Southern African representation

[Australopithecine]

I am hoping to see at least some representation for southern africa at launch.

The Zulu has been around in Civ for a long time, or perhaps the full nation of South Africa for a broader scope.

The Xoi-San has been around for as long as it gets, in real world terms.

Other options that could potentially be considered are:
Xhosa, Pedi, Tswana, Sotho, Tsonga, Swazi, Venda, Ndebele, Shona, etc.

Or a more general Nguni civ.

The cape colony used to be a power by itself, and the 'Boer' republics have noteworthy history with the British Empire, etc.

Finding unique elements won't be difficult since this region has several natural wonders, the greatest mineral wealth on earth, a deep anthropological history, many word heritage sites, has natural megadiversity, significant cultural history, many wars and battles, political significance and more.

It would feel like something is missing (at least to me), should there be nothing along those lines.

 

[Krajzen]

Tswana would be very nice. In fact Botswana would be one of the most sensible modern African civs given its great success and actually being sort of a nation state. I don't get why we didn't get Ethiopia, Botswana, Ghana, Senegal or Kenya instead of Buganda.

It feels annoying those peoples are probably going to be put in the modern era, considering their tech level was honestly on the "ancient" level in civ7 three era division - in normal system this was never a visible problem, but here it is going to feel weird with Zulu having what, unique spear unit in the 19th century?

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I could definitely see a progression path of Aksum -> Zulu -> South Africa.

Shaka and Mandela would be the obvious choice of leaders, though the latter would of course be controversial. But I don’t know who else would be iconic enough.

Africa as a whole already has more than enough representation for a base game, but having a civ at the very southern tip (especially starting in the Exploration Age, which historically kicked off with the discovery of the Cape) would fill out the True Start Earth map nicely

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Tswana would be very nice. In fact Botswana would be one of the most sensible modern African civs given its great success and actually being sort of a nation state. I don't get why we didn't get Ethiopia, Botswana, Ghana, Senegal or Kenya instead of Buganda.

It feels annoying those peoples are probably going to be put in the modern era, considering their tech level was honestly on the "ancient" level in civ7 three era division - in normal system this was never a visible problem, but here it is going to feel weird with Zulu having what, unique spear unit in the 19th century?

I guess they didn't want to go with post-colonial countries

 

[UWHabs]

Zulu I could see them put more into the age of Exploration rather than the modern age. You could argue their peak was with Shaka, who was early 1800s, which is kind of the grey area transition between the ages.

I could definitely see a progression path of Aksum -> Zulu -> South Africa.

Shaka and Mandela would be the obvious choice of leaders, though the latter would of course be controversial. But I don’t know who else would be iconic enough.

Africa as a whole already has more than enough representation for a base game, but having a civ at the very southern tip (especially starting in the Exploration Age, which historically kicked off with the discovery of the Horn of Africa) would fill out the True Start Earth map nicely

I don't think they will have every civ with a leader option. Especially the modern ones - civ games in recent time have stayed away from pretty much any post-WW2 leaders, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a South Africa civ with no dedicated leader.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I don't think they will have every civ with a leader option. Especially the modern ones - civ games in recent time have stayed away from pretty much any post-WW2 leaders, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a South Africa civ with no dedicated leader.

But this time they're not limiting themselves to rulers and political figures, so we'd probably see more non-political figures associated with modern civs

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I don't think they will have every civ with a leader option. Especially the modern ones - civ games in recent time have stayed away from pretty much any post-WW2 leaders, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a South Africa civ with no dedicated leader.

If that’s indeed the case, perhaps the Boer Republics would be preferable to modern South Africa

 

[Krikkit1]

If that’s indeed the case, perhaps the Boer Republics would be preferable to modern South Africa

South Africa would work well as both unlocked by native African civ and 2ndAge Dutch/England/Normans
(wheras the Boers have a more specific connection to the Dutch)

 

[Deer]

I do not feel like there is any particular need for representation for the southern tip of Africa - or any geographical area for that matter. If they skipped out on staples of the franchise, like India, Rome, Greece or the Aztecs, then maybe I'd feel like something was missing - but this? No.

With that said, I would not be opposed to its addition either.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Tswana would be very nice. In fact Botswana would be one of the most sensible modern African civs given its great success and actually being sort of a nation state. I don't get why we didn't get Ethiopia, Botswana, Ghana, Senegal or Kenya instead of Buganda.

Any of those could still be in the basegame, or make it into the game via DLC and expansion packs. Ethiopia, Swahili, Zimbabwe, Zulu, Xhosa, Kongo, Ashanti, Benin, Maasai,... there's plenty of worthy candidates. Why the devs chose Buganda - I *THINK* they wanted another African Civ with a bonus to Navigable Rivers, to make Egypt => Songhai pipeline viable AND they wanted a completely new Civ they couldn't do before. Buganda, a kingdom located on the White Nile that peaked in the 18th century and has no obvious leaders, fits that bill.

It feels annoying those peoples are probably going to be put in the modern era, considering their tech level was honestly on the "ancient" level in civ7 three era division - in normal system this was never a visible problem, but here it is going to feel weird with Zulu having what, unique spear unit in the 19th century?

With borderline cases like the Zulu (and the Shawnee for that matter), I think it depends on two factors:

1) What Age do the abilities, traditions and uniques for that culture suit the best?
2) Which predecessor or successor Civs can we provide for that culture in adjoining ages?

I could imagine the Zulu as both Exploration and Modern. We'll see once they're added into the game (I assume they're not in base because a Zulu DLC would sell more than a Buganda DLC would :3 )

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Zulu I could see them put more into the age of Exploration rather than the modern age. You could argue their peak was with Shaka, who was early 1800s, which is kind of the grey area transition between the ages.

However their "empire" lasted past Shaka almost to the 20th century. Outside of Shaka, the best-known leader was Cetshwayo who was leading at the time, and gave the British their first defeat in the beginning of the Anglo Zulu War. All of this to me firmly places them in the Modern Age timeframe.

I do not feel like there is any particular need for representation for the southern tip of Africa - or any geographical area for that matter. If they skipped out on staples of the franchise, like India, Rome, Greece or the Aztecs, then maybe I'd feel like something was missing - but this? No.

Then again, the Zulu could be seen as much as a staple as those you mentioned, considering they have also been in every game.

 

[Deer]

However their "empire" lasted past Shaka almost to the 20th century. Outside of Shaka, the best-known leader was Cetshwayo who was leading at the time, and gave the British their first defeat in the beginning of the Anglo Zulu War. All of this to me firmly places them in the Modern Age timeframe.

Then again, the Zulu could be seen as much as a staple as those you mentioned, considering they have also been in every game.

Yes, the Zulu could be seen as much as a staple - this is subjective, after all. I do not see them as a staple - at least not in the same way as the civs I mentioned. They tend to be in the game from the get-go whereas Zulu has been part of expansions in civ 5 and 6. Of course, your opinion might differ from mine, and the two of us might feel differently about how important their inclusion is in the basegame.

 

[AriochIV]

Zulu are a staple, but they're rarely in the initial release of an iteration.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, the Zulu could be seen as much as a staple - this is subjective, after all. I do not see them as a staple - at least not in the same way as the civs I mentioned. They tend to be in the game from the get-go whereas Zulu has been part of expansions in civ 5 and 6. Of course, your opinion might differ from mine, and the two of us might feel differently about how important their inclusion is in the basegame.

Oh, I agree with you that the Zulu don't need to be a base game civ.
I just usually see the word "staple" go along with civs that have eventually appeared in "most" every game. Mongolia also didn't appear until an expansion in Civ 6, and Babylon in a post expansion 2 DLC, but I wouldn't think of not calling them a staple because of that.

 

[The_J]

Zulu are a staple, but they're rarely in the initial release of an iteration.

You mean besides in Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4 ?
(I did not check the 3 others)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You mean besides in Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4 ?
(I did not check the 3 others)

They were also in C1. In C5 and C6, they were in expansions.

 

[Inawordyes]

Zulu are a staple, but they're rarely in the initial release of an iteration.

We already have semi-confirmation via one of the YouTubers who got a chance to play the demo (can't remember who off the top of my head) that Shaka may be a basegame leader, since he was mentioned as being a leader that they met and were playing against in their test game.

If that is true, then Shaka being a potential basegame inclusion (and an inferred semi-confirmation of a ton of civs in basegame overall), there's really no reason except wanting that sweet sweet DLC money why the Zulu would necessarily be left out of the basegame this time around.

 

[Jkchart]

Zulu are a staple, but they're rarely in the initial release of an iteration.

50/50 pre Civ 7

Base in 1, 2, and 3, but expansion/DLC for 4, 5, 6 (also if anyone counts Rev then they were in both Civ Rev games)

 

[E.C.H]

Just want to say, I entirely concur with the Botswana Modernity suggestion, that would be very hype with some sort of synergy between any late-game economy systems and mines/luxuries perhaps?

 

[HNation]

I don't get why the Boers have never made it into a civ game. They're fairly well-known, unique, iconic, and from an overlooked part of the world.