Civilization VII - Content Spreadsheet Thread - Civ overview!

[chaosprophet]

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...

That depends a lot on the player, not only on the fact where they eve care about immersion, but also if it would break or not. Immersion is very subjective and malleable.

 

[uppi]

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?

I don't know. I would have made a strict 2 unlocks for every civ approach. But I am not the designer.

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

If you really don't want to play as a particular civ, you have ways of avoiding them with some planning. Use leader unlocks. Use gameplay unlocks. If you want to go Spain->France, you can do that with Napoleon.

 

[Bast]

I really don't want to go Spain>France. It's just not a path I want to play, it's not realistic and it destroys the immersion. If I play Spain, I'll always go Mexico. And go to France through the Normans. I just feel like there are certain paths in this game that feels right and others that feels really bad like Egypt to Mongols as an example also.

I really hope they allow Han China to Mongols, that would be a path I would take.

 

[Zaarin]

Egypt to Mongols as an example also

Worth remembering this is a gameplay unlock; playing as Egypt does not unlock Mongols. So if you go Egypt > Mongols, it's because you chose to do so.

 

[Krajzen]

So my prediction list for the remaining 10 civs is as follows - including known DLC content and spotted architectural wonders:

- Right to Rule adds Germany, Russia, Assyria and Goths; also already leaked somewhere Frederick and Catherine as two new leaders. No new architectural wonders there, since those four already have them in the base game.
- Crossroads of the World adds Byzantium, Ottomans, HRE, and Tonga or Silla; also three new wonders for three wonderless civs plus one random wonder; also two random new leaders, probably one being Ottoman sultan and another being either Korean or Tongan leader.
- Base game adds Britain and Tonga or Silla, and leader for both of them nevermind, once again I forgot that both base game civs must be modern era so idk, maybe Ottomans go to the base game or maybe there is dark horse civ going there instead of one of my speculated civs.

It is worth noting that such selection of civs perfectly covers themes of both DLCs.

More detailed reasoning:

Spoiler :

1) Right to Rule doesn't add any new wonders, so here go civs which already have assigned wonders. All of those four civs also fit the theme of "right to rule" - imperial power and conquest. Assyria and Goths are in, because there are confirmed wonders in the game which are frankly not too impressive choices typical when civ7 is desperate to figure out any wonder connected with a civ. No way we would have got "Tomb of Theoderic" as a wonder if not for this reason, and "Dur Sharrukin" is simply one of Assyrian capital cities, so again, somewhat desperate Additionally, Germanic civs being formed out of Rome and lack of Mesopotamia in the game would feel incredibly lame, so Goths and Assyria solve those lame issues in favour of totally badass solutions.
2) Also, Germany and Russia are going to get there because a) Thematic reasons b) Frederick and Catherine in one DLC are super badass marketable combo c) One cannot have civ game without those two civs.
3) Goths go through Normans to Germany, and Russia is derived from Mongols, unless you alse get second DLC, where they get Goths->HRE-Germany and Greece-Byzantium-Russia as more sensible paths. Awkward, I know, and may cause some anger as seems blatantly engineered to convince people to buy both DLCs at once but you gotta admit it's a smart economic move, just like staple Aztecs and Babylon being day 1 DLCs in the previous games
4) Also yes, Russia goes from Greece and Byzantium, as it is the laziest simplest path possible with one less slot required than the political minefield of say "Slavs -> Kievan Rus -> Russia"
5) Crossroads of the World is the one DLC from those two which actually adds new wonders, so previously wonderless civs go there.
6) Ottomans go there for Middle East region to get modern civ just like all other regions get one.
7) Byzantium goes there to provide a) The only sensible path for ancient Greece b) Second and better path for Russia c) Alternate path towards Ottomans, d) Being incredibly convenient civ for providing decent links for a **** ton of civs, while also being immersively ruled by a lot of outside rulers without need to get its own emperor (Augustus, ancient Greek ruler, Catherine etc)
8) HRE goes there for Germany and Germanic civs in general to get full evolutionary line akin to Normans leading to France and Britain, also it is worth noting that we have Charlemagne confirmed as a leader and it is again incredibly conventient civ for future linkages
9) All those three civs as well as Polynesia or Silla perfectly fit its "Crossroads of the World" theme.
10) Silla is confirmed because, let me repeat my favourite brutally honest argument, Seondeok's Bell is too lame for a wonder to not serve the singular purpose of filling the required void.
11) Silla gets to the game to provide full set of six East Asian civs, so two players can play East Asia simultaneously.
12) Tonga gets to the game to provide progenitor for second era Hawaii, which then historically turn into USA (or Maori in the future).
13) Britain gets to the base game because we can't have base civ without it
14) Britain also gets to the base game because it would make no sense to make the whole Norman business without trying to square one civ slot serving as a progenitor to both it and France at the same time.
15) The reason why I expect Polynesia or Hawaii and Silla in particular to get new leaders is because those are quite distinctive cultures while also offering some great options. Meanwhile HRE already has Charlemagne, Byzantium can have Augustus or Alexander the Great as a leader, and Assyria, well I would love for it to get a leader but it can live with say Xerxes.

There are several weaker conjectures in my prediction, of course; most notably my stubborn faith in Ottomans, HRE and (to lesser extent) Byzantium. One possibility I consider is either Babylon and/or Nabateans may get to the game in the Crossroads DLC instead, due to their wonders being present and them fitting the theme, though admittedly Hanging Gardens in particular are one of typical obligatory "seven ancient wonders" pack anyway so it may not say anything. I do admit I simply personally hope this isn't true, because it would seem idiotic for me to add as many as 4-5 ancient civilizations to the Middle East but only one exploration era and one (or zero) modern era civ there to serve as their successors

Theoretically we could also get Gupta, Teotihuacan, Qin, Francia etc one of those suggested possible civs, but I rate their chances as extremely low due to all those civ being very "geographically redundant" and it seems this is one thing Firaxis tried to avoid as much as possible, instead spreading civs as far as possible.

 

[Archanist]

- Base game adds Britain and Polynesia or Silla, and leader for both of them.

I don't think Silla will be added in the base game since they're most likely going to be an Antiquity civ, and the game guide removed the "MORE COMING SOON" under the Antiquity civs

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

- Crossroads of the World adds Byzantium, Ottomans, HRE, and Polynesia or Silla; also three new wonders for three wonderless civs; also two random new leaders, one being Ottoman sultan and another being either Korean or Polynesian leader.
- Base game adds Britain and Polynesia or Silla, and leader for both of them.

I think it's specifically a Tongan wonder, so hopefully it would be a Tonga civ and not a generic Polynesian civ.

 

[Krajzen]

I don't think Silla will be added in the base game since they're most likely going to be an Antiquity civ, and the game guide removed the "MORE COMING SOON" under the Antiquity civs

Damn it, once again I forgot the requirement that both remaining base game civs must be modern This kinda messes with my perfectionism...

Ok so I have edited my post, but I stubbornly refuse to give up my belief that we get Germany and Russia in the RoR DLC. I mean come on: the DLC named "Right to Rule" which adds two leaders but adds no new wonders, while we know we get Germany and Russia with their wonders being already present in the game and leaders being Frederick and Catherine... I refuse to believe Firaxis didn't go for the badass idea of having those two as best frenemies in the DLC devoted to the theme of absolute power

 

[Wohlauf]

So my prediction list for the remaining 10 civs is as follows - including known DLC content and spotted architectural wonders:

- Right to Rule adds Germany, Russia, Assyria and Goths; also already leaked somewhere Frederick and Catherine as two new leaders. No new architectural wonders there, since those four already have them in the base game.
- Crossroads of the World adds Byzantium, Ottomans, HRE, and Tonga or Silla; also three new wonders for three wonderless civs plus one random wonder; also two random new leaders, probably one being Ottoman sultan and another being either Korean or Tongan leader.
- Base game adds Britain and Tonga or Silla, and leader for both of them nevermind, once again I forgot that both base game civs must be modern era so idk, maybe Ottomans go to the base game or maybe there is dark horse civ going there instead of one of my speculated civs.

It is worth noting that such selection of civs perfectly covers themes of both DLCs.

More detailed reasoning:

Spoiler :

1) Right to Rule doesn't add any new wonders, so here go civs which already have assigned wonders. All of those four civs also fit the theme of "right to rule" - imperial power and conquest. Assyria and Goths are in, because there are confirmed wonders in the game which are frankly not too impressive choices typical when civ7 is desperate to figure out any wonder connected with a civ. No way we would have got "Tomb of Theoderic" as a wonder if not for this reason, and "Dur Sharrukin" is simply one of Assyrian capital cities, so again, somewhat desperate Additionally, Germanic civs being formed out of Rome and lack of Mesopotamia in the game would feel incredibly lame, so Goths and Assyria solve those lame issues in favour of totally badass solutions.
2) Also, Germany and Russia are going to get there because a) Thematic reasons b) Frederick and Catherine in one DLC are super badass marketable combo c) One cannot have civ game without those two civs.
3) Goths go through Normans to Germany, and Russia is derived from Mongols, unless you alse get second DLC, where they get Goths->HRE-Germany and Greece-Byzantium-Russia as more sensible paths. Awkward, I know, and may cause some anger as seems blatantly engineered to convince people to buy both DLCs at once but you gotta admit it's a smart economic move, just like staple Aztecs and Babylon being day 1 DLCs in the previous games
4) Also yes, Russia goes from Greece and Byzantium, as it is the laziest simplest path possible with one less slot required than the political minefield of say "Slavs -> Kievan Rus -> Russia"
5) Crossroads of the World is the one DLC from those two which actually adds new wonders, so previously wonderless civs go there.
6) Ottomans go there for Middle East region to get modern civ just like all other regions get one.
7) Byzantium goes there to provide a) The only sensible path for ancient Greece b) Second and better path for Russia c) Alternate path towards Ottomans, d) Being incredibly convenient civ for providing decent links for a **** ton of civs, while also being immersively ruled by a lot of outside rulers without need to get its own emperor (Augustus, ancient Greek ruler, Catherine etc)
8) HRE goes there for Germany and Germanic civs in general to get full evolutionary line akin to Normans leading to France and Britain, also it is worth noting that we have Charlemagne confirmed as a leader and it is again incredibly conventient civ for future linkages
9) All those three civs as well as Polynesia or Silla perfectly fit its "Crossroads of the World" theme.
10) Silla is confirmed because, let me repeat my favourite brutally honest argument, Seondeok's Bell is too lame for a wonder to not serve the singular purpose of filling the required void.
11) Silla gets to the game to provide full set of six East Asian civs, so two players can play East Asia simultaneously.
12) Tonga gets to the game to provide progenitor for second era Hawaii, which then historically turn into USA (or Maori in the future).
13) Britain gets to the base game because we can't have base civ without it
14) Britain also gets to the base game because it would make no sense to make the whole Norman business without trying to square one civ slot serving as a progenitor to both it and France at the same time.
15) The reason why I expect Polynesia or Hawaii and Silla in particular to get new leaders is because those are quite distinctive cultures while also offering some great options. Meanwhile HRE already has Charlemagne, Byzantium can have Augustus or Alexander the Great as a leader, and Assyria, well I would love for it to get a leader but it can live with say Xerxes.

There are several weaker conjectures in my prediction, of course; most notably my stubborn faith in Ottomans, HRE and (to lesser extent) Byzantium. One possibility I consider is either Babylon and/or Nabateans may get to the game in the Crossroads DLC instead, due to their wonders being present and them fitting the theme, though admittedly Hanging Gardens in particular are one of typical obligatory "seven ancient wonders" pack anyway so it may not say anything. I do admit I simply personally hope this isn't true, because it would seem idiotic for me to add as many as 4-5 ancient civilizations to the Middle East but only one exploration era and one (or zero) modern era civ there to serve as their successors

Theoretically we could also get Gupta, Teotihuacan, Qin, Francia etc one of those suggested possible civs, but I rate their chances as extremely low due to all those civ being very "geographically redundant" and it seems this is one thing Firaxis tried to avoid as much as possible, instead spreading civs as far as possible.

You got the DLCs switched. Crossroads doesn't add new buildable wonders, Right to Rule does. That's not to say that the wonders added in Right to Rule all have to belong to a new civilization, but the civs in Crossroads will have a wonder that's in the base game.

 

[Jeppetto]

Wasn't it confirmed it's poor wording and both add only natural wonders?

 

[Evolena]

Wasn't it confirmed it's poor wording and both add only natural wonders?

It's been asked and confirmed that Crossword is indeed 4 Natural Wonders, and Rulers 4 Wonders.

 

[JNR13]

I think the American quarter has been in front of us all along. An industrial spin on it would be quite interesting, I suppose it would fit the direction started with Lincoln in VI. Here's my reasoning:
- Both buildings only appear in cities with this style
- All shots they appear in which also have a City Hall building or Palace, it's America
- The surroundings very much look like a quarter. There's extra rails,. a crane, a tank, and a big and a smaller gate. None of these things is there when any of these buildings appears on its own.
- The Furnace building at first looks like this style's version of the Steelmill/Furnace/Foundry ("Foundry" from here on) building. The overall shape is fairly similar. HOWEVER, there is one shot where it appears together with the style's version of the Foundry in a single tile!

Here is the Foundry in the Asian style:

Here we see both together, the Foundry at the top and the High Furnace unique at the bottom:

In the same shot, we can see the other building sharing a tile with a Sawmill, and in neither tile there's any sign of rail infrastructure.

We can even see a tile transition from just two buildings into a full Rail Yard quarter in that scene once the second building completes:

 

[JNR13]

It would also fit America having a "Tycoon" unique GP that has to be activated on this quater, btw.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I'm down for a Gilded Age-focused America design about urbanization, industry, corporations, and railroads. Just give us some western expansion and imperial bonuses to go along with it- they go hand-in-hand!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's not surprising they went this direction. There's sort of four ways to depict America. Westward expansion is more of an Exploration Age thing, so it's out. The Blue Jeans & Rock Music style of cultural domination that they did in Civ 6 is possible, and so is "Space Race America", but they both hinge on the 4th thing: America the Industrial Superpower, Arsenal of Democracy.

 

[j51]

Some kind of Bessemer process steel works? (I don’t really know anything about this.)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Some kind of Bessemer process steel works?

Sir Bessemer was a British industrialist, although the process named after him was developed independently in the US by a guy named Kelly. It's hardly unique to the US though. Germany's Krupp companies also used the Bessemer process (and famously without paying royalties to Bessemer)

 

[j51]

Sir Bessemer was a British industrialist, although the process named after him was developed independently in the US by a guy named Kelly. It's hardly unique to the US though. Germany's Krupp companies also used the Bessemer process (and famously without paying royalties to Bessemer)

Thanks. Yeah I wonder what could make an industrial steelworks unique to the US?

 

[JNR13]

From wikipedia: "As the only major steel maker not harmed during World War II, the United States iron and steel industry reached its maximum world importance during and just after World War II. In 1945, the US produced 67% of the world's pig iron, and 72% of the steel."

Really though I'm guessing they like to visit historic sites around the area (doesn't Ed Beach like all these civil war historic sites? many of which would be in PA, where some historic steel mills are located, too) and got inspired.

 

[j51]

From wikipedia: "As the only major steel maker not harmed during World War II, the United States iron and steel industry reached its maximum world importance during and just after World War II. In 1945, the US produced 67% of the world's pig iron, and 72% of the steel."

Really though I'm guessing they like to visit historic sites around the area (doesn't Ed Beach like all these civil war historic sites? many of which would be in PA, where some historic steel mills are located, too) and got inspired.

Yeah Pennsylvania is littered with them lol.