Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[RedCourtJester]

Calling Egypt in Civ 7 “blobby” is really stretching the definition.

It's no blobbier than Egypt was in prior Civ games, I grant.

But under this new paradigm where we have other civs represented by specific dynasties (Han, Maurya)...it's a tad blobby. A smidge. I don't think it's an insult to say so, I'm quite fine with it since the entirety of what we consider our "Egypt" civ existed entirely in antiquity. A good chunk of "Persia" is similarly "all antiquity."

 

[j51]

It's no blobbier than Egypt was in prior Civ games, I grant.

But under this new paradigm where we have other civs represented by specific dynasties (Han, Maurya)...it's a tad blobby. A smidge. I don't think it's an insult to say so, I'm quite fine with it since the entirety of what we consider our "Egypt" civ existed entirely in antiquity. A good chunk of "Persia" is similarly "all antiquity."

Yeah the only extra era I could get behind is something pre antiquity with like Old Kingfom Egypt, Elam, a back dated Etruscans (a la Khmer), etc. but that would be hard to have enough civs with adequate info for.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah the only extra era I could get behind is something pre antiquity with like Old Kingfom Egypt, Elam, a back dated Etruscans (a la Khmer), etc. but that would be hard to have enough civs with adequate info for.

I think we could find plenty of civs for a Bronze Age before Antiquity. Just the overwhelming bulk of them would be in the Near East. Which I'd be okay with, but it would be a problem for transitioning to other regions in Antiquity--we could find something for China, something for Subsaharan Africa, but Europe would basically have the Minoans and the Americas would be out of luck. Hmm, need to go harass Solver about getting the Elamites in Old World since Civ will never include them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think we could find plenty of civs for a Bronze Age before Antiquity. Just the overwhelming bulk of them would be in the Near East. Which I'd be okay with, but it would be a problem for transitioning to other regions in Antiquity--we could find something for China, something for Subsaharan Africa, but Europe would basically have the Minoans and the Americas would be out of luck. Hmm, need to go harass Solver about getting the Elamites in Old World since Civ will never include them.

Given that they found a way to include the Mississippians, there's a little more room for ancient (Bronze or Chalcolithic or Neolithic) Civs in Civ VII than there ever was in previous Civil War games. Not 100%, by any means, but somewhat.

The big problem is not that there aren't numerous archeological sites, concentrations and data, but what to call them. Mississippians shows the problem: we have No Idea what they actually called themselves other than to use later words in native languages to Hopefully approximate. That problem comes up with almost every pre-literate society that was surrounded by pre-literate societies.

I have records of almost 20 Neolithic/Chacolithic cultures in central China, but every one of them is identified by a modern archeological site - shades of Civ VI Scythians!

There are numerous peoples in prehistoric Europe, but every one of them is identified by their pottery, the modern 'type' archeological site, or some other modern designator. We know some of them were already speaking very early forms of German or Celtic/Gallic languages, but that doesn't help much in putting specific words to their settlements and people.

American Native 'tribes' and cultures are even worse: while we can sort of identify ancestral groups to those existing when literate Europeans started writing stuff down. Most of them were Mobile and there is still considerable debate on where some of them came from. So does the game put the ancestors of the Seven Council Fires (Sioux) where they ended up or where they started - because the former is the Great Plains while the latter is the marshy forests west of the Mississippi River and south of the Great Lakes and they and the Sioux were very different peoples in both places.

Elamites are a minor problem by comparison . . .

 

[Zaarin]

There are numerous peoples in prehistoric Europe, but every one of them is identified by their pottery, the modern 'type' archeological site, or some other modern designator. We know some of them were already speaking very early forms of German or Celtic/Gallic languages, but that doesn't help much in putting specific words to their settlements and people.

The Proto-Celtic peoples of Hallstatt and La Tène might be Europe's best Indo-European candidate just for the high likelihood they were already calling themselves Keltoi.

Elamites are a minor problem by comparison . . .

TBH the Elamites' problem has always been that they're overshadowed by Persia. They had a unique culture that was influenced by but not dominated by Mesopotamia, which would give them a relatively unique design for the region. A pre-Persian Bronze Age would give them a leg up.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yeah the only extra era I could get behind is something pre antiquity with like Old Kingfom Egypt, Elam, a back dated Etruscans (a la Khmer), etc. but that would be hard to have enough civs with adequate info for.

I was half-thinking about Etruscans or some kind of Latin civ. Like Khmer/Cham or Maya/Olmec, I'm not sure if the devs feel much need to go beyond their "wellfont" that is Rome for that area. But I certainly wouldn't rule them out and like the idea of them. And if I'm really feeling like we may get the Gutes in the north alongside Norse (after expansions), I guess anything is possible.

The Proto-Celtic peoples of Hallstatt and La Tène might be Europe's best Indo-European candidate just for the high likelihood they were already calling themselves Keltoi.


TBH the Elamites' problem has always been that they're overshadowed by Persia. They had a unique culture that was influenced by but not dominated by Mesopotamia, which would give them a relatively unique design for the region. A pre-Persian Bronze Age would give them a leg up.

I wouldn't mind Hallstatt or La Tene. But I've got a hunch when we approach the Celts, it will be Gauls -> ??? -> France, Helvetii -> ??? -> Switzerland, and Burgundians -> ??? -> Dutch. I'm just getting that vibe, man.

 

[j51]

I was half-thinking about Etruscans or some kind of Latin civ. Like Khmer/Cham or Maya/Olmec, I'm not sure if the devs feel much need to go beyond their "wellfont" that is Rome for that area. But I certainly wouldn't rule them out and like the idea of them. And if I'm really feeling like we may get the Gutes in the north alongside Norse (after expansions), I guess anything is possible.


I wouldn't mind Hallstatt or La Tene. But I've got a hunch when we approach the Celts, it will be Gauls -> ??? -> France, Helvetii -> ??? -> Switzerland, and Burgundians -> ??? -> Dutch. I'm just getting that vibe, man.

I’d be happy just to see the Gauls and Franks honestly

 

[j51]

The franks can branch into France, Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands in the modern age.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I’d be happy just to see the Gauls and Franks honestly

I think both are extremely safe guesses. Technically both have already appeared in prior civ games (Franks by proxy of HRE), and we all know how much Civ loves bringing back old favorites.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Proto-Celtic peoples of Hallstatt and La Tène might be Europe's best Indo-European candidate just for the high likelihood they were already calling themselves Keltoi.

The only niggling problem is that the La Tene/Hallstadt Proto-Gauls are really Beginning of Iron Age, not Bronze Age.

I think, because this applies to large parts of the world, strict timeliness will have to go. There simply aren't any groups in central Europe, northern Europe, or Italy from the Bronze Age and earlier that we have a lot of information about to differentiate them. On the other hand, there is a lot more available about the earliest Iron Age groups in Italy (including Etruscans and Samnites, for instance) and further north (German and Celtic groups plus 'locals' like Britons and the Scandinavian 'tribes').

From those, and similar 'ancestral' groups in Africa, east, central and south Asia, there are a lot more possibilities for constructing early Civs.

In fact, it brings up the possibility of having the oft-discussed 4th Age come at the start rather than the end. An Ancestral before Antiquity Age which swipes, say, the first 2000 - 2500 years from Antiquity into a new period.

I'm not advocating this, by any means: ya seen one half-naked Canaanite with a club, ya seen 'em all, IMHO.

But it could include a bunch of peoples from Hallstadt to Jomon and a very few of the earliest 'Civilized' polities like Sumer and Egypt, and provide a bit more room for progressions like Elam - Persia or Etruscan - Roman or even Shang (semi-legendary) - Han.

 

[j51]

The only niggling problem is that the La Tene/Hallstadt Proto-Gauls are really Beginning of Iron Age, not Bronze Age.

I think, because this applies to large parts of the world, strict timeliness will have to go. There simply aren't any groups in central Europe, northern Europe, or Italy from the Bronze Age and earlier that we have a lot of information about to differentiate them. On the other hand, there is a lot more available about the earliest Iron Age groups in Italy (including Etruscans and Samnites, for instance) and further north (German and Celtic groups plus 'locals' like Britons and the Scandinavian 'tribes').

From those, and similar 'ancestral' groups in Africa, east, central and south Asia, there are a lot more possibilities for constructing early Civs.

In fact, it brings up the possibility of having the oft-discussed 4th Age come at the start rather than the end. An Ancestral before Antiquity Age which swipes, say, the first 2000 - 2500 years from Antiquity into a new period.

I'm not advocating this, by any means: ya seen one half-naked Canaanite with a club, ya seen 'em all, IMHO.

But it could include a bunch of peoples from Hallstadt to Jomon and a very few of the earliest 'Civilized' polities like Sumer and Egypt, and provide a bit more room for progressions like Elam - Persia or Etruscan - Roman or even Shang (semi-legendary) - Han.

That could rule. Maybe the civs in that era are less defined/more customizable by player actions due to the lack of info for most of them. It’d be cool to see cultures like the Sintashta, or Nuragic Sardinia.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The only niggling problem is that the La Tene/Hallstadt Proto-Gauls are really Beginning of Iron Age, not Bronze Age.

I think, because this applies to large parts of the world, strict timeliness will have to go. There simply aren't any groups in central Europe, northern Europe, or Italy from the Bronze Age and earlier that we have a lot of information about to differentiate them. On the other hand, there is a lot more available about the earliest Iron Age groups in Italy (including Etruscans and Samnites, for instance) and further north (German and Celtic groups plus 'locals' like Britons and the Scandinavian 'tribes').

From those, and similar 'ancestral' groups in Africa, east, central and south Asia, there are a lot more possibilities for constructing early Civs.

In fact, it brings up the possibility of having the oft-discussed 4th Age come at the start rather than the end. An Ancestral before Antiquity Age which swipes, say, the first 2000 - 2500 years from Antiquity into a new period.

I'm not advocating this, by any means: ya seen one half-naked Canaanite with a club, ya seen 'em all, IMHO.

But it could include a bunch of peoples from Hallstadt to Jomon and a very few of the earliest 'Civilized' polities like Sumer and Egypt, and provide a bit more room for progressions like Elam - Persia or Etruscan - Roman or even Shang (semi-legendary) - Han.

Egypt (and possibly Persia depending on what we get) would probably want to be retooled if the 4th age is ancestral.

Also, I struggle to imagine a 4th age being as engaging/mechanically complex. Not that I would mind a "hunter-gatherer" style mini-game, but I'm not sure if it could flesh itself out enough to be justified as a full era.

EDIT: Although, the "menagerie" building certainly makes me wonder if we could be getting an animal collecting mini-game. Gotta catch 'em all! (and then, inevitably, GOTTA PET 'EM ALL!)

 

[j51]

Egypt (and possibly Persia depending on what we get) would probably want to be retooled if the 4th age is ancestral.

Also, I struggle to imagine a 4th age being as engaging/mechanically complex. Not that I would mind a "hunter-gatherer" style mini-game, but I'm not sure if it could flesh itself out enough to be justified as a full era.

Yeah it would be hard to make it substantial enough.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't mind Hallstatt or La Tene. But I've got a hunch when we approach the Celts

Oh, I wasn't proposing for the game we have, just for a hypothetical earlier age.

Also, I struggle to imagine a 4th age being as engaging/mechanically complex. Not that I would mind a "hunter-gatherer" style mini-game, but I'm not sure if it could flesh itself out enough to be justified as a full era.

I mean, the Bronze Age or even the Chalcolithic is thousands of years removed from pure hunter-gatherers, at least in the Near East, East Asia, and the Mediterranean. (Hunter-gatherers did survive in pockets in Europe for a long time.)

 

[RedCourtJester]

Oh, I wasn't proposing for the game we have, just for a hypothetical earlier age.


I mean, the Bronze Age or even the Chalcolithic is thousands of years removed from pure hunter-gatherers, at least in the Near East, East Asia, and the Mediterranean. (Hunter-gatherers did survive in pockets in Europe for a long time.)

Oh yeah I wasn't suggesting there weren't settlements, just that I think that would be fairly rudimentary building play in a civ game and the era would likely incorporate hunter-gathering early game to make it feel more distinct from antiquity.

I would love to play more of a Paleo style game, sounds super fun and chill.

 

[j51]

Oh yeah I wasn't suggesting there weren't settlements, just that I think that would be fairly rudimentary building play in a civ game and the era would likely incorporate hunter-gathering early game to make it feel more distinct from antiquity.

I would love to play more of a Paleo style game, sounds super fun and chill.

Yeah is there a good one?

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yeah is there a good one?

Um, I'm going to neglect to describe one of several indie games called Bonfire and say that, inasmuch as I haven't looked much, and inasmuch as they reflect historical sensibilities and not...other things......no.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Egypt (and possibly Persia depending on what we get) would probably want to be retooled if the 4th age is ancestral.

Also, I struggle to imagine a 4th age being as engaging/mechanically complex. Not that I would mind a "hunter-gatherer" style mini-game, but I'm not sure if it could flesh itself out enough to be justified as a full era.

EDIT: Although, the "menagerie" building certainly makes me wonder if we could be getting an animal collecting mini-game. Gotta catch 'em all! (and then, inevitably, GOTTA PET 'EM ALL!)

I don't want to go too much in-depth, because this is really Off Topic, but for complexity, there are numerous Technologies that actually date back to the Neolithic/Chalcolithic, such as:
Agriculture (9800 - 4800 BCE)
Animal Husbandry/Domestication (9000 - 4400 BCE)
Carpentry (Mortise and tenon joints - 5000 BCE)
Calendar (8000 BCE - calendrical circles)
Metal Working (Copper - 7500 BCE, Lead, Silver, Gold - 6500 BCE, cast copper - 4700 BCE)
Pottery (6000 BCE - low-temperature kilns, 4200 BCE - fast potter's wheel)
Sailing (coastal - 5500 BCE)
Weaving (4500 BCE - warp-weight looms)
Irrigation (5000 BCE - first irrigation canals)
Fishing (7000 BCE - nets, 6000 BCE - whaling with harpoons)
Archery (6000 BCE - self bows)
Masonry (9000 BCE - walls and towers)

That certainly gives a basis for a bit of 'complexity' in a Prehistoric Age - and, of course, would also require reworking the Antiquity Tech Tree as well.

Nor is the period entirely without substantial settlements: Jericho and other Middle Eastern 'city-oids' from 9000 BCE to 4000 BCE, numerous Chinese settlements with central ceremonial structures, walls, etc from 5500 BCE, other city-like concentrations in parts of Europe (a whole previously-unsuspected bunch of Bronze Age stone fortresses in the Balkans, for instance), and cities with apparent central planning and smaller versions of 'henge' calendrical circles in what is now the Sahara.

Biggest problem I can foresee is that we have no historical Leaders of any kind for anybody that far back, Answer, I think, would be to use Mythical Leaders from their descendant Civs: Herakles or someone resembling him shows up in legends from Celts as well as Greeks, so with work a sampling of 'Leaders' could even be compiled.

Assuming anyone thinks that work would be worth it for the game.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I don't want to go too much in-depth, because this is really Off Topic, but for complexity, there are numerous Technologies that actually date back to the Neolithic/Chalcolithic, such as:
Agriculture (9800 - 4800 BCE)
Animal Husbandry/Domestication (9000 - 4400 BCE)
Carpentry (Mortise and tenon joints - 5000 BCE)
Calendar (8000 BCE - calendrical circles)
Metal Working (Copper - 7500 BCE, Lead, Silver, Gold - 6500 BCE, cast copper - 4700 BCE)
Pottery (6000 BCE - low-temperature kilns, 4200 BCE - fast potter's wheel)
Sailing (coastal - 5500 BCE)
Weaving (4500 BCE - warp-weight looms)
Irrigation (5000 BCE - first irrigation canals)
Fishing (7000 BCE - nets, 6000 BCE - whaling with harpoons)
Archery (6000 BCE - self bows)
Masonry (9000 BCE - walls and towers)

That certainly gives a basis for a bit of 'complexity' in a Prehistoric Age - and, of course, would also require reworking the Antiquity Tech Tree as well.

Nor is the period entirely without substantial settlements: Jericho and other Middle Eastern 'city-oids' from 9000 BCE to 4000 BCE, numerous Chinese settlements with central ceremonial structures, walls, etc from 5500 BCE, other city-like concentrations in parts of Europe (a whole previously-unsuspected bunch of Bronze Age stone fortresses in the Balkans, for instance), and cities with apparent central planning and smaller versions of 'henge' calendrical circles in what is now the Sahara.

Biggest problem I can foresee is that we have no historical Leaders of any kind for anybody that far back, Answer, I think, would be to use Mythical Leaders from their descendant Civs: Herakles or someone resembling him shows up in legends from Celts as well as Greeks, so with work a sampling of 'Leaders' could even be compiled.

Assuming anyone thinks that work would be worth it for the game.

Yeah but unfortunately, like the Maya and Khmer being vicarious representation for older regional origins, I struggle to see how these technologies would create substantially different buildings/units than what we already have in the game, which as you observe effectively incorporates a lot of these techs already. I just don't see how the game mode based solely around post-settlement Paleo "civs" would be "different" mechanically from antiquity in the same way exploration adds religion/trade and modern presumably adds additional aspects. I think it by necessity would need to have an even earlier "hunter-gatherer" aspect to it, prior to settling, to make the era feel sufficiently different from what we are accustomed to starting the game out with.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'm wondering if the Gwendoline reveal counts as the "reveal" this week?