pre-release info Civilization VII - Content Spreadsheet Thread - Civ overview!

[Rac]

Huh, a game guide today wasn't in my radar, and neither a short dedicated to Indepedent Powers!
Ok so what's new: Mongolia's wonder is indeed Erdene Zuu, and we identify 3 new IP's (there's more in the video but we can't identify beyond being from X region of the word you know) that are the Moche (Moche), Xianbei (Shengle) and Mon (Si Thep).
Also the explanation on the IP's make's way more believable that Olmecs will actually be a thing, still speculated but with more odds.
Speaking of odds, the earlier short on the White Tower wonder directly name drops Willian the Conqueror and today the Mongolia description also name drops Temujin, so just like Alexander I'm adding both as implicated to be in the game, I know weak claim but still possible.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I think this is our first look at Machu Picchu? From today's Dev Diary.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

We've got the Burden of Maui there, but there's another polynesian looking wonder next to it. Hawaii's wonder, likely?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

View attachment 708469
I think this is our first look at Machu Picchu? From today's Dev Diary.

There were already several images from previous videos:

This one was the clearest, but the new one shows the possible yields, which is new, I believe.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Not in love with the way it’s just kind of a little plateau in the middle of some flatland. The one thing I miss from Civ V is Mountain-based wonders being actually built on mountains. The magic stones that materialize for Machu Pichu and Petra in Civ VI take me out of it, a bit. Not enough to temper my excitement for the game, but it’s probably my biggest bugbear.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not in love with the way it’s just kind of a little plateau in the middle of some flatland. The one thing I miss from Civ V is Mountain-based wonders being actually built on mountains. The magic stones that materialize for Machu Pichu and Petra in Civ VI take me out of it, a bit. Not enough to temper my excitement for the game, but it’s probably my biggest bugbear.

- Especially when Civ VI required Petra to be built on flat land and then added in a Mountain backing for the Wonder, when the actual Wonder is built in Mountains!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not in love with the way it’s just kind of a little plateau in the middle of some flatland. The one thing I miss from Civ V is Mountain-based wonders being actually built on mountains. The magic stones that materialize for Machu Pichu and Petra in Civ VI take me out of it, a bit. Not enough to temper my excitement for the game, but it’s probably my biggest bugbear.

Machu Picchu does require you to build it on a mountain tile, though.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Machu_Picchu_(Civ6)

 

[moysturfurmer]

Machu Picchu does require you to build it on a mountain tile, though.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Machu_Picchu_(Civ6)

oh! i admit, my most resonant of memories are wincing at Petra, that's good to see.

Well, fingers crossed they did the same here, but judging from The Oracle requiring rough terrain, I'm not optimistic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Machu Picchu does require you to build it on a mountain tile, though.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Machu_Picchu_(Civ6)

And other Wonders have appropriate terrain requirements, like hills, riversides, tundra, etc. But whereas most of them make sense, having Petra built "in Desert or Floodplains without Hills" is just Wrong and has bugged me ever since I first saw it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And other Wonders have appropriate terrain requirements, like hills, riversides, tundra, etc. But whereas most of them make sense, having Petra built "in Desert or Floodplains without Hills" is just Wrong and has bugged me ever since I first saw it.

Well, I wasn't trying to make an excuse for Petra. Just pointing out that Machu Picchu was indeed correct as far as terrain requirements go. I do find it off that it's available in the Classical Era however, even though Engineering makes sense. I think Astronomy could have been more fitting?

 

[brainwashh]

I’ve been thinking: Eleanor of Aquitaine would work much better as a leader for Civ7 than for Civ6. While she’s definitely an interesting personality to have in Civ, she didn’t quite feel like the leader of either France or England in the previous edition. In Civ7, however, she fits well as a powerful medieval queen who could represent any Exploration European civ, as she wouldn’t need to be the face of any specific civ. I feel like they should have saved her for her debut at this point.

While I agree with most everything you said, I wonder...

Wouldn't William the Conqueror be a good English/French leader for Civ 6?

If the Normans are a full fledged civ in Civ 7, couldn't Aquitaine be as well? No? Is it because Aquitaine is too similar to France? But aren't the Normans as well? It they're focusing on their irl naval prowess and conquests, wouldn't that make them too similar to the inevitable Norwegian or Danish civ?

My point is, it's curious they picked the Normans in a game that divorces civs and leaders for the first time. Shouldn't William the Conqueror represent the Normans following Civ 7 logic? Eleanor and William would be examples of great leader picks without a specific civ.

 

[Zaarin]

While I agree with most everything you said, I wonder...

Wouldn't William the Conqueror be a good English/French leader for Civ 6?

If the Normans are a full fledged civ in Civ 7, couldn't Aquitaine be as well? No? Is it because Aquitaine is too similar to France? But aren't the Normans as well? It they're focusing on their irl naval prowess and conquests, wouldn't that make them too similar to the inevitable Norwegian or Danish civ?

My point is, it's curious they picked the Normans in a game that divorces civs and leaders for the first time. Shouldn't William the Conqueror represent the Normans following Civ 7 logic? Eleanor and William would be examples of great leader picks without a specific civ.

I think Normandy was a pragmatic choice: because the Normans were avid colonizers/adventurers, it's a convenient launching point for just about anywhere in Europe--and it conveniently covers Medieval England and France in a single civ, which is convenient for the limited roster at launch. I still think Tudor England and Francia will come in time. (That being said, if we're going to balkanize France some more, the Duchy of Brittany gets my vote, both for its Breton language and because it's a prime candidate for a civ centered around the Matter of Britain/Arthuriana.)

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think Normandy was a pragmatic choice: because the Normans were avid colonizers/adventurers, it's a convenient launching point for just about anywhere in Europe--and it conveniently covers Medieval England and France in a single civ, which is convenient for the limited roster at launch. I still think Tudor England and Francia will come in time. (That being said, if we're going to balkanize France some more, the Duchy of Brittany gets my vote, both for its Breton language and because it's a prime candidate for a civ centered around the Matter of Britain/Arthuriana.)

While I agree, I don't think we'll see exploration age England or France until some very late phases (like second expansion pack) or even not at all. Too many blank spots on the world map for this period.

Potentially we could see HRE as Franco-German entity for the exploration.

 

[Zaarin]

While I agree, I don't think we'll see exploration age England or France until some very late phases (like second expansion pack) or even not at all. Too many blank spots on the world map for this period.

Potentially we could see HRE as Franco-German entity for the exploration.

I make no prediction of when we'll see them, but if the devs don't already have them in mind then I'm sure marketing would be very happy to point out how lucrative they'd be as DLC.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think Normandy was a pragmatic choice: because the Normans were avid colonizers/adventurers, it's a convenient launching point for just about anywhere in Europe--and it conveniently covers Medieval England and France in a single civ, which is convenient for the limited roster at launch. I still think Tudor England and Francia will come in time. (That being said, if we're going to balkanize France some more, the Duchy of Brittany gets my vote, both for its Breton language and because it's a prime candidate for a civ centered around the Matter of Britain/Arthuriana.)

I do find it an interesting choice because alternatively they could have gone for Tudor England, and then have Francia which would have covered both Medieval France and Germany. I'd would have preferred this.

But sure, the Normans were more adventurous than the Carolingians, so I guess that's why they decided on them for the base game. That being said either one of their leaders, William the Conqueror or Charlemagne would fit Civ 7 as a leader that could encompass multiple civs.

 

[Evolena]

If the Normans are a full fledged civ in Civ 7, couldn't Aquitaine be as well? No? Is it because Aquitaine is too similar to France? But aren't the Normans as well?

For another French duchy, I think Burgondy more interesting in Civ 7 than Aquitaine. From the V century Kingdom of the Burgondians to the Merovingian Francia then under the Carolingia Francia the creation of the duchy of Burgondy which ended owning territories in the Benelux area for a while during the XV century. And besides that there was also the kingdom of Burgondy-Provence/Arles that was part of the HRE for several centuries.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I make no prediction of when we'll see them, but if the devs don't already have them in mind then I'm sure marketing would be very happy to point out how lucrative they'd be as DLC.

Honestly, I don't know, whether those civs will be a selling point, providing we'll already have modern Britain, France and Germany. I doubt those exploration civs would bring significant value for broad audience.

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly, I don't know, whether those civs will be a selling point, providing we'll already have modern Britain, France and Germany. I doubt those exploration civs would bring significant value for broad audience.

I'd be happy for both, and I'm not even the "must have every square nanometer of Europe represented" person.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd be happy for both, and I'm not even the "must have every square nanometer of Europe represented" person.

I'm not convinced about Exploration England considering Ed already stated in an interview that "England was a weird conglomeration in past games." Not the exact words but I can't find the statement.
Which I do find funny because it was only weird because they made it extremely British in the first place, which is more of a conglomeration of different countries.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'd be happy for both, and I'm not even the "must have every square nanometer of Europe represented" person.

Well, you're a civ fanatic and history geek. Clearly not the representative for broad audience (and, probably, will buy all DLCs regardless of their content anyway).