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

[Xandinho]

I think it's great that independent peoples can conquer one another and form micro-empires, but it's quite frustrating that they disappear when the age changes.

 

[Giskler]

 

[RedCourtJester]

Some final minor predictions before launch now that we have a much better picture of the game:

Crossroads Civs:

* If the Crossroads of the World distinction about natural wonders still holds and was not a misprint, then I think Assyria and Britain are very likely candidates (and at least somewhat fit the "concept" of "crossroads" at opposite ends of history). Assyria is a strong candidate because Dur-Sharrukin is the only antiquity wonder that does not give a base stat increase, and it seems all too likely Oxford will be the same if only because Britain is probably the most anticipated exclusion from the base game.

* We can't know 100% that we know all of the wonders in the exploration and modern eras until release. However if this is all we get, I will make one bold guess that all exploration and modern era wonders are associated with a civ by the end of Crossroads (antiquity has a lot of "base stat" wonders that seem obviously planned as generic Culture wincon facilitators). If Britain gets Oxford, there are only four "unassociated wonders" left after antiquity: Notre Dame, Shwedagon Paya, Red Fort, and Taj Mahal. And the fact that two of these could and should easily be associated with a single civ gives me pause. Thus:

* Notre Dame likely points at Franks/Carolingians/Francia in Crossroads. Imo it doesn't fit with the theme as well as Assyria/Britain, but if the name of the expac was applied retroactively to a "filling in missing key civs" pack, the Franks make enough sense as a "near-base game" civ. Other things going for them include all the French and German leaders, suggesting that at least after the first "free-ish DLC" round Firaxis were hoping to have a full "China/India" path for France and Germany (and I suppose Britain to an extent given the Normans). With, it seems, a loose caveat that, like other regions of the world, all Europe civs need to start from the Europe "wellfont" that is Rome (ala, for now, Maya, Khmer, and Aksum).

* The wild card here is Shwedagon Paya pointing at Burma in Crossroads. Which, hey, it is the "wild card slot" wonder, and if any "base stat" wonder could maybe edge its way out of being a generic unassociated wonder, it would be the "wild card" stat (see Ibn Battuta). I really don't think of Burma as a base game civ, but I could somewhat see the reasoning here. It completes a satisfying Khmer->Siam path with probably the most appropriate middle-man, and to some extent that path is much more easily completable with a single civ than regions I think are planned for more substantial DLC. It's an easy bone to throw that puts Southeast Asia out of mind for the devs for now until we maybe get a more substantial Vietnam/Philippines/Indonesia pack. Also, the Indochine spectrum is kinda "crossroadsy." It suffices for Southeast Asia on release, in the same way that Trung and Rizal did at launch.

* There are regions I would have preferred we got more representation by the end of Crossroads, but overall, if the aim was just "finishing out" a couple areas, these are...okay. When I think of counterpoints, they easily escalate into begging more than one civ added to the game at once: Byzantium and Ottomans, Swahili/Zulu/Wagadu/Hausa, Cordoba/Portugal/Brazil, Norse/Scandis, Samoa/Maori, Edo Japan/Joseon Korea, etc. etc. I am hoping that after the first DLC pack or two they start to hone in on particular regions, but that remains to be seen.

Crossroads Leaders:

* Leaders for this: I think the Franks were already set up in base game for plenty of leaders. I think Burma is just adding the last base-game facet to Trung/Jose paths. So it seems most likely the new leaders, if they are associated with civs in the pack, are Assyrian and British. This tracks, given that base Civ without Britain and British leader would be sacreligious, and an Assyrian/Syrian leader would shore up the lack of a true Arabian leader in the base game. Obviously there are several choices here, but I am going to bet that this is Zenobia's only shot until, if ever, late-cycle leader packs, so I will favor her a bit. And then, since I am sensing some pressure to switch up Elizabeth/Victoria, I will toss out James as a British leader (who could then serve as a cliffhanger for a later Scottish/Irish pack). But I haven't fully thought through the leader typing implications and if there are holes better filled by other figures. This could just as easily be some baity staples like Elizabeth/Victoria and Ashurbanipal/Semiramis.

Other Implications:

* Finally, an aside, but I think barring some later design reversals, I think the antiquity unassociated wonders very comfortably point toward civs that will not be in the game. For most of them, this already makes sense, but obviously there were a few such as Goths, Silla, and Tonga that I think people were hoping for. I would further suggest that a secondary purpose of antiquity unassociated wonders is to allow some additional "flavor" for civs/cultures that won't get a full India/China path. So if you want to play "Aztecy," you run Maya with Teotihuacan. If you want to play "Korea-y," you run Han/??? -> Joseon -> ??? with Emile Bell. If you want to play "Gothy," there may ultimately be a Goth leader you can start with Cordoba or Rome and build Theodoric's thing.

* Consequently, I do not think the odds favor us seeing: Teotihuacan, Tonga, Goths, Silla, Gupta/Pala, Qin, Babylon, or Nabataea in Civ VII. Barring some mid-development changes of heart, these wonders seem designed to remain unassociated. However, I do think we will see, at some point, in order from most to least likely: Aztecs (exploration), Joseon (exploration), Sumeria (antiquity), Samoa (antiquity), and Cordoba (antiquity?). I still am not sure if Cordoba will even be necessary (but appreciated), and I am arguing for Samoa because (1) Hawaii will sorely need a better start point, more than almost any other exploration civ, and (2) Samoans are the third largest Polynesian population after Maori and Hawaiian. In fact, I will throw in Maori as pretty solid chances down the line to complete the Samoa/Tonga/Hawaii chain.

* While I think leaders are less assured to be pointing toward anything, the fact that we have some oddly specific choices without associated civs makes me think those odds are not insignificant. I think for upcoming DLC (and likely sooner than later), we will see Vietnam (exploration - Trung Trac), Philippines (modern - Joze Rizal), Morocco-ish (exploration - Ibn Battuta), and Hausa (modern - Amina). I think the specific choices of some of these civs also point toward likely "path-fillers" (Wagadu, Swahili/Kilwa, Gran Colombia...mayyyybe a full four-civ SEA pack with antiquity Melayu and modern Vietnam...maybe Garamantes and a modern Morocco...maybe a full four-civ Japan/Korea pack), but we will need to see more DLC packs/expansions to confirm just how much the devs want to flesh those regions out.

 

[Rac]

Ok this time round of updates that I didn't formaly write here but in other threads.
First some corrections and confirmations:
While in Polish the name of the Vatican City people is "Ecclesiastical States", in English it is "Papal States"
Also the Yayoi are the people of the Yamatai, that is indeed a settlement
Caithness settlement people indeed it the Picts
And lastly Rajagriha settlement is probably from the Magadhan people
Now all new IP's, all in Exploration except by that last one that is Antiquity:
Alachua (?) - Alachua
Burgundy - Arles
Garama (?) - Garama
Kulin (?) - Birrarung
Mapuche - Ngulu Mapu
Tuareg (?) - Abalessa
????? - 维陀城 (Yes I'm letting that in Chinese itself since we didn't identify it and that's how we originally saw it)

The other IP's suggest in the last posts here have been already in the spreadsheet before, but still thank for bringing them up

Ah almost forgot, Gullfoss Natural Wonder finally was saw in full in game too

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

* Consequently, I do not think the odds favor us seeing: Teotihuacan, Tonga, Goths, Silla, Gupta/Pala, Qin, Babylon, or Nabataea in Civ VII. Barring some mid-development changes of heart, these wonders seem designed to remain unassociated

I can't see them not adding in Babylon in Civ 7. I think it's more likely Babylon will just be added in the future, and the Hanging Gardens will just remain unassociated. Babylon can get Etemenanki later.

 

[gdr_willter]

Some final minor predictions before launch now that we have a much better picture of the game:

Crossroads Civs:

* If the Crossroads of the World distinction about natural wonders still holds and was not a misprint, then I think Assyria and Britain are very likely candidates (and at least somewhat fit the "concept" of "crossroads" at opposite ends of history). Assyria is a strong candidate because Dur-Sharrukin is the only antiquity wonder that does not give a base stat increase, and it seems all too likely Oxford will be the same if only because Britain is probably the most anticipated exclusion from the base game.

* We can't know 100% that we know all of the wonders in the exploration and modern eras until release. However if this is all we get, I will make one bold guess that all exploration and modern era wonders are associated with a civ by the end of Crossroads (antiquity has a lot of "base stat" wonders that seem obviously planned as generic Culture wincon facilitators). If Britain gets Oxford, there are only four "unassociated wonders" left after antiquity: Notre Dame, Shwedagon Paya, Red Fort, and Taj Mahal. And the fact that two of these could and should easily be associated with a single civ gives me pause. Thus:

* Notre Dame likely points at Franks/Carolingians/Francia in Crossroads. Imo it doesn't fit with the theme as well as Assyria/Britain, but if the name of the expac was applied retroactively to a "filling in missing key civs" pack, the Franks make enough sense as a "near-base game" civ. Other things going for them include all the French and German leaders, suggesting that at least after the first "free-ish DLC" round Firaxis were hoping to have a full "China/India" path for France and Germany (and I suppose Britain to an extent given the Normans). With, it seems, a loose caveat that, like other regions of the world, all Europe civs need to start from the Europe "wellfont" that is Rome (ala, for now, Maya, Khmer, and Aksum).

* The wild card here is Shwedagon Paya pointing at Burma in Crossroads. Which, hey, it is the "wild card slot" wonder, and if any "base stat" wonder could maybe edge its way out of being a generic unassociated wonder, it would be the "wild card" stat (see Ibn Battuta). I really don't think of Burma as a base game civ, but I could somewhat see the reasoning here. It completes a satisfying Khmer->Siam path with probably the most appropriate middle-man, and to some extent that path is much more easily completable with a single civ than regions I think are planned for more substantial DLC. It's an easy bone to throw that puts Southeast Asia out of mind for the devs for now until we maybe get a more substantial Vietnam/Philippines/Indonesia pack. Also, the Indochine spectrum is kinda "crossroadsy." It suffices for Southeast Asia on release, in the same way that Trung and Rizal did at launch.

* There are regions I would have preferred we got more representation by the end of Crossroads, but overall, if the aim was just "finishing out" a couple areas, these are...okay. When I think of counterpoints, they easily escalate into begging more than one civ added to the game at once: Byzantium and Ottomans, Swahili/Zulu/Wagadu/Hausa, Cordoba/Portugal/Brazil, Norse/Scandis, Samoa/Maori, Edo Japan/Joseon Korea, etc. etc. I am hoping that after the first DLC pack or two they start to hone in on particular regions, but that remains to be seen.

Crossroads Leaders:

* Leaders for this: I think the Franks were already set up in base game for plenty of leaders. I think Burma is just adding the last base-game facet to Trung/Jose paths. So it seems most likely the new leaders, if they are associated with civs in the pack, are Assyrian and British. This tracks, given that base Civ without Britain and British leader would be sacreligious, and an Assyrian/Syrian leader would shore up the lack of a true Arabian leader in the base game. Obviously there are several choices here, but I am going to bet that this is Zenobia's only shot until, if ever, late-cycle leader packs, so I will favor her a bit. And then, since I am sensing some pressure to switch up Elizabeth/Victoria, I will toss out James as a British leader (who could then serve as a cliffhanger for a later Scottish/Irish pack). But I haven't fully thought through the leader typing implications and if there are holes better filled by other figures. This could just as easily be some baity staples like Elizabeth/Victoria and Ashurbanipal/Semiramis.

Other Implications:

* Finally, an aside, but I think barring some later design reversals, I think the antiquity unassociated wonders very comfortably point toward civs that will not be in the game. For most of them, this already makes sense, but obviously there were a few such as Goths, Silla, and Tonga that I think people were hoping for. I would further suggest that a secondary purpose of antiquity unassociated wonders is to allow some additional "flavor" for civs/cultures that won't get a full India/China path. So if you want to play "Aztecy," you run Maya with Teotihuacan. If you want to play "Korea-y," you run Han/??? -> Joseon -> ??? with Emile Bell. If you want to play "Gothy," there may ultimately be a Goth leader you can start with Cordoba or Rome and build Theodoric's thing.

* Consequently, I do not think the odds favor us seeing: Teotihuacan, Tonga, Goths, Silla, Gupta/Pala, Qin, Babylon, or Nabataea in Civ VII. Barring some mid-development changes of heart, these wonders seem designed to remain unassociated. However, I do think we will see, at some point, in order from most to least likely: Aztecs (exploration), Joseon (exploration), Sumeria (antiquity), Samoa (antiquity), and Cordoba (antiquity?). I still am not sure if Cordoba will even be necessary (but appreciated), and I am arguing for Samoa because (1) Hawaii will sorely need a better start point, more than almost any other exploration civ, and (2) Samoans are the third largest Polynesian population after Maori and Hawaiian. In fact, I will throw in Maori as pretty solid chances down the line to complete the Samoa/Tonga/Hawaii chain.

I'll agree with you in many parts, but Joseon seems to be a Modern Civ. We already know that there is Gaegyeong IP of Goryeo people in the Exploration Age, while Goguryeo/Baekje/Silla are shown as the Antiquity IPs. Considering these, Joseon in the Modern Age is the most reasonable choice for continuous flow of the history of Korean dynasties.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I can't see them not adding in Babylon in Civ 7. I think it's more likely Babylon will just be added in the future, and the Hanging Gardens will just remain unassociated. Babylon can get Etemenanki later.

This is also a distinct possibility, you are correct. If we can have Rhodes separate from Greece, surely the Gardens (and Alexandria, and Mausoleum, and whatever else) could remain unassociated as well.

I'm kind of indifferent, as long as we don't get both Sumeria and Babylon. I would only give Sumeria a slight edge given what we know given that an unassociated Babylon wonder is already in the game.

I'll agree with you in many parts, but Joseon seems to be a Modern Civ. We already know that there is Gaegyeong IP of Goryeo people in the Exploration Age, while Goguryeo/Baekje/Silla are shown as the Antiquity IPs. Considering these, Joseon in the Modern Age is the most reasonable choice for continuous flow of the history of Korean dynasties.

Joseon is one of those dynasties that can go either exploration or modern, it really depends on if Korea and Japan get one or two fully unique civs each in exploration/modern eras. I don't think Gaegyeong rules out Joseon in exploration, given that we have other antiquity/exploration city-states the pre-date and post-date coregional civs.

But I suspect what we will end up seeing is Joseon in exploration and Korea in modern to mirror Kamakura/Edo and Meiji Japan. With both civs either branching de facto from Han or some vague Yamato-ish Japono-Koreish civ. Between the large gamer markets in both countries (as well as philes in the States) and their historical separatism from both each other and China, I would not be at all surprised if Firaxis devoted an entire four-civ pack to fleshing out both Korean and Japanese history.

Also, Joseon's more defining qualities seem to definitely fall more into the devs' idea of "exploration" civs (coalescing of centralized statehood, religion, and trade) than "modern" civs (ideological revolution and industrialization).

But if Korea were to only ever get a single civ in VII, I could totally see Joseon being pushed into modern.

Garama (?) - Garama

Interesting in exploration. Makes me wonder if Ibn Battuta will actually serve as a bridge for exploration Garamantes and modern Morocco. Not sure if Garamantes are too conceptually similar to Songhai for the devs to bother (I mean, they at least have foggara and pastoralism, and Songhai was not given horses), but it's a thought.

And then, if Garamantes -> Morocco, I could see Ibn Battuta on his way to preferring a Numidia -> Garamantes -> Morocco path, or, possibly better, a Carthage/Phoenicia -> Garamantes -> Morocco path. Interesting stuff.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm kind of indifferent, as long as we don't get both Sumeria and Babylon. I would only give Sumeria a slight edge given what we know given that an unassociated Babylon wonder is already in the game.

The Hanging Gardens were probably in Nineveh, and their in-game quote is by Ashurbanipal, suggesting the devs are aware of the fact. I think they'll remain unassociated. I agree we won't get all three of Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria. Assyria is looking extremely probable; I think we'll see Babylon eventually given that it's a staple of the series and we had Sumer in Civ6.

I also agree with gdr_willter that the age distribution of Korean IPs should probably be taken of suggestive of where those civs will be placed when they're upgraded. I'd also add that, where possible, the devs have shown a consistent preference of avoiding modern state names, which makes modern Joseon all the more probable.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is also a distinct possibility, you are correct. If we can have Rhodes separate from Greece, surely the Gardens (and Alexandria, and Mausoleum, and whatever else) could remain unassociated as well.

I'm kind of indifferent, as long as we don't get both Sumeria and Babylon. I would only give Sumeria a slight edge given what we know given that an unassociated Babylon wonder is already in the game.

I'm not sure that I can see anything other than most of these unassociated wonders have all just been in past games, and several are all Ancient World Wonders in their own right (Hanging Gardens, Colossus).

I feel the same way about Notre Dame, and possibly Oxford. Notre Dame they probably wanted to put back in because of the fire a few years back, so I don't think it necessarily points to an Exploration Age France either. And I personally think the British will come in Right to Rule with Big Ben.

 

[gdr_willter]

Joseon is one of those dynasties that can go either exploration or modern, it really depends on if Korea and Japan get one or two fully unique civs each in exploration/modern eras. I don't think Gaegyeong rules out Joseon in exploration, given that we have other antiquity/exploration city-states the pre-date and post-date coregional civs.

But I suspect what we will end up seeing is Joseon in exploration and Korea in modern to mirror Kamakura/Edo and Meiji Japan. With both civs either branching de facto from Han or some vague Yamato-ish Japono-Koreish civ. Between the large gamer markets in both countries (as well as philes in the States) and their historical separatism from both each other and China, I would not be at all surprised if Firaxis devoted an entire four-civ pack to fleshing out both Korean and Japanese history.

Also, Joseon's more defining qualities seem to definitely fall more into the devs' idea of "exploration" civs (coalescing of centralized statehood, religion, and trade) than "modern" civs (ideological revolution and industrialization).

But if Korea were to only ever get a single civ in VII, I could totally see Joseon being pushed into modern.

There is 3 Modern Korea, let's make things clear.

• The Empire of Korea: Basically same political entity with Joseon which shares same dynasty. Only standed 14 years. If you considered this Korea, it would be better to name it just Joseon.
• The Republic of Korea: Founded at 1919 provisionally, but needed more time to real independence. 1948 is too late start for Civ 7 Modern. If we focus on the Provisional ROK, it will be weird to see independence movement uniqes for already independent Civ. If we focus on ROK, it will be the most anachronic future Civ.
• The Democratic People's Republic of Korea: I even don't feel to say something about it tho, who wants North Korea? Anyway it born in 1948.

As I wrote, I think these 3 can't be the candidates for the Modern Civ.

And the Joseon history itself seems quite well fit with the Modern Age. It banned the religious traditions of folks and Buddhism. Like most of the western ideologies based on Christianity, their Neo-Confucianism was a kind of political ideology rather than a religion. And yes, Joseon built its economy mainly based on agriculture, but it because of the situation it faced. Even so, their food production and population were still remarkable in global level. If Joseon can't be the Modern Civ, you can't have any other Modern Civ but European with your standard. Let's think about Siam, Buganda, Mughal, Qing... Does them all satisfied every standard?

"Coalescing of centralized statehood, religion, and trade" rather fits with Goryeo. Buddhism and regional trade were two critical identities of Goryeo obviously. And it started with divided local powers and struggled to merge them, while Joseon established strong centralized authority at the beginning because the local powers already broke down.

So my answer is, Joseon is still the best option for Modern Korea. If I can have only one Korean Civ in 7, it will be Modern Joseon.

* I already posted my Korean Civ ideas: Silla, Goryeo and Joseon. How about take a look for once? Maybe it would change your mind.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The Hanging Gardens were probably in Nineveh, and their in-game quote is by Ashurbanipal, suggesting the devs are aware of the fact. I think they'll remain unassociated. I agree we won't get all three of Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria. Assyria is looking extremely probable; I think we'll see Babylon eventually given that it's a staple of the series and we had Sumer in Civ6.

I also agree with gdr_willter that the age distribution of Korean IPs should probably be taken of suggestive of where those civs will be placed when they're upgraded. I'd also add that, where possible, the devs have shown a consistent preference of avoiding modern state names, which makes modern Joseon all the more probable.

As I said, I would be fine with Babylon. Though I hope it's better designed than in VI. But I do have my suspicions that the devs really like reaching alllll the way back to Sumer if they can, especially knowing that they are using similar "wellfont" antiquity civs for regions like Maya and Khmer. But as a matter of general cultural/historical representation I think Babylon does better, especially if they focus on Old Babylon as opposed to Neo-Babylon (which was just Assyria-lite).

And actually yeah you've convinced me. Goryeo/Silla in exploration and Joseon in modern. Will be very interesting to see how they deal with Korea/Japan in antiquity. I suspect Vietnam can get away with only exploration/modern civs and branch from Khmer and maybe eventaully adding Melayu/Cham, but Korea/Japan really begs to have an antiquity civ that isn't Han. Given Himiko, I think I am fairly persuaded at a "Wa" kingdom being somewhat fabricated like the Mississippians that is juuuuuust Korean enough to work for both Japan and Korea.

Which would jive with my prediction that some of the antiquity wonders exist to help nudge some pathways into feeling more authentic. Wa alone might not feel super Korean, but if you could build the Emile Bell as Wa while moving into Silla and Joseon, that's pretty close.

 

[KKSSep]

Ok this time round of updates that I didn't formaly write here but in other threads.
First some corrections and confirmations:
While in Polish the name of the Vatican City people is "Ecclesiastical States", in English it is "Papal States"
Also the Yayoi are the people of the Yamatai, that is indeed a settlement
Caithness settlement people indeed it the Picts
And lastly Rajagriha settlement is probably from the Magadhan people
Now all new IP's, all in Exploration except by that last one that is Antiquity:
Alachua (?) - Alachua
Burgundy - Arles
Garama (?) - Garama
Kulin (?) - Birrarung
Mapuche - Ngulu Mapu
Tuareg (?) - Abalessa
????? - 维陀城 (Yes I'm letting that in Chinese itself since we didn't identify it and that's how we originally saw it)

The other IP's suggest in the last posts here have been already in the spreadsheet before, but still thank for bringing them up

Mannai / Mannaea people were confirmed as the leaders of Izirtu. The Kulin people were also confirmed as the leader of Birrarung. Slav people come with the Exploration Age, which is weird but fits the date. Alachua, from my perspective, sounds like a Timucuan city.
About 维陀城, it's probably a Chinese localization error, just like Jieshi (should be "羯室" instead of "碣石"), the word choice suggests that it will fall somewhere in South Asia, and the ending "城“ informed us that the original text in English should probably be structured by two words, with the ending word of "city", "town", or "village". 维陀 ”Wei Tuo", if it’s a typo, can redirect to other words like "吠陀" (Veda) or "韦驮” (Skanda), the first word can also refer to the Veddha people in Sri Lanka, then "维陀城" could referring to the "Veddha Village" in Mahiyangana, Sri Lanka. There's also another nonsense explanation for this name, if we use "韦驮” (Skanda) to search on Google, you'll find a village that shares the name, it's an important castle founded by the Lazica Kingdom (current Georgia), likely set up in the 4th Century.

 

[gdr_willter]

And actually yeah you've convinced me. Goryeo/Silla in exploration and Joseon in modern. Will be very interesting to see how they deal with Korea/Japan in antiquity. I suspect Vietnam can get away with only exploration/modern civs and branch from Khmer and maybe eventaully adding Melayu/Cham, but Korea/Japan really begs to have an antiquity civ that isn't Han. Given Himiko, I think I am fairly persuaded at a "Wa" kingdom being somewhat fabricated like the Mississippians that is juuuuuust Korean enough to work for both Japan and Korea.

Technically, yes, Korea and Japan shared their ancestors at the biggest part. For example, the Yayoi culture is the mixture of the native Jomon and the people from the Korean peninsula (Toraijin). And many Koreans steadily crossed over to Japan even until the very end of the Three Kingdomes of Korea, especially during the collapse of Gaya and Baekje.

But I don't know why it lead us to the conclusion that Korea and Japan need to have only one shared Antiquity Civ. It will be a nice explanation to justify the default unlocking relationship between Korean and Japanese Civs.

 

[Zaarin]

As I said, I would be fine with Babylon. Though I hope it's better designed than in VI. But I do have my suspicions that the devs really like reaching alllll the way back to Sumer if they can, especially knowing that they are using similar "wellfont" antiquity civs for regions like Maya and Khmer. But as a matter of general cultural/historical representation I think Babylon does better, especially if they focus on Old Babylon as opposed to Neo-Babylon (which was just Assyria-lite).

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.)

 

[Evolena]

Slav people come with the Exploration Age, which is weird but fits the date.
View attachment 716522

The Carantania of the Slav that we saw in promotional material was Cultural though, not Scientific, and the Settlement limit was 5 so clearly Antiquity.
There is already an occurrence of the same IP village existing in 2 eras (Samarkand of the Sogdian People in Antiquity, and Samarkand of the Karakhanid in Exploration, both Economic).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There is already an occurrence of the same IP village existing in 2 eras (Samarkand of the Sogdian People in Antiquity, and Samarkand of the Karakhanid in Exploration, both Economic).
View attachment 716532View attachment 716535

A recurring Samarkand in Antiquity and Exploration is actually a great idea. That city site has been occupied for at least 5000 years and as Samarkand, Marakhanda, Marakanda, Samarqand and other variations it has been a trading center for Kushan, Sogdian, Persian, Turkic Khaganate, and every other group who roamed central Asia.

 

[KKSSep]

The Carantania of the Slav that we saw in promotional material was Cultural though, not Scientific, and the Settlement limit was 5 so clearly Antiquity.
There is already an occurrence of the same IP village existing in 2 eras (Samarkand of the Sogdian People in Antiquity, and Samarkand of the Karakhanid in Exploration, both Economic).
View attachment 716532View attachment 716535

Not sure if "Slawischen" has some other meaning in German, but here is another screenshot from the same video. Sound like they've either changed it or there is independent power that appears in two different eras.

 

[gdr_willter]

Not sure if "Slawischen" has some other meaning in German, but here is another screenshot from the same video. Sound like they've either changed it or there is independent power that appears in two different eras.

Or there are multiple settlement names for one IP.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Technically, yes, Korea and Japan shared their ancestors at the biggest part. For example, the Yayoi culture is the mixture of the native Jomon and the people from the Korean peninsula (Toraijin). And many Koreans steadily crossed over to Japan even until the very end of the Three Kingdomg of Korea, especially during the collapse of Gaya and Baekje.

But I don't know why it lead us to the conclusion that Korea and Japan need to have only one shared Antiquity Civ. It will be a nice explanation to justify the default unlocking relationship between Korean and Japanese Civs.

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.

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.)

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

 

[Evolena]

Not sure if "Slawischen" has some other meaning in German, but here is another screenshot from the same video. Sound like they've either changed it or there is independent power that appears in two different eras.
View attachment 716537

Maybe there is just 2 Carantania of the Slav, one in each age.