No Russia in the Base Game?

[stealth_nsk]

Just for the information on Russian market, this totally depends on the publisher. Some publishers prevent selling their games in Russia altogether, so there's no legal market. Some don't restrict selling, but not help either. In this case the main restriction is what in Russia people can't use most of the international payment systems, but there are a lot of workarounds. Finally, the publishers who really want to get the market could partner with local game sellers (like VK.Games). Some do it.

But there's one more thing. A lot of ethnical Russians live outside Russia, including the latest waves, where western companies moving away from Russia allowed a lot of IT specialists to relocate even if they were unable to afford it before (like myself). And while some of them actively reject Russia, most focus negative emotions on its current leadership, so those people would be happy to see Russia represented as well.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

We practically know there wil be 2 European civs in first age and 2 European civs in the second age. It just doesnt make any sense to have more that 2 european civs in the last age when we already have at least America as European "colony civ". Allthough they dont care that much about historical connections, they do seem to care more about georaphical connections.

I think you're thinking about this in entirely the wrong way. Everything we've seen so far points to a lack of historical and geographical continuity. I don't think there's any inherent cross era links in the civ choices that have been made.

 

[JNR13]

What is the basis of thinking that either may be missing?

For me the basis of thinking Britain is missing is:
a) England has already been translated into a VII civ in the form of the Normans. It fits the "minimum representation of as many people as possible first" approach.
b) the PAX panel where they talked about the history of London had them reveal France as the end of chain started with Rome and Normans. Why would they not go for Britain there if that's what they talked about the whole time?! I think Ed Beach was talking about Britain the same way he talked about the Gauls and Franks. Hypothetical civs that explain how their design philosophy reflects history, not necessarily namedropping base game civs. He also talked about a full Japan stack in an interview as one thing the civ switching system can do but apprently we also won't get more than a single Japan civ in the base game.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

For me the basis of thinking Britain is missing is:
a) England has already been translated into a VII civ in the form of the Normans. It fits the "minimum representation of as many people as possible first" approach.
b) the PAX panel where they talked about the history of London had them reveal France as the end of chain started with Rome and Normans. Why would they not go for Britain there if that's what they talked about the whole time?! I think Ed Beach was talking about Britain the same way he talked about the Gauls and Franks. Hypothetical civs that explain how their design philosophy reflects history, not necessarily namedropping base game civs. He also talked about a full Japan stack in an interview as one thing the civ switching system can do but apprently we also won't get more than a single Japan civ in the base game.

To play devil’s advocate, they were showing off the suggested paths of leaders specifically, and while Napoleon and Ashoka have already been revealed, we don’t even know if we’ll have a British ruler. In that context, it makes sense.