Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

Yeah, I’m not really keen for multiple depictions of what is essentially the same civ in the same era, so I’d prefer if they skipped Tudor England and gave us the Dutch instead.

I’d love to see the Celts or Gauls as an Antiquity civ. They and the Romans are close enough for first age representation for Britain. Anglo-Saxons do not fit in the Antiquity Age at all. As much as I love the history, they are a hard fit in a Civ game. My preferred representation would be Alfred as a leader.
 
Yeah, I’m not really keen for multiple depictions of what is essentially the same civ in the same era, so I’d prefer if they skipped Tudor England and gave us the Dutch instead.

I’d love to see the Celts or Gauls as an Antiquity civ. They and the Romans are close enough for first age representation for Britain. Anglo-Saxons do not fit in the Antiquity Age at all. As much as I love the history, they are a hard fit in a Civ game. My preferred representation would be Alfred as a leader.

For me it doesn't really matter if a civ doesn't feel like a strong candidate for an age, if their successor or predecessor is a strong fit for another age.

Id much rather have Byzantium and modern Greece added before for example an exploration Korea and antiquity Babylon as isolated age locked civs. It just doesn't feel like we have a whole civ until we've got a viable path through each era.

So I'm all for an ancient Briton civ, and a Gaul civ, and a Visigoth civ so Britain and France and Spain have some lead in, presuming they are all in. Id have Visigoths and Gaul ahead of Britain if it's not base game though. I've just got no interest at all in the concept of swapping civs through ages. I don't just find it unappealing, I find it repulsive as a gameplay idea - it detracts from my desire to play the game
 
Feel like this model is made for variety, less so 'mutually exclusive' relationship so I think we can get it all... eventually...
 
If any geographic region deserves multiple civs across two or three Ages, it's absolutely the British Isles, far for so than China or India.
any sense of history would def dispel this

even beyond that statement being blatantly anglo centric, in a sense, the british isles’ entire history prior to the 1300-1400s was being invaded by different peoples and the fusion of cultures that eventually developed into being english

the romans, in that sense, represent ancient britain. the normans represent medieval britain

if you wanted to represent england’s history before that, you’d want a welsh civ, or some representation of ancient brythonic celts.

after that, a modern england/uk is fine. i think they’re well represented with that in mind.

edit: just wanted to also note the implicit assumption that invasion/colonization = good/more deserving of recognition in this statement, because even though chinese and indian history are rich, diverse and thousands of years older than english/british culture (specifically in the germanic sense), because they didn’t see indians or chinese ppl invade the entire world and subjugate them for their global system of resource extraction. actually it’s not even that implicit, OP here quite literally said that the justification here is that english is the lingua franca rather mandarin or hindi or tamil or cantonese
 
Last edited:
I've just got no interest at all in the concept of swapping civs through ages. I don't just find it unappealing, I find it repulsive as a gameplay idea - it detracts from my desire to play the game
You know, even FXS can't really change the main idea of Civ 7 in this final stage of game development. If you really don't like it, you'd better pay no more attention to this game for your mental health.
 
Last edited:
I will admit I wanted to make an antiquity Scotland into exploration Ireland for the create a civ thread but don’t really have the time to do it properly. For the pick 30 exercise for a long time I had the “Gaels” feeling like it would fit turning into America as well.

I have to admit some bias though because I lived in the highlands for 6 months and visited a bunch of Brochs which I just kinda want to see in the game. So much cooler than a Golf Course……

Think I’ve also suggested Cartimandua somewhere too as a potential female ruler.

I feel like all the big markets are going to get covered by DLC. Just the fact they can be like “hey it’s the England pack you can play as 5 different versions of England”.
 
You know, even FXS can't really change the main idea of Civ 7 in this final stage of game development. If you really don't like it, you'd better pay no more attention to this game for your mental health.

I'm here with popcorn for February. I'm genuinely interested in how many people align with my traditionalist view of Civs are happy with the new direction.

I'm also keen to make sure this forum remains a place where all views of civ can be shared. My mental health is perfectly good, so thank you for your concern, and I shall remain here making my opinions and criticisms and praises known where they apply 🙂

The post of mine you responded to didn't ask for Civ 7 to change after all, it asked for accomodations within the mechanics of 7 to get my buy in.
 
The post of mine you responded to didn't ask for Civ 7 to change after all, it asked for accomodations within the mechanics of 7 to get my buy in.
Well, "the concept of swapping civs through ages" is the main, fundamental mechanism of Civ 7, so if you dislike it and want to fix it, you're asking for Civ 7 to change much than it can.
 
Well, "the concept of swapping civs through ages" is the main, fundamental mechanism of Civ 7, so if you dislike it and want to fix it, you're asking for Civ 7 to change much than it can.

Yeah so if you have 1 civ split across 3 ages, problem solved.

Their reductive way of describing civs isn't worth splitting hairs about
 
Yeah so if you have 1 civ split across 3 ages, problem solved.

Their reductive way of describing civs isn't worth splitting hairs about
You do though
English civilization is split across Rome(or Greece)*->Norman**->America (or Britain now or later)

*May include Norse, some Celtic and some Germanic group eventually
**May include Dutch, Scots, Irish, some Danish group eventually

Any real civ has their heritage spread over a wide area (China has 4 civs…Han, Ming, Mongol, Qing)

The biggest issue I think is changing your Civ name and City List… that needs to be under player control.
 
Last edited:
You do though
English civilization is split across Rome(or Greece)*->Norman**->America (or Britain now or later)

*May include Norse, some Celtic and some Germanic group eventually
**May include Dutch, Scots, Irish, some Danish group eventually

Any real civ has their heritage spread over a wide area (China has 4 civs…Han, Ming, Mongol, Qing)

The biggest issue I think is changing your Civ name and City List… that needs to be under player control.

For me personally, the criteria could probably be approximated by asking "would this have been a separate civ in previous games, or would it have been represented as aspects of a single civ"

So Rome > Normandy > America doesn't check the box for me I'm afraid.

So that's the first big issue for me - getting a full civ I recognise. Second step is city list. I don't mind about changing the name of a civ if they are recognisably proper follow ons from each other.
 
I will admit I wanted to make an antiquity Scotland into exploration Ireland for the create a civ thread
Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Their reductive way of describing civs isn't worth splitting hairs about
You call "their" view of civs reductive yet say a real-world example of civ development doesn't meet your criteria. Also, if we're limiting ourselves to civs that can be represented in all three eras, then the game now has China, India, Korea, Persia, Maya, and Ethiopia as its full civ roster. Hope we get a lot of alt leaders, and hopefully the people already complaining that every inch of Europe isn't represented don't whine too loudly that no European civ stood the test of time. :mischief:
 
You call "their" view of civs reductive yet say a real-world example of civ development doesn't meet your criteria. Also, if we're limiting ourselves to civs that can be represented in all three eras, then the game now has China, India, Korea, Persia, Maya, and Ethiopia as its full civ roster. Hope we get a lot of alt leaders, and hopefully the people already complaining that every inch of Europe isn't represented don't whine too loudly that no European civ stood the test of time. :mischief:

They have two ways of defining civs, a civ from 4000bc to today, and a civ which fits into one of three eras. Until a few months ago, everyone understood a civ was the former definition. They have introduced this new definition which reduces the scope of a civilization, I don't think it's unfair to call it reductive!

Also, odd to be brushing me with the euro brush, I've never been a voice saying we need more Europe?

But I'm also firmly in the camp that civ is not a history simulator, and I'm 100% comfortable with a fantasy American antiquity civ and a fantasy modern Babylon civ 😁
 
. Until a few months ago, everyone understood a civ was the former definition.
It was discussed in the civ 6 forums long before the announcements that something needed to be done to make the late game more interesting. Era civ switching seemed directly aimed and those discussions. I think there's a big context gap in how people look at it.
 
They have two ways of defining civs, a civ from 4000bc to today, and a civ which fits into one of three eras. Until a few months ago, everyone understood a civ was the former definition. They have introduced this new definition which reduces the scope of a civilization, I don't think it's unfair to call it reductive!
I look at it quite differently. I was leery of civ swapping at first, but we'd never have gotten civs like the Mississippians or Chola under the old system so I see it as an expansive opportunity. :)

Also, odd to be brushing me with the euro brush, I've never been a voice saying we need more Europe?
I never said you were in that camp, but there are already those gnashing teeth that we "only" have six European civs--I can't imagine they'd be thrilled with none. :p

But I'm also firmly in the camp that civ is not a history simulator, and I'm 100% comfortable with a fantasy American antiquity civ and a fantasy modern Babylon civ 😁
I don't think it should be a history simulator, either, and you can count me among those sorry not to be able to lead ancient civs into modern victory--particularly when Ancient civs have no direct cultural successor (like Phoenicia and Assyria). But I think civ swapping has opened up the possibility for more interesting civs who represent a limited timeframe or who lack leaders (especially in Antiquity) so I'm open minded about the tradeoff.
 
But now civs will need an associated wonder. . . :cry:
Given the low bar set for associated wonders, I'm not too worried about that (but I don't love the mechanic personally).
 
Given the low bar set for associated wonders, I'm not too worried about that (but I don't love the mechanic personally).
And the relatively low bar set for defining anything as a ' Wonder'. Once upon a time they generally stuck to identified UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which would still give them over 100 potential Wonders, but now even that criteria seems to be gone, so 'associated wonder' isn't much of a limiting factor.
 
Last edited:
Up until a few months ago, there was only one definition of a civ, from 4000 BCE to 20.... something CE...and we were routinely subjected to "No colonial civs should belong in 4000 BCE comment", because apparently having only one definition of a civ did not, in fact, stop people from arguing over what constitute a civ on the basis of which time period they existed in.

This fanbase has never needed Firaxis help to make up silly reductive rules based on inference and assumed implication (and, as often as not, personal preferences and pet peeves) when it comes to determining what does or does not constitute a civ. The era system has changed precisely nothing there.
 
Back
Top Bottom