) could be a neat fit.

Ghana is a perfect starting point for West Africa though. It was the first well-documented Civilization in the area, transitions well into Songhai and later Ashanti. They're not the FIRST urbanized Civilization, but definitely one of the first with readily available information.

Chronology is always a bit... iffy in Civ7. The Mississipians came *after* the Chola chronologically, and yet they are Antiquity and the Chola are Exploration. (The latter are even contemporaneous with the Khmer. ). The Mughals predate several other Modern Civs by at least one century and existed a the same time as Ming did. And the list goes on.

West Africa should have three Civs though. At a minimum. Amina can be the leader for that line but should we add more WA Civs (and I see no reason why that region couldn't support 2 Civs per Age), I'd like to see Mansa Musa or Sundiata as the second leader for the area.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Ghana is a perfect starting point for West Africa though. It was the first well-documented Civilization in the area, transitions well into Songhai and later Ashanti. They're not the FIRST urbanized Civilization, but definitely one of the first with readily available information.

Chronology is always a bit... iffy in Civ7. The Mississipians came *after* the Chola chronologically, and yet they are Antiquity and the Chola are Exploration. (The latter are even contemporaneous with the Khmer. ). The Mughals predate several other Modern Civs by at least one century and existed a the same time as Ming did. And the list goes on.

West Africa should have three Civs though. At a minimum. Amina can be the leader for that line but should we add more WA Civs (and I see no reason why that region couldn't support 2 Civs per Age), I'd like to see Mansa Musa or Sundiata as the second leader for the area.

I’d like to see Sunni Ali or Uthman Dan Fodio as leaders - both were also actual political leaders. I suspect Firaxis won’t do either unfortunately

 

[UWHabs]

Ghana is a perfect starting point for West Africa though. It was the first well-documented Civilization in the area, transitions well into Songhai and later Ashanti. They're not the FIRST urbanized Civilization, but definitely one of the first with readily available information.

Chronology is always a bit... iffy in Civ7. The Mississipians came *after* the Chola chronologically, and yet they are Antiquity and the Chola are Exploration. (The latter are even contemporaneous with the Khmer. ). The Mughals predate several other Modern Civs by at least one century and existed a the same time as Ming did. And the list goes on.

West Africa should have three Civs though. At a minimum. Amina can be the leader for that line but should we add more WA Civs (and I see no reason why that region couldn't support 2 Civs per Age), I'd like to see Mansa Musa or Sundiata as the second leader for the area.

Yeah, it would be nice if every region had a full chain. Songhai and Mali as both exploration era civs probably wouldn't happen until much later in the civ cycle, although it's not like they necessarily overlap more than, say, Rome and Greece, or like England and France. But yeah, the Ghanna empire would be similar to the Khmer, being more the "logical" antiquity empire, even if they come outside of the true chronology.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Yeah, it would be nice if every region had a full chain. Songhai and Mali as both exploration era civs probably wouldn't happen until much later in the civ cycle, although it's not like they necessarily overlap more than, say, Rome and Greece, or like England and France. But yeah, the Ghanna empire would be similar to the Khmer, being more the "logical" antiquity empire, even if they come outside of the true chronology.

I've made a topic in Ideas and Suggestions on filling in the gaps. Haven't updated it in a while nor done an exercise on Africa, but West Africa absolutely can support two Civs per age. Ghana and Benin in antiquity, Songhai and Jolof in Exploration, Dahomey and Ashanti in Modern.

East Africa has a similar two-pronged path with Ethiopia (Askum => Showa => Ethiopia) and Sudan (Nubia => Alodia => Darfur)

I’d like to see Sunni Ali or Uthman Dan Fodio as leaders - both were also actual political leaders. I suspect Firaxis won’t do either unfortunately

I don't know either of those, and therefore i don't think either would go down well for that reason. I know that isn't a valid reasoning, but given the chilly reception the game's received... best stick to the top shelf /highest profile leader choices available for now.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not sure if Joseon is that needed providing Korea already have some representation. Maybe something from Africa instead? Also, Venice was in Civ5, maybe Genoa could be used this time (it was planned for Civ6, based on leftovers, but never appeared).

I expect to eventually see Joseon in the Modern Age anyways.

 

[Xandinho]

I think the Korean gaming market is large and important enough to justify a Korean representative in each era. At least Joseon is clearly expected in the future.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

I've made a topic in Ideas and Suggestions on filling in the gaps. Haven't updated it in a while nor done an exercise on Africa, but West Africa absolutely can support two Civs per age. Ghana and Benin in antiquity, Songhai and Jolof in Exploration, Dahomey and Ashanti in Modern.

East Africa has a similar two-pronged path with Ethiopia (Askum => Showa => Ethiopia) and Sudan (Nubia => Alodia => Darfur)



I don't know either of those, and therefore i don't think either would go down well for that reason. I know that isn't a valid reasoning, but given the chilly reception the game's received... best stick to the top shelf /highest profile leader choices available for now.

Dan Fodio is the leader of Africa’s largest contiguous precolonial empire, the Sokoto Caliphate. Quite impressive feat of dissolving all of Hausaland into a single political entity in a short span of time.

Sunni Ali was Askia Muhammad’s (Askia the Great) predecessor (technically Sunni Ali’s son took power but it was VERY short lived before Muhammad Toure (Askia) overthrew him in Songhai. He would have a militant focus with an anti-clergy bent but I’m not sure how they could model that in-game. He was responsible for many conquests that actually forged Songhai from a small kingdom into an empire.