Civ VI to Civ VII: What to Keep, What to Change or Discard Part One: Civs and Leaders

[Boris Gudenuf]

There is an increasing feeling that NFP represents the last major change to Civ VI from the official design team, so it's time to start looking formally at what Coms Next. And since the discussions of Proposed Civilizations for Civ VI cover literally 100s of pages of Posts, it's perhaps a good time to start a new Thread with a slightly different focus: what Civs from Civ VI should be included in Civ VII, and what, if any, changes/reforms need to be made to keep or make them more attractive/playable/interesting.

This assumes that Civ VII will be a continuation of Civ VI and what Went Before, and not a radical rewriting of the entire Civ Franchise that starts from Scratch. I think now that a radical redesign is very, very unlikely, given that in the current 4X strategy world, animated personalized Leaders and Unique-focused Civs are sort of what sets Civ apart from Humankind or Old World, and so are I think, likely to remain part of the basic structure of the game.

With that caveat, the starting point should be, I think, the Civs and Leaders in Civ VI now. Below is a list of them, including the Modded Civs and Leaders, some of which fill 'slots' that have been discussed at length on these Forums, and so deserve some more discussion as to how they might fit into a Civ VII framework.

More caveats: the Mods are by no means complete, because a number of modded Civs that used to be available are now incompatible and have disappeared from the Workshop. In addition, I have not included any cartoon, science-fiction, fantasy Civs or Civs modeled on other trademarked/copyrighted material or Living Leaders which for legal reasons are most unlikely to even be considered for the game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

First Batch: Civs with Leaders alphabetically from A to F in Civ VI: (Mods in italics)

Ainu
.....Samkusaynu
.....Shigeru Kayano
Akkad
.....Sargon
Albania
.....Skanderbeg
.....Zog I
America
.....Teddy Roosevelt (Rough Rider)
.....Teddy Roosevelt (Bull Moose)
.....Lincoln
.....Washington
.....Benjamin Franklin
.....Thomas Jefferson
.....Harry Truman
.....Marie Laveaux
Anglo-Saxons
.....Alfred I
.....Offa
.....Oswald
.....Aethelberht
.....Echbert
.....Aelfwald
.....Aethelflaed
Arabia
.....Saladin
Armenia
.....Ashkhen
.....Tigranes
Ashanti
.....Osei Tutu I
Australia
.....John Curtin
Austria
.....Joseph II
.....Maria Theresa
Aztecs
.....Montezuma
.....Cuauhtemoc
Babylon
.....Hammurabi
Brazil
.....Pedro II
.....Getulio Vargas
Buccaneers
.....Black Bart Roberts
.....Henry Avery
Bulgaria
.....Simeon I
Burma
.....Bayinnaung
Byzantium
.....Basil II
.....Theodora
Canada
.....Wilfrid Laurier
Chachapoya
.....Kuraka Guaman
Cheyenne
.....Mohkemeona’e
Chickasaw
.....Chiksa’
.....Tishomingo
Choctaw
.....Pushmataha
Chile (Republica de Chile)
.....Pedro Aguirre Cerda
China
.....Qin Shi Huang
.....Kublai Khan
.....Wu Zetian
.....Chai Rong
.....Qing Shengzu
.....Zhu Yuanzhang (Ming Taizu)
.....Han Wudi
.....Yu the Great
.....Li Shimin
.....Zhao Kuangyin
.....Zheng of Qin
.....Yang Jian
Cree
.....Poundmaker
Dual Monarchy (Austro-Hungary)
.....Franz Joseph I
Egypt
.....Cleopatra
.....Ramesses II
.....Hatshepsut
.....Senusret III
.....Djoser
England
.....Victoria
.....Eleanor of Aquitaine
.....William
Ethiopia
.....Menelik II
.....Zara Yaqob
.....Ezana
Finland
.....Mannerheim
Flanders
.....Thierry
.....Joan
France
.....Catherine de Medici (Magnificence)
.....Catherine de Medici
.....Eleanor of Aquitaine
.....Clovis
.....Charlemagne
.....Joan of Arc
.....Napoleon
.....Robespierre
.....Marie Antoinette
.....Henri IV
.....Richelieu
.....Saint Louis
.....Francois I

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Second Batch: Civs with Leaders alphabetically from G to M in Civ VI: (Mods in italics)

Gaul
.....Ambiorix
.....Vercingetorix
Georgia
.....Tamar
Germany
.....Frederic Barbarossa
.....Charlemagne
.....Bismarck
Ghana
.....Benjamin Aidoo
Gran Columbia
.....Simon Bolivar
Greece
.....Gorgo
.....Pericles
.....Telesilla
.....Epaminondas
.....Pheidon
.....Polycrates
Greenland
.....Lief Erikson
Hittites
.....Muwatalli
Hungary
.....Mathias Corvinus
Huns
.....Attila
Iceland
.....Ingolfur Arnarson
Inca
.....Pachacuti
India
.....Gandhi
.....Chandragupta
.....Ashoka
Indonesia
.....Gitarja
.....Gajah Mada
Iran
.....Nader Shah
.....Ismail I
Japan
.....Hogo Tokimune
.....Oda Nobunaga
.....Meiji
Khmer
.....Jayavarman VII
Kievan Rus
.....Yaroslav
Kongo
.....Mvemba a Nzinga
Korea
.....Seondeok
Koryak
.....Lawtylywalyn
Kuikuro
.....Ihikutaha
Lakota
.....Sitting Bull
Luba
.....Mulopwe Nkongolo Mwamba
Maasai
.....Nasira Mbatian
Macedon
.....Alexander
.....Eurydice I
Malaysia
.....Iskandar
.....Tun Perak
Mali
.....Mansa Musa
.....Muhammed Keita
Malta
.....Jean De La Valette
Maori
.....Kupe
Mapuche
.....Lautaro
.....Orelie Antoine I
Marajoara
.....Cunha Moacara
Maya
.....Lady Six Sky
.....Pacal
.....Yaxkin Caan Chac
Mexico
.....Porfiro Diaz
Mohica
.....Lady of Cao
.....Lord of Sipan
Mongolia
.....Genghis Khan
.....Kublai Khan
.....Möngke Khan
Morocco
.....Ahmed Al-Mansur

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Third Batch: Civs with Leaders alphabetically from N to Sicily in Civ VI: (Mods in italics)

Nenetsia
.....Vauli Piettomin
Netherlands
.....Wilhelmina
.....William of Orange
Noonar
.....Yagan
Normandy
.....Rollo
.....William
Norway
.....Harold Hardrada
.....Oscar II
Nubia
.....Amanitore
Nuu-Chah-Nulth (Nootka)
.....Macuina
Omagua
.....Conori
Ottomans
.....Suleiman
Palmyra
.....Odaenathus
.....Zenobia
Papua
.....Edai Siabo
Pawnee
.....Crooked Hand
Persia
.....Cyrus II
.....Khosrow I
.....Darius I
Philippines
.....Jose Rizal
.....Kalangitan
.....Coazon Aquino
.....Kudarat
.....Humabon
Phoenicia
.....Dido
.....Hannibal
.....Ahiram
Poland
.....Jadwiga
P’Urhepecha
.....Erendira
Rapa Nui
.....Hotu Matu’a
Romania
.....Vlad III
Rome
.....Trajan
.....Julius Caesar
.....Gaius Octavius
.....Hadrian
.....Romulus
.....Marcus Aurelius
.....Tiberius
Russia
.....Peter
.....Catherine II
.....Ivan IV
Ryuku
.....Sho Shin
Saami
.....Rijkuo Maja
Sabaeans
.....Bilqis
Sassanid
.....Boran
.....Kawad I
.....Khosrow I
.....Shapur I
Scotland
.....Robert the Bruce
Scythia
.....Tomyris
.....Ateas
Seleucid
.....Antiochus III
.....Seleucus I
Serbia
.....Karadorde
Shikoku
.....Chosokabe Motochika
Shoshone
.....Sacajawea
Siam
.....Ramkhamhaeng
.....Narai
.....Chulalongkorn
Sicily (Norman)
.....Roger II

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Fourth and Last Batch: Civs with Leaders alphabetically from Slocakia to Z in Civ VI: (Mods in italics)

Slovakia
.....Ludovit Stur
Somalia
.....Sayyid Muhammed Abdullah Hasan
Songhai
.....Askia
.....Sonni Ali
Soviet Union
.....Vladimir Lenin
.....Stalin
Spain
.....Philip II
.....Isabella I
.....Isabella II
.....Pedro de Valdivia
.....Charles
Swahili
.....Al-Hasan ibn Sulaiman
Sweden
.....Kristina
.....Karl XI
.....Oscar II
.....Gustav I
Sumeria
.....Gilgamesh
Tahiti
.....Purea
Tairona
.....Cacique Cuchacique
Tatars
.....Maxmud I
Thule
.....Kiviuq
Tibet (Gedemo)
.....Songtsen Gampo
Tibet (Sukritact)
.....Trisong Detsen
.....Lobsang Gyatso
Timurids
.....Timur
Tlingit
.....Gush X’een
Tohoku
.....Date Masamune
Tongva
.....Toypurina
Tupinamba
.....Cunhambebe
Vanuatu
.....Roymata
Venice
.....Enrico Dandolo
Vietnam
.....Ba Trieu
.....Trung Sisters
Wiradjuri
.....Windradyne
Yanomami
.....Weikayoma
Yolngu
.....Wonggu
Yup’ik
.....Qilerkavialuk
Zimbabwe
.....Nyatsimba Mutota
Zulu
.....Shaka

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Now for some random comments on what we have (designed and Modded) in the way of Civs and Leaders in the game already, versus what people have talked about having on the Forums.

First, and most intriguingly, while there has been and still is much discussion of Portugal (and to a lesser extent, the Iroquois or Haudenosenee) as the last Civ in NFP, neither of them has been Modded into Civ VI: either none of the Modders are fans of them, or there just hasn't really been that much interest up until now. Food for thought.

Second, while there are a host of really obscure Civs in the Mod collection, there are also some that have been objects of discussion in these Forums and deserve consideration or at least more discussion for Civ VII.
As a partial list of possibilities that leaped (out at me, anyway):

Asia - Pacific:
Burma
Siam
Malaysia
Philippines
Europe:
Anglo-Saxons
Austria
Venice*
Americas:
Choctaw
Tlingit
Mexico
Mohica
Lakota

* = while Venice is the only one still available, there was a Mod for an Italian Civ, based on Renaissance City States and including another Medici Leader. This is such a perennial subject of speculation/discussion that Italian City States or Italy certainly deserve to also be considered, with or without Venice, Genoa, Florence, Milan, or any other separate Civs.

I suggest that there are a couple of possibilities for Expanding, or at least Warping, the Civ Definition in Civ VII, and they involve two of the knotty problems in Civ: Civs composed historically of City States, and Multi-National Empires.

City State Civs have been the subject of as much Forum discussion as anything, and I've splashed as many pixels of text on it as anyone, I suspect, so let me throw out something New: Combine the City State mechanism in the game now with a type of Civ. That is, make a possible Government or Social Policy/Political choice be City State - possibly even an early 'default' choice for everybody - and give suitable maluses and bonuses for it, to the point that it is not impossible to remain a 'city state Civ' for most of the game. Since Civ VI has already started to present regular Civs with built-in maluses (Maya, Gauls) this is not as much of a stretch as it might have been over a year ago.
As a possibility, having each separate city in a City State Civ have a separate set of attributes - possibly chosen from a set of historical or semi-historical attributes, like Greek Sparta being Military, Greek Corinth being Trade oriented, Italian Florence being Cultural, etc. These attributes could be reflected in Uniques available from each choice. Properly balanced, this flexibility built into the city state Civ might in many game situations make up for the lack of over-all control inherent in having to bargain among the cities to get anything major done.

Multi-National or Multi-Ethnic/Cultural Empires as a separate category have been virtually ignored in Civ since Civ 1 (and there is no sign that Humankind will be any different in this respect), and yet they are not the same as a political entity that is also uniform in culture or ethnicity. In fact, they were impossible before proper administrative and political techniques were invented to accommodate them, first in Persia and then elsewhere. What makes them worthy of having a separate 'mechanism' for their formation and continued existence are two aspects:
1. It would allow representation of some Civs that are very difficult to represent in-game now: the Holy Roman Empire, which was not really Austria or Germany but a combination of both and other groups, or the Chinese or Roman Empires that included wildly different cultural and ethnic groups hidden under their umbrella governments, or even the modern Soviet Union, which turned out to be more than a dozen different ethnic, linguistic, and cultural groups fighting to get out as soon as the top started to crack.
2. Which brings up the second point: the break up of multi-cultural Empires provides a framework for a built-in Rise and Fall mechanic which has so far been missing from the game. The 'Dark Ages' were dark only in the sense that the multi-cultural Roman Empire collapsed into a multitude of separate, frequently ethnically and culturally homogenous, kingdoms or groups that later developed into Nation States. The Chinese Empire, whenever it collapsed at the top, resulted in various Warring States or multiple 'Chinese' kingdoms or combinations of Chinese with other groups. The break-up of Achaemenid Persia resulted in the Successor States, which in turn broke up into a number of states/groups that had existed in various forms before the Persian Empire: Bactria, Egypt, Georgia, etc.

A separate way of handling the Really Big Empires would allow the game to include something like the Holy Roman Empire - or even the modern European Union - as a Civ without trespassing on the individual 'unitary' Civs like Bohemia, Austria, Germany, etc. And allowing such Empires to unravel without also making that event a Game Losing one, would throw in a Rise and Fall development that would make Dramatic Ages Really dramatic!

A new rhetorical question for Civ VII:

Can You Build a Civilization That Can Claw Its Way Out of the Ashes?

 

[Ryansinbela]

This makes me wonder how game overs would happen in our hypothetical Civ game

I assume is when your civ’s line is ended

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This makes me wonder how game overs would happen in our hypothetical Civ game

I assume is when your civ’s line is ended

I think that the game now and always has made the mistake of assuming that Bigger Is Better: more cities, bigger armies, bigger masses of Gold, Religious Points, Production, etc.

I also think that a good case can be made that historically that is not always the case.
Just for a current example, the top five Happiest Countries in the world (2020 survey) are:
Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Norway

None of those are exactly "World Powers" by military, economic, religious, cultural, or even Tourism measures, yet I'm not certain anyone could say they are 'less successful' than, say, China, which ranks as the 94th Happiest country in the world, despite all of its economic advantages.

Older examples: Netherlands in the 17th and 18th centuries was the most religiously tolerant country in Europe, probably in the world, to the point that New Amsterdam, when it became English from being Dutch, was considered the most tolerant by far of any English colony - to the point that it was roundly condemned by both Church of England types in Virginia and Puritans in New England. Yet, to a large extent it was the tolerance of New Amsterdam/York that became the norm for most of American history rather than the narrow-mindedness of New England or the smug self-satisfaction of the Virginia plantation aristocracy (not that both intolerance and smug hypocracy haven't been part of American history and culture, but they have not been held up as admirable traits) . Likewise, by the 1860s slavery, a norm throughout most of human history, was simply no longer tolerable, as the American Confederacy discovered: given any excuse, no European country even with economic motives could support a slave-holding state, and within 10 years of 1860 countries as different as Imperial Russia and Brazil ended their slave/serf institutions voluntarily.

So, I think there's another place to radically change Civ VII, although it should be discussed, I think, at length under Victory Conditions/Types rather than Civs/Leaders.
After all, if Humankind can have Victory based entirely on 'Fame' throughout the game - a most subjective marker, IMHO, then why can't Civ VII use Happiness, Human Rights or even (very modern) Planet Friendliness or some other 'soft' factor as an equally compelling Victory Definition.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I think Firaxis should move away from the easy and obvious with Civ7 in regards to leaders and civ. Twelve of the initial 19 civs at launch had been in every other previous version of game. So, any leader who has been in a previous game is excluded and Firaxis makes an effort to put new civs or radically rethink returning ones by highlighting aspects of old civs that have been ignored. For example, instead of Persia being lead by an Achaemenid ruler, Iran is lead by a Sasanid ruler, Rome is lead by Constantine and is a faith and religion focused civ, Byzantium is a culture/tourism focused civ, and so one.

After all, if Humankind can have Victory based entirely on 'Fame' throughout the game - a most subjective marker, IMHO, then why can't Civ VII use Happiness, Human Rights or even (very modern) Planet Friendliness or some other 'soft' factor as an equally compelling Victory Definition.

I think the best way to implement something like would be for the score victory be a threshold that you pass rather than tallied up at the end of X turns. So you earn score the way already done in the game but some extra emphasis on things like happiness, pollution levels and relationships with other civs with more points for positives in those areas but you lose points for negatives.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I miss Haiti

 

[Ryansinbela]

Haiti was never playable (but should to fill up the empty hole that is the Caribbean. Taino could work too)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Second, while there are a host of really obscure Civs in the Mod collection, there are also some that have been objects of discussion in these Forums and deserve consideration or at least more discussion for Civ VII.
As a partial list of possibilities that leaped (out at me, anyway):

Asia - Pacific:
Burma
Siam
Malaysia
Philippines
Europe:
Anglo-Saxons
Austria
Venice*
Americas:
Choctaw
Tlingit
Mexico
Mohica
Lakota

My list of ones that I'm pretty sure might come to Civ 7 are:
Asia:
Burma- If Siam doesn't show up I feel Burma is an obvious choice. Vietnam was the first SEA civ to not wholly be portrayed in the Medieval Era and either one could do that.

Europe:
Ireland- They've already decided to split up the Celts with both Gaul and Scotland. I think they could find a medium between a Medieval to Modern day nation and pre-Roman Celtic group with Ireland.
Denmark- I'm sure Denmark might return. Whether it will be Viking related or Kalmar Union Denmark I'm not sure.

Americas:
Musica
Argentina
We got the Mapuche, an indigenous group and Gran Colombia, Spanish speaking colonial nation, in Civ 6 for South America. They could easily switch them for Musica and Argentina.

If not Argentina then Mexico is the next best colonial nation but it always comes after Aztecs and the Maya.

Oceania:
Hawaii- After the Maori, Hawaii to me seems the most probable Polynesian culture. There's a possibility that Civ 7 could get both as long as the Maori don't get a wayfinding ability.

Africa:
Africa is hard to pin at least a newcomer down exactly. We haven't got one from the West African coast or East Coast yet. I do think that Civ 7 will at least bring back one from the Maghreb if it's left out of Civ 6.

City State Civs have been the subject of as much Forum discussion as anything, and I've splashed as many pixels of text on it as anyone, I suspect, so let me throw out something New: Combine the City State mechanism in the game now with a type of Civ. That is, make a possible Government or Social Policy/Political choice be City State - possibly even an early 'default' choice for everybody - and give suitable maluses and bonuses for it, to the point that it is not impossible to remain a 'city state Civ' for most of the game. Since Civ VI has already started to present regular Civs with built-in maluses (Maya, Gauls) this is not as much of a stretch as it might have been over a year ago.
As a possibility, having each separate city in a City State Civ have a separate set of attributes - possibly chosen from a set of historical or semi-historical attributes, like Greek Sparta being Military, Greek Corinth being Trade oriented, Italian Florence being Cultural, etc. These attributes could be reflected in Uniques available from each choice. Properly balanced, this flexibility built into the city state Civ might in many game situations make up for the lack of over-all control inherent in having to bargain among the cities to get anything major done.

I thought of this idea when trying to come up with a "city-state" design for a hypothetical Italy. What I decided was instead of giving attributes based off of the city in real life, is it becomes a "cultural city" or "scientific city" based off of the first district or building that it would build.

The reason I did it that way is suppose you found Florence but would it be trade oriented, based on the Medici banking family, or cultural, being the birthplace of the Renaissance?

A separate way of handling the Really Big Empires would allow the game to include something like the Holy Roman Empire - or even the modern European Union - as a Civ without trespassing on the individual 'unitary' Civs like Bohemia, Austria, Germany, etc. And allowing such Empires to unravel without also making that event a Game Losing one, would throw in a Rise and Fall development that would make Dramatic Ages Really dramatic!

They already had a Holy Roman Empire civ in Civ 4 and it was poorly received, at least by many people on this forum. That being said it was lead by Charlemagne and one could say that it could have been called the Carolingians, or Franks, instead and be better received.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think Firaxis should move away from the easy and obvious with Civ7 in regards to leaders and civ. Twelve of the initial 19 civs at launch had been in every other previous version of game. So, any leader who has been in a previous game is excluded and Firaxis makes an effort to put new civs or radically rethink returning ones by highlighting aspects of old civs that have been ignored. For example, instead of Persia being lead by an Achaemenid ruler, Iran is lead by a Sasanid ruler, Rome is lead by Constantine and is a faith and religion focused civ, Byzantium is a culture/tourism focused civ, and so one.

IF they stick to the "1/3 New, 1/3 Modified, 1/3 Old" formula, then of an initial 18 - 19 Civs, 6 - 7 could be identical to the same ol' Civs and Leaders, but another 6 - 7 could be totally new to the franchise and 6 - 7 could have new Leaders or representations of the older Civs. That leaves a lot of room even in the Initial Offering for modifications, which is why I laid out all the alternative Leaders and alternative Civs that the Modders have added to Civ VI: I suspect that out of all that will come a lot of the changes to the Civ VI Civs and Leaders as sold.

My list of ones that I'm pretty sure might come to Civ 7 are:
Asia:
Burma- If Siam doesn't show up I feel Burma is an obvious choice. Vietnam was the first SEA civ to not wholly be portrayed in the Medieval Era and either one could do that.

Europe:
Ireland- They've already decided to split up the Celts with both Gaul and Scotland. I think they could find a medium between a Medieval to Modern day nation and pre-Roman Celtic group with Ireland.
Denmark- I'm sure Denmark might return. Whether it will be Viking related or Kalmar Union Denmark I'm not sure.

Americas:
Musica
Argentina
We got the Mapuche, an indigenous group and Gran Colombia, Spanish speaking colonial nation, in Civ 6 for South America. They could easily switch them for Musica and Argentina.

If not Argentina then Mexico is the next best colonial nation but it always comes after Aztecs and the Maya.

Oceania:
Hawaii- After the Maori, Hawaii to me seems the most probable Polynesian culture. There's a possibility that Civ 7 could get both as long as the Maori don't get a wayfinding ability.

Africa:
Africa is hard to pin at least a newcomer down exactly. We haven't got one from the West African coast or East Coast yet. I do think that Civ 7 will at least bring back one from the Maghreb if it's left out of Civ 6.

Good suggestions, and note that Burma, Siam, Mexico, and Hawaii are available as Mods in Civ VI, so there are at least starting points for Civ VII there. There was a Modded Ireland in Civ VI, but it is no longer compatible with the game - again, though, a Starting Point (had, as I remember, about 3 alternate leaders, too)

In Africa, there are Modded Somalia, Swahili and Zimbabwe Civs and Leaders, which covers the east coast potentially . . .

I thought of this idea when trying to come up with a "city-state" design for a hypothetical Italy. What I decided was instead of giving attributes based off of the city in real life, is it becomes a "cultural city" or "scientific city" based off of the first district or building that it would build.

The reason I did it that way is suppose you found Florence but would it be trade oriented, based on the Medici banking family, or cultural, being the birthplace of the Renaissance?

I think any City State/Civ mechanic will have to be based largely on the in-game situation. There is no sense having a commercial Genoa or Corinth with 'historical' attributes when their on-map, in-game position doesn't give them any Trade Routes, and as you mention, many City States historically had more than one way they could be represented.

They already had a Holy Roman Empire civ in Civ 4 and it was poorly received, at least by many people on this forum. That being said it was lead by Charlemagne and one could say that it could have been called the Carolingians, or Franks, instead and be better received.

Humankind has the Franks as one Faction (Medieval, I believe), so someone thinks there is a place for them. Charlemagne was one of the first 'dual leaders' that sprang to mind (well, My Mind) when that concept was brought up, but Making the HRE a different type of Civ that might, for a time, include French, Proto-French, German, Proto-German, or even warped Roman attributes appeals to me. One might also have in this type of Civ the option of starting as Roman, French, Gaulic, or German Classical Civ with an appropriate Leader and then at some Trigger Point (collapse of Rome, migration, 'Dark Age', etc) be able to form the HRE with a New Leader specific to the HRE

And, of course, lose or have to choose between that Leader when the HRE goes belly-up in the Industrial Era (IF it does in your game!) and the Leader of whatever Civ you turn it into.

I don't want Civ VII to 'copy' the Progressive Factions system by Era that Humankind is using (and I think it would be a really bad marketing idea to try) but I would like to see the occasional Option in the game to have a Civ 'warp' so much that you wind up with a new Leader, or ver different Attributes for the Civ than what you started with. It will take some serious cogitation to come up with ways for that to happen without making the game Near-Chaotic, though.

 

[InsidiousMage]

IF they stick to the "1/3 New, 1/3 Modified, 1/3 Old" formula

I'll be honest if Civ7 is basically Civ6.5 then does the game really need more Spain, America and the Ottomans? Why not Al-Andalus, a Native American group not previously in a game and the Seljuks? Sure, if there is some brilliant design for Spain go ahead but I think having to go outside of the standard selection of civs might lead to some more interesting play styles. Like, there is nothing wrong with Roman and Trajan but they feel uninspired compared to the Maori and Vietnam, who haven't been in the game as much, are unique and fun to play and I think there is some correlation there. The game does need civs with a more basic play style but they can be new civs with some nice flavor to go with the basic play style instead of the same old boring, repetitive choices.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'll be honest if Civ7 is basically Civ6.5 then does the game really need more Spain, America and the Ottomans? Why not Al-Andalus, a Native American group not previously in a game and the Seljuks? Sure, if there is some brilliant design for Spain go ahead but I think having to go outside of the standard selection of civs might lead to some more interesting play styles. Like, there is nothing wrong with Roman and Trajan but they feel uninspired compared to the Maori and Vietnam, who haven't been in the game as much, are unique and fun to play and I think there is some correlation there. The game does need civs with a more basic play style but they can be new civs with some nice flavor to go with the basic play style instead of the same old boring, repetitive choices.

I threw out the "1/3 Rule" because it has been frequently quoted and is straight from the Firaxis Design Team, so has the veneer of Official Design Philosophy about it.

BUT, and especially now that there are playable alternative games and alternative options for depicting Civilizations, Factions, Rulers and ruling families in CK3, Humankind, and Old World, I think that "Civ 6.5" would be a massive marketing disaster. Civ VI already feels a little 'stale' compared to the newer games - imagine the comparisons in another year or two when/if Civ VII is on the horizon.

Which is why, IMHO, it is time to start now examining what New Things can be done within the framework of a 'Civ" game - with the personal, animated Leaders and all-on-the-map graphics and whatever else screams "Civ!" to gamers without also groaning "Same Ol' Civ."

BUT I think some Same Old Civs are a marketing requirement given the market: the gamers are in USA, Britain, Europe, China, so we will have an American, not Native, Civ, a Britain or England, a China, and the Historical Regulars like Rome, Greece, Egypt, India, Spain, Germany, France, etc.

I agree completely, though, that there are some different aspects of the 'Regulars' hat could and should be explored: Republican Rome instead of the Empire, a non-Blobbed India for a change, a Germany that is not just a pile of Militaristic attributes, etc.

 

[InsidiousMage]

BUT, and especially now that there are playable alternative games and alternative options for depicting Civilizations, Factions, Rulers and ruling families in CK3, Humankind, and Old World, I think that "Civ 6.5" would be a massive marketing disaster. Civ VI already feels a little 'stale' compared to the newer games - imagine the comparisons in another year or two when/if Civ VII is on the horizon.

Personally, I think the best way for Firaxis to differentiate Civ from the competitors is depth. There is a solid base to work with and unless they have some kind of revolutionary change in game play then there is no need to start over. Add a bunch niche but interesting Civs, bring back old favorites, improve existing game mechanics and borrow from the competition if it can work in the Civ framework. GTA5 and FF14 both outlived an entire console generation and there is no reason why Civ6 can't keep on going if the devs have it in them. Like I said, barring some revolutionary new game play, which I am skeptical of in part because of the release of NFP (seems like a waste of resources otherwise), then game play depth built on improvement and refinement is probably Civ's best possible advantage. Civ6 has a head start on the competition and there no reason to needlessly throw it away.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'll be honest if Civ7 is basically Civ6.5 then does the game really need more Spain, America and the Ottomans? Why not Al-Andalus, a Native American group not previously in a game and the Seljuks? Sure, if there is some brilliant design for Spain go ahead but I think having to go outside of the standard selection of civs might lead to some more interesting play styles. Like, there is nothing wrong with Roman and Trajan but they feel uninspired compared to the Maori and Vietnam, who haven't been in the game as much, are unique and fun to play and I think there is some correlation there. The game does need civs with a more basic play style but they can be new civs with some nice flavor to go with the basic play style instead of the same old boring, repetitive choices.

They aren't going to get rid of civs like Spain, America, and especially the Ottomans. That would be the death of the franchise.
They've continued to mix in new civs with old, and I don't see why that's a problem.

That being said they've been working on the game for 5 years or so and started to design civs radically different which is the reason why Vietnam and the Maori feel more inspired than Rome currently. Of course Rome at least to me has a more interesting design than in past games.

 

[Zegangani]

I think the Problem with Civilizations/Leaders in Civ is the Lack of real Uniqueness. The Civs have Traits that differenciate them a little bit from each other, but when you play with them they all feel the same. Yes, Egypt is immune against floodplains and Norway have bonuses for sea-raiding, but their gameplay feels the same. Just a bonus here and there. What is missing is gameplay uniqueness, strong Bonusses with strong Downsides/Penalties. And NFP Civs make a good step in that direction. An Egypt that has huge Culture, Production and Food from Rivers and Oases Bonusses, but Penalties in Expansion and Sea Military, would deferenciate it's gameplay enormously from a Rom that has Bonusses in Expansion, Land Military and Diplomacy but Penalties in Science, Faith and Infrastructure Production. A Phenecia/Cartage that has Bonusses in Sea Trade would be much different than Vikings who have bonusses in Sea raiding. Arabia, Babylon and Korea could have huge bonusses in Science, but penalties in Production...etc
It should be hard for Civs to go a way that they're not familiar to, like for Russia to settle on Desert Tiles, and on Tundra/Snow Tiles for Mali. And striving for a Faith victory rather than Science as China. This way the Game would be challenging with all Civs, despite them all having huge bonusses in a specific field.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the Problem with Civilizations/Leaders in Civ is the Lack of real Uniqueness. The Civs have Traits that differenciate them a little bit from each other, but when you play with them they all feel the same. Yes, Egypt is immune against floodplains and Norway have bonuses for sea-raiding, but their gameplay feels the same. Just a bonus here and there. What is missing is gameplay uniqueness, strong Bonusses with strong Downsides/Penalties. And NFP Civs make a good step in that direction. An Egypt that has huge Culture, Production and Food from Rivers and Oases Bonusses, but Penalties in Expansion and Sea Military, would deferenciate it's gameplay enormously from a Rom that has Bonusses in Expansion, Land Military and Diplomacy but Penalties in Science, Faith and Infrastructure Production. A Phenecia/Cartage that has Bonusses in Sea Trade would be much different than Vikings who have bonusses in Sea raiding. Arabia, Babylon and Korea could have huge bonusses in Science, but penalties in Production...etc
It should be hard for Civs to go a way that they're not familiar to, like for Russia to settle on Desert Tiles, and on Tundra/Snow Tiles for Mali. And striving for a Faith victory rather than Science as China. This way the Game would be challenging with all Civs, despite them all having huge bonusses in a specific field.

As I said above most of the initial civilizations were praised in the base game for being more unique than their Civ 5 counterparts.

Of course right now they do feel bland compared to GS and NFP pass civs. I wouldn't be surprised for Civ 7 if they did try to make maluses/interesting gameplay for the base game civs.
On that note I was hoping that Kublai would have a malus toward naval combat, which he could have brought to a base game civ and R&F civ.

 

[DBPirate]

I would personally prefer that they keep as many of the civs from VI as possible in VII. However, the first I would get rid of would be Canada, Scythia, Australia, Mapuche, Macedon, and Sumeria. I'd replace Scythia with Sogdia, the Mapuche with the Muisca or the Guarani for a similar geographic area, and make Alexander a Greece alt leader. As for Sumeria, I'd rather just have Babylon, Assyria, and the Hittites in the game unless they can make Sumer feel distinct.

Even if the NFP ends with a Native civ, I really want the next game to have more of an emphasis on them. The Iroquois should absolutely be a mainstay in every Civ game (along with the Maya, Aztec, and Inca) and I believe we should get at least two, if not three, Native civs in addition to them in each game.

In regards to change, I hope the next base game English leader is pre-British Empire, the Māori (if they return) are less generic Polynesian, Egypt's leader not be Cleopatra, and the ancient civs be less generic Mesopotamian. I also wouldn't mind India splitting into two different civs. As far as new civs, the Navajo, Cheorkee, Swahili, Angola, Madagascar, Renaissance Italy, Ireland, Hawaii, and Tonga are the first that come to mind. EDIT: The Hebrews and Tibet would be up there as well. Guess I scrubbed them from my mind due to how unlikely they are.