Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That would be really cool!. Im also thinking that if ideologies were a thing, Mexico could get a bit more flexibility to mix and match what it needs. (just throwing ideas no idea yet about modern mechanics)

edit. no but really thats a really cool idea it would make it feel like the melting pot it's always been.

"Melting Pot" could also work for America, depending on what time period they are looking to portray. Anything before 1820 really wouldn't work. For Mexico they could call it "Mestizo".

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Meiji Japan: industrialist

In the Himiko trailer, Meiji Japan is described as scientific and militaristic. I'd expect those to be the traits.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Here are my guesses for what I expect for modern Civilizations:

America: economic
Buganda: administrative
France: cultural
Germany: scientific
Meiji Japan: industrialist
Mexico: tall agrarian
Mughal India: builder
Qing China: militarist
Russia: wide agrarian
Siam: diplomatic

If the British are in, I expect them to take the Germans' scientific slot.

Ohhh, I love guessing games such as these.

America: Diplomatic, Expansionist
Buganda: Cultural, Expansionist
French Empire: Cultural, Militaristic
Meiji: Economic, Scientific
Mexico: Econimic, Expansionist
Mughal: Cultural, Economic
Qing: Militaristic, Diplomatic
Prussia: Militaristic, Scientific
Russia: Expansionist, Scientific
Siam: Diplomatic, Cultural

just based on what i know about the civs' history. Qing, Mexico and Buganda are blind guesses, but I feel the others could be correct? I would be VERY shocked if America were anything other than Dip/Exp, for instance.

 

[Jeppetto]

I know they technically only mentoined one reveal but I wonder If they could do it like Thanksgiving and so that the Theme Reveal is separate, exceptionally make second reveal on Wednesday. I am dying without more data to consume.

 

[Evolena]

I know they technically only mentoined one reveal but I wonder If they could do it like Thanksgiving and so that the Theme Reveal is separate, exceptionally make second reveal on Wednesday. I am dying without more data to consume.

But that week they did announce both a civ and a leader game guide, unlike this week...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'll make my guesses and reasons why:

America: Expansionist and Diplomatic (Expansionist because of population/immigration growth and Manifest Destiny and Diplomatic for it being a global police force.)
Buganda: Militaristic and Cultural (Buganda was apparently a militaristic society and Economic because they are a pathway from Songhai and may deal with Navigable rivers. But if not Economic cultural would also make sense)
French: Scientific and Cultural (I have a feeling that they will have Exhibition Hall unique building and Philosophe unique civilian, so science and culture is an easy guess. I'd rather Militaristic be with only Napoleon).
Meiji: Militaristic and Scientific (These were mentioned I believe in the Nintendo Direct.)
Mexico: Expansionist and Cultural (Expansionist for the agrarian society and Cultural for the mixture of indigenous and European cultures)
Mughals: Cultural and Militaristic (Mughals were known conquerors and built many wonders)
Qing: Expansionist and Cultural (One of the largest empires in the world and Cultural for bringing Manchu society into China?)
Prussia: Militaristic and Scientific (Militaristic because of Germany and Scientific due to the Prussian Education system)
Russia: Expansionist and Cultural (Expansionist because well Russia, and Cultural because I want them to get unique writers, musicians)
Siam: Diplomatic and Economic (Mandala State and being able to resist colonization and Economic for modernizing and Floating Markets)

 

[queenpea]

Do we think "Wildcard" will be limited to leaders, or do you think we might see "Wildcard" Modern civs?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

My predictions for civ attributes:
America: Militarisitic/Expansionist (following where Abe Lincoln left off in Civ 6 LP)
Buganda: Militaristic/Economic (they expanded to dominate the Great Lakes region of Africa, particularly trade routes)
France: Cultural/Economic (civs and leaders don't necessarily align in style. Think Khmer and Trung Trac, so I don't think France will follow Napoleon.)
Germany: Militaristic/Diplomatic (I think it will be modeled on Bismarck unifying the disparate principalities of Germany into one nation)
Mexico: Cultural/Expansionist (showing off Mexico's diverse heritage and agrarian splendors)
Meiji: Scientific/Militaristic (demonstrating the rapid industrialism and the pressure to modernize, imitate-duplicate-innovate)
Mughals: Expansionist/Scientific (I think this will be one of the big Specialist civs of the Modern Age)
Qing: Cultural/Economic (I think the model will lean into China's culture and economy, mostly to appease the modern nation)
Russia: Expansionist/Militaristic (similar to their Eastern rival, Meiji Japan, Russia will look at crash modernization, but also rapid territorial growth)
Siam: Diplomatic/Cultural (exemplifying Siam's attempts to resist European colonialism through diplomacy)

Do we think "Wildcard" will be limited to leaders, or do you think we might see "Wildcard" Modern civs?

I wouldn't be surprised to see "Wildcard" come up again, even for a civ. Especially for a civ where the IRL nation of players might be sensitive about how they are portrayed. Maybe not at release though.

 

[AriochIV]

A "wildcard" attribute might be appropriate for America.

 

[Jeppetto]

Actually a single wildcard leader and single wildcard civ could be great way to make it less one-time exclusive without losing the effect of rarity. And USA already had wildcard related stuff in Civ 6 (even If related to policies, those came from Civ 5 talent trees from which leader attributes came).

EDIT: Maybe even bonus for each different tree they have an attribute from.

 

[Willie5000]

I liked all those choices, as did many fans.

I didn’t. They didn’t fudging lead their respective civilizations.

 

[Willie5000]

I disagree, it's got a great deal of political clout this century as a member of BRICS, and it's got one of the largest populations and land areas in the world.

Of course that's a very recent phenomenon, so it's place in the "modern era" as defined in this game is questionable ahead of many other better candidates, and in previous games, behind even more history spanning candidates.

Realistically they have been in as an emerging market to play of national pride, which may be more difficult now with civ switching.

Yeah , *this century*. Things went waaaay downhill since Pedro II died.

 

[Evie]

No political leader ever led a civilization, either - because the political state has never been more than one aspect of a civilization among many, and the intellectual, artistic and economic leaders were ever just as much movers and shapers of their civilizations.

The simplistic conflation of civilization with political state is an unfortunate inheritsnce of a time when history was nothing more than shoddy propaganda for self-important rulers eager to claim the credit for everything they didn't do, and it's sad to see some people still clinging to it.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

No political leader ever led a civilization, either - because the political state has never been more than one aspect of a civilization among many, and the intellectual, artistic and economic leaders were ever just as much movers and shapers of their civilizations.

The simplistic conflation of civilization with political state is an unfortunate inheritsnce of a time when history was nothing more than shoddy propaganda for self-important rulers eager to claim the credit for everything they didn't do, and it's sad to see some people still clinging to it.

The confusing thing for me is that civ 7 feels like a swing more towards conflation of the civilization and the state. Civs are now explicitly dynasties and countries that had rulers as a rule rather than the exception.

Gone is the concept of a people than descend from one another, united by a common culture that adapts to its time. In its place, people are shackled to dynasties that rule them for set periods, insignificant in comparison to the political entity that is their civilization.

Everyone is now an ottoman rather than a turk, Ming rather than chinese, when in reality the only Ottomans and Ming are the ones living in palaces, and everyone else identifies far less with their dynasty than with their people.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The simplistic conflation of civilization with political state is an unfortunate inheritsnce of a time when history was nothing more than shoddy propaganda for self-important rulers eager to claim the credit for everything they didn't do, and it's sad to see some people still clinging to it.

I agree with your post, generally, but unfortunately the civ series, including Civ 7, is all in on conflating civilization = political state.

As long as Civ treats each civilization like a unified polity and a single government, I don't think its unreasonable for some players to prefer political leaders. I also don't think its unreasonable for people not to be fussed one way or the other, but I do think its unreasonable to insult people who prefer political leaders by calling them "sad".

 

[Willie5000]

No political leader ever led a civilization, either - because the political state has never been more than one aspect of a civilization among many, and the intellectual, artistic and economic leaders were ever just as much movers and shapers of their civilizations.

The simplistic conflation of civilization with political state is an unfortunate inheritsnce of a time when history was nothing more than shoddy propaganda for self-important rulers eager to claim the credit for everything they didn't do, and it's sad to see some people still clinging to it.

Because THAT’S HOW IT WORKED. Even those writers didn’t and could never have hoped to touch political power. So making Machiavelli and Confucius and Ibn Batuta leaders makes no fudging sense. It should have been Qin Shi Huang, Saladin, and Lorenzo Di Medici or something.

 

[Krikkit1]

The confusing thing for me is that civ 7 feels like a swing more towards conflation of the civilization and the state. Civs are now explicitly dynasties and countries that had rulers as a rule rather than the exception.

Gone is the concept of a people than descend from one another, united by a common culture that adapts to its time. In its place, people are shackled to dynasties that rule them for set periods, insignificant in comparison to the political entity that is their civilization.

Everyone is now an ottoman rather than a turk, Ming rather than chinese, when in reality the only Ottomans and Ming are the ones living in palaces, and everyone else identifies far less with their dynasty than with their people.

Actually I think the opposite, each “civilization” is represented by 3 separate powerful states over time.

Like the civilization is western…led by a series of Roman, Normans and French /American polities
Chinese civilization is led by a series Han Ming and Qing polities

Which means that the game comes with 1000 “civilizations” (most fictional and hard to actually access in game)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Beitrag von Sid Meier's Civilization

*Modern Age loading...*

youtube.com

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Actually I think the opposite, each “civilization” is represented by 3 separate powerful states over time.

Like the civilization is western…led by a series of Roman, Normans and French /American polities
Chinese civilization is led by a series Han Ming and Qing polities

Which means that the game comes with 1000 “civilizations” (most fictional and hard to actually access in game)

The game launches with 30 civilizations. 3 of those are Han, Ming and Qing.

What you are describing is your own head canon, not what civ VII is presenting to you.

 

[Haig]

I remember Ursa Ryan saying in a stream that he saw Shaka in Civ 7 while at Firaxis office.
I don't know if it has been mentioned here yet.