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

[RedCourtJester]

I'd love some fresh takes on the Mesopotamian civs: an Assyria focused on culture/wonders as well as warfare; a Babylon focused on a big capital and traditions; even Sumer focused on agriculture and religion. I get the justification for the science bonuses...but it's kind of boring at this point. (Nevertheless, I fully expect the usual sciency Babylon and warmongery Assyria.)

There is at least some hope. I've seen some (awkward) attempts to shift civ designs in VII. America is now "industrial" and "capitalist" instead of the classic "militaristic" or VI's "conservationist" bent; Russia's "cultural" bent is almost completely the inverse of past designs. Though on the flip side, some civs feel like they lost of a lot of past identity in favor of "likes rivers."

I don't know what to predict here. At least with VI, there seemed a clear inclination to really try to push civs into what made them truly "unique" compared to any other civ (or at least with respect to regional/temporal neighbors). Which naturally suggested that, against an antiquity Middle Eastern roster, Egypt was the "wonder" civ (I appreciated the "industrial" mod to better define this), Persia was the "cultural/militaristic" civ, Phoenicia was the "naval/evasive" civ, and therefore by distinction Babylon was the "science" civ (and Sumeria was "baby's first generalist civ"). A militaristic Assyria would have made some sense in trying to carve out that unique design space.

But I've noticed VII seems more concerned with overall cultural aesthetic more than trying to distill civs' unique identities into highly distinct mechanics (as contrasted with VI which focused a lot on aesthetic coherency after deciding each civs' unique mechanical niche). A lot of the unique quarters just feel like variations on a "plaza," and some of the UBs even feel conceptually duplicative across civs. The named UUs and the civic subtrees add some variety with their own mini-games, but they just tend to sprawl each civ's into more "specialist-but-with-varying-degrees-of-generalist-catchup/cope" options). Which I think will make for more engaging minute-to-minute gameplay but at the cost of losing a bit of resolution as to exactly what "niche" each civ identifies as. They overall just have less easily perceived personality, and with that I don't think the "nichiness factor" will apply as much in civ design this time around. Which may be good news for Assyria.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think the "nichiness factor" will apply as much in civ design this time around. Which may be good news for Assyria.

I agree. Especially since next-door Persia has (bafflingly) been made the "100% warfare and nothing else" civ, which really diminishes the probability of making Assyria also 100% warfare and nothing else.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I agree. Especially since next-door Persia has (bafflingly) been made the "100% warfare and nothing else" civ, which really diminishes the probability of making Assyria also 100% warfare and nothing else.

I am very disappointed in Persia's depiction, too. I was hoping the splitting of civs with leaders would allow leaders to have more variety and distinct agendas and civs would be well-defined on their own, but then they went and dumped almost all of Persia's dimensionality into Xerxes. Which maybe is how they are using leaders this time around but I resent it deeply as I was hoping for more Eleanor/Kublai type personae, not Catherine or Teddy.

In general some of the decisions are baffling to me. Harriet Tubman is militaristic? Trung Trac is scientific (this one seems pretty obvious to me as establishing her as the low-key "Siam" leader for now)? VII is bizarre, almost like it is deliberately trying to be too avante garde; it doesn't just automatically make sense to me like VI did.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

In general some of the decisions are baffling to me. Harriet Tubman is militaristic?

Her Unique Ability specifically references the Raid on Combahee Ferry, a military operation she was a part of. If they're representing her covert operations with the mechanics used for covert operations in the more traditional sense for Civ VII, it's a natural connection to make. Her posthumously granted title is that of a Brigadier General, after all. Hardly baffling.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Her Unique Ability specifically references the Raid on Combahee Ferry, a military operation she was a part of. If they're representing her covert operations with the mechanics used for covert operations in the more traditional sense for Civ VII, it's a natural connection to make. Her posthumously granted title is that of a Brigadier General, after all. Hardly baffling.

Not without basis, I know. But wouldn't have been the first choice for representing her imo, nor contrariwise her representing the militaristic side of America. I can kind of get behind it as social commentary though like some of the other design decisions, but still a weird choice to me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not without basis, I know. But wouldn't have been the first choice for representing her imo, nor contrariwise her representing the militaristic side of America. I can kind of get behind it as social commentary though like some of the other design decisions, but still a weird choice to me.

The devs are also partially associating her with Songhai, due to her heritage, and they are militaristic as well.

 

[Black Gate]

I'd love some fresh takes on the Mesopotamian civs: an Assyria focused on culture/wonders as well as warfare; a Babylon focused on a big capital and traditions; even Sumer focused on agriculture and religion. I get the justification for the science bonuses...but it's kind of boring at this point. (Nevertheless, I fully expect the usual sciency Babylon and warmongery Assyria.)

I'd also love to see a big shakeup of the Mesopotamian civs, and at the very least Persia's somewhat disappointing focus on warfare means Assyria will surely do something else. Even if Babylon does its usual thing, the prospect of a much larger number of civs in the game this time I think leaves open the potential of the Hittites returning. Assyria, Hittites, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Sumeria, surely you end up with a good amount of diversity in abilities with that many civs clustered in one region.

Yeah, I'd rather not Korea and Japan sharing an Antiquity civ either. Especially now that I've come around to the idea of an Antiquity Japan with a Shinto inspired unique quarter, and a Buddhism inspired one in Exploration.

Sharing antiquity civs just doesn't make any sense. The split between Korean and Japanese culture is evident well into the period, it'd be like giving Germany and France a single civ for exploration. There's far too much potential for interesting civ designs too. Ignoring the rich cultural history that includes things like the Hwangnyongsa, Murasaki Shikibu, and in general the foundation of these cultures just to make up some combined archaeological culture that fits the 4000 BC - 400 AD period better is silly.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The split between Korean and Japanese culture is evident well into the period, it'd be like giving Germany and France a single civ for exploration.

I mean I technically wouldn't mind that. At least a Frankish/Carolingian civ makes more sense than a Yayoi civ.

 

[KKSSep]

More independent power from the Exploration Age.
Economic city state "布安萨" (Buansa) leading by the "苏禄" (Sulu) people.

Another economic city state "基尔瓦" (Kilwa) leading by the Kilwa people, instead of Swahili, maybe it got put into the Modern Age.

 

[Archanist]

Philippines (modern - Joze Rizal)

While I'd want this, I think it would be really hard for Firaxis to make since the Philippines for the most part of the Modern Age timeline has been colonized and occupied (by Spain, then America, then Japan, then America again), and the obvious design in a vacuum is a revolutionary style, which unfortunately would end up feeling like Mexico but Asian. If speculations about a 4th age are correct, I'd see the Philippines be represented there instead.

 

[RedCourtJester]

While I'd want this, I think it would be really hard for Firaxis to make since the Philippines for the most part of the Modern Age timeline has been colonized and occupied (by Spain, then America, then Japan, then America again), and the obvious design in a vacuum is a revolutionary style, which unfortunately would end up feeling like Mexico but Asian. If speculations about a 4th age are correct, I'd see the Philippines be represented there instead.

I agree completely (someone posted elsewhere about a more unique Mexican design which I would have preferred as well, the caudillismos. However America and France also have revolutionary flavors this time around as well, so that might just be one of the "themes" of modern civs. Additionally, I have a suspicion that SEA is going to shake out with at least one more modern civ, and if it turns out to be only one, Philippines is a semi-decent progression point from Vietnam and Majapahit via an implied Brunei/Sulu.

I wouldn't buy a fourth age if it were just the contemporary/atomic era. Too many civs would just be slightly updated repeats of modern era civs. I think they need to treat the technological revolution as a "crisis" and jump straight into futurism and fictional factions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Too many civs would just be slightly updated repeats of modern era civs.

Actually not that many. USA, Germany, Britain, France, Russia, China, India and Japan, that's 8 of them with both China and India already spanning through 3 ages (and exploration Japan clearly expected). All other civs are likely to be replaced - instead of Mexico we could have Brazil and Canada, for example, Nigeria instead of Buganda, etc. Providing we'll likely to have 15+ civs per age at that point, I'd say contemporary roster will be significantly refreshed. Not to mention some of the civs could shift their focus and feel new.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Actually not that many. USA, Germany, Britain, France, Russia, China, India and Japan, that's 8 of them with both China and India already spawning through 3 ages (and exploration Japan clearly expected). All other civs are likely to be replaced - instead of Mexico we could have Brazil and Canada, for example, Nigeria instead of Buganda, etc. Providing we'll likely to have 15+ civs per age at that point, I'd say contemporary roster will be significantly refreshed. Not to mention some of the civs could shift their focus and feel new.

I'm still failing to see much of the distinction, though, for both old and new civs:

* What would America or Russia (or Qing) do substantially differently? Their designs apply nearly just as well to the 21st century as they do the 19th century.
* What would make modern France or Germany more unique/interesting than their 19th century counterparts? Louis Vuitton and Volkswagon? I don't think that's a lot.
* Do we even want a post-Raj India or communist China? How would those designs have much playstyle character different from Qing/Mughals other than hypernationalism and wanton industry?
* Why would Mexico be modern but Brazil not be, when they both have led fairly parallel existences? Same for Canada and America?
* What would Nigeria's playstyle be, scamming the other countries?

I just don't think there's much interesting design space there. At least some flavorful difference in pre-contemporary civs is due to their differing political/economic/military structures pre-globalization. But now in an era of global democratic capitalism, much of those axes have been narrowed (even language/culture, to an extent). We've reached a pseudo-singularity, I think the differentiation of civ design would have to happen in virtual and maybe economic spaces, which...would just be a bizarre departure from the prior three eras.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

* Why would Mexico be modern but Brazil not be, when they both have led fairly parallel existences?

Yeah, I'm sure when Brazil comes it will be based off of the Brazilian Empire of the 19th century, anyways.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yeah, I'd rather not Korea and Japan sharing an Antiquity civ either. Especially now that I've come around to the idea of an Antiquity Japan with a Shinto inspired unique quarter, and a Buddhism inspired one in Exploration.

Considering Codices are part of the Science victory now, I'm going to assume that we could also get a Science inspired Assyria instead.

* Well if Emile Bell remains a generic unassociated wonder, then I wouldn't expect Silla to be antiquity, and similarly Japan could get an antiquity wonder like Ise or Kotohira shrine.

* Meiji era is already fairly Shinto-forward, so you wouldn't be missing out on Shinto Japan. Especially with Himiko.

* Itsukushima shrine has very good odds of being the exploration era wonder. It could work for Asuka, Heian, Kamakura, or Edo Japan. Granted, we could also just get Kotoku-In, but Shinto representation in the exploration era is not impossible even with a Buddhist quarter.

 

[Zaarin]

Well if Emile Bell remains a generic unassociated wonder, then I wouldn't expect Silla to be antiquity

Arguably, Hwangnyongsa is a better Silla wonder anyway if they want to leave Emille Bell unassociated.

 

[Rac]

Ok I'm writing here the full list of IP's with their settlements we know of, just to get everyone in the same page

Spoiler Indepedent Powers :

????? People - Acmonia
????? People - Pagani
????? People - Syvash
????? People - 维陀城 (Unidentified)
Alachuan or Timucua People (Presumably) - Alachua
Arrernte People - Mparntwe
Assyrian People - Assur
Ava People - Ava
Babylonian People - Babylon
Baekje People (Presumably) - Wiryeseong
Belgae People - Divodorum
Bugkalot People - Nagtipunan
Bukharan People (Presumably) - Bukhara
Bulgar People - Tarnovo
Burgundian People - Arles
Byzantine People - Constantinople
Canaanite People - Megiddo
Caral People - Caral-Supe
Carthaginian People - Carthage
Cham People - Champa
Cheyenne People (Presumably) - Big Timbers
Chimor People (Presumably) - Chan Chan
Dahomey People (Presumably) - Abomey
Danish People - Roskilde
Dwarawati People - Si Thep
Elamite People - Susa
Etruscan People - Aritim
Funan People - Vyadhapura
Garamantian People (Presumably) - Garama
Goguryeo People - Gungnae
Goryeo People - Gaegyeong
Gothic People - Gutthiuda
Harappan People - Harappa
Haudenosaunee People - Onondaga
Hebrew or Samaritan People (Presumably) - Shomron
Hittite People - Hattusa
Hohokam People - Painted Rock
Hyksos People - Retenu
Jie People - Jieshi
Jōmon People - Ōfunato
Jurchen People - Shangjing
Kanem People - Nijmi
Kannauj People (Presumably) - Kannauj
Karakhanid People - Samarkand
Kavalan People - Yilan
Kerma People - Kerma
Khwarazm People - Kath
Kilwan People - Kilwa
Kokand Pople - Tashkent
Kulin People - Birrarung
Kushan People - Khalchayan
Kushi te People - Meroë
Kutai People (Presumably) - Kutai Martadipura
Lan Na People - Chiang Mai
Lan Xang People - Luang Prabang
Lithuanian People (Presumably) - Vilnius
Lycian People - Arna
Magadhan People - Rajagriha
Magyar People - Etelköz
Malian People (Presumably) - Niani
Mannaean People - Izirtu
Mapuche People - Ngulu Mapu
Melayu People (Presumably) - Muara Jambi
Mixtec People - Tilantongo
Moche People - Moche
Muisca People (Presumably) - Hunza
Nansarunai People (Presumably) - Nansarunai
Nepalese People - Kathmandu
Nok People - Taruga
Numidian People - Cirta
Oirat or Dzungar People (Presumably) - Dzungaria
Olmec People - La Venta
Ottoman People - Istanbul
Papal State People - Vatican City
Phoenician People - Tyre
Phrygian People - Gordium
Pict People - Caithness
Powhatan People - Werowocomoco
Pueblo People - Mesa Verde
Punt People (Presumably) - Opone
Rapa Nui People - Anakena
Rashidun People - Medina
Romanian People (Presumably) - Bucharest
Rus People (Presumably) - Kiev
Saka People - Khotan
Sassanid People (Presumably) - Istakhr
Scythian People - Scythian Neapolis
Seleucid People - Seleucia
Seljuk People - Nishapur
Shardana People (Presumably) - Su Nuraxi
Sillan People - Seorabeol
Sinhalese People - Anuradhapura
Sintashta People - Arkaim
Slavic People - Carantania
Sogdian People - Samarkand
Sonike People - Kumbi Saleh
Sulu People - Buansa
Sumerian People - Ur
Swedish People - Stockholm
Taíno People - Camagüey
Tarumanagaran People - Sundapura
Teotihuacan People - Teotihuacan
Tichitt People (Presumably) - Dhar Tichitt
Tiwanakuan People - Tiwanaku
Toltec People - Tollan-Xicocotitlan
Tondo People (Presumably) - Tondo
Tongan People - Nukuleka
Trojan People - Troy
Tuareg People (Presumably) - Abalessa
Umayyad People - Damascus
Urartian People - Sugunia
Venetian People - Venice
Xianbei People - Shengle
Xiongnu People - Longcheng
Yayoi People - Yamatai
Yue People - Kuaiji
Zimbabwean People (Presumably) - Zimbabwe

So the only actually new things here are the Sulu people with Buansa settlement and the Karakhanid people with Samarkand settlement... Yes Samarkand again, I didn't notice before it appeared as two different IP's in separated ages; and the situation with the Slavs of Carantania is odd to say the least, maybe it is 2 IP's or they got updated to spawn in Exploration now (I didn't saw Slavs spawning in Antiquity in any of these last reviews videos we got)... We can't be sure on that, in meanwhile I'll let them in Exploration only for now. On other corrections, the probably "Shardana" is how the English localization is calling the people of Su Nuraxi instead of going with Sherden like the Polish loc. did, for some reason? And the people of Kilwa is specifically the Kilwa (Sultanate) instead of Swahili as I thought before...

Ah, doing a ping for @bite here too just to not repeat my post in other thread again

 

[Giskler]

 

[Giskler]

 

[unfairlane]

Reading through lots of post here trying to check out if it`s really true; is Sweden reduced to a "minor civ"? We`re talking about the most powerful civ in middleage Europe. Yeah I see we have Hawaii, as a major civ..

And a "exploration-age" without the Norwegians, the real explorers? Neither Swedes or Danes were seafarers even if they had ca the same boats.

I know the game will grow but for now..