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

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think he just means more choices in a list from which you choose next civ. Inclusive of both AA and EA unlocks
So say playing as Greece unlocks Normandy but you horsed around enough to choose Mongols instead so now Modern offers you both France and Ottomans/Russia

Well, shuckee-Gee, we are in complete agreement. I stated a few weeks ago that I don't think the game will be playable for long unless your Progression is not only to a 'historicalish' next-Age Civ, but also to any next-Age Civ with some special in-game/on-map provision. I think the gamer needs to have a number of possible choices, but I also think that in-game events and decisions by the gamer should shape those decisions, Age by Age.

In the example given, you might have 2 'standard' choices for the Modern Age based on your prior choices of Civ/Leader combination, but you should also have other choices based on the map/terrain/resource in which you find yourself at the end of the Exploration Age - or that you have contrived to find yourself in.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

Antiquity Unlocking Modern, as you describe, implies that your path from Antiquity to Modern is set from the first choice

No, it doesn't. Exploration age civ can have their own modern unlocks, additional to the ones you get from antiquity civ.

Here is a specific example. Suppose, Rome unlocks Spain and Normans in Exploration and France in Modern, while Spain unlocks Mexico in Modern and Normans unlock Britain in Modern. Therefore you get:

Rome > Spain > Mexico
Rome > Spain > France
Rome > Normans > Britain
Rome > Normans > France

Four paths, not counting leader and gameplay unlocks

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The more I've seen the more I'm convinced that we're not getting Russia or Germany (or maybe even Britain) in the modern era.

We've got locked in:
Buganda
Mughals
Meiji
Mexico

We've had soft confirmed:
Siam
America
Qing
France

So there's two critical things here for me about the last 2 civs. My assumptions are based on every civ have 2 auto unlocks based purely on the civ from the previous era, and that consequently each civ unlocks 2 civs in the next era (ignoring whatever else, leader or gameplay unlocks, may be at play)

1) what is Songhai seconds unlock? We know these are historical or regional. They've got Buganda as 1. What's the next closest civ in the modern era, France? (Maybe some colonial trigger, but the french west Africa colonisation happened late in the modern era, so that would be a little weird wouldn't it?) Mughals? (No overlap at all, continents apart) I don't know who else would fit at the mo. Germany and Russia are again continents apart, Britain has the same problem as France and their territories overlap significantly less. I think there's going to be another mid east civ transition like Aksum / Egypt to Abbasids, and I think it's going to be the Ottomans. We've seen barely any modern wonders, so I'm confident Hagia Sofia or Topkapi palace is going to pop up.

2) Spain unlocks Mexico. If civs only unlock 2 next era civs each, then Spain is unlocking a max of 1 European civ in the modern, presumably France for the regional criteria. In civs only unlock 2 civs next era, and we already know about France and America, then presumably those are the 2 unlocks from Normans - which wouldn't leave room for Britain and means there are additional inputs into the Americas. So second slightly more out there theory - we might get 3 Americas civs to represent to growth of the western hemispheres influence in the modern era and the shift of people from Europe to the americas? Maybe we'll get America unlocked by Hawaii and Normans, Mexico unlocked by Inca and Spain, and Hawaii and Inca may both unlock Brazil as the final slot?

So my slightly out there prediction based on nothing other than a presumption of uniform numbers of unlocks and unlocked by criteria per civ is our last two unknown civs are Ottomans and Brazil, with no Britain, Russians or Germany in base game.

Follow up theorising is that right to rule will bring in a mix of exploration and modern European civs based around absolute monarchies and their "right to rule"?

I don't know what the rules are anymore. Feels in keeping with how this game feels less eurocentric and has some vague sense of rules around historic/regional unlocks, which I would hope there is, but am not convinced there is yet

 

[j51]

Didn’t they say they picked the civs for each era based on who they felt were best to fit into/represent some aspect of that era and that they just figured out who unlocks who as an afterthought? Or am I misremembering?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Didn’t they say they picked the civs for each era based on who they felt were best to fit into/represent some aspect of that era and that they just figured out who unlocks who as an afterthought? Or am I misremembering?

If true, God that's depressing. Imagining making your game changing brand new mechanic an afterthought in how you incorporate it.

 

[Krajzen]

1) what is Songhai seconds unlock? We know these are historical or regional. They've got Buganda as 1. What's the next closest civ in the modern era, France? (Maybe some colonial trigger, but the french west Africa colonisation happened late in the modern era, so that would be a little weird wouldn't it?) Mughals? (No overlap at all, continents apart) I don't know who else would fit at the mo. Germany and Russia are again continents apart, Britain has the same problem as France and their territories overlap significantly less. I think there's going to be another mid east civ transition like Aksum / Egypt to Abbasids, and I think it's going to be the Ottomans. We've seen barely any modern wonders, so I'm confident Hagia Sofia or Topkapi palace is going to pop up. Otherwise it's a weird

I really like this argument. I have always found the idea of Abbasids going into Mughals, with no modern MENA civ, kinda terrible (though I cannot entirely discard it). I didn't even think about the fact Songhai has no second choice civ whatsoever, with Ottomans being *much* better in this role than Mughals (hey, Ottomans had a hell of a presence in Africa).

Idk, if I were Firaxis then Ottomans or any other modern MENA civ would be obvious for me - freakin Middle East deserves to be a complete region on its own just like SEA or Subsaharan Africa, Ottoman empire is awesome, and it would link a ton of civs in the future. But who knows what was their reasoning, I was already weirded out by the Maya->Inca->Mexico line or shocked by the potential lack of Germany/Russia in the base game, so who knows.

You know what civ would work really well in the current setup, though I don't expect it at all? Modern Egypt, either that of say Nasser or 19th century one of Muhammad Ali. Distinctive and important as hell, connects with Abbasids, Songhai, obviously ancient Egypt, but even Persia, Axum and Greece by proxy. It would also be a chance to finally get Islamic Egypt in the series.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We've seen barely any modern wonders, so I'm confident Hagia Sofia or Topkapi palace is going to pop up.

Hagia Sophia would have to be a Byzantine wonder in the Exploration Age. It was built by Justinian, almost a century before it came under Ottoman control.

So my slightly out there prediction based on nothing other than a presumption of uniform numbers of unlocks and unlocked by criteria per civ is our last two unknown civs are Ottomans and Brazil, with no Britain, Russians or Germany in base game.

Germans and Russians seem more probable now with potential leaders incoming. Charlemagne was revealed and we have info that Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great will be in.

 

[Jeppetto]

If true, God that's depressing. Imagining making your game changing brand new mechanic an afterthought in how you incorporate it.

Ages are also their brand new game changing mechanic in what gameplay is it wrapped around and it literraly means they chose civs according to it. If they chose based on best lines they would treat ages as an afterthought instead.

 

[Nikolai II]

Didn’t they say they picked the civs for each era based on who they felt were best to fit into/represent some aspect of that era and that they just figured out who unlocks who as an afterthought? Or am I misremembering?

I can't remember reading that, is it said in an interview?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Ages are also their brand new game changing mechanic in what gameplay is it wrapped around and it literraly means they chose civs according to it. If they chose based on best lines they would treat ages as an afterthought instead.

I don't think that's true that way around at all. They compliment each other in fact, as choosing good lines requires you to think about what fits best in each era. By not choosing good lines, we get weird behaviours like Khmer in antiquity...

If they prioritised lines, we'd have exploration Khmer, and a Cambodian precursor and successor. That doesn't treat ages as an afterthought at all. It may result in fewer regions being represented, but that's a whole different argument that isn't related to ages.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I can't remember reading that, is it said in an interview?

It sounds like a concise summation of Dr. Johnson's explanation for why the Khmer specifically were placed in Antiquity.

 

[Nikolai II]

It sounds like a concise summation of Dr. Johnson's explanation for why the Khmer specifically were placed in Antiquity.

Here is what Andrew wrote the other day in the Majahapit thread:

with regards to unlocking new civilizations, these aren't always pointing to a direct ethnic or political successor! Rome unlocks the Normans, yes, but this is not making the claim that the Normans were a Roman offshoot. There are different levels of connection that we used to determine unlocks - some of these are a direct ancestor (e.g. Han to Ming), some of these are within a same or neighboring geographic or overlapping cultural spheres (e.g. Maurya to Chola, Mississippian to Shawnee), and some are the best fit geographically that we could do given the roster of civs (keeping in mind present-day regional tensions). Leaders, too, have their recommended pairings based either on historical connections or, lacking these, a best regional fit.

Given unlimited time and budget, it would be cool to have multiple, branching paths with each point in history (and alternate histories) mapped out with unique art and design, but given the level of detail given to each here (and the need to delilver the game within a reasonable time and price tag), we had to make things fit as best they could.

 

[CidMire]

2) Spain unlocks Mexico. If civs only unlock 2 next era civs each, then Spain is unlocking a max of 1 European civ in the modern, presumably France for the regional criteria. In civs only unlock 2 civs next era, and we already know about France and America, then presumably those are the 2 unlocks from Normans - which wouldn't leave room for Britain and means there are additional inputs into the Americas. So second slightly more out there theory - we might get 3 Americas civs to represent to growth of the western hemispheres influence in the modern era and the shift of people from Europe to the americas? Maybe we'll get America unlocked by Hawaii and Normans, Mexico unlocked by Inca and Spain, and Hawaii and Inca may both unlock Brazil as the final slot?

i'm kinda with you here on the Inca. if the AI plays Inca with a leader that has no Modern era unlock, and the player chooses Mexico in the Modern era... what would be the backup?

if the two-unlocks-per-civ theory holds true then the mapping needs to be interconnected enough that any player choice leaves a valid result. it might not be enough to have two transition options, but two options that dont mutually agree with any other civ.

one of a few plausible (though not ideal) solutions if you believe my theory about island-civ Britain and if you think of Chola as the "indian ocean trading area of influence"

Maya/Rome . . . > Spain > . . .France/Mexico
Egypt/Aksum > Songhai > Buganda/Mughal
Rome/Greece > Norman > Britain/France
Greece/Persia. . .> Mongol >. . .Russia/Qing
Maurya/Han . . .> Ming > . . . Qing/Meiji
Persia/Egypt. . .> Abbasid > Mughal/Russia
Aksum/Maurya > Chola >. . .Siam/Buganda
Han/Khmer. . .> Majapahit > Meiji/Siam
Khmer/Missis. . .> Hawaii > America/Britain
Missis./Maya . . .> Inca >. . . Mexico/America

 

[gdr_willter]

I can't remember reading that, is it said in an interview?

Dev Diary #2: Leaders and Civs | Civilization VII

Get developer insights and additional details about how leaders and civs are designed in Sid Meier's Civilization VII!

civilization.2k.com

I consider this can be the one. They firstly told about the general standards for Civ selection, and then told about the pathways idea.

 

[Krikkit1]

The more I've seen the more I'm convinced that we're not getting Russia or Germany (or maybe even Britain) in the modern era.

We've got locked in:
Buganda
Mughals
Meiji
Mexico

We've had soft confirmed:
Siam
America
Qing
France

So there's two critical things here for me about the last 2 civs. My assumptions are based on every civ have 2 auto unlocks based purely on the civ from the previous era, and that consequently each civ unlocks 2 civs in the next era (ignoring whatever else, leader or gameplay unlocks, may be at play)

1) what is Songhai seconds unlock? We know these are historical or regional. They've got Buganda as 1. What's the next closest civ in the modern era, France? (Maybe some colonial trigger, but the french west Africa colonisation happened late in the modern era, so that would be a little weird wouldn't it?) Mughals? (No overlap at all, continents apart) I don't know who else would fit at the mo. Germany and Russia are again continents apart, Britain has the same problem as France and their territories overlap significantly less. I think there's going to be another mid east civ transition like Aksum / Egypt to Abbasids, and I think it's going to be the Ottomans. We've seen barely any modern wonders, so I'm confident Hagia Sofia or Topkapi palace is going to pop up.

2) Spain unlocks Mexico. If civs only unlock 2 next era civs each, then Spain is unlocking a max of 1 European civ in the modern, presumably France for the regional criteria. In civs only unlock 2 civs next era, and we already know about France and America, then presumably those are the 2 unlocks from Normans - which wouldn't leave room for Britain and means there are additional inputs into the Americas. So second slightly more out there theory - we might get 3 Americas civs to represent to growth of the western hemispheres influence in the modern era and the shift of people from Europe to the americas? Maybe we'll get America unlocked by Hawaii and Normans, Mexico unlocked by Inca and Spain, and Hawaii and Inca may both unlock Brazil as the final slot?

So my slightly out there prediction based on nothing other than a presumption of uniform numbers of unlocks and unlocked by criteria per civ is our last two unknown civs are Ottomans and Brazil, with no Britain, Russians or Germany in base game.

Follow up theorising is that right to rule will bring in a mix of exploration and modern European civs based around absolute monarchies and their "right to rule"?

I don't know what the rules are anymore. Feels in keeping with how this game feels less eurocentric and has some vague sense of rules around historic/regional unlocks, which I would hope there is, but am not convinced there is yet

Except your basic assumption is wrong (2 unlock rule)
Spain only unlocked Mexico
Songhai only unlocked Buganda

now that may change, (ie they left out the unlocks to hide them/still deciding on ‘uncertain’ unlocks ) but I think the unlock # is 1+ (every civ unlocks 1 or more civs and every civ unlocks 1 or more civs)

based on that, I’d say Germany is least likely to be in (maybe we get Friedrich leader with no civ)

Russia has 1 Good connection (Mongols)
I would put them as most likely due to differences from other civs

For the second, I think a non European civ…but not sure which
Ottomans?Korea?Brazil?Kongo?Maori

 

[uppi]

So there's two critical things here for me about the last 2 civs. My assumptions are based on every civ have 2 auto unlocks based purely on the civ from the previous era, and that consequently each civ unlocks 2 civs in the next era (ignoring whatever else, leader or gameplay unlocks, may be at play)

I once had that assumption as well, but Spain was shown to have only one unlock (Mexico) in the live stream. So that theory is pretty much dead in the water. Not only does that mean that Spain is confirmed to have only one unlock, it also means that France does not have a second unlock (because, who would that be?).

The Normans do have a second Modern civ they unlock, but it could be either America, Britain or Germany. But I don't think that tells us too much. There certainly is a possibility that we will get neither Britain nor Germany in the base game, but the known unlocks by themselves neither confirm nor deny that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For the second, I think a non European civ…but not sure which
Ottomans?Korea?Brazil?Kongo?Maori

For a non European civ, I would go with the Ottomans. They would make the most sense for the Abbasids to go into. I can't see Kongo being Modern and I think Buganda will be the only Modern Africa in the base game. Hawaii will be the only Polynesian civ too. I also think it's too early for Korea.

Brazil is the next best, but with America and Mexico, I'm not sure they would put 3 in the Americas. We know that Spain can only go into Mexico, but it's possible that Inca, and presumably even the Shawnee, would also go into Mexico, so I don't think that Brazil is needed right now.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No, it doesn't. Exploration age civ can have their own modern unlocks, additional to the ones you get from antiquity civ.

Here is a specific example. Suppose, Rome unlocks Spain and Normans in Exploration and France in Modern, while Spain unlocks Mexico in Modern and Normans unlock Britain in Modern. Therefore you get:

Rome > Spain > Mexico
Rome > Spain > France
Rome > Normans > Britain
Rome > Normans > France

Four paths, not counting leader and gameplay unlocks

And this is what I like about the system: the Exploration Unlocks from Rome do not fix the unlocks to Modern: just in your example, there are at least two different choices for each Progression from Exploration to Modern no matter what progression you choose or have available from Antiquity to Exploration.

And I'll say it again: having the maximum number of Possible or Potential Unlocks available, even with extreme conditions applying to them, is the way to keep the game playable. IF every Rome to Exploration unlock left you with a minimum of choices to Modern, the game will quickly get dull and repetitive.

If, while playing Rome, not only does the Leader give you alternative unlocks but also in-game situations, like having Horse Resources available, or at least half your cities on the coast or a navigable river, or some other condition which the gamer can work to achieve, no matter how difficult, then the game will present the gamer with enough alternative ways to play Rome to keep us playing for a long, long time.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I once had that assumption as well, but Spain was shown to have only one unlock (Mexico) in the live stream. So that theory is pretty much dead in the water. Not only does that mean that Spain is confirmed to have only one unlock, it also means that France does not have a second unlock (because, who would that be?).

The Normans do have a second Modern civ they unlock, but it could be either America, Britain or Germany. But I don't think that tells us too much. There certainly is a possibility that we will get neither Britain nor Germany in the base game, but the known unlocks by themselves neither confirm nor deny that.

So this I find quite difficult from a gameplay perspective then. Suppose you are playing against Spain, and you pick Mexico. What does the AI Spain player then get as their choices? If they have a gameplay unlock do they get that? If they don't get a gameplay unlock, do they get free reign of choice of any other civ? Or does it just break and not spawn in the next era? Can it also be a second Mexico?

All of this is bad from the player immersion POV (if that's something you care about) The big thing the Devs came out with around historical unlocks was to justify that ais would get a sense of continuity and not just turn into some random unrelated civ the next era, but that will probably regularly occur from the looks of things...

The other side is the player choice is much reduced, and the balance of which civs are optimal is greatly influenced by what they unlock, which would affect how fun they feel to play. Nobody likes playing Denmark in Civ V, everyone love playing Babylon. If an exploration era civs only unlocks the 7 equivalent of Denmark, then it's also going to be relatively unpopular, and suddenly youve got a whole chain to avoid because of a weak link

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

All of this is bad from the player immersion POV (if that's something you care about) The big thing the Devs came out with around historical unlocks was to justify that ais would get a sense of continuity and not just turn into some random unrelated civ the next era, but that will probably regularly occur from the looks of things...

I think you've just got to embrace this and go all in to enjoy the game to its full potential.