Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'd agree for who I'm playing against, but for myself the whole appeal of civ is picking say the Aztecs and playing them through from the start of history to today. I don't think the fabric of the series for me lends itself to either

And @stealth_nsk , to paraphrase Mean Girls, stop trying to make leaders happen. It just ain't it for me. I have no interest in larping historical individuals, I play civ to be the leader of the Greeks, not to be Alexander.

I agree that it feels like they are trying to manifest the "role-play as a specific leader" thing into existence. But again, if I had to choose between the two, I really really don't want leader-switching or any de-emphasis of leaders like HK where your relationship with your neighbors loses all context every time you switch Eras.

 

[Zaarin]

To clearify that: This disrupts your connection (and may be that of other civers) to your opponents, but not the connection of civers who don´t share that opinion about their opponents. The opponents for civers who don´t share this opinion are the other civs in the different phases of their evolution and the different leaders are only representing those civs.

Then HK, Endless Legends, and other games without the focus on leaders still exist.

 

[Leucarum]

I'd been a defender of Firaxis choosing civ switching up to this point. While it wouldn't have been my first choice, but I can't say how much of that is due to Humankind... And then Firaxis' streams and dev diaries suggested they were taking on board the lessons learned.

10 civs per age though has had a big dent on my enthusiasm. A lack of intra-age diversity was a big problem for Humankind, and I suspect the lower number of ages being played for longer may amplify this for Civ7. Very curious to know the DLC pricing. This will likely now have a much bigger impact on my excitement level.

 

[Coldringo6]

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but, when you take 10 civs (currently) per Age and multiply that by the number of leaders, that's still a lot of possible combinations at launch.

 

[Kyriakos]

Aren't people who identify with leader instead of civ in the Civ games, a very clear minority?
Might as well change the game's name to Leader.

 

[Eramas]

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but, when you take 10 civs (currently) per Age and multiply that by the number of leaders, that's still a lot of possible combinations at launch.

Unfortunately I think this is just pure cope to maintain the hype.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but, when you take 10 civs (currently) per Age and multiply that by the number of leaders, that's still a lot of possible combinations at launch.

I know this isn't the same, but it's all I think of when I hear this combinations speak

 

[Uberfrog]

Unfortunately I think this is just pure cope to maintain the hype.

I think rather that the high level of disappointment is a result of people having been somewhat in denial about civ switching, and imagining that an unrealistically large civ roster would be included to assuage their concerns by ensuring every civ in the game had a bespoke historical pathway.

I still don’t think 30 civs at launch (which is objectively more than we have ever had before) is somehow a great betrayal by Firaxis. Yes, it is only 10 per era and there are valid concerns about repetition, but those are still 30 distinct civs with everything we expect from that. it shouldn’t be that surprising that we are dealing with a reduced civ roster at launch.

At least now we know, and after people have finished grieving the game they thought they were going to get, we can start discussing the game we are actually going to get.

 

[Krikkit1]

42 wonders on the confirmed list for 31 civilisations so 11 leftover which strikes me as a weird number. Unless the civilpedia was cut off at the top/bottom (that was our source for most of them right? Some streamers game ?)

3-4 “unassigned” per age ?

Some are saved for DLC (39 announced total civs so far... as well as more later I would imagine) some will probably be permanently unassigned (the multiples around Greece+Egypt)

 

[kaspergm]

Haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was covered already, but am I the only one who finds the forced transition from Spain into ... what ... France? ... a bit awkward?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'd agree for who I'm playing against, but for myself the whole appeal of civ is picking say the Aztecs and playing them through from the start of history to today. I don't think the fabric of the series for me lends itself to either being changed mid game

And @stealth_nsk , to paraphrase Mean Girls, stop trying to make leaders happen. It just ain't it for me. I have no interest in larping historical individuals, I play civ to be the leader of the Greeks, not to be Alexander.

I'm not trying to get you into associating with leaders. To each its own. I just see logic behind Firaxis decisions, that's it.

 

[queenpea]

Haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was covered already, but am I the only one who finds the forced transition from Spain into ... what ... France? ... a bit awkward?

At this point, it's all pretty awkward to be honest, unless you are a Han --> Ming --> Qing player or a Maurya --> Chola --> Mughals player.

I find Greece to Normans to be the biggest head scratcher at the moment.

 

[Kyriakos]

On the positive side, it is likely that the progression mechanism will sort of force existence of modern Greece (or slightly altered, eg Megale Idea etc) in many modded epic games, something which certainly would be rare without this particular mechanism.
Assuming most such mods will have Greece due to ancient Greece, Byzantine in the second era, then post-1820s Greece as the final era.
Trying to think of other cases of this. There is Italy, of course, likely Castile will be era2 of Spain (again rare in epic games), but it will be tricky with Slavic countries given there are so many of them.

 

[Siptah]

Haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was covered already, but am I the only one who finds the forced transition from Spain into ... what ... France? ... a bit awkward?

Spain into French Empire definitely works as a regional path.

And it‘s at least historically plausible, as Napoléon did take over Spain for some years.

 

[Krikkit1]

I disagree completely. So far in this series, people have tended to describe themselves as playing a civ, and then tending to describe themselves as playing against leaders (though this is less strong). This is why people enjoy playing as Russia or as America rather than as Catherine or as Washington, but enjoy playing against Gandhi or Shaka.

Consistent leaders makes sense for AI, consistent civs makes sense for the player. At least historically in the civilization series.

Which is why they need to give the ability to Keep/Customize your civ's name. The AI can keep the same leader and change their Civ Name and all. The Human should be able to keep their civs name (and probably flag and city list) (even if the names of the bonuses underneath change)

 

[Krikkit1]

Haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was covered already, but am I the only one who finds the forced transition from Spain into ... what ... France? ... a bit awkward?

Actually that seems Quite reasonable Spain basically was absorbed into France Temporarily... at the least its a good regional connection

 

[Potworny]

Now I feel somewhat guilty of helping to propel the expectations by being one of the people pointing out the pips and the ancient civ selection screen. Sorry

That being said, I wonder if there are still any surprises left for us - it feels like we have the civs almost figured out, but Trung Trac was very much unexpected, and if there are to be (slightly) more leaders than usual in the base game, then I suppose that there may be some interesting picks waiting yet. The worst thing about the limited amount of civs is most absolutely a limited amount of reveals...

 

[Xandinho]

I believe the most interesting historical paths to play at launch will be China and India. The rest will have some odd transitions, and we’ll have to wait for additional content to fill in the gaps. I might try Egypt > Abbasids, but who would the Abbasids transition to next? The Mughals?

Having only 10 civilizations per era feels really limiting, but it's clearly a strategy to sell DLCs. Make the audience feel like something is missing, then solve that problem by giving them what they want.

 

[Siptah]

Now I feel somewhat guilty of helping to propel the expectations by being one of the people pointing out the pips and the ancient civ selection screen. Sorry

That being said, I wonder if there are still any surprises left for us - it feels like we have the civs almost figured out, but Trung Trac was very much unexpected, and if there are to be (slightly) more leaders than usual in the base game, then I suppose that there may be some interesting picks waiting yet. The worst thing about the limited amount of civs is most absolutely a limited amount of reveals...

With leaders whose civ isn‘t included that are instead assigned wildly to another civ from the broader region, speculation can be wild. E.g., we could have Frederik Stupor Mundi for Normans and Spain

 

[guilarroyd]

Honestly finding out that only 30 civs would be in the base game was a way bigger disappointment than the civ switching mechanic. I 100% understood the logic of the crisis to avoid snowballing and changing the civ as a fresh restart to face new challenges of a new era, but this only makes sense if you have enough options to choose from.

10/10/10 makes every civ change predictable (Han always going to Ming, Maurya always going to Chola) and if I for some reason decide to go for another path it would force the AI to make a dumb choice. If there is Maurya in my game but as Khmer I decide to go for Chola it would mess with the entire chain of paths.