Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[Zaarin]

Japan was attacking an American base, not the indigenous people of Hawaii. I don't think there's any ill will against the Japanese for it. At least, not more ill will than Hawaiians feel towards the US for overthrowing their monarchy to appease business interests. And as Pacific island groups, there's a regional connection between the two.

PS Hawaii is actually a popular tourist destination for Japan nowadays.

There's also a substantial Japanese population in Hawai'i, including people of mixed Japanese-Hawai'ian descent. There's also some evidence the Japanese made it to Hawai'i before Europeans did.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Right to Rule seems very subjective. I believe it will be about leaders/civs who have a history of resistance against a foreign power, and this applies to many civs from several places in the world.

I think Right to Rule is, in fact, going to be a series of DLC, while Crossroads is a single DLC pack.

I think that is what they mean by Right to Rule being released in six DLC packs through Sept. 2025. Six "region-expanding" packs of roughly 4 civs, 2 leaders each.

So I think it's a collective term like "New Frontier" was.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There's also a substantial Japanese population in Hawai'i, including people of mixed Japanese-Hawai'ian descent. There's also some evidence the Japanese made it to Hawai'i before Europeans did.

There is also Very Skimpy evidence that Native Americans reached Hawai'i. At least, there are oral legends/tales among the Haida that say they reached "islands in the middle of the sea" and some over-enthusiastic types (in my opinion) have taken this to mean they got to Hawai'i. Given that they did not have sails on their big canoes yet, I find that an Island Too Far and suspect they were talking about the Aleutians, which start not that far north of where the Haida lived and traded/raided along with west coast of Canada.

Makes a fascinating basis for a "What if?" , though.

 

[pokiehl]

think Right to Rule is, in fact, going to be a series of DLC, while Crossroads is a single DLC pack.

I think that is what they mean by Right to Rule being released in six DLC packs through Sept. 2025. Six "region-expanding" packs of roughly 4 civs, 2 leaders each.

So I think it's a collective term like "New Frontier" was.

This isn’t right. They’re both a series of DLCs. The estimated release dates are on the Switch versions website and the descriptions indicate this as well.

 

[RedCourtJester]

This isn’t right. They’re both a series of DLCs. The estimated release dates are on the Switch versions website and the descriptions indicate this as well.

I disagree. Even on the switch website, it only specifies that Right to Rule Collection is being released as a series of 6 DLCs. The asterisks say nothing about Crossroads of the World being a series. This is consistent with the official Civ VII website.

Sid Meier's Civilization® VII Founders Edition for Nintendo Switch - Nintendo Official Site

Buy Sid Meier's Civilization® VII Founders Edition and shop other great Nintendo products online at the official My Nintendo Store.

www.nintendo.com

EDIT: Although I could conceive of a DLC pack series wherein we only receive one civ at a time, along with "scenarios."

 

[Zaarin]

There is also Very Skimpy evidence that Native Americans reached Hawai'i. At least, there are oral legends/tales among the Haida that say they reached "islands in the middle of the sea" and some over-enthusiastic types (in my opinion) have taken this to mean they got to Hawai'i. Given that they did not have sails on their big canoes yet, I find that an Island Too Far and suspect they were talking about the Aleutians, which start not that far north of where the Haida lived and traded/raided along with west coast of Canada.

Makes a fascinating basis for a "What if?" , though.

I find the speculation that the Haida reached Kamchatka dubious enough given it's based chiefly on some similar folktales that are literally found all over the world and "well maybe they could have." Islands in the middle of the sea definitely sounds more like the Aleutians to me; the Commanders if we're being extremely generous. There does seem to be some more substantiated evidence for cultural exchange between Polynesia and the Andes, though.

 

[Cooleatack]

This on top of them showing that units seem to stop at WW2-era, no cold-war or contemporary units - thus I'm assuming no cold-war or contemporary gameplay or techs is also majorly disappointing. I was weary in the beginning but fell in-love with the major gameplay differences for this iteration, but I don't like at all how it seems they've left big areas of content out for future expansions that perviously were in the base game.

I hope this means a contemporary age will follow in an expansion, so contemporary states can be modeled differently entirely, with their own specific goals and challenges. I think it fits their approach to era’s and civs shown so far

 

[Zaarin]

I hope this means a contemporary age will follow in an expansion, so contemporary states can be modeled differently entirely, with their own specific goals and challenges. I think it fits their approach to era’s and civs shown so far

200 turns of modern nation-states sounds absolutely awful. I still think the Modern Age will go into the near future just like it always has, but if they add a fourth age I hope they make it self-contained and easy to quarantine. I very adamantly don't want such a thing.

 

[chaosprophet]

It seems almost impossible to come up with a sensible progression for many of the civs we know about, given the cap of 30 civilizations (excluding the Shawnee). If every civ has to have a 'default' path, then it probably means that there are 10 default pathways, with every civ put on exactly one of them. Civs will have another one or two secondary pathways, and maybe these will change as DLC civs are added, but I think the base game 30 civs will all need to initially be put on one of those 10 paths.

I've assumed that the dev team would want there to be a default natural progression for every civ, so that when you play a full game, there's actually a chance of seeing every civ. If there isn't a default route, then those civs are unlikely to appear as an opponent in single player games without an advanced start. As ugly as it is, I don't know which Antiquity era civ would lead into Spain (given that Rome would already be taken) other than the Maya. The same for Meiji Japan - Siam is a much nicer choice for something coming originally from Khmer, but then I have no idea where Japan would go.

It might just be that the devs don't care too much if some civs are unlikely to appear in the game, or if some civs have no default paths and are chosen entirely at random on era progression.

Majapahit will certainly go to Siam. It may not be the most historically appropriate path, but it's still better than some other regions. Almost 100% certain that Spain will come from the Romans, nothing prevents a civ from transitioning into more than one civ in the next era. Meiji Japan seems out of place, really, but I suspect it will come from Hawaii, or Majapahit (or even Ming, as controversial as that is).

The evidence so far of likely being 10/10/10 civs suggest something like you said of there always being a default path. But things like the player count being 5/5/8 for standard map sizes may point that there is something happening on modern age that results in more civs. If it was exploration age, it would likely mean just being in the other side of the world, but it being on modern is an unknown. But if like it suggests and there is an increase in civs on the last age by some way that isn't just existing in a separated part of the world like how it happens on the part of the world you can't access during antiquity era, and they either spam new civs or have some kind of partial civ division on that era, then the need for a direct line/path would only be for antiquity to exploration, while from exploration to modern you would have at least two path the game could go at random and sometimes the other option of the path is picked as a newly spam civ.

Still, pretty much just speculation based on that player count at this point.

 

[stealth_nsk]

200 turns of modern nation-states sounds absolutely awful. I still think the Modern Age will go into the near future just like it always has, but if they add a fourth age I hope they make it self-contained and easy to quarantine. I very adamantly don't want such a thing.

I understand what your concern is about civs and you want to keep focus on them despite FXS efforts. But this potential information era could involve quite interesting gameplay, like settling sea cities.

 

[pokiehl]

I understand what your concern is about civs and you want to keep focus on them despite FXS efforts. But this potential information era could involve quite interesting gameplay, like settling sea cities.

I have to agree with Zaarin. I’d find such an era very boring and offputting. I don’t want sea cities and other sci fi stuff in the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

200 turns of modern nation-states sounds absolutely awful. I still think the Modern Age will go into the near future just like it always has, but if they add a fourth age I hope they make it self-contained and easy to quarantine. I very adamantly don't want such a thing.

If America comes out being called "Colonial America" in game that might be hinting towards another age. But if it's just called America, it will be hard to imagine another future age.

 

[Zaarin]

I understand what your concern is about civs and you want to keep focus on them despite FXS efforts. But this potential information era could involve quite interesting gameplay, like settling sea cities.

Not for someone whose interest in history plummets starting around 1750. TBH learning the Mughals were Modern practically saved the game for me--in trying to make more players finish the game, our early impression of Modern as 1850+ left me very dubious whether I'd ever finish a three-part game. It's not about the civs; it's about my lack of interest in modern history. Also, GS's Future Age was tedious and awful.

 

[8housesofelixir]

If America comes out being called "Colonial America" in game that might be hinting towards another age. But if it's just called America, it will be hard to imagine another future age.

To be honest, the only concrete evidence of the possibility that the 3rd Age would be not-so-contemporary is one screenshot of a rocket taking off from a 19th-century-looking city. All other evidences are negative evidences (we don't have a modern India, we don't have a modern Japan, etc) rather than evidence-by-existence.

 

[Nikolai II]

I have to agree with Zaarin. I’d find such an era very boring and offputting. I don’t want sea cities and other sci fi stuff in the game.

I for one hope for space exploration in such a potential future setting.

 

[Zaarin]

I for one hope for space exploration in such a potential future setting.

I've played Beyond Earth; I don't want originality from FXS.

 

[Nikolai II]

I've played Beyond Earth; I don't want originality from FXS.

One can still hope for a SMAC2 in some form one day. A REAL SMAC2, if only in name. But I was more thinking of exploring and exploiting the solar system, perhaps ending in first to colonize Mars, or something?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To be honest, the only concrete evidence of the possibility that the 3rd Age would be not-so-contemporary is one screenshot of a rocket taking off from a 19th-century-looking city. All other evidences are negative evidences (we don't have a modern India, we don't have a modern Japan, etc) rather than evidence-by-existence.

- and that screenshot only gives us a No Earlier Date for the end of the current Ages: 1967 when the form of Heavy Lift Rocket shown in the screenshot went into service, or 1969 when it took the first manned payload to the moon.

Which, if it means anything, means there are at most about 55 - 60 years left in which to cram in a '4th Age' without going over the falls into the dark pools of Science/Future Fiction.

Mind you, I likes a good Science Fiction story (been reading them since the Heinlein Juveniles of the 1950s) but Civ has never managed it and has produced some stuff that was more Science Fantasy than Fiction (looking at you, Giant Dork Robot).

It would take some serious research to do it right, and even then one runs into the Time Problem: how to stuff 200 turns into less than 100 years, or produce a meaningful line of technical progression running 140 years into the future. To put that into perspective, 140 years ago was over 20 years before the first controlled powered flight, before the first modern skyscraper went up, before the first mass-produced automobile, before the first modern machinegun was issued to a military unit. Predicting all the developments and their consequences has so far proven beyond the means of even the experts getting paid to do just that, - including science fiction authors!

 

[Evolena]

I disagree. Even on the switch website, it only specifies that Right to Rule Collection is being released as a series of 6 DLCs. The asterisks say nothing about Crossroads of the World being a series. This is consistent with the official Civ VII website.

Sid Meier's Civilization® VII Founders Edition for Nintendo Switch - Nintendo Official Site

Buy Sid Meier's Civilization® VII Founders Edition and shop other great Nintendo products online at the official My Nintendo Store.

www.nintendo.com

EDIT: Although I could conceive of a DLC pack series wherein we only receive one civ at a time, along with "scenarios."

They each have 7 packs listed (https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Game...eier-s-Civilization-VII-2637632.html#dlcItems)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be honest, the only concrete evidence of the possibility that the 3rd Age would be not-so-contemporary is one screenshot of a rocket taking off from a 19th-century-looking city. All other evidences are negative evidences (we don't have a modern India, we don't have a modern Japan, etc) rather than evidence-by-existence.

Now that you mention it, we haven't seen any evidence of wonders built after the 20th century, either? The latest would-be Eiffel Tower, right?
I know @Zaarin would love the Sydney Opera House to return.