Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[pokiehl]

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.

I disagree. I’m really happy we’re getting more detailed and in depth civ designs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

I'm sure some will come in later. I can see the Lakota in North America and the Maori for Polynesia.

 

[queenpea]

I'm sure some will come in later. I can see the Lakota in North America and the Maori for Polynesia.

I just hate the amount of heavy lifting that for-purchase, future DLC is doing right now…

 

[Nikolai II]

I disagree. I’m really happy we’re getting more detailed and in depth civ designs.

Me too! As long as they can be well balanced.

 

[Leucarum]

I disagree. I’m really happy we’re getting more detailed and in depth civ designs.

I like the detailed civ designs, but I don't like them as much in combination with civ switching. I think the latter makes it more important to have variety than depth - assuming there is a tradeoff between the two.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I just hate the amount of heavy lifting that for purchase future DLC is doing right now…

Prices are gonna matter. If this is turned into a giant cash cow I'm probably gonna get pretty jaded about it.

Me too! As long as they can be well balanced.

I don't see how they could be? It's the nature of uniques. They create less parity, which naturally brings less balance. Basically a given some will be much stronger than others.

Tolerably unbalanced is good enough.

 

[pokiehl]

I like the detailed civ designs, but I don't like them as much in combination with civ switching. I think the latter makes it more important to have variety than depth - assuming there is a tradeoff between the two.

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. Skimping on depth appears to be directly against their design philosophy to make the whole game feel engaging and exciting, rather than just the beginning of the game like in prior games.

So, I think this added depth is actually central to the civ-switching/ages mechanic.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. Skimping on depth appears to be directly against their design philosophy to make the whole game feel engaging and exciting, rather than just the beginning of the game like in prior games.

So, I think this added depth is actually central to the civ-switching/ages mechanic.

I agree the depth does accomplish a lot. It lets similar civs have many more ways to feel distinct and they were able to go deep into the mechanics of each age. Like I said, in isolation, I like it... But balanced against having a satisfying range of civs to switch into I'd 100% take the latter over depth every time.

I'm making a naive assumption though that deeper civ designs takes developer time away from adding more civs. This may not be true, commercial imperatives alone of wanting to keep big names for DLC make that likely to be a false assumption. Us being unsatistied with the menu on offer is quite possibly a feature, not a bug.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. Skimping on depth appears to be directly against their design philosophy to make the whole game feel engaging and exciting, rather than just the beginning of the game like in prior games.

So, I think this added depth is actually central to the civ-switching/ages mechanic

It can be argued that the lack of many civs IS skimping on depth, in and of itself, though.

Relative to past installments, the number of active civs on the board at any one time appears pretty drastically reduced.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. Skimping on depth appears to be directly against their design philosophy to make the whole game feel engaging and exciting, rather than just the beginning of the game like in prior games.

So, I think this added depth is actually central to the civ-switching/ages mechanic.

I think the way age switching has been implemented lends itself to increased depth for leader bonuses so you have a deeper continuity, and then small in number but significant in impact bonuses for each civ which change each era. As it stands there is going to be a huge mental load on the player to forward plan with a large number of optional variables per civ, plus whatever the requirements are to unlock that civ.

That's not going to be a very chill experience of playing through history as a civilization so you get the civilization you want, but it is a dream for min maxers

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think the way age switching has been implemented lends itself to increased depth for leader bonuses so you have a deeper continuity

Maybe, but it looks like each leader progresses on the same, generic skill sets, and the bonuses aren't particularly immersive, just a plus here and a plus there. Agreed that provides min-maxers the ability to better stack bonuses to create "look at this!" screen shots, but not sure how differently each leader will play if you're not purposefully trying to stack bonuses.

Leaders apparently also have unique events, so maybe those will create more uniqueness to choosing one over another. I'm personally more interested in how differently games play based on having leader X instead of leader Y as my closest neighbour. So far, I'm not seeing anything that would cause the different leaders to behave differently, but we won't know for sure until we see everything in action.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Maybe, but it looks like each leader progresses on the same, generic skill sets, and the bonuses aren't particularly immersive, just a plus here and a plus there. Agreed that provides min-maxers the ability to better stack bonuses to create "look at this!" screen shots, but not sure how differently each leader will play if you're not purposefully trying to stack bonuses.

Leaders apparently also have unique events, so maybe those will create more uniqueness to choosing one over another. I'm personally more interested in how differently games play based on having leader X instead of leader Y as my closest neighbour. So far, I'm not seeing anything that would cause the different leaders to behave differently, but we won't know for sure until we see everything in action.

Yeah I agree, it's not the way the game has been designed, and I think that's an incoherence in the design that will hit casual players quite a bit. I reckon there will be a lower median play hours per purchase for this game than civ 6.

 

[Atlas627]

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.

My first guess had Britain and Russia, and my second guess has Britain and Germany.

 

[chaosprophet]

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. Skimping on depth appears to be directly against their design philosophy to make the whole game feel engaging and exciting, rather than just the beginning of the game like in prior games.

So, I think this added depth is actually central to the civ-switching/ages mechanic.

And also the more each civ plays different the more different combinations of civ makes your whole game feel different. Like playing as Normans after Greece being very different than playing Normans after Rome because the 150 turn base before you reach exploration age was played quite differently.

 

[Xandinho]

And also the more each civ plays different the more different combinations of civ makes your whole game feel different. Like playing as Normans after Greece being very different than playing Normans after Rome because the 150 turn base before you reach exploration age was played quite differently.

You can add to this the fact that different leaders will play differently. If you play Rome led by Confucius, it will certainly be different if you play Rome led by Napoleon.

 

[The_J]

Could someone please get the time stamp in the video, so that someone from the moderators could linke this as evidence in the OP?
Thanks.

 

[chaosprophet]

Could someone please get the time stamp in the video, so that someone from the moderators could linke this as evidence in the OP?
Thanks.

For 31 civs? Funny enough, here at 31:00, in about 10 seconds from that he tells it.

 

[Gorbles]

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

Releasing civs that "don't have all these graphical assets" is in direct conflict with "quality driven decisions". If you want quality-driven decisions, you want the widest breadth of art investment as close to release as possible. You don't want to sacrifice that for pretty much anything.

Now, if you don't care about the art as much as you care about the civ. variance, I completely understand. But you'd need to actually post that opinion, instead of trying to make it about decisions the developers may or may not be making.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

For 31 civs? Funny enough, here at 31:00, in about 10 seconds from that he tells it.

Man had to start his own clap

 

[timmychompchomp]

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 am very happy with this amount. Seems like the right amount to start with. More than any other civ launch. Which is cool. I understand the concern regarding the individual game player count, but you’re playing the leaders, not the civ.