pre-release info New Civ Game Guide: Majapahit

[Zaarin]

As many on these forums have noted, the rationale seems to be that the safer leader choices are meant to counterbalance the drastic change that is civ switching and uncoupled leaders. I'd give it a few DLC packs, and then we can see if the leader diversity has improved.

Indeed; I've suggested it myself. I just find it rather disappointing after Civ6 made some bolder, more interesting choices. I'd love to actually have to look up who a leader is, and so far that looks unlikely in Civ7.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Indeed; I've suggested it myself. I just find it rather disappointing after Civ6 made some bolder, more interesting choices. I'd love to actually have to look up who a leader is, and so far that looks unlikely in Civ7.

On the other hand, assuming that they are trying to 'ease' the gaming public into the whole Switcheroo Civ mechanic, one could hope that after a year or so and more familiarity with Civ VII (assuming, of course, that the gaming public does not reject the whole idea and the game does a Humankind Hindenburg), future DLCs will offer a more varied and creative set of Leader choices as well as 'filling in' the progressions more completely.

 

[Zaarin]

On the other hand, assuming that they are trying to 'ease' the gaming public into the whole Switcheroo Civ mechanic, one could hope that after a year or so and more familiarity with Civ VII (assuming, of course, that the gaming public does not reject the whole idea and the game does a Humankind Hindenburg), future DLCs will offer a more varied and creative set of Leader choices as well as 'filling in' the progressions more completely.

True. We might also get some of Civ6's more popular wildcard choices like Tomyris and/or Tamar back. (Is it even a Civ game at this point if we don't have Tamar of Georgia? )

 

[Cuauhtémoc's Rage]

Scythia does make a pretty good antiquity civ for 7, so maybe in the future... Fingers crossed at least. Mapuche and/or Lautaro would be pretty good choices for DLC too.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

True. We might also get some of Civ6's more popular wildcard choices like Tomyris and/or Tamar back. (Is it even a Civ game at this point if we don't have Tamar of Georgia? )

Given the length of the baggage train that Civ carries with it after 6 major game versions and several 'off shoots' (ToT, Colonization, etc), I suspect that somewhere the design team has a list of potential Revivals ranging from an advisor doing an Elvis impression to a Gandhi doing the worst sort of Machiavelli impression to Tamar and her Masonic impression and Amazonish Tomyris doing her Genghis impression.

- And you are right: it wouldn't feel entirely like Civ without at least one of them . . .

 

[Kwami]

Indeed; I've suggested it myself. I just find it rather disappointing after Civ6 made some bolder, more interesting choices. I'd love to actually have to look up who a leader is, and so far that looks unlikely in Civ7.

I can't imagine that you had to look up Teddy Roosevelt, either. Ben Franklin is at least as unexpected as TR, if not more so. And who guessed Machiavelli or Himiko? I think that VII has plenty of unexpected leaders already.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Im personally satisfied with the leaders. Its good mix of old favorites and new faces.

They are picking quite a lot of leaders that have been in previous Civ games, but not in Civ 6. Out of 14 known leaders only Pachacuti was in Civ 6. 50% of the leaders are new to the series as leaders (Amina, Benjamin Franklin, Confucius, Himiko, Machiavelli, Tecumseh, Trung Trac).

 

[Zaarin]

I can't imagine that you had to look up Teddy Roosevelt, either.

Of course not, but he was a nice break from "George Washington or Abraham Lincoln." TBH he's the most interesting choice they've ever made for America, whether in leader or mechanics.

Ben Franklin is at least as unexpected as TR, if not more so.

He's been an extremely popular proposal for American leader for as long as I've been around here, but not one that I've ever found particularly exciting. (Granted, I'm not the target audience. If America had no leader, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.) The only more predictable choice they could have gone with was George Washington again.

And who guessed Machiavelli or Himiko?

Me, at least for Machiavelli. I wouldn't have guessed Himiko, but I wasn't surprised by her, either. It's clear the devs like her, and she's been referenced several times in the series before. (Alas, I was hoping for Hojo Masako, the Nun Shogun.)

I think that VII has plenty of unexpected leaders already.

I haven't been really surprised yet. Amina was a very small surprise. Machiavelli came earlier than I expected. Trung Trac was by popular demand; the only surprise was her inclusion in the absence of a Vietnamese civ. But so far we haven't had a Tomyris or Catherine de Medici or Hojo Tokimune or Lautaro or even a Tamar of Georgia. Much like Civ5, the leader selections have all been among the leaders with the highest pop history and pop culture profiles among their respective civilizations.

 

[The Fanatical]

No, but the opposite view that most of the famous leaders are boring choices is equally valid. One of my biggest disappointments with Civ7, aside from the bad take on religion, is that they've gone back to Civ5's "marble hall" philosophy of leader selection. Civ6 made much more interesting choices, and not just with female leaders--e.g., who expected Hojo Tokimune or Teddy Roosevelt? I get some people want the "these leaders and civs were mentioned in my grade school history classes" take on Civilization, but I personally find that vision extremely, extremely dull. (And I'm not saying they're wrong for having it, but I wouldn't want to play a version of Civ built around that philosophy myself.) I'm still waiting for Civ7 to really surprise me with a leader choice, but at least that's been offset by some pleasant surprises among the civs (particularly Mississippians).

To our minds, they appear boring because we know everything about their lives that history has to teach us, but generally the most famous rulers are the most interesting choices. I share your sentiment though, I really want to see new leaders for every old civilization in the game that will make me want to try this new iteration even more, and Firaxis seems to not follow this kind of ideology for the base game at least.

 

[Evie]

True. We might also get some of Civ6's more popular wildcard choices like Tomyris and/or Tamar back. (Is it even a Civ game at this point if we don't have Tamar of Georgia? )

Scythia does make a pretty good antiquity civ for 7, so maybe in the future... Fingers crossed at least. Mapuche and/or Lautaro would be pretty good choices for DLC too.

Scythia does happen to have a lot of very nice flexibility in term of serving as an antiquity precursor to lots of other civs. The advatnages of a)occuoying a very wide area and b)being relatively ibscure historically and c) having a wide number of historical claims and theories on where you descendants are.

 

[Zaarin]

To our minds, they appear boring because we know everything about their lives that history has to teach us, but generally the most famous rulers are the most interesting choices. I share your sentiment though, I really want to see new leaders for every old civilization in the game that will make me want to try the game even more, and Firaxis seems to not follow this kind of ideology for the base game at least.

I think to some degree it also depends on whether one is more excited/interested in what is familiar (which, in general, is more common) or what is unfamiliar (which is me along with a comparable minority of the human species).

Scythia does happen to have a lot of very nice flexibility in term of serving as an antiquity precursor to lots of other civs. The advatnages of a)occuoying a very wide area and b)being relatively ibscure historically and c) having a wide number of historical claims and theories on where you descendants are.

I agree; Scythia feels like a prime fit for Civ7's model.

 

[moondog385]

No, but the opposite view that most of the famous leaders are boring choices is equally valid. One of my biggest disappointments with Civ7, aside from the bad take on religion, is that they've gone back to Civ5's "marble hall" philosophy of leader selection. Civ6 made much more interesting choices, and not just with female leaders--e.g., who expected Hojo Tokimune or Teddy Roosevelt? I get some people want the "these leaders and civs were mentioned in my grade school history classes" take on Civilization, but I personally find that vision extremely, extremely dull. (And I'm not saying they're wrong for having it, but I wouldn't want to play a version of Civ built around that philosophy myself.) I'm still waiting for Civ7 to really surprise me with a leader choice, but at least that's been offset by some pleasant surprises among the civs (particularly Mississippians).

Same here. The leader choices have been kinda rote. I’m expecting the trend to continue, but I hope we get some surprises. Alexander, Genghis Khan, Montezuma, Julius Caesar, Elizabeth, and Hammurabi are practically shoo-ins. (Probably Lincoln too)

 

[Evie]

Especially if you approach it as broad Scythia (eg, including the Scythians, Partians, Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Saka)...that's, what, connections into Slavic, Germanic, Turkic, Iranian and Mongolian cultures, or thereabout?

 

[AriochIV]

Alas, Scythia is an independent power in Civ7.

 

[Evie]

So were the Dutch, Babylonians, Koreans, Swedes, Carthaginains-Phoenicians, Portuguese, Mayans and Canadians at various points in Civ VI history (well, City States, but same difference). All of them became full-fledge civs.

I wouldn't worry too much about being an independent power and the chance to become a civ in future expansions or DLCs.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think to some degree it also depends on whether one is more excited/interested in what is familiar (which, in general, is more common) or what is unfamiliar (which is me along with a comparable minority of the human species).


I agree; Scythia feels like a prime fit for Civ7's model.

The only real alternative to Scythia for all the reasons mentioned: area covered, contacts, etc, would/might be the Xiong-nu. They occupied primarily some of the same territory the Mongols did later, they had contacts all the way across central Asia to the Urals, including dipping their bridles into the early Silk Road, and they drove the Yuezhi west which precipitated the Kushan Empire that was a middleman trading partner with Rome, Persia, India, and China and helped spread such interesting items as Buddhism across Asia into China.

The Xiong-Nu, then, could very well progress to Mongols, provide an alternate progression to Exploration India or Persia.

Scythia, of course, provides many of the same advantages, but Second Hand: they were largely replaced in western Asia by the Sarmatian tribes, and although the term 'Scythia' was used for centuries after they were gone, the later influence was not directly from Scythians. Of course, as I've said before: ya seen one horse-riding bowman with a wrap-around tunic, ya seen 'em all, so in Game Terms that's not significant.

I would just hope that any design of a central Asian Pastoral Antiquity Civ takes advantage of the fact that they were virtually all noted for their very colorful patterned clothing: the Patzryk tombs have demonstrated that bright reds and blues were available to them and they used them to weave striped, checked, 'sem-tartan' and other patterns into their clothing and wear them in the field: could make for some of the most colorful units in the game (as long as the game doesn't also model the heavy layer of dirt and dust the encrusted all of them, since a common belief was that rivers were too important to be polluted by washing in them)

 

[The Fanatical]

Scythia does happen to have a lot of very nice flexibility in term of serving as an antiquity precursor to lots of other civs. The advatnages of a)occuoying a very wide area and b)being relatively ibscure historically and c) having a wide number of historical claims and theories on where you descendants are.

I would love to see Scythia back, but If we are realistic, there are two alternatives that seem more probable. Parthia and the Huns. I expect the Huns' return the most out of all three choices because they were absent from Civilization VI. The common problem with the Huns and the Scythians though is the lack of authentic city names. The Scythians at least can get the names of their tribes as city names. Parthia will be entirely new to the series and doesn't have that problem, but I don't know if they will make an appearance with Achaemenid Persia in the game and Sassanid Persia as a possible civilization for the Exploration Age.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Especially if you approach it as broad Scythia (eg, including the Scythians, Partians, Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Saka)...that's, what, connections into Slavic, Germanic, Turkic, Iranian and Mongolian cultures, or thereabout?

What the Hellenistic/Roman Imperial period writers called "Greater Scythia" and modern archeologists call "Scytho-Siberia" - the latter of which covers from the Danube to the Yenesei and Han borders of China. As posted, even though the term is more geographically-depictive than specifically cultural (and certainly not political), there are just enough common characteristics to make it work in game terms: horse-riding, herding archers with bright clothing, kurgans, wide-ranging trade and potential progressions to almost every culture they touched, from central Europe to China.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I would love to see Scythia back, but If we are realistic, there are two alternatives that seem more probable. Parthia and the Huns. I expect the Huns' return the most out of all three choices because they were absent from Civilization VI. The common problem with the Huns and the Scythians though is the lack of authentic city names. The Scythians at least can get the names of their tribes as city names. Parthia will be entirely new to the series and doesn't have that problem, but I don't know if they will make an appearance with Achaemenid Persia in the game and Sassanid Persia as a possible civilization for the Exploration Age.

Huns were absent because they are a One-Note Civ: they attacked people, Period. The 'Hunnic Empire' didn't last long enough to provide trade contacts, or anything but mercenaries for Rome and Byzantium. The only thing they've got going is Name Recognition, which admittedly is something the game seems to be preferring, but is thin stuff to make a good game design from.

Parthia runs into the Persia Problem: they overlap with better candidates for the area and Age that are already in the game, like the Achaemenids. That doesn't preclude them completely, but requires some finagling to fit them in.

IF you compile using all the classical sources: Ctesias' Persika, Diodorus Sicilus, Herodotus, Pliny the Elder's geographical writings, Ptolemy's geography, Stepan the Byzantine, and Strabo, you can come up with a list of 15 Scythian-specific city/place names, plus 16 Greek settlements in Scythian territory subject to the Scythians, plus over 20 Scythian clan/tribal titles. That should be enough, especially in Civ VII where you've only got one Age to slap down cities instead of 500 turns to cover the map.

 

[Xandinho]

I agree; Scythia feels like a prime fit for Civ7's model.

Are there any associated wonder options for them?