This is becoming an increasingly huge "if" with every bit on info we discover.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Germany: wonder, Frederick leak, maybe Hohenzollern flag.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Russia: wonder, Catherine leak, maybe city hall building.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Britain: wonder, "b-b-b-ut London is built in layers!"
I guess most people just feel really weird if somehow a game of Civ leaves out England/Britain in its vanilla version. One could argue that Normans is already a representation for the Brits, but it just does not feel the same.
So if we count Britain as one of the "confirmed" civ, I think we can safely say the last Modern one is Prussia/Germany. At 0:44 of the Tubman's first look, you can see an army commander with a flag with the House of Hohenzollern. Russia is probably saved for Crossroads DLC then.
I don't know if this tracks. As far as I can understand, the coat of arms specifically here is from an older branch of the Hohenzollerns in Swabia, and wouldn't have been used in association with Prussia or Germany.
Prussia and Germany have their own more distinguished flags than would more clearly identify them, why would they pick this flag?
It's not like the Bonaparte flag or even the Fleur de lis is used for the french enpire, so why would they use this flag for Germany/Prussia?
I think it's more likely this is a generic independent power flag personally
I guess most people just feel really weird if somehow a game of Civ leaves out England/Britain in its vanilla version. One could argue that Normans is already a representation for the Brits, but it just does not feel the same.
I guess most people just feel really weird if somehow a game of Civ leaves out England/Britain in its vanilla version. One could argue that Normans is already a representation for the Brits, but it just does not feel the same.
Trung Trac has a SEA path that she could follow - while none are her native civs, you could make some sense out of it with a stretch, following the civ grouping logic that FXS have shared so far (a mix of regional, cultural, political, linguistic proximity, etc.). So you end up with a chain of SEA civs that can be led by Trung Trac to add "a bit of Vietnam" to it.
In addition, while anyone can lead any civ this time, the so-far revealed "ruler-type" leaders still have a civ that they could be somewhat grounded in, be it Hatshepsut with Egypt, Charlemagne with Normans, or Amina with Songhai.
Catherine's place in the roster as a ruler without a civ becomes odd. If both Britain and Germany are in, then she's not needed for Germany because Frederick is already there, and her leading Mongolia into non-European endpoints becomes a much larger stretch than Trung Trac.
Of course, this is all wishy-washy, and you can dimiss this as "an evolved monkey brain seeking patterns". Personally, I'm relying more on counting the confirmed in-game elements to guide my expectations.
Trung Trac has a SEA path that she could follow - while none are her native civs, you could make some sense out of it with a stretch, following the civ grouping logic that FXS have shared so far (a mix of regional, cultural, political, linguistic proximity, etc.). So you end up with a chain of SEA civs that can be led by Trung Trac to add "a bit of Vietnam" to it.
In addition, while anyone can lead any civ this time, the so-far revealed "ruler-type" leaders still have a civ that they could be somewhat grounded in, be it Hatshepsut with Egypt, Charlemagne with Normans, or Amina with Songhai.
Catherine's place in the roster as a ruler without a civ becomes odd. If both Britain and Germany are in, then she's not needed for Germany because Frederick is already there, and her leading Mongolia into non-European endpoints becomes a much larger stretch than Trung Trac.
Of course, this is all wishy-washy, and you can dimiss this as "an evolved monkey brain seeking patterns". Personally, I'm relying more on counting the confirmed in-game elements to guide my expectations.
I mean in an ideal world, I (we) want to have them all so all of it is moot. I'm just saying the name Crossroads of the World should mean something, otherwise, why not just call it DLC 1
I mean in an ideal world, I (we) want to have them all so all of it is moot. I'm just saying the name Crossroads of the World should mean something, otherwise, why not just call it DLC 1
This is becoming an increasingly huge "if" with every bit on info we discover.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Germany: wonder, Frederick leak, maybe Hohenzollern flag.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Russia: wonder, Catherine leak, maybe city hall building.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Britain: wonder, "b-b-b-ut London is built in layers!"
Myths that persist in these civ guessing threads:
- pathways mattered for assembling the civ roster (literally the first pathway we were shown was Egypt to Songhai, causing outrage over pathways being secondary to civ selection)
- Ed Beach talking about how the principle of civ-switching is used to represent history, using examples, is taken as confirmation of those civs being in the base game (where are those Franks and three ages of Japan?)
This is becoming an increasingly huge "if" with every bit on info we discover.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Germany: wonder, Frederick leak, maybe Hohenzollern flag.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Russia: wonder, Catherine leak, maybe city hall building.
Things we've seen potentially hinting at Britain: wonder, "b-b-b-ut London is built in layers!"
Albeit any of Germany/Britain/Russia not in the base game would be very likely to come out in one of the two first dlc collections, so not really having expansion mechanics. I think chances are high they're not all in the base game just because they need more region representation on the base game to have at least a somewhere in the ballpark regional transition for any future dlc civ in the future, so they couldn't have all the usual expected modern European powers in the base game.
Technically, four unknown remaining leaders as we know of Himiko and Napoleon. Or maybe I guess you meant 4 unknown unique leaders plus 2 alternative versions for two of them?
Technically, four unknown remaining leaders as we know of Himiko and Napoleon. Or maybe I guess you meant 4 unknown unique leaders plus 2 alternative versions for two of them?
No, we have known a total of 20 leaders (including Himiko), 3 of which are personae, Napoleon, Xerxes and Ashoka. So we haven't known 6 more leaders, 2 of which are personae. So 4 more distinct leaders, 2 of whom have 2 personae.
I guess most people just feel really weird if somehow a game of Civ leaves out England/Britain in its vanilla version. One could argue that Normans is already a representation for the Brits, but it just does not feel the same.
To play devil's advocate we've never had Britian, or the British, technically in the game before, so it's not like we're missing out on that part.
But I agree that the Normans are supposed to be the representation, but yeah it doesn't feel the same as if it could have easily been just Exploration Age England, but oh well.
Yes, but we've seen a couple of buildings that look very, very Russian. And not generic buildings, but presumably Town Halls, which are distinct for each civ. It could be a Russian city state, but that doesn't seem very likely. Hence, I think Russia is all but officially confirmed.
And just adding that, in contrast, I don't believe the Hohenzollern flag proves Germany at all. It's more likely to be an independent power. The Hohenzollern flag is very generic. But why would either Germany or Prussia wield the Hohenzollern flag in the game? The opponents in that video, France, are also wielding a very detailed French flag. Likewise, Prussia or Germany would wield the flag of the Kingdom of Prussia or that of the 2nd Reich.
I guess most people just feel really weird if somehow a game of Civ leaves out England/Britain in its vanilla version. One could argue that Normans is already a representation for the Brits, but it just does not feel the same.
And just adding that, in contrast, I don't believe the Hohenzollern flag proves Germany at all. It's more likely to be an independent power. The Hohenzollern flag is very generic. But why would either Germany or Prussia wield the Hohenzollern flag in the game? The opponents in that video, France, are also wielding a very detailed French flag. Likewise, Prussia or Germany would wield the flag of the Kingdom of Prussia or that of the 2nd Reich.
There is no other flag that uses black-and-white checkers outside of race tracks and the Belgian town of Péruwelz (Belgium confirmed!!)
So if the Hohenzollern flag is IN the game, while the default French Imperial flag is also in the game, it points directly at that dynasty. You can't put in large levels of default for one Civ, and then miss a flag for another.
The Persian Commander as I recall also uses the Achaemenid banner with the Simurgh while Persia's in-game icon is the winged lion.
The art style of the commander also points towards Imperial Prussia.
Technically it could also signify Austria whose colours are also White and Black, but they would not wield a flag that could be confused with that of house Hohenzollern. The Austrian monarchs were Habsburgs, and they hated the Hohenzollern.
In short, Germany is definitely in the game and based around Prussia. Whether it's called Prussia or not remains to be seen. (I suspect it is, and that Russia is refered to as "Russian Empire" just to avoid confusion)
Technically, four unknown remaining leaders as we know of Himiko and Napoleon. Or maybe I guess you meant 4 unknown unique leaders plus 2 alternative versions for two of them?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.