[poll] How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 1 - September/October 24]

[j51]

True

 

[Stomper66]

...since when are the Huns Northern European? At any rate, Britons would be a waste of a civ slot IMO; they're much better suited for an Independent People. (Same with Huns IMO. Attila can be a leader without the Huns. It would be nice to see the Scythians back.) We already know the Goths are coming and probably soon; we'll get Gauls sooner or later. Personally I'd be fine with Antiquity Europe being Greece, Rome, and Goths; Europe was a backwater in Antiquity and those three civs can lead into anywhere in Europe.

I'm sorry the Huns aren't but thank you for improving my complaint, on launch there will be no Northern or Eastern European civ in the game. You'll have Rome and Greece representing all of Europe but the Roman empire was only in half of Europe at their peak. Goths, Huns I don't mind, but there should be a big intimidating civ in Eastern Europe that can easily transition to mid game and modern Russia (or Soviet Union if the game only goes up to the 20th century). That's a big space on the world map that's not represented.

And I would like to see the civs I'd mentioned in antiquity only to play France, England and Germany individually and smoothly like what China, India and Japan are getting to do on launch, but i can wait for this eventually. For now I would at have at least liked to see celts as an alternative European civ to play on launch that better reflects northern and western europe. They were in Britain around twice as long as the romans were and still had control of half the isles after the settlement. Also before the conquest of gaul they were a huge antagonist to the romans (up there with carthage, parthia, goths and huns) sacking rome and posing a real threat to the empire. I think both Goths/ Huns and Celts would provide an entirely different experience to Rome and Greece, the Goths/ Huns being nomadic on the asian steppe and the celts being nature and spiritual orientated. The way they both fought as well was completely different to Rome and Greece.

Its just a big slap in the face that half of Europe is not being represented, and its felt especially more as you see the future nations that this area belongs to. I also resent a bit having to wait even longer to play these civs and pay extra for the privilege.

 

[Zaarin]

the celts being nature and spiritual orientated.

This is why I haven't liked the Celtic civs in the past--a bunch of modern neopagan stereotypes. Gauls absolutely deserve to be included--for their skilled craftsmanship, industry, and trade. (Britons were just less sophisticated Gauls until they became the Other Romans; either way, hard to justify their inclusion as a full civ.)

I also resent a bit having to wait even longer to play these civs and pay extra for the privilege.

Realistically there are only so many civ slots in the base game. Personally, I'm annoyed there's only one West Asian civ in Antiquity, but that's just the way the dice fall until more get added.

 

[gdr_willter]

Its just a big slap in the face that half of Europe is not being represented, and its felt especially more as you see the future nations that this area belongs to. I also resent a bit having to wait even longer to play these civs and pay extra for the privilege.

Entire Korea, Early period of Japan, Many people lived in Central Asia, Ryukyu people, Native Taiwanese, Native Siberian, and all who are not represented in base game:

 

[Zaarin]

Entire Korea, Early period of Japan, Many people lived in Central Asia, Ryukyu people, Native Taiwanese, Native Siberian, and all who are not represented in base game:

Just in general Central Asia has been criminally under-represented in the franchise in contrast to its historical significance.

 

[gdr_willter]

Just in general Central Asia has been criminally under-represented in the franchise in contrast to its historical significance.

I wish the CotW collection includes one of them, but I guess not

 

[Stomper66]

This is why I haven't liked the Celtic civs in the past--a bunch of modern neopagan stereotypes. Gauls absolutely deserve to be included--for their skilled craftsmanship, industry, and trade. (Britons were just less sophisticated Gauls until they became the Other Romans; either way, hard to justify their inclusion as a full civ.)

I know I said celts in my last post I meant Gauls more specifically. I would eventually like to see them as antiquity age France. Same as Britain as a Iceni I don't care how advanced they were I just want to play my country in the age period, because when the true start locations on real world maps come out they will have to be those in place anyway. You'll be playing Europe like the European Union otherwise if it's just 1or 2 civs on the continent.

Realistically there are only so many civ slots in the base game. Personally, I'm annoyed there's only one West Asian civ in Antiquity, but that's just the way the dice fall until more get added.

Yeah I understand that just frustrated with it. Im glad they chose Persia anyway for West Asia. Will just have to be patient for the civs we want. I'm glad they are going all out designing the units and architecture for each civ anyway, but its going to take the game a long time to reflect history as closely as I want it to.

Entire Korea, Early period of Japan, Many people lived in Central Asia, Ryukyu people, Native Taiwanese, Native Siberian, and all who are not represented in base game:

They do have early era Japan. They will have Japan in all 3 eras in the base game. Antiquity era Japan will probably be announced close to launch.

 

[Zaarin]

They do have early era Japan. They will have Japan in all 3 eras in the base game. Antiquity era Japan will probably be announced close to launch.

We've seen all the Antiquity civs now; Japan is not one of them. It remains to be seen if Antiquity Japan is added later.

Same as Britain as a Iceni I don't care how advanced they were I just want to play my country in the age period

Rome > England makes as much cultural sense as Britons > England (more, really--the Britons had negligible cultural impact on the English).

 

[Stomper66]

We've seen all the Antiquity civs now; Japan is not one of them. It remains to be seen if Antiquity Japan is added later.

I'm about 80% sure that I saw a Japan breakdown in all the eras on one of the showcase videos. I'll watch them again because I want to anyway but Ill be on the lookout for it.

Rome > England makes as much cultural sense as Britons > England (more, really--the Britons had negligible cultural impact on the English).

My wanting their inclusion has nothing to do with how impactful or powerful they were. The celts were in all of Britain for around 800 years the Romans were in half of Britain for around 400 years in AD. Antiquity is meant to cover the ancient and classical period where the celts were more prominent in that region of Europe than the Romans were. I want all the different parts of Europe to have their own identity instead of just belonging to the greek or Roman empire. Also from a gameplay point of view. I want European countries to have their original civ so that eventually they all have their own starting position on a real world map.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm about 80% sure that I saw a Japan breakdown in all the eras on one of the showcase videos. I'll watch them again because I want to anyway but Ill be on the lookout for it.

That was one potential interpretation of Ed's statement, but we've now seen all Antiquity civs and no sign of Antiquity Japan.

My wanting their inclusion has nothing to do with how impactful or powerful they were. The celts were in all of Britain for around 800 years the Romans were in half of Britain for around 400 years in AD. Antiquity is meant to cover the ancient and classical period where the celts were more prominent in that region of Europe than the Romans were. I want all the different parts of Europe to have their own identity instead of just belonging to the greek or Roman empire. Also from a gameplay point of view. I want European countries to have their original civ so that eventually they all have their own starting position on a real world map.

That's fine. I just as equally don't want that. The world is bigger than Europe (especially in Antiquity), and I personally don't feel the need to represent every stick and stone in Europe while the rest of the world gets painted with a broad brush.

 

[FishFishFish]

I wouldn't mind if they squeezed the Anglo-Saxons into the Antiquity age.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't mind if they squeezed the Anglo-Saxons into the Antiquity age.

Yes, they've always been a civ that's hard to justify, but Civ7 feels like a good opportunity for them. (I don't need them right away personally, though.)

 

[Stomper66]

That's fine. I just as equally don't want that. The world is bigger than Europe (especially in Antiquity), and I personally don't feel the need to represent every stick and stone in Europe while the rest of the world gets painted with a broad brush.

Yep that seems to be the way the winds blowing and the developers will probably agree with you. For a while now I've sensed that there is this de Europeanisation of history going on as we've had only two Southern European civs announced in antiquity and 1 unflattering interpretation of a European leader (an effeminate Augustus with skinny legs).

I'm guessing that we'll get Normandy and Spain for Exploration and France and someone else for Modern. Personally I like to play close to history, particularly European history and if the game won't let me play a Northern or Eastern European civ until the 1800s then I'm prepared to wait until I can. I love playing non European civs but not having nations like France and England until the modern age just feels not historically immersive for me.

 

[Zaarin]

Yep that seems to be the way the winds blowing and the developers will probably agree with you. For a while now I've sensed that there is this de Europeanisation of history going on as we've had only two Southern European civs announced in antiquity and 1 unflattering interpretation of a European leader (an effeminate Augustus with skinny legs).

I just don't see the need to jump to the conclusion it's a conspiracy. Yes, history is less obsessed with Europe than it used to be. That's because we have more exposure and better access to non-European sources and traditions (and the accompanying realization that the sun doesn't rise and set on Europe). It's not that European history is less valuable; it's that history is a bigger picture so of course Europe is a smaller part of it.

 

[Sagax]

They do have early era Japan. They will have Japan in all 3 eras in the base game. Antiquity era Japan will probably be announced close to launch.

Based on the info we have so far, a 3-era Japan at launch is becoming increasingly unlikely (actually, it’s already impossible - the Antiquity roster is now closed out based on the changes to the official website). We just don’t have enough slots with all the soft-confirmed entries.

 

[Stomper66]

I just don't see the need to jump to the conclusion it's a conspiracy. Yes, history is less obsessed with Europe than it used to be. That's because we have more exposure and better access to non-European sources and traditions (and the accompanying realization that the sun doesn't rise and set on Europe). It's not that European history is less valuable; it's that history is a bigger picture so of course Europe is a smaller part of it.

It's not a conspiracy its the truth and you said it yourself. They are downplaying European history to shine a light on other lesser know civs outside of Europe. Exposure and access has changed little from 2010 yet in civ5 there where plenty of non european civs from all over the world as well as European ones. There were also scenarios where you could play as all the civs in Europe as well as scenarios all over the world.

You know what has changed? The emergence of the culture war and the agenda to retrospectively change history. And if the exploration age which roughly goes from 600AD to 1800AD deliberately excludes the kingdom of England, France, Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands, the Holy Roman empire, the Byzantines and the Dutchy of Moscow then that is a huge f u to both the fans and the people who are interested in playing a game that reflects real world history. It doesn't even make any sense to have the only powers in Europe in this 1200 year period the Spanish and a French Viking vassal kingdom who were prominent 500 years before Spain and were in charge of England for just 100 years. The whole Normandy choice to represent a civ for this long just seems bizarre.

 

[gdr_willter]

It's not a conspiracy its the truth and you said it yourself. They are downplaying European history to shine a light on other lesser know civs outside of Europe. Exposure and access has changed little from 2010 yet in civ5 there where plenty of non european civs from all over the world as well as European ones. There were also scenarios where you could play as all the civs in Europe as well as scenarios all over the world.

There are many games mainly deal with Europe out there, even the previous titles of Civ franchise. Civ 4 & 5? 33% European in base game. The percentage even rised up to 44% in Civ 6. Why can't we just give a chance to the other civs from various cultures and geography to be shown in the base game of the newest Civ title?

 

[Core Imposter]

I am feeling more hopeful about things and have bumped my vote up a notch. Things are looking up; I sense a sea change. Trust the people... to make a great game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I went from a 5 to a 7, and have even pre-ordered (happy birthday to meself). Mostly, I feel like the smaller systems is actually systems that I want to play with, the bigger thins don't really phase me, but the more I look at the game the more I'm intrigued, namely the narrative events, the way victories are done. While I will miss the straightforward game progression to some extent, I'm sure it'll be fine.

 

[Stomper66]

There are many games mainly deal with Europe out there, even the previous titles of Civ franchise. Civ 4 & 5? 33% European in base game. The percentage even rised up to 44% in Civ 6. Why can't we just give a chance to the other civs from various cultures and geography to be shown in the base game of the newest Civ title?

They did give civs from all over the world a chance in Civ 5 and 6 in the base game. The problem here is that in civ7 they are not giving any northern or eastern european civ a chance in the base game.

I won't talk about civ6 because to be honest I don't really like that game very much but in Civ 5, which i still really like and play today, it went as follows:

East Asia: China, Japan, Siamese
West Asia: Arabia, Ottoman, Persia, India
Africa: Egypt, Songhai
America: America, Aztecs, Iroquois
South Europe: Rome, Greece
North Europe: England, France, Germany, Russia

Seems pretty representative across the world i'd say, and there are just as many North/ East European civs as there are West Asian ones. Now compare this to the antiquity civs announced in the Civ 7 Base game:

East Asia: Han China, Khmer
West Asia: Maurya India, Persia
Africa: Aksum, Egypt
America: Maya, Mississippian
South Europe: Rome, Greece
North Europe: Nobody

And if that pattern repeats in exploration with just Spain and Normandy it becomes very clear that Northern and Eastern European civs (established nations by the medieval period in England and Frances case) have deliberately been excluded from the game to make a point. I'm not asking to exclude any civ in the game, but unless something changes half of Europe is being excluded until the last third of the game.