LOW number of civilizations at launch

[chaosprophet]

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that if we're supposed to interpret them as "America-like but with different cultural heritage" then why are we calling it the US when it wouldn't be?

Because America is the flavor for it? But it is obviously very far from actual America, as even the more detailed use of uniques and for a shorter period that we have in civ 7 still only portray a very small part of what that civ was about. And as many others have said, you can take that country to any direction you want, the land you will have is very likely different. Even if you started a TSL game at modern age with America, it would be still very unlikely you would develop like real America did.

 

[Naokaukodem]

and I'm confident 99.99% of civ players don't want a historical simulator

Well I must be one of those persons among 10000 that wouldn't mind it.

Realism is IMHO a good fuel for new gameplay ideas.

Obviously it wouldn't be a "replica", anything approaching it would be movie, in a very limited time and space, and yet, with inevitable romance to fill the gaps. Or, a book. We've seen books that try to tell the whole history of mankind, or even encyclopedias, but I don't think anyone nearly approached to describe the world from every points of views. (spoiler : it cannot be done)

However we can make a simulator that simulates more or less the behavior of civilizations in different contexts, and the better one would be the one that with x actions at y times, it would unfold like the real history or something vaguely resembling in the context of the gameplay rules. Now push off a little sand grain at the start or in the middle, and everything becomes different. Not talking about playing on a random Pangaea map. The game would unfold totally differently than reality, especially if the player is involved, and it would still be a "simulation".

In fact, if it were not for the encouraged randomization from the start in new game settings, Civ would already be a simulation. Scenarios however generally introduce new rules and narrowed time and space, for them to be easier to "reproduce" History. Every iteration has its scenarios.

Don't get me wrong : every random game with such an engine would be so different than reality that it becomes irrelevant to create it, because the results would be equally different. But, as I said, it could be, it *is* an inspiration for introducing new mechanics ; for example : a while back I was watching a YouTube video of Marbozir playing France on a true Earth map (Civ5). He spawned in the middle of Africa, and soon colonized Madagascar. I said myself : "Madagascar doesn't look quite endemic like it is in reality, for example what I know of it is baobabs. Where are the baobabs ? Where is the diversity ? Every parts of Earth look the same, it's too bad". Now, it is uncertain implementing more diversity would serve good gameplay ideas, but, from one thing to another, we can elaborate ideas that would have an impact on gameplay or atmosphere.

On atmosphere because I will not buy Civ7 principally due to its claustrophaubic ambiance of cities sprawl. Maybe it's a view of exageration just to say something, but I feel the graphics are too baroque, not cheerful enough. Earth is not about mechanisms and cogs, it's about Nature before all. We are a part of Nature, Nature is not a part of us. We cannot live without it, and as we destroy it few by few, we are digging our own grave. That's a message that existed in previous iterations, but I'm not sure it will a part of the vanilla version of Civ7. If it is forseen for the expansions, then I fear it will be fatalist and we will have no choice than to confront the apocalypse, given how nature seems oblitered by cities sprawl in vanilla.

On gameplay, Civ7 invented the exploration era, with its unknown lands to be discovered, that loot to get, etc. And, in some form, the rise & fall of civilizations. Where do you want to pick your ideas if not from reality, History ? If you want only strategy, stick to Chess. (but, unfortunately, horsemen can jump above obstacles)

If you want to stick to strategy only, ideas would be totally different and there would be no way to make a series of it, except by refining the rules over and over, until total drying out after 2 or 3 episodes. On contrary, Civ series never cease to raise expectations, hence the enthousiam and even more, I would say, the disillusions.

 

[Zaarin]

Well I must be one of those persons among 10000 that wouldn't mind it.

That's more in line with the Paradox model, which has a level of simulationism that would be strange in a Civ game. Making a simulationist game out of Civ would require a lot of scripting and railroading that would be disruptive in a 4X game; a lot of people are already put off by the steps Civ7 has taken in that direction.

I feel the graphics are too baroque, not cheerful enough.

I think the art style has struck a nice balance between Civ6's stylization and Civ5's grit--still erring towards stylization, still colorful, but not as highly saturated as Civ6. Both the terrain and the buildings routinely take my breath away when they show us the game. This is how I felt about Civ5, though; I thought Civ5's broody, dirty color palette was genuinely ugly.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That's more in line with the Paradox model, which has a level of simulationism that would be strange in a Civ game.

I never played Paradox games ; the learning curve seems unbearable to me.

Making a simulationist game out of Civ would require a lot of scripting and railroading that would be disruptive in a 4X game; a lot of people are already put off by the steps Civ7 has taken in that direction.

FRX indeed scripted and railroaded a lot in this iteration ; I still wonder how it will feel : but I see another way to play with rules : not looking for reproducing "events", but phenomenons.

This is how I felt about Civ5, though; I thought Civ5's broody, dirty color palette was genuinely ugly.

I have to admit that I find the Civ5 color palette very poor after seeing Civ7 brown buildings surrounded by perfectly hexagonal walls.

 

[Zaarin]

I never played Paradox games ; the learning curve seems unbearable to me.

I'm not generally a fan myself, either. CK3 is pretty fun, but only if you're playing in Western/Northern Europe. Other regions have a paucity of material, sadly; e.g., playing in the Middle East or Central Asia (even with the Persian content pack they released) feels sorely lacking in materials.

 

[Naokaukodem]

What do you mean by "materials" ? Resources ? Events ? Dynamics ?

 

[Zaarin]

What do you mean by "materials" ? Resources ? Events ? Dynamics ?

Unique events, mostly. There's some, but it gets repetitive much more quickly than playing in Western/Northern/Central Europe.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

Historical options and paths might need some time. But unshackled mix&match gameplay should be fine at launch.

This is the reality nowadays. The DLC’s will fix it. We buy the game, and then we buy the stuff that fixes the game. And the majority is totally fine with this. Maybe i‘m getting old, but there were days when they had to deliver a complete game at launch. I know a lot of people will say: „It’s already complete it’s valid etc.“. Anyways, i hope you all will have fun nonetheless.

 

[Willie5000]

But there are differences….
The American gameplay uniques don’t change….but the Traditions do, the unique buildings you built…
we call it America because the uniques are inspired by IRL America…but
a Catholic Fascist Bureaucratic Monarchy whose Capital in the vast desert holds the Pyramids and their closest neighbors are Buganda and the Mughals…has major differences with IRL America.

That is also true if America has a Han and Mongol tradition
(unlike the IRL America where most of the Traditions come from the Civ7 civs of Normans and Rome or Greece)

So we call it America because some aspects are similar…but in any given game That America will be different.

No we call it America because that’s what the Civ is supposed to represent. We’re just supposed to assume it’s the U.S. plopped into a new world next to the Romans and Aztecs and roll with it until Gandhi nukes us into oblivion.

 

[chaosprophet]

That's more in line with the Paradox model, which has a level of simulationism that would be strange in a Civ game. Making a simulationist game out of Civ would require a lot of scripting and railroading that would be disruptive in a 4X game; a lot of people are already put off by the steps Civ7 has taken in that direction.

And even CK3 gets very unhistorical quickly from the point of start. Probably their game that tend to act more historical is Hearts of Iron, and that is because it happens during a very short period and the national focus trees tend to railroad the AI in the more historical directions if the player don't mess things up.

Having a historical simulation for all the 6000 years Civ cover would very likely be extremely tedious and boring and need a stupid amount of resources to even resemble anything like real history.

 

[Krikkit1]

No we call it America because that’s what the Civ is supposed to represent. We’re just supposed to assume it’s the U.S. plopped into a new world next to the Romans and Aztecs and roll with it until Gandhi nukes us into oblivion.

well that is not the US…the US is what it is because of what, where, and when it was…and if they are Preceeded by the Shawnee empire that sailed across the ocean to defeat the Mongols and a major trade partner of the Songhai…that US is not the same….similar but not the same (which is why it can build Oxford and get nuked by Ghandi)

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

But there are differences….
The American gameplay uniques don’t change….but the Traditions do, the unique buildings you built…
we call it America because the uniques are inspired by IRL America…but
a Catholic Fascist Bureaucratic Monarchy whose Capital in the vast desert holds the Pyramids and their closest neighbors are Buganda and the Mughals…has major differences with IRL America.

It is not about realism but control.
It is about your possibilities to shape American Civilization. If I can lead America to the Catholic Fascist Bureaucratic Monarchy with Piramids it's okay as long it is my choice and my fantasy for America in this game. "Build something you believe in" If you are changing Civs every new era you might lose this control. (hello yes, some people lose it). You don't want to use those parts in your sandbox, but still you must. Some people have nothing against it, some people don't like it. Ultimately, it's all about personal preferences and things that help you in your immersion. Nobody can convince the other to change their approach. I think now it's all about minimizing the collateral damage of this huge design decision.
The solution here in my opinion is more customization.
But I don't think we can get full game experience as so understood American Civilization in this interaction. Perhaps more Civs in the future will somehow help. Now set of 30 Civs does not help.
Switching from Maya to Inca or from Greece to Normans is an exaggeration at least for me and my perception.

 

[Barbarian King]

And even CK3 gets very unhistorical quickly from the point of start. Probably their game that tend to act more historical is Hearts of Iron, and that is because it happens during a very short period and the national focus trees tend to railroad the AI in the more historical directions if the player don't mess things up.

Hearts of Iron stays pretty historical if you have the historical focuses option on (default), but if you turn that off it gets ahistorical much faster and wilder than Crusader Kings.

I love the Paradox games, but I also love the Civ games for being entirely different from them.

 

[sTAPler27]

I'm going to try my best to predict the ammount of civs that the game will have by the time they move onto Civ 8. Civ 5 had 19 civs at launch with 1 preorder bonus civ while 6 had 18 and a 19th as a preorder bonus. 7 by comparison has 30 civs split between 3 ages with an extra preorder bonus civ.

Now I like the changing civ mechanic and I don't want what i'm going to say next to seem like I feel like the devs were falsely advertising the game. Some will point out that the devs are artifically inflating the true number of civs as these 30 are split between eras but given that each civ is clearly designed with more complexity than in any prior entry despite each civ only being used for a portion of the game proves that point false in my eyes. The point of me mentioning that is to show that there is truth to the devs touting the feat of 30 civs in the base game even if they will function more like 10.

So to calculate how many civs will be in the game total it depends on whether you're in the camp that the devs will make 3 civs per civ they would've added in the previous installments or will instead add just 1 and argue that due to the ammount of potential combinations due to the unique nature of this installment that there isn't a need to add the ammount of civs seen in prior installments of the franchise.

Me personally I think they'll go a bit closer to the former simply because the fact some civs in game don't have a proper evolution patch on launch has already created enough backlash for them to prioritize focussing on that in the future. At launch there will be some very wonky evolutionary pathways whether that be Hawai'i not having a pacific islander civ to evolve from or the Mayans not having a mesoemerican civ to evolve into. Just look at the very earliest backlash when Egypt's initial evolutionary path was into Songhai before they announced the addition of the Abassids.

If Civ 7 tried to match 6's 50 civ legacy at the end of its DLC cycle (not including leader variants) in the sense that it added 3 age variations on a culture it would need to add 120, which to be honest I can't see them doing. I think realistically I can see them trying to at least get 90 civs total for a total of 30 civs per age and even then that's a lot given each civ in this game has a bout 2 buildings with a district they form, an ability, 2 units and a civics tree. Not to mention that each civ seems to have a unique architectural style.

All that aside I feel like 30 choices per era is the ammount needed to reach the benchmark to satisfy the fans who are critical about the mechanic yet willing to work with it if done properly.

Those 30 civs however are going to need to work within multiple evolutionary paths. Civ has often had a habit of neglecting certain regions such as oceania. In 5 and 6 while unfortunate you can get away with doing so as everyone maintains their abilities for the entirety of the game. In a game in which you're expected to evolve with the only garunteed paths being based on historical ties players of certain civs will be forced along a path they may not enjoy if they play as a specific antiquity civ that has little historical pathway civs. European civs on the other hand that are often very much represented in the civ franchise will likely have a lot more paths avaliable to them. A lot of civs will be able to evolve from a Roman playthrough but less so through a Mayan one. Within those 30 civs per era the devs would bennefit from some multi regional civs whether that be the Ottomans who have ties to Europe and Asia or the Australians that have ties to both its indigenous roots as well as the settler colonialism of Europe.

That ultimately means that more niche civs may be at a disadvantage in this installment because now more than ever does every slot count as they must fit into the civ switching mechanic. If you wanted a civ like the Inuit for example it might not be feasible to add them because for starters who do they evovle from or into and secondarily how do their abilities fit into a more generalized playthough? I do think for this reason the ability to prestiege a culture might be a helpful addition to allow for players to double down on the abilities of a civ that has an uber specialized ability in a way that also pads the civ roster by opening the potential for not every player within a match to take from the pool of civs and giving the players that want to engage with mechanic more more options to choose from. The only issue here though is how to make it viable to prestiege without making the palyers that choose so feel like they're at a disadvantage while also not devoting too many resources to the system when the devs clearly expect for the majority of the playerbase to engage more with the civ switching mechanic.

 

[notNamed]

Just look at the very earliest backlash when Egypt's initial evolutionary path was into Songhai before they announced the addition of the Abassids.

Abbassid and Songhai evolutions were revealed together. People who dislike the system were obviously looking for the antinarratives and Songhai, then Mongols proved to be just that.

If Civ 7 tried to match 6's 50 civ legacy at the end of its DLC cycle (not including leader variants) in the sense that it added 3 age variations on a culture it would need to add 120, which to be honest I can't see them doing. I think realistically I can see them trying to at least get 90 civs total for a total of 30 civs per age and even then that's a lot given each civ in this game has a bout 2 buildings with a district they form, an ability, 2 units and a civics tree. Not to mention that each civ seems to have a unique architectural style.

Civs don't have unique architectural styles. Siam is building Japanese towns, for instance.
As far as Civ 7 final civ count goes, it is a GaaS so you can always simply look at the number of civs planned for the first year of support and extrapolate with the number of expected years of support. 4 civs and 2 leaders each 6 months, likely with some spare capacity for a batch of civs developed as an expansion. 5 years of support -> 40 new civs just by season passes alone. A GaaS has no reason to step down from the pedal unless the money stops flowing in.
Humankind never got off the ground and yet it got up to 86 cultures with 3 passes and 1 expansion, plus some free extras (1 year of full and 1 year of lowered support).

 

[pokiehl]

Civs don't have unique architectural styles. Siam is building Japanese towns, for instance.

Every single officially revealed civ has a unique architectural style so far, as far as I know. Neither Siam nor Japan have been revealed.

 

[evonannoredars]

Every single officially revealed civ has a unique architectural style so far, as far as I know. Neither Siam nor Japan have been revealed.

I do wonder how long they're gonna keep that up for, adding new civs is already a lot more work than in previous games with how much unique stuff each civ has and making a unique architectural style for all buildings has got to be a lot of work (although it is very worth it imo). I'm curious if they have a system for easily reskinning the generic buildings or if in the future they'll start reusing styles/slightly modifying existing ones.

 

[evonannoredars]

That ultimately means that more niche civs may be at a disadvantage in this installment because now more than ever does every slot count as they must fit into the civ switching mechanic. If you wanted a civ like the Inuit for example it might not be feasible to add them because for starters who do they evovle from or into and secondarily how do their abilities fit into a more generalized playthough?

Funnily enough, made a post about that specific example in the suggestions forum before - I reckon Thule/Dorset > Inuit > Greenland/Iceland/Canada would be possible.
I don't think niche civs are at too much of a disadvantage because there will almost always be other civs they could evolve from/into by default, even if the geographic/cultural jump is pretty large. Considering the Maya>Inca>Mexico path the game is launching with I think default links can and will be very generous regarding how actually connected the civs are.

 

[notNamed]

Every single officially revealed civ has a unique architectural style so far, as far as I know. Neither Siam nor Japan have been revealed.

Nah, here's a list of the civs which share the same building styles:

Rome and Greece, Egypt and Axum, Mississipians and Maya () for Antiquity
Chola, Majapahit and Hawaiians, Ming and Mongols for Exploration
And we haven't seen for Modern yet but the screenshot titled "Siam City" uses undeniably Japanese houses so I expect something along the lines of Qing, Meiji, Siam using the same style there as well.

 

[AD1730]

Because if it’s not meant to be a historical replica then what’s the point of calling them the “Americans” or “Mongols” and not “horse culture” and “developed western democracy”.

In the initial reveal of this mechanic, Firaxis touted it as more historically accurate than the old one. I've never bought that. It may be more accurate in some aspects, while in other aspects it is far less accurate. At best, it is only as historically accurate overall as the traditional Civ, and at worst far less accurate. .

My overall opinion of the mechanic is that it creates more problems than it solves from multiple perspectives. I guess we'll see what happens. My hope is that they go all in on it though. Don't do half measures. If you're going to do something controversial which alienates a lot of people, you should at least do it to the fullest extent and give it the best chance to succeed. Then, we'll at least know whether such a mechanic can work in Civ or not, and it will return or not in the future on that basis rather than what it could have been.