• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Civilization VII - Civilization and leader overview

Status
Not open for further replies.
On that regard, we are pretty certain the Indonesian civ (be it Srivijaya, or more likely Majapahit, or simple Java) is a Exploration civ. In the Switch trailer the diplomacy screen that shows the symbol behind Himiko also have Ben Franklin in front of the Normandy symbol
View attachment 706404
Oh yes, I wasn't disputing that, and hence why I don't mind that it's presented as it is, because Roc's chart by it's structure can't really account for Borobudur's unique in-between status as potential Majapahit or universal wonder.

I'm just saying that we don't know it's Majapahit's associated wonder, when it could be universal and or Srivijayan, while Majapahit's actual wonder like, say, Trowulan/Wringin Lawang, hasn't been revealed yet.

Thus, unlike the other entries in Roc's chart, which I think are pretty safe assumptions of association, I am reading it as "Majapahit confirmed, Borobudur confirmed, (connection between them as-yet unconfirmed)."
 
Hmm, I understand what you mean by the Associated Wonder thing. Let's see what I can do here for that
@Rac I think it might be time to make your nice chart into a new thread
:)
[/URL].
A new thread, well why not right? This one is reached +100 pages so yeah I get it
 
Hmm, I understand what you mean by the Associated Wonder thing. Let's see what I can do here for that

A new thread, well why not right? This one is reached +100 pages so yeah I get it
Also, if things keep progressing as I think they will over the next month or two, I might suggest keeping leaders in alphabetical order and organizing the civs around that. But we aren't at that point yet.
 
New evidence of two unrevealed leaders in the game:

Screenshot 2024-10-14 211134.png


First, if you hop over to the IP peoples thread, they are featuring civs with white-on-black and white-on-green colors. White-on-black are Magyars, Slavs, Funan, which are probably expansionist (or undifferentiated?), and white-on-green are probably diplomatic. We can see red (militaristic), yellow (economic), and blue (economic) here (magenta (cultural) is missing). I am basing this largely off the colors of the garbs to identify the "civ;" if you look at the actual models, the leaders seem paired with backgrounds that may not match (red lady is a diplomat, econ guy is a scientist, blue guy is a warrior, etc.). Which may mean just some nice visual nods to particular leaders of those civs, but I am absolutely banking that color = city-state type as it has been in the past.

It also looks to me like maybe IPs gain "dimension" over the course of the game. Look how the exploration units are two-colors. Red becomes red and yellow, which follows through to the end. Blue becomes blue and yellow, which features in the helmets and shoes. Red again becomes red and yellow, and we can see a little red in the guy's tie. What also seems to be the case, if we are to believe these are all the same IP, is that the models dictate what kind of IP they are, whereas the colors seem to indicate what sort of relationship you have with them. Not totally sure on this yet, though.

But I noticed some units have TWO colors, not just white and X.

Screenshot 2024-10-14 211438.png


Screenshot 2024-10-14 211610.png

Screenshot 2024-10-14 211628.png


In particular, red-on-blue. To me, this strongly suggests a Norwegian leader reveal (since colors are tied to leaders and that was Norway's colors in VI). Cnut seems more likely now, maybe even as the next leader reveal.

If you look at the first image, the three-unit set on the right looks like it could be Spain? Yellow on red matches, we could expect a "Mediterranean" antiquity unit, and that exploration unit looks very buccaneerish.

Looking at the second image of nine regional styles, most of them are red-white, other than the two I pointed out. The one I'm not sure of is "North American," which doesn't have white in his shield but in his shirt. I'm inclined to dismiss this as just another IP unit for now.

But guys, I think this soft-confirms two new leaders (maybe Norse and Spanish, maybe Norman), at some point. EDIT: @Alexander's Hetaroi has also observed this could be William the Conqueror. Just substitute all my uses of "Norse" and "Spain" with "that leader with those colors."

REVISION: After looking at all of the X reveals, I do not think that is a yellow-on-red leader. If you watch the Khmer and Confucius videos, it looks like there is a "default" color scheme for buildings/units; no color-combo giveaways. I think the Roman, Middle East, Asian, and North American designs in the region lineup, as well as the non-blue-red units in the "units through the ages" are just the default palettes. But that blue-red is indistinguishable.
 
Last edited:
It 100% does not “confirm” either, let’s temper the rhetoric here :)
"Suggests or soft-confirms," then. One little counterpoint I see is that Norse are still using the "generic" European unit, unlike Spain which is naturally using the Mediterranean unit. Which...just ends up looking weird on the Norse compared to the other two units. I would not be surprised if we see an update to that unit style for the North Sea region.
 
In particular, red-and-blue. To me, this strongly suggests a Norwegian leader reveal (since colors are tied to leaders). Cnut seems more likely now, maybe even as the next leader reveal.
Red and blue to me also screams William the Conqueror. As in the Normans is partly English (red) and French (blue), along with being Norse.
 
Red and blue to me also screams William the Conqueror. As in the Normans is partly English (red) and French (blue), along with being Norse.
Oh true, could be either! Either way definitely pointing at a leader.

Also, looking at the styles on the shields, it looks very "Holy Roman Empire" to me between the fleurs-des-lis and Prussian eagle.

Come to think of it, the Norman flag is yellow on red. So either could be William. Is Willam a dual persona leader?! (I'm going to hesitantly say no, as I think these two unit sets suggest, possibly, different preferred leader pathways).
 
Also, looking at the styles on the shields, it looks very "Holy Roman Empire" to me between the fleurs-des-lis and Prussian eagle.
Well now I'm thinking of Charlemagne.
 
If you look in the Shawnee reveal video, the Shawnee colors are applied to the units. But in the UU reveal, dark blue on light blue (or light blue on dark blue) is assigned to them. Mayan or Mapuche leader? Babylon? The dark blue looks a little teal, and either way I'm interpreting this as "dark blue on top of light blue," which to me suggests a Mayan leader playing with the Shawnee. Weird.

Screenshot 2024-10-14 215011.png


Han China's Chu-Ko-Nu uses orange-on-red or red-on-orange. Mongolian leader? Other? (also tracks with the "Asian" unit above). I think this looks more red-on-orange, since red is the accent color, so I'm predicting Kublai over Genghis (which would also make more sense for Kublai to be in at launch and start in Han, instead of Genghis who probably wants a Xiongnu civ to start).

Screenshot 2024-10-14 215154.png


Seems we are probably getting a Greece leader at launch:

Screenshot 2024-10-14 221556.png


Confucius' colors are red-on-earth-yellow (dark ecru?):

Screenshot 2024-10-14 221803.png


I can't really tell the look of the Khmer/Han colors. And actually I have a suspicion that the devs have been "turning off" the leader colors to a default palette so as not to spoil who is leading these civs. There's been a suscpicious lack of identifying color fabric in civs outside of the leaders revealed (particularly in the Khmer and Confucius videos).

EDIT: As I note above, I take back red-yellow leader. I think that's jut the default palette for units. I think military units by default have some red in them (and everything else is beiges and browns) if they don't have an IP or civ's palette assigned to them. You can see below in Confucius how the little farmer unit dudes are "economic. yellow" but otherwise brown.

Screenshot 2024-10-14 221839.png
 
Last edited:
New evidence of two unrevealed leaders in the game:

First, if you hop over to the IP peoples thread, they are featuring civs with white-on-black and white-on-green colors. White-on-black are Magyars, Slavs, Funan, which are probably expansionist (or undifferentiated?), and white-on-green are probably diplomatic. We can see red (militaristic), yellow (economic), and blue (economic) here (magenta (cultural) is missing). I am basing this largely off the colors of the garbs to identify the "civ;" if you look at the actual models, the leaders seem paired with backgrounds that may not match (red lady is a diplomat, econ guy is a scientist, blue guy is a warrior, etc.). Which may mean just some nice visual nods to particular leaders of those civs, but I am absolutely banking that color = city-state type as it has been in the past.

It also looks to me like maybe IPs gain "dimension" over the course of the game. Look how the exploration units are two-colors. Red becomes red and yellow, which follows through to the end. Blue becomes blue and yellow, which features in the helmets and shoes. Red again becomes red and yellow, and we can see a little red in the guy's tie. What also seems to be the case, if we are to believe these are all the same IP, is that the models dictate what kind of IP they are, whereas the colors seem to indicate what sort of relationship you have with them. Not totally sure on this yet, though.

But I noticed some units have TWO colors, not just white and X.
Hum, I'm not sure. In the 5 screenshots I have of an IP with its miniature and banner, I can see:
* Ava, Scientific age 1 mini in the Antiquity Age, Science icon on white banner
* Soninke, Scientific age 1 mini in the Exploration Age, hidden icon on green banner
* Mixtec, Scientific age 2 mini in the Exploration Age, hidden icon on green banner
* Magyar, Militaristic age 1 mini in the Exploration Age, (star) icon on white banner
* Slav, Cultural? age 1? mini in the Antiquity Age, music note icon on white banner
 
In particular, red-on-blue. To me, this strongly suggests a Norwegian leader reveal (since colors are tied to leaders and that was Norway's colors in VI). Cnut seems more likely now, maybe even as the next leader reveal.
Cnut was most likely born in Denmark and was a son of the Danish king Sweyn Forkbeard. Of the three thrones he held, Norway was the last he claimed and thus the most short-lived. And arguably the least successful: his original Norwegian vassal Hákon Eiríksson died just one or two years after Cnut took over and he handed over the regency of Norway to his first wife Ælfgifu of Northampton, whose rule went so poorly that the phrase in Álfífa's time eventually became synonymous with misery and oppression among Norwegians.
Also, in his only appearance (so far) as a civ leader in VI's Vikings, Traders and Raiders scenario, he was the leader of Denmark. If anything I think his colours, if they really are tied to leaders and can't be changed by the player, would be white-on-red as on the Danish flag.
 
Cnut was most likely born in Denmark and was a son of the Danish king Sweyn Forkbeard. Of the three thrones he held, Norway was the last he claimed and thus the most short-lived. And arguably the least successful: his original Norwegian vassal Hákon Eiríksson died just one or two years after Cnut took over and he handed over the regency of Norway to his first wife Ælfgifu of Northampton, whose rule went so poorly that the phrase in Álfífa's time eventually became synonymous with misery and oppression among Norwegians.
Also, in his only appearance (so far) as a civ leader in VI's Vikings, Traders and Raiders scenario, he was the leader of Denmark. If anything I think his colours, if they really are tied to leaders and can't be changed by the player, would be white-on-red as on the Danish flag.
Good points, I've been thinking of him as the "North Sea" leader so much I keep forgetting that his likely path wouldn't even involve Norway if he were in the game. So probably a different leader.
 
Good points, I've been thinking of him as the "North Sea" leader so much I keep forgetting that his likely path wouldn't even involve Norway if he were in the game. So probably a different leader.
I think Cnut is still likely, though arguably Margaret I might be the best overall "North Sea" leader.
That being said I don't believe Norway will get into Civ 7. At least I think Norway would easily just be replaced by an Antiquity Norse civ, whereas Denmark and Sweden would have other characteristics, like Denmark being based off of the Kalmar Union for example.
 
I think Cnut is still likely, though arguably Margaret I might be the best overall "North Sea" leader.
That being said I don't believe Norway will get into Civ 7. At least I think Norway would easily just be replaced by an Antiquity Norse civ, whereas Denmark and Sweden would have other characteristics, like Denmark being based off of the Kalmar Union for example.

I think Norway's (as a civ) best chances are as follows:

"Denmark-Norway" leader: Norse -> Denmark -> Norway

"Sweden" leader: Gutes -> Denmark -> Sweden

But I think that path would still involve a "Denmark-Norway" leader that could easily swing Denmark (Margie). Hence why I still think Cnut's chances are okay, but only if he ends in Britain, as Norse -> Normans -> Britain seems one of the likelier paths that wouldn't be usurped by a Danish or Swede leader. And frankly despite his questionable reputation as a ruler I think he's one of the only leaders that would work in a path connecting the Norse to Britain.
 
Last edited:
But I think that path would still involve a "Denmark-Norway" leader that could easily swing Denmark (Margie). Hence why I still think Cnut's chances are okay, but only if he ends in Britain, as Norway -> Normans -> Britain seems one of the likelier paths that wouldn't be usurped by a Danish or Swede leader. And frankly despite his questionable reputation as a ruler I think he's one of the only leaders that would work in a path connecting the Norse to Britain.
Yes, either way Norse would presumably go to either Normans or Denmark which would fit either Cnut or Margaret. Cnut is likely as long as William the Conqueror doesn't show up to fill that role though of Norse>Normans>British.
 
If there’s one takeaway we could make from the recent analysis of the confirmed civs and the 30 base game civ count, it’s that we can’t assume civs are going to be added with continuous historical paths in mind. Consider archetypes. If we lack a Viking archetype, then Firaxis will likely look to fill that archetype with something that best exemplifies is. So Norse, rather than Gutes. But that wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d look to add Norway instead of Sweden for modern. It may very well end up as Norse > Klamar Union > Sweden for all we know. Under a Danish leader.
 
I think Norway's (as a civ) best chances are as follows:

"Denmark-Norway" leader: Norse -> Denmark -> Norway

"Sweden" leader: Gutes -> Denmark -> Sweden

But I think that path would still involve a "Denmark-Norway" leader that could easily swing Denmark (Margie). Hence why I still think Cnut's chances are okay, but only if he ends in Britain, as Norway -> Normans -> Britain seems one of the likelier paths that wouldn't be usurped by a Danish or Swede leader. And frankly despite his questionable reputation as a ruler I think he's one of the only leaders that would work in a path connecting the Norse to Britain.
I disagree, we've seen already from the example case of thinking that they are basing transitions around geographical locations like London, so Rome > Normans > Britain as significant powers that ruled over London. We've also seen a hesitance to bring in modern names for countries.

I think if anything we're more likely to see
Vikings/Norse > Kalmar Union > Swedish Empire (possibly with Denmark-Norway added as an additional end point later down the line because of the 5-5-8 pattern across the ages)
 
I think Norway's (as a civ) best chances are as follows:

"Denmark-Norway" leader: Norse -> Denmark -> Norway

"Sweden" leader: Gutes -> Denmark -> Sweden

But I think that path would still involve a "Denmark-Norway" leader that could easily swing Denmark (Margie). Hence why I still think Cnut's chances are okay, but only if he ends in Britain, as Norway -> Normans -> Britain seems one of the likelier paths that wouldn't be usurped by a Danish or Swede leader. And frankly despite his questionable reputation as a ruler I think he's one of the only leaders that would work in a path connecting the Norse to Britain.
Denmark and Norway are about the same age as entities and Sweden came shortly after. All three should be modern, with Norse being exploration, in that case.
 
If there’s one takeaway we could make from the recent analysis of the confirmed civs and the 30 base game civ count, it’s that we can’t assume civs are going to be added with continuous historical paths in mind. Consider archetypes. If we lack a Viking archetype, then Firaxis will likely look to fill that archetype with something that best exemplifies is. So Norse, rather than Gutes. But that wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d look to add Norway instead of Sweden for modern. It may very well end up as Norse > Klamar Union > Sweden for all we know. Under a Danish leader.

I already made my statement on that. In a launch game with the Normans, Hawaiians, Incans, and a Vietnamese leader, it makes more sense to either expect only 30 civs, or continuous/logical historical paths, but not both. I am choosing continuous/logical historical paths, for now, until we start seeing harder evidence that very obvious "more than 30 civ" civs have been cut. I am not dismissing 30 civs, simply choosing to, for now, consider the alternative because the evidence is so sprawling.

I do agree the overwhelmingly probable archetype for vikings at launch, or generally, will be the Norse. However, when I was running permutations to add Sweden on in a DLC, the Gutes were a really good option to distinguish Sweden from Denmark-Norway, with their ring-forts. I wouldn't say I'm totally confident in my guess there, but Gutes do seem like a civ that would be likely under consideration.

I disagree, we've seen already from the example case of thinking that they are basing transitions around geographical locations like London, so Rome > Normans > Britain as significant powers that ruled over London. We've also seen a hesitance to bring in modern names for countries.

I think if anything we're more likely to see
Vikings/Norse > Kalmar Union > Swedish Empire (possibly with Denmark-Norway added as an additional end point later down the line because of the 5-5-8 pattern across the ages)

I'm still banking on leader/"macro-civ" paths not doubling up on preferred paths. In which case Rome -> Normans is already claimed by America, and would not be used in any other preferred path.

I could see Norse -> Kalmar -> Swedes, but I do suspect that if any of those get cut from the base game, it's Sweden that will be saved for DLC.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom