LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Jeppetto]

In one way of thinking about it, there are 260 civs in the first age, and then 80 in each of the other two.

If the game always makes "historical" connections between leader and civ, that initial 260 is considerably diminished among the opponents you will meet.

That actually raises a point I'd never thought about. If your opponents include leaders who aren't Antiquity Era figures, is that because the game is shooting for some particular later era civ? If one of the leaders you face from the start is Ben Franklin, is the game already gunning for some way for him to eventually lead America? Will they always pick an opening civ that has a natural path to America?

I think it's not overly complex. It picks random leaders, then they try their best path, including starting civ.

 

[Emotional Husky]

I specifically address this issue (the sort of CIV 7 era-specific shrinkflation) in one of my most recent videos. Link to the short is here:

Link to the full video where I cover other concerning topics about CIV 7 is here:

 

[CivKirk64]

My name is George Washington leading the desert country of America in 4000BCE, we don't get any advantages until 5/6ths of the way through the match, I'm so immersed right now.

Never was a problem before, switching part way through to something that isn't perfect match isn't a problem now. It might actually be more fun if you open your mind.
Once get get more expansions and dlc (Again... we've had this for 20 years) will provide more options down the road, should fix this feeling of "not enough options"

 

[UWHabs]

In one way of thinking about it, there are 260 civs in the first age, and then 80 in each of the other two.

If the game always makes "historical" connections between leader and civ, that initial 260 is considerably diminished among the opponents you will meet.

That actually raises a point I'd never thought about. If your opponents include leaders who aren't Antiquity Era figures, is that because the game is shooting for some particular later era civ? If one of the leaders you face from the start is Ben Franklin, is the game already gunning for some way for him to eventually lead America? Will they always pick an opening civ that has a natural path to America?

We don't know. They've claimed that civs will always follow their regional paths, so the question is whether Franklin will always start with a civ that can make it to America, or if he'll just have 2 random civs the first 2 ages and then switch to America. By the rules, he could easily go Egypt-Songhai-America, and that would be a "valid" path for him. I'm pretty sure Augustus ancient era will always be Rome. My gut says they might try to keep him on a direct path, so we won't see Franklin do Egypt-Songhai-America unless if all the direct paths to America are taken by other leaders first.

 

[Siptah]

Never was a problem before, switching part way through to something that isn't perfect match isn't a problem now. It might actually be more fun if you open your mind.
Once get get more expansions and dlc (Again... we've had this for 20 years) will provide more options down should fix this feeling of "not enough options"

In my opinion, just a bit more than 10 could increase the mileage very much.

Realistically, your choice will hardly ever be between the full 10. If Humankind is any indicator, it will go like this: 3 aren't an option because there is no synergy with your previous civ or leader. Another 3 fall flat because you don't see how their bonuses are valuable for the current state of the game/map. Leaving 4 real options.

If the newly added civs bring some versatility and aren't all niche, the 3 extra ones per age that are coming in 2025 could mean you usually have 6 realistic choices in each age instead of 4. We don't need 15 or 20 civs per age to get to a feeling that there are good choices that don't repeat all the time.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I think part of it might come down to needing to shift your framing of what "your civ" is. In previous games, you played the same culture for the entire game. Here, unless you are playing a single-age game, "your civ" is an amalgam of all 3 civ choices.

So when looking at an age in isolation, yes it does look low, there's no bones about it. But when looking at what you've ended up with by the Modern Age you've got an enormous number of unique permutations which create "your civ".

 

[Gori the Grey]

10 x 10 x 10 x 26

 

[Siptah]

So when looking at an age in isolation, yes it does look low, there's no bones about it. But when looking at what you've ended up with by the Modern Age you've got an enormous number of unique permutations which create "your civ".

I would be careful to count all those permutations as "civs." It will feel that way at the beginning of each age, when you only have traditions to slot. This is likely where your previous civ choice has the most impact and a Normans with Roman traditions will be quite different from a Normans with Aksum traditions. Of course, you might want to keep traditions slotted more often than not, we need to play to see how that works. But at some point, when you just slot 1 tradition, you won't feel much difference between Roman-Norman-Americans and Aksum-Norman-Americans. It's not zero, but it's probably not a full civ difference. But I think the different leaders and attribute points further diversify the game very much. Hence, I think it's also wrong to think of the modern age as "just 10 civs" because obviously, with several traditions available, a leader ability, and 10 attribute points spend, every civ can go in many different directions.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I would be careful to count all those permutations as "civs." It will feel that way at the beginning of each age, when you only have traditions to slot. This is likely where your previous civ choice has the most impact and a Normans with Roman traditions will be quite different from a Normans with Aksum traditions. Of course, you might want to keep traditions slotted more often than not, we need to play to see how that works. But at some point, when you just slot 1 tradition, you won't feel much difference between Roman-Norman-Americans and Aksum-Norman-Americans. It's not zero, but it's probably not a full civ difference. But I think the different leaders and attribute points further diversify the game very much. Hence, I think it's also wrong to think of the modern age as "just 10 civs" because obviously, with several traditions available, a leader ability, and 10 attribute points spend, every civ can go in many different directions.

You are right of course that quite a few of those permutations will feel essentially identical, but I think it's relatively safe to argue that the number of pretty unique combinations is much higher than 10, particularly when throwing your leader choice in the mix.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You are right of course that quite a few of those permutations will feel essentially identical

City graphics will contribute their part to making such combos feel different from one another, in a certain way.

 

[LastSword]

People overvalue meaning of unique abilities for immersion. Combinations are also meaningless for immersion, oh, look it is civ X with leader A and civ X with leader B (totally different stuff!). Nah, brain will not recognize it, it will be either civilizations or leaders.
Firaxis tries to push more of, hmm, "anchor value" onto leaders that are much more numerous (cause not divided by eras). Like colours, city-banner icon and
with their forced narration that "people do not wage war against Egypt, but against Cleopatra" and so on.
It may work and civilizations will be pushed to the background. If it will not work then games are gonna be repeative instantly (like with a second game).
Obviously you will not be even able to play with 12 players without civilization duplication (if 12 players will be even supported).

Anyway I wouldn't say that marketing is misleading, it is just not as exciting as they would like it to be. And it is not the only case...
Have you heard that civ7 says farewell to Fish Slap combat!?! Animations now linger! How extraordinary, isn't it?

 

[Krikkit1]

In one way of thinking about it, there are 260 civs in the first age, and then 80 in each of the other two.

If the game always makes "historical" connections between leader and civ, that initial 260 is considerably diminished among the opponents you will meet.

That actually raises a point I'd never thought about. If your opponents include leaders who aren't Antiquity Era figures, is that because the game is shooting for some particular later era civ? If one of the leaders you face from the start is Ben Franklin, is the game already gunning for some way for him to eventually lead America? Will they always pick an opening civ that has a natural path to America?

I think they will prioritize that (although if they can’t get a natural path, there’s always a leader unlock)

 

[UWHabs]

I think part of it might come down to needing to shift your framing of what "your civ" is. In previous games, you played the same culture for the entire game. Here, unless you are playing a single-age game, "your civ" is an amalgam of all 3 civ choices.

So when looking at an age in isolation, yes it does look low, there's no bones about it. But when looking at what you've ended up with by the Modern Age you've got an enormous number of unique permutations which create "your civ".

Yeah, in 6 my brain if often pretty single-directioned. I'm playing a Faith civ, or a warmonger, or a culture game, etc... While in 7, I'm guessing that you'll often aim progressions for some synergy, you certainly could have a science focused first age and then shift to a religious game for the 2nd age.

The one thing I know is that given that there's a LOT of uniques at play (UB/UQ/UU, multiple unique trees), it's going to take a lot of learning to figure out combos that do and don't work. To get through an age, have a few options for the next era, and really figure out which option you want...

 

[chaosprophet]

As other already mentioned, the leaders numbers is pretty good as they don't have the age restriction.

For the number of civs, I go back to what I said before: I think it is possible to recognize both sides, one that the number per age will make it feel like a low actual number until they add a lot more, but also that amount of work wise they went over what we would expect for a civ game at release, so I understand they stopping at that number.

 

[GeoGeo]

It's only fair to compare like to like. A single age is truncated by design. Only full playthrough of the three ages is comparable in the first place.

If Firaxis really wanted to cook the books, they could've used Civ combos through the ages to sell the idea that there are hundreds of Civs. It's not an exaggeration to say there's more potential variety in how a single Civ can be played and augmented. Boasting about 30/31 Civs and 21/26 leaders isn't especially arrogant.

 

[Evolena]

At least they don't market it as thousands of possibilities, it's very factual.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

Civ 6 had 19 civ at launch (if you includes aztec that was prereleased and for all 90 days later). But when you played a civ, it was always the same.

In CIV7 you have "only" 10 civ per age. But you have the variation of the leader (some are rather impactfull on playstyle), and you won't necessarily chain the same 3 civ during a game, so again a lot of variations.

When people are dissatisfied with the number of civs, it is because they fear to have always the same game. However, as I said, there are a lot of variations available, so you will have to play a lot to be fed up... And you bet we will have regulary DLC with new civs (think of the last period of CIV6), so the available choices will soon be filled out.

 

[tedhebert]

I think, as many here, that the number of leaders is quite adequate. My fear is that the leaders will not affect gameplay enough. There isn't a lot differentiating each leader, and the differences will come during the game as you level up your leader, which might in the end turn out too often the same way.

As for the civs, Yes 10 in each age is enough FOR THE PLAYER... and will increase throughout the lifetime of the product, which is perfect. As many have mentioned, the problem is more: Is it enough for THE AI civs, and is seems obvious to me that it's really not, at first, and we will feel we always play against the same civs
for a long while. Again, in time, this will get better as DLC pour in, so all in all I'm quite ok with the numbers for base game... By the time I get to being tired of seeing the same civs as opponents, new ones will have come.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

How much I like the game play will make or break my enjoyment more than the number of civs.

Each civ in 7 has as much or more detail as every proceeding version, so to me I don't feel there is a low number of civs. It could feel like fewer and less variety in different games because of civs being age specific, I agree with that.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

At least they don't market it as thousands of possibilities, it's very factual.

What I don't like about it is that it's only factual if we operate on the basis that language trumps reality. They say the things in old games are civilizations, they say the new things are civilizations, if you compare them like for like as the same thing we've got more now. Problem is they aren't the same thing. Functionally they are different, and they shouldn't bear the same name for reasons of comparison.

It's somewhat equivalent to a politician saying they are going to end poverty, then redefining poverty at some much lower threshold to bump up their numbers. That will no doubt trigger responses, but the principle is the same, they are creating their own "truth" with carefully selected language for lack of carefully defined parameters to test the claim.

It's word games, and slippery definitions, and that's why some people find the 31 civilizations, most ever! Claim a bit of a slap in the face.

Yeah it's technically true, but it's also technically nonsense because they are comparing apples and oranges. It's the first time we've had this new style of civilization which is a different thing that shares a name with the old type of civilization.