As a man located on the island of Great Britain (I'm hoping this is vague enough to avoid any accusations of being Anglo centric ), I'd be quite happy with Germany and Russia ahead of Britain. We're too boring.
There is not enough space to fit all the civs we have some sort of evidence for. So at this point, if we have not seen anything, it is likely not in. I doubt that any civ is left which meets the surprise level of Buganda.
Well I'm not SURE that's Siam, but I'll run with it for now. And I haven't seen the Panzers and I don't see how they'd fit into the paths, but I'll give that a try too.
Alright so we're looking at 10 Civs per era, huh? So time to make some real guesses:
Han
Ming
Qing
Khmer
Majapahit
Meiji Japan
Maurya India
Chola India
Mughal India
Achaemenid Persia
Mongolia
Safavid Iran
Mississippians
Hawaii
America
Greece
Normans
Britain
Rome
Spain
France
Egypt
Abbasids
Buganda
Aksum
Songhai
Russia
Maya
Inca
Gran Colombia
Greece -> Norman/Spain/Inca(if mountains), Normans -> France/Britain, Spain -> France/Gran Colombia
Rome -> Norman/Abbasids, Abbasids -> Buganda/Safavid Iran
Egypt -> Abbasids/Songhai/Mongolia(if horses), Songhai -> Buganda/France (for the city-of-lights on the river, not the colonization), Mongolia -> Russia/Mughal India
Aksum -> Chola India/Abbasids/Inca(if mountains), Chola India -> Mughal India/Safavid Iran/Britain (for the seafaring, not the colonization)
Maya -> Inca/Shawnee/Spain(if no Shawnee), Inca -> America/Gran Colombia
Mississippians -> Hawaii/Inca/Shawnee/Songhai (if no Shawnee, for the rivers), Hawaii -> America/Meiji Japan
Han -> Ming/Hawaii(if coastal)/Mongolia(if horses), Ming -> Qing/Meiji Japan/Russia
Khmer -> Majapahit/Chola India/Ming, Majapahit -> Meiji Japan/Mughal India
Achaemenid Persia -> Abbasids/Mongolia/Ming(if huge population)
Maurya India -> Chola India/Majapahit(if coastal)/Inca(if mountains)
Shawnee -> America/France (rivers again)/Gran Colombia (confederation of states)
I'm going to keep refining this but I'm happy for now.
I've swapped out Russia and Safavid Iran for Germany and Siam. So this shifts my connections somewhat.
Still have all the obvious and known pathways:
Han -> Ming -> Qing
Khmer -> Majapahit -> Siam
Maurya -> Chola -> Mughal
Greece -> Spain/Normans -> France
Rome/Greece -> Normans -> Britain
Egypt/Rome -> Abbasids -> Buganda
Maya -> Inca -> ?
Aksum -> Songhai -> ? (Buganda I imagine?)
Which leaves us with the following outliers:
Persia -> ?
(I propose this is the option that can become Mongolia without as many horses, because if there isn't one then Mongolia is nearly never getting picked by the AI. Second option is obviously Abbasids)
? -> Mongolia -> ?
(for most Civs, can pick if many horses. As above, I think Persia will be allowed to pick them regardless so that someone has them as an AI default. As for Modern evolutions, I think we have Qing as the AI default and otherwise you have to accomplish gameplay things with your giant horse armies)
Mississippians -> ?
(I'm assuming this is a river civ that makes terrain rough with Mounds, so the natural evolutions are river civs [Songhai, Shawnee] or rough civs [Inca])
? -> Hawaii -> ?
(I think this comes from East Asian civs [Han and Khmer] and you'd want to pick it if you're on coast *and* want to go exploring (whereas Khmer/Maurya are going to pick Majapahit/Chola, respectively, if they have coast but want to keep their home base), and thus leads to settling distant lands [America] and/or islands [Meiji Japan])
? -> Germany
(Probably Industry on Rivers, so pickable if you have many cities (probably by pop count not by city designation in Exploration Age) on rivers, but as an AI default I guess it comes from Normans? If I can be wild with guesses I want to guess Majapahit or Songhai, both of which were near eventual German colonies but importantly Songhai also has a river focus.)
? -> Gran Colombia
(Inca and Spain, I think. Regional/cultural connections. Perhaps anyone who has enough settlements on the Distant Continent, where conquests count double? I expect a similar gameplay loop to Civ6 Gran Colombia)
? -> America
(Hawaii, Normans, and anyone who has enough settlements on the Distant Continent)
? -> Meiji Japan
(Hawaii, Ming, Majapahit)
Maybe anybody can go Inca if they have enough mountains, and I'm suspecting some more of the Modern Civs will have similar conditions since it will be even more important to pick the right Civ in the Victory age, instead of just whichever couple are "historical".
As a man located on the island of Great Britain (I'm hoping this is vague enough to avoid any accusations of being Anglo centric ), I'd be quite happy with Germany and Russia ahead of Britain. We're too boring.
I think Britain is less likely than people make it out to be. Ed emphasized in the PAX talk how namedropping these possible civs is not a reveal. I think outside for India and China which needed their monolithic appearance broken up, the focus for launch will be to avoid stacking to achieve representing as many "regular" civs as possible. So a first German, a first Russian civ seems more likely to me than a second English one. Especially since America is already there as a possible succession for the anglos. Britain not being in might also be the reason the talk about Normans actually ended with the reveal of France instead.
Though the logic might be right, the Normans I would consider equally as "French" as they would be an "English" civ. It will make me miss the opportunity for an Exploration Age England more if that ends up being the case.
Not to mention it would be strange for Ed to mention London as his main inspiration for the civ switching mechanic, and not include modern British London in the lineup.
The British Empire wasn't exactly small time, though.
My support or lack thereof would mostly depend on the reasons for the 30 civs. It's pretty clear that GB and USA should both be in. There should be a good reason they aren't.
1; Is it lack of dev time? I wouldn't love that, but I'd accept it.
2; An arbitrary limit of 30 with 10 per era by decree of some project chief? Worst case, because that's just... indefensibly stupid, at best.
3; a focus on regional representation means that with limited time some mainstays don't make the cut. I'd be...OK with that provided that I don't have to pay 5-10 dollars to get what probably shoulda been in there on release. If I do have to pay that, I'm gonna feel like Ed just told me to stand and deliver my purse. He might get it. I'd be irritated though.
It kind of blows my mind that people seem to think that creating the assets for a civilization doesn't take significant dev time and resources. Releasing 30 instead the usual ~20 despite the increased assets per civ is a huge commitment of resources. Now this doesn't fix the problem that each civ is only in one Age, but being in one-third of the game doesn't reduce the cost of the assets.
We haven't seen the pricing yet for the DLC, so I can't comment on how obscene it is. If they go back to the per-civ pricing like in Civ5, that will be pretty obscene.
We haven't seen the pricing yet for the DLC, so I can't comment on how obscene it is. If they go back to the per-civ pricing like in Civ5, that will be pretty obscene.
We can probably* get an approximate idea of it. CotW and R2R are both 30 bucks each as part of the base game bundles. Those are probably being sold at some kind of a deal compared to buying piecemeal, but not by much (let’s call the cosmetics in the bundle as the little sweetener that makes it a better deal). So maybe something like 15 bucks for a package of 1 leader, two civs/wonders? Approximately 5 bucks per piece of content (assuming we can group civs and wonders).
It kind of blows my mind that people seem to think that creating the assets for a civilization doesn't take significant dev time and resources. Releasing 30 instead the usual ~20 despite the increased assets per civ is a huge commitment of resources. Now this doesn't fix the problem that each civ is only in one Age, but being in one-third of the game doesn't reduce the cost of the assets.
We haven't seen the pricing yet for the DLC, so I can't comment on how obscene it is. If they go back to the per-civ pricing like in Civ5, that will be pretty obscene.
This is all true but someone in the management chain should have been like “Uh we can’t commit the technical resources for both three eras and an adequate amount of civs for player satisfaction.” But then when is anyone in upper management ever so aware about that at any company producing any product? I’d guess that only 2% of corporations have their s*** together that much lol.
We can probably* get an approximate idea of it. CotW and R2R are both 30 bucks each as part of the base game bundles. Those are probably being sold at some kind of a deal compared to buying piecemeal, but not by much (let’s call the cosmetics in the bundle as the little sweetener that makes it a better deal). So maybe something like 15 bucks for a package of 1 leader, two civs/wonders? Approximately 5 bucks per piece of content (assuming we can group civs and wonders).
someone in the management chain should have been like “Uh we can’t commit the technical resources for both three eras and an adequate amount of civs for player satisfaction.”
Yeah, maybe. I just wished they’d narrowed the civs’ focus just a little bit to fit a few more in. Since each civ is covering only 1/3 of the game they only need as much unique flavor as a civ from Civ VI or heck even V. One unit, one infrastructure, and one impactful ability should have sufficed. The extra units and infrastructure as well as all the policies and events, those should have waited for expansions.
I think Old World is a wonderful game, but I just can’t play it much without getting bored of the same few civs showing up each time. (The dynasties help a little though.)
For my part, the level of uniqueness Civ7 is demonstrating is what I've always wanted from Civ, and I'm happy to get new civs more slowly to accommodate that.
Given that Leaders are a large amount of resources, I was kinda hoping we'd have less Leaders and more Civs on launch. Considering not every civ needs a leader and the base game only has 10 civs active at any given time... is the most of any launch (albeit including personas) really necessary? I'd honestly prefer one leader for every three civs if it meant we could get another line or two.
For my part, the level of uniqueness Civ7 is demonstrating is what I've always wanted from Civ, and I'm happy to get new civs more slowly to accommodate that.
"Happy" might be too strong a word for how I feel about it. I appreciate the bold attempts at something different, and I'm still very much looking forward to it (the 30 civ number didn't surprise me at all) as I think I'll be able to have a lot of fun even while the civ choices are thin. But thin they will be.
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.
It is not about whether I like the outcome or not. But you are ignoring the fact, how unpopular some of the consequences of Civ Switching are for a significant amount of the players. Just look at all these threads, including this one! I personally think, Firaxis wanted to revolutionize the game, which itself is acctually a commendable approach, because the predecessors certainly did have some problems which needed to be tackled, i.e. the end-game. However, I'm afraid they got off course and now we presumably end up with a game where players can't play their favorite maps or civs, and have to imagine a world, where Greece is the predecessor for the Normans and America was founded by the people of Hawaii. I understand, that you and a lot of other players have no problems with this, neverthelss I'm pretty sure this will be the most controversial Civ launch in history.
I honestly think it’s going to be a very good game… in a year or two when the content is fleshed out. As it looks now it’s going to release with good set of bones and most of its organs but very little skin.
The DLC packs do contain other content. Your mileage may vary on how valuable the non civ/leader stuff is.
More to the point, paying more per DLC character than per base game character is entirely par for the course in gaming (see most fighting games). It's a matter of economy of scale, I imagine. The best deal for consumers would be for Firaxis to skip the packs and save everything for a full-fat expansion...or delay the game until 2026.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
), I'd be quite happy with Germany and Russia ahead of Britain. We're too boring.
