Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[Leucarum]

it shouldn’t be that surprising that we are dealing with a reduced civ roster at launch.

To be fair, firaxis were making a big deal out of this being the title with the largest number of civs at launch, and the linking of wonders to civs gave a lot of credence to the idea of an unusually large roster...

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I'm actually quite surprised more people haven't relaxed their perspective on switching in the way that I have.

I was always broadly open to it but I went from hesitation (Egypt to Mongolia, wut), through an extended period of rationalisation (if you think about it this way then it actually kinda works), to complete acceptance (ok let's just go mad and switch wherever we please, pathways be damned).

So for me, the number of civs is not slightly disappointing because it makes some of the paths "awkward", but disappointing because the AI has been programmed to take the default path.

 

[Sagax]

I don’t blame folks for overhyping the roster. When your very first gameplay presentation lists Buganda of all places as the default modern progression from ancient Egypt, speculations are bound to run wild.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

It's actually closer to 26 civilizations in the base game, at most and possibly fewer.
China and India get different abilities and uniques in each Age, but are essentially one civilization each.
I'd have much preferred for India and China to only get represented in one Age each, and instead have more potential pathways for more historically dynamic civilizations like Rome.
As it is, civilizations like Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Outremer, and the Papal States were all probably chopped in favor of the Ming and Chola.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Looking ahead to expansion packs, Civ VI launched with 18 civs and they budgeted enough resources for the Rise and Fall XP for 8 civs/9 leaders. If we make the assumption that a similar ratio of base civs to XP Civs will be used for Civ 7, that might be anywhere from 12-15 extra Civs to fill out the roster in a little more than a year, not including the 8 from the announced DLC packs. Maybe not a huge comfort, but it’s something.

 

[Xandinho]

It's actually closer to 26 civilizations in the base game, at most and possibly fewer.
China and India get different abilities and uniques in each Age, but are essentially one civilization each.
I'd have much preferred for India and China to only get represented in one Age each, and instead have more potential pathways for more historically dynamic civilizations like Rome.
As it is, civilizations like Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Outremer, and the Papal States were all probably chopped in favor of the Ming and Chola.

Personally, the complete historical paths of China and India are what excite me the most right now. And I’m glad they didn’t break them up, because if there are any civilizations that deserve at least one representation per era, it’s China and India (Persia too, but hopefully someday).

And speaking for myself again, I’m not interested in an overrepresentation of Europe at launch, especially with small European states, while there were really huge empires on other continents, like the Ming, Majapahit and Chola.

 

[8housesofelixir]

It's actually closer to 26 civilizations in the base game, at most and possibly fewer.
China and India get different abilities and uniques in each Age, but are essentially one civilization each.
I'd have much preferred for India and China to only get represented in one Age each, and instead have more potential pathways for more historically dynamic civilizations like Rome.
As it is, civilizations like Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Outremer, and the Papal States were all probably chopped in favor of the Ming and Chola.

The mindset of viewing all the different Chinese and Indian dynasties as "essentially one civilization" while viewing the Romans as a "dynamic civilization" is precisely why we would better have multiple Chinas and Indias in the game.

Not saying that Romans were not dynamic - they were - but China and India were also not "non-dynamic single civ" and I am glad that FXS decided to provide more representation for the "internal" dynamics. Ming was a very unique dynasty with strong Inner Asian influences, and Chola was also very different from your typical (Northern) Indian polities.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally, the complete historical paths of China and India are what excite me the most right now. And I’m glad they didn’t break them up, because if there are any civilizations that deserve at least one representation per era, it’s China and India (Persia too, but hopefully someday).

I'm especially curious about how they will go naming it. Will it be Achaemenid Persia, setting up future pathways for more versions of Persia, or will they just call it Persia? If they call it the latter that would be disappointing, especially after the lengths that they have done to China and India.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I'd been a defender of Firaxis choosing civ switching up to this point. While it wouldn't have been my first choice, but I can't say how much of that is due to Humankind... And then Firaxis' streams and dev diaries suggested they were taking on board the lessons learned.

10 civs per age though has had a big dent on my enthusiasm. A lack of intra-age diversity was a big problem for Humankind, and I suspect the lower number of ages being played for longer may amplify this for Civ7. Very curious to know the DLC pricing. This will likely now have a much bigger impact on my excitement level.

I get that. I think that the larger the roster, the less suspension of disbelief is required for me to really get through. The change to switching necessitated a larger roster to go optimally smoothly and this is not that. Bit of a let down.

I'm similarly concerned about being harried with dlc microtransactions when conceptually, a larger civ roster is imo foreseeable given the change in game structure. I think it shoulda been there on release, honestly.

The mindset of viewing Chinese and Indian dynasties as "essentially one civilization" while the Romans being a "dynamic civilization" historically is precisely why we would better have multiple Chinas and Indias in the game.

Not saying that Romans were not dynamic - they were - but China and India were also not "non-dynamic single civ" and I am glad that FXS decided to provide more representation for the "internal" dynamics.

What is the opportunity cost, though?

Dunno if it's worth it.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm especially curious about how they will go naming it. Will it be Achaemenid Persia, setting up future pathways for more versions of Persia, or will they just call it Persia? If they call it the latter that would be disappointing, especially after the lengths that they have done to China and India.

If our flailing attempt to decipher blurry civ pictograms is remotely correct, it should be Persia rather than Achaemenid Persia, which is wholy disappointing.

 

[Xandinho]

I'm especially curious about how they will go naming it. Will it be Achaemenid Persia, setting up future pathways for more versions of Persia, or will they just call it Persia? If they call it the latter that would be disappointing, especially after the lengths that they have done to China and India.

I hope they call it by the dynasty, and then Persia, just like they did with China. I really don't want to believe that they will call Achaemenid Persia just Persia and not make any other version of it later. That would be really really frustrating.

 

[8housesofelixir]

What is the opportunity cost, though?
Dunno if it's worth it.

I will happily choose an important and influential maritime empire that gave rise to the entire SEA cultural tradition rather than a couple of small crusader states that did not even leave a scar in the Levant and would be better represented by a Franks civ instead.

 

[moysturfurmer]

If our flailing attempt to decipher blurry civ pictograms is remotely correct, it should be Persia rather than Achaemenid Persia, which is wholy disappointing.

I wouldn’t say that’s immediately disqualifying for an Exploration/Modern Persia though. In Civ VI they launched with city states that wound up becoming full civs in later expansions. If they end up wanting to put out a Sassanian or Qajar or w/e Persia, they might do a rename of Persia to Achaemenids, or call the other Persia “Iran” if they don’t give it a 3 age representation. I’ll admit it does have me a little concerned though.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm especially curious about how they will go naming it. Will it be Achaemenid Persia, setting up future pathways for more versions of Persia, or will they just call it Persia? If they call it the latter that would be disappointing, especially after the lengths that they have done to China and India.

It could be renamed in the future when (and I do hope it's when) we get additional Persian dynasties. However, the very Sassanian look of the Persian commander disappoints me as it means we probably won't see Exploration Age Sassania.

What is the opportunity cost, though?

Dunno if it's worth it.

I take it more as an assurance that other regions will get similar treatment in the future. Though TBH I'm pining more over the civs that we could have had in the Middle East and the Americas than I am for San Marino and Lichtenstein.

 

[j51]

I will happily choose an important and influential maritime empire that gave rise to the entire SEA cultural tradition rather than a couple of small crusader states that did not even leave a scar in the Levant and would be better represented by a Franks civ instead.

Look’s like we’re getting both lol! The pet Normans are here instead of you know a major European power from the time like the Franks or Byzantium.

 

[j51]

All joking aside, the Normans do look fun, but with such a limited roster they should be 1st expansion pack at the earliest.

 

[Zaarin]

All joking aside, the Normans do look fun, but with such a limited roster they should be 1st expansion pack at the earliest.

Normans make sense because they can easily transition into half of Europe and a handful of places outside of Europe. Their adventures across the Mediterranean and Atlantic make them a solid geographic pick for half the Modern Age West, not just England and France. So I get the logic of the pick even if they otherwise wouldn't have topped my wishlist.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I hope they call it by the dynasty, and then Persia, just like they did with China. I really don't want to believe that they will call Achaemenid Persia just Persia and not make any other version of it later. That would be really really frustrating.

The only glimmer of hope I see is that maybe a modern Age civ Islamic Persia civ could be called Iran, and based off of Savafids/Ashfarid/Qajar etc.

It could be renamed in the future when (and I do hope it's when) we get additional Persian dynasties. However, the very Sassanian look of the Persian commander disappoints me as it means we probably won't see Exploration Age Sassania.

Yeah, it does look like a mixture of both dynasties, unfortunately. I can see them getting an Immortal military UU and a Satrap civilian UU, with the already seen Pairidaeza as the unique improvement, which covers both dynasties.

 

[Zaarin]

The only glimmer of hope I see is that maybe a modern Age civ Islamic Persia civ could be called Iran, and based off of Savafids/Ashfarid/Qajar etc.

I'd be surprised to see the Modern Age version called Iran, not just due to their overall trend of avoiding the names of modern nation-states but also because Iran is definitely "Top 5 most controversial modern nation-states." It will almost certainly be called Savafid Persia (or less likely Qajar Persia).

 

[Leucarum]

10 civs per era will really make the modern era feel the most stale I think. This is where firaxis have a bunch of staples which they needfor market success, so it makes a lot of sense that they have to be in there, but it's gonna make the alt-history angle of leading a civ that didn't last to the present feel like "welp, guess I turn into France/USA/England again"