How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 3 - January/February 25]

How excited are you currently about Civ7? (January/February 25)

  • 0 - Not excited at all, I hate what I've seen and will certainly never buy it

    Votes: 23 7.8%
  • 1

    Votes: 19 6.5%
  • 2

    Votes: 14 4.8%
  • 3

    Votes: 15 5.1%
  • 4

    Votes: 16 5.5%
  • 5

    Votes: 14 4.8%
  • 6

    Votes: 21 7.2%
  • 7

    Votes: 15 5.1%
  • 8

    Votes: 39 13.3%
  • 9

    Votes: 39 13.3%
  • 10 - Super excited, I love everything I've seen so far and have already pre-ordered

    Votes: 78 26.6%

  • Total voters
    293
Please do not dance around this - England has been excluded. The Normans were one chapter of England's long and storied history, but they certainly don't represent England in Civilisation.
I think as a Brit, I am much more interested in the omission of a British leader over the civ. I'd be much more interested in pre-England tribes and civs appearing in the game than England itself
 
The Normans were far more of a Viking/French cultural hybrid than an "English civ", and they had many implications beyond 1066 especially in Italy and the rest of the Mediterranean. England itself really didn't become "English" until at least the Angevins and arguably even later than that, and the Normans were more of a ruling elite than anything else.

They are an interesting choice for the time period, and may have worked well as a precursor to modern day Britain with their civ switching in mind, but to say that are the replacement of the British Empire seems reductionist and, quite frankly, a poor take. I actually think it's another example of just how poorly fleshed out their system is; civs that could form obvious steps on the civ-switching ladder have been stepped over (Celts, HRE, Byzantines, etc.) and the flow of civ-switching just doesn't make any sense at all. It's clear they have gone far into the direction of board game design ("hey! Make your choices based on mechanics interactions!") and some people may be a fan of that, but they have clearly not put thought into the thematic side of things.
 
Not at all. Two very different countries and even a cursory glance at their history will show that they certainly wouldn't need to fill the same 'niche', from a mechanical perspective - nor should they.
Two countries known for vast imperialism and being hearts of industry during the modern era speaking the same language aren't similar? You're right from a gameplay perspective the America expansion aspects are focused on frontier settling. But it's still the same niche even if the mechanics would be different.

Edit: I'll even add that I'd rather Britain than America as they more iconic in the era, but I think that would have gotten even more DEI claims and the company is American.
 
I think as long as its not for any silly "anti-woke" reasons, its more than fair to be upset at the lack of inclusion of any civ, as its entirely a personal preference, for me I'm ok with Britain not being in base game, and it has not deterred me from being super excited about civ 7, but I can understand why it would upset others, unless like I said its for previously mentioned stupid reasons.
 
And as an Englishman, that's a bizarre and rather sad stance to be taking.
:lol:

but to say that thet are the replacement of the British Empire seems reductionist and, quite frankly, a poor take.
I didn't say that. I simply said that an important part of English history has been included. :)

Clearly many people care far more than I do - and this is totally fine! I really couldn't care less if England was in at all, I was just pointing out that part of English history is there, it is not a total exclusion.
 
Two countries known for vast imperialism and being hearts of industry during the modern era speaking the same language aren't similar? You're right from a gameplay perspective the America expansion aspects are focused on frontier settling. But it's still the same niche even if the mechanics would be different.
That's a very reductive way of viewing both countries. Even considering the ways they have approached and continue to approach imperialism and industry through vastly different cultural and economic perspectives, our mode of English has enough differences to be distinctive from the Americans. That's not even getting into regional dialects, which can change every 15 or so miles over here.

So, it wouldn't be the same niche. I'd prefer the England and Great Britain of the 17th - 18th centuries to be represented, which would be an entirely different experience both in flavour and mechanics than, say, the U.S.A. of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
I didn't say that. I simply said that an important part of English history has been included. :)

Clearly many people care far more than I do - and this is totally fine! I really couldn't care less if England was in at all, I was just pointing out that part of English history is there, it is not a total exclusion.

Yes, & at the end of the day, as was said before, a lot of this comes down to personal preference either way and I don't think (or expect!) one side to convince the other, and that's ok!

But, I do think that it highlights another aspect of their radical design in that, if someone isn't a fan of these design choices, it is hard to "bring them back into the camp" so to speak.
 
That's a very reductive way of viewing both countries. Even considering the ways they have approached and continue to approach imperialism and industry through vastly different cultural and economic perspectives, our mode of English has enough differences to be distinctive from the Americans. That's not even getting into regional dialects, which can change every 15 or so miles over here.

So, it wouldn't be the same niche. I'd prefer the England and Great Britain of the 17th - 18th centuries to be represented, which would be an entirely different experience both in flavour and mechanics than, say, the U.S.A. of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
This doesn't seem worth arguing over. I was simply trying to justify why the devs may not have decided on including both America and UK/Normans and England, but apparently you just don't see the Normans as similar to England (as they clearly intended them to be going off many of the city names), and that America and Britain at least step on each others ties in regards to what they represent when there is only 10 available slots on launch and a lot to cover.
 
I think this issue can be very simple by summarizing like this: 31 Civs + 21 Leaders at 2025 vs 39 Civs + more Leaders at 2026.

I think the decision was made not only by devs, the finance team and 2K might are there too. They did a lots of things at the last dev stage of Civ 6 for free, so they need proper income from new title ASAP.

And I prefer this, because I just want that brand new title ASAP too. The Civ and Leader list itself is not even a problem for me. If the game system is solid enough to enjoy, I'll take that.
 
Clearly many people care far more than I do - and this is totally fine! I really couldn't care less if England was in at all, I was just pointing out that part of English history is there, it is not a total exclusion.
This doesn't seem worth arguing over. I was simply trying to justify why the devs may not have decided on including both America and UK/Normans and England, but apparently you just don't see the Normans as similar to England (as they clearly intended them to be going off many of the city names), and that America and Britain at least step on each others ties in regards to what they represent when there is only 10 available slots on launch and a lot to cover.
And I guess I could reiterate that having Normans instead of boring old England/Britain is an exciting choice for a start. It's a more refreshing take and, as a plus, it reminds the little Britain or Empire-lover types that England and Britain are inextricably tied to the continent. A win-win choice for me.
 
My pov is similar to Mr Jon of Cheam. I don't particular care for who is in or not, but if the ones in are interesting. Nor am that particular about when/if my own country will be in. Although I get aelf point that it can be very annoying if people are making a fus about a country that always been there and will likely be added asap on the first group of dlcs, while telling other's people country as unworthy or less worthy to be in the game.

In any case, the only reason Britain isn't in is because with the limitation in civ per age at release and needing more variation on the base game for the civ switching system, they end up with two eruopean civs, and between Prussia (representing Germany), France and Britain, they picked the former two, probably because Britain is at least somewhat covered with Norman while the other two aren't. And then I can see in a couple of years the usual larger % of european civs in the game being the case again as with the dlc they don't need to be as much varied as the base game needs to.
 
Last edited:
To get back on topic, as we get closer and closer to launch, and after viewing many of the preview videos on YouTube, my hype is building and I'm starting to come around on some of my first gripes from when the game was announced, or at least accept them (civ-switching). My excitement is at an all-time high, and I'm now seeing how impactful all the great additions are in gameplay, like the addition of towns (probably my favorite addition), commanders, the new diplomacy system, WAY less micro-management, navigable rivers and the absolutely stunning visuals, along with all the smaller details we're just seeing now. I just pre-ordered the founders edition and on the poll, for the first time I'm at a 10. Can't wait for launch!!!:grouphug:
 
I think the devs fully thought between Normans and America there was enough representation for the anglosphere. If you only have 10 modern era civs and include Britain and the US they pretty much fill the same industrial and expansionist niche do they not? Again I think it boils down to maybe they should have just included 12 civs per age at launch and not gross negligence on the devs part.

While I am bitterly disappointed at no England or Britain in the game (even if its considered entitled or whatever, I always play England first in civ games) I think having a mere 10 civs per era will cause replayability issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom