Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

We have all but a handful of the civs pretty well nailed down; I don't think we're going to see anymore Buganda-tier surprises.
I think the biggest surprise now will be which one of Britian, Russia, Germany doesn't get in the base game?
Because I'm more convinced about Mexico now making it in.
 
I think the biggest surprise now will be which one of Britian, Russia, Germany doesn't get in the base game?
Because I'm more convinced about Mexico now making it in.
I'm thinking Both Britain And Germany won't be in the base game and we have another Dark Horse candidate for Modern. (Native N Am, Ottoman?)

Normans only unlocked 2 civs...I'm guessing France and America (essentially using America to represent the Modern Anglosphere in the base game, and France and Russia to represent Modern Europe)
 
I'm thinking Both Britain And Germany won't be in the base game and we have another Dark Horse candidate for Modern. (Native N Am, Ottoman?)

Normans only unlocked 2 civs...I'm guessing France and America (essentially using America to represent the Modern Anglosphere in the base game, and France and Russia to represent Modern Europe)
As strange as it sounds that could be plausible. Russia could at least come from Mongolia, but I'm not sure who else? I don't believe that another native civ from North America is planned so Ottomans would be the best bet. Abbasids would need to progress to something other than presumably the Mughals, unless they go into Buganda as well? :shifty:
I considered Abbasids>Russia due to the number of predominantly Muslim territories that they incorporated, but I figured something Turkic would make more sense? :dunno:

Alternatively, the Exploration Age could come with 9 civs (10 with the Shawnee) and Modern comes with 11. :mischief:
 
But Rome -> Spain does make more sense for Augustus as a leader, and even players concerns about that could easily be alleviated by the reveal of an exploration Italic civ. All I'm saying is, people have already jumped to incorrect conclusions by presuming what limited information we have is all there will ever be. Two "illogical" paths have been improved with the reveal of more information; I'm not presuming things like Vietnam, Japan, and Hausa will remain illogical while we still have so much of the full picture obscured. A single civ reveal could change much of that perspective overnight.
Conversely, if a more realistic progression like Rome > Italy existed in the base game, they would’ve gone with it in their promo materials to begin with. And no, Egypt > Abbasid is not that smooth of a progression, plus it was revealed at the same time as Egypt > Songhai in the first trailer. So there is no precedence for any “later reveals to alleviate concerns” as of now.
 
I'm thinking Both Britain And Germany won't be in the base game and we have another Dark Horse candidate for Modern. (Native N Am, Ottoman?)

Normans only unlocked 2 civs...I'm guessing France and America (essentially using America to represent the Modern Anglosphere in the base game, and France and Russia to represent Modern Europe)
I somewhat doubt Russia because if we assume it's just America and France because the Normans only had two automatic unlocks in the gameplay showcase, then Russia would be excluded as well because Normans -> Russia is not only well within the games logic but also the only existing path that would let Russia progress directly from another European Civ.
 
Conversely, if a more realistic progression like Rome > Italy existed in the base game, they would’ve gone with it in their promo materials to begin with. And no, Egypt > Abbasid is not that smooth of a progression, plus it was revealed at the same time as Egypt > Songhai in the first trailer. So there is no precedence for any “later reveals to alleviate concerns” as of now.

I don't believe Egypt -> Abbasid was not revealed at the same time as Egypt -> Songhai, that was later, as I distinctly remember a period where people only had the Songhai path image to go off for some period of time.

And I don't quite believe that. I mean, I surely do agree that, regardless of how the final game looks, the order in which they have been revealing civs has created a lot of confusion and disappointed misimpressions. Which is why I think, if that has already been the case, that strategy may as well continue for any number of unrevealed civs. They already decided revealing Abbasids or Spain upfront wasn't what they wanted to do, why would it be different for any other civ like Italy?

I think minds may differ as to what constitutes a "smooth" progression. I don't think we will often see "smoothness" on the level of India or China, trading off dynasties across roughly the same territory and heritage. But there are definitely gradations of historical appropriateness, and Abbasids and Spain are assuredly better options for Egypt and Rome to progress through (even moreso juxtaposed against Amina leading Aksum), especially when you interpret them through a particular leader.

And I think that's all I'm going to say for now, again. I want this thread to be about guessing, and it really doesn't make much difference to me whether I'm right or wrong or how long it takes for it to be proven one way or another. But my position will remain that there isn't enough evidence to sufficiently dismiss the idea that civ-leader paths will not be a thing at launch. I think definitely claiming that we won't see things like Vietnam, Polynesia, Russia/Germany/Britain/etc. is premature. I'm going to keep guessing according to my impression of the facts lol.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe Egypt -> Abbasid was not revealed at the same time as Egypt -> Songhai, that was later, as I distinctly remember a period where people only had the Songhai path image to go off for some period of time.
This sent me down a rabbit hole and made me question my memory, but I’ve found it. While Egypt > Songhai was indeed the most visible example showcased in the first trailer, that same trailer also had a few seconds of civ selection screen with Egypt - and that’s where Abbasid was listed along with Songhai. Not that much fanfare, and easy to miss, I’ll admit that. But otherwise, this has been known on this forum and Reddit since the first reveal day (I can’t recall any delays - folks here are FAST with scrutinizing every frame of trailers).
IMG_9618.jpeg
 
I somewhat doubt Russia because if we assume it's just America and France because the Normans only had two automatic unlocks in the gameplay showcase, then Russia would be excluded as well because Normans -> Russia is not only well within the games logic but also the only existing path that would let Russia progress directly from another European Civ.
I suspect the Mongols will lead to Russia. The Normans, I believe, will unlock the French and British. It’s possible that America will be unlocked by Hawaii. So, we won’t get Germans. Those are my guesses.
 
I suspect the Mongols will lead to Russia. The Normans, I believe, will unlock the French and British. It’s possible that America will be unlocked by Hawaii. So, we won’t get Germans. Those are my guesses.
I forgot about the Inca. Would that mean Inca also goes into America, as well as Mexico, if those are the only Modern options in America? :undecide:
 
I forgot about the Inca. Would that mean Inca also goes into America, as well as Mexico, if those are the only Modern options in America? :undecide:
I think the Incas will only transition to Mexico. Inca > Mexico is already a big leap, but Inca > America would be too large a jump for me to see happening.

Besides, I see the Incas having synergy with Mexico, as both will probably have agrarian bonuses - the Incas with Terraces and Mexico possibly with Haciendas.
 
This sent me down a rabbit hole and made me question my memory, but I’ve found it. While Egypt > Songhai was indeed the most visible example showcased in the first trailer, that same trailer also had a few seconds of civ selection screen with Egypt - and that’s where Abbasid was listed along with Songhai. Not that much fanfare, and easy to miss, I’ll admit that. But otherwise, this has been known on this forum and Reddit since the first reveal day (I can’t recall any delays - folks here are FAST with scrutinizing every frame of trailers)
I don't think it was intentional, more probably they forgot to hide it. But here it were.
 
I suspect the Mongols will lead to Russia. The Normans, I believe, will unlock the French and British. It’s possible that America will be unlocked by Hawaii. So, we won’t get Germans. Those are my guesses.
I agree Mongolia will lead to Russia whenever Russia is added to the game, but I see no reason why Normans would have only two destination civs if Russia is also present. It wouldn't be the biggest stretch on the roster. If we accept the premise that its destination count from the Antiquity stream is final, then, I'd say that would effectively deconfirm both Britain AND Russia. I mean, why would Russia be completely separated from Exploration Europe when Egypt can lead anywhere in Africa?
 
I mean yeah, it would, wouldn't it? Might make the fans who take it as gospel look a bit dumb too, though. I certainly think prior Civ games were "wrong" to exclude Mongolia/Genghis from base game; I think it is totally possible Civ VII's model would prefer to wait on Genghis until they can get some proper Turco-Mongolic civs on the map. It really remains to be seen how much historical leader paths will matter to the overall design at launch.

"The first big mistake we made was not including Genghis Khan in the base game of Civ 5."

"The second big mistake we made was not including Genghis Khan in the base game of Civ 6."

"The third big mistake we're planning on making is ..."
 
This sent me down a rabbit hole and made me question my memory, but I’ve found it. While Egypt > Songhai was indeed the most visible example showcased in the first trailer, that same trailer also had a few seconds of civ selection screen with Egypt - and that’s where Abbasid was listed along with Songhai. Not that much fanfare, and easy to miss, I’ll admit that. But otherwise, this has been known on this forum and Reddit since the first reveal day (I can’t recall any delays - folks here are FAST with scrutinizing every frame of trailers).View attachment 707205
Ah yes, that's where the Abbasid hype came from. But it still was not shown in the "pathway" until some time later.

"The first big mistake we made was not including Genghis Khan in the base game of Civ 5."

"The second big mistake we made was not including Genghis Khan in the base game of Civ 6."

"The third big mistake we're planning on making is ..."

Iunno, I still think this is an extremely literalist take. For one, it presumes that Civ VII cares about the same things as Civ V and Civ VI. And for two, it is...very bizarrely...attached to the idea of Genghis specifically and not Mongolia generally, which is functionally a much more egregious issue across the franchise.

I mean maybe now that Meier has confessed to being a fanboy, now all the civfans have decided they too can't live without Genghis? I just don't see the big deal of saving him for DLC again as long as Mongolia is in base game. And I don't see how everyone is only now so attached to the idea that not including him specifically (not Mongolia, Genghis), is somehow a "mistake."

It's a creative decision to include Genghis versus Kublai. It's not a mistake. This is the same imposition of really weird, hardline valuation systems as saying civ-switching is something that needs to be "fixed." The world would not end and the game would not be any worse nor sell less for lack of Genghis in it at launch.
 
I mean maybe now that Meier has confessed to being a fanboy, now all the civfans have decided they too can't live without Genghis? I just don't see the big deal of saving him for DLC again as long as Mongolia is in base game. And I don't see how everyone is only now so attached to the idea that not including him specifically (not Mongolia, Genghis), is somehow a "mistake."
It's not the fans; it's from Dennis Shirk. Why only now? Because he only said it now.
 
Ah yes, that's where the Abbasid hype came from. But it still was not shown in the "pathway" until some time later.



Iunno, I still think this is an extremely literalist take. For one, it presumes that Civ VII cares about the same things as Civ V and Civ VI. And for two, it is...very bizarrely...attached to the idea of Genghis specifically and not Mongolia generally, which is functionally a much more egregious issue across the franchise.

I mean maybe now that Meier has confessed to being a fanboy, now all the civfans have decided they too can't live without Genghis? I just don't see the big deal of saving him for DLC again as long as Mongolia is in base game. And I don't see how everyone is only now so attached to the idea that not including him specifically (not Mongolia, Genghis), is somehow a "mistake."

It's a creative decision to include Genghis versus Kublai. It's not a mistake. This is the same imposition of really weird, hardline valuation systems as saying civ-switching is something that needs to be "fixed." The world would not end and the game would not be any worse nor sell less for lack of Genghis in it at launch.
It’s not a matter of saying “oh, Firaxis said it was a mistake not to include Genghis therefore he must be in base game Civ VI.” It’s more taking in all available information holistically, and making determinations based on that. Firaxis (via Sid) have said it was a mistake to release games without Genghis in the base game. A figure in Mongolian battle dress, not court dress, was seen in the reveal trailer. China currently has representation through Confucius. Etc etc. So our determination, based on the evidence we have, is that Genghis Khan is on the shortlist of leaders that might be added.

This is in contrast to “ah, well Kublai would be a good historic choice for both Mongolia and China, therefore he is likely.” That’s just a wish. And I hate to say it, but it’s in line with a lot of what you’ve been posted in the past. And frankly, are still posting now (re: the “well if there are 60 civs in base game, then they wouldn’t have been lying when they said there are 31 civs in base game” argument.)

Just my two cents.
 
Iunno, I still think this is an extremely literalist take.

It was a joke comment, sorry that didn't come through. I have no idea whether Genghis will be in the base game or not, but if he isn't, coming after Shirk shared that they now consider it a mistake not including him in 5 and 6's base game, I'd find that hilarious.
 
It was a joke comment, sorry that didn't come through. I have no idea whether Genghis will be in the base game or not, but if he isn't, coming after Shirk shared that they now consider it a mistake not including him in 5 and 6's base game, I'd find that hilarious.
"It was a mistake both times, and we are prepared to make it again." - Dennis Shirk, maybe?
 
I think the Incas will only transition to Mexico. Inca > Mexico is already a big leap, but Inca > America would be too large a jump for me to see happening.

Besides, I see the Incas having synergy with Mexico, as both will probably have agrarian bonuses - the Incas with Terraces and Mexico possibly with Haciendas.
I doubt they will have only 1 choice to pick from for the next civ and a lot of 2nd choices already seem to be large jumps. The pattern also seems to be that all civs are in pairs of 2 that are roughly within the same region and the Americas seems to be treated as one region at launch.
 
I have a feeling the next few weeks reveals will have to do with civs/leaders that wont give away many exploration age mechanics. Abbasid seems to be mostly a science culture boost.
We won't see any Boaty Mc-Boatface or heavy religion focused Civs or leaders until the Live stream, hopefully in the next few weeks.
 
Back
Top Bottom