Civilization VII - Civilization and leader overview

[Vahnstad]

colour codes

light blue: 100% confirmed and on site
green: basically 100% confirmed as well
yellow: likely at this point
orange: possible, some signs hinting towards it
red: speculation, sometimes based on civs in the area, what fans of the series would like and what would make sense with this new mechanic

But like if anything this also showcases how difficult it is to get this civ switching right and how like 48 civs is a lot and at the same doesn't feel like a lot, because of the civ switching, there are bound to be gaps in covering areas of the world and for providing historical paths. Even with 16 civs for era, you get weird switches and like possibly no civs leading into an exploration or modern era civ that makes sense, like how do you start playing a civ if you want to end up with Phillipines for instance?

For that reason i think many staples might not appear until later, like Persia or Japan, and instead we might get more obscure picks to provide for more coverage for civs in different eras.

 

[Rac]

So the current situation on the civ roster is this guys?

 

[The_J]

I copied both posts to a separate thread. I would be delighted if either or both of you @Vahnstad @Rac could keep this in some way updated .

 

[thecrazyscot]

We know for certain Antiquity China is in (and we know the capital - Chang'an, or Xian) - we just don't know the exact name they will go by.

 

[Giskler]

Guarani is not mentioned anywhere except in a natural wonder quote. It's proven very hard to roll back that speculation

 

[Guandao]

I can't wait for Firaxis to provide more info on leaders and Civs.....
If not every Civ has an associated leader in the vanilla (like some are speculating that Aksum and the Maya are among those), I hope they add more leaders in DLCs/Expansions for those Civs.
I want to hear an Aksumite leader speaking Ge'ez and a Mayan one speaking either a classical form of Maya or a more modern Mayan language like Yucatec.

 

[Xandinho]

Is there really a confirmation that we will have 15 civs per age?

 

[The_J]

No, not at all. This is just a first count.

 

[SeelingCat]

There were 15 dots I believe on the Songhai splash image, which may indicate that there are 15 civs options in the Age of Exploration.

 

[The_J]

That is true, but if you look left and right, you could interpret these symbols as arrows, no?

 

[Luxerne]

Further supporting the idea of the Normans as a distinct Exploration Age civ separate from England (Modern Age) is this unit from the same screenshot as the presumably Spanish units (the ones with the Burgundy Cross flag). The Norman flag and coat of arms have two lions, as opposed to the three lions associated with England specifically.

 

[Krikkit1]

Forgot Mexico... for some reason

Even with 16 civs for era, you get weird switches and like possibly no civs leading into an exploration or modern era civ that makes sense, like how do you start playing a civ if you want to end up with Phillipines for instance?

What I would like to see is more civs where one of the requirements are like the Mongols.

ie
to choose America,
Norman civ
Or
Ben Franklin leader
Or
6 cities on a continent that does not have your capital.

 

[Giskler]

I did read an article that mentioned evolving into the Dutch if focused on trade and into Spain if focused on military, but I'm not sure if that was an actual example or an educated guess.

 

[Uberfrog]

I feel like the Age 3 civ will be Britain rather than England, and whoever wrote the IGN article just conflated them.

 

[Vahnstad]

Is there really a confirmation that we will have 15 civs per age?

No confirmation, except for the 15 dots thing

However, i'm not convinced we get the same number of civs in each era, because of Shawnee as pre-order bonus and the 2x 4 new civs being released with the new DLCs that are a part of the Founder edition (4 civs, 3 eras, the math is a bit off). Though i think it's likely, it'll still be balanced, so if it's not exactly the same, it's going to differ by 1 or so.

I copied both posts to a separate thread. I would be delighted if either or both of you @Vahnstad @Rac could keep this in some way updated .

I will try to keep it updated yes.

Do i need to keep the first post also updated?

___



a new update based on some feedback

 

[Henri Christophe]

Where is Haiti?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think we will see a Mughal civ in the base game, not because of the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort. These wonders have been in the game for several iterations. If you look at most of the Associated Wonders for the confirmed civs they're rather obscure wonders that seem to have been introduced solely for their respective civilizations: Tomb of Askia, Sanchi Stupa, Serpent Mound, Mundo Perdido etc.

 

[Vahnstad]

I think we will see a Mughal civ in the base game, not because of the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort. These wonders have been in the game for several iterations. If you look at most of the Associated Wonders for the confirmed civs they're rather obscure wonders that seem to have been introduced solely for their respective civilizations: Tomb of Askia, Sanchi Stupa, Serpent Mound, Mundo Perdido etc.

Red Fort wasn't in civ 6 though (and the Taj was introduced in the first expansion with ages), and like Pyramids is the associated wonder of Egypt too, so it doesn't have to be "an obscure wonder". It at the very least raises the chance of the civ being in substantially. The colouring is still orange for Mughals.

 

[Lord Lakely]

There is no indication for Hausa or Guarani, or Persia (unfortunately :-/)

I don't buy that Gupta are in the game, let alone as a playable Civ in the same Age as the Mauryan empire. Nalanda was a City State in Civ6. If it's a Wonder now, it might be a generic one, or one linked to a Minor Power.

 

[The_J]

I will try to keep it updated yes.

Do i need to keep the first post also updated?

Yes please, if possible .