Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[RedCourtJester]

Today's reveal states what Persia pairs greatly with Ashoka's manic phase. I think this hints enough their conquest focus.

Conquest, but with gardens!

 

[The Fanatical]

Quivers on melee fighters - Immortals are back, it seems. I guess the commander and the cav (as Cataphract) could all be uniques or generic ones with Persian looks, we'll have to wait what they meant by multiple unique military units I guess.
View attachment 706707

At first glance, the quivers on their backs allude immediately to the Immortals, but the circular shields and the swords seem inappropriate. I would have expected them to wield spears with apples on the bottom, and at least some of them should wear Persian headbands or the iconic Persian tiara that the flag bearers next to the Commander wear. So, the one Military Unique Unit is definitely the Immortal which could be the one depicted above, and it will likely replace the Spearman. The other is one of these two, the Sparabara that replaces the Warrior, which could also be the above sword unit or a Unique Commander. Note that the Commander's model and armour is identical to an Indian Commander that appears in an earlier moment in the video. The Unique Commander's name could either be Satrap or Spahbed. If it's the latter, then Achaemenid and Sassanid Persia are grouped together.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I expect it to have a militaristic aspect; they were known for their brutal conquests, after all. Religion, especially in the early game, seems fairly equivalent with culture so that's fair. Still, we now know they were huge builders of wonders and infrastructure (after destroying Babylon they rebuilt it even more beautiful, not to mention their glorious capitals at Ashur, Dur-Sharrukin, and Nineveh) so I would like to see that side to them.

I mean Outremer had some cool castles/infrastructure, and even if not that other Syrian exploration cultures could lean into that. And Mamluk architecture was extremely prolific. I think odds of builder-Assyrians are quite good. Certainly, I would hope, better than Babylon builder civ.

EDIT: Also we can speculate that perhaps Egypt's builder-focus will also encourage Mamluks to be kind of builder-y.

 

[Zaarin]

Today's reveal states what Persia pairs greatly with Ashoka's manic phase. I think this hints enough their conquest focus.

Yes, I was talking about Assyria--I'm hoping a militaristic Persia will open space for Assyria to be more cultural.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, I was talking about Assyria--I'm hoping a militaristic Persia will open space for Assyria to be more cultural.

Normally I'd prefer Sumer of Babylon for Mesopotamian representation just for their age and impact on overall civilization. But both were in Civ6, so probably Assyria this time, yes. It's just not that easy to show them as peaceful - their image is quite aggressive.

 

[RedCourtJester]

An aside: when I was initially speculating out before the Abbasid reveal, I was just assuming the Ottomans were going to be a HUGE sink for all of the Middle Eastern paths to dump into.

But then we we were given reason to suspect that "Egypt" would naturally progress "regionally" to a modern Mamluks, now the Mamluks are an obvious endpoint for more "A-list" civ paths than the Ottomans!

* Egypt wants to progress there because regional dominance and reflecting current modern Islamic Egypt.
* Abbasids/Arabia wants to progress there because that is more politically/culturally tied to Arabian caliphates and general region than Ottomans.
* Assyria wants to progress there due to Mamluk Syria being one of the most recent regimes we can comfortably portray in a civ game.
* Babylon wants to progress there due to Mamluk Syria being one of the most recent Iraqi regimes we can comfortably portray in a civ game.
* Dark horse Mamluks-as-Delhi Sultanate eventually? Would be craaaaaazy.

Everything's coming up Mamluks!

 

[moysturfurmer]

At first glance, the quivers on their backs allude immediately to the Immortals, but the circular shields and the swords seem inappropriate. I would have expected them to wield spears with apples on the bottom, and at least some of them should wear tiaras or the iconic Persian cap that the flag bearers next to the Commander wear. So, the one Military Unique Unit is definitely the Immortal which could be the one depicted above, and it will likely replace the Spearman. The other is one of these two, the Sparabara that replaces the Warrior, which could also be the above sword unit or a Unique Commander. Note that the Commander's model and armour is identical to an Indian Commander that appears in an earlier moment in the video. The Unique Commander's name could either be Satrap or Spahbed. If it's the latter, then Achaemenid and Sassanid Persia are grouped together.

Here’s a real dumb question: there was only ever one unit of Immortals right? Like there weren’t multiple sets of 10,000 warriors assigned that name or anything? Because what if that’s reflected in game where your first Unique Commander is your one “Immortal” unit with Combat Strength (since Commanders have none?) and maybe a bonus to healing? That could free up space for another military UU, while retaining the classic Immortal representation.

Could account for the two Immortal-looking flag bearers next to the commander, but then again you would think the commander would have Persian-specific graphics as well if that was the case. Ugh, Chola really got me in a tailspin today.

 

[chaosprophet]

First Look for a leader, but not necessarily game guides for the Civs (plural).

So for those who want to guess next week, probably one leader first look and 0+ civs. Guessing the number of civs next week may be a point on the guessing itself.

I wonder if they had some trouble with the second reveal this week and end up doing it this late because they didn't want to go back on the promise, so now they're going with a more open wording just in case.

 

[RedCourtJester]

So for those who want to guess next week, probably one leader first look and 0+ civs. Guessing the number of civs next week may be a point on the guessing itself.

I wonder if they had some trouble with the second reveal this week and end up doing it this late because they didn't want to go back on the promise, so now they're going with a more open wording just in case.

So far we have had roughly at least one civ reveal per week, and roughly one leader a week. Given that it is reasonable to expect more civs than leaders at launch, I think it's not much of a stretch to anticipate 1+ civs next week as well. Especially when they gave themselves an easy lead-in with the Persia tease.

But yes I do think we may need to start opening speculation/guesses to how many civs are revealed if we keep seeing stuff like Mississippians/Chola (or even possibly more) in a single week. At least, anything outside of an anticipated "batch" exploration or modern reveal like we got with Aksum/Egypt/Maya/Maurya/Rome in antiquity (which I am expecting, just to speed things up, something like an Abbasid/Ming/Spain/??? kind of reveal in batch sooner or later).

 

[Zaarin]

Normally I'd prefer Sumer of Babylon for Mesopotamian representation just for their age and impact on overall civilization. But both were in Civ6, so probably Assyria this time, yes. It's just not that easy to show them as peaceful - their image is quite aggressive.

I'd argue that Assyria had the greatest and longest-lasting influence of the Mesopotamian empires, aside from the fact that Sumer did a great many things first. It's a crime Assyria has only been in the franchise once, but until Civ5 the franchise was fueled by pretty much 100% pop culture.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Here’s a real dumb question: there was only ever one unit of Immortals right? Like there weren’t multiple sets of 10,000 warriors assigned that name or anything? Because what if that’s reflected in game where your first Unique Commander is your one “Immortal” unit with Combat Strength (since Commanders have none?) and maybe a bonus to healing? That could free up space for another military UU, while retaining the classic Immortal representation.

Could account for the two Immortal-looking flag bearers next to the commander, but then again you would think the commander would have Persian-specific graphics as well if that was the case. Ugh, Chola really got me in a tailspin today.

The Immortals was a single unit, starting at 10,000 men but reduced to about 2000 by the time of Gaugamela in 331 BCE after years of rebellion and civil war in the Persian Empire.

One thing that makes their depiction problematic, and that many do not realize, is that their graphic portrayals on the frieze/bas-reliefs at Persepolis show them in Court Dress, not campaign. The long skirted coats they are usually shown with were very impractical for the field, and were probably replaced with a more 'Median' (long tight trousers, short tunic and scale armor) costume - as shown on most of the figures in the video. The one thing accurately shown in all their depictions is that they were armed primarily with long spears and at Persepolis are all shown carrying composite bows and large quivers (which is where the dual ranged/melee factor comes from in Civ VI). In the video they probably have more body armor than anyone but Immortals ever got, but 'up armoring' the troop graphics is almost a meme in video games.

Non-Immortal Persian infantry are shown in contemporary graphics with the oval 'cut-out' shield, spears but no bows. How many of them also had swords is hard to tell, since most of the depictions show them covering most of their body with the shield, hiding any sword or long knife that might be carried.

On the other hand, the figures shown with large round shields and swords would NOT be Immortals, but one of the many other contingents in the Persian Army like Cilicians or Paphlagonians, who carried round shields and at least some are shown with straight swords. However, all of them are also shown with spears or javelins: for most military forces around the Mediterranean basin, any sword was a secondary weapon, only taken up when you ran out of javelins or broke your spear off in someone else's chest.

 

[The Fanatical]

Here’s a real dumb question: there was only ever one unit of Immortals right? Like there weren’t multiple sets of 10,000 warriors assigned that name or anything? Because what if that’s reflected in game where your first Unique Commander is your one “Immortal” unit with Combat Strength (since Commanders have none?) and maybe a bonus to healing? That could free up space for another military UU, while retaining the classic Immortal representation.

Could account for the two Immortal-looking flag bearers next to the commander, but then again you would think the commander would have Persian-specific graphics as well if that was the case. Ugh, Chola really got me in a tailspin today.

There was a distinction inside the ten thousand Immortals. From the ten thousand Immortals called Amrtaka or Anusiya a more elite unit named Arstibara was picked that numbered one thousand strong and were the king's elite royal guard that was made up from nobles. In essence, two Unique Military Units of Immortals can exist.

 

[The Fanatical]

Yes, I was talking about Assyria--I'm hoping a militaristic Persia will open space for Assyria to be more cultural.

Even if Assyria is cultural, militaristic or expansionist should be their other attribute. War played an important role in the creation and preservation of their empire, and they contributed to military innovations that later civilizations adopted, such as the use of siege engines, the use of iron weapons, masterful use of a big cavalry force and the creation of a road network that allowed them to quickly move their troops to the appropriate troublesome region.

 

[Zaarin]

Even if Assyria is cultural, militaristic or expansionist should be their other attribute. War played an important role in the creation and preservation of their empire, and they contributed to military innovations that later civilizations adopted, such as the use of siege engines, the use of iron weapons, masterful use of a big cavalry force and the creation of a road network that allowed them to quickly move their troops to the appropriate troublesome region.

Again, I said as much, but more recent archaeology has shown there was a lot more to Assyria than Sennacherib at the gates of Jerusalem.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There was a distinction inside the ten thousand Immortals. From the ten thousand Immortals called Amrtaka or Anusiya a more elite unit named Arstibara was picked that numbered one thousand strong and were the king's elite royal guard that was made up from nobles. In essence, two Unique Military Units of Immortals can exist.

The principle known difference mentioned is that the Arstibara (1000) had gold pomegranates for the buttspike on their spears, the Amrtaka/Anusiya had silver. Since they are both shown in Court Dress, we don't know what other differences they might have had in the field, but it is probable that there was some kind of visible distinction in dress, headgear or insignia.

 

[The Fanatical]

Again, I said as much, but more recent archaeology has shown there was a lot more to Assyria than Sennacherib at the gates of Jerusalem.

Definitely, culture would pair with Assyria really well, since Babylon will be the scientific Mesopotamian civilization, but warlike bonuses are a must for the Assyrians.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'd argue that Assyria had the greatest and longest-lasting influence of the Mesopotamian empires, aside from the fact that Sumer did a great many things first. It's a crime Assyria has only been in the franchise once, but until Civ5 the franchise was fueled by pretty much 100% pop culture.

Well not just pop culture but also just things like limited tools to differentiate antiquity civs from each other and a stronger desire to represent regions/cultures of the world outside of Europe-Middle-East-China-Japan.

Now that the franchise seems to be reaching a happy medium on both of those fronts, having a roster large enough to feature pretty much every region and an era system to better differentiate 50+ civs, I think there is a lot more design space for a few more antiquity civs around the Cradle of Civilization (and, for that matter, a lot of more granular depictions of European civs that are often very popular among history nerds).

As long as we see some solid representation of Latin America, Africa, and Austronesia, I thoroughly welcome more Middle Eastern civs now. It really is a system where everyone wins, which is why my "wishlist" is quite short and really only covering edge cases I think may still miss out; I feel very confident most other things I would like to see in a Civ game will, in fact, probably be in VII at some point.

 

[Zaarin]

Well not just pop culture but also just things like limited tools to differentiate antiquity civs from each other and a stronger desire to represent regions/cultures of the world outside of Europe-Middle-East-China-Japan.

Civ4 had "Native Americans" as a civ while also having Germany, France, and HRE. I don't think it was overly concerned with representing non-Europeans.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Civ4 had "Native Americans" as a civ while also having Germany, France, and HRE. I don't think it was overly concerned with representing non-Europeans.

1. What is Tecumseh leading the Anishinaabe/Oceti Sakowin but a refined idea of Civ IV's "Native Americans" or Civ V's Shoshone-Comanche blob?

2. I think I'm mostly referring to the last 10-ish years of civ and its more wordly aims (Civ V and VI). I think it has been a very smart and market-aware change that has turned out to make Civ one of the only history games on the market able to pull off that kind of "diversity" design space. Certainly not without growing pains, but I think there is definite evidence that V tried to grow from criticisms of IV, VI from V, and now VII from VI. I am wholly expecting even more of the map to be filled this time around.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. What is Tecumseh leading the Anishinaabe/Oceti Sakowin but a refined idea of Civ IV's "Native Americans" or Civ V's Shoshone-Comanche blob?

Just to point out, at least the Shoshone and Comanche were Related tribes, the Comanche being essentially those Shoshone who moved farthest south.

And Tecumseh called for a coalition of tribes to oppose the white Americans, so putting him in charge of a collection of only semi-related tribes is also fairly appropriate and, at least, arguable.

Both, in any case, better than the earlier completely Amoeba-like "Native American" blob.