Civilization VII - Civilization and leader overview

[Xandinho]

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.

Maybe Simon Bolivar too? Many people want Gran Colombia just because of him. Although Colombia may happen in the future without any relation to Gran Colombia and as a possible continuation of Muisca from Age 2.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe Simon Bolivar too? Many people want Gran Colombia just because of him. Although Colombia may happen in the future without any relation to Gran Colombia and as a possible continuation of Muisca from Age 2.

Sure. I was specifically mentioning them because they've been in every civ game, and get the most complaints because of that.

 

[Xandinho]

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

This may be good, but at the same time I wouldn't like to have two Chinese dynasties happening at the same time in the same Age, for example, Yuan and Ming appearing in a game at the same time would be immersion-breaking. But I think this works well with the Indian Empires.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This may be good, but at the same time I wouldn't like to have two Chinese dynasties happening at the same time in the same Age, for example, Yuan and Ming appearing in a game at the same time would be immersion-breaking.

I think the more immersion breaking thing, at least for me, would be having both Mongolia and Yuan in the same age.
Though we could have young grandpa Genghis interacting with his elder Chinese emperor grandson Kublai in Civ 6, so what do I know?

 

[Ornen]

Ha'amonga 'a Maui was built in the 13th century, so I would expect it to be an Exploration age wonder. I wouldn't count on Antiquity Polynesia.

I have a feeling they'll fudge the Temple of the Sun a little bit so that Aztecs can build it. connect it to Astronomy and make it an "Exploration" age wonder

what's the Sepe Tiaraju quote based on, a natural wonder quote? I haven't heard anything about this one

consider me an Amina/Songhai believer and a Hausa doubter. but we shall see

I wouldn't be surprised to see Russia & Hermitage in exploration era, with Soviets in modern. Beach said that the Exploration crisis would be associated with American & French revolutions, so I expect this period will last into the early 19th century

good work overall, looks like the list is starting to come together for the first two eras

 

[Vahnstad]

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.

I think this is something we will see, i do believe this is happening, given we already see leaders also leading other kind of civs, like Benjamin Franklin leading Greece for instance. It allows to have iconic leaders and not necessarily having to include the civ associated alongside them, as mentioned above like with Alexander & Macedon, Gandhi & India etc.

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.

I think in the base game, the Normans might actually occupy that (viking) slot, but in expansions or DLCs other Scandinavian civs to be added, like probably a more old school norse one, and a Sweden kind of one for the modern one. And for Nordic leaders there are a bunch of options, including some mythical ones if they want to go with that like Ragnar Lothbrok.

 

[Giskler]

what's the Sepe Tiaraju quote based on, a natural wonder quote? I haven't heard anything about this one

Iguazu Falls.

 

[Vahnstad]

I have a feeling they'll fudge the Temple of the Sun a little bit so that Aztecs can build it. connect it to Astronomy and make it an "Exploration" age wonder

Someone mentioned that it was not Temple of the Sun they've seen but something similarly, but not quite it. Might also point towards a district or some kind of building. But it's not 100% sure it's actually that wonder. And for Aztecs, i think there are numerous other obvious options like Huey Teocalli. There is no need for a more obscure earlier age wonder to be associated with the Aztecs. I think the most obvious option for centro-America for base game is Maya 1st age, Aztec 2nd age, Mexico 3rd age. Unless they go for a 2nd one for each of those or in 1 of those to add for more variation, but that would surprise me quite a bit. I guess we will have to wait and see, but i'm not very convinced Teotihuacan actually is in the game.

I think the more immersion breaking thing, at least for me, would be having both Mongolia and Yuan in the same age.
Though we could have young grandpa Genghis interacting with his elder Chinese emperor grandson Kublai in Civ 6, so what do I know?

I think Ming as a middle age (or Song or Qing or Manchu) makes more sense, early Ming actually had some exploration going (Zheng He) also.

Not sure whether Qing would be 2nd or 3rd age if they went with a Qing China. It doesn't exactly feel right for the third age, esp. if revolutions is basically the 2nd age crisis because that crisis is basically the 19th and early 20th century for China. But IMO Ming makes most sense (and Qing dynasty was also manchu led, Ming was ruled by han).

 

[Vahnstad]

Maybe Simon Bolivar too? Many people want Gran Colombia just because of him. Although Colombia may happen in the future without any relation to Gran Colombia and as a possible continuation of Muisca from Age 2.

I guess the way they'll try to make it work is something like this (and it's probably going to be worse than this).

Like this would make the most sense (it's a bit simplified). I added Celtiberian & Lusitanian to have a few more options in classic era. I guess you could also split Spain into Castille & Spain later.

And yes i know Aztec into Maya, or Guarani into Brazil or Mapuche into Argentina doesn't make much sense but I doubt they would add Chilean or Paraguayan civs. And I think Mayans & Incas will be 1st age because otherwise they don't have anything to add in the first civs (well... Olmec maybe).

 

[Navelgazer]

Another one: I think it would make sense for both Rome and Greece to have the option of evolving into Byzantium, which could itself evolve into Ottomans in the modern age, though as with a lot of these theories, the timing doesn't quite fit the Antiquity/Exploration/Modern timeline as much as we might like. If we chart the Byzantine empire as existing from the Fall of Rome in CE476 to the Fall of Constantinople in CE1453, that puts Byzantium with one foot squarely in Antiquity and Ottomans with one squarely in the Exploration Age.

 

[Vahnstad]

Another one: I think it would make sense for both Rome and Greece to have the option of evolving into Byzantium, which could itself evolve into Ottomans in the modern age, though as with a lot of these theories, the timing doesn't quite fit the Antiquity/Exploration/Modern timeline as much as we might like. If we chart the Byzantine empire as existing from the Fall of Rome in CE476 to the Fall of Constantinople in CE1453, that puts Byzantium with one foot squarely in Antiquity and Ottomans with one squarely in the Exploration Age.

That's a bit of an issue because I know that a modern Turkish civ has been a request for quite some time from esp. Turkish civ community, and I think they'll portray Ottomans as a 2nd age civ too instead of the modern age.

Byzantium also didn't really become Ottomans. They were just replaced by them (tho i guess that applies to a lot). But I don't think Byz into Ottomans will be a thing. They'll probably co-exist in 2nd age. There is also the possibility of a lot of Turkish nomad groups in exploration age like Uzbeks etc. and there's Huns as a possibility for the 1st age. I guess tho with the limited options that we likely are going to see that Mongols into modern Turkey could be a thing for the base game? (there's not really a fitting 3rd age for them).

If they do Ottomans as 3rd age civ, i bet we will see Ataturk at some point as a leader tho.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think Ming as a middle age (or Song or Qing or Manchu) makes more sense, early Ming actually had some exploration going (Zheng He) also.

I agree that Ming China is the most likely.

I guess the way they'll try to make it work is something like this (and it's probably going to be worse than this).

Like this would make the most sense (it's a bit simplified). I added Celtiberian & Lusitanian to have a few more options in classic era. I guess you could also split Spain into Castille & Spain later.

And yes i know Aztec into Maya, or Guarani into Brazil or Mapuche into Argentina doesn't make much sense but I doubt they would add Chilean or Paraguayan civs. And I think Mayans & Incas will be 1st age because otherwise they don't have anything to add in the first civs (well... Olmec maybe).

Why would Inca be Antiquity when it first started in the 13th century?

Another one: I think it would make sense for both Rome and Greece to have the option of evolving into Byzantium, which could itself evolve into Ottomans in the modern age, though as with a lot of these theories, the timing doesn't quite fit the Antiquity/Exploration/Modern timeline as much as we might like. If we chart the Byzantine empire as existing from the Fall of Rome in CE476 to the Fall of Constantinople in CE1453, that puts Byzantium with one foot squarely in Antiquity and Ottomans with one squarely in the Exploration Age.

I think that the Ottomans and the Byzantines would both need to be Exploration Age civs.

 

[Vahnstad]

Why would Inca be Antiquity when it first started in the 13th century?

Yeah but that's a problem for a lot of native American civs.

Like who will you start as if you want to play Inca (or Shawnee). Or does everyone need to start as Maya?

(edit: i think i read somewhere that it was mentioned that Inca was going to be exploration era civ because of "if you have plenty of mountains nearby and want to work the mountains, you could become Inca" kind of thing, but again it doesn't remove the problem that there are few good civs for the classical era for the "new world".

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yeah but that's a problem for a lot of native American civs.

Like who will you start as if you want to play Inca (or Shawnee). Or does everyone need to start as Maya?

Maybe Maya in the base game, but they will probably fill in the Antiquities Americas with DLCs and Expansions

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah but that's a problem for a lot of native American civs.

Like who will you start as if you want to play Inca (or Shawnee). Or does everyone need to start as Maya?

(edit: i think i read somewhere that it was mentioned that Inca was going to be exploration era civ because of "if you have plenty of mountains nearby and want to work the mountains, you could become Inca" kind of thing, but again it doesn't remove the problem that there are few good civs for the classical era for the "new world".

It could very well be that, unfortunately.
Then again there's also the possibility of archaeological civilizations happening now, like Norte Chico or Nazca, because they don't all need leaders.

 

[Navelgazer]

i think i read somewhere that it was mentioned that Inca was going to be exploration era civ because of "if you have plenty of mountains nearby and want to work the mountains, you could become Inca" kind of thing

Yeah, I came across it in one of the Content Creator videos. He was retelling what one of the devs told him, about the Dev playing a map with a ton of mountains, and so he (the dev) chose to evolve into Inca in the Exploration Age.

 

[Guandao]

I could see them giving the Aztecs the Pyramid of the Sun, since they keep on having Teotihuacan in the Aztec city-list.....just like Tiwanaku and Chan Chan being in the Inca city-list. I know the Inca conquered Chan Chan, but it was the capital of Chimor/Chimu, a separate polity. I still wish Teotihuacan, Tiwanaku and Chan Chan were all made into City-States or Independent peoples in the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah, I came across it in one of the Content Creator videos. He was retelling what one of the devs told him, about the Dev playing a map with a ton of mountains, and so he (the dev) chose to evolve into Inca in the Exploration Age.

That makes sense….I could see the Normans being like that…2 coastal cities on a separate landmass from your capital…Normans unlocked

1?2? cities that each occupy the entire landmass they are on…Polynesia/Hawaii unlocked

 

[The_J]

Just thinking, we have no evidence that in the base game we will have 1 "native" leader per civ. I think it is likely, but also very likely that we'll get more leaders via DLCs.
Same for wonders. Egypt has the pyramids as associated wonder. The great lighthouse must be in the game. Will that be free-for-all? Will Egypt get a second one? What will be the wonder(s) of Greece?

 

[moondog385]

I really hope that the intent is to try to match most of the leaders up with their respective civ. If we go through the game’s whole lifespan and Amina is still leading Songhai and Aksum, that’ll bother me.

But given that we could be shaping up to have 45 civs in the base game alone, I’m optimistic most of the blind spots will be covered.