Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[Krikkit1]

The dev team has said that they want to depict "civilizations" at the peak of their power. So depicting America as a Modern civ makes sense from that perspective. But it will feel weird if the gameplay leads you to expand and colonize as the Shawnee/Hawaiians/Normans/whoever and then only flip to being America once that expansion is pretty much complete.

Expansion wouldn’t finish in the Exploration Age. The Settlement cap will go up from Exploration to Modern, And I could see America with expansion bonuses in modern.

 

[Jeppetto]

In fact, there may well be a boom of city growth and expansionism, to both represent growing urbanization and that "majority of map is already all drawn and colored" feeling of ages closing to WW period. Afterward, the focus could be more redrawing map, new independent powers and international drama (most fit for another extra age)

 

[CivKirk64]

I got all excited thinking today was new Civ day, but its Tuesdays normally. Sad Panda. Who's yet to go from Exploration?

 

[uppi]

I got all excited thinking today was new Civ day, but its Tuesdays normally. Sad Panda. Who's yet to go from Exploration?

Only Songhai. So that would be the safe bet, unless you want to bet that they are going to be revealed later for some reason.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Only Songhai. So that would be the safe bet, unless you want to bet that they are going to be revealed later for some reason.

It's possible they could pull a Persia and run a Modern civ instead for some reason.

I'd still lean towards it being Songhai though.

The bigger mystery to me: who is the leader? Are they doing a leader this week that will be associated with a Modern civ revealed next week? Is it a non-associated leader that fits better in Exploration than Modern? Is it TAMAR OF GEORGIA?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Possibly this is "clean up" week and they focus on previously-announced but not-yet-featured Songhai and either Benjamin Franklin or Napoleon. Either Franklin or Napoleon would provide an opportunity for a sneak peek at a modern civ and modern era gameplay.

 

[Sagax]

If it ends up being Frederick or Catherine, then we can probably rule out their civ being at launch. Makes no sense to announce them like that instead of pairing with the historical civ in the same week.

 

[uppi]

It's possible they could pull a Persia and run a Modern civ instead for some reason.

I'd still lean towards it being Songhai though.

The bigger mystery to me: who is the leader? Are they doing a leader this week that will be associated with a Modern civ revealed next week? Is it a non-associated leader that fits better in Exploration than Modern? Is it TAMAR OF GEORGIA?

By my count, we have 7 Antiquity age leaders* (with 3 of them women) and 5+1 Exploration age leaders (with 2 of them women). So if we assume, we get around 7 leaders per age, that would be one more unrevealed Exploration age leader who should be a woman to fulfill the quota.

Female Exploration Age leader really leaves only one choice: TAMAR OF GEORGIA!
Or literally anyone else

*who lived roughly during the age, I know we keep them for the whole game.

 

[Siptah]

Did you include Himiko in that antiquity count? (Seems like you did). We still haven’t seen her though. Similarly, another leader might remain hidden.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Female Exploration Age leader really leaves only one choice: TAMAR OF GEORGIA!
Or literally anyone else

Elizabeth feels like the safer bet, especially if the Normans would be the only English/British associated civ in the base game.

 

[uppi]

Did you include Himiko in that antiquity count?

yes

 

[Siptah]

Elizabeth feels like the safer bet, especially if the Normans would be the only English/British associated civ in the base game.

And if she is revealed this week, it would imply there is no British civ in the Modern Age. Otherwise she‘d get the Himiko treatment as well.

 

[uppi]

Did you include Himiko in that antiquity count? (Seems like you did). We still haven’t seen her though. Similarly, another leader might remain hidden.

True. In that case we would probably get a modern leader and also probably a modern civ and Songhai are delayed.

Elizabeth feels like the safer bet, especially if the Normans would be the only English/British associated civ in the base game.

If Britain is in the base game, she would probably be revealed along Britain. If Britain is not in the base game, they will likely also get a leader as DLC in the same pack. So she might not be in the base game either. But who knows?

 

[Lord Lakely]

I will guess Songhai as this week's Civ, yeah.

No idea about what leader, but I've a feeling we've seen all Exploration-related leaders. So, Napoleon?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It could be a leader who is chronologically Exploration, but has a Modern association, like Montezuma associated with Mexico.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I'm going to go against the grain and bet against Songhai. Modern civ tomorrow, Modern leader Thursday. As for which ones? I don't know, maybe Meiji and Himiko?

 

[Jeppetto]

Would be fun If it were Leader without Civ (yet), a surprise like Machiavelli. Perhaps it'll be a question of accepting a trade agreement with England. A boy can dream.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Emerging from the shadow of Mongol-dominated Yuan, the Ming turned inward, revitalizing Han traditions

rebelled, leading to the rise of the Manchu-dominated Qing.

I know the common consensus is that Qing will be our Modern Age China, I myself am betting on it, but the Ming blurb makes me hesitate, however slightly. The opening text frames Ming as a return of a "true" China getting back in touch with Chinese tradition, with the dynasty led by a different ethnic group described as a "shadow," framed by comparison as very not Chinese, not in touch with Chinese tradition. The last clause parallels this, with the next dynasty described as led by a different ethnic group as well. On its own, this is a simple and effective way to frame the historical context of Ming, especially as a justification for it as the pick from its time period to represent China. A shining light of Chinese identity in between "shadows," dark ages of foreign occupation. However, it feels a bit odd if Qing is the next civ, no? To portray the Yuan dynasty as non-Chinese, frame Qing in the same light, and then have Qing be the next representation of China? A bit counterproductive, at least.

Of course, this is REALLY looking too much into things. There's already precedent that this is absolutely meaningless as an observation, with Shawnee's blurb ending with "but the US army loomed on the horizon" when it's almost certainly their primary geographical link in vanilla. Though if I wanted to do even further pointless over analyzation, the China civs seem to be especially designed with civ switching in mind, while Shawnee is associated with single Age games and Advanced Starts, which might have an effect on how they were thinking about them when writing the blurbs? Maybe? Who knows...

 

[Seek]

Sarah said on Reddit today that another live stream is incoming!

Spoiler :

 

[Jeppetto]

So I've been thinking again, as I futilely do now and then. This is speculation based off patterns, therefore a weak speculation. But still it intrigues me. Usually a Wonder for Civ is either in the picture with the Civ's Guide If they have no associated Leader OR on the Leader's Thumbnail (unless they have Persona) if they do have associated/recommended Leader (such as Machiavelli featuring Oracle).

Yet I don't think they have shown Great Stele this way. And they seem to be introducing Leaders for potentional future Civs like Charlemagne for HRE or Machiavelli for Italy / Venice. So I assume Ethiopian Modern Leader might be in base. But that's just theory. An insane theory.

EDIT: Looking more closely at their picture, though, it appears to being constructed in the background so I guess that might count

EDIT2: I also wonder about Erdene Zuu and possibility of seeing Mongolian Leader on Thursday.