Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[dagriggstar]

I tried slotting the Goths into the exploration era, on the basis that while they fought the Romans they fought Arabia too, with the idea that you get something like
Goths (Industry, something else) - Germany
Goths (Industry, something else) - Britain (In the Goths were a Germanic tribe sense)
Normans (Seafaring, something else) - Britain
Which would give you two different flavours of Britain. But I don't see any natural predecessors, unless its like Rome into Normans or Goths, Augustus into Spain. Or we have Rome over a third of the available choices in the second age if you pick certain leaders.

The Mexican wonder makes me kinda feel like there might be some native America - Spain - Mexico pathway going on. Like the design philosophy is more come up with some elements of the third stage civilizations then work backwards.

 

[pokiehl]

Civ VII - $70 with 30 civs (and, oh yeah, THE GAME): $2.33 per civ
$15 DLC pack with 2 civs (and NO GAME): $7.50 per civ

There's a reason why the Civ6 Leader Pass was free -- the leaders' gameplay impact wasn't worth paying for.

This is incorrect. It was free if you had all the other DLC. Otherwise you could buy it.

 

[AriochIV]

This is incorrect. It was free if you had all the other DLC. Otherwise you could buy it.

Did anyone here not have all the DLC and actually pay money for the Leader Pass? I'm guessing not many.

 

[pokiehl]

Did anyone here not have all the DLC and actually pay money for the Leader Pass? I'm guessing not many.

I don’t know. I don’t think that has anything to do with the point though.

 

[AriochIV]

I don’t know. I don’t think that has anything to do with the point though.

Sure it does. It's not incorrect to describe something as "free" if almost no one paid for it.

 

[dagriggstar]

I don’t have all the DLC….

On my epic version of the game I got specifically to play on two laptops with my girlfriend.

Have it all on steam though

 

[canadamufc]

The Leader Pass was basically free, considering NFP had had time for everyone to buy it.

Looking back I really respect that they made it free.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'll take a solidly-backboned game at the expense of more civs, if that's what we get.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Spoiler Old guesses :

Han	Ming	Qing
Khmer	Majapahit	Siam
Maurya India	Chola India	Mughal India
Persia (Achaemenid)	Mongolia	Meiji Japan
Mississippians	Hawaii	America
Greece	Normans	Britain
Rome	Spain	France
Egypt	Abbasids	Buganda
Aksum	Songhai	Germany
Maya	Inca	Gran Colombia

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".

I admire your enthusiasm in putting Gran Colombia ahead of Germany, Britain and Russia, but I found it really unlikely. We'll probably have some LATAM civ in one of the early DLCs, but on release I'm pretty sure the only American civilization will be America.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'll take a solidly-backboned game at the expense of more civs, if that's what we get.

I don't think it needed to be either or. I think they've brainstormed how they can justify more DLC and they've elected to boost the content included per civ in exchange for number of civs so they can sell more civs back to us later. Some people may like that, and thats fine, but I'm 100% certain this is a money driven decision first and a quality driven decision second. They could easily have released civ 7 with civs that don't have all these graphical assets, and released DLC that adds non compulsory skins rather than holding back the main content people want from a civ game: civs

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't think it needed to be either or. I think they've brainstormed how they can justify more DLC and they've elected to boost the content included per civ in exchange for number of civs so they can sell more civs back to us later. Some people may like that, and thats fine, but I'm 100% certain this is a money driven decision first and a quality driven decision second. They could easily have released civ 7 with civs that don't have all these graphical assets, and released DLC that adds non compulsory skins rather than holding back the main content people want from a civ game: civs

Strong disagree. For one thing, releasing the game with 80 fairly basic civs and then selling skins feels way more predatory to me, I would hate that.

I don't doubt that the decision to release with 30 civs was part of a wider monetization strategy, but I see no reason to believe that this strategy had any influence on the design philosophy of the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

Strong disagree. For one thing, releasing the game with 80 fairly basic civs and then selling skins feels way more predatory to me, I would hate that.

I don't doubt that the decision to release with 30 civs was part of a wider monetization strategy, but I see no reason to believe that this strategy had any influence on the design philosophy of the game.

Also 80 civs with abilities
-would be hard to be unique
-would use gameplay mechanics that won’t be good until patching and actual consumer playtesting

The gameplay work on civs is also important (aside from the graphics)… after all as soon as it is moddable, there will be hundreds or thousands of civs available, and 99% of them will be terrible (especially if in the same game). Making good ones that are unique will take time.

 

[Kulko]

I don't think it needed to be either or. I think they've brainstormed how they can justify more DLC and they've elected to boost the content included per civ in exchange for number of civs so they can sell more civs back to us later. Some people may like that, and thats fine, but I'm 100% certain this is a money driven decision first and a quality driven decision second. They could easily have released civ 7 with civs that don't have all these graphical assets, and released DLC that adds non compulsory skins rather than holding back the main content people want from a civ game: civs

I would also like it more, but it doesn't sell copies.

A beautiful basegame gets the hype level up a lot easier than endless discussions whether this gameplay feature is good or mediocre or historically correct enough will.
And selling civ packs especially ones containing at least 1 option of the major markets is a much surer way to get the DLCs sold. Because DLCs are bought by people really playing the game, they know already that the base graphics is more than enough for their enjoyment. But trying out another civ bonus, thats something you can always sell to player with 100 Hours+.

Would I like to work Marketing any other way? probably I would like to have a game tailormade to my preferences too, instead having to make compromises with lots of other interest groups. But most of all I want Firaxis to do financially well as long as they build good games so they will continue to make more.

And I think people who are only seeing 10 civilizations are also massively undeselling the amount of variety in it. Yes it is not 1000 combinations + leaders either, but you will probably have 2 or 3 civ pathes you like and you will try to match those with some of the leaders at least. Thats surely about 15-20 interesting combinations to try out before it gets boring. And thats on top of having to relearn a new 4X game, which might even prove to be 3 new games. By the time you are through with that the first DLCs will be there to keep you interested.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I would also like it more, but it doesn't sell copies.

A beautiful basegame gets the hype level up a lot easier than endless discussions whether this gameplay feature is good or mediocre or historically correct enough will.
And selling civ packs especially ones containing at least 1 option of the major markets is a much surer way to get the DLCs sold. Because DLCs are bought by people really playing the game, they know already that the base graphics is more than enough for their enjoyment. But trying out another civ bonus, thats something you can always sell to player with 100 Hours+.

Would I like to work Marketing any other way? probably I would like to have a game tailormade to my preferences too, instead having to make compromises with lots of other interest groups. But most of all I want Firaxis to do financially well as long as they build good games so they will continue to make more.

And I think people who are only seeing 10 civilizations are also massively undeselling the amount of variety in it. Yes it is not 1000 combinations + leaders either, but you will probably have 2 or 3 civ pathes you like and you will try to match those with some of the leaders at least. Thats surely about 15-20 interesting combinations to try out before it gets boring. And thats on top of having to relearn a new 4X game, which might even prove to be 3 new games. By the time you are through with that the first DLCs will be there to keep you interested.

It saddens me how low expectations are now, and how readily people will accept being so clearly shaken down.

From my perspective its a game that isn't playable on launch because the civ variety is so limited we only have 2 full civs in the roster. But I'm happy to wait and see and buy it at 85% off in 6 years time when it's complete.

 

[JNR13]

I admire your enthusiasm in putting Gran Colombia ahead of Germany, Britain and Russia, but I found it really unlikely. We'll probably have some LATAM civ in one of the early DLCs, but on release I'm pretty sure the only American civilization will be America.

There's a whole LatAm city style prominently shown throughout the modern era so I think Mexico actually made it in. I don't see non LatAm civs using it.

 

[Kev1916]

It saddens me how low expectations are now, and how readily people will accept being so clearly shaken down.

From my perspective its a game that isn't playable on launch because the civ variety is so limited we only have 2 full civs in the roster. But I'm happy to wait and see and buy it at 85% off in 6 years time when it's complete.

What low expectations ... we have 6 Dlc's to get shaken down for first and a meta system that Im sure will bring in more shiny things to buy .

6 Years hopefully by then Civ 8 is on track to return, and Civkind is passed over to Switch players

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

What low expectations ... we have 6 Dlc's to get shaken down for first and a meta system that Im sure will bring in more shiny things to buy .

6 Years hopefully by then Civ 8 is on track to return, and Civkind is passed over to Switch players

Thought they implied it that Civ 8, if it comes, won't be for YEARS, maybe even atleast a decade, They want this game to be the "long-living one". Many games are going this way (just look at The sims 4, problem is Civ is at least made with future in mind, TS4 was never designed with longetivity in mind)

 

[Kev1916]

Thought they implied it that Civ 8, if it comes, won't be for YEARS, maybe even atleast a decade, They want this game to be the "long-living one". Many games are going this way (just look at The sims 4, problem is Civ is at least made with future in mind, TS4 was never designed with longetivity in mind)

Was sort of Joking I doubt Civ 8 will be in my life time

Going by civ 6 which to me was absolutely the worst civ on launch I can only hope this version in a few years is either a big success ( doubtful ) or hopefully a massive failure and they can ditch ages and civ switching and focus on sorting out the AI and make a "proper" civ game .
On aside note be awesome to have a Fantasy or Sci-fi version of Civ made

Moderator Action: Please avoid profanity. Thank you. - pokiehl

 

[queenpea]

Not sure about you guys, but this was just revealed at PAX Australia and I'm kinda devastated. This seems to be far below any of our estimations. Looks as if the 11 pips in exploration were correct, 10 average + Shawnee.

So my guesses would be:

Mississippi	Hawaii	America
Maya	Inca	Mexico
Han	Ming	Qing
Maurya	Chola	Mughal
Khmer	Indonesia	Siam
Rome	Spain	France
Greece	Norman	Britain
Persia	Mongolia	Meiji
Egypt	Abbasids	Germany (not as Abbasid successor, this spot was just the only one left)
Aksum	Songhai	Buganda

I’m now in the stage of accepting 30 civs in the base game, and reflecting on your list, it looks right to me.

While a lot of these civ are jarring to me for many reasons, it really is a pity to me that this may very well mean that there may not be any Native American representation in the Modern Age, and that these civs are cordoned off to “past” ages.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Also 80 civs with abilities
-would be hard to be unique
-would use gameplay mechanics that won’t be good until patching and actual consumer playtesting

The gameplay work on civs is also important (aside from the graphics)… after all as soon as it is moddable, there will be hundreds or thousands of civs available, and 99% of them will be terrible (especially if in the same game). Making good ones that are unique will take time

Personally thought the amount of uniques may have been an error for these reasons.

If you asked me whether I'd prefer to have 60 civs with maybe one UU and a tame overall bonus, no unique graphics at least at launch, no unique wonders, or 30 that do, I'd have picked the 60.

Especially because this switch to morphs really demands more civs in a way past installments didn't. They got too ambitious IMO.

Essentially the question was asked: what do you wanna punt to modders, civs themselves, or unique textures and the like, and it sorta seems they went with A. Bad move I think.