Maya - Antiquity Age Civilization Discussion

[Lord Lakely]

I realize that. I was just making a joke.

It's easy to single them out when they are the only "historical" path that we know of unfortunately, no matter how you look at it. I'm sure there would have been less of a problem if they started off with Maurya turning into the Mughals.

My best guess is maybe tropical tiles will be terrain in the middle of the map, while vegetated could be tropical rainforests, or maybe more deciduous into boreal/conifer forests the father north or south you get?

Marshes can also count as "vegetation". As can mangrove forests.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I think technically any civ could be Mongols if they meet the horse quota, not just Egypt. I wouldn't call it a pipeline. It was just given as an example of how to unlock other options.

I wonder how many more horses Kentucky has to acquire before they start living in yurts

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This would absolutely not be considered uncontroversial in India today!

I guess a better comparison would be Han China to Ming China, but they both convey the same message.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Mughals did appear though, and Ashoka is one of their default leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder how many more horses Kentucky has to acquire before they start living in yurts

I have no doubt you can rent a yurt on Airbnb in Kentucky. I'm in a tiny town in North Carolina, and I know of a place nearby with yurt rentals.

 

[ehecatzin]

I don't think every civ will have a leader. Like even the DLC add 2 leaders and 4 civs, so it means half of the civs won't have an associated leader. It's possible the leader is going to be for Mexico or Aztecs instead for the region and given Montezuma maybe an Aztec leader is more likely.

Given how at the start of the game it clues you as to wich leader is the historical pick for each civ, I think It's safe to assume Maya is getting a leader, I don't think other civs in the region have any bearing on this.

As for the discrepancy between leaders and civs, that could also mean historical civs for which could share a leader Eleonor style. for example: lets assume William the Conqueror for Normans, I mean sure but what if you also want to add England?...no problem already have a suitable leader. Same interaction with Alexander and Greece or Macedon.

But vanilla civs? I'm sure they will all have leaders.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Given how at the start of the game it clues you as to wich leader is the historical pick for each civ

But Hatshepsut is a 'Historical Choice' for Axum as well as Egypt. And the leader for Axum we saw was Amina, who was a Hausa queen (and who might or might not be the "Historical Choice" leader for Songhai)

 

[Zaarin]

But vanilla civs? I'm sure they will all have leaders.

Even with lower production values, I'm very, very skeptical about what looks like potentially 45 leaders in the base game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Given how at the start of the game it clues you as to wich leader is the historical pick for each civ, I think It's safe to assume Maya is getting a leader, I don't think other civs in the region have any bearing on this.

But Hatshepsut is a 'Historical Choice' for Axum as well as Egypt. And the leader for Axum we saw was Amina, who was a Hausa queen (and who might or might not be the "Historical Choice" leader for Songhai)

Yeah, watch it be Montezuma. Aztecs might not appear but their leader will.

 

[ehecatzin]

Even with lower production values, I'm very, very skeptical about what looks like potentially 45 leaders in the base game.

I see the leader quality in animation and...well overall as indication that we'll have quanity over quality, (they just aren't on par polish wise with past civs) but, you are right, there might be a lot of them ha! If that were the case I still think antiquity civs would have priority even more if they are from a region that has few antiquity entries as opposed to..for example mesopotamia.

 

[Lord Lakely]

We're getting 16 leaders at a minimum (15 leaders for 15 playable Civs* + Tecumseh), and at least one per major Civ family I'd say. (English, French, Germans, Russians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and Arabs) My guess for the total number would be around 20, maybe 25, but I'd be surprised if we got more on release.

The identity of the leaders intrigues me more than the number of leaders themselves, tbh. Which random famous historic figure is about to show up in Civ7 as a leader? Sacagawea? Machiavelli? Sammuramat?

*15 is the amount of Antiquity Civs available, and presumably the maximum amount of total Civs you can support in one game.

 

[ehecatzin]

Yeah, watch it be Montezuma. Aztecs might not appear but their leader will.

I'm already dreading Aztecs will not make it in because there's Inca, an Aztec DLC would sell like pancakes,

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, watch it be Montezuma. Aztecs might not appear but their leader will.

Somehow, Montezuma II returned.

Sammuramat?

I'll take Pocahontas to not have Semiramis.

 

[Navelgazer]

Which random famous historic figure is about to show up in Civ7 as a leader? Sacagawea? Machiavelli? Sammuramat?

The inclusion of Tecumseh/Shawnee pretty much rules out having Sequoyah/Cherokee in the base game at least, which is a little disappointing to me because he could have made for such a cool Scientific/Diplomatic leader and the "Not necessarily heads of state" principle this time around is probably the best opportunity to include him. But if wishes were horses and all that.

Machiavelli could be an interesting one for sure, and raises the question of, with Rome being exclusive to the Age of Antiquity, whether we'll get an Age of Exploration Italian civ, and which of several potential options they would go with. The three main options I see there are:

Venice: It's the only post-classical-era playable Italian civ we've gotten in the series so far. However, I don't think it could play at all like it did in Civ5 with the Cities/Towns mechanics as they are in Civ7 (plus, imagine doing the REX that Rome's build pushes you towards and then having every city you've established in the Antiquity become a vassal with no build queue in the Exploration Age!) So, possible, but I don't think it's the most likely.

Papal States: We can surmise from Shawnee having a missionary replacement UU that religion will be involved in the game to some degree beyond just pantheons. That it's not a Victory Condition makes it seem more like a supporting mechanic. Having an Exploration Age civ go all-in on Religion might make sense, but we don't really know enough yet to make an educated guess about this.

Florence: This seems the most likely to me, but I've been pretty biased towards wanting Renaissance Florence in the game for ages now. It just makes so much sense as a cultural powerhouse that defines and is defined by its era. It's also kind of the only one that could fit for Machiavelli as a leader, though I still feel like Cosimo or Lorenzo de'Medici is more likely for that.

I think it's very possible that we get Jeanne D'arc for France, since there's virtually no way that France isn't in the base game and Napoleon is locked behind some shenanigans, but then again, with leaders untethered from their Civs, it's just as possible that Napoleon is the only French leader and that if you don't unlock him then you're just stuck playing France with Amina or whatever. I also think it's very possible that we'll get Argentina as a Modern Age civ this time around (and given the limited number of base game civs and Inca's near-confirmation of inclusion, I think we can expect Argentina or Brazil to be the Inca's successor civ, for better or worse) but if we get Argentina, I think they'll probably be led by Eva Perón.

 

[The_J]

mesoamerican.png

• Giskler
• Aug 20, 2024

I have just added this screenshot.
Could you please let me know if you think this is Mayan, or rather another mesoamerican civ?

 

[Uberfrog]

I have just added this screenshot.
Could you please let me know if you think this is Mayan, or rather another mesoamerican civ?

This is the wonder Mundo Perdido which is based on the ancient Mayan city of Tikal.

 

[The_J]

I was looking at that, but it seems we actually don't have any realistic depictions of that wonder. You got any more info?
I had earlier suggested this might just be a palace of a mesoamerican civ though.

 

[Uberfrog]

I was looking at that, but it seems we actually don't have any realistic depictions of that wonder. You got any more info?
I had earlier suggested this might just be a palace of a mesoamerican civ though.

I think the key identifier is the central pyramid with those prominent cubic structures.

And this digital reconstruction:

Then the adjacent temples with the distinctive roof combs.

 

[The_J]

@Laurana Kanan found btw a gif:

 

[Navelgazer]

Also, if you compare it to the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundo...e:Map_of_the_Mundo_Perdido_complex,_Tikal.png

You can see the "Low Plaza" on the east, which I think is the foregrounded part in the screenshot. This isn't an exact modeling of that map, but for stylized civ wonders, it's pretty close.

 

[reddishrecue]

I don't think every civ will have a leader. Like even the DLC add 2 leaders and 4 civs, so it means half of the civs won't have an associated leader. It's possible the leader is going to be for Mexico or Aztecs instead for the region and given Montezuma maybe an Aztec leader is more likely.

Right, I was thinking this because I didn't see a leader maybe they wont have leaders anymore like they used to but from other posters here it seems like there is.