December 2024, not December 24th.I hope @kaspergm starts a new poll soon, since this one has exceeded its end date on the title.

December 2024, not December 24th.I hope @kaspergm starts a new poll soon, since this one has exceeded its end date on the title.

This century is still new to me, I require all four digits.December 2024, not December 24th.![]()
Right, sorry, I can see that could be misread.I hope @kaspergm starts a new poll soon, since this one has exceeded its end date on the title.
But as Arioch states, it was intended to be read as December 2024.I think they may be available for purchase a few months after releaseI don’t think that’s the case. Where are you getting that idea from?
- mentioned in other threads but feels like 1950 is a temporary placeholder for future DLC to advance further[7] Quite excited as always before the launch.
But I have never had so many doubts and concerns.
I don't like the fact the game ends in 1950.
I don't know what to think about diplomacy changes. Guess it can only be better
I have my doubts about narrative events. Might become an annoying pop-up like the World Congress.
People keep saying this, but there is no evidence to back this up. There is no evidence for a fourth age specifically, and Civ games have always had expansions--expansions that were planned before the game's release. That's not cut content; that's normal game development. Ed's only comment was that they had plans to expand the Modern Age in the future--did you feel cheated because Brave New World also expanded the Modern Age?Besides, i wont pay money for a civ game where 1/4 of the game is even available at release but have to be bought thru a future expansion?
They've made a point of it now, but Civ has never restricted itself to only heads of state. Aside from Gandhi, Civ3 had Joan of Arc; Civ5 had Gajah Mada; Civ6 had Eleanor, Kupe, Ambiorix, and Catherine de Medici; and multiple iterations of Civ have featured Empress(-consort) Theodora, Boudicca, and Dido. This isn't new for the Civ franchise.And not having actual leaders leading the countries is just strange.
It's not an idea, go to the official page for preordering and read it. It states on the website that at least Right to Rule will be added to the base game for free by September, and the Steam pages mentions Crossroads as also being available in the base game after March I believe.I don’t think that’s the case. Where are you getting that idea from?
I would even argue that Civ 7 feels more fleshed out than 6 where big mechanics were added with rise and fall impacting the game from start to finishPeople keep saying this, but there is no evidence to back this up. There is no evidence for a fourth age specifically, and Civ games have always had expansions--expansions that were planned before the game's release. That's not cut content; that's normal game development. Ed's only comment was that they had plans to expand the Modern Age in the future--did you feel cheated because Brave New World also expanded the Modern Age?
They've made a point of it now, but Civ has never restricted itself to only heads of state. Aside from Gandhi, Civ3 had Joan of Arc; Civ5 had Gajah Mada; Civ6 had Eleanor, Kupe, Ambiorix, and Catherine de Medici; and multiple iterations of Civ have featured Empress(-consort) Theodora, Boudicca, and Dido. This isn't new for the Civ franchise.
I'm not saying that you have to like Civ7, but both of these points are factually wrong.
They will be free only if they are included inside the Deluxe and/or Founder Edition. They will be available for purchase later on.It's not an idea, go to the official page for preordering and read it. It states on the website that at least Right to Rule will be added to the base game for free by September, and the Steam pages mentions Crossroads as also being available in the base game after March I believe.
And even if one think /am convinced Ed meant they will likely add a 4th age, the game at release with the three ages seems very complete in total of content and in how long you would expect a game to last compared with previous civs. The main reason to me they ended the game at 1950, regardless if they will add another later on or not, is that with how they have mechanics limited to each age, the age works well ending at where it ends. Things changes a lot after 1950, both in diplomacy, tech, military developments and how wars are waged, etc.People keep saying this, but there is no evidence to back this up. There is no evidence for a fourth age specifically, and Civ games have always had expansions--expansions that were planned before the game's release. That's not cut content; that's normal game development. Ed's only comment was that they had plans to expand the Modern Age in the future--did you feel cheated because Brave New World also expanded the Modern Age?
Yeah, but it still feels like cut-off content that should be there. I have nothing against paid DLC, but this kind of practice (on the edge of acceptability) shouldn't be welcomed imo.- mentioned in other threads but feels like 1950 is a temporary placeholder for future DLC to advance further
You are probably correct; that is my mistake.I think you've misunderstood. Those are both paid DLC packs. No one in their right mind is going to buy a pack that costs nearly twice as much as the base game just to get some DLC earlier.
This infographic they have spells it out, and shows that the Standard edition doesn't get either of those packs.
Spoiler Civ 7 editions infographic :
![]()
Right to Rule will be available by September--not released for free. And likewise, the components of the Crossroads DLC will be released in March, but not for free.
If you get the Deluxe edition, you are pre-purchasing the Crossroads DLC. If you get the Founder's edition, you're prepurchasing both. If you get the Standard edition, you'll have the option to buy these DLCs separately when they come out. We don't know pricing yet, but it's likely that some sort of bundle discount is factored into the Deluxe and Founder's editions,
But you didn't mean that in the sentence I quoted. You meant that a fourth expansion would destroy the original game, and I understood the vanilla version, not the principle of the series if there is one. I'll not debate about this though, since you have all eras represented still.The absolute main idea of the game is to accompany one civilisation from the cradle to the grave, from the beginning to the end. whether units have 10 or 100 or 2348 HP is not part of the main principle of the game. It might affect your fun with the game but it does not destroy the core of the game.
What "grave" / "end" does mean is debatable, I'll give you that, but one thing is sure: it is not in the past.
So, instead of "one civilisation from the beginning to the end" we get "three or four civilisations from the beginning to somewhere in the past, or so, well, we don't care, all we care for is that the children of our CEOs can buy their fourth car, hurray!". if only they had the honesty to at least rename the game into civilizations VII.