Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[Xandinho]

With Pachacuti confirmed, I don't think we'll see a Mexican leader or any other additional Latin leader.

 

[Siptah]

With Pachacuti confirmed, I don't think we'll see a Mexican leader or any other additional Latin leader.

I expected the base game to have three leaders from the Americas (not counting Tecumseh): Pachacuti, Ben, and (?). But maybe, there are two personas for Ben, and no third leader. Or a Hawaiian leader.

 

[Guandao]

Hawaii counts as the Americas?

 

[Siptah]

Hawaii counts as the Americas?

Usually not. It's actually on no continent at all, geographically. But if they get a leader, I don't think the Americas will have 3. That's what I meant to say.

 

[Xandinho]

I expected the base game to have three leaders from the Americas (not counting Tecumseh): Pachacuti, Ben, and (?). But maybe, there are two personas for Ben, and no third leader. Or a Hawaiian leader.

I hope you’re right, but I’m not too optimistic. If they truly view all of Latin America as a single historical path, then I don’t expect anyone besides Pachacuti. I expect a second Latin leader in Right to Rule, perhaps with Montezuma included.

Hawaii counts as the Americas?

Even if there’s no North American Exploration civ in base game, Shawnee is almost base game material anyway. So I’d say Hawaii isn’t really counted as part of the Americas, but rather as the starting point for building a historical path in Oceania and an alternative route to America, and maybe even Meiji.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

There is a non-zero chance that they throw in a Mesoamerican leader with the Inca, but I find that to be a very small chance.

Well done!

 

[ehecatzin]

With Pachacuti confirmed, I don't think we'll see a Mexican leader or any other additional Latin leader.

*Sad mariachi noises*

Hahaha yeah, it was a long shot, time to be patient until the Mexico reveal.

 

[Xandinho]

If Mexico is designed as an agrarian civilization with Haciendas, it will have good synergy with the Incas. The Incas play tall, and I believe Mexico will play in a similar way.

 

[ehecatzin]

If Mexico is designed as an agrarian civilization with Haciendas, it will have good synergy with the Incas. The Incas play tall, and I believe Mexico will play in a similar way.

I agree, I think Mexico will probably be Cultural / Economic with a rough terrain bias. I really want to see Mexico get a list of great people to represent either revolutionaries, and/or artists (oddly enough there's a bunch that overlap)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Just one civ and a leader next week.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

View attachment 709470

Just one civ and a leader next week.

I'm going to go with Amina and Songhai for next week.

I feel like Majapahit and Hawaii could be revealed together with a Polynesian leader.

 

[Ronaldo_]

I was originally optimistic and convinced of there being a German pathway (as we can see from the image above: Goth -> Habsburg, Austrian, Teuton, or Dutch -> Germany or Prussia.
However it looks like we will be limited to 2 European civs per age, with France and Britain already being confirmed and no historical path for the Northern Plain (unless you include the Normans).

 

[uppi]

I hope you’re right, but I’m not too optimistic. If they truly view all of Latin America as a single historical path, then I don’t expect anyone besides Pachacuti. I expect a second Latin leader in Right to Rule, perhaps with Montezuma included.

Except for Tecumseh, we only have Pachacuti, who would even be remotely thematic to start as Maya or Mississippians. If there was no other leader willing to start as them, you couldn't have Maya and Mississippians in the same game which would reduce the rather limited civ variety even further. So I think we'll get one other "American" (as in the continents and Hawaii) leader. If it is not a Hawaiian leader, it will probably be a Latin American leader.

 

[queenpea]

Except for Tecumseh, we only have Pachacuti, who would even be remotely thematic to start as Maya or Mississippians. If there was no other leader willing to start as them, you couldn't have Maya and Mississippians in the same game which would reduce the rather limited civ variety even further. So I think we'll get one other "American" (as in the continents and Hawaii) leader. If it is not a Hawaiian leader, it will probably be a Latin American leader.

Please let it be Liliʻuokalani in a cute dress with a fun little hat.

 

[Krajzen]

So as I understand, the remaining two (modern) civs are, in order of probability imo
1) Hawaii - due to being soft confirmed
2) [some Middle Eastern modern civ, either Ottomans or Safavids imo - otherwise Abbasids have zero options beyond Mughals, though I do admit this could be a possibility, just not very satisfying for me; it's India, not Middle East...]
3) Germany - due to its evolutionary path being really far fetched (I mean Rome->Normans->Germany is not the worst but far from satisfying :crazyeyes: ), but not as far fetched as...
4) Russia - as it would have very strange path of Greece->Mongols->Russia, with no Slavs or even Scythians, no Byzantium, no Rus, nor any other Orthodox civ - I really hope Firaxis doesn't go this way

It is worth noting that IIRC Firaxis already has two DLCs planned, with three civs each, and we got some vague info about Catherine the Great and Frederick being in the game - for me it sounds exactly like two DLCs devoted to two full evolutionary lines for Germany and Russia. For example Goths->HRE or "Teutons"->Germany and Slavs->Byzantium/Muscovy/idk->Russia.

 

[Krikkit1]

So as I understand, the remaining two (modern) civs are, in order of probability imo
1) Hawaii - due to being soft confirmed
2) [some Middle Eastern modern civ, either Ottomans or Safavids imo - otherwise Abbasids have zero options beyond Mughals, though I do admit this could be a possibility, just not very satisfying for me; it's India, not Middle East...]
3) Germany - due to its evolutionary path being really far fetched (I mean Rome->Normans->Germany is not the worst but far from satisfying :crazyeyes: ), but not as far fetched as...
4) Russia - as it would have very strange path of Greece->Mongols->Russia, with no Slavs or even Scythians, no Byzantium, no Rus, nor any other Orthodox civ - I really hope Firaxis doesn't go this way

It is worth noting that IIRC Firaxis already has two DLCs planned, with three civs each, and we got some vague info about Catherine the Great and Frederick being in the game - for me it sounds exactly like two DLCs devoted to two full evolutionary lines for Germany and Russia. For example Goths->HRE or "Teutons"->Germany and Slavs->Byzantium/Muscovy/idk->Russia.

Hawaii is exploration

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So as I understand, the remaining two (modern) civs are, in order of probability imo
1) Hawaii - due to being soft confirmed
2) [some Middle Eastern modern civ, either Ottomans or Safavids imo - otherwise Abbasids have zero options beyond Mughals, though I do admit this could be a possibility, just not very satisfying for me; it's India, not Middle East...]
3) Germany - due to its evolutionary path being really far fetched (I mean Rome->Normans->Germany is not the worst but far from satisfying :crazyeyes: ), but not as far fetched as...
4) Russia - as it would have very strange path of Greece->Mongols->Russia, with no Slavs or even Scythians, no Byzantium, no Rus, nor any other Orthodox civ - I really hope Firaxis doesn't go this way

As mentioned above Hawaii is Exploration. I would replace that with Britian, because it still remains to be seen if they are going to be in the base game or not.

 

[Krajzen]

Hawaii is exploration

Oh. In this case it all gets even more interesting.

Either we still get Germany and Russia anyway, despite them having somewhat unconvincing historical evolution paths with the current roster (especially in the Russian case), or they are indeed relegated to those two first DLCs and replaced with some other entities for the release version (fingers crossed for one of them being modern Middle Eastern civ).

By the way, what historical successor for Greece are we going to get? I assume Normans and Abbasids, because of their conquests of formerly Byzantine lands? I mean it's not the most terrible logic, with the medieval islam's love for the ancient Greek science and Normans being ancient Greece's bridge towards modern Western nations... but I'd still prefer to simply get Byzantium in the base game, which would also serve as a decent bridge towards Russia (and Ottomans, and like half of Eastern Europe)

 

[Siptah]

Oh. In this case it all gets even more interesting.

Either we still get Germany and Russia anyway, despite them having somewhat unconvincing historical evolution paths with the current roster (especially in the Russian case), or they are indeed relegated to those two first DLCs and replaced with some other entities for the release version (fingers crossed for one of them being modern Middle Eastern civ).

By the way, what historical successor for Greece are we going to get? I assume Normans and Abbasids, because of their conquests of formerly Byzantine lands? I mean it's not the most terrible logic, with the medieval islam's love for the ancient Greek science and Normans being ancient Greece's bridge towards modern Western nations... but I'd still prefer to simply get Byzantium in the base game, which would also serve as a decent bridge towards Russia (and Ottomans, and like half of Eastern Europe)

Normans and Spain.

I still believe this isn‘t nearly as important for playing the game as it is discussed.

 

[Krikkit1]

Oh. In this case it all gets even more interesting.

Either we still get Germany and Russia anyway, despite them having somewhat unconvincing historical evolution paths with the current roster (especially in the Russian case), or they are indeed relegated to those two first DLCs and replaced with some other entities for the release version (fingers crossed for one of them being modern Middle Eastern civ).

By the way, what historical successor for Greece are we going to get? I assume Normans and Abbasids, because of their conquests of formerly Byzantine lands? I mean it's not the most terrible logic, with the medieval islam's love for the ancient Greek science and Normans being ancient Greece's bridge towards modern Western nations... but I'd still prefer to simply get Byzantium in the base game, which would also serve as a decent bridge towards Russia (and Ottomans, and like half of Eastern Europe)

Also you are missing Qing.

Basically we get no more than 2 of Britain, Germany, Russia. (possibly only one if something like Ottomans is in)