Speculation on civ unlocks in the base game

[Kulko]

Hmm thats a good point, especially considering that the second potential unlock for spain would be france, which was already known and implemented in the Norman Live Stream. So neither secrecy nor build sound like a good reason to now have it on the screen if it where an valid option.

But overall that makes the european Theater even less enticing. If you want to play any modern european civ there seems to be only the path via the normans available which are one of the least exciting civs previewed so far. I understand a need for diversity, but that is a pretty small offer for the people which I would still recon are the second largest customer base.

 

[Siptah]

It's interesting that Mexico of all things is the guaranteed unlock and not the French Empire. I assumed Spain > Mexico was a thing, but in case we would have seen French Empire only in the screen, I would have been less surprised. Simply because I could have seen that Mexico and America aren't regional/historical unlocks for the Europeans and require some actions in the game to be unlocked (cities or population in the distant lands, amount of treasure fleets, resources controlled in the distant lands). With Mexico being a guaranteed, but French Empire isn't, I wonder who the second civ to unlock the French Empire will be (alongside Normans). Songhai > French Empire seems rather wild.

 

[dagriggstar]

I was left thinking it might be something like

Antiquity to Exploration - Two historical choices
Exploration to Modern - One historical choice

With more modern choices unlocked by gameplay…..

 

[Siptah]

I was left thinking it might be something like

Antiquity to Exploration - Two historical choices
Exploration to Modern - One historical choice

With more modern choices unlocked by gameplay…..

This would be a) interesting b) solve quite some dilemmas. Still hoping that all civs will have a gameplay unlock though.

 

[Krikkit1]

I was left thinking it might be something like

Antiquity to Exploration - Two historical choices
Exploration to Modern - One historical choice

With more modern choices unlocked by gameplay…..

Except Normans had 2 Modern unlocks

I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule besides
1. every civ must unlock at least 1 other civ by default
2. every civ must be unlocked by at least one other civ by default
3. 2 unlocks is better than 1 but not required

Those are the only “rules”

 

[uppi]

It's interesting that Mexico of all things is the guaranteed unlock and not the French Empire. I assumed Spain > Mexico was a thing, but in case we would have seen French Empire only in the screen, I would have been less surprised. Simply because I could have seen that Mexico and America aren't regional/historical unlocks for the Europeans and require some actions in the game to be unlocked (cities or population in the distant lands, amount of treasure fleets, resources controlled in the distant lands). With Mexico being a guaranteed, but French Empire isn't, I wonder who the second civ to unlock the French Empire will be (alongside Normans). Songhai > French Empire seems rather wild.

I don't think there will be a second civ unlock for the French Empire. Unless we start seeing civs with three unlocks in the modern age, there must be modern age civs with only one civ unlock. Maybe they are working more with leader unlocks in the modern age? Napoleon will unlock the French Empire, so he could go Rome->Spain->French Empire without Spain having the unlock.

That would also mean, that if there is another European civ in the modern age, it would also need a leader unlock. However, as revealed there already seem to be too many European leaders and too few European civs. Right now, we already have Augustus, Machiavelli, Isabella, Franklin and two Napoleons wanting to start as either Rome or Greece. Compare that to Maya and Mississipians, which right now only have Tecumseh as a leader who would want to start with them.

 

[Siptah]

I don't think there will be a second civ unlock for the French Empire. Unless we start seeing civs with three unlocks in the modern age, there must be modern age civs with only one civ unlock. Maybe they are working more with leader unlocks in the modern age? Napoleon will unlock the French Empire, so he could go Rome->Spain->French Empire without Spain having the unlock.

That would also mean, that if there is another European civ in the modern age, it would also need a leader unlock. However, as revealed there already seem to be too many European leaders and too few European civs. Right now, we already have Augustus, Machiavelli, Isabella, Franklin and two Napoleons wanting to start as either Rome or Greece. Compare that to Maya and Mississipians, which right now only have Tecumseh as a leader who would want to start with them.

Neither Napoleon nor Tecumseh are in the base game though.

 

[uppi]

Neither Napoleon nor Tecumseh are in the base game though.

Yeah, that makes the score 4 - 0 when it comes to revealed leaders. And while I suspect that we'll get two more leaders that could start as Maya or Mississippians, I doubt that we'll get 4 or 5

 

[chaosprophet]

Spain only unlocking Mexico means that at least the theory each civ has at least 2 civ unlocks and then also at least unlock two others wasn't correct.

My guess is that Normans unlock the French Empire and Britain or Germany, and at base game is the only path to any of the two. Then as they add more civ packs with european civs, more paths will be added both for the new but also to existing civs.

 

[Krikkit1]

Spain only unlocking Mexico means that at least the theory each civ has at least 2 civ unlocks and then also at least unlock two others wasn't correct.

My guess is that Normans unlock the French Empire and Britain or Germany, and at base game is the only path to any of the two. Then as they add more civ packs with european civs, more paths will be added both for the new but also to existing civs.

Well we already knew that theory was wrong from Songhai (only goes to Buganda)... either that or the Exploration-Modern Links aren't all in yet
I personally think the Norman unlocks are France and America, and that Russia is the only other geographically European civ... but we'll find out.

 

[j51]

Well we already knew that theory was wrong from Songhai (only goes to Buganda)... either that or the Exploration-Modern Links aren't all in yet
I personally think the Norman unlocks are France and America, and that Russia is the only other geographically European civ... but we'll find out.

I’m kinda hoping that America isn’t a Norman unlock. I really want Britain. Also it would be ok imo if America was only unlocked by Ben Franklin and a gameplay unlock.

 

[Calcifer]

I don't think there will be a second civ unlock for the French Empire. Unless we start seeing civs with three unlocks in the modern age, there must be modern age civs with only one civ unlock. Maybe they are working more with leader unlocks in the modern age? Napoleon will unlock the French Empire, so he could go Rome->Spain->French Empire without Spain having the unlock.

That would also mean, that if there is another European civ in the modern age, it would also need a leader unlock. However, as revealed there already seem to be too many European leaders and too few European civs. Right now, we already have Augustus, Machiavelli, Isabella, Franklin and two Napoleons wanting to start as either Rome or Greece. Compare that to Maya and Mississipians, which right now only have Tecumseh as a leader who would want to start with them.

Why would Franklin want to start as Rome or Greece? I think it's just as likely as him wanting to start as Maya or Mississippi, we don't know for sure the paths leading to America yet.

That's also assuming that leaders from later ages will be forced to start with an ancient civ that has an historical path to their unlocked civ, which wouldn't really be necessary since they already unlock their civ by default. For example, Franklin could go Maurya (random civ) -> Chola (historical choice from civ) -> America (historical choice from leader). If you think about it, it wouldn't be that much worse than Franklin going Greece->Normans->America or Maya->Shawnee->America (I think?).

 

[Zaarin]

Why would Franklin want to start as Rome or Greece? I think it's just as likely as him wanting to start as Maya or Mississippi, we don't know for sure the paths leading to America yet.

Every time we've seen him, he's been Greece or Normans, and this is in line with American foundation myths as "heirs to Greek democracy" and "inheritors of the Magna Carta."

That's also assuming that leaders from later ages will be forced to start with an ancient civ that has an historical path to their unlocked civ, which wouldn't really be necessary since they already unlock their civ by default. For example, Franklin could go Maurya (random civ) -> Chola (historical choice from civ) -> America (historical choice from leader). If you think about it, it wouldn't be that much worse than Franklin going Greece->Normans->America or Maya->Shawnee->America (I think?).

We've been told the AI will prioritize historical paths. I don't think they'll ever start with an ahistorical civ unless there's an ahistoric AI toggle (which we'll probably get at some point but I don't really expect on release).

 

[Siptah]

Every time we've seen him, he's been Greece or Normans, and this is in line with American foundation myths as "heirs to Greek democracy" and "inheritors of the Magna Carta."

We've been told the AI will prioritize historical paths. I don't think they'll ever start with an ahistorical civ unless there's an ahistoric AI toggle (which we'll probably get at some point but I don't really expect on release).

Assuming no civ duplicates, a game with certain leaders will not have Ben lead Greece: Isabella would probably choose Greece first, and Augustus or Napoleon gets Rome. Now Ben might choose Mississippians. But what if you have Tecumseh in the game? Will Ben lead the Maya in the first age then? This all seems quite difficult to disentangle... maybe civ duplicates *is* the standard option? I mean, it seems likely that some people want to play a game with Ben, Isabella, Augustus, Napoleon, and Friedrich.

 

[Zaarin]

Assuming no civ duplicates, a game with certain leaders will not have Ben lead Greece: Isabella would probably choose Greece first, and Augustus or Napoleon gets Rome. Now Ben might choose Mississippians. But what if you have Tecumseh in the game? Will Ben lead the Maya in the first age then? This all seems quite difficult to disentangle... maybe civ duplicates *is* the standard option? I mean, it seems likely that some people want to play a game with Ben, Isabella, Augustus, Napoleon, and Friedrich.

Yes, we need more information on how leaders prioritize civ choices beyond their obvious first and perhaps second choice.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Duplicates could be allowed; we've seen that occasionally in other games in the franchise. It would be easier in Civ7, with distinct leaders: e.g., both Napoleon and Augustus leading the Normans. Each would have been building on a different foundation from the Antiquity Age.

 

[Zaarin]

Duplicates could be allowed; we've seen that occasionally in other games in the franchise. It would be easier in Civ7, with distinct leaders: e.g., both Napoleon and Augustus leading the Normans. Each would have been building on a different foundation from the Antiquity Age.

We know duplicates are allowed for multiplayer. This would be my assumption for single player (especially given how long it took us to get the option to disable duplicates in Civ6) if certain dev statements didn't sound like duplicates were not allowed in single player. This would be the simplest solution, though.

 

[Calcifer]

Every time we've seen him, he's been Greece or Normans, and this is in line with American foundation myths as "heirs to Greek democracy" and "inheritors of the Magna Carta."

Interesting, I wasn't aware we had that evidence. This could mean that Greece->Normans is a hystorical path for Franklin as an American founder or just because Normans unlock America by default

Assuming no civ duplicates, a game with certain leaders will not have Ben lead Greece: Isabella would probably choose Greece first, and Augustus or Napoleon gets Rome. Now Ben might choose Mississippians. But what if you have Tecumseh in the game? Will Ben lead the Maya in the first age then? This all seems quite difficult to disentangle...

Don't tell me, I'm getting more confused the more I think about this matter. At the moment I'm assuming the game picks starting leaders at random, then civilizations could get assigned using starting biases with a system similar to the one used for starting locations in civ 6:
- Leaders associated with an ancient civ have the strongest bias towards that civ
- Leaders associated with later era civs have some bias towards civs that lead to theirs (strong bias for strong historical connection, low bias for worse historical connections)
- Leaders could have some bias towards relevant civs on a personal level (like Franklin-Greece) or civs with better gameplay synergies.
Highest bias picks first, everything goes smoothly and everyone is happy.

 

[Leucarum]

I *think* they said in a livestream the AI wouldn't pick the same civ as the player - honestly this is the main reason I'd assumed each civ would unlock 2 later civs. But I guess if you have a multiplayer game with AIs mixed in the problem is still there even with 2 unlocks...

 

[j51]

Assuming no civ duplicates, a game with certain leaders will not have Ben lead Greece: Isabella would probably choose Greece first, and Augustus or Napoleon gets Rome. Now Ben might choose Mississippians. But what if you have Tecumseh in the game? Will Ben lead the Maya in the first age then? This all seems quite difficult to disentangle... maybe civ duplicates *is* the standard option? I mean, it seems likely that some people want to play a game with Ben, Isabella, Augustus, Napoleon, and Friedrich.

This really drives home that 10 civs per era is simply not enough for the base game.