Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[Zaarin]

it better be Han -> Ming -> Meiji

Han > Ming > Meiji and Khmer > Majapahit > Meiji or Himiko as anyone > anyone > Meiji presumably.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The only reason Indonesian is one of the three potential Age II evolutionary path is that it was an island empire.
the proper name should in fact be Majpahit.

 

[Leucarum]

Yikes. That is absolutely a feels bad. Only 10 civs per age really risks games feeling repetitive. I'd worried that they had made the civs too intricate to design quickly and I wonder if that's what's happened here.

While it is more than previous versions, Civ switching made humankind feel like it had far fewer than it did and I expect that'll be the same in Civ7. I'd also really rather they didn't try to build full stacks out of any civ at launch. Get some diversity in there each age first!

Hopefully the DLCs aren't too much of a price gouge and come out pretty fast. I am starting to think this is going to be the Civ which most needs them... I think my excitement level just dropped a few notches...

 

[dagriggstar]

Okay so they brought up artstyles for
Roman, Mediterranean, European, Middle East, Egyptian, African, Asian, North American and South American
So it's obviously a unit from antiquity because we have Roman and Egyptian.
I assume they have these models for a reason ? Like why do a North American model without a North American antiquity civilization ?
But then we have Khmer and Han confirmed for antiquity and the only category they could fit into above would be Asian.

The presence of both a European and additional American (depending on whether the Maya are classed as North or South) unit set would suggest something more to be revealed from those areas ?
Would they do an entire art set for independent powers ? For future DLC usage ? For Goths and I guess an Aztec predecessor (Since they both have wonders) ?

 

[moysturfurmer]

Yikes. That is absolutely a feels bad. Only 10 civs per age really risks games feeling repetitive. I'd worried that they had made the civs too intricate to design quickly and I wonder if that's what's happened here.

If it's that low a number of civs, I'd also really rather they didn't try to build full stacks out of any civ at launch.

Hopefully the DLCs aren't too much of a price gouge and come out pretty fast. I am starting to think this is going to be the Civ which most needs them...

I mean each civ seems as feature rich (perhaps moreso) as any civ in V. In a vacuum, if Civ Switching wasn’t a thing, we would look at a civ with 2 Unique Units, 2 unique buildings (or 1 UI), a civ ability, a unique civics tree, unique story events, etc, and look at the number 31 with awe.

Certainly the fact that it’s ~10 an Age dampens that impression, but they’ve clearly managed to pump out significantly more than they ever have. I’m not sure if “the individual civs are too complicated to make enough in time” is the takeaway here.

 

[Leucarum]

I mean each civ seems as feature rich (perhaps moreso) as any civ in V. In a vacuum, if Civ Switching wasn’t a thing, we would look at a civ with 2 Unique Units, 2 unique buildings (or 1 UI), a civ ability, a unique civics tree, unique story events, etc, and look at the number 31 with awe.

Honestly I'd wondered if the devs had bitten off more than they should chew when I first saw how complex they'd made each civ...

Certainly the fact that it’s ~10 an Age dampens that impression, but they’ve clearly managed to pump out significantly more than they ever have. I’m not sure if “the individual civs are too complicated to make enough in time” is the takeaway here.

I'm basing this also off my impressions of humankind, which was a flawed game to say the least. But I did find games there were very repetitive, with the same candidates showing up over and over. Playing 1/10 of the roster over the course of a game really does risk that.

Up until this point I'd been pretty confident, given the information revealed, that the devs had avoided the worst pitfalls of humankind, but this I suspect is going to be an issue till more civs are released... I definitely appreciate the work the devs have put in, but this might not have been the iteration of civ to go that deep...

 

[Black Gate]

The game launches with 30 (+1) but by September will have a total of 39 through the DLC. It's not the greatest consolation since you'll have to pay for it, but Firaxis are confident they can blow up those numbers quite quickly with one per month. If they don't take a year 'off' to make an expansion games probably won't feel anywhere near as repetitive after the first year.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The game launches with 30 (+1) but by September will have a total of 39 through the DLC. It's not the greatest consolation since you'll have to pay for it, but Firaxis are confident they can blow up those numbers quite quickly with one per month. If they don't take a year 'off' to make an expansion games probably won't feel anywhere near as repetitive after the first year.

About our choices.

It isn't 10 per Age, it's 10 Civs times X Leaders per Age, because Leaders are now independent choices. And ALL the Leaders are available from Start of Game, even late-Age Leaders like Ben Franklin and Napoleoni Buonoparto.

In other words, I suspect we will have at least 100 - 160 combinations to choose from at start of game. Don't know about the rest of you, but that will keep me playing for at least a week or two . . .

 

[JNR13]

About our choices.

It isn't 10 per Age, it's 10 Civs times X Leaders per Age, because Leaders are now independent choices. And ALL the Leaders are available from Start of Game, even late-Age Leaders like Ben Franklin and Napoleoni Buonoparto.

In other words, I suspect we will have at least 100 - 160 combinations to choose from at start of game. Don't know about the rest of you, but that will keep me playing for at least a week or two . . .

And Humankind had millions of combinations. Emptiest phrase of marketing of the entire game, it turned out.

 

[Giskler]

The roster will eventually be fleshed out, just look at the amount of civs in Civ6 at launch and by the end of the DLC releases. The sky isn't falling, relax.

 

[AriochIV]

The roster will eventually be fleshed out, just look at the amount of civs in Civ6 at launch and by the end of the DLC releases. The sky isn't falling, relax.

"Don't worry, it will be better 6 years from now" is not very comforting to those who are worried.

I don't have a problem with the number of civs; as I said before, I think it was unrealistic to expect more than 30, given the increased amount of assets in every civ. But it is going to feel a little thin on release. 10 is not a lot of civs to choose from starting a game compared to what we're used to.

 

[Giskler]

"Don't worry, it will be better 6 years from now" is not very comforting to those who are worried.

I don't have a problem with the number of civs; as I said before, I think it was unrealistic to expect more than 30, given the increased amount of assets in every civ. But it is going to feel a little thin on release. 10 is not a lot of civs to choose from starting a game compared to what we're used to.

It's a mix of 10 civs + however many leaders though. That allows for more variability than Civ6 at launch.

 

[JNR13]

Yes, I don't mind gameplay taking a while and getting fleshed out over the course of the game's lifetime. Civ VI was nice at launch and felt complete but then the expansions made it "more complete". Except for civ count, that's bound to feel barebones at launch.

Nobody forced them to introduce civ-swapping though and I think the feature changes the fundamental formula so much that comparing civ count with previous games just doesn't really work anymore. Either the pathways cross too much distance which kinda breaks down the selling point of the feature (people dreamt of Rome into Byz, HRE into Germany, not Greece into Normans, Egypt into Songhai, or Mayans into Inca) or you focus on a few local pathways first, which reduces regional representation overall (possibly three England-related civs with Normans, Britain and America but a single central and eastern European civ combined; three Chinese civs and no Korean) even if you have more civs than before. It seems like they tried to go for a mix of the two but that just means that you're gonna feel either one deficit at a time depending on your pick.

 

[AriochIV]

It's a mix of 10 civs + however many leaders though. That allows for more variability than Civ6 at launch.

As JNR said, it's not the combinatoric math that impresses people. Some folks here may love playing Egypt with Benjamin Franklin, but I'm not one of them. And the leader only brings a special ability; it won't look any different except in those godawful diplomacy screens. The Civ6 Leader Pass didn't add much gameplay for me for this very reason.

Anyhow, this is what I expected, so you're trying to convince the wrong person. I'm just saying maybe don't tell people not to be concerned when there is obvious cause to be concerned.

 

[Tanel]

And Humankind had millions of combinations. Emptiest phrase of marketing of the entire game, it turned out.

Obviously not every combination is going to be that much different but by picking different leaders and Civ paths there's definitely content for more than 10 unique feeling games. Also each civ is more fleshed out and you get 3 per game. Also we know that we'll be getting more Civs added already within the next year and eventually there will be enough Civs in the game.

 

[JNR13]

As JNR said, it's not the combinatoric math that impresses people. Some folks here may love playing Egypt with Benjamin Franklin, but I'm not one of them. And the leader only brings a special ability; it won't look any different except in those godawful diplomacy screens. The Civ6 Leader Pass didn't add much gameplay for me for this very reason.

Anyhow, this is what I expected, so you're trying to convince the wrong person. I'm just saying maybe don't tell people not to be concerned when there is obvious cause to be concerned.

A lot of the abilities are also "+x yield to y" stuff. Stacking one more or less of these won't feel that much different. That was the problem with the system in Humankind. To make the bonuses combinable, each ended up more generic. Not blaming the system here for that though, Civ was going this direction regardless.

So your civ bonuses just end up a few in a sea of many. When you have the same six leader upgrade trees every game, an extra civ ability isn't really a 100% increase. It's a +1 in a much larger group.

At least Trung Trac shows they still make percentage bonuses, so I guess there's still a chance to discover actual synergies beyond just "two +1 bonuses towards the same thing are good to combine".

 

[canadamufc]

I have so many worries that this is going to lead to an exploitation of DLC packs where they can just hike up $$$. $90CAD for base game is already dodgy, deluxe/founders even worse, this is really crazy.

 

[Siptah]

I hoped for 36+1 civs. This surely is a bit disappointing. I felt fine with 10 choices per age in HK when it launched though, so maybe it won't be the end all for my hype.

30 civs and 18+ leaders/personas really suggests that the game is about combinations between leaders and 3 civs then, and not about choosing the same or similar paths again and again or always trying to mix and match historically/regionally. As this is more akin to my play style, this might be an advantage for me personally.

And my estimation for launch: of course it will be bad. And some things won't get patched until years after they have been pointed out (or simply never), as we had it with civ V and VI, unless FXS changes their patch strategies. Yet, I still had fun with civ VI at launch despite its many flaws. My hope is just that, in contrast to VI, VII will eventually get better and more interesting overall. Adding civs I'd like to play as is one way to keep interest high, even if the mechanics and balance remains stagnant. And in contrast to VI, a new civ might not mean 1-2 games until I've seen it, but 5 games to try it in different combinations.

 

[JNR13]

And in contrast to VI, a new civ might not mean 1-2 games until I've seen it, but 5 games to try it in different combinations.

I mean, the same could be said about trying a new Civ in VI with different city state, wonder, great people bonuses, different governor order, different gov plaza buildings, different natural wonders, etc.

 

[Siptah]

I mean, the same could be said about trying a new Civ in VI with different city state, wonder, great people bonuses, different governor order, different gov plaza buildings, different natural wonders, etc.

Nah. At least not for me personally. The replay value of most civ VI civs for me was pretty low over the years. I don't think I felt the desire to play the same civ back to back ever, except if I lost a game. It was very different in that regard for me with HK - but there I also focused on the civ combinations and not e.g., civics or sliders to diversify my games. I might simply be a different kind of player then, judging civ bonuses/strategies somewhat higher than other bonuses/strategies.