Only 30 Civs in base game (+ Shawnee)

[RedCourtJester]

It's definitely got the bigliest number of civs for a launch. It's going to be the greatest civilization launch maybe ever.

But seriously, I hope people can hop off the media spin Firaxis are putting on this. A civilization in civ VII is not equivalent to a civilization in past games, and if you're going by diversity of choice, at any given point you pick a civ you have a choice of 10 instead of a choice of 18 in past launches. That's not more, than cooking the books to make it look like more

This is actually a very good point to make.

Technically for "short" games across only a single era, there will only be ten-ish options, not thirty. That is a sight worse for "options" than any other civ game at launch. One would think, if that be the case, they would have just shot for 45 civs at launch (15 per era). Much better comparison.

I could even list the likely civs, which would look a lot better as cohesive wholes than this disparate thing we are seeing.

* Hatshepsut leads Egypt -> Abbasids-> Mamluks
* Constantine leads Rome -> Byzantium -> Ottomans
* Confucius leads Han -> Ming -> Qing
* Ashoka leads Maurya -> Chola -> Mughals
* Zarathustra leads Persia -> Sasanids -> Iran
* Al-Rashid leads Persia -> Abbasids -> Ottomans
* Isabella leads Al Andalus -> Spain -> Mexico/Yucatan
* Charlemagne leads Gauls -> Franks -> Germany
* Margaret leads Norway -> Denmark -> Sweden (or Norse -> Denmark -> Norway)
* Fumo Liyongo leads Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda (or Shaka leads Mutapa -> Swahili -> Zulu)
* Amina leads Wagadu -> Songhai -> Hausa
* Victoria leads Anglo-Saxons -> England -> Britain
* Pedro I leads Al Andalus -> Portugal -> Brazil
* Ben leads Rome -> Franks -> America
* Elizabeth leads Slavs -> Kievan Rus' -> Russia
* Bonus civ: Axel Oxenstierna leads Gutes -> Denmark -> Sweden

Bam. Done. Fab fourteen are, more or less, all back except Greece. And let me emphasize, to illustrate just how ludicrous a 30-civ game with Trung Trac and Normans looks: only 39 civs needed to make 15 leaders/"CIVs." No thoughts, took like 10 minutes to make. Most players--canonists and creatives--would buy into this at launch, none of this bewilderment. It's roughly what we got with VI, but deeper and provides clear guidance to expect a lot of cool expansion on the concept. A couple old DLC civs are elevated to launch (Portugal, Sweden, Persia, Ottomans, Byzantium), but still plenty are left to be made into DLC.

So I still think "30 civs" means more than just 30 civs, literally. Otherwise there was no real reason for them to include things like Normans or Trung Trac if the goal was to also make sense historically and hit market expectations with only 30 civs. People could accept with a model like that why a couples of staples like Greece aren't in the game yet; the main cast is mostly accounted for. People are much less likely to accept why we aren't getting a German, Spanish, British, or Russian leader, or why a Vietnamese leader over any of those. There's something about this design that is indicating it was a lot more deliberate and creative than just 30 disparate civs (which as I just showed, could be avoided with a quick 10-30 minute brainstorm of smart selections that people would almost certainly buy into at launch). I think "30 civs" means more; signs of extremely confident yet specific decisions point toward the devs wanting to flex.

 

[AriochIV]

They said we'll have more leaders than we've ever had a in a civ game before, but they're counting personae--and 20 would technically be more than we've ever had before. So after learning we "only" have 30 civs compared to some of the higher numbers some were speculating before, I'd definitely take a conservative expectation on that number until we're told more specifics.

The first two DLC's each have 2 leaders and 4 civilizations, so there may be as few as half as many leaders as civs. There are currently 5 leaders and 9 civs in the game guide, for whatever that's worth.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The first two DLC's each have 2 leaders and 4 civilizations, so there may be as few as half as many leaders as civs. There are currently 5 leaders and 9 civs in the game guide, for whatever that's worth.

I actually am predicting almost exactly half as many leaders as civs at launch. That just seems to be how "good civ pathways" seems to shake out, and is reinforced by how the DLC can be built out 4 civs, 2 leaders at a time. And that is regardless of what our total civ count ends up being.

 

[Black Gate]

I'm assuming 15 distinct leaders and at least 5 extra personas (Ashoka surely has two, non?). Although I'm not sure how Napoleon plays into this. For someone like myself that didn't buy Civ6, the revolutionary persona is currently unavailable (I'm sure they'll sell it at some point) so does Revolutionary Napoleon count to their "most leaders ever" count? Who knows.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I actually am predicting almost exactly half as many leaders as civs at launch. That just seems to be how "good civ pathways" seems to shake out, and is reinforced by how the DLC can be built out 4 civs, 2 leaders at a time. And that is regardless of what our total civ count ends up being.

I suggest that, to reach their "more than we've had before" trophe that the total may be 15 Leaders plus 4 - 5 Personas, since Civ VI had 18 Leaders at Launch plus the First Day addition of Aztecs and their Leader, Monty. Dependng on how they count that (and I'd bet they are not counting it so they are really saying "more than 18 Leaders") 19 - 20 would reach their 'more than' goal.

And continuing in that vein, the first DLCs with 4 Civs and 2 Leaders each may include 1 (or more) Personas in addition. That is more of a pious hope than a prediction, though, because we really don't have enough data to even tell what percentage of Personas they have planned compared to Leaders. I'm betting about 1/3, but I wouldn't bet money on it until I had a few more Leader Reveals to be sure.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Not my style of civ, but I liked Scythia as an inclusion, and I think it fits Civ7 even better--it's a pretty natural segue either to Mongolia, a Central Asian civ like Timurids, or a variety of Eastern European civs like Poland and Rus'.

Of all the 'earlier' and recognizable pastoral Civs, the Huns have already been used by Humankind, most gamers can't even pronounce Xiong-Nu, so the Scythians have a real advantage in familiarity.

Also, when making up Progressions, several Celtic and Celtic-influenced groups had 'origin stories' about coming from the eastern steppes (most notably the Picts in the British Isles) so that Scythia could be used as a starting Progression for Exploration Age Irish or Scots as well as the later Pastorals like Mongols, Kushans, Khazars, Gokturks (Okay, I know, they will probably have to hit 60 Civs before they start even considering those last three)

 

[RedCourtJester]

I suggest that, to reach their "more than we've had before" trophe that the total may be 15 Leaders plus 4 - 5 Personas, since Civ VI had 18 Leaders at Launch plus the First Day addition of Aztecs and their Leader, Monty. Dependng on how they count that (and I'd bet they are not counting it so they are really saying "more than 18 Leaders") 19 - 20 would reach their 'more than' goal.

And continuing in that vein, the first DLCs with 4 Civs and 2 Leaders each may include 1 (or more) Personas in addition. That is more of a pious hope than a prediction, though, because we really don't have enough data to even tell what percentage of Personas they have planned compared to Leaders. I'm betting about 1/3, but I wouldn't bet money on it until I had a few more Leader Reveals to be sure.

I too think that 15 leaders would be the sweet spot if they wanted to be compared favorably to Civ VI, purely based on numbers; much easier to sell with the paradigm shift than 10 leaders plus bonuses. Although I think even 15 leaders may not be enough if they are not the right leaders. There are 13 civs that are practically staples that probably need a leader at launch (or nearly all of them) just to look like a civ game to consumers and feel like a civ game to veterans: Rome, Egypt, Greece, Arabia, India, China, Japan, France, Germany, Spain, England, Russia, America. 15 is already pushing plausibility that we will see most of those happen, as we already have Amina and Trung Trac taking up the other two slots.

I would highly, highly doubt that. I'm expecting ~20 personally.


Not my style of civ, but I liked Scythia as an inclusion, and I think it fits Civ7 even better--it's a pretty natural segue either to Mongolia, a Central Asian civ like Timurids, or a variety of Eastern European civs like Poland and Rus'.

31 leaders or bust.

I grew to love Scythia so much. Such a clever, carefully constructed inclusion to a franchise that hadn't yet nailed down old Indo-European civs. Representing Scythia with the Masagetae just created a very natural continuity across the entire steppe region and kind of vicarious representation of PIE kurgan cultures generally. Tomyris is basically revered as a kind of personification of Kazakhstan, and who knew we would get that represented in a civ game. And since Knorr knew Armenia was out he vicariously represented them with duduuuuuuuuk, and imo one of the best-sounding tracks in the game. I think Tomyris' chances of returning in VII are low, she really synergized better within VI's limitations. I put her about even with Tygyn Darkhan as the "Kazakh" civ path leader, so odds about 50/50, maybe a little less, and that's even if we get Kazakh/kurgan representation. But she will always be a shining beacon of the great things that came from VI.

I think we may see a couple of civs like that in VII at launch, that are just "wow, this was...so elegant." And if my predictions about Outremer/(Seleucid heritage) and Aturqids/(Seljuk heritage) are correct, that will be the first time Assyria and Babylon will feel fully realized and differentiated from each other while also representing modern Syrian and Iraqi heritage. Who ever thought Syria and Iraq could be in a civ game? Would be some beautiful, beautiful stuff.

 

[dagriggstar]

Sudden flashback to civ II with 42 leaders (male/female for all 21 civilizations) on release

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not my style of civ, but I liked Scythia as an inclusion, and I think it fits Civ7 even better--it's a pretty natural segue either to Mongolia, a Central Asian civ like Timurids, or a variety of Eastern European civs like Poland and Rus'.

Scythia was basically the Huns, but better implemented, in my opinion.

This is actually a very good point to make.

Technically for "short" games across only a single era, there will only be ten-ish options, not thirty. That is a sight worse for "options" than any other civ game at launch. One would think, if that be the case, they would have just shot for 45 civs at launch (15 per era). Much better comparison.

I could even list the likely civs, which would look a lot better as cohesive wholes than this disparate thing we are seeing.

* Hatshepsut leads Egypt -> Abbasids-> Mamluks
* Constantine leads Rome -> Byzantium -> Ottomans
* Confucius leads Han -> Ming -> Qing
* Ashoka leads Maurya -> Chola -> Mughals
* Zarathustra leads Persia -> Sasanids -> Iran
* Al-Rashid leads Persia -> Abbasids -> Ottomans
* Isabella leads Al Andalus -> Spain -> Mexico/Yucatan
* Charlemagne leads Gauls -> Franks -> Germany
* Margaret leads Norway -> Denmark -> Sweden (or Norse -> Denmark -> Norway)
* Fumo Liyongo leads Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda (or Shaka leads Mutapa -> Swahili -> Zulu)
* Amina leads Wagadu -> Songhai -> Hausa
* Victoria leads Anglo-Saxons -> England -> Britain
* Pedro I leads Al Andalus -> Portugal -> Brazil
* Ben leads Rome -> Franks -> America
* Elizabeth leads Slavs -> Kievan Rus' -> Russia
* Bonus civ: Axel Oxenstierna leads Gutes -> Denmark -> Sweden

Bam. Done. Fab fourteen are, more or less, all back except Greece. And let me emphasize, to illustrate just how ludicrous a 30-civ game with Trung Trac and Normans looks: only 39 civs needed to make 15 leaders/"CIVs." No thoughts, took like 10 minutes to make. Most players--canonists and creatives--would buy into this at launch, none of this bewilderment. It's roughly what we got with VI, but deeper and provides clear guidance to expect a lot of cool expansion on the concept. A couple old DLC civs are elevated to launch (Portugal, Sweden, Persia, Ottomans, Byzantium), but still plenty are left to be made into DLC.

So I still think "30 civs" means more than just 30 civs, literally. Otherwise there was no real reason for them to include things like Normans or Trung Trac if the goal was to also make sense historically and hit market expectations with only 30 civs. People could accept with a model like that why a couples of staples like Greece aren't in the game yet; the main cast is mostly accounted for. People are much less likely to accept why we aren't getting a German, Spanish, British, or Russian leader, or why a Vietnamese leader over any of those. There's something about this design that is indicating it was a lot more deliberate and creative than just 30 disparate civs (which as I just showed, could be avoided with a quick 10-30 minute brainstorm of smart selections that people would almost certainly buy into at launch). I think "30 civs" means more; signs of extremely confident yet specific decisions point toward the devs wanting to flex.

Did you mean to leave out anything Japan too? I'd rather Greece and some era of Japan getting in than a full Scandinavian line. Norse could at least go into Kievan Rus'.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Scythia was basically the Huns, but better implemented, in my opinion.

Did you mean to leave out anything Japan too? I'd rather Greece and some era of Japan getting in than a full Scandinavian line. Norse could at least go into Kievan Rus'.

Ah yes sorry I forgot Japan. That's the 15th civ that would most likely be in a list like that, hands down.

Point being, they could easily have just done that. Taken half an hour brainstorming, maybe a few hours/days refining the idea, and then spent years implementing. Probably would have taken even less time to map out than what we are getting with "30 civs," because it wouldn't have involved figuring out how to fit Vietnam in.

I just am not getting the impression this game will be as simple as 30 civs. And if it is more complicated and coherent than I think with 30 civs, any Vietnamese representation--an exploration era civ/leader which refuses to merge back into Siam or China--makes no sense in that picture; Vietnam would be a parasitic design choice if they were going for "complex interweaving of cultures" at that roster count. The entirety of Southeast Asia would want to be left out until a DLC pack because of how comparatively "unrelated" it is to both East Asia and the Indian Subcontinent.

 

[stealth_nsk]

FXS said Civ 7 has the biggest number of leaders on release day if you count personas. The last bit was specifically mentioned, so we could guess without them it's not biggest. Civ 7 had 20 leaders on release day (Monty was available for preorders). Civ 7 will have up to 5 personas on launch day (if bonus personas from both packs and Napoleon are available immediately). Those conditions give us the number of leaders between 21 and 25.

 

[Siptah]

I'm assuming 15 distinct leaders and at least 5 extra personas (Ashoka surely has two, non?). Although I'm not sure how Napoleon plays into this. For someone like myself that didn't buy Civ6, the revolutionary persona is currently unavailable (I'm sure they'll sell it at some point) so does Revolutionary Napoleon count to their "most leaders ever" count? Who knows.

I‘m leaning towards the count including Napoléon as 2 out of the 18+. I certainly would count that way - he‘s available on launch and „free“ for „everybody“. The more unclear thing is whether the 4 personas of the founders and deluxe editions are included in the count (I tend to think they aren't included).

I estimate that the base game will have 12-13 leaders. The rest is Napoléon, Tecumseh, and personas.

 

[j51]

Civ IV launched with 26 animated leaders. (Civ II’s 42 leaders were just pictures so I’m counting the 21 animated heralds instead.) That means with extra personas included they gotta hit 27.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ IV launched with 26 animated leaders. (Civ II’s 42 leaders were just pictures so I’m counting the 21 animated heralds instead.) That means with extra personas included they gotta hit 27.

Oooh, interesting! I kind of took for granted that Civ5 and Civ6's 20-ish had always been normal. (Granted, I still expect 5-6 personae.)

 

[Siptah]

Civ IV launched with 26 animated leaders. (Civ II’s 42 leaders were just pictures so I’m counting the 21 animated heralds instead.) That means with extra personas included they gotta hit 27.

Good observation!

There are 18 weeks until release if I counted correctly. 5 leaders have been revealed so far. Either they won't meet that number, personae don't have their own FLs, or the schedule isn't 1 FL per 1 leader per week.

My guesses then are either:
a) they said more leaders than in previous civs but didn't think of the 26 in civ IV, just V and VI. Just like Zaarin and me.
b) their count includes the 4 deluxe and founders personae to get to this high number.

 

[chaosprophet]

Good observation!

There are 18 weeks until release if I counted correctly. 5 leaders have been revealed so far. Either they won't meet that number, personae don't have their own FLs, or the schedule isn't 1 FL per 1 leader per week.

My guesses then are either:
a) they said more leaders than in previous civs but didn't think of the 26 in civ IV, just V and VI. Just like Zaarin and me.
b) their count includes the 4 deluxe and founders personae to get to this high number.

If the latter, then maybe it is 20 leaders+persona on vanilla, and if you add the 2 founder pack persona, 2 deluxe pack persona, the pre-order leader, the 2 free persona for having a 2k account (well leader and one extra persona), would result in 27 at launch. Wouldn't surprise me if they though like us about the last two games though.

 

[Guandao]

So now we have 9 officially revealed Antiquity Era Civs. Which means there's only one spot left for Antiquity?

 

[Ryansinbela]

Definitely Persia

 

[Gedemon]

If the latter, then maybe it is 20 leaders+persona on vanilla, and if you add the 2 founder pack persona, 2 deluxe pack persona, the pre-order leader, the 2 free persona for having a 2k account (well leader and one extra persona), would result in 27 at launch. Wouldn't surprise me if they though like us about the last two games though.

With the advanced start "being a first" only if you ignore civ4, I wouldn't be surprised if the "first" and "most" are based on a Firaxian calendar starting with civ5.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So now we have 9 officially revealed Antiquity Era Civs. Which means there's only one spot left for Antiquity?

Though I don't think it is confirmed that every age will have 10, it's the most probable explanation. If there is only one left it has to be Persia.

I'm now starting to get afraid that might be the only Persia in the game, even including DLC/expansions, especially if that icon is a Persian lion which would make more sense for a Safavid Persia later on.