Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[CivKirk64]

So, the question (that I'm posing, not answering) is this: is the Civ player a kind of godlike world-spirit, guiding a group of people who don't know they're a unity towards their destiny, inspiring the construction of wonders and guiding the people towards scientific inquiry; or more of a ruler, moving troops here and there and commanding construction? And, of course, with the bottom line being that the game has to be fun, how do we deal with this question?

First, Thanks Andrew for a wonderful comment.

I'm absolutely the in the former camp, I'm inspiring a people and telling their story.

Civ isn't a game to be won, it's a canvas with which to paint a picture of a fictional people on earth #xxxxxxx37
Why I'm so excited for VII, is that it allows for big changes and challenges through out the run time, straight through to the end.
There is magic in it that has endured for me for over 25 years, it never gets old. Just give me one more turn.

Edit: This is the guessing thread so back on topic: I think Held in Reserve comment refers to a leader that could have been revealed earlier Era wise, so I'm going with Genghis Khan

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm torn for my guess for the surprise leader reveal this week between Genghis and Shaka. Both have a long history in Civ, both will be seen as either a Christmas present or a lump of coal in your stocking, depending on your preferences for the game.

Genghis we have the weird spontaneous comment from a developer that leaving him out of the base game in the past was a mistake. Might mean nothing, might not mean nothing. Shaka we have reports of his artwork having been spotted in studio. Might be meaningless concept art, might not be meaningless concept art, might have been Tamar and the observer mistook her for Shaka because it was a small image on a poster down the hall behind three panes of glass.

If its not either of these, it'll be that Lili the Hawaiian person that Civfanatics is trying to will into being and whose full name I can't be bothered to look up, but whom I'm sure a Firaxis intern has been working on non-stop since this board went into overdrive speculating about.

If its none of these 3, I will be truly surprised. Happy speculating everyone!

 

[queenpea]

Nevertheless, I persisted (in guessing Liliuokalani).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's a question that's crucial to the flavoring of the game. You're entirely right that the game could be about Elves and Gangsters and Aliens and whatever else, but it isn't, and it's eminently clear from volumes of writing on the topic here, on reddit and everywhwere else that a vast number of fans are invested in that flavoring, and the conceit that the game is about "civilizations" drawn from our history is a key part of what the game is.

In that light, how the game conceive civilization is an important question.

First, thanks to @Andrew Johnson[FXS] for so clearly posing the question.

I suspect, as some of the subsequent posts have already shown, that the answer will be in some respect unique to each individual gamer. What 'flavor' anyone prefers is an intensely personal aspect of the game, and so I'd suggest that the real question that Can be answered is what aspect or combination of aspects and flavors appeals to the greatest percentage of gamers - a game design question that is, in fact, crucial to the commercial success of the game.

Civ's design background, as @Evie points out, is firmly based on having a 'historical flavor' (what I've been calling 'historicalish'). That is a very fine balancing act, because a strictly historical game is a flat Impossibility - neither us amateurs nor the historical 'professionals' agree on all or sometimes any of the historical aspects of events, which accounts for the mass of non-fiction historical books published every year (I have a list of a dozen coming out in the next 3 months that I'm interested in, and I get a download from an importer of military history books published outside of the USA that lists 20 - 40 titles every month).

So no matter how much historical flavor the game designers want to include, very quickly they have no choice but to make their own determination of what constitutes the 'history' in any to-be-modeled in-game event. The more such decisions, the further the game design will deviate from what some gamer who has spent his last 20 years studying some specific aspect of history will take exception to - and post about it here in these threads. Deviate far enough from what the majority of gamers think is the 'historical path' and the game loses its (apparent) focus - and those gamers.

I've said it before, I do not envy the game designer's lot: it's like walking a tightrope over a shark tank while balancing a beaker of sulphuric acid on his head.

And, I have to point out, Civ VII has opened a whole new vat of discussion and potential way to 'lose gamers' by up-ending a basic historicalish concept of the game: the building of a Civilization in a straight line advance from 4000 BCE to near future. People who could cheerfully admit that virtually no civilization or culture has existed all that time in reality (recognizable China didn't appear for a couple thousand years after that and Egypt changed almost beyond recognition less than 5000 years after the 'start date', and nobody else even comes close except in their nationalistic imaginings) are still apparently bent out of shape that the game will no longer allow them to play that Fantasy!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm torn for my guess for the surprise leader reveal this week between Genghis and Shaka. Both have a long history in Civ, both will be seen as either a Christmas present or a lump of coal in your stocking, depending on your preferences for the game.

Genghis we have the weird spontaneous comment from a developer that leaving him out of the base game in the past was a mistake. Might mean nothing, might not mean nothing. Shaka we have reports of his artwork having been spotted in studio. Might be meaningless concept art, might not be meaningless concept art, might have been Tamar and the observer mistook her for Shaka because it was a small image on a poster down the hall behind three panes of glass.

If its not either of these, it'll be that Lili the Hawaiian person that Civfanatics is trying to will into being and whose full name I can't be bothered to look up, but whom I'm sure a Firaxis intern has been working on non-stop since this board went into overdrive speculating about.

If its none of these 3, I will be truly surprised. Happy speculating everyone!

Considering we just had Mexico revealed, they could also easily reveal Montezuma leading Mexico in the livestream.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the world like spirit fits best with the way the game actually plays, you never lose power over your civ, you direct it totally, seeing units on opposite sides of a continent simultanously in antiquity. (and knowing to target Gunpowder when you can)

While I would like internal politics to be more a part of how civ plays, it should stick with the general effect and have governments give more bonuses... ie "succession struggle" mechanics that cause some rebel groups with frequency and severity (depending on the government you have)... bonuses and penalties representing corruption/bribery, etc. But none of that needs you to be an actual CK style leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Considering we just had Mexico revealed, they could also easily reveal Montezuma leading Mexico in the livestream.

This is what I'm expecting. If it's not Monty, then I think it will be Genghis Khan.

 

[queenpea]

This is what I'm expecting. If it's not Monty, then I think it will be Genghis Khan.

We have so many male leaders already

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We have so many male leaders already

The current ratio is about 1 female: 2 males, which is what Civ 6 was throughout its development cycle. I'd expect further leader reveals to match that.

 

[queenpea]

The current ratio is about 1 female: 2 males, which is what Civ 6 was throughout its development cycle. I'd expect further leader reveals to match that.

Yeah, it's just unfortunate. I had hoped that in moving away from a system where leaders were essentially political leaders or heads of state, we could approach better gender parity in the leader count.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We have so many male leaders already

Well, it could be his daughter, Atotoztli II. That would be a shakeup, indeed.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yeah, it's just unfortunate. I had hoped that in moving away from a system where leaders were essentially political leaders or heads of state, we could approach better gender parity in the leader count.

The way I figure it, it's a compromise between historical accuracy (patriarchal monopolization of power) and fairness (a 1:1 ratio). It could stand to sway a little more towards fairness, but it's probably not going to change much soon.

 

[CivKirk64]

I'm torn for my guess for the surprise leader reveal this week between Genghis and Shaka. Both have a long history in Civ, both will be seen as either a Christmas present or a lump of coal in your stocking, depending on your preferences for the game.

Genghis we have the weird spontaneous comment from a developer that leaving him out of the base game in the past was a mistake. Might mean nothing, might not mean nothing. Shaka we have reports of his artwork having been spotted in studio. Might be meaningless concept art, might not be meaningless concept art, might have been Tamar and the observer mistook her for Shaka because it was a small image on a poster down the hall behind three panes of glass.

If its not either of these, it'll be that Lili the Hawaiian person that Civfanatics is trying to will into being and whose full name I can't be bothered to look up, but whom I'm sure a Firaxis intern has been working on non-stop since this board went into overdrive speculating about.

If its none of these 3, I will be truly surprised. Happy speculating everyone!

Chaka Khan would be an inspired leader choice, I'm all for it.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Well, it could be his daughter, Atotoztli II. That would be a shakeup, indeed.

Based on the pattern of leader reveals so far, I expect we're going to have only leaders who were leading in the modern age from here on barring the first look for Himiko.

All the rest of the base game leaders have been released in a batch as leaders who led in antiquity, and then leaders who led in exploration, and now we're getting Ben Franklin to kick off the modern lot.

Himiko is this weird exception to the rule I can only place because she's explicitly a leader of a civ that is in the modern age to give Japan some sense they have more representation across the game I feel

So I'm betting no Genghis. I think a Hawaiian leader still has a shot though, though would be odd not to have been bundled with the civ release

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The way I figure it, it's a compromise between historical accuracy (patriarchal monopolization of power) and fairness (a 1:1 ratio). It could stand to sway a little more towards fairness, but it's probably not going to change much soon.

I'm more worried about the disparity between warmonger leaders and non-warmonger leaders, frankly. If Montezuma, Shaka, and Genghis do get in that would be three more alongside all the others we have.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm more worried about the disparity between warmonger leaders and non-warmonger leaders, frankly. If Montezuma, Shaka, and Genghis do get in that would be three more alongside all the others we have.

Yes, we've had way, way too many warmonger leaders. The game's not even out yet, and I already feel like I want to ban Amina, Xerxes Shahanshah, Trung Trac, and Ashoka World Conqueror from my games. Isabella and Tecumseh have the potential to be warmongers. We're going to end up with Monty, Shaka, Genghis, and Alexander before too long, whether they're present on release or not.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Don't forget Horse-Lord Charlemagne.

 

[Zaarin]

Don't forget Horse-Lord Charlemagne.

I was on the fence about including Charlemagne, but his agenda doesn't feel like it's apt to make him overly aggressive.

 

[queenpea]

I'm more worried about the disparity between warmonger leaders and non-warmonger leaders, frankly. If Montezuma, Shaka, and Genghis do get in that would be three more alongside all the others we have.

Certainly, but can't we hold space for multiple concerns at the same time? Historically, there may also be some connection between warmongering and maleness. Civ tends to cut against the grain on this by often choosing "warrior queen" style female leaders, with some notable exceptions.

 

[Zaarin]

Historically, there may also be some connection between warmongering and maleness.

Le Guin plays with this idea in The Left Hand of Darkness, and in a different direction I've played with it myself in my own worldbuilding. I'm not entirely certain it's true, though. Most female leaders had to be twice as ruthless as their male counterparts in order to hold power--from Hatshepsut to Wu Zetian to Elizabeth I, all may have been noteworthy for the success of their domestic programs and cultural accomplishments but all three were also effective military leaders. (It's less clear for Hatshepsut, but Wu and Elizabeth were also ruthless towards dissenters and even potential dissenters on the home front.)