Civilization VII - Civilization and leader overview

[Verdant]

This 4gamer article with Civ7 devs appears to confirm that Japan is present, possibly in all 3 eras (though perhaps not all of them will be released immediately).

Google translated:

Since it is a game in which you aim to dominate the world while building a civilization, our goal is to represent all the world's civilizations in the game, and we have been thinking about what we can do with Japanese civilization and leaders in "Civ7". It is difficult to feature everything because it takes time to balance, but we have dealt with it with DLC and so on until now.

If there's one thing I can say, Japan has been depicted as one civilization in the series so far, but what if there was ancient Japanese civilization, medieval Japanese civilization, and modern Japanese civilization? Don't you think that would allow for a more detailed portrayal of Japanese history?

Perhaps we will get 1 or 2 eras for Japan first and then the others through DLC or expansions.

Unrelated but the the devs characterize changing civilizations as acquiring the traits of the civilization:

4Gamer:
　In the presentation, you said that "You can start playing with the Egyptian civilization and unlock the Mongolian civilization in the next era." Can you explain this in more detail?

Frederiksen:
　Indeed, it seems like a confusing explanation that Hatshepsut of ancient Egypt will play the Mongolian civilization. However, in "Civ7", new forces such as the Mongolian civilization will be unlocked depending on the decisions made by the player.

4Gamer:
　So instead of the player's force Egypt changing to Mongolia, you will be able to use Mongolian culture and units.

Frederiksen:
　So your leader will actually have the option to use the characteristics of the civilization you unlocked in the new era.

4Gamer:
　Wow, that's surprising.

Beach:
　Mongolia can be defined as the greatest "horse-riding civilization" in history, and has been described as such in past Civ series. If the map is automatically generated and there are many horse resources around the player's capital, it is natural that the player will try to make good use of those resources. In that case, I think that
at least you want to make the most of the tendencies of the Mongolian civilization, which actually had contact in history. In fact, it is not that Egypt becomes Mongol, but that its cultural characteristics "gain Mongolian characteristics", so you will not play a different civilization for each era. This system is trying to solve the proposition of what kind of medieval civilization and modern civilization will be built on top of the civilization built in ancient times.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

In fact, it is not that Egypt becomes Mongol, but that its cultural characteristics "gain Mongolian characteristics"

But what if I want to become Mongolia, dammit?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

I mean Civ 6 England was basically British Empire anyway.
Personally, I would have gone with England and Britain, then the name Normans anyway, but that's just me.

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.

Considering the Red Fort is located in Delhi, could this potentially be linked with Modern Age India? At least between the two I'd link Taj Mahal with Mughals slightly more, even though yes they were both built by the Mughal Empire.

 

[Lord Lakely]

That makes it sound as if the Civilization's name and identity is still tied to the leader, but the shape (visual characteristics) of the Civilization are based on the cultures you choose across all three Ages.

It sounds... great? If that's what Civ7 is indeed going for. I'd like to see this with a practical example so dear Firaxites (@FXS_Gilgamesh @FXS_Sar) I hope that the upcoming livestream clarifies this and shows it in action.

 

[Uberfrog]

Personally, I would have gone with England and Britain, then the name Normans anyway, but that's just me.

I think the Normans are an inspired choice actually. William’s conquest of England is only one part of the wider Norman adventures across Europe and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. There is also the Kingdom of Sicily, the Lordship of Ireland, the Principality of Antioch , not to mention the Duchy of Normandy itself.

Quite fitting for an Exploration Age civ!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the Normans are an inspired choice actually. William’s conquest of England is only one part of the wider Norman adventures across Europe and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. There is also the Kingdom of Sicily, the Lordship of Ireland, the Principality of Antioch , not to mention the Duchy of Normandy itself.

Quite fitting for an Exploration Age civ!

I can see that. Unfortunately, it takes away the idea of playing an Exploration Age (Tudor) England, considering modern England/British will probably just be the Victorian Era/British Empire.

If there was a Medieval Age, I think I'd have less of a problem with it. But I'd also want the Anglo-Saxons instead.

 

[Rac]

Alright updating this list again, nothing "new actually" but a bit of clarification and complementation on stuff, adding the know leaders that do arguable hints for civs:

So yeah, I chose to leave the Sepé Tiaraju (and the Guarani and Brazil) reference here for sake of not forgeting, but they are highlighted as unlikely for being based just on that wonder reveal quote. Also on the Hausa theory, I hardly think Firaxis would do a leader without it's own original civilization, so Amina being "just there" without the Hausa sounds weird, IMO. Also highlighted the Shawnee and Tecumseh aren't technically part of the base roster too but DLC.

EDIT: Thanks for remembering the the Dur-Sharrukin tooltip, table corrected now

 

[Lord Lakely]

Dur-Sharrukin has been spotted in a Tooltip, no? Am I misremembering that?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yes, it has.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I'm really curious as to who we will see in the Modern Age. With the inclusion of Buganda (which I knew nothing about and had to look up) it looks like some polities which are not currently independent but were in the 18th-19th centuries will be represented (although who falls on each side of the Exploration vs Modern Age era seems fuzzy). With the Civ team's goal of broader representation I think there's a really good chance we will get several more indigenous, non-colonial cultures as Modern Age civs. It would be neat to get a Modern Age Cherokee, for example, although I'm sure there are better suggestions as this is not my area of expertise - my knowledge veers much more toward Antiquity. Just scrolling through this list of non-sovereign African monarchs was really interesting, as there seem to be plenty of African polities which don't conform to scramble-era boundaries that would be good candidates for the Modern Age.

Ethiopia seems like an obvious choice (Aksum -> ??? -> Ethiopia), and Mexico would make a lot of sense as well (Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico).

 

[IgorS]

But what if I want to become Mongolia, dammit?

Wow, I guess the new concept is even worse if this is the case...

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think the Normans are an inspired choice actually. William’s conquest of England is only one part of the wider Norman adventures across Europe and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. There is also the Kingdom of Sicily, the Lordship of Ireland, the Principality of Antioch , not to mention the Duchy of Normandy itself.

Quite fitting for an Exploration Age civ!

When I hear 'Normans' I think Sicily, not England

 

[Nikolai II]

When I hear 'Normans' I think Sicily, not England

Normans originated in Normandy, France - for a few centuries part of England after their duke conquered the kingdom in 1066.

 

[Navelgazer]

That makes it sound as if the Civilization's name and identity is still tied to the leader, but the shape (visual characteristics) of the Civilization are based on the cultures you choose across all three Ages.

Possibly, but I keep coming back to Amina. Now, it's possible that Amina is meant to be the de facto Leader of Songhai, and that's why she's included, though the Zazzau were not the Songhai, and her reign was largely after the fall of the Songhai Empire. It'd be an odd choice, is what I'm saying. Maybe no stranger than having Mbande Nzinga rule Kongo, but also that was a specific choice made to be able to include her in a Leaders-Only pack. Having Amina lead Songhai in the base game is much more of a choice, if that's what they're indeed doing.

Nor does she make sense as the Leader representing Buganda (which is nowhere near Zazzau, plus Amina's personal timeline puts her pretty squarely within the Exploration Age rather than Modern Age.)

Basically, I'm wondering if maybe Amina is an example of a Leader truly untethered from her Civ, and if that's potentially a sign of more of these to come. If Firaxis has decided that they can make Civs without Leaders (and I think we're all pretty sure that they have), then I believe that Amina is evidence that they've also decided that they can make Leaders without Civs. Which is a very cool development, if true! Like, I've beat the drum for Sequoyah as a leader often enough, but if he could be included without FIraxis needing to also develop a Cherokee civ to slot him into, that would be rad. It also would open up options like Cheng I Sao as a naval conqueror Militaristic/Economic Leader perhaps.

Again, I'm not at all sure that this is what they're doing, but Amina is an odd and ahistorical choice to be the "official" leader for Songhai, and if that points to civ-less leaders as an aspect of Civ7, I think there could be some cool things to come from that.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I *think* (I'm NOT sure, but it is my assumption) that Amina is Songhai's de facto leader because the Hausa aren't in, and there is no Songhai leader. Historically and polticially, she's the closest thing in the leader pool to a Songhai leader, and Songhai is the closest civ in the culture pool as a Civ she could be leading. And that's why Amina is connected to Songhai (for now).

The same logic is what led to Hattie being a "historical" leader for Aksum. There is no Aksumite leader, but if Aksum were to appear as an AI, it now has two leaders that it can appear as: Hatshepsut and Amina.

The logic for determining what Civs you can become in the new Era based on "historical" choices, follows a similar line of though.

At least, that's my hypothesis.

 

[Navelgazer]

I don't disagree that she's one of the de facto leaders for Songhai (and one which makes more sense than Hatshepsut, anyway), I'm just pointing out that Leaders don't necessarily imply Civs in this design. That is to say, Amina has her "historical choice" Civs like everyone else, but without Hausa in the game (and I don't think it will be), it points to there truly being a list of Civ options, and a list of Leader options, and that they don't need to totally overlap. We can have Civs without represented Leaders and Leaders without represented Civs.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

This so terrible, if true. If they wanted Amina so bad they should've just made a Hausa civ

 

[Australopithecine]

I think the Normans are an inspired choice actually. William’s conquest of England is only one part of the wider Norman adventures across Europe and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. There is also the Kingdom of Sicily, the Lordship of Ireland, the Principality of Antioch , not to mention the Duchy of Normandy itself.

Quite fitting for an Exploration Age civ!

I hope we get a Scandinavian / Viking based civ, along with the Normans, considering the fact that Rollo was their first ruler.
That would allow natural progression from an earlier age. I'm guessing their associated leader will be William.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't disagree that she's one of the de facto leaders for Songhai (and one which makes more sense than Hatshepsut, anyway), I'm just pointing out that Leaders don't necessarily imply Civs in this design. That is to say, Amina has her "historical choice" Civs like everyone else, but without Hausa in the game (and I don't think it will be), it points to there truly being a list of Civ options, and a list of Leader options, and that they don't need to totally overlap. We can have Civs without represented Leaders and Leaders without represented Civs.

Yeah, I mentioned in another thread that this also opens up the possibility to have returning leaders such as Alexander, Shaka, and Gandhi to appear without their "controversial" civs (Macedon, Zulu, and India) if that is indeed the case.

 

[Rac]

Another tought: Let's say that the Nalanda wonder really do indicate we will see the Guptas in the game, that would make me very happy because it would mean there's isn't a bound of "only one version of this place at the same time" happening, so stuff like in the same age having Abbasids and Umayyads, Sassanids and Savafids, Tang and Song with Ming too can happen in the game, not that I wish that to be the case straight away but it's a cool possibility for the future you know