Civ7 peoples-- before the starting gun -- NoGo

[Lord Lakely]

Romans lived in Carthage, and Carthaginians lived in Romans.

I always knew the Romans were the bossy bottoms in that toxic relationship...x

 

[Lord Lakely]

A significant number of civilizations now considered staples in the Civilization series were not playable until Civ III: the Dutch, Koreans, Incas, Mayans, Ottomans, Byzantines... Even the Arabs, despite their immense historical significance, could not officially be played until Civ III.

None of these could even be played in the Civ III base game. They were all added in the expansions. (ditto with the Sumerians)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Norway! (I jest. The Norse discovery of Vinland was an impressive accomplishment in itself, but it had no lasting significance.)

I know you jest, but wasn't that one of the reasons why they chose the name Exploration, encompassing what we know of the Medieval Period as well?
Regarding Portugal, it will eventually come. I expect it to come in Civ 7 before it shows up in Humankind, at least.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Spain and Portugal is too much overlap for launch... I much prefer our current variety. I would not give up any of the current roster for a second Iberian civ focused on trade and settling.

They don't have to overlap. Spain is more than just a colonizer empire. Design a Spain around the Iberian Wedding or the Reconquista or the Kingdom of Asturias, and you have a completely different (and equally viable) angle to Spain.

Portugal was a very fun and well-designed Civilization in Civ6 too. A variation of that design, adapted to Civ7's standards would be an easy shoe-in.

 

[Zaarin]

I know you jest, but wasn't that one of the reasons why they chose the name Exploration, encompassing what we know of the Medieval Period as well?

I believe that was fan speculation and not something they've stated explicitly, though it makes sense.

I expect it to come in Civ 7 before it shows up in Humankind, at least.

Given that, to my knowledge, work has been suspended on HK for some time now...safe bet.

Design a Spain around the Iberian Wedding or the Reconquista or the Kingdom of Asturias, and you have a completely different (and equally viable) angle to Spain.

I get they wanted to make Spain the flagship civ for the Age of Exploration, but I would have enjoyed a different take on it for once.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Design a Spain around the Iberian Wedding or the Reconquista or the Kingdom of Asturias, and you have a completely different (and equally viable) angle to Spain.

Hell, the Inquisition.

Sure, nobody would expect that.

But a civ that draws advantages from enforcing religious orthodoxy would be viable.

 

[Xandinho]

Spain: colonization, conquest and catechization of lands on other continents.

Portugal: exploration and maritime trade.

Netherlands: maritime trade as well, but in the Modern Age.

Great Britain: industrialization and a touch of science and trade.

England: naval power and culture.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Netherlands doesn't have to be maritime trade either. They can very easily be a Scientific/Economic Modern Civ focused on land reclamation, agriculture and engineering.

In fact, a path where you go through a Homeland Trade focused Flanders (= Southern Netherlands) into a Scientific Kingdom of the Netherlands would offer variance and represent both of the Low Countries in a single line.

 

[pokiehl]

No one is saying you can’t carve out distinct gameplay niches. The thing is, the devs clearly prioritize having civs with different geographical and cultural attributes for the base game or within a single DLC, etc. It’s the same reason we don’t ever get Babylon and Sumer at the same time.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

i’m not a massive fan of the leader choices overall, but for almost the opposite reason (i think it’s overwhelmingly eurocentric and most are too well known to be compelling to me—some obviously work for me. ibn battuta, amina, harriet tubman, trung trac, tecumseh and machiavelli for example. but the majority feel done to death—isabella, augustus, pachacuti, ashoka all feel like either overrepresented or not that compelling compared to alternatives.)

i’m prob not buying at launch but that’s mostly because the number of civs to me is too low atm and i’m not a fan of some of the shoehorned default paths. i will almost certainly eventually buy though, since the game includes my biggest civ request of all time (the chola) and does look good, i just need more compelling leaders and better civ paths to sell it for me

 

[moondog385]

i’m not a massive fan of the leader choices overall, but for almost the opposite reason (i think it’s overwhelmingly eurocentric and most are too well known to be compelling to me—some obviously work for me. ibn battuta, amina, harriet tubman, trung trac, tecumseh and machiavelli for example. but the majority feel done to death—isabella, augustus, pachacuti, ashoka all feel like either overrepresented or not that compelling compared to alternatives.)

i’m prob not buying at launch but that’s mostly because the number of civs to me is too low atm and i’m not a fan of some of the shoehorned default paths. i will almost certainly eventually buy though, since the game includes my biggest civ request of all time (the chola) and does look good, i just need more compelling leaders and better civ paths to sell it for me

I agree on the leaders. They seem to slant towards well known figures and as a result there are a lot of Europeans. I don’t have an issue with any of the choices in a vacuum though except perhaps Himiko.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I agree on the leaders. They seem to slant towards well known figures and as a result there are a lot of Europeans. I don’t have an issue with any of the choices in a vacuum though except perhaps Himiko.

yeah same. no leader to me feels wrong to include by itself but the overall balance of the cast feels off. xerxes representing the entirety of the ancient middle east and therefore seeing an absence of mesopotamian leaders is unfortunate. i don’t have an issue with hatshepsut but the characterization feels like cleopatra lite, not what made hatshepsut compelling. seeing the deblobification of india, only to get the only leader besides gandhi whose appeared prior to civ 6 for india is beyond disappointing. and the distribution of civs themselves is frustrating since so many are european compared to a very small cast, so we don’t have proper african or indigenous american pathways.

 

[Zaarin]

xerxes representing the entirety of the ancient middle east and therefore seeing an absence of mesopotamian leaders is unfortunate.

I'm also disappointed by the lack of an Ancient Mesopotamian civ and leader, but I expect the two will come together.

i don’t have an issue with hatshepsut but the characterization feels like cleopatra lite

She hasn't seemed particularly flirtatious in the scenes we've seen her in.

 

[Lord Lakely]

No one is saying you can’t carve out distinct gameplay niches. The thing is, the devs clearly prioritize having civs with different geographical and cultural attributes for the base game or within a single DLC, etc.

There's nothing wrong with that. I'm pleased we got Chola, Mississipians, Aksumites, Hawaiians, etc, each with the unique design. But it's also not that big of an ask to expect Netherlands, Portugal, Byzantium, Poland and a Nordic Civ to return at a certain point down the line, alongside the newer, fresher choices.

It’s the same reason we don’t ever get Babylon and Sumer at the same time.

With the exception of Beyond the Sword, which added both at the same time.

xerxes representing the entirety of the ancient middle east and therefore seeing an absence of mesopotamian leaders is unfortunate.

Over the past few months, Xerxes has become my least favourite leader choice in the base game, and that sentiment is only going to grow the longer it takes for a proper Mesopotamian (or second Persian) to show up. Two personas, one the quintessential Achaemenid (for which he's an inferior choice compared to Darius) warmongering persona (gimping the odds for Tamerlane), the other a fictious Silk Road persona (plummeting the odds for a Sogdian or Kushan Civ in Antiquity).

The game hasn't been released yet and his inclusion has already aged like a fine milk.

edit: LMFAO @ the way the editor censors kuhorsehockeye

 

[Gori the Grey]

edit: LMFAO @ the way the editor censors kuhorsehockye

We discovered it earlier over in OT (perhaps b/c we use the censored word there more).

Autocensor

No, it doesn't.

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[seasnake]

There are things that I question about the current game design, but it is not the developers fault that resources and slots for starting civs are finite. I feel like complaining about your favorite civ not being available at launch is pretty weak tea. If that's your biggest concern, but the mechanics and gameplay look good, you should probably look to pick up the game and try out a civ you are less excited for now. In Civ V, one of my favorite civs to play was Venice, and they were certainly not on my list before the game came out of "must-have" civs. I think a lot of people are going to fall in love with playing civs they never asked for nor wanted.​

​

Also, rest assured, this game is going to be getting dlc for at least the next five years. I expect we'll see a lot of civ variety, a lot of leaders, probably a post-modern age added, and a lot of history before it's all done (and yes, we'll probably complaint about it a lot too).​

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Netherlands: maritime trade as well, but in the Modern Age.

Netherlands I could potentially see in the Exploration Age as well, under the Dutch Republic. I think they are viable in either age. If they are in Exploration I'm not sure who would they go into, unless we get the Boers or hypothetical modern Indonesia? I guess America could also work.

ng. seeing the deblobification of india, only to get the only leader besides gandhi whose appeared prior to civ 6 for india is beyond disappointing.

What about Indira Gandhi in Civ 2? Though I guess technically she still is a Gandhi.

She hasn't seemed particularly flirtatious in the scenes we've seen her in.

That's why there is the "lite" part of "Cleopatra lite".

 

[Zaarin]

edit: LMFAO @ the way the editor censors kuhorsehockye

I use the Cyrillic letter dze (ѕ) when I need to talk about the Cuѕhites. This is not an endorsement to get around the auto censor for genuine profanity, which you will still get dinged for. To my knowledge, there's no way to black list words from the auto censor, unfortunately.

That's why there is the "lite" part of "Cleopatra lite".

I mean...what makes Cleopatra distinctive as a leader is her flirtatiousness/use of sexuality to achieve and maintain power. If "Cleopatra lite" just means "is female and wears Egyptian clothing," I'm not sure how useful a term it is. What else would you expect of a female Egyptian leader? Wearing a qipao and speaking Marshallese?

 

[Xandinho]

Netherlands I could potentially see in the Exploration Age as well, under the Dutch Republic. I think they are viable in either age. If they are in Exploration I'm not sure who would they go into, unless we get the Boers or hypothetical modern Indonesia? I guess America could also work.

If they are in the Exploration Age, I think they will go to Belgium due to a regional transition. However, it seems that stock exchanges are modern buildings in Civ7, and it’s very likely that the Dutch will interact with them. Therefore, I believe that, for this reason, it’s more probable that the Netherlands will be in the Modern Age.

 

[AD1730]

If they are in the Exploration Age, I think they will go to Belgium due to a regional transition. However, it seems that stock exchanges are modern buildings in Civ7, and it’s very likely that the Dutch will interact with them. Therefore, I believe that, for this reason, it’s more probable that the Netherlands will be in the Modern Age.

I get why they did it, but going from Antiquity to Exploration seems odd. Antiquity > Medieval > Exploration > Modern would flow better and would help solve some of the poor Civ switching matches.