We shouldn't expect all the "major" European civs to get modern era representation, and that's okay.

[Xandinho]

I'd go with Anglo-Saxons > England > British, after all, why not? I'd be a historically coherent and immersive English path.

I do wonder about Oxford University. It was an Industrial Era wonder in Civ 6, and if they base it off of the foundations of the modern Royal Society and the first museum located in the U.K. they could easily tie it into being British.
But you are right about Big Ben, and I would associate that more with the British than Oxford. Exploration Age England will need a wonder.

Are we certain it’s Modern? Even though it was represented as industrial in previous editions, ideally, it should be Exploration. But yes, Oxford University would also work as the British wonder to represent their scientific achievements during the height of the empire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'd go with Anglo-Saxons > England > British, after all, why not? I'd be a historically coherent and immersive English path.


Are we certain it’s Modern? Even though it was represented as industrial in previous editions, ideally, it should be Exploration. But yes, Oxford University would also work as the British wonder to represent their scientific achievements during the height of the empire.

Oxford dates its beginnings back to the 11th century, which I cannot imagine being other than Exploration Age.

On the other hand, it was almost entirely a place for Classical/Biblical studies until the late 17th century, when 'experimental scientists' began to congregate there informally. Up until the 19th century, education at Oxford was almost entirely 'impractical' - no legal or medical study, no degrees referencing trade or economics or commerce: 59% of the graduates in 1840 went into the clergy! They only added 'natural science' as an undergraduate study in 1886.

All of which means that Oxford with a bonus to Science or technology could easily be a Modern Age Wonder, reflecting when it actually started to study and teach anything relevant to those.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'd go with Anglo-Saxons > England > British, after all, why not? I'd be a historically coherent and immersive English path.


Are we certain it’s Modern? Even though it was represented as industrial in previous editions, ideally, it should be Exploration. But yes, Oxford University would also work as the British wonder to represent their scientific achievements during the height of the empire.

I actually think the Angles/(-Saxons), or Mercia/Wessex, stand a decent chance at being in base game. One of only three civs that I would speculate might exceed that initial antiquity leak of 13 antiquity civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think either could be the associated British wonder, and the other could show up as universal.

As I was speculating elsewhere, I think "associated" wonders are more likely to reflect cultural layering, wherever possible.

Whereas universal wonders are more likely to represent more "universal" achievements specific to the era: architectural achievements in antiquity; religious or trade achievements in exploration (ala Notre Dame or Casa de Contracion); technology or diplomacy achievements in modern (ala Biosphere or Amundsen Scott).

Oxford obviously represents a sort of technological wonder more than a cultural wonder, being one of the oldest universities in Europe. And I think Big Ben, even moreso, represents both a technological and diplomatic wonder, namely the establishment of universal Greenwich time.

Yes, I was going off the fact that we've seen Oxford, so it is more likely to be their associated wonder right now. But if the British don't make it into the base game, then Big Ben is more likely to show up as it.

Are we certain it’s Modern? Even though it was represented as industrial in previous editions, ideally, it should be Exploration. But yes, Oxford University would also work as the British wonder to represent their scientific achievements during the height of the empire.

No we aren't. I don't think it's been seen on a tech tree yet? I was just going off of where it was in Civ 6, and it would be in the Modern Age by those standards.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yes, I was going off the fact that we've seen Oxford, so it is more likely to be their associated wonder right now. But if the British don't make it into the base game, then Big Ben is more likely to show up as it.

No we aren't. I don't think it's been seen on a tech tree ye? I was just going off of where it was in Civ 6, and it would be in the Modern Age by those standards.

I actually am not sure of that.

If my theory of universal wonders and capped player-wonders is correct, we are more likely to see more universal wonders than associated wonders prior to their associated civ reveals. Because the associated wonders wouldn't appear on the map unless the game was played with or against their associated civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I actually am not sure of that.

If my theory of universal wonders and capped player-wonders is correct, we are more likely to see more universal wonders than associated wonders prior to their associated civ reveals. Because the associated wonders wouldn't appear on the map unless the game was played with or against their associated civ.

I haven't heard of that before, are you sure that's the case? I can't imagine the Pyramids not appearing on the tech tree unless Egypt was in the game.

 

[Siptah]

I haven't heard of that before, are you sure that's the case? I can't imagine the Pyramids not appearing on the tech tree unless Egypt was in the game.

There wouldn‘t be enough antiquity wonders if that was the case. I can see this happening when we reach 20+ civs per age and we play with all of them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I haven't heard of that before, are you sure that's the case? I can't imagine the Pyramids not appearing on the tech tree unless Egypt was in the game.

I would also like to see more evidence for that theory, because as I read it, the 'associated' Wonders simply provide a bonus to their construction for 'their' Civs. Since other Civs are not actually prohibited from building them, why wouldn't they appear in a game without their associated Civ, simply providing no construction Bonus to anyone in that game?

On the other hand, I would not be surprised to see a 'cap' on the total number of Wonders available to be built based on the number of Civs in the game/Age. Based on the numbers of Wonders seen so far, otherwise I could foresee 5 Civs chasing 20 or more Wonders in a single Age. That may be what they intend, especially if 5 of those Wonders are associated with respective Civs, but it seems a bit much.

 

[Zaarin]

The evidence we have certainly points to all wonders being available to everyone; associated wonders whose civ is not in that particular match will be unassociated--and even associated wonders can be snatched by someone else who feels like taking the gamble.

 

[pokiehl]

There’s no way wonders only appear with their associated civ (and there’s also zero evidence supporting that notion). That would ruin the fun of the wonder races and limit variety for no reason.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I haven't heard of that before, are you sure that's the case? I can't imagine the Pyramids not appearing on the tech tree unless Egypt was in the game.

So far the only tech tree we have seen had Egypt in the game so we can't confirm either way. That tech tree did have at least two, maybe three universal wonders (Pyramid of the Moon, Hanging Gardens, and maybe Ha'amonga 'A Maui), and curiously no other wonders other than those of the players. No Weiyang Palace, no Oracle, no Angkor Wat, no Emile Bell, no Monk's Mound, no Gate of All Nations; and while it is possible all of those are in civics along with the other bloat of wonders (it is, after all, the cultural win-path), the absence of a few that could be in the tech tree is curious.

But I don't think it's that much of a travesty. If you have a universal wonder set of Pyramid of the Moon, Mausoleum of Theodoric, Colossus of Rhodes, Petra, Nalanda, Borobudur, Terracotta Army, and maybe a couple more. Now that Egypt has claimed the pyramids, why should everyone have access to them, especially when they aren't part of that game's history?

There’s no way wonders only appear with their associated civ (and there’s also zero evidence supporting that notion). That would ruin the fun of the wonder races and limit variety for no reason.

I'm going to say, that you put forth some pretty hardline "no way this is happening" and "zero evidence" conclusions in response to speculation. And don't seem to have considered what it implicates for the design of the game as we know it to be. We know there is a 7 wonders cultural victory win condition that will be heavily impacted by access to an increasing suite of antiquity wonders. That alone should at least push you conclusions into, at least, "probably not."

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We know there is a 7 wonders cultural victory win condition that will be heavily impacted by access to an increasing suite of antiquity wonders. That alone should at least push you conclusions into, at least, "probably not."

Sorry, just the opposite. Assuming that the game, like previous Civ games, will have variable degrees of difficulty, that Victory Condition points to a variable number of Wonders being potentially available based on the difficulty level and number of Civs in the Age.

Mind you, I have no idea what they might consider an acceptable number of Wonders/Civ, but I would not be at all surprised to find that ratio varies with game difficulty, not with number of 'associated' Wonders.

 

[Siptah]

@RedCourtJester I think the game that revealed the tech and civic tree didn‘t have Greece but had the Oracle, no? Granted, Greece could have been one of the civs from the other continent. But it would be strange if wonders are restricted to the playing civs and you would know who is on the other continent by looking at the tech tree.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Sorry, just the opposite. Assuming that the game, like previous Civ games, will have variable degrees of difficulty, that Victory Condition points to a variable number of Wonders being potentially available based on the difficulty level and number of Civs in the Age.

Mind you, I have no idea what they might consider an acceptable number of Wonders/Civ, but I would not be at all surprised to find that ratio varies with game difficulty, not with number of 'associated' Wonders.

Until we see other than 7 wonders, I am taking that to be a firmly held win-con and the main limiter on player count.

@RedCourtJester I think the game that revealed the tech and civic tree didn‘t have Greece but had the Oracle, no? Granted, Greece could have been one of the civs from the other continent. But it would be strange if wonders are restricted to the playing civs and you would know who is on the other continent by looking at the tech tree.

It's not in the tech tree from the antiquity stream. Do we actually have a screenshot of the antiquity civics tree that is from gameplay and not doctored "this game is not final" (whatever it says) promo material?

I think speculation on "seeing the other continent" is a bit premature. We don't even really know yet how that will be actually be implemented in-game. It's possible that yes, you can see the other civs. It's possible that you can't, or need to fulfill certain conditions to see their wonder, such as meet them or reach that relevant tech. It's possible that those civs don't even really exist yet in antiquity (where wonders are fundamental to win-con), and only populate the map in exploration. We just don't know enough about that yet. But what I do know is that the game will get increasingly imbalanced if either the wonders are not capped or the number of wonders required to win isn't increased. And I think the latter would be a really sloppy, inelegant, bloaty solution, not to mention begs the question of why we can't have more than 5 civs antiquity at launch if that isn't one of the hard limits on game balance.

I'm going stop posting this idea here, though. Like other speculation I think the people just aren't ready for it yet. We need more data and otherwise I'm just the crazy Cassandra.

 

[Evolena]

It's possible that those civs don't even really exist yet in antiquity (where wonders are fundamental to win-con), and only populate the map in exploration. We just don't know enough about that yet.

We do know, they exist in Antiquity, and can beat you at a Wonder.

 

[Siptah]

and we also know that you cannot meet them, because the are not yet on your map.

 

[Evolena]

I take that as in Civ VI : if you cannot reach them (for whatever reason), your minimap has the size of what you know, so de facto they're not on your map.

 

[TheArchduke]

Well as long as they will pop up somewhen that would be great. I greatly miss the Vikings (which were a better fit then Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and Austria.

It seems the Normanns will surplant the Vikings though.

 

[Evolena]

So, Antiquity Stream 44'15, transcription of the Q&A (from caption + listening to correct one or 2 points):

Sarah: I know something that our players have been dying to hear more about is just what happens on the other side of the map, right, when you start on Antiquity what's kind of going on during that fog of war. We're gonna be speaking to (him?) more in Exploration but is there anything we can kind of speak to (him?)?
Ed: Yeah that that other side of the map is real and it's there and those civilizations are growing and developing on the(ir) very own. You won't interact with them directly but because it is the same game world, you know, they're building what you're going to end up dealing with later, or interact with I should say. And they may even beat you out for a wonder, I think as (has) happened to Carl earlier.
Carl: Yeah, it can happen, yeah.

I don't think that leaves much interpretation about the fact that the other part of the map already exists in Antiquity with civs doing their thing there.

 

[Siptah]

That‘s how I remembered it: the other civs are playing and competing for wonders, but you cannot meet them. There was another „official“ source (I don‘t know where) saying something along the lines of „the map literally expands.“ So, I think it is safe to assume that it is factually impossible to meet these civs in Antiquity.

In case associated wonders are only available when the respective civ is playing (which is how we got to this discussion), this would feel awkward. You don‘t know these civs, you have no contact, but you can see from the tech/civic tree who they are and grab their wonder? Where‘s the fun (and logic) in that?

I‘m also not convinced 56 wonders in antiquity will ruin the balance when the goal is to build 7. 7 wonders are a lot (and you need to fulfill all requirements to build them in the first place), it’s a big investment nonetheless. The only thing that changes is that there is less competition for each wonder. But if we had 12 wonders and we would need to build 7, then in most games no one would reach a cultural golden age. And I don‘t believe the number 7 is going away until I see it.