LOW number of civilizations at launch

[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).

 

[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.

 

[TheGrayFox]

No he's not. This isn't an argument for more historicity, this is an argument for flavour. The Devs have clearly flavoured civs based on their real world historicity, and this chap does not have a desire to pretend they are not something the Devs designed them to be.

That doesn't means he's arguing for a historical simulator. It means the Devs have not got the historical flavouring right for him. His whole argument over multiple posts has been about wanting to create an alternate history by taking a native American empire into the modern age and how the European inspired America doesn't scratch that itch, the information is all there for you.

Nobody in this thread has made any indication they want to simulate history, and I'm confident 99.99% of civ players don't want a historical simulator, and instead want to create their own historical alternate reality. We're debating the bounds of what "their own historical alternate reality" looks like, and it is dismissive to conflate a legitimate, and obvious by this point months into the debate, position with a position arguing for the game to be something we all know it's not. He is arguing for the game to be what it has previously been, not what it has never been, and that is abundantly clear. This is a lazy, dismissive and at this point verging on bad faith counter argument you are putting forward.

There's nothing added to discussion by making incorrect assumptions about someone's point of view you disagree with. Just don't engage if you don't like it, but don't put words in people's mouths, especially when this argument has been gone round so many times and you should know better.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who get frustrated by all the constant bad faith argumentation here. It's crazy that I stopped posting for months only to return to the same exact song and dance of users uncharitably taking others complaining about historical flavoring and immersion of civ swapping and not wanting to see things like Boudicca ruling the Greeks who transform into the Normans and then the US or not wanting their Native American civ to morph into European colonizers as them calling for a strict historical simulator where everything plays out exactly like it did in real life.

You'd think the discussion about the topic would've atleast moved past the constant strawmanning at this point and yet here we are...

 

[AD1730]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who get frustrated by all the constant bad faith argumentation here. It's crazy that I stopped posting for months only to return to the same exact song and dance of users uncharitable taking others complaining about historical flavoring and immersion of civ swapping and not wanting to see things like Boudicca ruling the greeks who transform into the Normans and then the US or not wanting their Native American civ to morph into European colonizers as them calling for a strict historical simulator where everything plays out exactly like it did in real life.

You'd think the discussion about the topic would've atleast moved past the constant strawmanning at this point and yet here we are...

I've been lurking for several months now and noticed this issue as well.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Native American civ to morph into European colonizers

The Mexico civ is a European colonizer?

You'd think the discussion about the topic would've atleast moved past the constant strawmanning at this point and yet here we are...

When I point out that Native American civ transitions have not been announce it's ignored. So I guess none of get what we want.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The Mexico civ is a European colonizer?

Yes... Modern Mexico is quite literally a European colonial state.... Founded when the Spanish toppled the Aztecs and established New Spain on its corpse, which later revolted for independence from a Spanish Empire occupied by Napoleon.

When I point out that Native American civ transitions have not been announce it's ignored. So I guess none of get what we want.

You're probably being ignored because we know enough about the game to know that whatever the official transition path Firaxis gives us for Native American civs, we'll see complete forced nonsense like the Shawnee becoming Cherokee or insentitive transitions like Native americans polities becoming European colonial state.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Yes... Modern Mexico is quite literally a European colonial state.... Founded when the Spanish toppled the Aztecs and established New Spain on its corpse, which later revolted for independence from a Spanish Empire occupied by Napoleon.

Yeah it is. However, most Mexicans can thrace their lineage back to either the Spanish or the indigenous people that lived in Mexico (Aztecs, Mayans, Zapotecs), so *on paper* they're both viable paths. It's become its own thing.

It's perfectly viable to dislike and criticise the 3 Age methodology, and the fact that Mayans, Incans and Shawnee lead into Mexico. I am personally not bothered by it, and recognise that it's a Lesser of Multiple Evils type of solution.

You're probably being ignored because we know enough about the game to know that whatever the official transition path Firaxis gives us for Native American civs, we'll see complete forced nonsense like the Shawnee becoming Cherokee or insentitive transitions like Native americans polities becoming European colonial state.

If the Shawnee themselves have no issue with the possibility of being absorbed America, Mexico and Cherokee, I don't understand why I should.

That said, I have no refutation for your argument. The pathways are a mess, and some are going to remain a mess forever, no matter how many Civs you add. That is the choice the devs made for themselves and if you desire to criticise that, I won't stop you. The final argument that the I would l make is that you can theoretically become anyone in any Era anyway, as long as you unlock the unique prerequisites and that linnear progression only exists for determining the AI's paths.

(just don't expect me to agree with *every* point you make. but that's the nature of a healthy discussion. ideas and opinion clash. and that leads to insight.)