Civ7 peoples-- before the starting gun -- NoGo

[Lord Lakely]

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.

As one of the resident Belgians, I would be more okay with Belgium's inclusion than most here, as long as Belgium's focus is as a pure industrial power. There have been certain -ahem- atrocities in our past that are best left excluded from the game's content.

I also do not know what the Belgian Infastructure would be like. (UU, UC, Wonder and general direction + names of the Civics and Traditions are easy enough for me). Flanders, Hainaut, Liège and Brabant each had more distinct cultural identity when they were separate entitites under the rule of the Burgundians and the Hapsburgs.

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.

The Dutch can be represented in Antiquity by a Frisian independent power and then branch away from either a Celtic, Merovingian or Germanic major Civ.

 

[Zaarin]

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.

It would mean adding 200 turns to the game and switching civs an additional time, and it might mean launching with 7 or 8 civs per age instead of 10; I think adding another age would be less than helpful. Also, every individual age has to have its own set of rules, and the Medieval period was simply one of transition from Antiquity to Modernity. I'm not sure how useful isolating it would be from a mechanical perspective, either. I don't disagree that it makes some of the civ choices awkward (hello, Normans); I just don't think separating the Medieval period as its own age would improve the game.

 

[pokiehl]

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.

Switching too many times presents a big problem in terms of immersive eras and identifying with your civ (see Humankind). 3 ages seems like the best solution.

 

[AD1730]

The Dutch can be represented in Antiquity by a Frisian independent power and then branch away from either a Celtic, Merovingian or Germanic major Civ.

I think the way I would have done it is have a few broad people groups in Antiquity, with an increasing number of civs in each age. I wouldn't have had roughly equal numbers in at least the first two ages.

 

[Zaarin]

I think the way I would have done it is have a few broad people groups in Antiquity, with an increasing number of civs in each age. I wouldn't have had roughly equal numbers in at least the first two ages.

Every age is going to have a group of players who are particularly invested in that era. As someone whose particular interest is Antiquity, I would have found that very dissatisfying.

 

[AD1730]

Switching too many times presents a big problem in terms of immersive eras and identifying with your civ (see Humankind). 3 ages seems like the best solution.

For me, switching as currently implemented destroys identification with the Civ. One more change wouldn't really change that from my perspective, but could help with some very poor civ switching matches.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Oh yeah, I forgot about them. Belgium would definitely fit the Modern Age if they appeared.

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on building placement, considering universal temples aren't until Exploration Age, but so many Antiquity civs actually built them, not to mention the Maya not able to build observatories. But it might be something to consider.

Another thing is there's always a possibility that Spain could eventually transition into the Netherlands later down the line.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think the way I would have done it is have a few broad people groups in Antiquity, with an increasing number of civs in each age. I wouldn't have had roughly equal numbers in at least the first two ages.

I would not be opposed to that on paper. Though I don't really care about Modern Civs in at all.

If it were up to me, the Exploration pool would be the largest. Which might happen eventually, as leaders can be eliminated in the first two ages.

 

[AD1730]

Every age is going to have a group of players who are particularly invested in that era. As someone whose particular interest is Antiquity, I would have found that very dissatisfying.

Given the limit on the number of players in the early era, it makes sense to have fewer Civs in it, particularly at release.

 

[Lord Lakely]

For me, switching as currently implemented destroys identification with the Civ. One more change wouldn't really change that from my perspective, but could help with some very poor civ switching matches.

I'll say that although the switching itself doesn't bother me, I haaaate the History Is Built In Layers mantra that the devs keep repeating over and over and over again. Especially when praising an America that is mostly made up from Greek and Norman city names which have NOT been updated between transitions. At what point does Everwyk stop being Everwyk and starts being York?

I will probably wait until the Rosetta mod comes out before I buy for that reason alone.

 

[AD1730]

I'll say that although the switching itself doesn't bother me, I haaaate the History Is Built In Layers mantra that the devs keep repeating over and over and over again. Especially when praising an America that is mostly made up from Greek and Norman city names which have NOT been updated between transitions. At what point does Everwyk stop being Everwyk and starts being York?

I will probably wait until the Rosetta mod comes out before I buy for that reason alone.

I agree. I think many of the most egregious civ switching issues are created by having only three ages. Let's say if you went Romans > Normans > England > America it would be far less jarring. While not perfect, having the intermediate step helps.

 

[Evolena]

Given the limit on the number of players in the early era, it makes sense to have fewer Civs in it, particularly at release.

There are not less player in Antiquity, unless you play a game of Antiquity only. The civs on the Distant Land still have to be there in this age if you are to discover them in Exploration age.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'll say that although the switching itself doesn't bother me, I haaaate the History Is Built In Layers mantra that the devs keep repeating over and over and over again. Especially when praising an America that is mostly made up from Greek and Norman city names which have NOT been updated between transitions. At what point does Everwyk stop being Everwyk and starts being York?

I will probably wait until the Rosetta mod comes out before I buy for that reason alone.

They do need to really address the Names of both cities and civs. That could help a lot with the changes if players had more control over how much both sets of names changed.

 

[Zaarin]

Given the limit on the number of players in the early era, it makes sense to have fewer Civs in it, particularly at release.

I can't say I agree, especially since, as Evolena said, the civs in Distant Land still exist. If anything, launching with additional Antiquity civs would have made sense from the perspective that choosing your Antiquity civ most closely aligns to your civ choice in other Civ games.

They do need to really address the Names of both cities and civs. That could help a lot with the changes if players had more control over how much both sets of names changed.

I fully expect a mod like Rosetta Stone to be even more invaluable for Civ7 than it was for Civ6.

 

[AD1730]

I can't say I agree, especially since, as Evolena said, the civs in Distant Land still exist. If anything, launching with additional Antiquity civs would have made sense from the perspective that choosing your Antiquity civ most closely aligns to your civ choice in other Civ games.


I fully expect a mod like Rosetta Stone to be even more invaluable for Civ7 than it was for Civ6.

I’ll just say I disagree completely and leave it at that.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

idk how to describe it but hatsheptsut’s design doesn’t actually feel very reminiscent of her as it does cleopatra, to me, though i could very much be off base here, or perhaps bcs of the clothing similarities.

hatshepsut doesnt have anything that we attach to her distinctly, for example the beard, the hook that she’s often depicted with, etc.

again, maybe a stupid complaint and cleopatra-lite might not be the right term as much as “generic leader” is, but i just don’t see her as being “hatshepsut” to me.

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.

to be clear, i actually am very glad my favorite civ *is* in the game.

however, i do take issue with the notion that the civ and leader selections are perfect in isolation and the notable exclusions are solely victims of cast size limitations.

there’s some very clear imbalances geographically in both the starting civs and leaders and while few civs have reasonable progressions (india’s 3 civs might be the only ones), non-european civs have clearly had worse default progressions (roman-norman-french or roman-spanish-french is clearly orders of magnitude better than egypt-songhai-buganda or maya-inca-mexico)

it’s prob unreasonable to be asking for a lot of the european civs ppl are questioning the exclusion of—england and russia are probably the most reasonable ones: netherlands, portugal, germany, poland, italy all feel very reasonable to be dlc inclusions, and many take up similar era/gameplay niches, which will change the calculus around their inclusions long term.

For example, how many exploration era expansion-and-trade civs can they really include? chola and spain already fill that niche at launch, so it’s more difficult to prevent portugal and netherlands from being repetitive, especially when portugal and the netherlands fill the same geographic niche as well.

meanwhile, any of babylon/assyria/hittites/sumer would fulfill a very empty geographic hole in the ancient era. so would the aztecs, abyssinia, swahili, shona, zimbabwe. the modern era, likely to be the heaviest on european entrants, could really use alternatives to an indigenous to post-colonial pipeline, which seems likely with the cases of the inca or shawnee. even if post-colonial entrants were necessary, peru, chile or bolivia would be far more fitting for the evolution of the inca over mexico, a whole continent away.

 

[Evie]

Distant land civs or not, players playing an ancient-only game (which the game is supposed to support) shouldn't have (significantly) fewer options than other players playing other single-era games. That would simply be bad design, and I'm flabbergasted at the number of people who keep blithely thinking that offering less support to the era they care less about in order to have moar civs in the era they like is perfectly fine.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Distant land civs or not, players playing an ancient-only game (which the game is supposed to support) shouldn't have (significantly) fewer options than other players playing other single-era games. That would simply be bad design, and I'm flabbergasted at the number of people who keep blithely thinking that offering less support to the era they care less about in order to have moar civs in the era they like is perfectly fine.

especially since ancient civs tend to epitomize the traditional appeal of civ: being able to imagine scenarios where babylon was a world power for centuries longer than it actually was.

the entire point of civ 7 is to create 3 equally important games that form a saga—distant lands doesn’t mean those civs aren’t being played either. it means they’re just not visible since the era had transportation limitations.

 

[AD1730]

Distant land civs or not, players playing an ancient-only game (which the game is supposed to support) shouldn't have (significantly) fewer options than other players playing other single-era games. That would simply be bad design, and I'm flabbergasted at the number of people who keep blithely thinking that offering less support to the era they care less about in order to have moar civs in the era they like is perfectly fine.

I’m going to assume your comment is addressing me. It has nothing to do with caring less (don’t assume people’s motives). Instead, I believe it makes sense to have a smaller roster of ancient civs that branch in multiple directions (i.e. Romans to Franks or Byzantines, etc.).

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I’m going to assume your comment is addressing me. It has nothing to do with caring less (don’t assume people’s motives). Instead, I believe it makes sense to have a smaller roster of ancient civs that branch in multiple directions (i.e. Romans to Franks or Byzantines, etc.).

this assumes that historically we always had less people’s who turned into more.

that’s only true if you want to consider timeframes beyond that where civ would start. the roman’s may have branched off into many civs that we understand to have existed in the medieval era, but that doesn’t mean there were less peoples who existed in the ancient era. it’s just that a lot of them were subsumed into other peoples or eliminated via conquest.