I know it's early, but what Civs do you plan on going for your first game?

[Canadian Bluebeer]

But if they're in, it would be in the modern age presumably. So you plan on starting an advanced game first then?

I still think the leader switching is silly, but I can kinda see their warped reasoning.
(so IF I play, it would be whoever "Grows Up" to be Germany)

 

[Voidwalkin]

Leanin' towards newly revealed Mississippian.

I am too, I think.

Greece and Rome aren't really my style. Rome especially. Hegemonic centralizing entity. Greece was more decentralized, as I view them as basically a stand in for city states conceivably only weakly aligned. They do remain in consideration.

I'll go at my first game with the goal of getting to the USA without using Franklin, so if Mississippian > Shawnee > USA is there it's probably my choice. Somewhat unfortunate. Sorry, Tecumseh.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Revision: It’s now Amina + Mississippians instead of Amina + Aksum.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Honestly, it'll be an impulsive decision. First Civ 3 game was Aztecs, Civ 4 was Arabs, Civ 5 was Persia, Civ 6 was Germans. I can see starting with the Mississippians because I've been to several of the mound-builder's sites.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I always try to find the most vanilla gameplay Civ for the first run. It's really hard decision with Civ7 civilization diversity and I don't have anything on my mind so far.

 

[tedhebert]

Mississippians for me now

 

[Patine]

I can see starting with the Mississippians because I've been to several of the mound-builder's sites.

Pyramid builders far over mounders for me...

 

[Leucarum]

Going beyond civs... I'm surprised how some of the completely ahistorical leader/civ pairings are appealing. For my first game, so far a Maya/Trung Trac pairing has me most intrigued, but Greek Tecumseh looks fun too... The leader mixing might be more of a win for me than I thought.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Going beyond civs... I'm surprised how some of the completely ahistorical leader/civ pairings are appealing. For my first game, so far a Maya/Trung Trac pairing has me most intrigued, but Greek Tecumseh looks fun too... The leader mixing might be more of a win for me than I thought.

I'm pretty sure for majority of players the current rant about unrealistic historical progression in civ switching will be washed away after first games of Civ. Civ is always about alternative history, so weird leader pairings and strange civ progressions will actually be fun.

 

[reddishrecue]

I'm usually a random civ person and I still intend to be random. I try to familiarize myself with the unique attributes of the different civilizations and try them out.

 

[gdr_willter]

I will play a gamble.

The last unrevealed Antiquity Civ will be my first choice in Civ 7.

 

[Zaarin]

The last unrevealed Antiquity Civ will be my first choice in Civ 7.

Almost certainly Persia, then.

 

[gdr_willter]

Almost certainly Persia, then.

Same with my guess

 

[Leucarum]

I'm pretty sure for majority of players the current rant about unrealistic historical progression in civ switching will be washed away after first games of Civ. Civ is always about alternative history, so weird leader pairings and strange civ progressions will actually be fun.

Yup. Though the leader/civ mixing has me more excited than the era switching for sure.

 

[Zaarin]

Yup. Though the leader/civ mixing has me more excited than the era switching for sure.

I wouldn't like the AI doing it, but as the player...I'm intrigued.

 

[chaosprophet]

If there is a 3 era japan/japan like, will likely try the first game as Himiko and go that path. After that, play random for ancient and pick what better fits from what I unlock for the next age for many games. Rather than analyzing every civ bonuses in details from the get go and pick one, I like to get them randomly and then experience the civ and look at its characteristics closely as I play with them.

Well, considering now the first option is pretty much confirmed to not be the case, I will go random leader and civ (hopefully the player random really makes it random and not always put me with a leader and their related civs/civs paths), and try to play without trying to activelly fulfill requirements for next age civ, but instead see what I end up unlocking through playing naturally to see what to pick for next ages.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wouldn't like the AI doing it, but as the player...I'm intrigued.

I'm just interested - what's wrong with AI doing it? I try to imagine myself playing against Hatshepsut, who starts as Khmer and progresses to Normans... And I don't see any problems here.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm just interested - what's wrong with AI doing it? I try to imagine myself playing against Hatshepsut, who starts as Khmer and progresses to Normans... And I don't see any problems here.

I prefer the AI to take historical choices where possible, and I look forward to historical choices becoming more historical over time.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I prefer the AI to take historical choices where possible, and I look forward to historical choices becoming more historical over time.

I think we didn't have such thing as "historical choice" in previous civ games, so why it became important now? Or there was something you would call a historical choice?

 

[Siptah]

I think we didn't have such thing as "historical choice" in previous civ games, so why it became important now? Or there was something you would call a historical choice?

There was no such thing as historical choice in previous games that is correct.
You played against AI Pedro who (fittingly) led Brazil, but he would still behave "un-brazilian" and builds non-brazilian wonders, units and buildings.
But apparently, that's accepted by all players that like any civ game as historical enough. Mix and match leaders still will need some time to get to that point, if they ever get there.