Civ VII Civilisation & Leader Timeline

[evonannoredars]

Awesome work! Which software did you use to make this graph?

Nothing fancy haha, just Excel

 

[evonannoredars]

Also, looking at that, I feel like the Maya and the Mayapan should be distinguished in your chart, as the version we got is very clearly the former and not the latter.

I'm unconvinced as to how clearly the Maya civ we have is specifically a classic period civ, I did add a note about that but I feel considering it's current 'generic Maya' branding that including all periods of the Maya provides better context.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Hatshepsut is feeling rather lonely as the only genuinely Ancient leader in the game.

I'm sure we will see a Greek and maybe a Mayan leader to keep her company, eventually.

And Gilgamesh.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm sure we will see a Greek and maybe a Mayan leader to keep her company, eventually.

And Gilgamesh.

A Greek leader will assuredly (and almost by definition) be Classical unless they drop a surprise Theseus or Agamemnon on us, but K'inich Janaab' Pakal would fit nicely in the Ancient era. Hopefully no Gilgamesh, though. Enheduanna seems like such obvious low-lying fruit...Hopefully they take the bait.

 

[Ornen]

Hatshepsut is feeling rather lonely as the only genuinely Ancient leader in the game.

ancient mesopotamia is the biggest omission in the base game imo. you got to have Babylon or Assyria in there from the jump

 

[Baudshaw]

I feel like they should've went with either full classical or full ancient with Antiquity, not this strange mix of both. I would prefer full classical since we have more info there, but otherwise we have thousand-year gaps between Egypt and Khmer

 

[untitledjuan]

I feel like they should've went with either full classical or full ancient with Antiquity, not this strange mix of both. I would prefer full classical since we have more info there, but otherwise we have thousand-year gaps between Egypt and Khmer

At this point, what counts as Ancient or as "Exploration" (whatever that means) is just whatever the devs decide, tbh

 

[Zaarin]

I feel like they should've went with either full classical or full ancient with Antiquity, not this strange mix of both.

Why? It's not like there was a major diametric shift in the world in 500 BCE. I wouldn't want to see civs like Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Phoenicia excluded, and I'm sure a lot of people would be disappointed to see Greece and Rome excluded. At any rate, as @untitledjuan said, the devs have said they don't use an absolute timeline for selecting civs.

I would prefer full classical since we have more info there

Not by any significant margin, particularly regarding Egypt and Mesopotamia--and from their records we can learn a lot about their neighbors and rivals, too, in addition to what archaeology, native inscriptions, and Greek histories can tell.

 

[RedCourtJester]

A Greek leader will assuredly (and almost by definition) be Classical unless they drop a surprise Theseus or Agamemnon on us, but K'inich Janaab' Pakal would fit nicely in the Ancient era. Hopefully no Gilgamesh, though. Enheduanna seems like such obvious low-lying fruit...Hopefully they take the bait.

I feel like if they had to reach into mythology, they might as well pick Minos for something resembling Minoan representation.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I feel like they should've went with either full classical or full ancient with Antiquity, not this strange mix of both. I would prefer full classical since we have more info there, but otherwise we have thousand-year gaps between Egypt and Khmer

Khmer wouldn't fit the classical chronology either - it seems to me that they went with name recognition over the more obscure Funan.

Aside from that, the Ancient & Classical eras work well together overall, thematically speaking.

 

[Lord Lakely]

A Greek leader will assuredly (and almost by definition) be Classical unless they drop a surprise Theseus or Agamemnon on us.

I actually wouldn't hate Agamemnon. A Mycenean leader hasn't been done before, and his name is recognizable thanks to our good friend Homer.

 

[Zaarin]

I actually wouldn't hate Agamemnon. A Mycenean leader hasn't been done before, and his name is recognizable thanks to our good friend Homer.

Indeed. There's not a lot of evidence he was historical, but I've been fully behind the mythological Elissa Dido so I don't think Agamemnon would be too outrageous.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Indeed. There's not a lot of evidence he was historical, but I've been fully behind the mythological Elissa Dido so I don't think Agamemnon would be too outrageous.

Yeah. I don't particularly want him, but it would be something else. But if we do, then I definitely DO NOT want Alexander, and I don't think the leader line-up counts as completed without our little conqueror.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah. I don't particularly want him, but it would be something else. But if we do, then I definitely DO NOT want Alexander, and I don't think the leader line-up counts as completed without our little conqueror.

I'm torn between not needing Alexander at all and recognizing that Civ7 is a great opportunity to give Alex a Persianizing persona.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm torn between not needing Alexander at all and recognizing that Civ7 is a great opportunity to give Alex a Persianizing persona.

Yeah if I was in charge of which leaders were included in the first Expansion pack, I'd definitely add Alexander to the line-up. If ONLY because that's what the fans would want, and they'd be too distracted by the keys jangled in front to complain about my other, quirky choices such as Matilda di Canossa and Baruch Spinoza .

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'm torn between not needing Alexander at all and recognizing that Civ7 is a great opportunity to give Alex a Persianizing persona.

I will never need Alexander in a game, but I think his inclusion in VII is very likely.

I would be surprised if he had a second Persian persona, not because I also wouldn't consider that likely in a vacuum, but because antiquity Persia already got personae.

Frankly, I wish they would just take back one of the Xerxes and substitute with Alexander.

 

[Zaarin]

I like having Xerxes the Achaemenid; I just wish he weren't anachronistically and hazardously dressed in Scheele's green.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I like having Xerxes the Achaemenid; I just wish he weren't anachronistically and hazardously dressed in Scheele's green.

Oh yes I like that Xerxes. I don't care much for the base game Xerxes, or the fact that there are two.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Judging from the many new videos, it seems that the 3rd Age begins at 1750 CE. Then, at least on paper, the 2nd Age goes from 400 CE to 1750 CE.

Which makes Shawnee's fall into Exploration even funnier. Khmer and Mississippians being in the Ancient are at least defensible due to the lack of information about earlier cultures in the region (Mississippian is the archeological NA culture we know the most about; for SAE before 1000 CE, probably only Mataram and early Champa would work, as we know very little about Funan, Chenla, Srivijaya, etc). The rise of the Shawnees as a major political actor only happened after 1750s and especially after 1776, while North America between 1492 and 1750 had tons of other native powers.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Judging from the many new videos, it seems that the 3rd Age begins at 1750 CE. Then, at least on paper, the 2nd Age goes from 400 CE to 1750 CE.

Which makes Shawnee's fall into Exploration even funnier. Khmer and Mississippians being in the Ancient are at least defensible due to the lack of information about earlier cultures in the region (Mississippian is the archeological NA culture we know the most about; for SAE before 1000 CE, probably only Mataram and early Champa would work, as we know very little about Funan, Chenla, Srivijaya, etc). The rise of the Shawnees as a major political actor only happened after 1750s and especially after 1776, while North America between 1492 and 1750 had tons of other native powers.

There's some kind of time jump between ages during which your new culture rises, units get upgraded and so on. So second age ends somewhere before 1750, but with no specified end date.