Civ VII Developer Update - July 2025 | What's coming in tomorrow's 1.2.3 update!

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But oh well, it's hard to find 1789-1945 powerful Middle Eastern/North African civ... Ottomans definitely belong to the later medieval and early modern eras, with the long 19th century being their own miserable period of decline, and I don't have many other ideas. Maybe Muhammad Ali's Egypt could arrive instead, though arguably it also wasn't exactly the beacon of industrialization.

I can also see Morocco appearing.

I feel like no matter which era they put the Ottomans in, the decision will be divisive. Put into Exploration, and they lose a solid endgame option for the Islamic world, along with a notable figure in WW1 (notably, the Ottomans have lasted for longer than Qing, who are currently slotted into Modern). Put into Modern, and we will lose their rivalry with Byzantium...

I guess it's another example how the rigid age system leads to some awkward outcomes.

I'd be surprised if the Ottomans didn't turn out to be Modern based off of civ progression. If you look at the history of current Istanbul it started out as a Greek colony, then it became an Eastern Rome/Byzantine Capital city, and finally came under the occupation of the Ottomans/Turkey. That feels like a solid 3 path progression.

 

[Kwami]

So it's fixed and unique, then. How else would you call a model that is "visually different and can be identified in the game" and is tied exclusively to GB's unit with unique gameplay properties?

One can call it malicious compliance by FXS if they still don't like the updated model, but they have technically fulfilled their promise.

I don't care about "technically fulfilled their promise". I can about getting a somewhat accurate model to represent Revenge, which is what I paid for.

Using your logic, Firaxis could make one ship and change the colors on it and then skip making any unique ship models. We should demand better.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't care about "technically fulfilled their promise". I can about getting a somewhat accurate model to represent Revenge, which is what I paid for.

Using your logic, Firaxis could make one ship and change the colors on it and then skip making any unique ship models. We should demand better.

More important to me, the 'Revenge' model they provided is wretchedly inaccurate. They changed the configuration of main gun turrets from 3 x 3 to 4 x 2. Yes, that is visually 'distinctive' if you look closely, but the secondary armament, hull and superstructure remain the same as the 'Americanish' standard Battleship they've been using since Civ II.

To put it in perspective, it's as if the Carthaginian Numidian Cavalry graphic was carrying a Chinese crossbow and riding an Appaloosa: distinctive, yes, but also miserably Wrong.

 

[Krikkit1]

Maybe we're talking about different things.

It's "fixed" in the sense that the model is visually different and can be identified in the game.

It's not "fixed" in that we paid for a unique model and didn't get one.

it is unique…but it is bad and needs to be improved.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I can also see Morocco appearing.

I'd be surprised if the Ottomans didn't turn out to be Modern based off of civ progression. If you look at the history of current Istanbul it started out as a Greek colony, then it became an Eastern Rome/Byzantine Capital city, and finally came under the occupation of the Ottomans/Turkey. That feels like a solid 3 path progression.

I would personally have gone for Modern Ottomans, but I'd hesitate to predict them as Istanbul is an Exploration Age IP, and so far IPs that have been upgraded to full Civilizations have stayed in the same Age.

 

[Sagax]

I don't care about "technically fulfilled their promise". I can about getting a somewhat accurate model to represent Revenge, which is what I paid for.

Using your logic, Firaxis could make one ship and change the colors on it and then skip making any unique ship models. We should demand better.

I'm not saying that their solution was good - just that they did provide a solution, albeit a sloppy one. It's a "bad unique model", if we want to be pedantic about it, not unlike how they comically messed up unique civilian unit icons for Han and Ming in the early days of release. I supported the feedback, but would be lying if I claimed that they failed to deliver unique civilian unit icons.

Anyway, I'm moving on - you're still not satisfied with the updated Revenge model, and that's what matters.

I can also see Morocco appearing.

I'd be surprised if the Ottomans didn't turn out to be Modern based off of civ progression. If you look at the history of current Istanbul it started out as a Greek colony, then it became an Eastern Rome/Byzantine Capital city, and finally came under the occupation of the Ottomans/Turkey. That feels like a solid 3 path progression.

I feel like one could come up with enough justifications for either age for the Ottomans, and they all have merit. Not to mention, Firaxis can always make an executive decision to bend historicity in favor of gameplay (cough Khmer cough). On a side note, it will be funny to see the Ottoman unlock narrative event while playing as Byzantium. The unlock narratives paint a picture of natural evolution of your civ, and we all know that Byzantium > Ottomans was anything but that.

 

[evonannoredars]

More important to me, the 'Revenge' model they provided is wretchedly inaccurate. They changed the configuration of main gun turrets from 3 x 3 to 4 x 2. Yes, that is visually 'distinctive' if you look closely, but the secondary armament, hull and superstructure remain the same as the 'Americanish' standard Battleship they've been using since Civ II.

To put it in perspective, it's as if the Carthaginian Numidian Cavalry graphic was carrying a Chinese crossbow and riding an Appaloosa: distinctive, yes, but also miserably Wrong.

That doesn't put it in perspective at all. Your average player would easily be able to tell your Numidian Cavalry example was wrong, but it took me a while to figure out what was wrong doing a spot the difference against a photo of an actual Revenge - the big guns look right, the mast thing is there; it's got a silhouette that looks right to a layman player. The Revenge is hardly the only unit that's not perfectly historically accurate, this has been blown so much out of proportion.

 

[socratic]

I’m wondering how the AI will work with the new transitions. Are they going to be tweaked in anyway?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would personally have gone for Modern Ottomans, but I'd hesitate to predict them as Istanbul is an Exploration Age IP, and so far IPs that have been upgraded to full Civilizations have stayed in the same Age.

Maybe. But then again Lisbon is in Modern, and I don't see Portugal as a Modern Age civ when it comes.

On a side note, it will be funny to see the Ottoman unlock narrative event while playing as Byzantium. The unlock narratives paint a picture of natural evolution of your civ, and we all know that Byzantium > Ottomans was anything but that.

We already have Shawnee>Americans so I don't see Byzantium>Ottoman being any different than that. I'm sure a more natural evolution would be Abbasid>Ottomans anyways, for the people that would want Mosques and Madrasas in their Ottoman cities.

I’m wondering how the AI will work with the new transitions. Are they going to be tweaked in anyway?

I would imagine Trung Trac would want to go for Da Viet, at least over the Majapahit.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That doesn't put it in perspective at all. Your average player would easily be able to tell your Numidian Cavalry example was wrong, but it took me a while to figure out what was wrong doing a spot the difference against a photo of an actual Revenge - the big guns look right, the mast thing is there; it's got a silhouette that looks right to a layman player. The Revenge is hardly the only unit that's not perfectly historically accurate, this has been blown so much out of proportion.

I'm sorry, as soon as you invoked the mythical "average player" your argument unraveled.

The entire class of British Superdreadnaughts of which the Revenge was part were never upgraded after they were built, so they never got the multitude of antiaircraft mounts or separate turreted secondary armament shown on the game graphic - both 'left over' from the regular ship graphic in the game. In addition, the entire hull shape is that of a fast battleship of the 1930s, not the Revenge of 1915. Basically, the graphic doesn't look resemble the actual Revenge from either a top down view or in profile.

I do agree, however, that the appearance of the graphic has probably been blown out of proportion. What has not been blown out of proportion is the botched release of Britain as a Civ with no unique graphic for its Unique Unit. The only excuse I can think of for that is mis-management of the prerelease work schedule and lack of supervision and checking that everything that needed to be done was actually done. That in turn implies incompetence, and the state of other elements of the game upon release reinforces that view.

 

[g1987]

Firaxis 在该视频的评论部分证实，Dai Viet 的主题将于本周发布。

I just started playing this game, can you teach me?

 

[tedhebert]

Like what I see in this update...

As some have said, I'm not sure settlers surviving transition is such a great idea... it will make us cheese our way into exploration instead of hard building or buying them.

Also, merchants making the switch... I get the feeling that it's only unused merchants you build or buy that will transition. I'm pretty sure a lot of people are thinking their TRADE ROUTES will transition, which I don't think is what they announced.
Once again, like the settlers, that will make the optimal play to hoard some before the age transition.

But overall, very happy with the changes announced. Can't wait to try continuity mode and see if I DO like it better than regroup mode.

Do we already know the details of Genghis, Dai Viet and Assyria ? I don't remember if there was a leak on those or not...

 

[Ryansinbela]

Just the names but we will likely get them tomorrow (also Lakshmibai, Silla, and Qajars will probably be in the files)

 

[Niallism]

I play AOW4 a lot, and the contrast between Firaxis and Triumph regarding the size of their updates, their team/funding size, and the amount of preview advertising made for a simple minor patch is... upsetting.

Also, I'm playing the beta for the upcoming AOW4 update, which will of course help to catch any bugs before release. But perhaps that's just a function of the amount of changes, and that, at least, is unfair to use as a comparison.

 

[Kwami]

I play AOW4 a lot, and the contrast between Firaxis and Triumph regarding the size of their updates, their team/funding size, and the amount of preview advertising made for a simple minor patch is... upsetting.

Also, I'm playing the beta for the upcoming AOW4 update, which will of course help to catch any bugs before release. But perhaps that's just a function of the amount of changes, and that, at least, is unfair to use as a comparison.

But the upcoming AOW4 patch is coming with a big DLC and it's been many months in the making. This Civ VII patch is only one month since the last one. You aren't really comparing like things.

And if history is any guide, then the AOW4 patch will have plenty of bugs, despite the beta test.

 

[Pfeffersack]

The only thing in here I'm a little on the fence about is being able to carry settlers over across the age transition. Not sure if I like that as it seems like that's likely to become the optimal strategy going forward - train (or buy) as many settlers as you can in the lead up to the end of the age. Plus it's not like cities have a ton of options of things to build at the start of the age anyways. I need to see how this one plays out.

Also, I like that we can bring ships across from antiquity to exploration now... but how many do we get? There kind of has to be a limit. Aksum isn't the only civ that will benefit from this, either - Carthage will also be a fan.

One of the main issues with abrupt age transition is not having things to build. Now with settlers, navy, etc. being carried over, you'll always have something to do and it will be a strategic choice. So, I'm pretty positive on this one, I could see some deep preparations for Exploration.


Anyone could build ships and they'll equally transfer.

Regarding the number of taken-over units the video wasn't entirely clear. It is possible that in the Contingency setting there is indeed no more limit, depending on how eaxctly the wording of the tooltip is meant:

It starts with "Retain most of your empire..." and continues with "...and units at age transition", so it's the question whether the most also applies to the number of a units or a certain class of them....or if the meaning is rather "...and [the/all of your] units..." Or if the "most" for units is maybe only directed to special cases like Great People, Missionaries, Treasury fleets (which I assume still get lost)

Under the "Regroup" setting I expect a limit at least on ships. The question is just how that is calculated (we have no naval commanders in ancient age) and whether there will be also one for civil units (and again how it is calculated - maybe per city?)

For the balance impact I'm unsure. Yes, taking over masses of ships or settlers might create snowball effects...and probably the human player will be better at exploiting this (how much also depends on how good the AI coped with the current model). However, being able to pick "useful builds" for my cities from a larger pool in the last turns of an age (plus knowing when exactly the hammer falls) is a definite gain in my book...I always scratch my head what do in turns and that now hopefully will become less of an issue.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Maybe Muhammad Ali's Egypt could arrive instead, though arguably it also wasn't exactly the beacon of industrialization.

Actually, it was? Egypt has a massive cotton industry, and that's largely due to the forced industrialization and scientific revolution that happened under the Muhammad Ali regime. Modern Egypt is one of the better choices for the Middle East.

EDIT: and Muhammad Ali Pasha would be a very good choice as a leader. He was born in Greece, is ethnically Albanian, was a governor for the Ottomans and gave Egypt its present-day identity. This is the type of coverage you want in a Civ7 leader, and that's without delving into his competence as a ruler, which was also substantial.

 

[Hawke9]

The art for the new leaders looks especially good, very excited to see their 3D in-game models! These look like they might be my favorite looking civ 7 leaders so far

 

[Krajzen]

I can also see Morocco appearing.

Morocco would be... acceptable, though it wasn't exactly very spectacular or accomplished in the 19th century. I think Egypt would be much better, it was entangled in a lot of very interesting stuff in that era, plus we could finally see the islamic Egypt in game and have the historical Egyptian path through Abbasids.

I'd be surprised if the Ottomans didn't turn out to be Modern based off of civ progression. If you look at the history of current Istanbul it started out as a Greek colony, then it became an Eastern Rome/Byzantine Capital city, and finally came under the occupation of the Ottomans/Turkey. That feels like a solid 3 path progression.

Ah yes, that is really good argument for the modern Ottomans.

Generally speaking deciding between exploration Ottomans and modern Ottomans would be a horrible dilemma for me, there are very good arguments for both. Modern Ottomans can finish the path and fight ww2, but exploration Ottomans can fight Byzantium and Spain, Franks, Bulgaria, potentially Hungary, Austria, Poland etc. They'd also be the Islamic civ with the element of naval exploration.

 

[Siptah]

Morocco would be... acceptable, though it wasn't exactly very spectacular or accomplished in the 19th century. I think Egypt would be much better, it was entangled in a lot of very interesting stuff in that era, plus we could finally see the islamic Egypt in game and have the historical Egyptian path through Abbasids.

Leaving industrialization aside and concentrating on an early onset of the third era, Morocco is actually a really good fit time-wise and being alongside America, Britain, and France would be thematically. Of course, you can also make a case for an earlier Morocco (or Almohads etc.), where corsairs and the rivalries with Spain and Portugal would fit nicely. Yet, that could also be a Tunisia of some sorts.

For Egypt, I agree that Muhammad Ali's Egypt is a very interesting period, and maybe more so than the following Kingdom. Yet, a truly independent representation, not focused on Westernization, could be even more interesting, especially if it interacts with legacies and artifacts in an interesting way.

Generally speaking deciding between exploration Ottomans and modern Ottomans would be a horrible dilemma for me, there are very good arguments for both. Modern Ottomans can finish the path and fight ww2, but exploration Ottomans can fight Byzantium and Spain, Franks, Bulgaria, potentially Hungary, Austria, Poland etc. They'd also be the Islamic civ with the element of naval exploration.

I would really be super surprised if Ottomans don't make it to the modern era. The "rivalry" with Byzantium is probably more important for outsiders than for people interested in the Ottoman culture, who would want to highlight the centuries to come instead of the ones before. Their rivalries with Spain and Austria, and their alliance with France can/should also fall into the modern era in civ – and I think this is also where Austria will go, tbh. So, you only loose Bulgaria, Venice, and Spain as opponents, but you gain the other two gunpowder empires, and a host of others that were important in the years between 1500 and WWI.

Fun Islamic naval exploration civs are to be found on the coasts of East Africa (Kilwa, Ajuraan) or the Arab peninsula (Yemen, Oman), for example. And whatever Maghreb civ in exploration would probably also have a naval focus.