Jester's Final Prediction Thread

[chaosprophet]

One thing that don't tell us how many civs there will be, but can tell us the upper limit is the number of wonders in an age. We got the SS of the full Antiquity tech tree, which has 6 wonders (i believe wonders are the ones with a square symbol). Sadly we didn't get to see the full civic tree yet for Antiquity, as it still is missing tier 6 with two separated civics. Tier 1 to 5 has 8 wonders. So 14 wonders plus what it is in those last, so between 14 to... about 18 if very optimistic (civics tree has more wonders and one civic even had two, but unlikely the last two would have 2 each). But a more real upper limit is like 15~16, minus the likelihood of some wonders having no associated civ.

 

[RedCourtJester]

One thing that don't tell us how many civs there will be, but can tell us the upper limit is the number of wonders in an age. We got the SS of the full Antiquity tech tree, which has 6 wonders (i believe wonders are the ones with a square symbol). Sadly we didn't get to see the full civic tree yet for Antiquity, as it still is missing tier 6 with two separated civics. Tier 1 to 5 has 8 wonders. So 14 wonders plus what it is in those last, so between 14 to... about 18 if very optimistic (civics tree has more wonders and one civic even had two, but unlikely the last two would have 2 each). But a more real upper limit is like 15~16, minus the likelihood of some wonders having no associated civ.

I think wonders per age is going to be less of an issue. If they are adding as many civs as I think they are, we are just going to have a lot of wonders start doubling up like they did in VI. Which will actually be kind of fun and chaotic I think.

Also, I took a bit of time today to make some pretty rough but solid predictions about how each "leader" (acting as a kind of infrastructure to build out) will be built out into "two more leaders" with expansions. I initially hadn't planned it to be structured around specifically leader paths so much as gaps, but the pattern ended up sticking so well for most obvious areas of expansion in a way that synergized very well with my expectation that each "region" would add two new pathways onto it's "spine," as it were.

For that reason, I do think that we are getting Edo period and not Kamakura (which is more flexible for accommodating an Ainu civ, or otherwise pivoting toward a different Japan leader through Kamakura), and Zarathustra is leading Sassanid at launch, with Nader Shah getting Persia -> Timurid path in expansions. So those two of my predictions were likely incorrect.

I am happy to share the full spreadsheet via PM if people want to review my work (I don't want to scare off the devs from following through on too much of their DLC plans), just please don't be rude about it.

There's a 50% chance of any three civs being released in alphabetical order though, so that's really no basis for a system of government predicting they are being released in alphabetical order.

Edit:

To be more clear, there's a 50% chance of 3 civs being released in descending or ascending alphabetical order.

There's technically no difference between the two, it could very well be chance that they are in ascending order.

3 civs isn't enough to constitute a reliable pattern.

You are right, we do only have 3 data points, I am waiting on this to be proven, but it still so far a pattern than may continue.

So IMO this is all very optimistic. Firaxis have launched with 18 civs the last 2 games. Not only have they pushed themselves into a situation where they compulsorily must release with more than that so people don't feel they are cutting content with the 3 age split, they also have considerably expanded the individuality of civs creating more work to design and balance them. There will be pressure from 2k to ensure they dont release with more than required on launch too so that there is plenty of DLC fodder.

If my predictions are correct, or close to correct, we are launching with 47 civs base game (13 antiquity, 16 exploration, 18 modern) and 19 leaders plus Napoleon. If we treat each civ as roughly 1/3 of a civ, that is 16 and 2/3 civs, and 20 leaders. As compared to Civ VI releasing with 18 civs and 18 leaders, that comes pretty close to parity. You could argue the additional leaders are each worth about 2/3 of a civ (and one of them gets two personae).

And then, Tecumseh and three civs is exactly on parity with the Aztecs preorder bonus.

 

[dagriggstar]

I do wonder if DLC civilisations for the human player can be unlocked by anything. Like you are paying for extra content so that content should always be available to you logic. They can squeeze in a few otherwise problematic choices that way….

Not sure what the AI would do though besides Tecumseh always picks Shawnee and otherwise just randomly picks from the remaining choices.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I do wonder if DLC civilisations for the human player can be unlocked by anything. Like you are paying for extra content so that content should always be available to you logic. They can squeeze in a few otherwise problematic choices that way….

Not sure what the AI would do though besides Tecumseh always picks Shawnee and otherwise just randomly picks from the remaining choices.

I think people are overinterpreting "unlocks." I think every civ will be "playable" at launch, just only through their preferred leader pathway. So if you want to unlock it for other leaders, you just need to play with their preferred leader first.

Given that I am inferring the DLC packs each only have two leaders (in some cases maybe three), that is not much of a commitment to ask players to play two-three games of civ each time a DLC pack comes out. Especially since those pathways are designed to be the most historically satisfying.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I think wonders per age is going to be less of an issue. If they are adding as many civs as I think they are, we are just going to have a lot of wonders start doubling up like they did in VI. Which will actually be kind of fun and chaotic I think.

Also, I took a bit of time today to make some pretty rough but solid predictions about how each "leader" (acting as a kind of infrastructure to build out) will be built out into "two more leaders" with expansions. I initially hadn't planned it to be structured around specifically leader paths so much as gaps, but the pattern ended up sticking so well for most obvious areas of expansion in a way that synergized very well with my expectation that each "region" would add two new pathways onto it's "spine," as it were.

For that reason, I do think that we are getting Edo period and not Kamakura (which is more flexible for accommodating an Ainu civ, or otherwise pivoting toward a different Japan leader through Kamakura), and Zarathustra is leading Sassanid at launch, with Nader Shah getting Persia -> Timurid path in expansions. So those two of my predictions were likely incorrect.

I am happy to share the full spreadsheet if people want to review my work, just please don't be rude about it.



You are right, we do only have 3 data points, I am waiting on this to be proven, but it still so far a pattern than may continue.



If my predictions are correct, or close to correct, we are launching with 47 civs base game (13 antiquity, 16 exploration, 18 modern) and 19 leaders plus Napoleon. If we treat each civ as roughly 1/3 of a civ, that is 16 and 2/3 civs, and 20 leaders. As compared to Civ VI releasing with 18 civs and 18 leaders, that comes pretty close to parity. You could argue the additional leaders are each worth about 2/3 of a civ (and one of them gets two personae).

And then, Tecumseh and three civs is exactly on parity with the Aztecs preorder bonus.

As I say, 2.25 per standard game comes in at 40ish civs. There are less civs in antiquity and exploration in a standard civ 7 game than there have been in previous games. What you have are not predictions, they are hopes. There is no reason for us to believe that there will be coherent 3 part civilizations as a rule. We already know that aksum into songhai is a thing because Africa and nothing more than that.

What's your justification for the apparent generosity of this release you hope for with masses of additional customised individualisation of civs? Why do you think civs like the norse must be in with 0 evidence from the devs. The vikings didn't make the base game in civ V, they're very much on the chopping board.

I feel like you're coming at this as if it's still a traditional civ game with continuity. This is post modern, deconstructed civ. It will make no sense and doesn't pretend to need to.

 

[RedCourtJester]

As I say, 2.25 per standard game comes in at 40ish civs. There are less civs in antiquity and exploration in a standard civ 7 game than there have been in previous games. What you have are not predictions, they are hopes. There is no reason for us to believe that there will be coherent 3 part civilizations as a rule. We already know that aksum into songhai is a thing because Africa and nothing more than that.

What's your justification for the apparent generosity of this release you hope for with masses of additional customised individualisation of civs? Why do you think civs like the norse must be in with 0 evidence from the devs. The vikings didn't make the base game in civ V, they're very much on the chopping board.

I feel like you're coming at this as if it's still a traditional civ game with continuity. This is post modern, deconstructed civ. It will make no sense and doesn't pretend to need to.

Again, I am letting you know that these are not hopes, but the bare minimum structure for the game to make sense at release, with all fat cut, while accounting for nearly everything we have seen. So far, no one else has produced a full picture of what the game might look like to compete with my picture. I invite you to try and then we can compare.

The assumption Aksum into Songhai cannot be presumed when Songhai was replaced by the Abbasids in Hatshepsut's line. If a connection between civs is that illogical, it is not at all wrong to presume that we are being given approximate substitutes until a more appropriate civ is revealed. Unless, of course, you have already given up on the game making any sense at launch, in which case I cannot help you except keep insisting that it will look something closer to what I see. All I can say is wait, and maybe be a little less defeatist/cynical.

I think all signs point toward this game being not only logically coherent at launch, but possibly in such a clever, sensitive, competent, and dare I say magical way that every fan in the series is going to want to buy it at launch. That is why I am posting this, because I think I cracked it and I want to inspire some hope among everyone. I truly hope that can be the case once we see a few more reveals.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Again, I am letting you know that these are not hopes, but the bare minimum structure for the game to make sense at release, with all fat cut, while accounting for nearly everything we have seen. So far, no one else has produced a full picture of what the game might look like to compete with my picture. I invite you to try and then we can compare.

The assumption Aksum into Songhai cannot be presumed when Songhai was replaced by the Abbasids in Hatshepsut's line. If a connection between civs is that illogical, it is not at all wrong to presume that we are being given approximate substitutes until a more appropriate civ is revealed. Unless, of course, you have already given up on the game making any sense at launch, in which case I cannot help you except keep insisting that it will look something closer to what I see. All I can say is wait, and maybe be a little less defeatist/cynical.

I think all signs point toward this game being not only logically coherent at launch, but possibly in such a clever, sensitive, competent, and dare I say magical way that every fan in the series is going to want to buy it at launch. That is why I am posting this, because I think I cracked it and I want to inspire some hope among everyone. I truly hope that can be the case once we see a few more reveals.

I may be missing something, but the only evidence I've seen points the Songhai still being a progression from Egypt, not being replaced. Every civ needs at least 2 progression options for it to be a functional choice, and for Egypt those are at least Abbasid and Songhai.

They may get replaced with something more logical, but that would be a very odd and risky way to tease things pre launch. Why would they drop songhai only through a civ progression as part of a civ progression that didn't actually exist in the game? That wouldn't get people excited, that would just meaninglessly confuse and frustrate people.

So where have you seen that Songhai no longer progresses from Egypt? We know historicity isn't the only criteria fro succession, its also approximate regionality. This is why we've also got Rome to Normans. Africa is historically underrepresented in civ and there's no reason to believe that will change yet beyond your hopes. But the evidence we are presented with runs counter to that.

Nothing about this says logically coherent so far. They've put Khmer in antiquity, and the progressions we have seen have been huge stretches, which is inevitable when you launch with limited civs. You are going to be disappointed with this logic you're using, as this is no longer a civ game in the way you are hoping. Continuity and historicity is not the priority with this mechanic, gameplay is.

Also, I have produced a competing version in this thread already, landing at 36-40 civs that makes sense using logic we know about!

 

[RedCourtJester]

Little preview of my DLC predictions, and credit to @Zaarin for putting me on the path to something that just wasn't feeling good in any permutation until I went back to considering Maya as literally VII's epicenter of South America:

These would pair very well with Benito Juarez (Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico) and Simon Bolivar (Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia), I think. I am not quite sure of Hapunda as a Purepecha leader but I think she and the Purepecha add a lot of symmetry to the region. And both leaders do feel like they connect thematically to the civs they progress through to get to modernity. Hapunda is associated with Purepechan lake culture and her association with the moon loosely resembles Coatlicue/Lady of Guadalupe. Goranchacha's temple is higher in the Andes, maybe even be related by loan words with the Incan Corichancha, which itself had Pachacuti's Temple of the Sun.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I may be missing something, but the only evidence I've seen points the Songhai still being a progression from Egypt, not being replaced. Every civ needs at least 2 progression options for it to be a functional choice, and for Egypt those are at least Abbasid and Songhai.

They may get replaced with something more logical, but that would be a very odd and risky way to tease things pre launch. Why would they drop songhai only through a civ progression as part of a civ progression that didn't actually exist in the game? That wouldn't get people excited, that would just meaninglessly confuse and frustrate people.

It is risky and odd, I certainly don't deny that. It started the whole marketing campaign on a really rough foot, diminishing player trust in the game.

To which I ask, why are they even making this game if it's going to look as janky as it seems right now? Why would they be running with this at full confidence, weekly measured reveals, two Pax Panels back to back, Shawnee stream? Why is everyone so confident in a game where Amina leads Aksum? It makes no sense.

No, what makes more sense is that they deliberately threw out a few illogical teasers to keep people guessing. So that we can get a lot of "aha!" surprises when things start to make sense.

So where have you seen that Songhai no longer progresses from Egypt? We know historicity isn't the only criteria fro succession, its also approximate regionality. This is why we've also got Rome to Normans. Africa is historically underrepresented in civ and there's no reason to believe that will change yet beyond your hopes. But the evidence we are presented with runs counter to that.

Nothing about this says logically coherent so far. They've put Khmer in antiquity, and the progressions we have seen have been huge stretches, which is inevitable when you launch with limited civs. You are going to be disappointed with this logic you're using, as this is no longer a civ game in the way you are hoping. Continuity and historicity is not the priority with this mechanic, gameplay is.

In the initial Egypt reveal, Abbasids were not Egypt's preferred civ. It was listed as Songhai. Everyone was up in arms, everyone was assuming Egypt -> Songhai, and even more convinced then than now that the game wasn't going to make sense. And then the Abbasids were revealed, everyone breathed a sigh of relief, and we all went about worrying about other things like Amina leading Aksum or Rome into Normans.

Khmer in antiquity is perfectly fine for what they are doing, especially when, as is likely, Khmer gets a Funan leader in DLC.

And you are totally right, the game may not turn out the way I think. I won't be offended if it isn't, I just won't buy it. The speculation process has been fun either way. But the reason I have been making all these posts is that I truly think I figured it out. Leaders still have associated "civs," just not in the way people used to think of them.

Also, I haven't produced a competing version in this thread already, landing at 36-40 civs that makes sense using logic we know about!

No offense, but that isn't a vision so much as a running list of vague ideas. A good number of civs are still missing from your pathways. Your idea of "pathways" seems to be based on the slideshow presentation and not the actual game interface that we've seen. And you haven't accounted for how leaders contribute meaningfully to these civ selections in any way.

Let me say, kindly, that a game like that would not make it to market, let alone sell well. It would need a lot more work.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Bro I don’t wanna be a hall monitor here but you just posted three times in a row. It’s tiring.

 

[Evolena]

In the initial Egypt reveal, Abbasids were not Egypt's preferred civ. It was listed as Songhai.

These were "Potential Paths", so one among several potential unlocks, it was never labelled as "preferred" over any other.

 

[Black Gate]

So far, no one else has produced a full picture of what the game might look like to compete with my picture. I invite you to try and then we can compare.

They have, you just aren't paying attention. We can already tell from the provided paths first being shown as Egypt -> Songhai and Greece -> Normans that civ transitions will not have perfect, coherent narratives. Firaxis is not focusing so strictly on that, this game's "values" started out by thinking about London's evolution from Roman town to Anglo-Norman city to British metropolis. That evolution should inform one's perception of the paths, at the very least at launch. It's going to be about civilisations that were sorta culturally related, sorta geographically related, and nothing else. That's why the divisions on release will be something like "Middle East", "South and Southeast Asia", "Americas" and not "Egypt must *simply* have three civilisations that were centred around the Nile" that you continue to talk about. For what it's worth, I think that means we get 15 civs max per age and no region with more than 3 per age bar Europe with 4 in the modern, and I think that's optimistic.

 

[RedCourtJester]

They have, you just aren't paying attention. We can already tell from the provided paths first being shown as Egypt -> Songhai and Greece -> Normans that civ transitions will not have perfect, coherent narratives. Firaxis is not focusing so strictly on that, this game's "values" started out by thinking about London's evolution from Roman town to Anglo-Norman city to British metropolis. That evolution should inform one's perception of the paths, at the very least at launch. It's going to be about civilisations that were sorta culturally related, sorta geographically related, and nothing else. That's why the divisions on release will be something like "Middle East", "South and Southeast Asia", "Americas" and not "Egypt must *simply* have three civilisations that were centred around the Nile" that you continue to talk about. For what it's worth, I think that means we get 15 civs max per age and no region with more than 3 per age bar Europe with 4 in the modern, and I think that's optimistic.

I think this is a defeatist position, and again we shall see.

Just because we have seen imperfect combinations of civs does not mean they are the preferred or more likely combinations to be seeing, particularly against AI leaders. I think all people are seeing in the noise right now is the "combine any civs you like" half of the game, and not the "play logical three-civ paths" half of the game that will appeal to more traditionalist players. I think the infrastructure is there, we have enough signs to piece it together, just most people don't have faith that may actually be what we get.

By all means, people are welcome to keep "debating" me about this. It will either be a glorious validation on my part, or hopefully a really fun, stupid meme.

These were "Potential Paths", so one among several potential unlocks, it was never labelled as "preferred" over any other.

With Hatshepsut's "preferred path" of Egypt -> Abbasids -> Buganda highlighted (and which used to read Egypt -> Abbasids -> Mamluks).

You are welcome to interpret the "unlocks" to be tied to the civ and not the leader, I think people are jumping to conclusions there.

One thing to bear in mind, is that the representations of "player choice" in a presentation are, at minimum, not going to look the same as if we tried representing AI preferred paths. Quite likely, both player and AI share preferred leader paths, but in those visuals, there is a lot of additional noise obscuring what defines the "default pathway."

 

[Evolena]

We've seen a Hatshepsut potential path with Egypt, Songhai, Buganda. We've seen a screen where Songhai had the Hatshepsut portrait as a historical choice for her.
We've then seen a Hatshepsut potential path with Egypt, Abbasid, Buganda. We've had a Hatshepsut First Look where Abbasid was a "considered pairing" for her.
So with the information we have, I consider these two paths are strictly equals.

 

[RedCourtJester]

We've seen a Hatshepsut potential path with Egypt, Songhai, Buganda. We've seen a screen where Songhai had the Hatshepsut portrait as a historical choice for her.
We've then seen a Hatshepsut potential path with Egypt, Abbasid, Buganda. We've had a Hatshepsut First Look where Abbasid was a "considered pairing" for her.
So with the information we have, I consider these two paths are strictly equals.

I do suppose, at face value, one could believe both are equals. I don't think anyone would classify them as equally appropriate, though, and it is still totally reasonable to infer that Songhai were just a placeholder to avoid an Abbasid reveal until the Hatshepsut trailer.

Another thing to note, is that there has been a bit of deliberate obfuscation of exploration era civs, up to and until the point that an antiquity leader is announced. Every antiquity leader announcement came with an exploration civ to mention: Abbasids with Hatshepsut, Spain with Augustus, Ming with Confucius. I am presuming that Abbasid, Spain, and Ming, along with the other antiquity leader preferred civs (so, by my speculation, Persia and maybe Tonga), those exploration era civs will be announced in bulk when we hit exploration era announcements.

Firstly, a defeatist position need not be wrong. Secondly, it's only defeatist if you think that it's necessary for civ evolution paths to closely follow real world history in order for the game to be good. That is a subjective opinion, not a fact.

What's happening here is that you're starting with your hopes; assuming everyone else (including Firaxis) shares your tastes; and then assuming that FXS won't release any version of the game that goes against those tastes. That series rationalisations have made you believe that your hopes form a realistic prediction of the bare minimum that FXS is likely to release. Spending so long thinking and writing about this has only hardened that belief.

Of course, you can believe whatever you want. But you're lining yourself up for serious disappointment here, and are going to bring other people with you (and also confuse them), by acting as a huge-numbers-of-civ-on-launch prophet.

It's not a huge numbers of civs. We are getting four civs in each DLC pack instead of two like we did in VI. Civs are smaller, we can have a decent number of them, and if you need a countervailing argument, I could see Civ VII wanting to at least do its best to approach the number of civs Humankind launched with, which was 60, just to fend off criticisms of fewer options. If Humankind could do 60, surely Civ VII could do over 40, it's not that implausible. 47 + 3 exceeded even my hopes, but again, there is no fat in my model, every leader-civ pathway is fairly and relatively accurately represented.

You don't know me as a person, but my hopes are exceedingly rational. I wouldn't even be making a big thread if I were not very confident in this idea.

I don't think there's any damage to anyone but me here, and I am more than capable of handling that, thanks. We will see within a few weeks whether my predictions start to line up with reality, no one will be misled, you'll all know to stop believing me. It's extremely simple.

 

[Siptah]

While we are at speculations, one piece of information that we are missing is the role of personas. Any speculation that revolves about leaders as „glue“ requires an assumption on personas.

We know the game releases with 18+ leaders and personas. We don‘t know the ratio between these categories, and neither whether the count includes the two Napoléons nor Tecumseh (I’m inclined to think they are included as they are free and available on launch). As we are getting 4 additional personas with deluxe/founders, I wouldn‘t expect too many personas in the base game. Maybe 3-5 and 12-15 leaders.

Now the vital piece of information about personas is whether they have different associated civs. I‘m unsure of this so far. For someone like Ashoka (who is a good candidate for an alternate persona at release due to the nickname), different unlocks seem unlikely imho. However, for Napoléon and Augustus, this would make sense. Revolutionary Napoléon maybe doesn’t unlock Spain and the Netherlands, but America, while Emperor Napoléon unlocks Spain (and Italy). Plus, this would make personas more distinct and thus you get more mileage out of them. Hence, it might be an option for some personas.

 

[RedCourtJester]

That you're "very confident" when virtually everyone else has strong reservations should be making alarm bells ring in your head. That would, at least, be the "exceedingly rational" reaction.

I'm very confident that it is a very good model that marries Civ VI sensibilities into the new three-civ era.

I'm very confident that any "very good model" that answers, almost literally, every complaint about "why does X lead to Y?" or "why does Z lead Y?" I see on these forums, and especially one which makes the transition to three eras as painless as possible for past Civ players by having plausible AI leader pathways, is one that is likely to be the one governing the design of this game.

Consequently, I am reasonably confident that my particular model is likely to reflect, more closely than not, what we ultimately see at launch.

Again, if someone can propose a more coherent model that satisfies all of that, that addresses every historical nitpicky criticism that would drag down public opinion of Civ VII, and isn't just a scattering of Humankind civs and arbitary leaders (which, fine, you are welcome to adhere to that model, I think we have evidence to reasonably expect more), then I think my particular model is probably a good one to be basing additional speculation around. Because I am now quite sure, given this beautiful and frankly brilliantly designed alternative (that I have simply retroactively reconstructed from the data), that Firaxis would not commit financial suicide releasing a game that did not reasonably do so.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

> Civs are smaller, we can have a decent number of them

From the perspective of developper effort, the civs are bigger now than ever! In Civ 6 there only was:

• an ability,
• a unit
• an infrastructure
• leader ability that rarely had an extra unit

Now there are:

• an ability,
• a military unit
• a civilian unit
• one unique improvement or 2 unique buildings + a quarter
• a whole culture tree with up to 6 civics
• a wonder

Untangling leaders from civs has provided some slack but FRX has filled it immediately.

 

[Evolena]

Now the vital piece of information about personas is whether they have different associated civs. I‘m unsure of this so far. For someone like Ashoka (who is a good candidate for an alternate persona at release due to the nickname), different unlocks seem unlikely imho. However, for Napoléon and Augustus, this would make sense. Revolutionary Napoléon maybe doesn’t unlock Spain and the Netherlands, but America, while Emperor Napoléon unlocks Spain (and Italy). Plus, this would make personas more distinct and thus you get more mileage out of them. Hence, it might be an option for some personas.

That's a question I have too. Different "historical choice" tag or "play as" unlock according to the persona would be very cool.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Have you not seen Rings of Power? Financial suicide is very much in vogue right now for continuations of popular series.

You aren't going to recognise anyone else's theories or engage with anyone else's hypothesis on the basis you've outlined above, as you are firmly in denial about what this game is based on the information presented to us so far. Historical nitpicking criticism is not something the devs have demonstrated anything more than a passing concern for. Their Khmer justification demonstrates that they care more for their models being applied to the game than anything resembling real history. They've leant further into the alt history path pursuing that audience in the belief that it opens doors.

I think effectively they have tried to make a rogue like 4X because rogue like is all the rage and think that will expand the audience.