Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[Zaarin]

I hope that Etemenanki returns as the associated wonder of Babylon, and that the Hanging Gardens remains disassociated.

Or the Nisan Processional Way (the Ishtar Gates). Either way, I agree: the Hanging Gardens were probably Assyrian if they existed at all and are probably best left unassociated.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I hope that Etemenanki returns as the associated wonder of Babylon, and that the Hanging Gardens remains disassociated.

Oh no, that is a very good point. I was assuming Crossroads would just appropriate both Dur-Sharruken and Hanging Gardens. But I, too, wish for an Etemenaki return. So maybe Babylon is not our mysterious second Crossroads civ, if it were planned to have Etemenaki.

Or the Nisan Processional Way (the Ishtar Gates). Either way, I agree: the Hanging Gardens were probably Assyrian if they existed at all and are probably best left unassociated.

I have always justified Hanging Gardens as a non-mythical wonder in my mind by just pretending they were the Ishtar Gates. Would be nice to see them appear properly at some point, although we've already got a really high count of "Blue Persian/Mesopotamian" wonders.

 

[Zaarin]

I have always justified Hanging Gardens as a non-mythical wonder in my mind by just pretending they were the Ishtar Gates.

We know Sennacherib built some splendid gardens in Nineveh. Herodotus probably just got the city wrong.

 

[8housesofelixir]

We know Sennacherib built some splendid gardens in Nineveh. Herodotus probably just got the city wrong.

Herodotus actually did not mention any notable gardens in Babylon in Histories, and he is a notable absence in our sources.

Ctesias first described the gardens in his Persica, a book that was lost to us, but Diodorus Siculus quoted some of the sections in his Bibliotheca Historica, including a very detailed description of the Hanging Gardens and its architectural structures. The relevant sections are in Bibliotheca Historica, 2.10.

Ctesias was a physician who served in the court of Artaxerxes II; he likely witnessed certain splendid terraced gardens himself - since the architectural description was insanely detailed, down to the size of the supporting galleries and how trees could grow in the terraces - and then decided to attribute the gardens to Semiramis.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One thing that I can understand but still bugs me a bit is that every single modern depiction of the Hanging Garden in games is wrong (in that it does not follow the descriptions and evidences we had in hand).

Diodorus Siculus literally quoted a physician who served in the Persian court that the Hanging Gardens was a terraced building that looked like an amphitheater; that is, it only had terraces on one side. Even the Assyrian Ashurbanipal gardens were terraced only on one side. Yet in every game possible the Hanging Gardens would be a Ziggurat.

As posted several times, they appear to prefer the 19th century Romantic illustrations to any actual description, or even actual archeological remains.

We know, for instance, that the Temple of Apollo associated with the Oracle was a classic Greek temple: rectangular, columns, peaked roof. But (I suspect) since that describes virtually every Greek temple built since the 7th century BCE, Civ uses the Tholos at Delphi, which is unique and distinctive even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the Oracle.

For that matter, modern Industrial and Architectural Engineers have calculated how high you can build a mud-brick ziggurat before it collapses under its own weight, yet Ziggurats of all kinds in the games are regularly shown much higher than was physically possible without timber or other reinforcement.

Let's face it: like it or not, there will be a certain amount of Fantasy slipped into our games, we just have to hope it remains in the graphics rather than the actual game play mechanics.

 

[Evolena]

Ah wow, that is a lotta packs. Okay, that will be interesting to see what all that means.

Probably one for each leader, one for each civ, and one for the "and more".

 

[RedCourtJester]

Probably one for each leader, one for each civ, and one for the "and more".

"And more" is the DLC pack that lets you pet the dog. Nothing else, just petting the dog.

 

[Evolena]

This is partly why I'm not holding myself to 10 civs per era. The game's design naturally suggests there will be more modern civs than antiquity or exploration civs. I think antiquity will always be locked at 5 based on the 7 wonders win-con (8-ish universal wonders plus 5 civ-specific wonders each game), but if there aren't any restrictions as harsh as that in exploration/modern, I could maybe see the game opening those eras up later. Maybe 8-10 in exploration, 12-15 modern?

But as they said that the civs in the "new world" are very well into existence and can steal a wonder from you even if you can't reach them, I bet you can only play a 5-player multiplayer game from Antiquity, but that in single player this is still you + 7 civs in each age.

 

[Evolena]

"And more" is the DLC pack that lets you pet the dog. Nothing else, just petting the dog.

Nah, that's the 8th cosmetic one!

 

[RedCourtJester]

But as they said that the civs in the "new world" are very well into existence and can steal a wonder from you even if you can't reach them, I bet you can only play a 5-player multiplayer game from Antiquity, but that in single player this is still you + 7 civs in each age.

That may be true in modern before we reach them, I don't know if it's been confirmed for antiquity or exploration. We have confirmation of how civs can be quickly "built-out" at the start of exploration and modern, which if that is how civs are "added" would explain away players' concerns about the game eating up RAM on civs we can't even interact with yet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I hope that Etemenanki returns as the associated wonder of Babylon, and that the Hanging Gardens remains disassociated.

Or the Hanging Gardens becomes the associated wonder of Assyria.
Probably not, but worth a shot.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We know Sennacherib built some splendid gardens in Nineveh. Herodotus probably just got the city wrong.

- which wouldn't be the first or last thing Herodotus got wrong or mis-attributed.

Herodotus actually did not mention any notable gardens in Babylon in Histories, and he is a notable absence in our sources.

Ctesias first described the gardens in his Persica, a book that was lost to us, but Diodorus Siculus quoted some of the sections in his Bibliotheca Historica, including a very detailed description of the Hanging Gardens and its architectural structures.

Ctesias was a physician who served in the court of Artaxerxes II; he likely witnessed certain splendid terraced gardens himself - since the architectural description was insanely detailed, down to the size of the supporting galleries and how trees could grow in the terraces - and then decided to attribute the gardens to Semiramis.

Ancient authors are notoriously bad at attributing to sources older than living memory: Solon got told a bunch of 'tall tales' by Egyptians about the Pyramids, which mainly tells us that tourist touts were already making up whatever story about the attraction they thought would Sell. I suspect similar stories were already circulating about Gardens hanging or otherwise, ancient Ziggurats, Gates, Temples, etc.

Arrian is unusual among ancient/classical authors in that in his Anabasis of Alexander he names his sources and then cites them for specific passages throughout the book. Since 'plagarism' was a meaningless word to most of the authors, if there was a good sentence, phrase, or entire set of paragraphs, they simply incorporated it, and modern researchers have to tease out the fragments by textual analysis when the original author isn't mentioned by name in the later work.

When we do have an eye-witness account that has come down more or less intact, like Ctesias, I would hope it behooves us to use it instead of reproducing some artist's fiction from 1000s of years later. Even more, when we know that some constructions are simply physically impossible, it would be nice if the game or any other modern depiction didn't keep repeating utterly fictional renditions of the structure, even if that means more work required to reconstruct it.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Nah, that's the 8th cosmetic one!

Also, aside, but as a very lucky owner of a Xoloitzcuintli pup who needed a home, I am hoping the Mesoamerican scout has that breed.

We should start a doggo speculation thread. Nevermind, I'm just gonna do it, for the funzies.

 

[Evolena]

That may be true in modern before we reach them, I don't know if it's been confirmed for antiquity or exploration. We have confirmation of how civs can be quickly "built-out" at the start of exploration and modern, which if that is how civs are "added" would explain away players' concerns about the game eating up RAM on civs we can't even interact with yet.

Source (at 44'15, the video should start there) :

 

[Zaarin]

Herodotus actually did not mention any notable gardens in Babylon in Histories, and he is a notable absence in our sources.

Ctesias first described the gardens in his Persica, a book that was lost to us, but Diodorus Siculus quoted some of the sections in his Bibliotheca Historica, including a very detailed description of the Hanging Gardens and its architectural structures. The relevant sections are in Bibliotheca Historica, 2.10.

Ctesias was a physician who served in the court of Artaxerxes II; he likely witnessed certain splendid terraced gardens himself - since the architectural description was insanely detailed, down to the size of the supporting galleries and how trees could grow in the terraces - and then decided to attribute the gardens to Semiramis.

Ah, yes, Diodorus Siculus. I knew one of them talked about the Hanging Gardens.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Source (at 44'15, the video should start there) :

Huh. Maybe they will have a kind of "truncated" idea of progression off-screen.

That would ease up my speculation about final universal wonder count, as technically we don't need 8 universals to reach a minimum of 13 (as I think we've safely identified 7, not including Emile Bell, Borobudur, and Gate of All Nations). We could be seeing a set antiquity wonder limit of maybe 14, 15, or a tad higher.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That would ease up my speculation about final universal wonder count, as technically we don't need 8 universals to reach a minimum of 13 (as I think we've safely identified 7, not including Emile Bell, Borobudur, and Gate of All Nations). We could be seeing a set antiquity wonder limit of maybe 14, 15, or a tad higher.

Is Borobudur Antiquity?

 

[RedCourtJester]

Is Borobudur Antiquity?

It's unconfirmed either way, hence why it is still in the running.

I think it would be an odd choice for Majapahit since it does date back further into Srivijaya territory. Whereas the structures at Trowolan are more distinctly Majapahit. I think it's the biggest "toss-up" of wonders we have seen so far.

 

[AriochIV]

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.

It's looking to me like they're going to do the thing where the "Space Race Victory" is a Moon mission rather than an interstellar mission, so I think they've definitely left themselves room to add a fourth Age if they choose to do so.

It's true that the near-future gameplay does not have a good track record in Civilization, but there are a few reasons why this might be different in Civ7. One is the length of Ages: interstellar travel is really NOT a near-future thing, so interstellar missions have always felt rushed and completely implausible; the length of Civ7 Ages does potentially allow enough time to reach a tech level where such a thing could feel plausible. Another is the rubber-banding of Civ7 Ages, that could focus the gameplay of a Future Age instead of it being the usual strung-out endgame of a contest that was already over several hundred turns earlier.

But anyhow, we're getting way ahead of ourselves.

 

[Zaarin]

It's looking to me like they're going to do the thing where the "Space Race Victory" is a Moon mission rather than an interstellar mission, so I think they've definitely left themselves room to add a fourth Age if they choose to do so.

It's true that the near-future gameplay does not have a good track record in Civilization, but there are a few reasons why this might be different in Civ7. One is the length of Ages: interstellar travel is really NOT a near-future thing, so interstellar missions have always felt rushed and completely implausible; the length of Civ7 Ages does potentially allow enough time to reach a tech level where such a thing could feel plausible. Another is the rubber-banding of Civ7 Ages, that could focus the gameplay of a Future Age instead of it being the usual strung-out endgame of a contest that was already over several hundred turns earlier.

But anyhow, we're getting way ahead of ourselves.

Again, if they sell such a thing, I hope it's not a traditional expansion but an entirely self-contained DLC. If it's an expansion, it might come with other things I want, which would make it difficult to disable, and would probably be built upon in future expansion(s).