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

[Krikkit1]

I expect you to be proven wrong in this regard. Care for a bet for told-you-so bragging rights?



We now have all Antiquity civs announced and each and every of them have at least 2 clear options. Likewise, for every Exploration civs we can easily trace at least two predecessors and at least two successors. And for every Modern that we are confident to be in the game, we can trace at least two predecessors. So I'm pretty confident that it's indeed the rule and that the game is designed so that it was always possible not to have duplicates.

I'd go as far as to claim that every civ has exactly two options, but naturally, I'm less confident in this claim.

I don’t think there’s 2 “clear” paths for every Exploration out or Modern in.

Songhai only showed Buganda as a path out and most of the paths people have guessed are not likely to be “clear”.

If they are trying to have civs each have 2 “clear” paths in then I think France may be the only Modern european civilization.

 

[Siptah]

I don’t think there’s 2 “clear” paths for every Exploration out or Modern in.

Songhai only showed Buganda as a path out and most of the paths people have guessed are not likely to be “clear”.

If they are trying to have civs each have 2 “clear” paths in then I think France may be the only Modern european civilization.

It‘s Songhai > America, obviously, for their second path. /s

 

[j51]

It‘s Songhai > America, obviously, for their second path. /s

lol
America could become a dumping ground though for everyone. Like how in Civ 4 they were the default for almost every civ when you made a colony.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I don’t think there’s 2 “clear” paths for every Exploration out or Modern in.

Songhai only showed Buganda as a path out and most of the paths people have guessed are not likely to be “clear”.

If they are trying to have civs each have 2 “clear” paths in then I think France may be the only Modern european civilization.

Songhai is the only would be exception, conditionally on the last Modern civ not being its continuation. That's exactly why I'm assuming that the last civ is, indeed, it's successor.

Others are mapped pretty clearly in this thread. Yes, some of the paths are awkward but we knew that it has to be the case anyway when it turned out that there will only be 30 civs at launch.

 

[Krikkit1]

Songhai is the only would be exception, conditionally on the last Modern civ not being its continuation. That's exactly why I'm assuming that the last civ is, indeed, it's successor.

Others are mapped pretty clearly in this thread. Yes, some of the paths are awkward but we knew that it has to be the case anyway when it turned out that there will only be 30 civs at launch.

Inca also…
although those are more ok if not set at Only 2 (in or out)
Songhai could go to France and Inca to America

The thing is Songhai only showed one (not even a censored second option) although that was early

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

Inca also…
although those are more ok if not set at Only 2

Inca -> America
Inca -> Mexico

Yes, as I said only two is less likely.

 

[Xandinho]

If Buganda is taken and Songhai hasn’t unlocked anything else, then They become Buganda. You just get a duplicate (just like AI Rome if the Normans and Spain are taken)

Each civ Must unlock at least one other civ, 2 is preferable but not mandatory.

I don’t think there will be duplicate civs. The human player always makes the first choice, and if they take the historical transition of another civ, the AI will make a random choice. If the Egyptians take Chola from Maurya through gameplay, then the AI Maurya will follow a different path. But I believe there won’t be two Cholas in the same match. At least that’s how I understood it.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don’t think there will be duplicate civs. The human player always makes the first choice, and if they take the historical transition of another civ, the AI will make a random choice. If the Egyptians take Chola from Maurya through gameplay, then the AI Maurya will follow a different path. But I believe there won’t be two Cholas in the same match. At least that’s how I understood it.

For single-player, yes. Multiplayer has no restrictions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don’t think there will be duplicate civs. The human player always makes the first choice, and if they take the historical transition of another civ, the AI will make a random choice. If the Egyptians take Chola from Maurya through gameplay, then the AI Maurya will follow a different path. But I believe there won’t be two Cholas in the same match. At least that’s how I understood it.

I think duplicate civs will be default in multiplayer and optional in single player.

 

[Jeppetto]

Do we have any estimate/confirmation how many Antiquity Age Leaders will there be (and possibly EA and MA leaders)?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

The distribution is unknown, and I'm not sure what I can discern from the evidence we have. Two Ashokas, two Xerxes, Augustus, Hatshepsut, and Confucius is already 7 out of the 20 minimum as Antiquity leaders, and I'm not sure how to count Trung Trac or Himiko. Himiko is a very Antiquity figure likely to be one day associated with Yamato Japan, but as for the moment her guaranteed unlock is Meiji Japan, so is she Antiquity or Modern? Trung Trac has a similar issue, where she's from the Age of Antiquity timeline-wise but associated with just SEA in general. Do we count her as Khmer's leader for now because it's the one from her irl "Age," if we put it on the irl timeline where its placed on the civ timeline (where Khmer wasn't actually)? Would that change if we ever get Dai Vet Exploration? It's a tricky question and I'm not sure whether the classification will work out in the end...

 

[gdr_willter]

Do we have any estimate/confirmation how many Antiquity Age Leaders will there be (and possibly EA and MA leaders)?

This statement seems to lead us to the idea of each civ will have the matching leader. But I think that not all civs need the matching leader, and not all leaders need the matching civ.

I don't think we really have "Antiquity Age" leader. I prefer to think that the leaders still stand for their nations in all age.
Like, playing as Hatshepsut represent leading Egyptian people, playing as Himiko represent leading Japanese people, and playing as Benjamin represent leading people who will finally become US citizen.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I don't think we really have "Antiquity Age" leader.

I'm coming around to that way of thinking. I still expect we'll end up with a reasonably even distribution of leaders across the ages (possibly just by random chance), but there's no gameplay reason for them to aim for that. They can go wherever (and more applicably, whenever) their inspiration takes them.

 

[gdr_willter]

I'm coming around to that way of thinking. I still expect we'll end up with a reasonably even distribution of leaders across the ages (possibly just by random chance), but there's no gameplay reason for them to aim for that. They can go wherever (and more applicably, whenever) their inspiration takes them.

Well, I just want to see more representative leaders for the peoples rather than the ages. I mean, I prefer two Antiquity leaders from Chinese and Rome than two Chinese leaders from Antiquity and Exploration Age.

 

[Jeppetto]

This statement seems to lead us to the idea of each civ will have the matching leader. But I think that not all civs need the matching leader, and not all leaders need the matching civ.

I don't think we really have "Antiquity Age" leader. I prefer to think that the leaders still stand for their nations in all age.
Like, playing as Hatshepsut represent leading Egyptian people, playing as Himiko represent leading Japanese people, and playing as Benjamin represent leading people who finally become US citizen.

I do not expect to get a Leader for each Civilization in base game, so I was speaking specifically whether we know how many Leaders fitting Antiquity versions of their Civs we're getting. More so whether we think there will be yet Leader for Greece and Maya. Or whether their possible Leader will stem from later Ages for Civs they are supposed to evolve into. Such as Incan leader covering Maya, Inca and (possible) Mexico at once.

 

[gdr_willter]

I do not expect to get a Leader for each Civilization in base game, so I was speaking specifically whether we know how many Leaders fitting Antiquity versions of their Civs we're getting. More so whether we think there will be yet Leader for Greece and Maya. Or whether their possible Leader will stem from later Ages for Civs they are supposed to evolve into. Such as Incan leader covering Maya, Inca and (possible) Mexico at once.

I'm thinking maybe there is not the matching leader for all of them - especially because of Trung Trac. I consider that she will cover the SEA civs (Khmer-Majapahit-Siam), but she is not actually the leader from one of them.

 

[Zaarin]

I do not expect to get a Leader for each Civilization in base game, so I was speaking specifically whether we know how many Leaders fitting Antiquity versions of their Civs we're getting. More so whether we think there will be yet Leader for Greece and Maya. Or whether their possible Leader will stem from later Ages for Civs they are supposed to evolve into. Such as Incan leader covering Maya, Inca and (possible) Mexico at once.

For the speculated Maya > Inca > Mexico line, I'm expecting either Montezuma I or Benito Juarez as a dark horse. I think a Maya leader is possible but less likely (seems like they would have been shown off with the Maya); I think an Inca leader like Pachakutiy is even less likely.

 

[Jeppetto]

For the speculated Maya > Inca > Mexico line, I'm expecting either Montezuma I or Benito Juarez as a dark horse. I think a Maya leader is possible but less likely (seems like they would have been shown off with the Maya); I think an Inca leader like Pachakutiy is even less likely.

Well that's the thing. Maurya were on the page some time before Ashoka appeared (I think), so I'm not sure whether there wouldn't be possibility of showcasing Maya and later their leader. especially because they can't keep Civ reveal | Leader reveal per week schedule, when we have differing amounts of civs and leaders. That's my conundrum. Wasn't Persia + Xerxes the only pair revealed together?

 

[Rac]

Wasn't Persia + Xerxes the only pair revealed together?

Ashoka + Chola also did happen too

 

[Zaarin]

Well that's the thing. Maurya were on the page some time before Ashoka appeared (I think), so I'm not sure whether there wouldn't be possibility of showcasing Maya and later their leader. especially because they can't keep Civ reveal | Leader reveal per week schedule, when we have differing amounts of civs and leaders. That's my conundrum. Wasn't Persia + Xerxes the only pair revealed together?

Confucius + Han were also shown together or close to it (and of course Hatshepsut + Egypt and Augustus + Rome...kind of). But yes, leaders are more difficult to predict. Just a gut feeling says it's Monty, with Aztecs coming later. (If they'd like to bring back Kʼinich Janaabʼ Pakal, though, I'm on board.)