Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

[Zaarin]

Actual ancient Japan is too archaeological to make into a civilization, but not a leader (in Himiko)?

I didn't choose Himiko.

If what you want is to have both Antiquity and Exploration Age civilizations for Japan

I explicitly said I don't...

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think at some point we'll see exploration age Japan, it has too much pop culture influence to skip. But antiquity age Japan is really unlikely.

 

[untitledjuan]

Additionally, there still seems to be this assumption that Firaxis intends to put every nation in all three Ages, and I have seen no indication that this is the case.

Also, what would a three Age American or Mexican civilization look like? Sure, America can have the Shawnee and Normans as predecessors, or Mexico the Aztec and Spain. But they are far from being the same civilization. This goes to show that it is not possible to have all civilizations in all three ages.

What about Exploration and Modern Babylon, Sumer or Assyria? It's just not possible.

 

[Xandinho]

I think Japan will be the next to have representatives across all three eras. Japan is top 3 largest gaming markets—it’s simply too big to ignore. They’ll find a way to represent Japan in antiquity, even if that means going with Heian (which, personally, I don't think is any more inappropriate than Khmer in Antiquity). Japanese players will want to play as Japan from antiquity all the way to the modern era.

 

[AriochIV]

I think Japan will be the next to have representatives across all three eras. Japan is top 3 largest gaming markets—it’s simply too big to ignore. They’ll find a way to represent Japan in antiquity, even if that means going with Heian (which, personally, I don't think is any more inappropriate than Khmer in Antiquity). Japanese players will want to play as Japan from antiquity all the way to the modern era.

If they made civilization inclusion decisions based on player demographics, then Korea, Canada, Britain and Scandinavia would already be in the base game.

 

[Krikkit1]

If they made civilization inclusion decisions based on player demographics, then Korea, Canada, Britain and Scandinavia would already be in the base game.

I definitely see Exploration Japan before we reach 50 civs (possibly in the prepurchase DLCs) Antiquity Japan I don’t see until we are past 60 civs.

 

[BlueWildRye]

If they made civilization inclusion decisions based on player demographics, then Korea, Canada, Britain and Scandinavia would already be in the base game.

I wish... Except Canada. They can wait.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Dates aside, Heian Japan wasn't an ancient culture... it was essentially the same medieval culture as the Shogunate, just with a different class of people in nominal charge. If what you want is to have both Antiquity and Exploration Age civilizations for Japan, I don't think Heian and the Shogunate are different enough to be interesting. In game terms, it's more of a difference between leaders rather than between civilizations. It would be kind of like having Plantagenet England and Tudor England as different civilizations.

Additionally, there still seems to be this assumption that Firaxis intends to put every nation in all three Ages, and I have seen no indication that this is the case.

I don't believe it's possible to put every nation in all three ages. However, Japan is a probable possibility, considering the devs even mentioned it. I don't think I'd give it priority over civs like Persia, but I wouldn't mind 3 eventually.

As far as Heian Japan goes, I think it would work fine in Antiquity. It's the period where Japan first started to come together under their own Japanese culture without influences from Korea or China. Plus, I've come around to the idea of a Jinja unique quarter (Shinto Shrine) with a Honden and Torii unique buildings, which were developed in the Heian period.

 

[Zaarin]

If they made civilization inclusion decisions based on player demographics, then Korea, Canada, Britain and Scandinavia would already be in the base game.

They definitely do make civilization decisions based on player demographics...just not solely based on player demographics.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Lol, what even are you talking about? So you need only empires in Civ games? Then why aren't you satisfied with just Meiji Japan, which was only real empire in the Japanese history? Don't say they have always the emperor, even Goryeo called their sovereign as the emperor.


This part is even worse. Putting aside your unfair comments about Korean people, I have no idea why nowaday Korea change the value of Korean history for Civ games, you want delete Maya or Mississippi?

I'm not sure why you are so defensive about this. I am merely explaining my reasoning, and the base game soft-confirms that Japan is more important to the devs than Korea.

And as @notNamed pointed out, not much difference than Ireland and Wales, but Ireland's chances of representation in any civ game are far greater due to having had more of an influence in the global era. More to the point, I would be somewhat surprised if we did get Silla as the origination point of Japan. It's certainly possible, but if appeasing the Japanese market is the aim, one would think they would try to Japonify the antiquity Japono-Korean civ to please that market.

Regarding your "empire" point, civ as a franchise has always preferred "empires" to kingdoms when vetting new civs, as a matter of synergizing with the expansion/conquest elements of the game as well as, consequently, covering more regional/cultural influence. Even in Civ VI, most of the newly added civs were judged by their territorial breadth and duration for that particular region: Canada, Australia, Georgia, Vietnam. Even Gran Colombia and Hungary were "empires" in the same sense as Macedonia was, Scotland was just "the other half" of the British empire, and the Cree/Mapuche were much better representations of territorial dominance than the Shoshone. Civ VII has not really opened that up much more: Buganda is about as "imperial-ish" as surviving modern SS African kingdoms can get. Yes, we have had Maya and Korea and Zulu in the franchise for a while when the concept was less explored. As it stands, only the Shawnee are kind of bucking the trend, and it remains to be seen if they branch out into full "empire/coalition" status with a modern addition of the Anishinaabe or Lakota.

At this point, I do not expect the Maya, or Zulu, or Georgia, or Buganda, or Hungary, or even Vietnam to get three eras. I wouldn't even expect Japan or Korea to, but given the Japanese market and the fact that they both could share an antiquity civ increases their chances. But as I said, would be very surprised if that antiquity civ is squarely Korean.

 

[gdr_willter]

I'm not sure why you are so defensive about this. I am merely explaining my reasoning

By criticizing divided Korea and Chaebol. Oh, come on. You even don't know about us. Stop this meaningless retroactivity.

 

[gdr_willter]

I'm not sure why you are so defensive about this. I am merely explaining my reasoning, and the base game soft-confirms that Japan is more important to the devs than Korea.

And as @notNamed pointed out, not much difference than Ireland and Wales, but Ireland's chances of representation in any civ game are far greater due to having had more of an influence in the global era. More to the point, I would be somewhat surprised if we did get Silla as the origination point of Japan. It's certainly possible, but if appeasing the Japanese market is the aim, one would think they would try to Japonify the antiquity Japono-Korean civ to please that market.

Regarding your "empire" point, civ as a franchise has always preferred "empires" to kingdoms when vetting new civs, as a matter of synergizing with the expansion/conquest elements of the game as well as, consequently, covering more regional/cultural influence. Even in Civ VI, most of the newly added civs were judged by their territorial breadth and duration for that particular region: Canada, Australia, Georgia, Vietnam. Even Gran Colombia and Hungary were "empires" in the same sense as Macedonia was, Scotland was just "the other half" of the British empire, and the Cree/Mapuche were much better representations of territorial dominance than the Shoshone. Civ VII has not really opened that up much more: Buganda is about as "imperial-ish" as surviving modern SS African kingdoms can get. Yes, we have had Maya and Korea and Zulu in the franchise for a while when the concept was less explored. As it stands, only the Shawnee are kind of bucking the trend, and it remains to be seen if they branch out into full "empire/coalition" status with a modern addition of the Anishinaabe or Lakota.

At this point, I do not expect the Maya, or Zulu, or Georgia, or Buganda, or Hungary, or even Vietnam to get three eras. I wouldn't even expect Japan or Korea to, but given the Japanese market and the fact that they both could share an antiquity civ increases their chances. But as I said, would be very surprised if that antiquity civ is squarely Korean.

In this entire conversation, you never told about "What were there in the history of Korea and Japan?" You always are talking about nowadays Korea and Japan, believing that are all. You even heard anything about the Three Kingdoms of Korea? or even the Japanese ancient history? I don't want to talk about these anymore, you seems already said all you want, and seems never listen what I'm talking about.

Oh, no. one more.
Japan was never an regional empire before the modern Meiji one. So you defeated yourself.

 

[RedCourtJester]

By criticizing divided Korea and Chaebol. Oh, come on. You even don't know about us. Stop this meaningless retroactivity.

South Korea's economy is very weird compared to other modern economies. 22% of the nation's economy is driven by a single company, and an additional 20% by three other companies.

That is not the norm, and in some respects it is quite fragile.

My heritage is mostly Polish, I would be totally content with Poland getting a single civ, and I don't even need it to be modern (although it probably will be a modern Poland-Lithuania civ) because I think Poland has not been a very relevant player for centuries. I don't see why pointing out similar reasons for limited representation of other countries should be such an affront.

 

[gdr_willter]

South Korea's economy is very weird compared to other modern economies. 22% of the nation's economy is driven by a single company, and an additional 20% by three other companies.

That is not the norm, and in some respects it is quite fragile.

Yea weird, but it doesn't change anything about Silla or Goryeo. Don't you see what I'm talking about rly?

 

[gdr_willter]

My heritage is mostly Polish, I would be totally content with Poland getting a single civ, and I don't even need it to be modern because I think Poland has not been a very relevant player for centuries. I don't see why pointing out similar reasons for limited representation of other countries should be such an affront.

Dmn I'm not talking about it. I'm completely okay if there is one Korea or even no Korea in the game. I'm upset from YOU who estimate the entire history of my nation only with "oh they divided and chaebol weak~" thing.

How will you feel if someone says "History of Poland? No thanks, I already know everything about your contury: the nothing without Soviet or EU"?

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yea weird, but it doesn't change anything about Silla or Goryeo. Don't you see what I'm talking about rly?

I do, but I also am not anticipating a Lac civ for Vietnam, nor a Mayapan or Yucatan for Maya.

And I especially am getting the impression that antiquity civs have better chances if they are a "wellfont" of several civs without any preferred direction: we are not exactly expecting 1:1 progressions for Rome, Greece, Maya, or Khmer (and arguably Egypt and Aksum). I think an antiquity K/J civ is more likely for the sake of being able to represent both civs, but I would be surprised if it were purely Silla Korea or Yamato Japan. The history may favor Silla, but the optics favor Japan.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And I especially am getting the impression that antiquity civs have better chances if they are a "wellfont" of several civs without any preferred direction: we are not exactly expecting 1:1 progressions for Rome, Greece, Maya, or Khmer (and arguably Egypt and Aksum). I think an antiquity K/J civ is more likely for the sake of being able to represent both civs, but I would be surprised if it were purely Silla Korea or Yamato Japan. The history may favor Silla, but the optics favor Japan.

Silla has precedent in Civ at least, with Seondeok appearing last game and the Emile Bell Wonder for Civ 7 so I see no reason to discount it yet. That being said, I don't disagree that Japan might be more likely to get 3 civs, but there's always the possibility Korea will too. I at least think Joeson Korea will appear in Modern no matter what, but Goryeo in Exploration I don't know.

 

[gdr_willter]

I do, but I also am not anticipating a Lac civ for Vietnam, nor a Mayapan or Yucatan for Maya.

And I especially am getting the impression that antiquity civs have better chances if they are a "wellfont" of several civs without any preferred direction: we are not exactly expecting 1:1 progressions for Rome, Greece, Maya, or Khmer (and arguably Egypt and Aksum). I think an antiquity K/J civ is more likely for the sake of being able to represent both civs, but I would be surprised if it were purely Silla Korea or Yamato Japan. The history may favor Silla, but the optics favor Japan.

Sadly, it can't. Because there was no single state which was actually the ancestor of both nation. they slowly splitted by the strait and old kingdoms appeared later separately. Baekje built some alliance with Wa to defeat Goguryeo and Silla, but Baekje-Wa Civ doesn't make sense so much.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sadly, it can't. Because there was no single state which was actually the ancestor of both nation. they slowly splitted by the strait and old kingdoms appeared later separately. Baekje built some alliance with Wa to defeat Goguryeo and Silla, but Baekje-Wa Civ doesn't make sense so much.

They might be talking about the Yayoi people/period? But that's not exactly an ideal idea to make a civ out of.

 

[Xandinho]

Silla has precedent in Civ at least, with Seondeok appearing last game and the Emile Bell Wonder for Civ 7 so I see no reason to discount it yet. That being said, I don't disagree that Japan might be more likely to get 3 civs, but there's always the possibility Korea will too. I at least think Joeson Korea will appear in Modern no matter what, but Goryeo in Exploration I don't know.

I'm quite convinced that Joseon and Silla will make an appearance. Considering Civ's history, these are the periods of Korean history that the franchise has focused on the most.

I'm not as certain about Goryeo, but it's still a possibility.