LOW number of civilizations at launch

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.
I think leader choice is also something important to note: Shawnee to America is going to feel much better when Tecumseh is still the face of the nation, compared to if we had changing leaders and he was replaced with Benjamin.
 
I think leader choice is also something important to note: Shawnee to America is going to feel much better when Tecumseh is still the face of the nation, compared to if we had changing leaders and he was replaced with Benjamin.
I hope you’re right, but I don’t think we can be sure of anything right now.

I really think adding a Modern Age indigenous American civ could have preempted some of this anxiety.
 
You know what is the biggest problem? If they gonna add 1 Civilization in DLC (similar way they did it for Civ 6) you will have to play 2/3 of the game with the Civs you have already played to try a new one. Unless they will be adding it in "packs" like. Goths - HRE - Germany. But it is three Civs so probably three times more expensive :)
 
You know what is the biggest problem? If they gonna add 1 Civilization in DLC (similar way they did it for Civ 6) you will have to play 2/3 of the game with the Civs you have already played to try a new one. Unless they will be adding it in "packs" like. Goths - HRE - Germany. But it is three Civs so probably three times more expensive :)
you can start in any age
 
Right, but I don’t think this is a satisfying proposal for many players.
Well if you really want to play with a civ you just got it’s probably fine.

Also if they actually have gameplay unlocks implemented and you just downloaded Assyria, Aztecs, and Britain…you could probably play them in that order. (might be a little complicated)
 
Well if you really want to play with a civ you just got it’s probably fine.

Also if they actually have gameplay unlocks implemented and you just downloaded Assyria, Aztecs, and Britain…you could probably play them in that order. (might be a little complicated)
I agree on the first or second or third play through, I think the larger point is that if you have one civ that you’re really excited to play, the reality is that you’ll only get to enjoy them for a third of a “full” game.
 
You know what is the biggest problem? If they gonna add 1 Civilization in DLC (similar way they did it for Civ 6) you will have to play 2/3 of the game with the Civs you have already played to try a new one. Unless they will be adding it in "packs" like. Goths - HRE - Germany. But it is three Civs so probably three times more expensive :)
There were plenty of civs in the old system where you'd have a bog-standard game until your uniques appeared in the first place. Yes, you usually had one ability from leader or civ making at least *some* difference from the beginning, but as it seems, DLC will include new leaders alongside the new civs, so playing a new leader with a new ability to have access to from the start will still be an option, making the game a bit different even before you get to your intended late-game civ.
 
You know what is the biggest problem? If they gonna add 1 Civilization in DLC (similar way they did it for Civ 6) you will have to play 2/3 of the game with the Civs you have already played to try a new one. Unless they will be adding it in "packs" like. Goths - HRE - Germany. But it is three Civs so probably three times more expensive :)
The two packs you can get with the more expensive versions make it seems like they will be released in packs, even if they have the option to also get those civs separately.
 
It's the message of Shawnee only being in Exploration and the lack of a mechanic to transcend civilizations like in Humnakind.
They do need a way to keep/choose your civ’s name/city list each age…but should keep the forced switching of uniques to deal with the updated age and not impact gameplay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
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.
Also counterpoint to that; If the idea was to see civilizations exploring a different path, then why are the Shawnee not allowed to coexist alongside the US? Certain paths are closed and the game railroads your alternate history a bit.

The point is that one Civ literally does, in fact evolve into another. So the Shawnee literally becomes the US and Egyptians literally become the Mongols.
 
The point is that one Civ literally does, in fact evolve into another. So the Shawnee literally becomes the US and Egyptians literally become the Mongols.
Isn't this only a "problem" if you somehow view the America civ as an exact historical replica of the real USA? But how can that ever be the case, when each individual Civ game is a unique alternate history? Isn't that the entire point of Civ? If you play a game where the Shawnee becomes America, why would you assume a forced colonization narrative rather than accepting the narrative of your actual game, i.e. a narrative in which modern America is built on native American foundations, rather than European?
 
Isn't this only a "problem" if you somehow view the America civ as an exact historical replica of the real USA? But how can that ever be the case, when each individual Civ game is a unique alternate history? Isn't that the entire point of Civ? If you play a game where the Shawnee becomes America, why would you assume a forced colonization narrative rather than accepting the narrative of your actual game, i.e. a narrative in which modern America is built on native American foundations, rather than European?
Especially if it’s led by President Tecumseh!
 
Isn't this only a "problem" if you somehow view the America civ as an exact historical replica of the real USA? But how can that ever be the case, when each individual Civ game is a unique alternate history? Isn't that the entire point of Civ? If you play a game where the Shawnee becomes America, why would you assume a forced colonization narrative rather than accepting the narrative of your actual game, i.e. a narrative in which modern America is built on native American foundations, rather than European?

We've seen the unit models and cities now are tailored to the civ you have. So if you go Shawnee to USA, you're going to go from Native American buildings, clothing styles and ethnically Native American units to European buildings clothing styles and units.

Everyone is clear, including the developers, what America actually is. You could pretend Germany was populated by a massive Songhai migration in the 1700s too if you wanted, but for some people, like Shawnee to America, it suspends disbelief too much and doesn't feel like a continuation anymore.

America is clearly inspired by the modern European colonised nation, that is what it is in game, and the question becomes why force America, a loaded concept of a civilization, on a player who wants to continue playing as a native American nation?

It may be good enough for you, but it's clearly not good enough for some of the playerbase no matter how you try and proselytise it. It is a problem, even if it's not for you.
 
We've seen the unit models and cities now are tailored to the civ you have. So if you go Shawnee to USA, you're going to go from Native American buildings, clothing styles and ethnically Native American units to European buildings clothing styles and units.
Your exploration age buildings will remain Shawnee in this case. Unfortunately, in the latest streamed build at least, the style for buildings from the previous age depends on your current civ, not on which civ you actually were back then. I.e. America's exploration age buildings will always have the Shawnee look, even if you came from another civ (this can be seen on stream where the explo civ was Songhai).
 
Back
Top Bottom