LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Krikkit1]

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

 

[queenpea]

you can start in any age

Right, but I don’t think this is a satisfying proposal for many players.

 

[Krikkit1]

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)

 

[queenpea]

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.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

True…but that was already true for many civs once UU were introduced

 

[queenpea]

True…but that was already true for many civs once UU were introduced

Agreed, definitely. I think the question here is how or if this changes DLC pricing etc. As in, is a civ you can play 1/3 of play through priced the same as previous DLC?

 

[JNR13]

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.

 

[chaosprophet]

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.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Well if you really want to play with a civ you just got it’s probably fine.

No, it's not Sorry

 

[Willie5000]

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

It's the message of Shawnee only being in Exploration and the lack of a mechanic to transcend civilizations like in Humnakind.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

 

[Willie5000]

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.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

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!

 

[Krikkit1]

Especially if it’s led by President Tecumseh!

Or Empress Hatshepsut

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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.

 

[JNR13]

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).

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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.

I don't want to get into another long debate about the pros and cons of switching, which is where this is heading. Been there, done that! "Why are the Shawnee not allowed to coexist alongside the US?", "why force America, a loaded concept of a civilization, on a player who wants to continue playing as a native American nation?"; I understand that many people are not happy about it, but that's how Civ VII works, what is left to be said?

The original point that I wanted to counter was this idea that we shouldn't "send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers".

I simply contend that this isn't the message, since each civ game is a unique alternate history with its own narrative. Sure, everyone knows what America are based on, but you write a new history for America every time you play a game, and isn't that why we play at all? Suspension of disbelief is bread and butter for Civ.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't want to get into another long debate about the pros and cons of switching, which is where this is heading. Been there, done that! "Why are the Shawnee not allowed to coexist alongside the US?", "why force America, a loaded concept of a civilization, on a player who wants to continue playing as a native American nation?"; I understand that many people are not happy about it, but that's how Civ VII works, what is left to be said?

The original point that I wanted to counter was this idea that we shouldn't "send the message that indigenous people are inevitably going extinct at the hands of European colonizers".

I simply contend that this isn't the message, since each civ game is a unique alternate history with its own narrative. Sure, everyone knows what America are based on, but you write a new history for America every time you play a game, and isn't that why we play at all? Suspension of disbelief is bread and butter for Civ.

And I respectfully disagree, as I believe this is the implicit message based on their implementation, even if it isn't intended. They've just cheaped out and made it the de factory case IMO

But as you say, plenty has been said on it and we aren't going to change each others minds!

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

there isn’t one America civ in game (unless you do advanced start)

Instead, in game America can have Norman and Roman Traditions+Unique Infrastructure or Songhai and Han Traditions + Unique Infrastructure

The transition from one civ to another can be imagined in many different ways.

You can assume diseases killed most of your people, hostile invaders came, killed most of the rest, burned your cities, and rebuilt on the ashes

Or you can assume new ideas were introduced for a new age (and maybe enough migrants came in to change the skin tone of the infantry units with their numbers….or maybe the new population just is over represented in the military)

Civ 7 game mechanics work far better with the second assumption than the first.


That said, they REALLY REALLY need to let you keep your civ name/city list/generic unit graphics.
It would be far better if the Shawnee could go to Shawnee…just with a Shawnee industrial park (that doesn’t quite graphically match the others) and white Marines and Prospectors (but native cavalry and cannons)….and new civics of Shawnee Yankee Ingenuity and Shawnee Captains of Industry
and Shawnee Wartime Manufacturing (since that is how the Shawnee in this alt history decided to approach the modern world)