Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[Dale]

Well by that logic, we all are pawns, then, including you. Who's to say whether the literalists (those who only only look within the confines of exactly what information is published) or the idealists (those who extrapolate or dream beyond it) are more "pawnish." I'm not sure how much that debate really contributes here, in a thread dedicated to fun guessing, when that same argument is going on in half a dozen other threads better tailored to it.

But yes, I will concur with you that there isn't any particularly specific evidence--other than a highly abstracted idea, based on very large-scale, almost emergent inferences of "fair/fun game design," of parity of player choice from in each era transition--that it is one way or another. I don't really care to belabor that issue here, though, since as I'm sure you agree we can't really know, until we know, what the full roster is.

Let me throw something out as a very, very early prediction as to that answer, a little, low stakes, end-goal gamble. I am going to cast a prediction that it simultaneously will be both 1:1:1 and yet not. I refuse to explain that answer now, so don't feel like you need to argue it with me. Just another thing people can call me out on being wrong on at some point.

Firstly, a pawn is someone being manipulated by others to achieve a goal. I suspect that 2ks marketing is manipulating you into a state of heightened hype, in the efforts to make you buy civ7.

For me, ages and Civ switching had already made me hold off on buying till after player reviews, but Denuvo sealed the deal. So the only way I could be labelled a pawn is if 2ks goal was to make people not buy the game.

Secondly, you talk about "fair/fun game design" for player choice parity. What a load of rubbish. We already know that one Civ choice can lead to multiple possibilities, with at least evidence from Egypt to exploration having at least 3 choices (Civ relevant, leader relevant, action relevant). There is no choice parity, since the action of choice parity removes choice. There's whole theories on that too that I refuse to explain, so you don't need to argue it.

I think my end point is something I won't say, because at the end of the day I don't care that much about it, and it's a bit mean.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There is no evidence if the ratio is 1:1:1 or some thing else.

You can't compare scientific discovery to this. This is all predetermined and done and dusted. You are guessing that's all. All you are doing is responding to a completely predetermined marketing plan to make you buy the game. A pawn.

While there's no direct confirmation, we have indirect confirmation:
1. We've seen 11 civs for Exploration era in one of gameplays, which means they are 10+Bonus
2. The famous image with blurred antiquity icons from early reveal has exactly 10 of them. The alignment is strange, so it's not a hard evidence, but still
3. With current speculations and confirmed civs, removing any single slot from antiquity or modern roster is total pain

EDIT: Also, from gameplay point of view, equal distribution makes a lot of sense as it improves overall variety (any age losing a slot decreases game variety much bigger than other age gaining a slot increases it). So I expect current DLC plan (39 civs total) to cover ages evenly as well.

 

[Kulko]

Available evidence makes Babylon pretty unlikely. Mississippians have all but been confirmed; the final Antiquity slot appears to be either Assyria or Persia, with the latter being more likely. (I'm sad. I thought we were finally not only getting Assyria back but in the base game...)

I am fully Aware of that just trying to play the system. When we are pretty sure we know the two remaining ancient era options because we have seen there wonders then the guessing game gets boring pretty fast. So lets go for the long shot which would be the one I liked most. But I can live with either of the three options, the important stuff is that the western cradle of Civilization is present at all.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Off topic, personal posts removed. Talking about each other is trolling. If you feel a post needs to be looked at, please report it and we will look. Responding to it is trolling. On this forum, anyone may participate, telling someone they cannot is trolling. Please cease discussing each other and get back to topic.

 

[RedCourtJester]

While there's no direct confirmation, we have indirect confirmation:
1. We've seen 11 civs for Exploration era in one of gameplays, which means they are 10+Bonus
2. The famous image with blurred antiquity icons from early reveal has exactly 10 of them. The alignment is strange, so it's not a hard evidence, but still
3. With current speculations and confirmed civs, removing any single slot from antiquity or modern roster is total pain

EDIT: Also, from gameplay point of view, equal distribution makes a lot of sense as it improves overall variety (any age losing a slot decreases game variety much bigger than other age gaining a slot increases it). So I expect current DLC plan (39 civs total) to cover ages evenly as well.

I don't want to be commenting myself too much on rationales here in a guessing thread, but just a little clarification, the blurred antiquity list has exactly ten if you stop alphabetically at Rome. It seems to have three blank spaces afterward. So using that as basis for guessing exact numbers is itself a bit fuzzy.

 

[Dale]

But with one change, since apparently there's some German law stopping my modern civ pick. So I've picked my second guess instead. I also added a second wonder, since Firaxis were in Melbourne taking photos of cultural sites.

Civs:

• Antiquity: Isuwa
• Exploration: Theodoro
• Modern: Sealand

Leaders:

• King Louis XIX of France

Wonders:

• The Big Lobster - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lobster
• The Yellow Peril (Melbourne) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_(sculpture)

Moderator Action: Removed discussion of off-topic moderator activity. Please stick to the topic. - pokiehl

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't want to be commenting myself too much on rationales here in a guessing thread, but just a little clarification, the blurred antiquity list has exactly ten if you stop alphabetically at Rome. It seems to have three blank spaces afterward. So using that as basis for guessing exact numbers is itself a bit fuzzy.

Yes, I commented about it. It's also unclear why first line has 4 civs, second has 5 and third has Rome only.

On the other hand, we know what all planned DLC bring total number of civs to 39 and, presumable, number of civs per age to 13. This could explain empty spots - they are places for DLC civs with icons not yet designed, but UI already allows them.

 

[pokiehl]

My guess for the next week reveal is Persia, Gate of All Nations, and Xerxes I as the leader.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

My guess for the next week reveal is Persia, Gate of All Nations, and Xerxes I as the leader.

I wonder if we may get a less well-known Persian leader? Musa is an intriguing option:

• she was originally Augustus' concubine before he gave her away as a gift, so links to an existing leader
• she went from concubine to her new king to his principal wife to having him killed and taking the throne for herself, ruling alongside her son, which gives me Catherine de Medici vibes and makes me think she's the sort Ed Beach would find interesting
• as a negative, she ruled the Parthian Empire, not a better-known Persian polity like the Archaemenids, but on the other hand (a) Civ 7 may call them the Parthians, rather than Persians, and (b) per Trung Troc, strict connection to the specific polity doesn't seem to be a show-stopper

 

[RedCourtJester]

But with one change, since apparently there's some German law stopping my modern civ pick. So I've picked my second guess instead. I also added a second wonder, since Firaxis were in Melbourne taking photos of cultural sites.

Civs:

• Antiquity: Isuwa
• Exploration: Theodoro
• Modern: Sealand

Leaders:

• King Louis XIX of France

Wonders:

• The Big Lobster - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lobster
• The Yellow Peril (Melbourne) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_(sculpture)

I am actually kind of liking this as a brainstorming concept, getting big Emperor Norton vibes from it. Shortest, smallest civs/leaders for each era.

Yellow Peril is now on my to-do list if I'm ever in Melbourne, thanks for the recommend!

Looking forward to seeing what predictions you make for future weeks.

Moderator Action: Edited to remove moderated text in quote. - pokiehl

 

[pokiehl]

I wonder if we may get a less well-known Persian leader? Musa is an intriguing option:

• she was originally Augustus' concubine before he gave her away as a gift, so links to an existing leader
• she went from concubine to her new king to his principal wife to having him killed and taking the throne for herself, ruling alongside her son, which gives me Catherine de Medici vibes and makes me think she's the sort Ed Beach would find interesting
• as a negative, she ruled the Parthian Empire, not a better-known Persian polity like the Archaemenids, but on the other hand (a) Civ 7 may call them the Parthians, rather than Persians, and (b) per Trung Troc, strict connection to the specific polity doesn't seem to be a show-stopper

I think anything is possible and that would be an interesting and unexpected choice. However, for myself I'd prefer it if the civ and leader were wholly focused around the Achaemenid Empire. That's my favorite period of Persian history. And we haven't gotten Xerxes in Civ since Civ 3, so I figured he's due for a return

(And speaking of returns from Civ 3, I am really hoping for the Hittites )

 

[Dale]

Yellow Peril is now on my to-do list if I'm ever in Melbourne, thanks for the recommend!

I wouldn't recommend it. We call it the 'Yellow Peril' for reasons (all negative).

It was a waste of money, waste of time, and resulted in the city council of the day to be dismissed by the State Govt.

 

[Black Gate]

Well if you do go to see the Yellow Peril you'll be in Southbank, so close to an actual wondrous monument that would be a far better fit for a Melbourne-based Australian wonder, the Shrine of Remembrance.

As for a weekly guess... I think we'll stick to the antiquity period for a little bit longer. So far we know of six leaders associated with the antiquity age, and only two each for the latter ages. I think, discounting personas, we get roughly 18 leaders total and they will be somewhat evenly shared. So probably no surprises from antiquity left.

Persia/Achaemenid
Gate of All Nations
Himiko
Another modern civ revealed for Himiko to lead into, aside from Meiji

 

[RedCourtJester]

Well if you do go to see the Yellow Peril you'll be in Southbank, so close to an actual wondrous monument that would be a far better fit for a Melbourne-based Australian wonder, the Shrine of Remembrance.

As for a weekly guess... I think we'll stick to the antiquity period for a little bit longer. So far we know of six leaders associated with the antiquity age, and only two each for the latter ages. I think, discounting personas, we get roughly 18 leaders total and they will be somewhat evenly shared. So probably no surprises from antiquity left.

Persia/Achaemenid
Gate of All Nations
Himiko
Another modern civ revealed for Himiko to lead into, aside from Meiji

Ooo that's pretty. Australia is a huge anomaly in the three-era model, in that I think it may prefer to be purely aboriginal as compared to America or Canada (although once we get something Angle/England it may work out fine). For English heritage, I think that is a perfect wonder. If they go the aboriginal route, I found Rickett's Sanctuary to be an interesting idea.

 

[Dale]

Ooo that's pretty. Australia is a huge anomaly in the three-era model, in that I think it may prefer to be purely aboriginal as compared to America or Canada (although once we get something Angle/England it may work out fine). For English heritage, I think that is a perfect wonder. If they go the aboriginal route, I found Rickett's Sanctuary to be an interesting idea.

I think if you're considering a Victorian based indigenous wonder, you couldn't go past Budj Bim. 6600 year old complex aquaculture system.

 

[Dale]

Well if you do go to see the Yellow Peril you'll be in Southbank, so close to an actual wondrous monument that would be a far better fit for a Melbourne-based Australian wonder, the Shrine of Remembrance.

Yes, an amazing place you need to see if you come to Melbourne.

May I also put forward the Royal Botanical Gardens, and the Melbourne Exhibition Building? Probably next on the list would be Flinders Street Station (specifically platform 1), which includes a Grand Ballroom, for back when rail companies used to run balls for the high-end of town.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think if you're considering a Victorian based indigenous wonder, you couldn't go past Budj Bim. 6600 year old complex aquaculture system.

Oh that's lovely. I had stumbled on Gabarnmung as more representative of an Aboriginal civ "starting point" on the continent if they wanted to do something similar to what may happen with Polynesia (start north, work around down, maybe through Noongar, to Melbourne (or Adelaide)). But if they go the local route I agree that's a fantastic option, arguably better than cave paintings since it indicates more civilization infrastructure. I'm very curious to see how/if the devs pull off Aboriginal representation in this game, given that they weren't very prone to building "wonders" in the sense we usually attribute to other civs. Curious and excited, maybe some fun assymetric design.

 

[dagriggstar]

I’m going to say it's Mexica/Nahuatl or something along those lines so they use the Pyramid of the Sun rather than Mississippi. Just because they have the wonder and Mississippi doesn't. The medicine wheel can refer to stuff from there as well.

And I still think it's the Goths in the ancient era. The mausoleum of Theodoric is too obscure AND we haven't seen anything related to crisis yet. That feels thematic that they would be the last to be revealed and have some bonuses relating to crises. Silla might be in the exploration era as the other (relatively) obscure wonder.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Ooo that's pretty. Australia is a huge anomaly in the three-era model, in that I think it may prefer to be purely aboriginal as compared to America or Canada (although once we get something Angle/England it may work out fine). For English heritage, I think that is a perfect wonder. If they go the aboriginal route, I found Rickett's Sanctuary to be an interesting idea.

modern Australia can be skipped entirely, to be honest If you want Aussie representation, just add an Australian leader as DLC and that's good enough. Same deal with Canada.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I wonder if we may get a less well-known Persian leader? Musa is an intriguing option:

• she was originally Augustus' concubine before he gave her away as a gift, so links to an existing leader
• she went from concubine to her new king to his principal wife to having him killed and taking the throne for herself, ruling alongside her son, which gives me Catherine de Medici vibes and makes me think she's the sort Ed Beach would find interesting
• as a negative, she ruled the Parthian Empire, not a better-known Persian polity like the Archaemenids, but on the other hand (a) Civ 7 may call them the Parthians, rather than Persians, and (b) per Trung Troc, strict connection to the specific polity doesn't seem to be a show-stopper

To avoid confusion, I hope they call her Womansa Musa