Civilization VII - Civilization and leader overview

[Siptah]

Is it known how unique the upgrade paths for leaders are?

Is it the same for all of them? Some unique variations (like civs and policies)? Or completely unique?

I wish for the second, actually. It would give a more of reason to choose a specific leader or try out some combos.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Is it known how unique the upgrade paths for leaders are?

Is it the same for all of them? Some unique variations (like civs and policies)? Or completely unique?

I wish for the second, actually. It would give a more of reason to choose a specific leader or try out some combos.

The current assumption is that each leader has two upgrade paths, based on their leader traits (Cultural, Political, Economical, Militaristic, Scientific or Expansionist)

 

[Siptah]

The current assumption is that each leader has two upgrade paths, based on their leader traits (Cultural, Political, Economical, Militaristic, Scientific or Expansionist)

Isn‘t that a bit … restrictive? I expected the traits to have an effect like „+1 free attribute points in the respective path“

 

[Krikkit1]

Isn‘t that a bit … restrictive? I expected the traits to have an effect like „+1 free attribute points in the respective path“

or even +1 per age would be reasonable

 

[Nikolai II]

Isn‘t that a bit … restrictive? I expected the traits to have an effect like „+1 free attribute points in the respective path“

This sounds reasonable tbh.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

View attachment 701858

That doesn't look anything like Monks Mound. The earthen pyramid should be substantially larger than the buildings on it.

I'd suggest this is a palace for a Polynesian civ

 

[Lord Lakely]

I second EP's suggestion that it's a palace.

 

[Giskler]

That doesn't look anything like Monks Mound. The earthen pyramid should be substantially larger than the buildings on it.

I'd suggest this is a palace for a Polynesian civ

That's the building people started speculating could be Monks Mound. I don't think it's a palace though, it doesn't look anything like other palaces which seem to conform to a squareish shape.

Edit: I could be wrong. Maybe it's the angle that's throwing me off.

 

[Ornen]

The game's timeline is a little funky. With Shawnee in the Exploration era, a few American civs may end up on a slightly different timeline than the rest of the game. In that light, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a Mississippian/SECC civ in the Antiquity era.

 

[Zaarin]

The game's timeline is a little funky. With Shawnee in the Exploration era, a few American civs may end up on a slightly different timeline than the rest of the game. In that light, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a Mississippian/SECC civ in the Antiquity era.

I'm also beginning to suspect this is the case, but I do hope they're not called "Mississippians." The Caddo and the Natchez can both be traced through archaeology as continuously belonging to the Mississippian cultural zone all the way back to proper Antiquity so I think those are both good options for the name of the Mississippian civ. (Part of me leans towards Caddo just because the Caddoan languages are some of my favorite indigenous languages--but the Caddo and Pawnee transitioned to the Plains after the collapse of Mississippian society so Natchez might be more strongly associated with the Mississippians, even continuing to dwell at Mound sites after the Mississippian collapse.)

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'm also beginning to suspect this is the case, but I do hope they're not called "Mississippians." The Caddo and the Natchez can both be traced through archaeology as continuously belonging to the Mississippian cultural zone all the way back to proper Antiquity so I think those are both good options for the name of the Mississippian civ. (Part of me leans towards Caddo just because the Caddoan languages are some of my favorite indigenous languages--but the Caddo and Pawnee transitioned to the Plains after the collapse of Mississippian society so Natchez might be more strongly associated with the Mississippians, even continuing to dwell at Mound sites after the Mississippian collapse.)

By that description however, the Caddo would be a decent pick for a precursor Civ to either transition into sedentary Great Plains indigenous (Lakota, Apache), or Sedentary indigenous (Shawnee, Iroquois).

Sigh, I suppose the Anasazi, even without a clear leader or the need to include the Pueblo language, are too much of an ask

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

By that description however, the Caddo would be a decent pick for a precursor Civ to either transition into sedentary Great Plains indigenous (Lakota, Apache), or Sedentary indigenous (Shawnee, Iroquois).

Sigh, I suppose the Anasazi, even without a clear leader or the need to include the Pueblo language, are too much of an ask

Careful. Neither the Lakota nor any of the other 'Council Fires' of the Sioux were indigenous to the plains. They migrated there from the upper Mississippi/Great Lakes region After the Europeans were established in eastern north America and had traded guns to the Sioux's enemies but not to them, making it suicidal to stay where they were.

As it happened, the Lakota moved furthest into the plains of all the Sioux nations and met the edge of horse acquisition coming up from the Spanish colonies in (modern) New Mexico, and acquired guns by playing off European rivalries (French versus British, later British versus United States) and with access to both of these transformative technologies became the Lords of the (northern) Great Plains.

All of which makes anything resembling Actual Events almost impossible to model in-game. I suspect, if Lakota or Ochethi Sakowin (The Seven Council Fires) are included in the game, they will be presented as they were after reaching the plains - but note that the 'plains Sioux' were never all of the seven tribes and at least 2/3 of their existance (estimated since about 1300 CE) was in the wooded marshy country of the upper Mississippi west of the Illinois country.

 

[GeneralZift]

I'm having a small amount of fun from what reads like totally made up civilisation names. Mixtec? Is that some kind of hybrid microphone speaker system? Hahaha

 

[Lord Lakely]

All of which makes anything resembling Actual Events almost impossible to model in-game. I suspect, if Lakota or Ochethi Sakowin (The Seven Council Fires) are included in the game, they will be presented as they were after reaching the plains - but note that the 'plains Sioux' were never all of the seven tribes and at least 2/3 of their existance (estimated since about 1300 CE) was in the wooded marshy country of the upper Mississippi west of the Illinois country.

That would speak for itself. It's best to stick to the version of the Civ that is the best known with the general public, especially for a tribe like the Sioux that many have heard of, but know little about besides "they had horses and guns".

However, with the way Civ 7 appears to be structured, it would probably be best to shove the Lakota into the Exploration Era, as a parallel to the Shawnee. The idea of a Great Plains Civ has appeal, but it might be harder to pull such a Civ off convincingly if they're in the Modern Era.

Interesting read overall though . I have some superficial knowledge about then when i was compiling a Lakota city list for my spreadsheet (#JustCasualCivFanaticThings), but their origins weren't a part of my active knowledge yet.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That would speak for itself. It's best to stick to the version of the Civ that is the best known with the general public, especially for a tribe like the Sioux that many have heard of, but know little about besides "they had horses and guns".

However, with the way Civ 7 appears to be structured, it would probably be best to shove the Lakota into the Exploration Era, as a parallel to the Shawnee. The idea of a Great Plains Civ has appeal, but it might be harder to pull such a Civ off convincingly if they're in the Modern Era.

Interesting read overall though . I have some superficial knowledge about then when i was compiling a Lakota city list for my spreadsheet (#JustCasualCivFanaticThings), but their origins weren't a part of my active knowledge yet.

IF they wanted to include a Great Plains Civ my vote would be for the Comanche, the great horse-suppliers to the rest of the plains natives. They were also one of only two native groups that practiced careful breeding of their horses for traits they wanted (the other being the Nez Perce of the Northwest) and were the dominant trading power across rthe southern plains between the Mississippi region and the Spanish in Mexico/New Mexico.

I cannot recommend too highly two books by Pekka Hämäläinen:
Lakota America
The Comanche Empire

They are both fantastically well-researched and written concerning their two subjects, and the Lakota book will up-end almost everything you thought you knew about the 'Sioux'!

 

[Zaarin]

I cannot recommend too highly two books by Pekka Hämäläinen:

He gets around; I quoted him quite extensively in my paper on the Wendat and my paper on Tecumseh. The breadth and depth of his research is very impressive.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

He gets around; I quoted him quite extensively in my paper on the Wendat and my paper on Tecumseh. The breadth and depth of his research is very impressive.

For a third recommendation, try his
Indigenous Continent

North America, it's politics and cultures and their interactions with the Europeans as seen from the Native viewpoint. Again, an entirely different view of what we thought we knew about the subject.

 

[Krikkit1]

That would speak for itself. It's best to stick to the version of the Civ that is the best known with the general public, especially for a tribe like the Sioux that many have heard of, but know little about besides "they had horses and guns".

However, with the way Civ 7 appears to be structured, it would probably be best to shove the Lakota into the Exploration Era, as a parallel to the Shawnee. The idea of a Great Plains Civ has appeal, but it might be harder to pull such a Civ off convincingly if they're in the Modern Era.

Interesting read overall though . I have some superficial knowledge about then when i was compiling a Lakota city list for my spreadsheet (#JustCasualCivFanaticThings), but their origins weren't a part of my active knowledge yet.

The Lakota were still fighting the US after the Mughals were gone. They could easily be Modern.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

The biggest offence to Hattie's model is that it is lacking the fake beard.

I was also surprised not see it part of her Civ7 depiction. I only read about Ancient Egyptian history as a kid, and all I remember is Hatshepsut's fake beard and Akhenaten's big butt

 

[notNamed]

Ok updated list... I still feel weird having Amina being with Songhai, and for sake of consistency Hatshepsut is shown with Aksum too now

One more side you can tenatively add to your list is Siam.
They are obviously expected but for now we only have this non-Khmer (as in medieval, Cambodia and Thailand both use the same building modern palatial style) building to go off of: