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

[TreVor_ish]

We don’t actually know that only one player can pick each civ per age.

There is nothing stopping you from playing the same civ in Civ 6’s multiplayer.

I meant more on the lines of - I would like to play Mongolia, but I have no horses around, kind of situation. Just wondering what other requirements there are for civ picks. Leaders that unlock civs as default is nice. Duplicates also help.

And yes, I can just play any previous iteration.

 

[pokiehl]

I meant more on the lines of - I would like to play Mongolia, but I have no horses around, kind of situation

Well that’s part of the game... If you want to be Mongolia for sure then you make a sacrifice by picking whatever leader or antiquity civ that might guarantee that path.

Otherwise you engage with the game and play it and roll with the punches.

 

[Krikkit1]

Given how long it took to get a toggle to turn off duplicate leaders in Civ6, I wouldn't be surprised even duplicate leaders are permitted.

Hopefully duplicate leaders would only be in MP though (and I imagine duplicate civs would only be chosen by the AI if all of their unlocked options are duplicates).

But for MP if I and my 4 friends all want to have Ben Franklin of the Egypt-Abbasid-Americans
that should be fine (interesting factors would be how the game does colors, and who wins the 3 wonder races)

 

[Zaarin]

Hopefully duplicate leaders would only be in MP though (and I imagine duplicate civs would only be chosen by the AI if all of their unlocked options are duplicates).

In Civ6, the thought that people would want to disable duplicates seems to have never occurred to them, and it took a long time to be able to disable both duplicate leaders and duplicate civs...so I'm not hopeful that we'll be able to disable duplicates on launch. Then again, maybe the community got the message across the first time...

 

[AriochIV]

We don’t actually know that only one player can pick each civ per age.

There is nothing stopping you from playing the same civ in Civ 6’s multiplayer.

I don't think Ed would have addressed the issue of players resolving civ conflicts in multiplayer if it wasn't an issue. Wouldn't he just have said, "It's not an issue, different players can choose the same civilization"?

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't think Ed would have addressed the issue of players resolving civ conflicts in multiplayer if it wasn't an issue. Wouldn't he just have said, "It's not an issue, different players can choose the same civilization"?

That’s how he addressed it.

 

[kaspergm]

@kaspergm I‘d argue that Rome > Spain is not a marginal historical pov, but the best possible culturally. And for sure one that has a lot of sense to it, probably one of the best transitions from a cultural pov in the base game but also many suggestions (I mean Maurya > Chola? How is Rome > Spain not much better in a cultural pov). Of course, given enough ages, you could do Phoenicians/Celtiberians/El-Agar > Rome > Visigoths > Umayyads > Castile/Aragon > Spain to represent the culturally diverse and many-influenced country that Spain is today (and not just in regions with a non-castilian official language). But if you have to choose one of them, Rome and Visigoths seem the most fitting options to me - and tbf, I can‘t comprehend how someone could argue against that progression specifically.

More to the OP, I hope for a lot of civs that allow forking in a good way. Such as the Goths and Rome that can realistically have 5+ unlocks in the next age without too many DLCs necessary. Similarly, Mongols could be unlocked by many civs already. But I’m especially interested in civs that are „in between“ the common regions, the gameplay „crossroads of the world,“ civs that get you out/into China, MENA, India, Europe, SEA.

Actually, I agree Rome > Spain is a perfectly fine option, I just think the more logical option Rome > Papal States should be added before any of these other alternate options are added (same goes for Rome > Normans). Or to put it in other words, I think Rome > Papal States should be the default path.

I have however argued against Spain > France, which I think is pure nonsense. And yes, I have been informed the Napoleon conquered Spain for a couple of years, but that does not at all mean it's meaningful to say that the French culture evolved from the Spanish one imo., nor does it mean that I accept it meaningful to say that exploration age Spain evolved into France.

 

[Uberfrog]

That’s how he addressed it.

In fact, did he not say that in multiplayer the normal restrictions didn’t apply and players were free to pick whichever civ they wanted anyway?

Apparently in Multiplayer you can switch to any civ with no rules, like in Humankind. That's very disappointing to hear.

From this interview: I think for a lot of us, the civ switching sounds more acceptable in Civ VII thanks to the historical restrictions, avoiding the immersion-breaking transformations from Humankind. But in multiplayer it seems all that goes away, and Ed Beach basically says players have to...

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[RedCourtJester]

Actually, I agree Rome > Spain is a perfectly fine option, I just think the more logical option Rome > Papal States should be added before any of these other alternate options are added (same goes for Rome > Normans). Or to put it in other words, I think Rome > Papal States should be the default path.

I have however argued against Spain > France, which I think is pure nonsense. And yes, I have been informed the Napoleon conquered Spain for a couple of years, but that does not at all mean it's meaningful to say that the French culture evolved from the Spanish one imo., nor does it mean that I accept it meaningful to say that exploration age Spain evolved into France.

I think we will see a Rome -> something renaissance Italic -> Italy in DLC. Not sure if that will be Papal States, or the Italic League, or just Venice or Florence.

I think it is acceptable that the first leader is Rome, and it justifiable that his default path circumvents exploration Italy to leave that path open for "proper Italy."

 

[chaosprophet]

In Civ6, the thought that people would want to disable duplicates seems to have never occurred to them, and it took a long time to be able to disable both duplicate leaders and duplicate civs...so I'm not hopeful that we'll be able to disable duplicates on launch. Then again, maybe the community got the message across the first time...

Considering that with the switching civs the leader become the only strong demarcation of your opponents, I think chances are they would come with the inability to have multiple leaders, but gEd only knows.

 

[Zaarin]

gEd only knows.

That's because he used the Art to find Civ7's true name. (Sorry, Earthsea joke.) But I do agree that I expect we'll default to no duplicate leaders; I'm less certain about civs. My chief hope is that we've been told the AI defaults to historical paths when possible--implying it might not be possible if you took their historical path from them.

 

[chaosprophet]

That's because he used the Art to find Civ7's true name. (Sorry, Earthsea joke.) But I do agree that I expect we'll default to no duplicate leaders; I'm less certain about civs. My chief hope is that we've been told the AI defaults to historical paths when possible--implying it might not be possible if you took their historical path from them.

Yeah, on single player at least, sounds like no duplicates.

 

[AriochIV]

In fact, did he not say that in multiplayer the normal restrictions didn’t apply and players were free to pick whichever civ they wanted anyway?

Apparently in Multiplayer you can switch to any civ with no rules, like in Humankind. That's very disappointing to hear.

From this interview: I think for a lot of us, the civ switching sounds more acceptable in Civ VII thanks to the historical restrictions, avoiding the immersion-breaking transformations from Humankind. But in multiplayer it seems all that goes away, and Ed Beach basically says players have to...

forums.civfanatics.com

He said that players weren't restricted in terms of civ unlocks. He didn't say that multiple players could choose the same civ.

He said that players would need to use their own house rules to determine who gets what civ. It seems to me that this would not be necessary if multiple players can choose the same civ.

 

[Zaarin]

He said that players would need to use their own house rules to determine who gets what civ.

FWIW I understood this to mean, "If you want historical unlocks only in your multiplayer game, you'll have to make an agreement with the people you're playing with."

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

He said that players weren't restricted in terms of civ unlocks. He didn't say that multiple players could choose the same civ.

He said that players would need to use their own house rules to determine who gets what civ. It seems to me that this would not be necessary if multiple players can choose the same civ.

You have it backwards. All players can pick the same civ in multiplayer. If you don't want that, then you have to create house rules that limit players' choices.

 

[TreVor_ish]

There is one more thing.
If Khmer had to be put in Antiquity because of lack of enough of an information from that region of that time, we may not get Olmecs or Harappans, or plenty of other that were suggested around this forum, as playable civs. Heck we still don't have any information on Germany or Poland or Dutch, Portugal etc...
Off course with database modding available this won't be as big of an issue.
I'm sure there are years of planned DLC's to accommodate any possible missing piece, but then there is 5 player multiplayer restriction which puts to question possible world size.
Would that mean this game be so much different between PC and consoles? It is empire building game and distinction in size is a huge difference.
All this gives me too many mixed feelings.

 

[Zaarin]

we may not get Olmecs or Harappans

I never expected them TBH. Of all the proto-historic cultures that have been suggested, I really think the Minoans are the only ones who might be able to edge in (in the future), but even then...I'd be hard pressed to think of a UU for them.

 

[Arcaian]

Here's how I'd have handled ten civilizations per Age at launch:

1. Britons -> Anglo-Saxons -> English
2. Celts -> Spain -> Argentina
3. China -> feudal Japan -> South Korea
4. Egypt -> Ethiopia -> Boers
5. Gauls -> Franks -> France
6. Goths -> Holy Roman Empire -> Germany
7. Greece -> Byzantium -> Russia
8. Hebrews -> Outremer -> Israel
9. Mississippi -> Sioux -> America
10. Rome -> Papal States -> Italy

Pre-order bonus: Norse (Exploration Age)

We're including the gauls, the goths, the britons, AND the celts? Plus the romans and the greek for 6/10 being from Europe? We're missing out on several cradles of civilization so that we can have four different Germanic tribes in the game (2 in each of the first two eras)? India doesn't exist, sub-Saharan Africa doesn't exist, south-east Asia doesn't exist, the only bit of the Americas that exist is the bit that you think led to the US? The entirety of both Persia and Mesopotamia has been left out of the game but Outremer is included? What a depressing view of history.

 

[Zaarin]

We're including the gauls, the goths, the britons, AND the celts?

I'd love to know who the Celts are supposed to be with Gauls and Britons as separate civs.

 

[AriochIV]

FWIW I understood this to mean, "If you want historical unlocks only in your multiplayer game, you'll have to make an agreement with the people you're playing with."

That was what I understood it to mean too, not about whether two players could choose the same civ. I can't find the quote in the clip at the moment to check.