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

[gdr_willter]

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.

Europe is a small continent, you really think the "Europe" itself is enough vast and various as much as the entire "Asia", which was originally not even considered as a single continent?

Civ 5 list looks like to me:

East Asian: China, Japan
SE Asian: Siamese
South Asian: India
West Asian: Arabia, Persia, Ottoman
North African: Egypt
Sentral African: Songhai
South African: Nobody
North American: Iroquois
Central American: Aztecs
South American: Nobody
Polynesian: Nobody Again
European: America, Rome, Greece, England, France, Germany, Russia

I didn't counted America as European when I said "33%", but this is more accurate. Now 39%.

Now Civ 7 with confirmed civs:

East Asian: Han, Ming, Mongolia, Meiji Japan
SE Asian: Khmer, Majapahit, Siamese
South Asian: Mauria, Chola, Mughal
West Asian: Abbasid, Persia
North African: Aksum, Egypt
Sentral African: Songhai, Buganda
South African: Nobody
North American: Mississippian, Shawnee
Central American: Maya
South American: Inca
Polynesian: Tonga/Hawaiian
European: Rome, Greece, Norman, Spain, France, Britain, America

Wow, there're still so many Europeans here. However, 23% seems fairer percentage.

 

[chaosprophet]

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.

They definitely want to give a more global representation, after all this is a game supposed to represent civs from the past and present all around the world.

But, the main reason that Europe will have a smaller representation than usual at the base game is more likely because with the age system and with a limit of 10 civs per age, they want to have the base game be more diversified, covering at least a bit of each region, to when they add civs in new dlcs, there at least some base game ones where it would make sense for them to link, even if just by region to in case the player only has the base game and a specific DLC. Heck, the reason they still put 2~3 Europe civs per age when the region is such a small part of the world is because they still went to give it some prominence from being important markets and civilization series classics. Still is about 6~8 civs of the total. Even the smaller amount of 6 still means 1/5 of all base game civs.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I would've preferred an ancient era Northern European civ on release and I played 6 with opponents chosen to ensure rough representation. Really woulda liked the Franks, personally. I rate them more influential above the Alps than Rome and Greece. The Frankish Empire is the true grandaddy of Europe.

Woulda also loved to be a fly on the wall when Firaxis considered influence of various cultures, their playerbase, the culture in which they release their game.

I didn't counted America as European when I said "33%", but this is more accurate. Now 39%

I mean, the influence of Europe on us is undeniable, but this could be said of any state in the modern world. Influence of Smith and Marx is so extensive the entire world more or less governs in the Western style.

I'm not sure I'd go with saying US=European based on ethnicity alone.

 

[j51]

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.

lol wut?

They just have a very limited number of slots (10) for each era and Northern Europe was just not a very important, nor urban (aka ‘civilized’) area until after the Classical period. Having civs tied to eras means that some regions will be better represented in different parts of the game.

France and England (well Britain) are going to be in the modern period in the base game. Sweden and the Dutch will eventually be added as modern dlc. Portugal, Byzantium, The HRE or Francia, and Muscovy or Kievan Rus are all gonna come to the exploration period eventually.

It’s not the ‘culture wars’ limiting European civs in the base game. If anything, it’s pure capitalism. More familiar civs (like those mentioned above) are easier to sell as DLC.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm sure Northern Europe is getting representation in the modern age.

 

[gdr_willter]

I'm not sure I'd go with saying US=European based on ethnicity alone.

US definitely is a "Western" country which is enough to categorize as "European". They were based on implanted colonists.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's not a discussion that particularly interests me, personally, but either way I don't think anyone can argue there is a cultural or political agenda in the selection of civs until said selection is complete; i.e., several years from now!

 

[Uberfrog]

It’s worth noting also that nothing like an antiquity Northern European civ has ever (edit: since Civ 2) been in a civ game at launch (unless we include Civ 6’s Norway…)

Celts didn’t make it into Civ 3 or 4 or 5 until the first expansions. Civ 6 didn’t get the Gauls until the New Frontier Pass - 4 years after launch! We have never had Slavs or Goths before.

So frankly, if (as seems quite possible) we get a Gothic civ as part of the first phase of DLC, that will be the earliest ever representation of an ancient or classical European civ that wasn’t either Greece or Rome.

 

[ColtSeavers]

US definitely is a "Western" country which is enough to categories as "European". They were based on implanted colonists.

Not according to Civ 7's "historical path" at least... The USA was founded by the great state of Hawaii apparently

 

[gdr_willter]

Not according to Civ 7's "historical path" at least... The USA was founded by the great state of Hawaii apparently

Nice try, but we know the European American guy Benjamin Franklin will unlock the America civ.
And this even change the percentage lol. Civ 5 still has 7/18 European include America, so 39%. Civ 7 has only 6/30 European without America, so 20%.

 

[queenpea]

Nice try, but we know the European American guy Benjamin Franklin will unlock the America civ.
And this even change the percentage lol. Civ 5 still has 7/18 European include America, so 39%. Civ 7 has only 6/30 European without America, so 20%.

To be clear, the historical path to America has not been made public and is not confirmed. Franklin to America is the leader unlock.

 

[Evolena]

To be clear, the historical path to America has not been made public and is not confirmed. Franklin to America is the leader unlock.

And as for now, he has been seen leading Greece, Rome and the Normans is diplomatic screens.

 

[gdr_willter]

To be clear, the historical path to America has not been made public and is not confirmed. Franklin to America is the leader unlock.

I know, but nothing different for my point. Real USA is the Western (European) country, and same in Civ 5. Things in Civ 7 is not a matter for my original post - European or not.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think Hawai'i to the US will be even close to the most ridiculous/offensive transition. If firaxis had called them "thematic paths" or something similar I think that would have been a smarter move on their part. I try not to think of them as historical.

 

[queenpea]

And as for now, he has been seen leading Greece, Rome and the Normans is diplomatic screens.

Right but leader choice is independent of civ choice.

 

[Siptah]

Since the paths aren‘t mentioned at all in the civ write ups (and they would be an interesting spoiler-free addition to the explorations era civs), FXS seems to de-emphasize their importance a bit. In this vein, and as the players won‘t be affected by them much anyway, I wonder whether it would even be acceptable to dub them „AI paths“ instead of thematic/historic/regional. That seems a name that promises/claims less while describing the main use/reason for the paths.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think Hawai'i to the US will be even close to the most ridiculous/offensive transition. If firaxis had called them "thematic paths" or something similar I think that would have been a smarter move on their part. I try not to think of them as historical.

I don't think the term "historical path" is used in the game. In all interfaces we've seen so far, it's just "Civilization/Leader X unlocks Civilization Y".

The only time the term "historical path" was mentioned by anyone in Firaxis, if I remember correctly, was when they answered a question how AI chooses a civilization to convert to.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think the term "historical path" is used in the game. In all interfaces we've seen so far, it's just "Civilization/Leader X unlocks Civilization Y".

The only time the term "historical path" was mentioned by anyone in Firaxis, if I remember correctly, was when they answered a question how AI chooses a civilization to convert to.

Good shout. I think they have said it in videos for sure but that could be just willful misinterpretation on my part

 

[Elhoim]

I move from 8 to a 9, I really like the gameplay direction they are going with cities and expansion, especially after playing Civ IV and VI these past weeks. Sometimes I feel that I'm in the minority regarding being interested in the base mechanics design, compared to the pages and pages of "which civ is included or not". TBH, I would play these games even without the heavy historical references.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I move from 8 to a 9, I really like the gameplay direction they are going with cities and expansion, especially after playing Civ IV and VI these past weeks. Sometimes I feel that I'm in the minority regarding being interested in the base mechanics design, compared to the pages and pages of "which civ is included or not". TBH, I would play these games even without the heavy historical references.

Yeah, the overal gameplay mechanics seem to be pretty solid. I feel there is still room for improvement but a lot of work has been done since civ 6.