Civilization VII - Civ switching and age transitions

[Boris Gudenuf]

Have to admit I'm a little disappointed in what we've seen of the era switching so far. It all seems pretty low impact, without much room for things like revolutions or new civs spawning between eras.

Even the whole map expanding thing seems like any other continents game, except for it sorta rules out / complicates most non-continents map types.

On the contrary, the Exploration Age will have new Civs appearing, just on newly-revealed parts of the map (admittedly, probably on new continents). In addition, Minor States will, they imply, be different, so even your near neighbors can present some new problems and oipportunities.

And of course, what you get in your new Civ depends a lot more than we knew before on what you did in the previous Age in collecting points for Legacies and other carry-overs. From what they revealed, I strongly suspect I can play a different Norman Civ in every game, based on what I did in the previous Age. In addition, even if I think I know what my new neighboring Civs are in the New Age, based on the Legacy attributes, they may also be different in every game.

 

[Ornen]

On the contrary, the Exploration Age will have new Civs appearing, just on newly-revealed parts of the map (admittedly, probably on new continents). In addition, Minor States will, they imply, be different, so even your near neighbors can present some new problems and oipportunities.

from what I can tell, they're still simming the other half of the map as you play, just like they do in current continents maps...

there's potential to do a ton of interesting stuff with era transitions. it's just from everything they've actually shown... I'm just a little underwhelmed

 

[chaosprophet]

And of course, what you get in your new Civ depends a lot more than we knew before on what you did in the previous Age in collecting points for Legacies and other carry-overs. From what they revealed, I strongly suspect I can play a different Norman Civ in every game, based on what I did in the previous Age. In addition, even if I think I know what my new neighboring Civs are in the New Age, based on the Legacy attributes, they may also be different in every game.

Based on the leader, the legacy attributes and unique buildings and improvements from the previous civ you had, plus other things that may carry from previous civ. Also in a way, the build up, if you have a civ that really helps with being expansionist and pick normas on age 2, you're likely to have a very different starting normans than if you picked a civilization that more about building tall instead.

 

[Arent11]

Have to admit I'm a little disappointed in what we've seen of the era switching so far. It all seems pretty low impact, without much room for things like revolutions or new civs spawning between eras.

Even the whole map expanding thing seems like any other continents game, except for it sorta rules out / complicates most non-continents map types.

I withhold judgement until I have seen more. But this map expansion and Greece becoming Normans... Oh boy.

On the plus side, they reverted the movement to "stop on rough terrain" which was the original in civ 1 & much better than civ 6.

 

[shaglio]

Play as Hidden!

Ninja civ confirmed! Or maybe Assassin civ (Hashshashin).

 

[Giskler]

So, looking at this screen, I think the unlocked and locked civs are both listed alphabetically. Based on that, and the fact that Augustus is indicated to be an historical choice for the third one, we can maybe start making some educated guesses as to which civ that is.

 

[Giskler]

Now, for this one, I think that based on the text below, the one above is likely to be Britain. Great Britain or the United Kingdom are both too long and England is unlikely to be a Modern age civ. Also helps that Ed Beach has mention the example of getting to Britain via the Normans multiple times in interviews.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

View attachment 703177
So, looking at this screen, I think the unlocked and locked civs are both listed alphabetically. Based on that, and the fact that Augustus is indicated to be an historical choice for the third one, we can maybe start making some educated guesses as to which civ that is.

We can say a few things.
1) Augustus can play as 1 civ that comes before Normans in the alphabet. Byzantines? HRE? Muscovy?
2) Augustus can play as 1 civ that comes after Normans in the alphabet and is a historical choice. Spain? Tuscany? Venice?
3) There are no other civ that comes between Abbasids and Chola, no Aztecs

 

[Giskler]

I'm not sure if Hatshepsut switched to Abbasids. The icon looks slightly different.

The others match up exactly:

 

[Ornen]

We can say a few things.
1) Augustus can play as 1 civ that comes before Normans in the alphabet. Byzantines? HRE? Muscovy?
2) Augustus can play as 1 civ that comes after Normans in the alphabet and is a historical choice. Spain? Tuscany? Venice?
3) There are no other civ that comes between Abbasids and Chola, no Aztecs

unless Rome into Aztec

(in all seriousness, I'm not reading into how unrevealed civs are laid out. among other reasons, I suspect there are a few that aren't present in this build — unless we're really getting 11 civs per era)

 

[Giskler]

unless Rome into Aztec

(in all seriousness, I'm not reading into how unrevealed civs are laid out. among other reasons, I suspect there are a few that aren't present in this build — unless we're really getting 11 civs per era)

I doubt it's 11, if it was only 11 then why have arrows on either end of the circles?

 

[wilting_aspen]

I wonder if the listed civs are limited to what the base civ can feasibly progress to (through historical/leader/regional/gameplay factors) and some civs will not show up in the list, so some civs will never be able to turn into specific later civs.

However, that is probably unlikely (and hopium, lol)

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder if the listed civs are limited to what the base civ can feasibly progress to (through historical/leader/regional/gameplay factors) and some civs will not show up in the list, so some civs will never be able to turn into specific later civs.

However, that is probably unlikely (and hopium, lol)

I think it's more likely some civs just weren't included in this build.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Notice that the Shawnee aren't listed either.

 

[Ornen]

I doubt it's 11, if it was only 11 then why have arrows on either end of the circles?

the other civ pick screen had room for 12 total. but there's also a pretty solid chance not all civs are in this build, so hard to read into it too much

 

[Lord Lakely]

View attachment 703185View attachment 703186
I'm not sure if Hatshepsut switched to Abbasids. The icon looks slightly different.

The others match up exactly:

I think it's a match. The shape checks out. Besides, Aksum's icon in the selection screen is pretty elaborate: A cross inside a hexagram

but in the game itself, only the cross appears on the banner.


Could be a same deal with hattie's icon being a bit simpler on the banner.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think it's a match. The shape checks out. Besides, Aksum's icon in the selection screen is pretty elaborate: A cross inside a hexagram

[/URL]

but in the game itself, only the cross appears on the banner.

That looks like the cross is inside the Star of David. Wouldn't be surprised if their linking Judaism with Aksum too.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think it's more likely some civs just weren't included in this build.

Remember, at the very beginning of the video they reminded us that it is all a "Work in Progress" so what we saw and are trying to ferret out may be only partially true or completely/mostly Untrue by Release . . .

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

It just doesn't seem right. It breaks cohesion. Some people buy Civ to play as Rome for the entire game, not 1/3 of it. Also, the game is called "Civilization" not "Civilizations". You play as ONE civ to stand the test of time.

 

[Siptah]

That looks like the cross is inside the Star of David. Wouldn't be surprised if their linking Judaism with Aksum too.

The Star of David hasn't been a symbol of judaism for that long though, it got this meaning in the Early Modern Era HRE. Before, it was widely used by many cultures. While there were "many" Jews in Ethiopia at some point, I don't think that it was already the case during the Aksum time frame. Happy to be corrected on that, as my knowledge about the diaspora in into that region is very limited.