Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[chaosprophet]

though I do question why we needed to get the most detailed civs in this game in particular

I believe that is a result of one of the things they wanted to do with ages, which is to make so the civs have a larger impact through a game instead of just an impact mostly at one portion of the game, and also to increase the amount of difference it will make by going X->Z civ instead of Y->Z so each permutation feels very different. Not only by things that are kept like the traditions cards and the Unique infrastructure, but by how much your initial state at an age will be very different because a more unique previous civ really shaped how you did things on the previous age.

But I can also see they going a bit too excited with the idea and exaggerating on it to the point of possibly sacrificing development time on it that could have been used for more civs.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Honestly, kinda hoping we get the option of uncapped Civs, so you don't have to be limited to just 1, that alone would increase the possible player count to much higher.

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly, kinda hoping we get the option of uncapped Civs, so you don't have to be limited to just 1, that alone would increase the possible player count to much higher.

They said this is how it works in multiplayer. Given how long it took them to implement "no duplicate leaders" and even longer for "no duplicate civs" in Civ6, I wouldn't be surprised to see the option for dupes in single player, too. Or just not having the option to disable dupes again...

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

So we have 10 unassociated wonders in antiquity age: Petra, Terracota Army, Colossus, Nalanda, Pyramid of the sun, Emile Bell, Hamonga a Maui, Dur Sharrukin, Hanging Gardens and mausoleum of Theodoric. And so far only Notre Dame in Exploration.
Or theres a good chunk of Exploration (and modern) wonders to yet be revelead to match the numbers or Antiquity has a abnormal number of wonders in comparison to the other two

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

So we have 10 unassociated wonders in antiquity age: Petra, Terracota Army, Colossus, Nalanda, Pyramid of the sun, Emile Bell, Hamonga a Maui, Dur Sharrukin, Hanging Gardens and mausoleum of Theodoric. And so far only Notre Dame in Exploration.
Or theres a good chunk of Exploration (and modern) wonders to yet be revelead to match the numbers or Antiquity has a anormal numbers of wonders in comparison to the other two

I suspect that the Exploration Age Cultural Legacy track won't have anything to do with Wonders, so they don't need so many after Antiquity. In fact, Ed Beach alluded that the Cultural Legacy track might be something to do with Religion in the Shawnee livestream.

 

[Xandinho]

So we have 10 unassociated wonders in antiquity age: Petra, Terracota Army, Colossus, Nalanda, Pyramid of the sun, Emile Bell, Hamonga a Maui, Dur Sharrukin, Hanging Gardens and mausoleum of Theodoric. And so far only Notre Dame in Exploration.
Or theres a good chunk of Exploration (and modern) wonders to yet be revelead to match the numbers or Antiquity has a abnormal number of wonders in comparison to the other two

We haven’t seen much from the Exploration Age, and even less from the Modern Age, so it’s possible that there’s a lot more. However, 10 associated wonders and 10 unassociated wonders mean 20 wonders for Antiquity. If the number is the same across the other eras, that would mean 60 wonders at launch. I really wouldn’t bet on such a high number. It’s a trend in Civ games for the number of wonders to decrease as the eras progress.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm kind of late to this thread, so does this mean we can't play with more than 10 civs in a game? That's kind of disappointing. I regularly play huge maps with 12 civs (and sometimes more).

 

[AriochIV]

I'm kind of late to this thread, so does this mean we can't play with more than 10 civs in a game? That's kind of disappointing. I regularly play huge maps with 12 civs (and sometimes more).

Unless they have an option for duplicate civs, that's what it means.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm kind of late to this thread, so does this mean we can't play with more than 10 civs in a game? That's kind of disappointing. I regularly play huge maps with 12 civs (and sometimes more).

Bigger maps will be supported later. By this time more civs will come in. By next September we'll have 13 civs per age.

 

[Uberfrog]

I'm kind of late to this thread, so does this mean we can't play with more than 10 civs in a game? That's kind of disappointing. I regularly play huge maps with 12 civs (and sometimes more).

We already knew this wouldn’t be possible without mods. It’s 8 players maximum in the Modern Age right?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We already knew this wouldn’t be possible without mods. It’s 8 players maximum in the Modern Age right?

That's for multiplayer and, presumably, single player on a standard sized map.

 

[Kev1916]

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?

Yea Iran is one o the world's oldest continuous major civilisations re Civ morphing than Iran should be the name of the final modern civ and no issue with that

 

[StargazingDog]

I'm kind of late to this thread, so does this mean we can't play with more than 10 civs in a game? That's kind of disappointing. I regularly play huge maps with 12 civs (and sometimes more).

This is unlike any prior civilization game.I don't think you can apply your expectations from past games. The standard size map now has five civs, while Civ 5 and Civ 6 both had eight. I'm sure there is a good reason for this (starting in the "old world" is undoubtedly one).

It will be interesting to see what other map types are included, if any.

 

[Aeon221]

What? No.

EVERY SINGLE HUMANKIND CIV has unique unit and building graphics, soundtrack, leader clothes, city name list, quotes, inheritable bonuses, modified drawings of each single unit, a unique district and some more I'm forgetting.
The ONLY THING they don't have is that special tech tree but since that amounts to a simple +1 culture on X these are not exactly groundbreaking in design.

I can accept an argument like "Well we want to playtest the hell out of these to make sure they are at least somewhat balanced and prevent a similar situation to Humankind's broken launch balance." but the assets? Absolutely not. Civ 7 has almost the exact same asset needs for HALF the civs and unlike Humankind these assets are superbly ahistorical. Like look at the new "Han China" graphics they just spat out with circular gates, red lanterns, upturned eaves, stone walls, etc. This is the most generic Ming dynasty building one has ever seen and the reason for that is it's ridiculously cheap to make assets like that. Rather than putting in the effort to look for actual Han period architecture and using that.
And that's everything in Civ 7. Where Humankind spent extra time to even redo models and drawings that were pointed out as wrong, here you get the Google Images first result treatment.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as it works, looks pretty and people enjoy it but for the love of God stop even suggesting it's more effort than what Humankind's team did on their side. Because it is not. No matter how you look at it.

It honestly is weird that they went to so much trouble with the Shawnee and then half assed the Han dynasty.

There are a few more people living in China than in the Shawnee nation so you'd think it'd be the other way around.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It honestly is weird that they went to so much trouble with the Shawnee and then half assed the Han dynasty.

There are a few more people living in China than in the Shawnee nation so you'd think it'd be the other way around.

The Shawnee can embarrass 2K in the US media if Firaxis makes them mad. The Chinese government can make trouble for 2K in China, but probably isn't too concerned over the Han compared to how Modern China is portrayed.

 

[8housesofelixir]

The Shawnee can embarrass 2K in the US media if Firaxis makes them mad. The Chinese government can make trouble for 2K in China, but probably isn't too concerned over the Han compared to how Modern China is portrayed.

Don't even need the govt. Allow me to introduce the biggest embarrassment of the Chinese player community to the outside world: Steam review bomb......

(In more serious terms: I know some Chinese players who are pretty dissatisfied with the Han design, and sadly a Steam review bomb won't be out of picture for them. Luckily it might just be of relatively small scale, but if it goes out of the hand, a negative review on Steam to those who didn't realize there is review bombing specifically coming from one region would be very unfortunate.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It honestly is weird that they went to so much trouble with the Shawnee and then half assed the Han dynasty.

There are a few more people living in China than in the Shawnee nation so you'd think it'd be the other way around.

I mean direct consultation with the Shawnee helped in their case, which China understandably may not get. But at least they have two more chances to get it right.

The Shawnee can embarrass 2K in the US media if Firaxis makes them mad. The Chinese government can make trouble for 2K in China, but probably isn't too concerned over the Han compared to how Modern China is portrayed.

You mean with Manchu style architecture?

 

[Kulko]

Well the whole time when I saw all that millions of graphical assets, I was sure things would turn out that way. Even at 80€ it was clear that this would cost gameplay.

But anyway the ideas behind the game still look great and the Civ variability will come over time. Only sad to see that it probably cost me my home Civ.

 

[Sagax]

I may have missed it, but is Qing 100% confirmed, outside from a wonder (that at this point does not confirm inclusion) and a mention in an earlier article about civ continuity (mentioned alongside Japan, which by now is unlikely to have 3-age presence)?

 

[Zaarin]

I may have missed it, but is Qing 100% confirmed, outside from a wonder (that at this point does not confirm inclusion) and a mention in an earlier article about civ continuity (mentioned alongside Japan, which by now is unlikely to have 3-age presence)?

A Chinese leak pointed to Qing. Not 100% confirmed, but the confirmation of Han > Ming (also claimed by the leak) makes it look more reliable.