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

[uppi]

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

Yes, but there need to be geographical unlocks as well, otherwise the AI would never pick it.

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.

In the build that was shown, there were exactly 2 unlocks for Normans. But I guess DLCs will add unlock options (though Britain would have to be a DLC then)

 

[gdr_willter]

In the build that was shown, there were exactly 2 unlocks for Normans. But I guess DLCs will add unlock options (though Britain would have to be a DLC then)

Aren't they unlocks toward Normans?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Three unlocks toward, two from. (sorry for the text over that part, it's the version i've got on hand)

 

[gdr_willter]

Three unlocks toward, two from. (sorry for the text over that part, it's the version i've got on hand)

Aha. I missed it. Then I will bet to the option that America will be unlocked by the leader Benjamin.

Yes, but there need to be geographical unlocks as well, otherwise the AI would never pick it.

Mongolia can be a similar case, it will be unlocked by Genghis Khan.

 

[RedCourtJester]

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.

I would probably think that if/when we get the Dutch, they will be represented roughly the same way as the Swiss in terms of "layers."

Probably Burgundians -> HRE -> Dutch and Helvetii -> HRE -> Swiss. Could even make the same argument for Goths and Austria-Hungary I suppose, although there are plenty of ways to get to that end point.

 

[Dale]

Probably Burgundians -> HRE -> Dutch and Helvetii -> HRE -> Swiss. Could even make the same argument for Goths and Austria-Hungary I suppose, although there are plenty of ways to get to that end point.

This is why I don't stand with the argument of a 1:1:1 ratio of civs per age. Here you show simple examples where multiple civs go through a single one in the next era. There's also examples where one civ goes to multiple. This layered approach they're taking to the game seems to also apply to the civ/leader progressions. Civs have a "historical" path, and leaders have a "historical" path, and both don't necessarily overlap. In fact I'd argue that by reasons of mix-and-match of civ/leader, in nearly all cases of those combos, the historical paths won't overlap.

 

[gdr_willter]

This is why I don't stand with the argument of a 1:1:1 ratio of civs per age. Here you show simple examples where multiple civs go through a single one in the next era. There's also examples where one civ goes to multiple. This layered approach they're taking to the game seems to also apply to the civ/leader progressions. Civs have a "historical" path, and leaders have a "historical" path, and both don't necessarily overlap. In fact I'd argue that by reasons of mix-and-match of civ/leader, in nearly all cases of those combos, the historical paths won't overlap.

I hope you to remember that this thread was started with the idea of intersecting civ routes. There could be both of gathering and expanding paths.

 

[RedCourtJester]

This is why I don't stand with the argument of a 1:1:1 ratio of civs per age. Here you show simple examples where multiple civs go through a single one in the next era. There's also examples where one civ goes to multiple. This layered approach they're taking to the game seems to also apply to the civ/leader progressions. Civs have a "historical" path, and leaders have a "historical" path, and both don't necessarily overlap. In fact I'd argue that by reasons of mix-and-match of civ/leader, in nearly all cases of those combos, the historical paths won't overlap.

I agree with you there, but it does depend on which theory of the game we are approaching this.

If there are supposed to be logical historical paths for each civ, then there will be inequities, there just have to be. Some civs feed more from or into civs than others, some regions are denser. I think it will end up balancing out fairly well over a lot of civs, but it will have no obligation to keep era parity for civs. You and I actually share this perspective; I still think and believe civ will be built around historical paths more than parity.

If, however, the game is launching with only ten civs per era, I don't think we can logically create a satisfying "historical" path for the likes of Trung Trac and Amina, possibly Himiko, possibly the Persian leader, etc. In which case, that would suggest a different, fairly disconnected "mix and match" philosophy. If that be the case, it might as well be the ten top hitters in each era, because pathway plausibility was conceded in that model.

I hope that is clearer. We really haven't seen good, solid confirmations from Firaxis themselves of which principle is guiding Civ VII more yet. It's all inference based on our best judgments of what the game might/should prioritize.

 

[Dale]

I hope you to remember that this thread was started with the idea of intersecting civ routes. There could be both of gathering and expanding paths.

Your table in the OP applies the 1:1:1 ratio (13 civs per era). I'm just saying, I'm not buying that ratio yet, for many reasons.

 

[Bactrian]

I don't think Iroquois are likely as an Age III civ. In my mind they would fit better in the Exploration Age.

In addition, Firaxis is clearly highlighting their collaboration with the Shawnee (a good thing). They could be holding back another collaboration for later announcement, but I think it's more likely the Shawnee are the only North American indigenous people to be represented at this time. If there is another, I think either the Navajo or the Souix nations are more likely.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I took my crazy, insane 30-leader (possibly end-game "structure" after an expansion) model and literally halved it, to see if "every leader has a logical historical layering path" would be doable (which paths had more redundant civs/leaders, which leaders were more likely to share "traits" with other leaders, etc.). I am not advocating for the 30-leader model outside of my speculation thread, it is indeed insane, that is my personal pet project.

I won't belabor the details, but at least one conclusion became extremely clear to me that I think may help people by articulating that:

Unless we see more evidence that leaders are following logical, unique pathways, it wouldn't make much sense to trust the 30 civ number and expect civs have any sort of relationship to each other. Both simply are not likely to be true at the same time. So I'd suggest picking one. Either disbelieve that 30 civs is exactly and only "30 civs," however you need to justify that (running/last-minute additions, underpromising, "30 leaders"), and keep planning speculation around logical "layering" pathways. Or otherwise accept it's just 30 civs, and maybe transition to a more populist idea of meritocracy: "what most popular civs will need to be in the game at launch for players to buy it, regardless of how logically they piece together?" I really don't think after Trung Trac--in some ways one of the most perfect leader reveals they could have made to decide that issue due to representing a very isolationist civ but also clearly "B-list"--both can be true.

I will also say that, either model under the 30-civs hard rule is likely going to lack in key demographic representation, either through insensitive "ethnic" layering outside of Europe, or by totally skipping out on a good number of modern civ representations from prime gamer markets. Presently, my "halved" model speculates, approximately, that Europe will only have modern three "civs/leaders" at launch: France via Napoleon and Italy via Augustus, plus token representation via America and maybe vicarious Spanish representation through a Mexican/Colombian leader. The last cut I had to make to squeeze down to 30 (and that was ignoring France and Missisippians in that count of 30) was Byzantium and Russia (via ??? Elizabeth kept coming back as a winner, but whoever). Regardless of whether we get Silla or Yamato, Korea would be likely to not have a leader at launch (but, somehow, Vietnam will). 30 civs will be very, very tight at launch base game. So do with that information what you will.

Finally, I am saying, affirmatively, I'm not discarding the notion of 30 civs myself. There are some curious discrepancies for me, like seeing Emile Bell and Borobudur that could very easily point toward a very small roster. The roster, in fact, does work out (barely, barely) with ~30 civs, even if every leader has a dedicated path. But so much has to be cut/put off to do it that I think the only way to believe in it is the "random mix-n-match" model, and even that is going to miss with a lot of demographics. So while I'm not discarding the idea, I don't really care for it and don't think it aligns with what the dev team are capable of.

 

[gdr_willter]

maybe transition to a more populist idea of meritocracy: "what most popular civs will need to be in the game at launch for players to buy it, regardless of how logically they piece together?"

I carefully disagree with your opinion, based on the plausible existence of Mississippi civ. If there are at least 2 native North Americans in the launching-day list of 31 civs, I consider that it means FXS is taking care about kinda reasonable paths for in-game civs.

Anyway I'll not say the standard of reasonable of FXS is exactly same with ours though. They could consider that Han-Ming-Meiji will work reasonably...

 

[Thugless]

Thanks @Dale I actually wasted my time talking t-shirts (no answer I am afraid). That is a great pick-up. I came away from the day feeling their passion came through in both the presso and the meet and greet. There is no way they weren’t taking notes for their Aus DLC I agree 100%. Such cool people too.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I carefully disagree with your opinion, based on the plausible existence of Mississippi civ. If there are at least 2 native North Americans in the launching-day list of 31 civs, I consider that it means FXS is taking care about kinda reasonable paths for in-game civs.

Anyway I'll not say the standard of reasonable of FXS is exactly same with ours though. They could consider that Han-Ming-Meiji will work reasonably...

I think Songhai could point toward this as well. However, to pose a counterpoint: just dealing with Mississippians and Shawnee being 2 of 31, if they are being "careful," how much are we expecting "careful representation" with what we have seen representing other parts of the world? Is that possible with what we have, and two Native American civs eating up very limited space?

So far, ignoring any and all possible speculation and looking solely at what we have, it's a very mixed bag.

* We have Ashoka's India and Confucius' China, which are doing just fine.
* We have Ben leading Rome and the Normans into America, which I think actually holds up pretty well if you needed to break down "America" that way, especially with Ben as a leader.
* We have Tecumseh's Shawnee which appears to be doing just great until they hit a modern wall and have nowhere sensitive to progress toward, with the obvious choice being assimilated into American imperialism.
* We have Hatshepsut leading Abbasids, which isn't as logical a path for Egypt as Ayyubids but close enough while accommodating a potential Arabian leader.
* We have Augustus leading Spain, which is stretching even further: logically tied to his reign specifically and defining the territory of "Western Roman Empire," but still not as logical a path as anything medieval Italian.
* We have Himiko, who ends up in Meiji Japan (I think she was my biggest clue of "leader paths," incidentally), may only be progressing through Majapahit, but we don't know starts in Han, Silla, or Yamatai, two of which are very, very generous stretches and not really careful at all.
* And we have poor Amina, who has apparently visited everywhere from Timbuktu to shaking hands with the Queen of Sabaea.

I wasn't able to find a roster that gave even the leaders/civs we have sensitive paths while also keeping to 30 civs and roughly a similar sense of "connection" elsewhere in the world. Maybe someone else can give it a try and we can compare, but I think expecting 30 civs and logical continuity may just be incompatible. There's something missing in that theory, even if it's as simple as believing that they have 30 civs confirmed now and underpromised with some confidence of being able to up the number later.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

It's been said before, but I really hope they include justification for all of the "historical pathways" in the Civilopedia. I know most of them are probably just going to be "Spanish culture was heavily influenced by Rome, Japanese language was influenced by China, etc." plus "spread of Buddhism" for the entirety of Asia, but I do think it would be nice to get a glimpse at the devs' thought process, at least. I'd especially like to see if they can put anything coherent together for Hawaii and the Americas, because the former is going to be shaky at best on launch, and considering the only non-dlc Exploration American civ is probably Inca... I mean, they've probably come up with something to say, right? Even if it's as shaky as "Some Mali trade routes reached Ethiopia so Aksum -> Songhai," there's gotta be something... man, as much as I'm hyped for this game, it's making me feel like a maniac.

 

[gdr_willter]

I wasn't able to find a roster that gave even the leaders/civs we have sensitive paths while also keeping to 30 civs and roughly a similar sense of "connection" elsewhere in the world. Maybe someone else can give it a try and we can compare, but I think expecting 30 civs and logical continuity may just be incompatible.

My opinion is that they had set civs first, and leaders later. I think that they built the "likely reasonable path" with civs (like Rome-Norman-Britain), and found some isolated civs can't be fit there (like Mongolia, America), and then chose the leaders for the paths and the odds.

 

[Dale]

Thanks @Dale I actually wasted my time talking t-shirts (no answer I am afraid). That is a great pick-up. I came away from the day feeling their passion came through in both the presso and the meet and greet. There is no way they weren’t taking notes for their Aus DLC I agree 100%. Such cool people too.

Yes, every time I meet people from Firaxis, or talk with them online, I am reminded how awesome these people are. I whole heartedly believe these folks are extremely passionate about civ, and will do the best they can for the game (in their opinion). My design opinions may be a little different to theirs, but you cannot doubt they are doing their best for the game.

 

[RedCourtJester]

It's been said before, but I really hope they include justification for all of the "historical pathways" in the Civilopedia. I know most of them are probably just going to be "Spanish culture was heavily influenced by Rome, Japanese language was influenced by China, etc." plus "spread of Buddhism" for the entirety of Asia, but I do think it would be nice to get a glimpse at the devs' thought process, at least. I'd especially like to see if they can put anything coherent together for Hawaii and the Americas, because the former is going to be shaky at best on launch, and considering the only non-dlc Exploration American civ is Inca... I mean, they've probably come up with something to say, right? Even if it's as shaky as "Some Mali trade routes reached Ethiopia so Aksum -> Songhai," there's gotta be something... man, as much as I'm hyped for this game, it's making me feel like a maniac.

Same, same. I really question the notion of presenting the game as we have seen it, or anything approaching that in its final state. The amount of bewilderment and dissonance it will likely create in player's minds will be enough for me to think "mix and match with leaders" is not a great thesis for a game. Not to mention all the anger and vitriol that will happen in online fora for probably years before the game starts making more sense. 30 civs is a huge, huge risk with this particular model (whereas, if they hadn't introduced this idea of "preferred/unlockable pathways" I think the game would likely have few of those issues, albeit be exactly half Humankind's scale). I'm not saying that's not what we are getting, but I think 30 civs is going to run into a lot of issues on the fronts of satisfying/confusing players.

My opinion is that they had set civs first, and leaders later. I think that they built the "likely reasonable path" with civs (like Rome-Norman-Britain), and found some isolated civs can't be fit there (like Mongolia, America), and then chose the leaders for the paths and the odds.

I think some process like that is likely, although some iconic leaders naturally lend themselves to these connections (Kublai and Elli in VI (and Jadwiga, technically), and I doubt the devs weren't aware of Cnut, Margaret I). I would bet it has been more of back and forth process, usually started with civs, but then discovering leaders/wonders that then encouraged more fine-tuning.

As an example, I was researching possible wonders for Majapahit (because I do think Borobudur is in fact our "Teotihuacan" or "Nalanda" for that region -- older "proto-wonder" for later antiquity civ), and I stumbled on Trewolan's ruins. While we will likely get a more iconic feature of those ruins for Majapahit, they do also feature an Islamic tomb of a Champa princess. So Trewolan actually would be a kind of cute nod to general interconnectivity in the region, and may even have encouraged some fine-tuning of expansions to maybe include the Champa, or say Sultanate of Brunei.

Another example is the Kukulkanob pavilion in Merida as revival Mayan/Yucatani architecture (which...Merida was the HQ for "New Spain" as well as practically served as the dividing point (the "meridian," if you will) of New Spain and New Granada). Or the Fire Temple of Sasania which the Abbasids replicated in the Great Mosque of Samarra, but which also ties back to Iran's older Zoroastrian roots. Or the Meridian Gate in Vietnam which seems a very holistic representation of the Vietnamese and Cham kingdoms eventually merging under Nguyen rule. The whole "Tower of London was built in layers" idea may run a bit deeper as they were researching wonders for civs.

 

[Evolena]

* And we have poor Amina, who has apparently visited everywhere from Timbuktu to shaking hands with the Queen of Sabaea.

That's made me laugh

 

[sTAPler27]

We really need more South American civs because the Inca are always going to feel very isolated