LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Cuauhtémoc's Rage]

Harriet Tubman as a leader plus not having either Britain or Germany in the game to start is the final nail in the coffin for me. Just to head off the Go To Logical Fallacy Apologism, I’m not expecting Civ to be some sort of hyper realistic similation, but it should at least somewhat feel like it’s inspired by history.

I mean, as far as we can tell, it's very likely that Germany in included in the game at release, just saying. And I don't quite see how Tubman's inclusion completely shatters historical accuracy.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The American Revolution seen by many at the time to be fought to prevent the enslavement of the colonies by the British. This exactly what Harriet Tubman, a real person, represents. I don't blame people who are not from the USA from not understanding this, but it's true. A large number of Americans as well don't know our history either.

Ironically given the legal situation in Britain leading towards the Abolition act, the American revolution resulted in the prolonged enslavement of black Americans though. History is complicated, and it is decided ahistorical (perhaps even difficult for some) to have a black leader of America in the period that ends in the 1950s

 

[thecrazyscot]

Ironically given the legal situation in Britain leading towards the Abolition act, the American revolution resulted in the prolonged enslavement of black Americans though. History is complicated, and it is decided ahistorical (perhaps even difficult for some) to have a black leader of America in the period that ends in the 1950s

Civ is inherently optimistic in its in-game portrayals. Why settle for the disappointing reality of American race and gender treatment when you are playing an alternate history and can play out the "what-if" of America not being terrible to minorities?

Complaining about leaders not being appropriate because of when they lived is also pointlessly inane when leaders are immortal for all of history.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Civ is inherently optimistic in its in-game portrayals. Why settle for the disappointing reality of American race and gender treatment when you are playing an alternate history and can play out the "what-if" of America not being terrible to minorities?

Complaining about leaders not being appropriate because of when they lived is also pointlessly inane when leaders are immortal for all of history.

Why settle for the disappointing reality of the Shawnee collapsing to European civilization? Civ 7 is a weird game for those with a view that civ is inherently optimistic. I just don't think that holds true any more - it has built into the core mechanics of the new game that civilization fails at least twice and a new people emerge out of the ashes of your dead prior civilization.

I'm not personally complaining about Harriet Tubman leading America, but I do think it's odd to pose the position you take for this particular edition of the franchise when it runs so in conflict with some of the new mechanics and development choices

 

[pokiehl]

Why settle for the disappointing reality of the Shawnee collapsing to European civilization? Civ 7 is a weird game for those with a view that civ is inherently optimistic. I just don't think that holds true any more - it has built into the core mechanics of the new game that civilization fails at least twice and a new people emerge out of the ashes of your dead prior civilization.

The framing of civ progression as “failing” is entirely yours. The game and developers set it up to be viewed as a continuation and development of your own unique civilization that is made up of the sum total of your choices.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The framing of civ progression as “failing” is entirely yours. The game and developers set it up to be viewed as a continuation and development of your own unique civilization that is made up of the sum total of your choices.

You'll have to excuse that I type on my phone and sometimes it doesn't pick up my language correctly, that should have said "falls" rather than "fails". I don't think the meaning is massively different but I think the vibe is much less petulant than it perhaps came across

So you are taking it the implementation of these crises that punctuate ages and force you to change civilization aren't in fact a representation of historical ends of cultures like the fall of the Roman empire then?

What is it you see the crisis and change of civ as representing? Normans into Britain (if that's a thing in game on launch) is more of an evolution and transition. But most of the transitions represented in-game come about through conflict, conquest, colonisation and in the spirit of a true 4x, often extermination. It's hard to see Shawnee ending in exploration and the USA taking over the reigns in the modern after a crisis as a continuation.

You'd have to be completely detached from any kind of sense of the civilization in real history and what comparable history is being represented in game, or have a head canon where nothing bad happens in order to do that, and just be using the civilizations as skin suits in a giant game of the macro-sims

 

[chaosprophet]

So you are taking it the implementation of these crises that punctuate ages and force you to change civilization aren't in fact a representation of historical ends of cultures like the fall of the Roman empire then?

What is it you see the crisis and change of civ as representing? Normans into Britain (if that's a thing in game on launch) is more of an evolution and transition. But most of the transitions represented in-game come about through conflict, conquest, colonisation and in the spirit of a true 4x, often extermination. It's hard to see Shawnee ending in exploration and the USA taking over the reigns in the modern after a crisis as a continuation.

Difficult times that the civ will go through, which will be catalysts to the culture change, but not a defeat or being conquered or the like, as shown by the small cut scene we saw on Exploration Age stream at the end of the Antiquity age. You're free to see it differently if you want, but like pokiehl said, that would be you wanting to see that way and not how the game proposes it to be.

You'd have to be completely detached from any kind of sense of the civilization in real history and what comparable history is being represented in game, or have a head canon where nothing bad happens in order to do that, and just be using the civilizations as skin suits in a giant game of the macro-sims

Indeed, just as is the case with every civ game, as your civilizations somehow are able to survive 6000 years of history without at least major conflicts that make it barely the same as it was before if it even exists. That is a "problem" where civ always haven't been historical and which 7 isn't changing from previous games.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Civilizations are now age-exclusive. Those 31 civs have to be divided among 3 ages. Assuming an equal spread, that means we'll have a choice of 10-11 civilizations to start the game. By comparison, Vanilla Civ6 with only 20 civilizations had twice as many options to choose from!

Obviously, this will all become better as new civs are added in DLCs / XPacks but claiming that Civ7 will have more civilizations than any previous title at launch is a bit weird when we'll only have 10-11 to choose from

I know, marketting and all that .. but while it's not really false advertizing, it's misleading at best.

It also means that instead of "pick & forget" at the start of the game, you will have meaningful picks throughout all the game, that you will have to do according to your strategical situation ingame.

but if really the game picks Antiquity leaders to fit their antiquity civs, with only 7-8 to choose from we'll continually face the same leaders over and over in SP games.

There's no way the AI will pick leaders from antiquity civs. If you set leaders picks on "random", they will pick whatever leaders comes from the lottery, be it ancient, exploration or modern. Now maybe as you said those leaders will tend to take always the same ancient civ, but not the other way around.

 

[Willie5000]

Why settle for the disappointing reality of the Shawnee collapsing to European civilization? Civ 7 is a weird game for those with a view that civ is inherently optimistic. I just don't think that holds true any more - it has built into the core mechanics of the new game that civilization fails at least twice and a new people emerge out of the ashes of your dead prior civilization.

I'm not personally complaining about Harriet Tubman leading America, but I do think it's odd to pose the position you take for this particular edition of the franchise when it runs so in conflict with some of the new mechanics and development choices

The Shawnee really should have been a modern civilization.

 

[Krikkit1]

The Shawnee really should have been a modern civilization.

I think the religious angle works well with them. And once they get some symmetry on the HL/Distant Land Treasure ship mechanics, they may also let you get treasure ships to/from IP Suzereins

 

[Willie5000]

I think the religious angle works well with them. And once they get some symmetry on the HL/Distant Land Treasure ship mechanics, they may also let you get treasure ships to/from IP Suzereins

That just makes the case even stronger, Shawnee want to ally with the IPs and defend them or benefit from them, America wants to exterminate the IPs and build gold mines on top of their land. They play against each other very well and have an actual historical interaction.

 

[pokiehl]

That just makes the case even stronger, Shawnee want to ally with the IPs and defend them or benefit from them, America wants to exterminate the IPs and build gold mines on top of their land. They play against each other very well and have an actual historical interaction.

There’s nothing specific to IPs in America’s design.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

There’s nothing specific to IPs in America’s design.

Indeed. While the devs suggested that strategy, America could also befriend, suzerain, and then annex the Indie Powers instead.

 

[Willie5000]

There’s nothing specific to IPs in America’s design.

Maybe that’s just the impression I got from seeing the Firaxis devs play as America and try to take over the IPs in the livestream…

 

[Krikkit1]

That just makes the case even stronger, Shawnee want to ally with the IPs and defend them or benefit from them, America wants to exterminate the IPs and build gold mines on top of their land. They play against each other very well and have an actual historical interaction.

It just means they play against the Spanish, Chola, Normans and other colonizers instead …and it means they get to come from the Mississippians instead of the Inca.

 

[Zaarin]

If religion is restricted in importance to Exploration, then Shawnee should be Exploration because it's clear the Shawnee are intended to represent Tecumseh's confederacy, and Tecumseh's confederacy was built on Tenskwatawa's nativist religion. I do hope we eventually see a Native American civ in the Modern Age, though.

 

[Willie5000]

It just means they play against the Spanish, Chola, Normans and other colonizers instead …and it means they get to come from the Mississippians instead of the Inca.

Coming from the Inca wouldn’t be a bad thing. In a game where Gandhi threatens people with nuclear weapons, Inca becoming Shawnee is fun.

Though that reminds me, the Mississippians should be Exploration Age instead of Antiquity. That way Shawnee can come from the Mississippians and the game can have some sense of accuracy and we don’t send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

and we don’t send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers.

I don't see how this is the message of Antiquity Mississippians.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Though that reminds me, the Mississippians should be Exploration Age instead of Antiquity. That way Shawnee can come from the Mississippians and the game can have some sense of accuracy and we don’t send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers.

I'm going to quote @JNR13 here, from another thread, because I think this post perfectly explains why this is not the message of Civ VII.

Civ has always been about exploring alternative paths of history by combining familiar elements. An American civ built on a Shawnee foundation would clearly be a different cultural and political entity than the IRL America which started as an English and then became more of a pan-European settler-colonial project, which would be represented in Civ VII by becoming America from Norman or Spanish origins. In the modern age, you're the culmination of a path including two legacy cultures of your own choosing, not a 100% pure representation of your modern age civ pick and that civ only.

 

[Zaarin]

Though that reminds me, the Mississippians should be Exploration Age instead of Antiquity. That way Shawnee can come from the Mississippians and the game can have some sense of accuracy and we don’t send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers.

...and send the message that indigenous people didn't exist until Europeans discovered them? (Also, I agree with the others that this isn't the message anyway.)