Civilization VII - Gameplay Reveal Trailer (Gamescom Opening Night Live - 8/20) Discussion

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just one more snapshot pic.

View attachment 700177
^ A fleet of smaller warships (either DD (it might be of Kagerou class) or CL, VS Two Superdreadnoughts (Firaxis loved Iowa class so much, why ain't they use Yamato class instead?).
View attachment 700178
^ Three T34s and two basic rifle infantry VS a staunch defense composed of two Shermans, One Mech Infantry (now this unit comes earlier), and two simple rifle infantry. all now engaged in ranged combat. Troop carrier design has become evenmore exciting. i don't know if it is either Bren gun carrier or Ram?

View attachment 700179
^ Counterattack! now featuring Self propelled artillery (of... maybe Longtom?)


View attachment 700180
^ And should this be 'pre industrial (or Pre modern)' fashion now? or still associable with 'Early Modern' era? (first phase of the Three Ages system).

The 'armored personnel carrier' is a game design: I don't know of any such vehicle in real life that carried a pair of heavy caliber machineguns mounted firing forward. On the other hand, multiple automatic weapons was typical of the self-propelled light antiaircraft weaponry, so this image might be that instead of an infantry carrier.

What I find interesting is that both the T-34 and the M4 Sherman are in the game together - they've used both graphics in separate games to represent the standard 'Tank' unit, but this is the first time I've seen them together, unless one or both are Unique Units - we shall see.

No Destroyer that I know of ever mounted 8 guns, so I suspect the smaller warships are another 'game design'. They most resemble many of the Light Cruiser designs of the 1930s, but those ships really have no function in the game design compared to Destroyers which have an anti-submarine function.

The last image is almost certainly a Civilian Unit. Since they have done away with Workers/Builders, but one image shows evidence that Logistics/Support has a function in 'armies' and units, this might be some kind of Logistics/Supply Unit or a Second Age Settler, which even if they don't use them earlier would make sense for an Age of Exploration (and Exploitation).

Their clothing, by the way, is a typically Civ VI pastiche: the coats are too small to be early 18th century, but the tricorns are mid-18th century except the second figure from the right, who is almost wearing a Bicorne from the late 18th century. All of which makes me believe they are Second Age graphics, because the 18th century is at least 200 years into any Age of Exploration.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The 'armored personnel carrier' is a game design: I don't know of any such vehicle in real life that carried a pair of heavy caliber machineguns mounted firing forward. On the other hand, multiple automatic weapons was typical of the self-propelled light antiaircraft weaponry, so this image might be that instead of an infantry carrier.


No Destroyer that I know of ever mounted 8 guns, so I suspect the smaller warships are another 'game design'. They most resemble many of the Light Cruiser designs of the 1930s, but those ships really have no function in the game design compared to Destroyers which have an anti-submarine function.

The last image is almost certainly a Civilian Unit. Since they have done away with Workers/Builders, but one image shows evidence that Logistics/Support has a function in 'armies' and units, this might be some kind of Logistics/Supply Unit or a Second Age Settler, which even if they don't use them earlier would make sense for an Age of Exploration (and Exploitation).

Their clothing, by the way, is a typically Civ VI pastiche: the coats are too small to be early 18th century, but the tricorns are mid-18th century except the second figure from the right, who is almost wearing a Bicorne from the late 18th century. All of which makes me believe they are Second Age graphics, because the 18th century is at least 200 years into any Age of Exploration.

FXis might have been mis-modelled it. it might have been CL. (or any other 'minor nations navy'.. something to represent lighter warships if BB is to be 'Special Elite' choice which FXis always used graphics of the final evolved iterations (Iowa class superdreadnought to be specific. well i'd like to see Yamato being used here as well)

I can't recall if any CL has a good antisubmarine capability. In Franco-Thai War of 1941. Vichy French CL 'Lamotte Picquet' couldn't even enter any deeper after it sunk HTMS Thonburi and flushed out RTN intercepting fleet (with almost no sweat) due to the fears of the existence of all four submarines and maybe other torpedo boats came from a base in Chumpon city. but AFAIK it hasa armor.

and the last image could better represent 19th Century American GoWest as well. but tricones are off to me. I don't know if this also affects how Tier 3 of 2nd Era Infantry units should looks like.. will it be Fusilier that dressed up like those of the Seven Years War? representing Age of Exploration with this settler means that Puritan Pilgrim costumes should be given instead.
anyway these chaps wore simple broadbrim hats of some kind.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

FXis might have been mis-modelled it. it might have been CL. (or any other 'minor nations navy'.. something to represent lighter warships if BB is to be 'Special Elite' choice which FXis always used graphics of the final evolved iterations (Iowa class superdreadnought to be specific. well i'd like to see Yamato being used here as well)

I can't recall if any CL has a good antisubmarine capability. In Franco-Thai War of 1941. Vichy French CL 'Lamotte Picquet' couldn't even enter any deeper after it sunk HTMS Thonburi and flushed out RTN intercepting fleet (with almost no sweat) due to the fears of the existence of all four submarines and maybe other torpedo boats came from a base in Chumpon city. but AFAIK it hasa armor.

As a rule, light cruisers never carried any specific anti-submarine weapons: no depth charges, no specialized underwater attack, no search sonar or ASDIC. Some did carry topedo tubes, but they were almost all above the waterline to use against surface ships.

They could conceivably a specialized Minor Party (City States? Independent Settlements?) ship - minor states up to and including 20th century Greece didn't build or buy anything larger than 'coast defense ships' or light cruiser-equivalents (Greece was negotiating to have a Battleship built for them, but WWII stopped that), but I think that's a Long Shot supposition.

and the last image could better represent 19th Century American GoWest as well. but tricones are off to me. I don't know if this also affects how Tier 3 of 2nd Era Infantry units should looks like.. will it be Fusilier that dressed up like those of the Seven Years War? representing Age of Exploration with this settler means that Puritan Pilgrim costumes should be given instead.
anyway these chaps wore simple broadbrim hats of some kind.

No way. Nobody going west after 1800 was wearing tricornes, which had gone out of style almost 20 years earlier. Waistcoats and knee breeches were also a generation out of style by then, so this is strictly 18th century costume. When you consider that any 'Age of Exploration" would have to start in the 15th century - which, after all, ended with the discovery of the Americas - a 'generic' 18th century Settler/civilian unit is appropriate. Also, the tricorns, waistcoats and knee breeches are also distinctly Pre-Industrial costume, which keeps the unit firmly in a single Era.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

As a rule, light cruisers never carried any specific anti-submarine weapons: no depth charges, no specialized underwater attack, no search sonar or ASDIC. Some did carry topedo tubes, but they were almost all above the waterline to use against surface ships.

They could conceivably a specialized Minor Party (City States? Independent Settlements?) ship - minor states up to and including 20th century Greece didn't build or buy anything larger than 'coast defense ships' or light cruiser-equivalents (Greece was negotiating to have a Battleship built for them, but WWII stopped that), but I think that's a Long Shot supposition.

It could either be a kind of 'Coastal Defense Ships' (AFAIK none of these has superfiring maingun gun battery), or CL or Panzerschiffe (so called 'Pocket Battleship'). but given the combat capability. it could easily assumed that CL trumps CDS (unless if the same french CL faced off against Sverige CDS.
let's see how FXis plays out when it comes to navy. they will give 'Generic' class and 'Superior' class (which requires specialized shipyard, Steel mills located nearby, and above all, BOTH Rail lines and inland waterways to ship raw materials there) which later will become CV. but saying that this lightship is DD is off to me.

Japanese destroyer Yukikaze (1939) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

^ IJN Yukikaze, one of a few surviving Kagerou class. later scrapped, only engine remains as exhibit piece.

No way. Nobody going west after 1800 was wearing tricornes, which had gone out of style almost 20 years earlier. Waistcoats and knee breeches were also a generation out of style by then, so this is strictly 18th century costume. When you consider that any 'Age of Exploration" would have to start in the 15th century - which, after all, ended with the discovery of the Americas - a 'generic' 18th century Settler/civilian unit is appropriate. Also, the tricorns, waistcoats and knee breeches are also distinctly Pre-Industrial costume, which keeps the unit firmly in a single Era.

And they wear blacks.
and this would be colors accessible to folks. colorful outfits were at that time off limits to civilians especially with reliable chemical dyes aren't yet invented. as military uniforms only common dyes are used (so Red, Blue, Black, Gray, Brown and sometimes green) are common as basecolor (and other rare colors are trims), while purples aren't. especially the most expensive is Tyrean Purple. which almost made extinct a species of Murex snail

^ I'm not sure if this hexcode and RGB numbers are correct.

Bolinus brandaris - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And with this. there's no purple used as a trim to military uniforms even elite guard units, let alone basic footsloggers that only red made of simple Akane madder or blue made of indigo are accessible.

And with this there might be dymanics in military uniform graphics. when player has 'enlightenment era army' in Era 2, they wear 18th century uniforms. with era changes the uniform of the same unit changes into one of Napoleonics. but they are still one and same.

 

[old_andy]

Pretty sure the APC is a ww2 LVT-4 amtrak. a.k.a. gator.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Pretty sure the APC is a ww2 LVT-4 amtrak. a.k.a. gator.

I saw a same pic of another angle. in Well of Souls.

At least they don't use Leman Russ for generic model of Tank

LVT-4 yes.
and this is good. because there's no more silly subclass divisions like Melee and Anticav, and also this reflects historical reality is that Mech Inf became available in 193X and not 199X
. still i don't understand why none of these generic riflemen of this infantry unit uses assault rifles of any model ?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I saw a same pic of another angle. in Well of Souls.
View attachment 700917View attachment 700918

At least they don't use Leman Russ for generic model of Tank

LVT-4 yes.
and this is good. because there's no more silly subclass divisions like Melee and Anticav, and also this reflects historical reality is that Mech Inf became available in 193X and not 199X
. still i don't understand why none of these generic riflemen of this infantry unit uses assault rifles of any model ?

Good catch. I never considered the LVT vehicles since they were specialized amphibious carriers not used generally by the army, only the Marine Corps.

Which brings up the question, do these represent a Marine unit? Or a graphic change for a regular Infantry unit with Amphibious capabilities?

Assault Rifles were developed, issued and used by the German Army after 1943 in WWII, based on the Red Army usage of sub-machineguns ("machine pistols") earlier, but the weapon type was not generally issued to all infantry until almost a generation later: as late as 1964 the US Army was still issuing the M-14 semi-automatic rifle to its infantry and the near-universal adoption of fully automatic personal weapons wasn't complete until the end of the 1960s. That makes Assault Rifles more nearly equivalent in time to the post-war and modern Main Battle Tanks than the WWII-era 'Medium' Tanks shown in the video.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Also do you think Leman Russ can represent generic First Half of 20th Century AFVs (tank)?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Good catch. I never considered the LVT vehicles since they were specialized amphibious carriers not used generally by the army, only the Marine Corps.

Which brings up the question, do these represent a Marine unit? Or a graphic change for a regular Infantry unit with Amphibious capabilities?

Assault Rifles were developed, issued and used by the German Army after 1943 in WWII, based on the Red Army usage of sub-machineguns ("machine pistols") earlier, but the weapon type was not generally issued to all infantry until almost a generation later: as late as 1964 the US Army was still issuing the M-14 semi-automatic rifle to its infantry and the near-universal adoption of fully automatic personal weapons wasn't complete until the end of the 1960s. That makes Assault Rifles more nearly equivalent in time to the post-war and modern Main Battle Tanks than the WWII-era 'Medium' Tanks shown in the video.

Also by the same time. before Assault Rifles, each rifle squad may have either SMG or LMG (BAR thing). i've also forgot that there's a bazooka man, now part if rifle squad and not silly AT Crew Unit. something I like alotmore in the upcoming game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Also do you think Leman Russ can represent generic First Half of 20th Century AFVs (tank)?

Absolutely NOT!​

​

The British-designed rhomboidal-hulled Landships of WWI were not tanks in any later sense. They were Siege machines designed specifically to overcome the wire obstacles and machineguns that throttled any attack in the densely-held font lines in France. They moved no faster than a man could walk or trot (top speed cross country was about 4 - 5 kilometers per hour) and more importantly, could not go more than about 50 kilometers without needed to be refueled - or breaking down, because they were mechanically unreliable.​

​

Note that immediately after the war, such tank configurations were never built again or designed by anyone: the emphasis turned to using engines to produce better speed and more operational mobility, which led to the armored forces of WWII that could move faster and out-maneuver almost any other force on the battlefield.​

​

In a game at Civ scale, the Landships should be included only as some kind of anti-fortress/Siege mechanic, and modern mechanized forces should consist of:​

​

Medium Tanks - the first armor with decent cannon 47mm and larger, which started to be issued in the late 1930s​

Main Battle Tanks - the armor with cannon 105mm and larger and high speeds (50 kph and higher) that could take on all the missions of earlier medium and heavy tanks and survive.​

​

That survival is now in question with the expansion of anti-armor weapons shown in the Ukrainian experience, so it is noticeable that virtually all current Tank Development is concentrating on better Protection rather than better mobility or firepower. When you have to expend major effort keeping a system alive, that system is reaching the end of its useful life.​

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And Sherman has always been a symbol of Medium Tank.
and I THINK T34 too. i'm not sure if PzKfW4 will be too?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

By far the two most common 'medium tanks' produced were the M4 Sherman and T-34, also because the two were distributed to numerous post-1945 countries and dependents of the USA and Soviet Union and heavily modified by some of them. That makes them both eligible as graphic depictions of the Tank or Medium Tank, and both have been used as such in previous Civ games.

The PzKpfw IV, the German 'medium tank' was produced in much smaller numbers and only a few got into the hands of any post-war powers. Ironically, some were used in the middle east in 1948-49 against the new Jewish state of Israel, but even there they were far outnumbered by Shermans and T-34s in the hands of the belligerents.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

By far the two most common 'medium tanks' produced were the M4 Sherman and T-334, also because the two were distributed to numerous post-1945 countries and dependents of the USA and Soviet Union and heavily modified by some of them. That makes them both eligible as graphic depictions of the Tank or Medium Tank, and both have been used as such in previous Civ games.

The PzKpfw IV, the German 'medium tank' was produced in much smaller numbers and only a few got into the hands of any post-war powers. Ironically, some were used in the middle east in 1948-49 against the new Jewish state of Israel, but even there they were far outnumbered by Shermans and T-34s in the hands of the belligerents.

given that Shermans are one of the two most common medium tanks. and PzKfW IV were both of 'dual bogie tracks designs. are both of these evolved from Vickers 6-ton Mark E?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Vickers 6-ton ironically was an independent project by Vickers that was never adopted by the British forces, but was one of the most influential tank designs of the late 1920s. It was purchased by the Soviet Union, United States, Hungary, Poland, Greece, Finland, Portugal, China, Bulgaria and Thailand BUT only the Soviet Union, Poland and the United States built their own light tanks based on elements of the 6-tonner design, and only the United States used elements of the suspension system as the basis for the suspension of their first Medium Tank, the M2, which led via the M3 to the M4 Sherman. BUT the Sherman was also built with entirely different Horizontal Volute suspensions later in the war, so by that time the Vickers' influence was pretty small.

There is no evidence that the 6-ton's design influenced the design of the PzKpfw IV: German firms had been secretly working on tank designs in the USSR and Sweden since the mid-1920s before the Vickers tank was developed, and those were the ancestors of the German WWII models.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

And M2 has side sponson MGs. why it dissappeared in M3 and 4 onwards? ain't that features inherited from WW1 Rhomboid tanks really good??

 

[AriochIV]

But what about.... BONAPARTE!!!

 

[Haig]

Could the ship on front be a Dreadnought?

 

[AriochIV]

In the foreground? It's a destroyer.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And M2 has side sponson MGs. why it dissappeared in M3 and 4 onwards? ain't that features inherited from WW1 Rhomboid tanks really good??

Machineguns firing to the sides either in sponsons as on the M2 or in separate turrets were a fairly common feature on early tanks. The idea was that the tank couild straddle a trench and fire to either side down the length of the trench, clearing it of all enemies.

Which would have been fine if the tanks were always going to be operating on battlefields like the trench systems of 1915 - 1918, but was pretty worthless in the open field, where it turned out to be nearly impossible to coordinate the fire of several weapons all in different turrets or sponsons. This also was the crippling defect in the big multi-turret tanks like the Soviet T-35, with 5 turrets firing in 3 different directions. That usually meant they were firing at every direction except the one that the main threat was coming from, and got shot to pieces while they were trying to figure out which turret to shoot back with.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

In the foreground? It's a destroyer.

how did you get the unit name? it looks too big to be a DD. even by the WW2 standard that superfiring guns were still common design. it looks like CL to me. (De Zevern Provincien (CL or CH) might be of that design)