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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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?

We still knew about Ashoka because he was revealed to be leading the Maurya in the gameplay reveal trailer.
For all we know they could equally give an official Maya reveal plus revealing Montezuma I as a leader.

 

[Rac]

Hatshepsut + Egypt and Augustus + Rome

Weel, Rome and Egypt didn't got shorts yet and had their game guides already up together with Aksum, Maurya, Maya and Shawnee...
Actually Hatshepsut got revealed with Greece on the same day, while Augustus was alone

 

[Zaarin]

Weel, Rome and Egypt didn't got shorts yet and had their game guides already up together with Aksum, Maurya, Maya and Shawnee...
Actually Hatshepsut got revealed with Greece on the same day, while Augustus was alone

I did say "sort of."

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Excepting Maya, Maurya, Rome, Aksum, Shawnee, Greece, Abbasids, and Mississippians, the other civs had guides that corresponded with a leader First Look.

Of the above, Maurya, Rome, and Shawnee are the only ones with associated leaders. And they were also part of the opening wave of civ guides.

Hetshepsut's First Look was a few weeks after the first wave, but had no other guides or FLs in between.

The Han guide came out close to Confucius.

The Khmer and Trung Trac came out a few weeks apart with the Tecumseh special occasion between.

The Chola came out close to Ashoka. And while they aren't directly associated, it's one degree off.

And of course, Persia came out associated with Xerxes.

So, I'd say the default is for civ guides to be released close to their leaders, except where the civ guides was part of the initial wave, where they don't have a leader, or circumstances intervened. Association should be the expected situation.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

Well I think the AI will only do duplicates if it hasn’t unlocked nonduplicates.

I see the AI priority as
Random nonduplicate “Historic” civs
Random nonduplicate unlocked civ
Random duplicate “Historic” civ

And MP Humans would do duplicates whenever they want.

 

[Potworny]

Well I think the AI will only do duplicates if it hasn’t unlocked nonduplicates.

I think that age unlocks will be distributed in a way that will let the AI always pick civs without duplicates.

Even in a worst case scenario for an overlap: if the civ number 1 (player) has a set of A and B, civ number 2 has a set of B and C, civ numer 3 has C and D and so on, then whenever "1" picks B causing an overlap, "2" can pick C, "3" can pick D et cetera. (I'm trying my best to make sense but I forgot my high school lessons about the proper notation) Also, I think it still should work with the Shawnee included, but could maybe get messed up with a greater disproportion of civ amounts between ages. If N amount of players has less than N civ choices, then picking without duplicates becomes impossible, but I don't think it will happen in the base game.

Making human players pick without duplicates could maybe be possible, but would require players with the least gameplay unlocks available to pick first, so that they can't be locked out of choices. It would arguably not be the most fair pick order, but would that guarantee that no scenario would appear in which a player has no civ left to choose? I have no idea! Perhaps, after an unreasonable amount of time I could process the necessary set calculations, but there's no chance I could convey them coherently to you

Spoiler rambling :

I think that in every scenario in which the number of players equals or is greater than number of available civs it is always possible to assign pick order that guarantees no bottleneck. Any situation where an unsolveable overlap could occur requires that A players (where A is less or equal to N and N is the total player count) have only A civs to pick between them. in that case players from the set A should pick first in any order, and then the other players can follow and choose in any order as well and no overlap can occur.

Assume six players, four of which are Shawnee, Inca, Hawai'i and Indonesia. Shawnee has America and Mexico to choose from, Inca has America and Mexico as well, Hawai'i has America and Meiji and Indonesia has Siam and Meiji. The two other civs have non-overlapping pools to choose from. In this case there are 4 players, who have only 4 civs to choose from. They should go first, and in this set there are 2 players who share 2 selections. These two should go at the very start, because if Hawai'i were to start, they could pick America and leave Shawnee and Inca with one choice to share.

Therefore duplicates can be avoided as long as the player count is equal or less than civ-selection-count (and as long as I'm not wrong, which I VERY WELL MIGHT BE) and the selection order should be:
a) civs that have overlapping sets of age unlocks
b) civs that have the least amount of gameplay unlocks
c) civs that have the largest amount of gameplay unlocks.

And maybe players would need not worry about duplicates, because the computer has already sorted them with that in mind.

also there probably is some edge case that disproves all this even if it were useful to anybody...

 

[Krikkit1]

I

I think that age unlocks will be distributed in a way that will let the AI always pick civs without duplicates.

Even in a worst case scenario for an overlap: if the civ number 1 (player) has a set of A and B, civ number 2 has a set of B and C, civ numer 3 has C and D and so on, then whenever "1" picks B causing an overlap, "2" can pick C, "3" can pick D et cetera. (I'm trying my best to make sense but I forgot my high school lessons about the proper notation) Also, I think it still should work with the Shawnee included, but could maybe get messed up with a greater disproportion of civ amounts between ages. If N amount of players has less than N civ choices, then picking without duplicates becomes impossible, but I don't think it will happen in the base game.

Making human players pick without duplicates could maybe be possible, but would require players with the least gameplay unlocks available to pick first, so that they can't be locked out of choices. It would arguably not be the most fair pick order, but would that guarantee that no scenario would appear in which a player has no civ left to choose? I have no idea! Perhaps, after an unreasonable amount of time I could process the necessary set calculations, but there's no chance I could convey them coherently to you

Spoiler rambling :

I think that in every scenario in which the number of players equals or is greater than number of available civs it is always possible to assign pick order that guarantees no bottleneck. Any situation where an unsolveable overlap could occur requires that A players (where A is less or equal to N and N is the total player count) have only A civs to pick between them. in that case players from the set A should pick first in any order, and then the other players can follow and choose in any order as well and no overlap can occur.

Assume six players, four of which are Shawnee, Inca, Hawai'i and Indonesia. Shawnee has America and Mexico to choose from, Inca has America and Mexico as well, Hawai'i has America and Meiji and Indonesia has Siam and Meiji. The two other civs have non-overlapping pools to choose from. In this case there are 4 players, who have only 4 civs to choose from. They should go first, and in this set there are 2 players who share 2 selections. These two should go at the very start, because if Hawai'i were to start, they could pick America and leave Shawnee and Inca with one choice to share.

Therefore duplicates can be avoided as long as the player count is equal or less than civ-selection-count (and as long as I'm not wrong, which I VERY WELL MIGHT BE) and the selection order should be:
a) civs that have overlapping sets of age unlocks
b) civs that have the least amount of gameplay unlocks
c) civs that have the largest amount of gameplay unlocks.

And maybe players would need not worry about duplicates, because the computer has already sorted them with that in mind.

also there probably is some edge case that disproves all this even if it were useful to anybody...

I don’t think they will go through the trouble to make sure the AI civs are picked in an order that ensures no duplicates when the simpler method is just to allow duplicates but have them be lowest priority. (ie if Maya has unlocked Mongols by gameplay they will pick that before duplicate Inca)…but if Most civs have 2 unlocks then most won’t have to pick either a nonhistoric gameplay unlock or a duplicate history unlock.

 

[Ronaldo_]

With everything that has been revealed so far, this was my best speculation as to available civs (before I was told there is only going to be 30 civs at launch). I assume DLC would include Portugal + Brazil, Korea, Polynesian Civs, Mesopotamanian civs, etc.

 

[The_J]

You have that one controversal and 100% unlikely switch in there , but otherwise could be an option, with expansions in mind.

 

[Xandinho]

View attachment 707652
With everything that has been revealed so far, this was my best speculation as to available civs (before I was told there is only going to be 30 civs at launch). I assume DLC would include Portugal + Brazil, Korea, Polynesian Civs, Mesopotamanian civs, etc.

I don’t think we’ll get anything as obscure as Caral (if we do get Caral, then we should also have the Olmecs, Harappans, Marajoaras...). Still, a pre-Inca civilization is high on my priority list, and Tiwanaku, Moche, and Nazca would be great options for that. Personally, I’d place the Moche and Nazca in the Antiquity Age, with Tiwanaku sharing the Exploration Age with the Incas. I'd be very lucky if I could get that.

 

[Ronaldo_]

You have that one controversal and 100% unlikely switch in there , but otherwise could be an option, with expansions in mind.

Lmao. I assume you are referring to the Shawnee -> American switch?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Lmao. I assume you are referring to the Shawnee -> American switch?

I assumed Byzantines into Ottomans considering we’ve already seen evidence of Shawnee into America happening in a screenshot.

 

[The_J]

Well, I guess I was wrong then ^^.

 

[Rac]

Well, spreadsheet updated with Machiavelli

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

That’s at least 3 European leaders. Machiavelli, Augustus and Napoleon.
How many leaders are we expecting?

 

[Bleakz]

That’s at least 3 European leaders. Machiavelli, Augustus and Napoleon.
How many leaders are we expecting?

They put out MOST EVER IN A CIV GAMES LAUNCH *when including leader personas

So I think other topics put it at lowish 20s with personas

 

[j51]

Civ 4 shipped with 26

 

[Lord Lakely]

That’s at least 3 European leaders. Machiavelli, Augustus and Napoleon.
How many leaders are we expecting?

At least one more from Europe. I'm expecting the fourth Euro leader to be female, defaulting to Spain in Exploration and no earlier than renaissance.

So, Isabella?

 

[gdr_willter]

How many leaders are we expecting?

Civ 4 launched with 26 leaders, and Civ 7 has 6 personas and 5 additional leaders from the DLC within the Founders Edition.
I consider it means the base game of Civ 7 will contain 15 leaders. Not officially fixed.

 

[JNR13]

the DLC in the founders edition aren't launch-day content though, only the personas are. Not sure what the 6th persona would be, I think there are 2 from Deluxe, 2 from Founders, and Napoleon for a total of 5. So that would mean 22 leaders, but we overshot the real count with our expectations before, so I'm still cautious about actually hoping for so many leaders. Also, we only had eight first looks despite already knowing four more leaders, so 22 leaders would mean 14 more first look videos, which would mean eventually getting more than one per week, so I'm not convinced yet.