Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[Eagle Pursuit]

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"

Especially if you tend to focus on a specific playstyle or victory, your end game options are going to be very limited.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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).

I'd like that, but only if the Antiquity one was renamed. To me it would be weird if one was just named Persia and then the next one after a dynasty, but that's just me. Even if it would be called Iran, I'd still want it to be based off the Safavids. I guess calling it Safavid Iran could be a compromise?

 

[Leucarum]

Especially if you tend to focus on a specific playstyle or victory, your end game options are going to be very limited.

Hopefully modding is flexible at launch. I want a different dessert to the one which looks like it's on the menu

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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"

Yeh, this is definitely fair. But equally, it doesn't require too many more civs per age to become reasonable. 5? Don't think it will be long before we reach that, even without mods.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I'd like that, but only if the Antiquity one was renamed. To me it would be weird if one was just named Persia and then the next one after a dynasty, but that's just me. Even if it would be called Iran, I'd still want it to be based off the Safavids. I guess calling it Safavid Iran could be a compromise?

Speaking of which, I realized it is very likely that we going to have the Gunpowder Empire trio (Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals) together in the 3rd Age down the road.

 

[Voidwalkin]

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.

The cost is to me more likely something like the Göktürks, given that representation seems to have regional proportions.

 

[chaosprophet]

Sure, what else should they say, of course the dev diaries are "confident"... Nevertheless I think they certainly have underestimated the challenges related with this decision, just look at all these discussions concerning the Maps (no more Pangea, TSL) or the acctual Gameplay implications (how or what does the AI choose as a new Civ).

I think the way the portrayed so far and the explanation on the dev diaries show they had a solid idea of what they wanted to achieve and what they wanted to do to achieve it, and seems confident it is able to tackle it. They may be wrong in many ways like what they thought was a problem wasn't even a problem, that their solutions don't actually resolve it well or sacrifice something more important for players than the benefits they give, between others. Time will tell. But just because you don't like the outcome doesn't means the ideas and thought process they used for those decisions were completely flawed. They could be confident and still completely missed the mark.

I still don’t think 30 civs at launch (which is objectively more than we have ever had before) is somehow a great betrayal by Firaxis. Yes, it is only 10 per era and there are valid concerns about repetition, but those are still 30 distinct civs with everything we expect from that. it shouldn’t be that surprising that we are dealing with a reduced civ roster at launch.

I think we can see both ways, as in both recognize the effort for each new civ while still having a similar amount of leaders at launch means 30 is a realistic and incredible number for vanilla, while also being disappointment that with the new system of ages it would still means a fairly short amount of choices per age at release.

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...

We did had an unusually large roster still, just that we expected even more for understandable even if not very realistic reasons.

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.

I was open to and actually really liked it since early on, and I'm a fan of having options for free for all transitions and civ/leader pairings for the AI. Albeit I'm okay with that being implemented a bit later instead on release day.
My biggest disappointment with the number is how it implies we won't have huge maps at release, and maybe not even anytime soon as it may not be a priority when vanilla players will have a roster than don't fit it.

 

[TreVor_ish]

30 civs is exactly the number I thought it's gonna be. You don't establish a dlc platform with higher numbers on release.
I also believe, that with map expansion on age transition, those numbers will be unevenly distributed.
That means, less then ten, maybe even as low as eight, number of possible civs to start a game with.
This is going to be the smallest Civilization base game. But graphics, right.

 

[Zaarin]

The cost is to me more likely something like the Göktürks, given that representation seems to have regional proportions.

I do hope Central Asia gets some attention at some point, though I'm hoping more for Sogdia or Kushan.

 

[chaosprophet]

I do hope Central Asia gets some attention at some point, though I'm hoping more for Sogdia or Kushan.

I wonder if we will get mostly dlc civs packs like that, focusing on a region, weather a region on all ages or many "transitional" civs in an age of a region, etc.

 

[Leucarum]

Yeh, this is definitely fair. But equally, it doesn't require too many more civs per age to become reasonable. 5? Don't think it will be long before we reach that, even without mods.

Potentially - depending on which civ choices. If the cursed monkey paw is ready to pounce maybe we end up with the next batch of modern civs along the lines of Australia leaving the problem just as bad...

 

[j51]

Potentially - depending on which civ choices. If the cursed monkey paw is ready to pounce maybe we end up with the next batch of modern civs along the lines of Australia leaving the problem just as bad...

This is totally what’s gonna happen.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I do hope Central Asia gets some attention at some point, though I'm hoping more for Sogdia or Kushan.

I am really hoping for Sogdia (they were the middlemen of the Silk Road), but I am also relatively skeptical, since designing them properly requires some more profound research, and I don't think FXS is currently focusing on bringing more specialists.

For instance, Čākar - a type of personal soldier-retainer that tends to have a son-father relationship with their masters - is a perfect fit for a Sogdian UU. However, I am aware of it because I happened to read the Chinese translation of Étienne de la Vaissière's paper "Čākars sogdiens en Chine", which is not something directly accessible for FXS. There is also a page about these troops on the Encyclopaedia Iranica, which is of course more accessible, but also not something that an FXS dev would randomly stumble into. They need more help from specialists for that.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Especially if you tend to focus on a specific playstyle or victory, your end game options are going to be very limited.

That's a really good point that hadn't come to me yet. The practical gameplay nature of late game is that you've already committed to pursuing a victory.

Your choice may necessarily be more utilitarian than sentimental. I don't actually think I'd mind that; I'm confident the game will be easy, and if I actually needed to be utilitarian I'd probably be pretty content at the strategic depth of gameplay. Still, player skill is variable and those who've not logged 4000+ hours in the civ franchise may be less thrilled at having their selection, potentially distant geographically from their chosen region, be dictated by victory concerns.

 

[AriochIV]

30 civs is exactly the number I thought it's gonna be. You don't establish a dlc platform with higher numbers on release.
I also believe, that with map expansion on age transition, those numbers will be unevenly distributed.
That means, less then ten, maybe even as low as eight, number of possible civs to start a game with.
This is going to be the smallest Civilization base game. But graphics, right.

We already know of 10 Antiquity civs. We don't know the names for the last two, but one is a Mesopotamian civ that's in a ton of the clips, and the other has an icon that looks like Mississippians that has to be Antiquity because it was in a screen with another Antiquity civ. So, they are:

1. Aksum
2. Egypt
3. Greece
4. Han
5. Khmer
6. Maurya
7. Maya
8. Rome
9. (Mesopotamia)
10. (Mississippian)

 

[Zaarin]

I am really hoping for Sogdia (they were the middlemen of the Silk Road), but I am also relatively skeptical, since designing them properly requires some more profound research, and I don't think FXS is currently focusing on bringing more specialists.

For instance, Čākar - a type of personal soldier-retainer that tends to have a son-father relationship with their masters - is a perfect fit for a Sogdian UU. However, I am aware of it because I happened to read the Chinese translation of Étienne de la Vaissière's paper "Čākars sogdiens en Chine", which is not something directly accessible for FXS. There is also a page about these troops on the Encyclopaedia Iranica, which is of course more accessible, but also not something that an FXS dev would randomly stumble into. They need more help from specialists for that.

I love Encyclopaedia Iranica. It's an absolute treasure trove.

one is a Mesopotamian civ that's in a ton of the clips

I'd say Persia is all but confirmed given the use of the term "Persian architecture style" in the PAX presentation.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Potentially - depending on which civ choices. If the cursed monkey paw is ready to pounce maybe we end up with the next batch of modern civs along the lines of Australia leaving the problem just as bad...

Perhaps! Probably best not to speculate on such things, we'll only get it wildly wrong again.

 

[AriochIV]

I'd say Persia is all but confirmed given the use of the term "Persian architecture style" in the PAX presentation.

You may well be right, but I'm not putting any faith in the specific terminology that the artists used, given how loose they were with it.

 

[Zaarin]

You may well be right, but I'm not putting any faith in the specific terminology that the artists used, given how loose they were with it.

The commander they showed was 100% Sassanian, but the "Middle Eastern" phalanx looked very Assyrian so I do concede it could go both ways.

 

[Arcaian]

Having only 10 civilizations per era feels really limiting, but it's clearly a strategy to sell DLCs. Make the audience feel like something is missing, then solve that problem by giving them what they want.

This feels like needless conspiracy to me - despite the civs being considerably more detailed and unique this time, both in mechanics and in visuals, they're releasing with ~50% more civs than before. 10/era is frustrating and I'd love more, but I don't think this needs to be a conspiracy for them to make more money from the DLCs - I fully believe that this is the most amount of civs they could've made in the base game given the constraints (though I do question why we needed to get the most detailed civs in this game in particular).