We Know There Will Be 39 Civs for the Founders Edition, And My Guess: Mainly About Non-linear Civ Choices

[Krikkit1]

I expect Assyria will be early DLC as well. As it stands, we have no Ancient Mesopotamian civ in the base game (and no Persia is not Mesopotamia), and we have Dur-Sharrukin--which is certainly wondrous enough to merit inclusion but probably also signals Assyrians are coming sooner than later.

Given the "Crossroads of the world" DLC seems ideal for an "Asia..Minor to Central" civs
Mesopotamia, Byzantine?, Ottoman?, a second Persia? Scythians?
All seem like good options for that DLC

 

[Xandinho]

Given the "Crossroads of the world" DLC seems ideal for an "Asia..Minor to Central" civs
Mesopotamia, Byzantine?, Ottoman?, a second Persia? Scythians?
All seem like good options for that DLC

Isn’t this the DLC pack that doesn’t have any new wonders?
If so, this could be the DLC pack that gives orphaned wonders their respective civs.
Come to think of it, Russia works well for this pack. I’d say Assyria and Tonga would work well too. Finally, I’d go for the Byzantines as well, because "crossroads of the world" really screams Byzantines. We just haven’t seen any wonders from this yet.

 

[Krajzen]

I'm really curious what's going to happen with non-Chinese East Asia. So far we have Mongolia without any sensible paths, Meiji Japan, and signs of... Silla and Vietnam? I forgot about Silla in my last post.

There are a lot of possibilities to position those civs in sequence of each other interwined with Chinese path, but all of them are controversial in some way.

Personally if I were Firaxis I'd simply invest three slots in the separate Japanese path, made Mongolia part of like Scythians -> Mongolia -> Kazakh Khanate / Mughals / Qing path, and waited for later DLCs for some smart implementation of Korea, but I'm afraid they are going to go for some unholy chimera of all non-Chinese East Asian countries at once.

Those are probably the countries least fitting for this game's system, since they all actually feel right as continuous civs since ancient to the modern era, but would feel horrible switching from one to another.

 

[Xandinho]

I'm really curious what's going to happen with non-Chinese East Asia. So far we have Mongolia without any sensible paths, Meiji Japan, and signs of... Silla and Vietnam? I forgot about Silla in my last post.

There are a lot of possibilities to position those civs in sequence of each other interwined with Chinese path, but all of them are controversial in some way.

Personally if I were Firaxis I'd simply invest three slots in the separate Japanese path, made Mongolia part of like Scythians -> Mongolia -> Kazakh Khanate / Mughals / Qing path, and waited for later DLCs for some smart implementation of Korea, but I'm afraid they are going to go for some unholy chimera of all non-Chinese East Asian countries at once.

Those are probably the countries least fitting for this game's system, since they all actually feel right as continuous civs since ancient to the modern era, but would feel horrible switching from one to another.

We know of 10 civs per era, and we have 8 confirmed Antiquity civs. There are indications that the remaining two are the Mississippians and Persia, meaning Silla won’t be in the base game. I believe that, from non-Chinese East Asia, only Meiji Japan will be included, and it's possible they might make a wild transition, bringing it from the Ming or even Hawaii.

 

[AriochIV]

It's possible that there are more than 10 civs in the Antiquity Age, though I think it unlikely, it hasn't been ruled out. Our current list could fit 12/9/9.

 

[Dale]

One thing they said to me during the meet n greet at PAX Aus yesterday (not streamed but some of us went after the panel), they arrived Monday and have been visiting architectural and cultural sites, as well as talking to local cultural people. Artists visiting and photographing local sites. Leads me to consider that maybe Kulin Nation -> Australia for a possible DLC candidate.

Pretty sure @Thugless was behind me and heard the same conversation.

 

[Black Gate]

I'm really curious what's going to happen with non-Chinese East Asia. So far we have Mongolia without any sensible paths, Meiji Japan, and signs of... Silla and Vietnam? I forgot about Silla in my last post.

There are a lot of possibilities to position those civs in sequence of each other interwined with Chinese path, but all of them are controversial in some way.

Personally if I were Firaxis I'd simply invest three slots in the separate Japanese path, made Mongolia part of like Scythians -> Mongolia -> Kazakh Khanate / Mughals / Qing path, and waited for later DLCs for some smart implementation of Korea, but I'm afraid they are going to go for some unholy chimera of all non-Chinese East Asian countries at once.

Those are probably the countries least fitting for this game's system, since they all actually feel right as continuous civs since ancient to the modern era, but would feel horrible switching from one to another.

I suspect we'll see "nation packs" at some point for certain places, on top of the thematic ones we're getting post-launch like Crossroads of the World. Want antiquity and exploration Japan, plus Oda Nobunaga? Here's the Japanese pack. Want Korea? Here's three separate civs, plus King Sejong.

One thing they said to me during the meet n greet at PAX Aus yesterday (not streamed but some of us went after the panel), they arrived Monday and have been visiting architectural and cultural sites, as well as talking to local cultural people. Artists visiting and photographing local sites. Leads me to consider that maybe Kulin Nation -> Australia for a possible DLC candidate.

Pretty sure @Thugless was behind me and heard the same conversation.

Could be nice to get the MCG as a wonder instead of the Sydney Opera House...

 

[RedCourtJester]

One thing they said to me during the meet n greet at PAX Aus yesterday (not streamed but some of us went after the panel), they arrived Monday and have been visiting architectural and cultural sites, as well as talking to local cultural people. Artists visiting and photographing local sites. Leads me to consider that maybe Kulin Nation -> Australia for a possible DLC candidate.

Pretty sure @Thugless was behind me and heard the same conversation.

Aghh that would be so cool.

I think, more than the US or Canada, Australia really wants to be represented as more integrated with its aboriginal history. Or at least whatever pathway "represents" Australia. I think Pokare would be the perfect leader and Gabarnmung the perfect antiquity wonder for a pathway largely guided from Pama-Nguyen, through Noongar, and into a more collective idea of the various Aussie tribes.

 

[BuchiTaton]

OK, lets think about this...
CIV7 is providing 30 civs at release that seems to mean 10 for each age. That sounds as too few right for each age, right?
But now each civs comes with more uniques that ever, that means two unique units, at least a couple of buildings, all new unique policies and traditions!
Still feel like a poor pool of options for realease?
So wha about this scenario... We still get 30 civs at release, with all these uniques for each one at never seen before level, BUT in this scenario CIV7 never was designed with a forced age transition system, so we can have 30 civs that can be used in every era like previous CIV games, with the plus that now these civs have more unique material to be distributed along the traditional scheme of eras.

I guess a huge part of CIV players could have been very happy just by hear about this alternate CIV7 released with 30 civs with more unique content that would have been as useful to reduce the "era focuses limitations" of some civs.

 

[stealth_nsk]

OK, lets think about this...
CIV7 is providing 30 civs at release that seems to mean 10 for each age. That sounds as too few right for each age, right?
But now each civs comes with more uniques that ever, that means two unique units, at least a couple of buildings, all new unique policies and traditions!
Still feel like a poor pool of options for realease?
So wha about this scenario... We still get 30 civs at release, with all these uniques for each one at never seen before level, BUT in this scenario CIV7 never was designed with a forced age transition system, so we can have 30 civs that can be used in every era like previous CIV games, with the plus that now these civs have more unique material to be distributed along the traditional scheme of eras.

I guess a huge part of CIV players could have been very happy just by hear about this alternate CIV7 released with 30 civs with more unique content that would have been as useful to reduce the "era focuses limitations" of some civs.

In this equation you forgot about leaders. They take a lot of efforts and the main reason why Civ7 was able to release 30 civs is what it has much less leaders. We have about 15-16 fully unique leaders with another 5 filled with "personas" on day 1. And persona's are lifehack - they reuse most of the efforts on leader creation, while providing the same gameplay uniqueness as full leader.

So, your hypothetical Civ7 with 30 full civs also needs decoupling civs from leaders and much smaller amount of leaders, if you expect it to have the same amount of work. Would it still be welcome in this case? I'm not sure. Also, honestly, I'm still happy to have something new. And while initial selection of civs limits replayability, I'm pretty sure what by the time I'll be bored with them, we'll get much more civs from DLCs.

 

[Leyrann]

snip

The issue is that the Frisians really aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion, although you could justify Franks -> Dutch, I guess. Still, that leaves the question of what the third inclusion should be. You split up the Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden from the modern country, but as the name implies, it's really the same thing, and the only reason it's not completely continuous with the modern state is Napoleon. At least with England/Britain, Scotland was added (and for a time Ireland I believe?). The Netherlands have had Belgium for fifteen years, sure, but that doesn't really count if you ask me.

 

[Krajzen]

The issue is that the Frisians really aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion, although you could justify Franks -> Dutch, I guess. Still, that leaves the question of what the third inclusion should be. You split up the Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden from the modern country, but as the name implies, it's really the same thing, and the only reason it's not completely continuous with the modern state is Napoleon. At least with England/Britain, Scotland was added (and for a time Ireland I believe?). The Netherlands have had Belgium for fifteen years, sure, but that doesn't really count if you ask me.

Would Dutch and Flemish people be offended if era II civ was simply Flanders and Netherlands was its era III successor? I mean I am aware of the former later forming Belgium, not Netherlands but it has been culturally very close (I'm not even sure if culturally very distinguishable from Holland at the time of the middle ages, feel free to correct me) and Flanders was an economic superpower of the middle ages and early 16th century, being somewhat fluently succeeded by the Dutch from the late 16th onward. It even has some historical sense, with Dutch golden age being partially fueled by many Flemish and their capital migrating to the republic from Spanish Netherlands.

 

[Leyrann]

Would Dutch and Flemish people be offended if era II civ was simply Flanders and Netherlands was its era III successor?

I wouldn't care, I don't know whether Flemish people would mind. I could see them actually associating with the Netherlands more than with Wallonia, but it might also vary wildly from person to person.

(at the risk of drawing politics into this, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point Belgium splits up, and then it's a coinflip in my opinion whether Flanders and Wallonia remain independent or join the Netherlands or France respectively)

and Flanders was an economic superpower of the middle ages and early 16th century, being somewhat fluently succeeded by the Dutch from the late 16th onward. It even has some historical sense, with Dutch golden age being partially fueled by many Flemish and their capital migrating to the republic from Spanish Netherlands.

And yeah this is also a good point. Flanders was quite influential in the Renaissance, you could justify them for the Exploration Age and the Netherlands for the Modern Age.

And let's be real. Unless we've got like eighty civs, this is going to be a much better transition than some others out there.

 

[durfal]

Would Dutch and Flemish people be offended if era II civ was simply Flanders and Netherlands was its era III successor? I mean I am aware of the former later forming Belgium, not Netherlands but it has been culturally very close (I'm not even sure if culturally very distinguishable from Holland at the time of the middle ages, feel free to correct me) and Flanders was an economic superpower of the middle ages and early 16th century, being somewhat fluently succeeded by the Dutch from the late 16th onward. It even has some historical sense, with Dutch golden age being partially fueled by many Flemish and their capital migrating to the republic from Spanish Netherlands.

Technically we were once one people and in a way still are, but a lot of us converted during the reformation (north and south) to protestantism and then we came under Spanish catholic rule who didn't like that and wanted to correct that.
So a revolt and (a 80 year) war broke out. During the war, Antwerp (then a reformed powerhouse) was sacked by the Spanish and a lot of the reformed people in the south migrated indeed north and most of them to Amsterdam which blossemed. The people in the south that stayed under Spanish rule were eventually converted back to catholicism.
And even though there were a lot of catholics still up North, under the protestant rule north and the catholic rule South our cultures shifted in different direction a bit.

We still use the same standard language even though with slight different accents and some different words, but we all now the meaning of those. We can hear most of the time immediately from which side of the border we come from.
Say it's a bit like British and American English and as long as neither of us speaks in heavy dialect (which can differ a lot) we understand eachother with no problems.
Mostly in English media you see a lot of use of Flemish when they talk about language in Belgium which is nonsense (the official language in Belgium/Flanders is Dutch)
We joke about eachother (dumb and greedy) sometimes but for the most part you can consider us very good friends.
I don't see us uniting anymore though, even though most protestants in the Netherlands became irreligious and catholicism is now even in the Netherlands the biggest religion, the Flemish people have been on their own for centuries (technically with the Waloons though, which had a lot of influence on the culture, like Brussels turning from a Dutch to a French speaking city) and even if Belgium were to split up I think we would just get an independent Flanders.

So no, I (and I think most of us) wouldn't be offended by it, but the problem are the time periods of the ages in the game.
The golden age for the Flemish (14th/15th C) and that of the Dutch (16th/17th C) both are in the Exploration Age time period right after each other.
But we were then the same people and you really have to look at modern borders to say that was Flemish and that was Dutch.
So you can shift the Netherlands to the modern age and that would be fine (there is more than enough to build a Dutch/Netherlands civ here too), but then you leave so much of our glorious past behind unused.
This is one of the reasons I really dislike the ages system. You have to start and cut them off at a certain timeperiod, where you now get civ choices that can cater as much people as possible (like the Normans).
And even though we get 30 civs at launch, it still feels a lot less then say civ 6 because you only have 10 per age with each a restricted choice of civs.
And even tough a civ flourished in multiple ages they will still be locked in one age for the most part (with an exeption for China and more or less India).

 

[gdr_willter]

I want to see more conversation about non-linear civ list structure, not about specific civs posibility

 

[Kulko]

I'm really curious what's going to happen with non-Chinese East Asia. So far we have Mongolia without any sensible paths,

Given that the Mongols are the founders of the Yuan Dynasty of China I would at the very least believe they have a natural path towards the Ming.

 

[uppi]

View attachment 705938

Blue for confirmed civs and routes, Green for most likely civs and routes, Pink for my speculation (of course very effected from other ppl's great visions ).

p.s. VietNam and Assyria are somewhere between most-likely and speculation, I just painted them green because of thier associated leader, unit art style, and wonder.

You don't have any civs that unlock Mongolia. Maybe Han and Persia?

Also one of Norman->Britain and Norman-America is wrong, at least in the build that was used in the Antiquity live stream.

 

[BuchiTaton]

In this equation you forgot about leaders. They take a lot of efforts and the main reason why Civ7 was able to release 30 civs is what it has much less leaders. We have about 15-16 fully unique leaders with another 5 filled with "personas" on day 1. And persona's are lifehack - they reuse most of the efforts on leader creation, while providing the same gameplay uniqueness as full leader.

So, your hypothetical Civ7 with 30 full civs also needs decoupling civs from leaders and much smaller amount of leaders, if you expect it to have the same amount of work. Would it still be welcome in this case? I'm not sure. Also, honestly, I'm still happy to have something new. And while initial selection of civs limits replayability, I'm pretty sure what by the time I'll be bored with them, we'll get much more civs from DLCs.

Right about the leaders, they need their need a significative amount of effort and time to be done. Also I agree that leaders are a signifiative element of CIV that helps to players to relate to computer controled civs. Still I think CIV is oppeing a can of worms with the civ turning into accesories for the leaders instead of be part of the civ, like if now the game is "Leader" and not "Civilization". CIV6s personas and multi-civ leaders plus CIV7s leaders leading any and multiple civs open the idea for future CIV games for leaders to be without any doubt players avatars detached from any specific civ correspondence, so civ design would be free from the necesity to have a matching leader.

 

[Xandinho]

Given that the Mongols are the founders of the Yuan Dynasty of China I would at the very least believe they have a natural path towards the Ming.

Both Mongols and Ming are Exploration. Most of the history paths won't make sense at launch, so don't be surprised if you come across something like Persia > Mongols > Russia.

 

[gdr_willter]

You don't have any civs that unlock Mongolia. Maybe Han and Persia?

I'm not sure about it, so I just put there a confirmed route - horses.

Also one of Norman->Britain and Norman-America is wrong, at least in the build that was used in the Antiquity live stream.

We don't know well about Civ switching at the third age, do we? I guess that the Modern civs can have more historical unlock routes.