Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[reddishrecue]

30+ civs is a lot in the base game? I mean considering that you can change them throughout time it narrows down its actual usage. You end up using 3 civs throughout the whole time zones so if you divide 30 by 3 where 3 is the total of time zones you might get about a max of 10 civilians per game. Taking into account all the taken civs as well whoever gets them first.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The way Civ VII handles "Civ Unique" wonders makes Leader Specific Wonders more likely, I think: they aren't really Exclusive, you just get a substantial bonus to build them. That still makes it possible to, for instance, build the Baths of Hatshepsut if Septimus is busy with something else.

While I agree with this, hence while I am not ruling it out, I do think signs are pointing toward a "hard cap" on wonders available in the antiquity era (at least in default play modes). It's the best way to ensure the 7-wonders win-condition remains balanced with the other win-conditions, no matter how many antiquity civs are added to the game. So I'm thinking 8-ish "universal wonders" that appear in every game, plus the specific civ-associated wonders of the players on that map (1-5, maybe 8 (and if 8, might explain why Tonga's wonder was in the antiquity stream despite not yet being on the map)). Always 13-14ish wonders to compete for, no matter how big the full civ pool grows.

An antiquity leader with unique wonders would represent moderate risk to that balance. Possibly still doable depending on what other bonuses they get compared to other leaders. Although, even then I am dubious we want a leader with a unique wonder taking up their design space, as it would mean that leader likely is only good for playing in a specific era and otherwise useless, barring the idea of wonders that might plausibly be built in any era.

EDIT: One other thing I like about this idea, if true, is that it will just overall better utilize and differentiate wonders. It always felt weird to me how many "wonders" in past games just felt like they were "just sort of there" and were struggling to represent actual architectural feats in later periods. Wonders, the idea of architectural marvels, always felt like more of a thing associated more with age, especially antiquity. By making antiquity more "wonder"-oriented and associating civs with particular wonders, it is kind of encouraging a four-way breakdown of wonders:

1. Civ-associated "cultural" wonders, which may reflect any one of these below categories, but are also just really good representations of that civ's culture, both contemporary and forwards/backwards in time.

2. Antiquity universal wonders, which are largely architectural marvels (since antiquity is our "building" phase). For now, these seem to also include "broad cultural ideas" like the Mausoleum of Theodoric, but I think the less one of our universals is an architectural marvel, the more likely it will be replaced in DLC as it is just a placeholder for a civ (like Mausoleum being replaced by Stonehenge).

3. Exploration universal wonders (like, potentially, Notre Dame or what looks like it could be the Walls of Benin in our promo image), which are not necessarily architectural marvels so much as representations of massive feats of religion and/or trade (or whatever the "tech tree" equivalent to our religion mini-game will be).

4. Modern universal wonders, which I could see representing marvels of diplomacy or technology (like a return of Amundsen-Scott Research Center or Biosphere).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I do think signs are pointing toward a "hard cap" on wonders available in the antiquity era (at least in default play modes). It's the best way to ensure the 7-wonders win-condition remains balanced with the other win-conditions, no matter how many antiquity civs are added to the game.

No question, there has to be some kind of game cap on Wonders: my database has 60 potential 'Wonders' listed just in Civ VII's Antiquity Age (up to 400 CE) and I cannot imagine a playable game that included all of them - and I like Wonders!

Now I wonder (no pun intended) though: with the 'Victory/Bonus' conditions shown for the Antiquity Age, how are they going to balance that against larger maps and more Civs in play the longer the game is out? I personally have no doubt they will provide the equivalent of Civ VI's Huge maps eventualy, which will necessarily change the number of Civs in play, which in turn should change the number of Resources (not a problem with a good resource algorithm and a larger map) and the number of Wonders.

To me, this speaks to a requirement for more Wonders in play as the game continues development, unless they are already planning to provide an expanded list of Wonders but limit the number of 'non-assigned' Wonders in a game. That is, I could see getting any Wonder that a Civ in play gets a Bonus for, but only a limited number of other Wonders based on map size/total numbers of playable Civs.

This, of course, would also make all the speculation about Wonders as indicators of given Civs in the game so much empty gas, which I have already suspected . . .

 

[AriochIV]

I knew a guy in high school who was balding. TBH he looked considerably older at 17 than I do now at 35.

Ignoring for a moment that this is nothing like how Augustus looks in the many period representations of him, I don't think giving him a receding hairline does the job.

Note that in the representations of Julius Caesar even though they're idealized we can tell he's losing his hair... even though from what I understand he was quite vain and sensitive about it. So I don't think we can just dismiss period representations as unrealistically flattering... especially when they are relatively consistent.

 

[RedCourtJester]

No question, there has to be some kind of game cap on Wonders: my database has 60 potential 'Wonders' listed just in Civ VII's Antiquity Age (up to 400 CE) and I cannot imagine a playable game that included all of them - and I like Wonders!

Now I wonder (no pun intended) though: with the 'Victory/Bonus' conditions shown for the Antiquity Age, how are they going to balance that against larger maps and more Civs in play the longer the game is out? I personally have no doubt they will provide the equivalent of Civ VI's Huge maps eventualy, which will necessarily change the number of Civs in play, which in turn should change the number of Resources (not a problem with a good resource algorithm and a larger map) and the number of Wonders.

To me, this speaks to a requirement for more Wonders in play as the game continues development, unless they are already planning to provide an expanded list of Wonders but limit the number of 'non-assigned; Wonders in a game. That is, I could see getting any Wonder that a Civ in play gets a Bonus for, but only a limited number of other Wonders based on map size/total numbers of playable Civs.

This, of course, would also make all the speculation about Wonders as indicators of given Civs in the game so much empty gas, which I have already suspected . . .

Oo boy, I wouldn't mind at all if we got close to that many antiquity civs/wonders. I'm looking at a big picture of...quickly scans numbers...probably at least 30 antiquity civs, and that's not even including edge cases which probably add up to at least another 10. I'm quite optimistic about the longevity of this game, if not for content releases then at least for representation and replayability.

Re: speculation on larger maps, I think it is more likely that exploration and modern will be able to expand with more civs, as they will not be affected by more wonders in their victory conditions. With respect to antiquity, however, I think we may just be looking at a 5-8 civ cap on that era, barring maybe some multiplayer options to increase map size and victory conditions. I just don't see the devs totally abandoning the cute "7 wonders" conceit, at least in certain solo play modes.

Re: your requirement on wonders, that's why I am speculating that the cap is very simply determined as a preset list of universal, unassociated wonders (at this point, we have pretty solid confirmation that 6-7: PyroSun, MausoTheo, Colossus, Petra, Nalanda, Terrarmy, and maybe Ha'amaui are all universals), plus the associated wonders of the civs participating in that game (so, for the stream, four wonders: Sanchi Stupa, Coliseum, Pyramids, and Great Stele). In retrospect, this makes a lot of thematic sense, as why would you be able to build Mexico's Palacio if Mexico doesn't exist in that version of the world. I'm sure there might be a setting to "open up" wonders, but I think having this sort of "Age of Empires" style of associated-wonders makes games more strategically and flavorfully on-point, and encourages replayability.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Ignoring for a moment that this is nothing like how Augustus looks in the many period representations of him, I don't think giving him a receding hairline does the job.

View attachment 706464

Note that in the representations of Julius Caesar even though they're idealized we can tell he's losing his hair... even though from what I understand he was quite vain and sensitive about it.

Actually, with just a little shaving of his frontal bone, I could see that working much better. Brings out his bone structure better, woof.

 

[Zaarin]

Re: your requirement on wonders, that's why I am speculating that the cap is very simply determined as a preset list of universal, unassociated wonders (at this point, we have pretty solid confirmation that 6-7: PyroSun, MausoTheo, Colossus, Petra, Nalanda, Terrarmy, and maybe Ha'amaui are all universals), plus the associated wonders of the civs participating in that game (so, for the stream, four wonders: Sanchi Stupa, Coliseum, Pyramids, and Great Stele). In retrospect, this makes a lot of thematic sense, as why would you be able to build Mexico's Palacio if Mexico doesn't exist in that version of the world. I'm sure there might be a setting to "open up" wonders, but I think having this sort of "Age of Empires" style of associated-wonders makes games more strategically and flavorfully on-point, and encourages replayability.

I suspect associated wonders will be unassociated if their civ isn't in that game.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I suspect associated wonders will be unassociated if their civ isn't in that game.

I mean that's basically how it was in past civ games, yes. I don't think that's a sustainable model for expansion, though. Would warp gameplay too much around wonders (which was historically problem in the past game as we experienced more and more wonder bloat) and especially obviate the other three antiquity win-cons.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I knew a guy in high school who was balding. TBH he looked considerably older at 17 than I do now at 35.

No offense, but you might be overestimating your youthful appearance maybe a little...

 

[chaosprophet]

I mean that's basically how it was in past civ games, yes. I don't think that's a sustainable model for expansion, though. Would warp gameplay too much around wonders (which was historically problem in the past game as we experienced more and more wonder bloat) and especially obviate the other three antiquity win-cons.

Not necessarily, as it is a trade off. If you're building wonders, you're not building units, buildings, etc. And also permanently fixing a tile that with the growth speed in the game, you wouldn't need long to be able to work.

At very least, ancient needs a lot more wonders to make it as viable as the other three options, as currently it is the one that seems the most capped of the 4, as 2 civs seriously going for it already make it hard to complete. And that's even for the 5~8 players we know of. If later on the series likely has huge maps with 12+ civs, we would need even more wonders to make it viable.

 

[Zaarin]

No offense, but you might be overestimating your youthful appearance maybe a little...

While I do look young for my age, it's more that he looked very old for his.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Not necessarily, as it is a trade off. If you're building wonders, you're not building units, buildings, etc. And also permanently fixing a tile that with the growth speed in the game, you wouldn't need long to be able to work.

At very least, ancient needs a lot more wonders to make it as viable as the other three options, as currently it is the one that seems the most capped of the 4, as 2 civs seriously going for it already make it hard to complete. And that's even for the 5~8 players we know of. If later on the series likely has huge maps with 12+ civs, we would need even more wonders to make it viable.

With enough wonders added in the front half of the antiquity era, we would see a push toward all players trying to build wonders and ignoring the other facets of the game until they had been effectively shut out. I just don't think that's the sort of meta the devs want to foster with era-specific alternate win-cons, unless they plan to, somehow, add a bunch of similar hyper-snowball features to the econ, military, and science victories as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph and I don't want to misinterpret, mind explaining that logic out a bit more for me?

 

[chaosprophet]

With enough wonders added in the front half of the antiquity era, we would see a push toward all players trying to build wonders and ignoring the other facets of the game until they had been effectively shut out. I just don't think that's the sort of meta the devs want to foster with era-specific alternate win-cons, unless they plan to, somehow, add a bunch of similar hyper-snowball features to the econ, military, and science victories as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second paragraph and I don't want to misinterpret, mind explaining that logic out a bit more for me?

lets say a game where there is only 5 civs in the ancient age, even on the other side of the map. if 3 civs only build one wonder, they easy to build associate wonder, that would be, from the 13~15 we seems to have in that age, about 12 left for the other 2 civs. If those 2 civs are seriously going for the 7 wonder, then there is already not enough for both. While it should be much easier for 2 civs to get the same legacy at max in the same game for the other 3 categories, and even more. The wonders one would need a much bigger number to make it so many civs can aim at getting high on that legacy. While in single player may be easy as the AI doesn't tend to be a proactive at making wonders than the player does, that still could change in 7 cause they would want the AI to at least do better on that legacy.

I could see a system like you said implemented later on when we have tons of wonder for smaller games with less civs, but still wouldn't put much of possibility on that and it wouldn't be something to worry about at launch with so much little wonders in comparison. I think would probably work better if they change it eventually so it isn't just wonders, but just that a wonder give more points than one building (like how the military one, a conquered city equals 2 points).

 

[RedCourtJester]

lets say a game where there is only 5 civs in the ancient age only, even on the other side of the map. if 3 civs only build one wonder, they easy to build associate wonder, that would be, from the 13~15 we seems to have in that age, then about 12 left for the other 2 civs. If those 2 civs are seriously going for the 7 wonder, then there is already not enough for both. While it should be much easier for 2 civs to get the same legacy at max in the same game for the other 3 categories, and even more. The wonders one would need a much bigger number to make it so many civs can aim at getting high on that legacy. While in single player may be easy as the AI doesn't tend to be a proactive at making wonders than the player does, that still could change in 7 cause they would want the AI to at least do better on that legacy.

I could see a system like you said implemented later on when we have tons of wonder for smaller games with less civs, but still wouldn't put much of possibility on that and it wouldn't be something to worry about at launch with so much little wonders in comparison. I think would probably work better if they change it eventually so it isn't just wonders, but just that a wonder give more points than one building (like how the military one, a conquered city equals 2 points).

Ah I see what you mean, we want a few, or maybe a good deal more, than 13-15 to account for possible sniping by "offscreen civs."

I wonder if offscreen civs only exist in exploration era, and not antiquity, that would solve the problem since wonders might not matter for victory conditions at that point.

I agree, it will remain to be seen exactly how they solve this, although given the elegant design of using 7 wonders, I highly suspect that number won't be subject to change by a point-system substitute.

 

[chaosprophet]

I wonder if offscreen civs only exist in exploration era, and not antiquity, that would solve the problem since wonders might not matter for victory conditions at that point.

They mentioned those civs on the other side during antiquity could end up beating you to a wonder, so does seems like they exist during that age there. But basically what I mean is, we probably need a lot of wonders still to make that legacy viable to higher player numbers, we probably want at least three times the amount of highest number of players to make it more balanced with other legacies, imo. Of course that would mean way too much if at that same point you decide to play a game with smaller than max players so maybe in that case your idea could be useful, but at release the number already seems quite small for something like 5~8 civs in a game.

And ultimately it depends on how well they balance it. For example, not making wonders so powerful that you would always want to prioritize it over other things. With the ages mechanics, with wonder being ageless, they can make it so they are considerably weaker than later era ages wonders so focusing too much on making too many early on would not be good for the long game, etc.

 

[Krikkit1]

I mean that's basically how it was in past civ games, yes. I don't think that's a sustainable model for expansion, though. Would warp gameplay too much around wonders (which was historically problem in the past game as we experienced more and more wonder bloat) and especially obviate the other three antiquity win-cons.

If wonders aren't as Wonderful as in previous games (all so far just seem to be just a super building for their city), then "Wonder bloat" is fine.

I think that as more and more civs are added, they probably will not add to many unassociated wonders (and some previously associated ones will become wonderful)

Now for the ancient Age Wonder Race, Its probably easier to scale the Checkpoints of the Race to the number of players
2 players 9 Wonders
3,4 players 8 Wonders
5-7 players 7 Wonders
8-11 players 6 Wonders
12+player 5 wonders

Since more Wonders available should mean more players getting extra (not their own) Wonders, since there is less chance of losing it.

 

[RedCourtJester]

If wonders aren't as Wonderful as in previous games (all so far just seem to be just a super building for their city), then "Wonder bloat" is fine.

I think that as more and more civs are added, they probably will not add to many unassociated wonders (and some previously associated ones will become wonderful)

Now for the ancient Age Wonder Race, Its probably easier to scale the Checkpoints of the Race to the number of players
2 players 9 Wonders
3,4 players 8 Wonders
5-7 players 7 Wonders
8-11 players 6 Wonders
12+player 5 wonders

Since more Wonders available should mean more players getting extra (not their own) Wonders, since there is less chance of losing it.

I do suppose non-wondrous wonders could be a thing. I just hope not, I think wonder bloat could stand to be reigned in and made to feel more wondrous.

If they set a dedicated limit to wonders by only allowing associated-player wonders in the game, they won't have to worry about adding any unassociated wonders. Just replace the 8-or-so they already have if they ever need to.

I do agree that, if we really want to hone down on fundamentals, there is a fundamental back-and-forth between the 7-wonder win-con and the 5 player-hard-cap. The two are in opposition and clearly, at least at launch, those are the sweet-spot numbers where they balance out for good gameplay. However, because of how much unnecessary imbalance would be introduced by players being able to build "all wonders," I think there is indeed a set total wonder number for antiquity, and therefore the number of antiquity players is likely not subject to change. And I'm fine with that, I don't think the game suffers much from having a 5 player MP cap on antiquity or three-era gameplay, and can always include a "crazy wonders" mode later down the line where it opens up player count and non-player wonders.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Ignoring for a moment that this is nothing like how Augustus looks in the many period representations of him, I don't think giving him a receding hairline does the job.

View attachment 706464

Note that in the representations of Julius Caesar even though they're idealized we can tell he's losing his hair... even though from what I understand he was quite vain and sensitive about it. So I don't think we can just dismiss period representations as unrealistically flattering... especially when they are relatively consistent.

I like the thought experiment of slightly rizzing up the Augustus model. I think a big thing that makes him look so cildish is his poofy hair. quick test during work hours.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I like the thought experiment of slightly rizzing up the Augustus model. I think a big thing that makes him look so cildish is his poofy hair. quick test during work hours.



View attachment 706476

I am loving this makeover movie of a thread. From nerd to jock, so he can be prom king and win Miranda Priestley's approval.

GIVE HIM MUSCLES NOW, GO FULL STEVE ROGERS.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Ignoring for a moment that this is nothing like how Augustus looks in the many period representations of him, I don't think giving him a receding hairline does the job.

View attachment 706464

Note that in the representations of Julius Caesar even though they're idealized we can tell he's losing his hair... even though from what I understand he was quite vain and sensitive about it. So I don't think we can just dismiss period representations as unrealistically flattering... especially when they are relatively consistent.

Magnificent.