Germany/Prussia, Holy Roman Empire, and Goths will likely be DLC civs

[Krikkit1]

Almost everything we've seen about this game so far points to firaxis moving away from linear progressions. I do not expect a Germanic path to be released in a single DLC (not least because who is the 4th wheel then?). And if they do, it would be a tacit walk back on their age split policy and admission that they should have done what they did with India and China for everyone from the start.

I agree... I think if they release Prussia/Germany in a DLC it will maybe be with HRE, but Goths would probably be a separate DLC.

 

[gdr_willter]

Almost everything we've seen about this game so far points to firaxis moving away from linear progressions. I do not expect a Germanic path to be released in a single DLC (not least because who is the 4th wheel then?). And if they do, it would be a tacit walk back on their age split policy and admission that they should have done what they did with India and China for everyone from the start.

Chola is not so linear option for India. If it is, we also can call SEA also linear progressions.

A month ago, I suggested the idea of the non-linear civ structure, but it is based on the limited slot of early build of the game. Of course we can say some civs can have more proper and linear pathway than this, and there will be more room for them in the later build of the game with more DLC.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Chola and Mughals are what I would call diagonal paths. They're India but not the same India as Maurya (geographically, culturally and ethnically).

In a sense the three Indias represent the three big states of today: Bharat, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It's a very elegant solution for a very ethnically diverse Civilization.

 

[Evie]

They’re IN India, anyway. Especially for the Chola who never came close to occupying all India (unlike the other two). Saying Chola is India is about on par with saying Spain is Europe.

 

[Hilton1]

Almost everything we've seen about this game so far points to firaxis moving away from linear progressions. I do not expect a Germanic path to be released in a single DLC (not least because who is the 4th wheel then?). And if they do, it would be a tacit walk back on their age split policy and admission that they should have done what they did with India and China for everyone from the start.

I think it would be neat if they did release an entire Germany path in a single DLC, though I agree it may not be likely.

I think Austria-Hungary and Prussia as the two Modern options for Goths->HRE would be a cool package, coincidentally reflecting the two main centres of power in early modern central Europe.

I do see your point about the tacit admission that some players want linear progression. I think they'll be relying on that to sell DLC though, and will flesh out most (though not all) of the main potential pathways eventually (after several years of DLC and expansions).

 

[Luxerne]

I do kind of doubt the idea of Right to Rule being either a wholly German or Russian focused DLC after the leaks of Frederick and Catherine.

If we're going to also get two leaders in RTR, my guess would that they'd likely include leaders who can have the new civs as historical unlocks.... so you might be looking at potentially three leaders for the Germanic or Eastern European/Slavic regions? Or maybe it'd be both German *and* Russian focused? Say, Goths, Byzantium, Germany/Prussia, and Russia?

Or maybe not. Maybe they'll just consider the 2 leaders and 4 civs independently of each other, and might use both to fix missing links from base game...

Say, for example, a civ roster of some antiquity civ for a currently unknown leader, exploration HRE or Francia, modern Dai Viet and Italy, to be paired off with Charlemagne, Trung Trac, and Machiavelli... and then perhaps leader choices like Alexander or Gitarja to pair with currently leaderless civs (as far as we know) Greece and Majapahit...

Who knows, really?

 

[King of Prussia]

While its not impossible to have to have both the HRE and Prussia, it might be a little weird to have those 2 + a possible Austria + Maria Theresa(she would fit well with Cat and Fred if they are in). Thats a lot of overlap in one area at one time. Perhaps if its an early HRE, it would be different enough. Charlemagne could be a good leader for them. There are plenty of other EU civs that are good candidates to return, so how much should exploration German civs take up?

 

[Black Gate]

While its not impossible to have to have both the HRE and Prussia, it might be a little weird to have those 2 + a possible Austria + Maria Theresa(she would fit well with Cat and Fred if they are in). Thats a lot of overlap in one area at one time. Perhaps if its an early HRE, it would be different enough. Charlemagne could be a good leader for them. There are plenty of other EU civs that are good candidates to return, so how much should exploration German civs take up?

You could have a religious (cultural) HRE based around the 16th century, German Peasants' War, Thirty Years War, etc.; a diplomatic Austria for the modern age, and a Prussia/Germany based on the 19th/20th century. It's certainly a lot though.

 

[King of Prussia]

An Austria in the modern age led by Franz Joseph would be an interesting choice. Idk what year they do the age switch to Modern. Would fit the great War, and napoleonic wars if it goes far enough back. If i had to guess, its in the Victorian Age. He was ruling in this period and saw a lot of stuff happen during his life.

Personally, i expect a Modern Germany, either at release or not too long after.(wasnt there a short video with Panzers?) It was a big player for the time period, and its also a very large consumer audience.

A HRE based around religion could be a good one. There are the crusades. The religious wars. The various wars with the Ottomans including the siege of Vienna. Would fit Charlemagne as well for what he did in Germany.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Chola is not so linear option for India. If it is, we also can call SEA also linear progressions.

A month ago, I suggested the idea of the non-linear civ structure, but it is based on the limited slot of early build of the game. Of course we can say some civs can have more proper and linear pathway than this, and there will be more room for them in the later build of the game with more DLC.

It is a linear option in the eyes of the developers. In their words from dev diary 2:

"With Ages, we thought about several different approaches on how we could handle civs and leaders. This included the idea of switching leaders per Age, as well as designing in "stacks" where every Civ would be like what we have for India (Maurya, to Chola, to Mughal)."

Now I'm not saying that is good, but the Devs are saying that India and China are the 2 civilizations implemented as "stacks". Both areas represent roughly 10-20% of human population of earth during most of civs timespan it represents, and that I think is how they've justified the "stacks" at launch for them. Also helps that they are super-countries that comprise a lot of different and overlapping sub entities in the past that can loosely be handwaived away as India precursors

Germany is a single country in central Europe with less than 1% of the worlds population for most of the duration of world history. If it's the next place to get a full stack full stop, yet alone in a single DLC, I will fall off my chair and eat my hat, because that would be an absolutely stunning walk back on dev diary 2 and their launch implementation, and they must be seeing wider feedback we are not which shows this civ splitting being deeply unpopular with the wider fanbase.

I doubt that is the case or will happen though.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

Another possibility is that Goths and Prussia/Germany are among the extra civs in Deluxe/Founders editions.

Civs from them are supposed to have their wonders already in game too, after all.

 

[gdr_willter]

It is a linear option in the eyes of the developers. In their words from dev diary 2:

"With Ages, we thought about several different approaches on how we could handle civs and leaders. This included the idea of switching leaders per Age, as well as designing in "stacks" where every Civ would be like what we have for India (Maurya, to Chola, to Mughal)."

It can be when we only have 30+1. But it is so funny to see you mentioning the developers, aren't you an anti of them? lol

Germany is a single country in central Europe with less than 1% of the worlds population for most of the duration of world history. If it's the next place to get a full stack full stop, yet alone in a single DLC, I will fall off my chair and eat my hat, because that would be an absolutely stunning walk back on dev diary 2 and their launch implementation, and they must be seeing wider feedback we are not which shows this civ splitting being deeply unpopular with the wider fanbase.

I doubt that is the case or will happen though.

Goth and Holy Roman Empire is even not a restricted history only owned by Germany, you are extremely misleading the topic.

I'm tired to see your exaggeration. The game obviously can pursue the both aims of the playability and marketing purposes.

It is not even a matter that you really think 3 Germany ruin the game or not, because you ALREADY think this game is ruined and you are always weeping about it. Talk about possibilities and improvements, not curses. You can talk about what civs you want, what system you want, and what playstyle you want, instead of why this game must fail, why you hate this game, and why you're so conclusively negative in this game which is not even released yet.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It can be when we only have 30+1. But it is so funny to see you mentioning the developers, aren't you an anti of them? lol


Goth and Holy Roman Empire is even not a restricted history only owned by Germany, you are extremely misleading the topic.

I'm tired to see your exaggeration. The game obviously can pursue the both aims of the playability and marketing purposes.

It is not even a matter that you really think 3 Germany ruin the game or not, because you ALREADY think this game is ruined and you are always weeping about it. Talk about possibilities and improvements, not curses. You can talk about what civs you want, what system you want, and what playstyle you want, instead of why this game must fail, why you hate this game, and why you're so conclusively negative in this game which is not even released yet.

Take your point on Goths and (to a lesser extent) HRE, but the vast majority of people here seem to be considering them primarily as German, in the same way people are considering the Nughals as primarily Indian, despite arguably being more Turkic.

As to the rest, I've seen you a couple of times now respond to me with something effectively amounting to "I don't like what you have to say so shut up and go away", so I'm going to politely ask that you respect the fact I have a differing opinion and stop trying to shut me down on matters unrelated to the topic at hand, or this will be the last time I engage with you. I have every right to comment on what I'm seeing to express my opinion as you do yours.

 

[gdr_willter]

Take your point on Goths and (to a lesser extent) HRE, but the vast majority of people here seem to be considering them primarily as German, in the same way people are considering the Nughals as primarily Indian, despite arguably being more Turkic.

As to the rest, I've seen you a couple of times now respond to me with something effectively amounting to "I don't like what you have to say so shut up and go away", so I'm going to politely ask that you respect the fact I have a differing opinion and stop trying to shut me down on matters unrelated to the topic at hand, or this will be the last time I engage with you. I have every right to comment on what I'm seeing to express my opinion as you do yours.

Well I just hope the conversation can be more constructive. If you want to just let me admit the Civ 7 system is failed, we both can't achieve to any agreement.

If you don't want to say the Civ 7 is already failed because of its fundamental system, you don't have to blame anyone or anything about it. But you always do, that's why I criticize your approach.

You said you'd seen me amounting you twice, but I'd seen you conclude that the game is failed and everybody out there hates it, multiple time. So I become curious why this guy is sticking on the forum about the game they dislike, and why trying to make others agree to them. Does it has any meaning for you or anyone? Civ 7 will go its way, and someone will like it. If you are not the one who like it, you can just let it go. If you like it but have some specific dissatisfaction, you can talk about it, not generically depreciate the game.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Well I just hope the conversation can be more constructive. If you want to just let me admit the Civ 7 system is failed, we both can't achieve to any agreement.

If you don't want to say the Civ 7 is already failed because of its fundamental system, you don't have to blame anyone or anything about it. But you always do, that's why I criticize your approach.

I frequently say what doesn't work about it for me, not that's it's failed, and that I hope other people enjoy it. Anything else you are reading into what I put here is your own baggage you're applying to me without cause, and that's why I've politely asked you to stop.

My reason for posting in this thread is that its a useful lense to examine the intentions around game design. What does a dlc pack of 4 civs look like in a game where civs are now split by era and not grouped together for the game? My observation about the way the game has been designed is that it is incredibly unlikely we'd see a nationally focussed civ, be that because of the words the devs have used in their dev diaries, the precedent of the current roster, the population comparisons of in this case Germany to the civs we have got stacks for etc. there are massive points against it which makes it incredibly unlikely, and my observation is that if they did consequently still go for a German themed DLC, there must be a new reason for doing so that indicates a change of direction.

None of what I've said in this thread has been unconstructive, or even criticism of the game. It has been my logic about how different dlc civ choices are likely and what they might mean for future speculation.

I'm not looking to agree or disagree with you, and I respect your opinion. I don't want to keep talking meta about what my position is though, and I think if anything unconstructive is going on in this thread, it's your insistence on bringing it up.

 

[gdr_willter]

I frequently say what doesn't work about it for me, not that's it's failed, and that I hope other people enjoy it. Anything else you are reading into what I put here is your own baggage you're applying to me without cause, and that's why I've politely asked you to stop.

My reason for posting in this thread is that its a useful lense to examine the intentions around game design. What does a dlc pack of 4 civs look like in a game where civs are now split by era and not grouped together for the game? My observation about the way the game has been designed is that it is incredibly unlikely we'd see a nationally focussed civ, be that because of the words the devs have used in their dev diaries, the precedent of the current roster, the population comparisons of in this case Germany to the civs we have got stacks for etc. there are massive points against it which makes it incredibly unlikely, and my observation is that if they did consequently still go for a German themed DLC, there must be a new reason for doing so that indicates a change of direction.

None of what I've said in this thread has been unconstructive, or even criticism of the game. It has been my logic about how different dlc civ choices are likely and what they might mean for future speculation.

I'm not looking to agree or disagree with you, and I respect your opinion. I don't want to keep talking meta about what my position is though, and I think if anything unconstructive is going on in this thread, it's your insistence on bringing it up.

You can effectively deliver that intention without any blaming words. Your every post includes some cynical expressions regardless you know or not, and it always makes me displeased by uselessly blaming the unchangeable things.

Just say "I think they wil not, based on the things we've already seen - the only exceptions are China and India for now, and I don't expect that Germany will be the very next of them", not "it would be a tacit walk back on their age split policy and admission that they should have done what they did with India and China for everyone from the start".

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

You can effectively deliver that intention without any blaming words. Your every post includes some cynical expressions regardless you know or not, and it always makes me displeased by uselessly blaming the unchangeable things.

Just say "I think they wil not, based on the things we've already seen - the only exceptions are China and India for now, and I don't expect that Germany will be the very next of them", not "it would be a tacit walk back on their age split policy and admission that they should have done what they did with India and China for everyone from the start".

It would be though, IMO

Looking forward to hearing what else I am allowed and not allowed to say, but if you wish to continue this, could you do it in a PM please?

 

[gdr_willter]

It would be though, IMO

Looking forward to hearing what else I am allowed and not allowed to say, but if you wish to continue this, could you do it in a PM please?

I'm not a native English speaker and the whole activities in this forum (in English) are such a hard work for me, so I don't want to be involved so much. I just hope we can have joyful conversation in future.

 

[Uberfrog]

And if they do, it would be a tacit walk back on their age split policy and admission that they should have done what they did with India and China for everyone from the start.

I really don’t see that it is walking back from anything at all. You would still have a civ that evolved through the ages.

Given their model example for era progression was Roman - Norman - Britain (a linear progression!), it has always been the design.