DLC packs post Tides of Power

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think they should bring Zara Yaqob back into the game as the Ethiopian leader. Mansa Musa feels somewhat similar to Amina to me (a nearby region with somewhat similar gameplay), so I don’t see him being added right now, even though I'd love to see him. I believe Nzinga Mbande would be perfect for this game.

Yeah, I focused on West Africa and East Africa with the leaders as well because that's where the holes currently are. They could easily just do Shaka or someone else.

The Guarani could technically fit into the Modern Age chronologically, but their entire gameplay theme belongs to the Exploration Age (religion, colonization, interactions with Spain and Portugal...), so I’m not sure. I think the modern Native American civ at this point should come from North America to complete the Mississippian–Shawnee path, while the Antiquity Americas slot should go to an ancestor of the Inca.

That's fair. South America doesn't have a Modern civ yet, so it was between them and the Mapuche that I could even think of getting in besides the obvious post-colonial ones.
If that's the case, I might change it to Comanche, even if the Lakota are more obvious.
Not sure about which Antiquity South America civ to choose from between Norte Chico, Nazca, Tiwanaku, or Wari?

 

[Xandinho]

Yeah, I focused on West Africa and East Africa with the leaders as well because that's where the holes currently are. They could easily just do Shaka or someone else.

That's fair. South America doesn't have a Modern civ yet, so it was between them and the Mapuche that I could even think of getting in besides the obvious post-colonial ones.
If that's the case, I might change it to Comanche, even if the Lakota are more obvious.
Not sure about which Antiquity South America civ to choose from between Norte Chico, Nazca, Tiwanaku, or Wari?

Tiwanaku would be the better option, but I think they'd go for the more popular choice, which is Nazca. For the modern civ, I'd pick (Gran) Colombia, since it's a better successor to the Inca than, say, Brazil or Argentina, which wouldn’t make any more sense than Mexico currently does. Peru would be the fully appropriate option, but I don’t see that happening. I also wouldn’t “use up” Montezuma right now, since he could be saved for later to boost a future expansion or DLC.

So a DLC focused on the Americas, structured roughly like this, would be very interesting:

Aztec as the headline civ of the pack, and the most commercially appealing.
Nazca, which is popular and would likely attract interest.
(Gran) Colombia, closing the Andean line as a sufficiently appropriate successor to the Inca.
A successor to the Shawnee; I’m not sure what the best option would be, but I’m open to suggestions — perhaps the Comanche?

Leaders: a Mesoamerican leader, preferably Maya, such as Pacal (so players can finally pair him with the Maya). Another notable Native North American leader would also be great.

 

[Tanel]

Not sure how having a leader with Unique unit would even work since it would conflict with civs that have a Unique of the same type and yeah there aren't many UU that would make sense in all ages. Although making it only available for one age would be an option but that makes the leader less interesting in other ages.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Yeah, I focused on West Africa and East Africa with the leaders as well because that's where the holes currently are. They could easily just do Shaka or someone else.

That's fair. South America doesn't have a Modern civ yet, so it was between them and the Mapuche that I could even think of getting in besides the obvious post-colonial ones.
If that's the case, I might change it to Comanche, even if the Lakota are more obvious.
Not sure about which Antiquity South America civ to choose from between Norte Chico, Nazca, Tiwanaku, or Wari?

Okay, so a few things here:

South America

Norte Chico (Caral-Supe) are perfectly viable for Antiquity. They have a Wonder (El Paraiso) and just about enough settlements for a full city list, which are the common hurdle for poorly documented Antiquity candidates. There is simply not enough documentation on the Nazca though. At least not for a full Civ. Maybe Religious/Ideological IPs will be added later, with the Nazca Line as their token Antiquity Improvement.

The best overal Civs for South America are *unfortunately* in Exploration, which is where the Chimu and Muisca ought to be, and placing either in Antiquity is *so* scuffed. They were contemporaries to the Inca, not predecessors. (an Antiquity Aymara Civ that encompasses both Tihuanacu and Huari culture can work though)

For South America's Modern age, the best choices are, sadly, the Colonial nations. Brazil and then ONE of Colombia/Argentina. Mapuche are tricky for the same reason the Zulu are tricky - they don't have a single authentic Wonder choice and were technologically backwards compared to the other Modern Civs in the roster. The Wonder choices for the Mapuche are the early 20th century Chilean monuments dedicated to their culture scattered around Santiago. If you're going that route, you may as well call the civ 'Chile'. The same principle holds true for the Guaraní and Paraguay.

But I think that's perfectly fine, though? The indigenous cultures in Latin America have effectively been *absorbed* by the current modern nations, their traditions synchronized with their new post-colonial Latin identity, which is sort of the system Civ7 is trying to mimic anyway.

North America
the above however does NOT apply to North America, which I'm sure the many American (US) posters here would agree with. To me, it seems logical that the indigenous N.A. Civs in Exploration (of which we only have the Shawnee rn ) should be offered the option to become America, without that being their default or even desired path (Tecumseh defaults to Mexico iirc?). So there, I absolutely *would* invest in one and ideally two N.A. (North American) indigenous Civs for Modern. The Iroquois (Haudennosaunnee) are the most iconic option available, and they can be made to fit Exploration or Modern if needed. Cherokee work as well. Lakota run into the problem of not having a functional World Wonder to my knowledge.

For Modern, i'd say the options are between Haudennosaunee, Cherokee, Tlingit (who also have a Wonder and a distinctly unique culture) and Lakota, and all of them would work very well.

And then I would just add a second option to Exploration and Antiquity for variety? Or at least strive to. Indigenous Native Americans have good reasons to be guarded about how their ancestral traditions are portrayed (and appropriated) in popular American culture, so I'm just going to operate on a 'We'll Take What We Can Get' mentality. Ideally, I'd like to see the Pueblo and Navajo, but that's up to the tribal nations themselves to decide.

and obviously for Meso America there's still a big Aztec-shaped hole to fill, followed by the Taino and Haiti in the Caribbean but all in its due time.

So, in sum, yeah there's plenty of interesting stuff out there for an American pack, so hopefully the Devs understand America (AND Africa!) should get a bit more love and attention in future DLCs.

Leaders: a Mesoamerican leader, preferably Maya, such as Pacal (so players can finally pair him with the Maya). Another notable Native North American leader would also be great.

I want to see some new leaders, personally. I like Pacal but SPEARTHROWER OWL is like... right there? and Civ7's unclipped leader system is THE opportunity to add him in. Same with Eréndira. Or Sor Juana Inês de la Cruz.

Watch until we get Montezuma (at his most psychotic) and Pocahontas (and nobody else!) to the great REJOICING of the casual fans and the thunderous groaning of us as a collective.

 

[Lord Lakely]

EDIT:

Not sure how having a leader with Unique unit would even work since it would conflict with civs that have a Unique of the same type and yeah there aren't many UU that would make sense in all ages. Although making it only available for one age would be an option but that makes the leader less interesting in other ages.

Not sure how having a leader with Unique unit would even work since it would conflict with civs that have a Unique of the same type and yeah there aren't many UU that would make sense in all ages. Although making it only available for one age would be an option but that makes the leader less interesting in other ages.

It's easier than you may thing. I'm going to use Shaka and Impi's as an example.

The way I envision it mechanically, is that the UU in question has a roughly identical stat-line of a vanilla unit of the same type. So a base Impi could have up to the same strength as a vanilla infantry unit at all times. The Impi's unique stratagem over a vanilla Infantry unit can be an increase in movement, the ability to ignore terrain penalties, the ability to scale cliffs, or something else. But at a BASE, it's a vanilla Warrior you will train if your Civ doesn't have have an Infantry UU.

Civs that receive a unique Infantry unit (such as Egypt), have that unit replace the base Warrior and its upgrades. So a Shaka leading Egypt would have access to both Impi and Medjay, and can choose which unit to train. Medjay are stronger in friendly territory, which makes them useful for defence. The more mobile Impi can take on a more offensive role, as a cheap alternative to Cavalry.

A Shaka who leads Rome can use both Legions and Impi. Legions have higher Strength, scaling with slotted Traditions. Impi's don't get this bonus but because they have increased movement speed (or some other buff), they are still situationally useful to train.

This principle holds true for any Civ across any ages. And that's how you make the unit work.

You can balance this in several ways, but I would just look at what would be 'in character' for the leader the UU is bound to. For Shaka, I can imagine cheap, maybe even free upgrades once it is unlocked, for all Infantry units, including the Impi. Alternatively, you can give Shaka an additional Tradition every Age that buffs Impi's specifically. You can give Shaka a malus to Happiness or Science to make up for this, and the set percentage can be tweaked so that it provides a challenge but doesn't completely cripple him.

That's what I imagine behind it anyway. I'm not aware of any other leaders that could have a similar bonus to this (Blackbeard could have, but the devs took him in a different direction by making all his naval units pirates) and I think it's an interesting exploration while we wait for more DLCs to drop.

 

[Krikkit1]

For Modern NA indigenous civs, there will probably only be one.

However, if they have two… to make them distinct, get one from the plains tribes (with gameplay that has Genghis unlock them…focus on cavalry war/raiding). And the other from what were referred to as the “civilized” tribes, where they were effectively on the route to industrialization.

If there’s only one…not sure of which path to go with….but either could be interesting.

 

[Krikkit1]

EDIT:



Not sure how having a leader with Unique unit would even work since it would conflict with civs that have a Unique of the same type and yeah there aren't many UU that would make sense in all ages. Although making it only available for one age would be an option but that makes the leader less interesting in other ages.

It's easier than you may thing. I'm going to use Shaka and Impi's as an example.

The way I envision it mechanically, is that the UU in question has a roughly identical stat-line of a vanilla unit of the same type. So a base Impi could have up to the same strength as a vanilla infantry unit at all times. The Impi's unique stratagem over a vanilla Infantry unit can be an increase in movement, the ability to ignore terrain penalties, the ability to scale cliffs, or something else. But at a BASE, it's a vanilla Warrior you will train if your Civ doesn't have have an Infantry UU.

Civs that receive a unique Infantry unit (such as Egypt), have that unit replace the base Warrior and its upgrades. So a Shaka leading Egypt would have access to both Impi and Medjay, and can choose which unit to train. Medjay are stronger in friendly territory, which makes them useful for defence. The more mobile Impi can take on a more offensive role, as a cheap alternative to Cavalry.

A Shaka who leads Rome can use both Legions and Impi. Legions have higher Strength, scaling with slotted Traditions. Impi's don't get this bonus but because they have increased movement speed (or some other buff), they are still situationally useful to train.

This principle holds true for any Civ across any ages. And that's how you make the unit work.

You can balance this in several ways, but I would just look at what would be 'in character' for the leader the UU is bound to. For Shaka, I can imagine cheap, maybe even free upgrades once it is unlocked, for all Infantry units, including the Impi. Alternatively, you can give Shaka an additional Tradition every Age that buffs Impi's specifically. You can give Shaka a malus to Happiness or Science to make up for this, and the set percentage can be tweaked so that it provides a challenge but doesn't completely cripple him.

That's what I imagine behind it anyway. I'm not aware of any other leaders that could have a similar bonus to this (Blackbeard could have, but the devs took him in a different direction by making all his naval units pirates) and I think it's an interesting exploration while we wait for more DLCs to drop.

For a Leader UU…just have it not replace the base unit. Rome Shaka builds Impi And Legions…Assyria Shaka builds Impi And Spearmen.

That just means the Impi can’t be a straight upgrade (maybe they cost extra…or maybe cheaper but weaker)

 

[marius_kaparius]

I'm looking at the Independent power list in the Civ 7 Wiki and Zulu / Xhosa do not appear. I'm not sure if this is a hint either way but the following look to be more likely based on he conversion of independent powers:

Kushite, Nok, Oponean, Numidean (unlikely due to Carthage), Mali, Shona, Kilwa, Kanem, Shilluk, Tuareg, Garamantes, Oyo, Zanzibar, Ethiopia, Ashante, Morocco, Massina, Dahomey, Merina, Sudan

 

[Ryansinbela]

Great Britain and Iceland also got added though
So not every dlc civ is gonna be a former IP

I would be happy to see Kush, Mali, Kilwa, Ethiopia, Ashanti, Merina, and Morocco

 

[marius_kaparius]

Reading up about the Tuaregs I learned about Tin Hanan and her Tomb. That would make for a cool leader option too.

 

[queenpea]

Tiwanaku would be the better option, but I think they'd go for the more popular choice, which is Nazca. For the modern civ, I'd pick (Gran) Colombia, since it's a better successor to the Inca than, say, Brazil or Argentina, which wouldn’t make any more sense than Mexico currently does. Peru would be the fully appropriate option, but I don’t see that happening. I also wouldn’t “use up” Montezuma right now, since he could be saved for later to boost a future expansion or DLC.

So a DLC focused on the Americas, structured roughly like this, would be very interesting:

Aztec as the headline civ of the pack, and the most commercially appealing.
Nazca, which is popular and would likely attract interest.
(Gran) Colombia, closing the Andean line as a sufficiently appropriate successor to the Inca.
A successor to the Shawnee; I’m not sure what the best option would be, but I’m open to suggestions — perhaps the Comanche?

Leaders: a Mesoamerican leader, preferably Maya, such as Pacal (so players can finally pair him with the Maya). Another notable Native North American leader would also be great.

I hope moving forward the devs will consider this geographically-centered or culturally-focused approach to DLC packs. It worked well for Humankind.

 

[ehecatzin]

Aztec as the headline civ of the pack, and the most commercially appealing.
Nazca, which is popular and would likely attract interest.
(Gran) Colombia, closing the Andean line as a sufficiently appropriate successor to the Inca.
A successor to the Shawnee; I’m not sure what the best option would be, but I’m open to suggestions — perhaps the Comanche?

I think civ VII is the game where the Muisca have a real shot.

I want to see some new leaders, personally. I like Pacal but SPEARTHROWER OWL is like... right there? and Civ7's unclipped leader system is THE opportunity to add him in. Same with Eréndira. Or Sor Juana Inês de la Cruz.

Watch until we get Montezuma (at his most psychotic) and Pocahontas (and nobody else!) to the great REJOICING of the casual fans and the thunderous groaning of us as a collective.

Erendira , Spearthrower Owl, Nezahualcoyotl, Eight Deer Jaguar Claw, Sor Juana Inez, heck give me Malintzin so that the controversy sells.

 

[moondog385]

At the rate they're churning out civs, there is no reason other than unwillingness on the part of the tribes for indigenous America to not have quite a number of civs in each age. There are a plethora of options, each with super unique gameplay potential. I don't mind having nation-states like Canada or Cuba or Argentina in the game, but it would be a bummer if that supplanted indigenous representation because I find that far more interesting culturally.

Norte Chico (Caral-Supe) are perfectly viable for Antiquity. They have a Wonder (El Paraiso) and just about enough settlements for a full city list, which are the common hurdle for poorly documented Antiquity candidates. There is simply not enough documentation on the Nazca though. At least not for a full Civ. Maybe Religious/Ideological IPs will be added later, with the Nazca Line as their token Antiquity Improvement.

I would take the Nazca Lines as a wonder. I'd definitely prefer Tiwanaku for the SA antiquity civ.

 

[vorlon_mi]

At the rate they're churning out civs, there is no reason other than unwillingness on the part of the tribes for indigenous America to not have quite a number of civs in each age. There are a plethora of options, each with super unique gameplay potential. I don't mind having nation-states like Canada or Cuba or Argentina in the game, but it would be a bummer if that supplanted indigenous representation because I find that far more interesting culturally.

I remember watching the pre-launch videos about how Firaxis worked with the Shawnee especially closely, for language/narration and some other aspects of the civ. That seemed unusual, compared with (say) the development of the indigenous civs in Civ6 or earlier. It was also accompanied by some donations of money.

While I would *love* to see more intentional, direct collaboration with other NA indigenous tribes still present, e.g., Navajo, Ojibwe, Haudennosaunnee, I'm not sure that is a prerequisite. We could have any number of distinct Civs added to Civ7, as we did in Civ6 and Civ5; I don't attribute it to "unwillingness on the part of the tribes."

 

[moondog385]

I remember watching the pre-launch videos about how Firaxis worked with the Shawnee especially closely, for language/narration and some other aspects of the civ. That seemed unusual, compared with (say) the development of the indigenous civs in Civ6 or earlier. It was also accompanied by some donations of money.

While I would *love* to see more intentional, direct collaboration with other NA indigenous tribes still present, e.g., Navajo, Ojibwe, Haudennosaunnee, I'm not sure that is a prerequisite. We could have any number of distinct Civs added to Civ7, as we did in Civ6 and Civ5; I don't attribute it to "unwillingness on the part of the tribes."

That collab implied some obligation on Firaxis' part (self-imposed or otherwise) to work with the nations on how they're represented in-game so I feel like in the case of those civs, it could be very well be a prerequisite. And we know some have refused to be included before, hence my reference to unwillingness. Firaxis wants to get it as faithful as they can in the context of a video game.

 

[Krikkit1]

At the rate they're churning out civs, there is no reason other than unwillingness on the part of the tribes for indigenous America to not have quite a number of civs in each age. There are a plethora of options, each with super unique gameplay potential. I don't mind having nation-states like Canada or Cuba or Argentina in the game, but it would be a bummer if that supplanted indigenous representation because I find that far more interesting culturally.


I would take the Nazca Lines as a wonder. I'd definitely prefer Tiwanaku for the SA antiquity civ.

Looking at DLCs, (not base game) they have released 3 packs of 4 in ~ 1 year... that is about 1 a month....
if they keep that up for 10 years (they won't) thats ~120 civs....
That is 40 or 30 civs an age (depending on if they add a 4th age or not... if they do add a 4th age more likely to keep up the pace more likely to keep up the pace)

so of 40 (one age) or 60 (two ages) post 1500 AD civs... for the entire World ....how many would be indigenous North American. I could see MAYBE two, but definitely not 3.

For Exploration I could see say ~5-7 among the Americas all together

 

[Xandinho]

Looking at DLCs, (not base game) they have released 3 packs of 4 in ~ 1 year... that is about 1 a month....
if they keep that up for 10 years (they won't) thats ~120 civs....
That is 40 or 30 civs an age (depending on if they add a 4th age or not... if they do add a 4th age more likely to keep up the pace more likely to keep up the pace)

so of 40 (one age) or 60 (two ages) post 1500 AD civs... for the entire World ....how many would be indigenous North American. I could see MAYBE two, but definitely not 3.

For Exploration I could see say ~5-7 among the Americas all together

Now imagine 120 associated wonders and a total of roughly 200 wonders in the game.

Anyway, they’ve really dug deep when choosing some civilizations, which makes me believe we might actually end up with quite a lot in the final game (of course, that will also depend on the game’s long-term performance). I think 90 civilizations (30 per era) is a more realistic number.

And since civilizations can now be included without leaders, this greatly benefits pre-Columbian America. I’m really hoping they don’t overlook the region’s historical potential by adding only the most well-known names.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Aztec as the headline civ of the pack, and the most commercially appealing.
Nazca, which is popular and would likely attract interest.
(Gran) Colombia, closing the Andean line as a sufficiently appropriate successor to the Inca.
A successor to the Shawnee; I’m not sure what the best option would be, but I’m open to suggestions — perhaps the Comanche?

Well, I did name the pack "Natives of America" so I was intentionally trying to avoid any post-colonial nations. Even so I agree Gran Colombia might be the best one for a multitude of civs to progress into, especially the Andean civs, even though I'd prefer they went with Argentina this iteration. Maybe both could eventually get in?

the above however does NOT apply to North America, which I'm sure the many American (US) posters here would agree with. To me, it seems logical that the indigenous N.A. Civs in Exploration (of which we only have the Shawnee rn ) should be offered the option to become America, without that being their default or even desired path (Tecumseh defaults to Mexico iirc?). So there, I absolutely *would* invest in one and ideally two N.A. (North American) indigenous Civs for Modern. The Iroquois (Haudennosaunnee) are the most iconic option available, and they can be made to fit Exploration or Modern if needed. Cherokee work as well. Lakota run into the problem of not having a functional World Wonder to my knowledge.

For Modern, i'd say the options are between Haudennosaunee, Cherokee, Tlingit (who also have a Wonder and a distinctly unique culture) and Lakota, and all of them would work very well.

And then I would just add a second option to Exploration and Antiquity for variety? Or at least strive to. Indigenous Native Americans have good reasons to be guarded about how their ancestral traditions are portrayed (and appropriated) in popular American culture, so I'm just going to operate on a 'We'll Take What We Can Get' mentality. Ideally, I'd like to see the Pueblo and Navajo, but that's up to the tribal nations themselves to decide.

and obviously for Meso America there's still a big Aztec-shaped hole to fill, followed by the Taino and Haiti in the Caribbean but all in its due time.

So, in sum, yeah there's plenty of interesting stuff out there for an American pack, so hopefully the Devs understand America (AND Africa!) should get a bit more love and attention in future DLCs.

Tecumseh into Mexico isn't that far-fetched considering groups of Shawnee ended up migrating westward into Mexico.

Regarding Native civs in North America the only tribes I could possibly see as Modern are the following: Cherokee, Comanche, Lakota and the Navajo. Navajo would be my preferred choice with Comanche as the more "nomadic" pick. Exploration Shoshone into Modern Comanche would be interesting, but not sure if that would ever happen.

Haudenosaunee and the Tlingit would definitely fit in modern based off of history, but part of me feels like they would be a better fit for Exploration due to game mechanics, similar to the Shawnee.

As for the Pueblo I hope they are doable. From my understanding the only thing keeping them from appearing in Civ 5 was the depiction of their leader and spoken language, which shouldn't be an issue now considering they can come without a leader.

 

[UWHabs]

Now imagine 120 associated wonders and a total of roughly 200 wonders in the game.

Anyway, they’ve really dug deep when choosing some civilizations, which makes me believe we might actually end up with quite a lot in the final game (of course, that will also depend on the game’s long-term performance). I think 90 civilizations (30 per era) is a more realistic number.

And since civilizations can now be included without leaders, this greatly benefits pre-Columbian America. I’m really hoping they don’t overlook the region’s historical potential by adding only the most well-known names.

Yeah, I think in the end they'll probably have like 25 per age. If they added a 4th age, then maybe 20 per. They launched with about 50% more civs than previous iterations (30 vs 20), so ending with 50% more makes sense too (75 vs 50), give or take some rounding.

And yeah, going leader-less does help potentially bring in more civs like Olmecs, where we know they existed, but we don't know anything hardly about actual people.

 

[benjamin28]

Now imagine 120 associated wonders and a total of roughly 200 wonders in the game.

Anyway, they’ve really dug deep when choosing some civilizations, which makes me believe we might actually end up with quite a lot in the final game (of course, that will also depend on the game’s long-term performance). I think 90 civilizations (30 per era) is a more realistic number.

And since civilizations can now be included without leaders, this greatly benefits pre-Columbian America. I’m really hoping they don’t overlook the region’s historical potential by adding only the most well-known names.

I hope they implement an option in the future to either randomize the wonders available in each game (like in Old World) or to be able to activate and deactivate them at the start. Of course, in the first game, even if it's random, all of the associated wonders should be included.

Also, +1 to having more pre-Columbian American civs, now that a civ can come without a leader!