Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[RedCourtJester]

Hmm; just exposing a thought I had lately, I think this is the appropriate thread for that...

Call me crazy, but I'm feeling Civ7 vanilla won't have neither Russia or Germany, despite we sawing the Hermitage Museum and Brandenburg Gate in the game.

Brandenburg is definitely hinting to me at a very easy, obvious Greece -> Carolingians -> Germany path led by Frederick of Prussia. If we end up seeing a Franks/HRE type civ revealed in exploration I just don't see why they wouldn't tack on Germany since it's such a launch staple. The regional building assets already exist, the wonder is already modeled, that doesn't leave much additional work to add versus the payoff of meeting minimal Civ launch expectations.

Similarly with Russia, I think if we see Byzantium or Kievan Rus' then its odds are extremely good as well.

If we keep seeing at least two civs revealed each week, I think that will be further evidence (on top of the hints we have like Amina's disparate civ-route, Hawaiian exploration civ, Vietnamese leader, Normans with no Norse/Britain) that the roster is, in fact, larger than merely 30 civs. 2 civs per week would reveal an entire 30-civ roster before New Years', which would kill marketing momentum almost a month and a half prior to launch.

 

[Sagax]

Hmm; just exposing a thought I had lately, I think this is the appropriate thread for that...

Call me crazy, but I'm feeling Civ7 vanilla won't have neither Russia or Germany, despite we sawing the Hermitage Museum and Brandenburg Gate in the game.

Not that crazy, we’ve had a thread and occasional comments in this vein across other discussions. With the remaining slots and the number of soft- and hard-confirmed civs, at least one of the Britain-Germany-Russia trio will not be there in vanilla.

 

[chaosprophet]

Hmm; just exposing a thought I had lately, I think this is the appropriate thread for that...

Call me crazy, but I'm feeling Civ7 vanilla won't have neither Russia or Germany, despite we sawing the Hermitage Museum and Brandenburg Gate in the game.

I'm expecting Germany, not both. But maybe it could be both, but still think any of the two, or both, if not on vanilla would be in one of the two collections. If both, maybe one of the collections is germany, russia, and an exploration leading to each

 

[pokiehl]

2 civs per week would reveal an entire 30-civ roster before New Years', which would kill marketing momentum almost a month and a half prior to launch.

Isn’t the logical conclusion “They aren’t committing to showing 2 civs per week” (especially because they never said that), rather than “They’re lying to us about there being 30 civs”? Why wouldn’t you take them at face value here? What sense would it make for them to undersell and mislead on what they’re delivering?

 

[AriochIV]

Hmm; just exposing a thought I had lately, I think this is the appropriate thread for that...

Call me crazy, but I'm feeling Civ7 vanilla won't have neither Russia or Germany, despite we sawing the Hermitage Museum and Brandenburg Gate in the game.

Yes, there's a lengthy thread on the subject. There are still 4-6 slots left, so there very well could be more European civs. Modern Eurasia is still unrepresented, so Russia could definitely fit there. There are both German and Russian tanks in the game... the Russian T-34 was also used by the Chinese, but the German Panzer IV is harder to explain without a modern German civ.

However, when there are only 10 throughlines, something has to get left out.

Antiquity

1. Aksum
2. Egypt
3. Greece
4. Han
5. Khmer
6. Maurya
7. Maya
8. Mississippian
9. Persia
10. Rome

Exploration

1. Abbasids
2. Chola
3. (Inca)
4. Ming
5. Mongolia
6. Normans
7. Songhai
8. Spain
9. ?
10. ?
11. Shawnee

Modern

1. America
2. Buganda
3. (Britain)
4. France
5. Japan
6. (Modern China)
7. Mughal
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?

 

[moysturfurmer]

Isn’t the logical conclusion “They aren’t committing to showing 2 civs per week” (especially because they never said that), rather than “They’re lying to us about there being 30 civs”? Why wouldn’t you take them at face value here? What sense would it make for them to undersell and mislead on what they’re delivering?

Well we’re all looking for patterns, and tbh the most likely pattern is: 1 civ + 1 leader 2 weeks ago, 2 civs + 2 leaders last week, 3 civs + 3 leaders next week, 4 civs + 4 leaders the week after, etc all the way up to Feb 11.

I haven’t yet done the math on how many civs that confirms will be in the base roster, but it certainly gets us closer to the thirty thousand civs they hinted at in the PAX Aus panel.

 

[Rac]

Ok so just explaining my "logic". There's bit of the following pattern:

CONTINENTAL REGION	ANTIQUITY	EXPLORATION	MODERN
North America + Oceania	1 : Mississippi	2 : Hawaii - Shawnee(DLC)	1 : America
Middle America + South America	1 : Maya	1 : Inca	~
Africa	2 : Aksum - Egypt	1 : Songhai	1 : Buganda
Europe	2 : Greece - Rome	2 : Normandy - Spain	2 : Britain - France
West Asia	1 : Persia	1 : Abbasid	~
South Asia + Southeast Asia	2 : Khmer - Maurya	2 : Chola - Majapahit	2 : Mughal - Siam
East Asia + North Asia	1 : Han	2 : Ming - Mongolia	1 : Meiji

If this pattern has any kind of real meaning, and if the Qing (a second East Asian civ) leak is real, the 2 slots left in Modern would go one for someone in Middle America + South America, most likely Mexico, while the other would go to someone in West Asia, leaving no room for Germany or Russia.
But yes, I know, this classification is highly subjective, is just a impression I had. For me it would be weird not seeing Germany on a Civ's vanilla roster, but who knows

 

[AriochIV]

I think you have to do some pretty severe contortions to try to force everything into a regional pattern (North America is somehow related to Oceania?). Gameplay is what's important, so I think the developers are more concerned about what your advancement options are from any point in the tree. However, I also think there are certain to be upgrade paths which don't make historically logical sense, or that there are more pseudo-historical nations like Buganda, so it's really very hard to predict what is a hole and what is just an unintuitive path.

 

[dagriggstar]

You know looking at those revealed civilisations so far it’s kinda interesting to me that none of them really overlap geographically much.

Like there’s Han/Ming then Egypt into Abbasids. Makes me kind of lean more towards guessing stuff with no representation yet……

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

While the classification is subjective, I think there's a very strong point at its heart: we have American and Middle Eastern civs that in the base game will all have to go to the US or Buganda and Mughal India respectively. I'm a very strong believer in Mexico, leaving one slot for either a third European civ or a Middle Eastern civ. I suppose there are less reasonable pathways than Persia leading to Mughal India, but it feels odd to condense what, as you've shown, has been a somewhat geographical balanced roster for the sake of padding out another area. Then again, if the opportunity to put another European civ is present, whether or not it has reasonable predecessors (Hawaii certainly doesn't care,) I could see them taking it. Or perhaps there's a third, even more surprising situation, in which we get Maori, or perhaps nine Modern civs and eleven Exploration civs for the sake of Shogunate Japan or something.

Ok so just explaining my "logic". There's bit of the following pattern

 

[Disgustipated]

So one thing I'm curious about. I'm not sure where to ask it, so I'll do it here. If the other continent is populated by hidden civs, what's the point of really exploring in the exploration age? Presumably there will be no room left to settle the other continent, and no goody huts either. And you can't trade luxuries anymore. Sure you can do other diplomatic actions with the other civs, but so can you with your own continent. I think I would prefer it if there were only independent peoples on the other continent.

 

[AriochIV]

So one thing I'm curious about. I'm not sure where to ask it, so I'll do it here. If the other continent is populated by hidden civs, what's the point of really exploring in the exploration age? Presumably there will be no room left to settle the other continent, and no goody huts either. And you can't trade luxuries anymore. Sure you can do other diplomatic actions with the other civs, but so can you with your own continent. I think I would prefer it if there were only independent peoples on the other continent.

Well, you can still trade with the civs on the other continent -- trade routes give you resources.

But I get the feeling through the devs' cagey answers that there may be some kind of new mechanic that involves New World exploration. Otherwise their prohibition against letting human players start in the New World doesn't really make sense.

 

[moysturfurmer]

So one thing I'm curious about. I'm not sure where to ask it, so I'll do it here. If the other continent is populated by hidden civs, what's the point of really exploring in the exploration age? Presumably there will be no room left to settle the other continent, and no goody huts either. And you can't trade luxuries anymore. Sure you can do other diplomatic actions with the other civs, but so can you with your own continent. I think I would prefer it if there were only independent peoples on the other continent.

Well we’ll probably know more next week, but my theory is that there are less civs on an equally sized continent (3 civs to the Old World’s 5, given what we know of MP player limits). So maybe there’s more land up for grabs?

And Resources on a Distant Lands might have unique modifiers applied to them. Like perhaps they are leveled as “Exotic” and confer a bonus for acquisition, or they’re needed for the Exploration Economic Legacy Path.

I would imagine they thought about it, given the emphasis they’re putting on that mechanic. But who knows.

 

[AriochIV]

I haven’t yet done the math on how many civs that confirms will be in the base roster, but it certainly gets us closer to the thirty thousand civs they hinted at in the PAX Aus panel.

People who remember combinatorics better than I do may correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have 3 slots and the options are unique to each slot, I think the number of combinations is just A x B x C, where A B and C are the number of options in each of the various Ages. Having 31 civs in EACH Age (93 total) gets you to 29,791 combinations.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

People who remember combinatorics better than I do may correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have 3 slots and the options are unique to each slot, the number of combinations is just A x B x C, where A B and C are the number of options in each of the various Ages. To cross 30,000 you need 94 total civs (31x31x32).

I believe it was not in reference to civ combinations but instead an extension of a joke they made on another thread about RedCourtJester's belief that the "30 civs on launch" statement at PAX was talking about regional aesthetics, thus implying a much higher civ count. I forget how exactly the joke on the other thread got to the 30,000 number, but I can go check.

 

[AriochIV]

I believe it was not in reference to civ combinations but instead an extension of a joke they made on another thread about RedCourtJester's belief that the "30 civs on launch" statement at PAX was talking about regional aesthetics, thus implying a much higher civ count. I forget how exactly the joke on the other thread got to the 30,000 number, but I can go check.

I was just doing the math, not endorsing the theory.

 

[Wohlauf]

Yes, there's a lengthy thread on the subject. There are still 4-6 slots left, so there very well could be more European civs. Modern Eurasia is still unrepresented, so Russia could definitely fit there. There are both German and Russian tanks in the game... the Russian T-34 was also used by the Chinese, but the German Panzer IV is harder to explain without a modern German civ.

View attachment 706860 View attachment 706861

However, when there are only 10 throughlines, something has to get left out.

Antiquity

1. Aksum
2. Egypt
3. Greece
4. Han
5. Khmer
6. Maurya
7. Maya
8. Mississippian
9. Persia
10. Rome

Exploration

1. Abbasids
2. Chola
3. (Inca)
4. Ming
5. Mongolia
6. Normans
7. Songhai
8. Spain
9. ?
10. ?
11. Shawnee

Modern

1. America
2. Buganda
3. (Britain)
4. France
5. Japan
6. (Modern China)
7. Mughal
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we don't know that the T34 is Chinese in the picture. If the leak is right and modern China is represented by the Qing dynasty, a red star doesn't make much sense. I think it would much better suit Russia, without having to explicitly mention, but alluding to the Soviet Union. Or maybe it will just be the soviets. Unlikely, but not out of the question since they don't need a leader.
As for the Pz 4, the tanks are almost guaranteed to follow the groupings of: Axis, Communist Bloc, and Allies (minus Russia). Except Buganda gets a T34, so it isn't certain.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Isn’t the logical conclusion “They aren’t committing to showing 2 civs per week” (especially because they never said that), rather than “They’re lying to us about there being 30 civs”? Why wouldn’t you take them at face value here? What sense would it make for them to undersell and mislead on what they’re delivering.

All I was saying is what 2+ civs a week suggests if we start seeing it more, which remains to be seen. Just something to think about.

I do not think stating there are 30 civs in the game is a lie, regardless of if there are more than 30 civs. But looking at the totality of what we know about the game, I would be very surprised if there are only 30 civs in the game, given how many and which civs we already have reason to believe in the game. It would be very contrary to meeting the minimum expectations of a civ game at launch (England, Spain, Germany, France, Russia).

If, over the next few weeks, we see more evidence that there is no exploration Persia civ, the Polynesian civ was a lie, there's no Vietnamese civ for Trung, no Byzantium, no Wagadu/Swahili, then I will probably start taking the "face value" 30 civ limit as gospel. But if things like that start popping up in the upcoming weeks--things which do not fit into everyone's tight 30 civ models--think that will be just more confirmation that it is more than 30 civs.

 

[AriochIV]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we don't know that the T34 is Chinese in the picture.

I didn't say that it was; I merely said that there's an argument to be made that it might be. Whereas I can't think of any Modern civs that might be in the game that would use the Panzer-IV except Germany.

If both Germany and Russia are in, that certainly wouldn't bother me.

The star being red might be happenstance of whatever leader it is. Another shot has a white star (and tan stripe).

 

[Black Gate]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we don't know that the T34 is Chinese in the picture. If the leak is right and modern China is represented by the Qing dynasty, a red star doesn't make much sense. I think it would much better suit Russia, without having to explicitly mention, but alluding to the Soviet Union. Or maybe it will just be the soviets. Unlikely, but not out of the question since they don't need a leader.
As for the Pz 4, the tanks are almost guaranteed to follow the groupings of: Axis, Communist Bloc, and Allies (minus Russia). Except Buganda gets a T34, so it isn't certain.

This is where we were somehow wrong about modern age Siam, and communist Vietnam breaks out the metal chair to sneak in.

...but it's probably just a communism/fascism/democracy flavour system like Civ5. Or Russia fighting America.