New Civ 7 logo found via Steam

[UWHabs]

I'm open to alternative ideas for that structure, but bear in mind that it should roughly fall between the pyramids and the colosseum. Potala Palace dates to the 17th century and doesn't fit there.

If the timeline around the edge is a timeline, then it would fit more like the Apadana than Potala. Most of the pictures of the Apadana in Susa at least look sort of square-ish buildings. While I can't find any pictures or recreations that really scream AHA that's it, it would at least fit closer on the timeline.

 

[Starina]

Why did you come to that conclusion? Because both the 404 image and the logo have the colosseum in them?

Because stylistically they are very similar, even the number of arches is approximately the same on the first tier. Especially if you compare it with the coliseum of 4 and 6

 

[Krajzen]

I like the idea that those outer symbols represent the eras. Maybe instead of the like 7 eras in the old civ game, they have "simplified" to basically be 3 over-arching eras of game-play. That would also line up since the wonders around the edge are (roughly) aligned chronologically too.

The question is whether those "3" eras are like in civ 6, where they are soft markers, or if they will make a change so that the game actually plays different in each major era. It could be as simple as each civ gets different bonuses in each era, or could even be where the game in each era drastically changes how it goes.

Three big eras would be very interesting change. Less eras, but each of them has assigned significantly different mechanics, to clearly divide the game into stages? So for example the first era is much more micromanagement heavy than the last era, which is tailored to reduce typical endgame problems This could have a lot of potential. Slightly different economic models for each "big" era, government systems, the way war and diplomacy are done...

So for example we'd have
1) "Ancient" era (ancient + classical) 4000 BC - 500 AD
2) "Middle" era (?) (medieval + early modern) 500 AD - 1800 AD
3) "Modern" era (industrial + modern + contemporary) 1800 AD - 2050 AD

In the third era you unlock industrial economy, struggle between ideologies, world wars, congress, warfare changes significantly, countries get secular etc.
Admittedly it is harder for me to differentiate first era from the second one. Maybe second would begin closer to the gunpowder and maritime exploration, like high middle ages.

 

[UWHabs]

Three big eras would be very interesting change. Less eras, but each of them has assigned significantly different mechanics, to clearly divide the game into stages? So for example the first era is much more micromanagement heavy than the last era, which is tailored to reduce typical endgame problems This could have a lot of potential. Slightly different economic models for each "big" era, government systems, the way war and diplomacy are done...

So for example we'd have
1) "Ancient" era (ancient + classical) 4000 BC - 500 AD
2) "Middle" era (?) (medieval + early modern) 500 AD - 1800 AD
3) "Modern" era (industrial + modern + contemporary) 1800 AD - 2050 AD

In the third era you unlock industrial economy, struggle between ideologies, world wars, congress, warfare changes significantly, countries get secular etc.
Admittedly it is harder for me to differentiate first era from the second one. Maybe second would begin closer to the gunpowder and maritime exploration, like high middle ages.

It could be a less drastic change in gameplay, the third era might simply be akin more to the civ 5 Ideologies, where the game is still the same game, but there's just something slightly different in how AI relationships happen, and you get locked out of certain modes.

But yeah, the middle age is sort of hard to figure out in general gameplay terms. Obviously in modern world history, that would be more like the Age of Exploration, but like, if you were playing on a Pangaea map, a typical civ game doesn't really have that necessarily. Although you could obviously have something like at some point in that era, a bunch of new resources start coming online, so you get a little bit of a rush for resources even in a map like that.

 

[Takfloyd]

The era icons divide the C into 4 segments, not 3. Which implies 4 eras, like in Civ III with its Ancient, Medieval, Industrial and Modern eras.

 

[Gedemon]

Is it? If it turns out you were just joking, I will not be normal about it

Let's call it wishful half-joking then.

But really, that's the first thing that I thought of when seeing that logo.

 

[Vandlys]

Ah! But it's not the staff of Asclepius, which often represents medicine. The staff of Asclepius has one snake and zero wings.

But this is the Caduceus, a staff with two snakes and wings. It commonly represents Hermes in his role as the god of commerce.

Very interesting.

Just FYI, while looking for this staff I just found that Caduceus is often used for medical purposes as well. Even if it started erroneously, I think it wouldn't be impossible for Firaxis to use this symbol in its new usage.

Caduceus as a symbol of medicine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Leyrann]

Let's call it wishful half-joking then.

But really, that's the first thing that I thought of when seeing that logo.

...I'm not sure if this is a saying in English, but it certainly is in Dutch, and it's understandable in English as well: The wish is the father of the thought.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The logo was found here: https://steamdb.info/app/1295660/info/#assets

Looks really interesting! Any thoughts on the meaning?

All I can read here is two different means of production : the cogs (upper) and the hammers (down). Maybe crafted goods ?

 

[kaspergm]

Three big eras would be very interesting change. Less eras, but each of them has assigned significantly different mechanics, to clearly divide the game into stages? So for example the first era is much more micromanagement heavy than the last era, which is tailored to reduce typical endgame problems This could have a lot of potential. Slightly different economic models for each "big" era, government systems, the way war and diplomacy are done...

So for example we'd have
1) "Ancient" era (ancient + classical) 4000 BC - 500 AD
2) "Middle" era (?) (medieval + early modern) 500 AD - 1800 AD
3) "Modern" era (industrial + modern + contemporary) 1800 AD - 2050 AD

In the third era you unlock industrial economy, struggle between ideologies, world wars, congress, warfare changes significantly, countries get secular etc.
Admittedly it is harder for me to differentiate first era from the second one. Maybe second would begin closer to the gunpowder and maritime exploration, like high middle ages.

As soon as I saw the three era symbols, I had many of the same thoughts. The naval symbol on the middle era certainly hints strongly at an "Age of Discovery", and obviously the last one would be something like "Age of Industry". Looking at the artwork, however, there seems to be 4 eras:
1) An ancient era (represented by Pyramids, Obelisk and some Temple).
2) A classical (Age of Engineering?), represented by Colloseum and Angkor Wat.
3) A renaissance (Age of Discovery), with the Cathedral and ship.
4) A modern (Age of Industry), with Statue Of Liberty and Eiffel Tower.

I see huge potential in such a change. One of the things from Civ5 I really missed was how the game sort of "rebooted" at certain key points, i.e. when World Congress got unlocked and when Ideologies came unlocked. Civ6 critically missed features that could shake up the late game. Having a few but major era changes would definitely open up ways for this to happen. My hype level just sky-rocketed.

 

[AffineConstant]

I'm just here to applaud whoever designed this, if you're reading this, original bright marble art deco in a brilliant looking logo, aaaawesome!

 

[tipsoops]

Given the direction the series has been going, I am fairly certain that the Caduceus represents a humanitarian victory type. The diplo victory type in civ 6, along with emergencies, already felt like a prototype for this sort of thing and it is clear Firaxis wants to add a victory type that encourages cooperation to a greater degree. It doesn't make sense to me that they would do a 180 and introduce an economic victory type, especially since Ed Beach (lead designer on GS) is still the lead designer for Civ 7, as far as we know. Plus, the Caduceus has literally never been used to represent commerce or gold in the Civilization series.

This has a lot of interesting implications for the game. I wouldn't be surprised to see the world congress return on launch, along with emergencies (hopefully implemented in a more grounded way, though). Also, the Caduceus being a simple of medicine, may we see pandemics? Maybe producing vaccines can get you closer to a humanitarian victory. It would make sense for climate change to return too. If this is the direction they are going, I am very interested, and I think it bodes well for the diplomacy system overall. I hope they give these features the attention they deserve, since they felt a little under baked in GS.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Given the direction the series has been going, I am fairly certain that the Caduceus represents a humanitarian victory type. The diplo victory type in civ 6, along with emergencies, already felt like a prototype for this sort of thing and it is clear Firaxis wants to add a victory type that encourages cooperation to a greater degree. It doesn't make sense to me that they would do a 180 and introduce an economic victory type, especially since Ed Beach (lead designer on GS) is still the lead designer for Civ 7, as far as we know. Plus, the Caduceus has literally never been used to represent commerce or gold in the Civilization series.

This has a lot of interesting implications for the game. I wouldn't be surprised to see the world congress return on launch, along with emergencies (hopefully implemented in a more grounded way, though). Also, the Caduceus being a simple of medicine, may we see pandemics? Maybe producing vaccines can get you closer to a humanitarian victory. It would make sense for climate change to return too. If this is the direction they are going, I am very interested, and I think it bodes well for the diplomacy system overall. I hope they give these features the attention they deserve, since they felt a little under baked in GS.

If World Congress returns I pray it’s more like V than VI.

 

[tipsoops]

If World Congress returns I pray it’s more like V than VI.

Personally I like diplomatic favor as a concept, but the random proposals and medieval era world congress need to be scrapped. I also think the proposals in Civ 6 are more impactful, and funner the play around with (although the fact that they are random almost completely cancels this out). Being able to propose sanctions against a player, or global nuclear arms controls would add actual teeth to Civ diplomacy, but as long as they are random they just feel pointless and cumbersome. I don't think anybody looks forward to world congress sessions as they exist now, unless you're playing Sweden.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Three big eras would be very interesting change. Less eras, but each of them has assigned significantly different mechanics, to clearly divide the game into stages? So for example the first era is much more micromanagement heavy than the last era, which is tailored to reduce typical endgame problems This could have a lot of potential. Slightly different economic models for each "big" era, government systems, the way war and diplomacy are done...

So for example we'd have
1) "Ancient" era (ancient + classical) 4000 BC - 500 AD
2) "Middle" era (?) (medieval + early modern) 500 AD - 1800 AD
3) "Modern" era (industrial + modern + contemporary) 1800 AD - 2050 AD

In the third era you unlock industrial economy, struggle between ideologies, world wars, congress, warfare changes significantly, countries get secular etc.
Admittedly it is harder for me to differentiate first era from the second one. Maybe second would begin closer to the gunpowder and maritime exploration, like high middle ages.

3 big eras reminds me of how chess games are also divided into 3 parts. There is the opening, the middle and the endgame. I think this would make sense in civ. The Ancient era is like the opening in chess where you make your first moves to establish the start of your civ. The Middle era is the middle part of a chess game where you have established your civ and can now develop it and work towards a victory. And the Modern era in civ could be like the endgame in chess where you make those final moves to clinch the victory.

 

[pokiehl]

I think most things can basically be divided into a beginning, middle, and end…

 

[OzzyKP]

Folks... the graphic is only so big. You can't fit 7 icons in there comfortably. It is a logo, not a blue print.

 

[pokiehl]

Folks... the graphic is only so big. You can't fit 7 icons in there comfortably. It is a logo, not a blue print.

They literally did fit 7 icons comfortably though

The point is they decided to show what they showed for a reason. Logos are meant to convey something, not just look pretty. It’s totally fair to debate what that meaning is.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think most things can basically be divided into a beginning, middle, and end…

True of course. I just think that if civ7 is designed around that principle, it could be really interesting. I could see the devs doing some cool stuff around that concept of a beginning, middle and end in a typical civ game.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Looks really interesting! Any thoughts on the meaning?

Yes.

I predict hexes.