Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think the biggest problem with the Normans is that England is definitely going to appear, so you'd probably want a Norman civ that specifically leaves out the English portion of their history. There's plenty of historic space for that, the normans did get around, but disentangling the two could leave things a bit messy.

Turn England to Britain, which is what it is in spirit anyway?

 

[Thormodr]

Norway or Denmark is fine for Civ VII. Iceland would be cool, too, if they want to go cultural. I would like a longship that can navigate rivers so I can raid inland, most of all, though.

For the Celts, I am sure they'd never have the Manx/Isle of Man but it'd do my ancestors proud to be represented. ❤

Speaking of my ancestors, make this guy a leader:

Godred Crovan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Leucarum]

Turn England to Britain, which is what it is in spirit anyway?

You're not wrong, though I think you could say that it's mostly because of English dominance and not because the fringes lack their own distinct identity...

Personally I'd rather leave the door open to Scotland, Wales or a pre-roman Britain rather than shoehorning in Britain to make room for the Normans.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think not repeating yourself is important so I'm fine with Sweden being the "viking" civ in the next game.

I think eventually you'll have to repeat civs, which I'm okay with. They have already done that, at least outside of Europe, by bringing back civs like Mali over the similar Ghana Empire. Plus, Sweden was the least "Viking" like out of all the Scandinavian civs.

Turn England to Britain, which is what it is in spirit anyway?

But what about Lizzy?

For the Celts, I am sure they'd never have the Manx/Isle of Man but it'd do my ancestors proud to be represented. ❤

I'm pretty sure they had a few cities in Civ 5.

 

[PiR]

One of the things I'm eager to learn about Civ 7 is how they are going to do the Vikings. In 1-4, the Vikings were Vikings, and that was kind of silly because Viking is an occupation, not a cultural identity. You don't have a Plumber civ. With 5, they corrected this by making the Vikings Denmark. Good choice. In 6, it was Norway. Now they've hit the two main homelands for Viking raiders.

So, what to do for 7? Do they move Sweden from Renaissance to Medieval to make them the Vikings? Stay at Norway? Switch back to Denmark? Or do we begin to explore the various states established by Viking invaders? Iceland? Normandy? Kingdom of Dublin? Norman Sicily? The Danelaw?

My personal preferences would be Iceland or Normans.

They might just be a Barbarian clan with many spawning locations. Like Tribes in Old World.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I would normally never suggest it as it seems a highly unlikely entry but since it's being talked about I would also throw support to a Briton Celtic Civ that represented Wales, Cornwall (for my grandpa), etc. Even if they wanted to go the King Arthur route. I'm sure Celts will continue to skew Irish or Scottish though

 

[Takhisis]

Why do I worry about maintaining my health if I'll end up dead from choking on food after reading some off-handed humorous remark on an online discussion board?

You have to be alive in order to be able to choke on somebody's comment.

The unintentional nuclear Gandhi was only a part of the first game. And a Gandhi with a nuclear inclination didn't appear again until Civ 5, which was also when the game got a stronger board-game feeling.

Actually, Gandhi in Civ3 does go on city-razing rampages sometimes.

I also have a feeling for the "Celtic" civ we might at least get Ireland. Not sure if they'll do a pre-Medieval one like Gaul again or not.

Please, please let's not make it the comedic mashup of previous games. A Gaulish leader from 400 BC talking in modern-day (Irish) Gaelic and some city names being in French, a few in English, the rest in Latinoid… ughhhh.

 

[vorlon_mi]

This is thinking there is only one victory condition, but there are many.
You might be the lead on a science victory, and there might a friendly civ on the lead to a religious victory. Why become suddenly enemies with them? Makes no sense, just hurry up to win with science.

^^ This. In each of the Civ iterations I have played, the AI do try to win the game. At a more leisurely pace than the human, for sure, but they work to achieve the victory conditions. In Civ3, the AI build the spaceship and I have even lost a diplomatic victory because I wasn't careful to prevent it. I've seen them grow large on continents maps, contending for a domination victory. In Civ4, the AI build the spaceship and pursue the cultural victory. In Civ5, I've seen AI dominate lots of city-states in pursuit of a diplo victory as well as build SS parts. In BERT, I've had to stop the AI from building Beacons, Mind Flowers, and settling Earthlings. In Civ6, on lower difficulty settings, the AI have launched Moon Landings and Mars Expeditions.

What I have see the AI *not* do? 1) Aggressively attack other AI tribes, in pursuit of a domination victory. 2) Forsake their own VC to stop a human or AI player from winning.
-- The AI will attack the human player if the human is weak, relatively speaking
-- In BERT, 1 or 2 AI always "object" when the human player starts the victory wonder, usually resulting in a DOW

This behavior I hope will be present in Civ7 -- if the human is asleep, or unskilled, the AI can surpass the human and get to a VC first. I'm less interested in AI who stop pursuing their own victory -- spreading religion, attracting tourists, earning Diplo victory points -- just to stop another faction.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

lease, please let's not make it the comedic mashup of previous games. A Gaulish leader from 400 BC talking in modern-day (Irish) Gaelic and some city names being in French, a few in English, the rest in Latinoid… ughhhh.

I doubt it considering we got a separate Scotland and Gaul for Civ 6. The question is to they continue to do a Medieval/Modern one and an Ancient/Classical one, or go down to one?

 

[Takhisis]

I doubt it considering we got a separate Scotland and Gaul for Civ 6.

True, but that's partly because of a) the eurocentrism of civ developers and 2) the need to sell more individual civs as DLCs.

The question is to they continue to do a Medieval/Modern one and an Ancient/Classical one, or go down to one?

I for one would rather they gave more slots to other cultural areas, but that's me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True, but that's partly because of a) the eurocentrism of civ developers and 2) the need to sell more individual civs as DLCs.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Scotland was released first and I believe was supposed to be the "Celtic" civ in Civ 6, even though it didn't reflect what most players wanted. Then they rectified that with Gaul.

I for one would rather they gave more slots to other cultural areas, but that's me.

I'd personally would be fine with just one too, particularly Ireland.

 

[Quoth the Raven]

One of the things I'm eager to learn about Civ 7 is how they are going to do the Vikings. In 1-4, the Vikings were Vikings, and that was kind of silly because Viking is an occupation, not a cultural identity. You don't have a Plumber civ. With 5, they corrected this by making the Vikings Denmark. Good choice. In 6, it was Norway. Now they've hit the two main homelands for Viking raiders.

So, what to do for 7? Do they move Sweden from Renaissance to Medieval to make them the Vikings? Stay at Norway? Switch back to Denmark? Or do we begin to explore the various states established by Viking invaders? Iceland? Normandy? Kingdom of Dublin? Norman Sicily? The Danelaw?

My personal preferences would be Iceland or Normans.

I would be fine with one Scandinavian civ. Just call them the Norse to cover the Viking era. In the same way that I don't think we need both a Belgium and the Netherlands.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Scotland was released first and I believe was supposed to be the "Celtic" civ in Civ 6, even though it didn't reflect what most players wanted. Then they rectified that with Gaul.

In earlier games it was Gaul who got there first. Well, ‘Gaul’ as described above.

I'd personally would be fine with one too, particularly Ireland.

Well, since we're discussing Celts in particular, just separating Gauls from Goidels/Gaels would soothen my wrecked nerves which have suffered from years of a linguistic pot-pourri. ‘Gaels’ might be better than Scotland or Ireland as a whole in terms of ancient-era tribes (when will we ever see Scythia, Sarmatia or Cimmeria in the epic game? or the Inuit?!) but it's still too many European spots.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

n earlier games it was Gaul who got there first. Well, ‘Gaul’ as described above.

Sure, other iterations of Celts were basically Gaul, but not in name.

(when will we ever see Scythia, Sarmatia or Cimmeria in the epic game? or the Inuit?!) but it's still too many European spots.

Um, we got Scythia in Civ 6.

 

[Krajzen]

I expect
- Ireland, since Scotland and Gauls have been done already
- Bohemia and Ukraine, since Poland and Hungary have been done already (Poland two times)
- Siam to come back along with Vietnam (so they'd appear twice, while Khmer already have appeared twice)
- Malaysia or Philippines instead of Indonesia, as it was present twice in a row
- No Sweden as it has been present twice in a row
- Neither Mali nor Songhai, but a civ from some new West African region instead
- Assyria coming back
- Carthage instead of Phoenicia with Hannibal as a leader (it's surprising how he hasn't been there for two civ games already)
- No Scythia but some other horse civ
- Armenia instead of Georgia
- Some East African civ instead of Kongo
- Italy
- Timurids
- Muisca instead of Mapuche
- Mexico and/or Argentina instead of Colombia (maybe instead of Brazil as well)
- Either no Australia and Canada at all or just one of them coming back

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I expect (initially at least)
- Ireland, since Scotland and Gauls were already done
- Bohemia and Ukraine, since Poland and Hungary were already done
- Siam to come back, since this time we got Vietnam and Khmer
- Malaysia or Philippines instead of Indonesia
- No Sweden
- Neither Mali nor Songhai, but some new West African region instead

I suspect Sweden is now a series regular with a rotating leader. Maybe we will get Carolus XII this time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

- Bohemia and Ukraine, since Poland and Hungary were already done

- Malaysia or Philippines instead of Indonesia
- No Sweden

The fact that these 3 have made it into 2 consecutive games makes me think that they'll continue to be recurring, personally, though I could be wrong. And I mean Poland for the first one, not Hungary.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Swedish 'vikings', or more properly a Sweden with a Viking flavor, would or should satisfy anybody's desire for river-running Vikings, since it was Swedish Rus who sailed all the way across Russia on the rivers to Mickelgard (Constantinople) or Astrakhan to meet the Silk Road traders. This could also be an introduction to the Trading Vikings instead of the inevitable Raiders that have (dis)graced the game forever and need to be put to Rest.

Just my two pence, but not in favor of Gaul as 'the Celtic Civ' in any game. By the time Caesar cut them off the Gauls were developing a real civilization - Bibracte is now estimated by the archeologists as having up to 20,000 inhabitants, making it by far the greatest city north of the Alps and as large as Medieval Paris, and Gaul already had well-built, well measured roads linking her towns and cities before the Romans arrived. Rather have them modeled as a distinct and separate Civ rather than representing numerous, mostly later, Celtic groups.

The problem with all the Central Asian pastoral 'civs' is how to differentiate them. Seen one scruffy horse-archer on a shaggy horse, seen 'em all, and you end up looking for ephemera to tell them apart. That goes for the North American 'horse tribes' as well: a Comanche and a Sarmatian Civ, the Lakota and the Scythians, are likely to be indistinguishable in game terms without some serious hair splitting. Makes it difficult to justify filling the Civ List with too many of them.

 

[Takhisis]

Sure, other iterations of Celts were basically Gaul, but not in name.

They even miss the obvious Asterix and Obelix references…

Um, we got Scythia in Civ 6.

Derp. Sorry, I sometimes mix Civ5 and 6 up. But still pre-Russian Indo-European civs from the Pontic Steppe have generally been absent from Civ games as far as I remember.

 

[Krajzen]

The fact that these 3 have made it into 2 consecutive games makes me think that they'll continue to be recurring, personally, though I could be wrong. And I mean Poland for the first one, not Hungary.

Maybe, but they are not even close to the "civs without whom the popular Western imagination cannot imagine history" which is for me the only list of civs set it stone. So America, Maya, Aztec, Inca, England, Spain, France, Germany, Rome, "Vikings", "Celts", Greece, Russia, "Arabs", Persia, "Mesopotamia", Egypt, India, China, Japan, Mongols.
(Dutch, Portuguese, Phoenicians, Byzantium and Korea are not that famous in pophistory, though in civ context I suspect them to be set in stone as well, and both Italians and Jews are curious reverse cases of super famous civs never appearing in civ series )