What Civs and Leaders do you all predict will be in VII's base game?

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Predictions (based on historical importance, geography, player base, presence in past games, and the probability of certain quotas), not my personal preferences (those I’ll post to another thread eventually):

America - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Argentina - Eva Peron
Assyria - Tiglath-Pileser III
China - Taizong of Tang
Egypt - Nefertiti
England - Alfred the Great
France - Louis IX
Germany - Wilhelm I
Greece - Solon of Athens
Hawaii - Liliʻuokalani
India - Gandhi
Japan - Meiji
Kievan Rus’ - Vladimir the Great
Norway - Lagertha
Rome - Cincinnatus
Spain - Isabella
South Africa - Nelson Mandela
Toltec - Cē Ācatl Topiltzin

 

[FishFishFish]

Germany - Wilhelm I

Seems strange that they would pick him over Bismarck.

South Africa - Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela seems too recent. The Zulus are more likely to return as a staple imo.

Toltec - Cē Ācatl Topiltzin

I very much doubt that they pick the Toltecs. Aztecs or Maya for Mesoamerica 100%

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think it is more likely if they rotate the SEA spot this time. Siam could return, or Burma could finally get a spotlight.

I believe Siam will return, though I'm not sure it would be base game.

Nelson Mandela seems too recent. The Zulus are more likely to return as a staple imo.

Yeah, I doubt they would want to put in South Africa as the sole Sub-Saharan Africa civ.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

As someone who enjoys cognitive dissonance, I’m looking forward to the cross pollination of “I’m bored of (female leader) I want a less obvious choice” and “I can’t believe they went in this new direction with (female leader), it should have been the obvious choice”

(I don’t actually enjoy it! As a female playing Civ, I really enjoy the representation, and finding out the impact these ladies have made across history, but I hate the discourse that comes with it)

Totally get why you don't like the discourse, which too easily and too often veers straight into toxicity.

I think most of the choices of women Firaxis has made to include in their games have been interesting and merited by the historical record -- which makes the bad choices stand out more to me.

Like Kristina -- literally abandoned her country to go live in Rome. Cleopatra's actions led to the end of even Ptolemaic independence for Egypt. Theodora -- never led, not even as an empress dowager, and was largely a political liability for Justinian (who is also way overrated). Wilhelmina was a modern mascot-monarch who made big bucks but she didn't have concrete power even to the extent of Victoria I. Dido is straight up a myth!

All five of them got into Civ 6 over Isabella of Spain, one of the most important leaders in world history period, and Catherine the Great, which is absurd. At least they left Maria of Portugal back in Civ V.

And while I know they called one of her features Queen of Ndongo, Nzinga was not involved in the politics of the actually existing Kingdom of Kongo, and Ndongo spoke a different language. Nzinga is a really cool figure but her inclusion was not executed well -- shoehorning her in to another kingdom is not respectful of her place in history.

Even worse to me than this whole line of discourse, though, was how many Western civs they crammed in in 6 when you had other available options in the rest of the world -- it was more "Europa Universalis" than that game!

Australia, Canada, Gran Colombia, and separated Macedon getting in ahead of fuller representation for southeast Asia, a differentiation of pre and post Islamic Iran, or the decades-overdue disaggregation of India was an obscenity. As baffling to me as Civ 4 HRE and Sitting Bull's "Native America."

Of course, I'd also make America a DLC civ with whatever North American tribe(s) they pick instead of including it base game, so I understand I'm far from representative of other consumers here.

 

[AtlanteanLord]

Totally get why you don't like the discourse, which too easily and too often veers straight into toxicity.

I think most of the choices of women Firaxis has made to include in their games have been interesting and merited by the historical record -- which makes the bad choices stand out more to me.

Like Kristina -- literally abandoned her country to go live in Rome. Cleopatra's actions led to the end of even Ptolemaic independence for Egypt. Theodora -- never led, not even as an empress dowager, and was largely a political liability for Justinian (who is also way overrated). Wilhelmina was a modern mascot-monarch who made big bucks but she didn't have concrete power even to the extent of Victoria I. Dido is straight up a myth!

All five of them got into Civ 6 over Isabella of Spain, one of the most important leaders in world history period, and Catherine the Great, which is absurd. At least they left Maria of Portugal back in Civ V.

And while I know they called one of her features Queen of Ndongo, Nzinga was not involved in the politics of the actually existing Kingdom of Kongo, and Ndongo spoke a different language. Nzinga is a really cool figure but her inclusion was not executed well -- shoehorning her in to another kingdom is not respectful of her place in history.

Even worse to me than this whole line of discourse, though, was how many Western civs they crammed in in 6 when you had other available options in the rest of the world -- it was more "Europa Universalis" than that game!

Australia, Canada, Gran Colombia, and separated Macedon getting in ahead of fuller representation for southeast Asia, a differentiation of pre and post Islamic Iran, or the decades-overdue disaggregation of India was an obscenity. As baffling to me as Civ 4 HRE and Sitting Bull's "Native America."

Of course, I'd also make America a DLC civ with whatever North American tribe(s) they pick instead of including it base game, so I understand I'm far from representative of other consumers here.

Kristina was NOT an amazing ruler but truly a bombastic woman. I wholeheartedly support her inclusion

Cleopatra was a good ruler and for the most part took the best decisions with the information she had available. While being the last one, blaming her for the end of the Ptolomies is silly

Ana should definitely be in her own kingdom

I disagree with your thoughts about the Aus/Can/GC. A historically separated india would be ideal, i agree.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Went back to the trailer and then did a little research.

The shot from the trailer, on the left, is pretty obviously not Nefertiti, at least as she is depicted in the famous bust: cheekbones are too widely set, chin is rounder, eyes set farther apart (Full Disclosure: years ago I had a chance to see the original Nefertiti bust in (then) West Berlin)

On the other hand, the only identified bas-relief of Hatshepsut known without Pharaonic Disquise, is much closer to the teaser reveal:

The facial features: cheekbones, eyes, chin, are all much closer to the teaser.

So, tentative conclusion: we may actually get an Egyptian Female to lead Egypt for a change. Whether this indicates more attention paid to properly matching leaders to their civilizations is another question . . .

 

[AtlanteanLord]

Went back to the trailer and then did a little research.

View attachment 693446

The shot from the trailer, on the left, is pretty obviously not Nefertiti, at least as she is depicted in the famous bust: cheekbones are too widely set, chin is rounder, eyes set farther apart (Full Disclosure: years ago I had a chance to see the original Nefertiti bust in (then) West Berlin)

On the other hand, the only identified bas-relief of Hatshepsut known without Pharaonic Disquise, is much closer to the teaser reveal:
View attachment 693447
The facial features: cheekbones, eyes, chin, are all much closer to the teaser.

So, tentative conclusion: we may actually get an Egyptian Female to lead Egypt for a change. Whether this indicates more attention paid to properly matching leaders to their civilizations is another question . . .

That looks nothing like the teaser statue, besides the hat.

The teaser statue even has the same mouth comissures as the Nefertiti bust. There are some differences, but nothing that doesn’t look like it couldn’t be art style differences.

I would prefer Hatshepsut mind you. But visually, it matches Nefertiti far more. That being said, it wouldn’t be the first time that Civ draws on Nefertiti to design Hatshepsut

 

[FishFishFish]

Plot twist: It is Sobekneferu.

 

[AtlanteanLord]

Plot twist: It is Sobekneferu.

Or Tausret

 

[TreVor_ish]

The real question should be: What kind of an art style leaders will have.

 

[pokiehl]

For some reason, I feel confident that the statue is Cleopatra, and that Cleopatra will return in the game.

That's who first came to mind. I'm not sure why everyone is jumping to the conclusion that it's NOT Cleopatra. (Wishful thinking, perhaps?)

It doesn't look like Nefertiti to me, and the Hatshepsut statue is so devoid of details in the face that it could match up with many faces.

Maybe it's based off of this bust of Cleopatra:

(I also think the newish logo they're using, with the female pharaoh profile facing to the right with the hexagons, is supposed to be Cleopatra. She seems to me to be a "mascot" of the series.)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

For some reason, I feel confident that the statue is Cleopatra, and that Cleopatra will return in the game. That's who first came to mind.

Maybe it's based off of this bust. I also think the newish logo they're using, with the female pharaoh profile facing to the right with the hexagons, is supposed to be Cleopatra.

[/URL]

Knowing 2K marketing, Cleopatra is the most likely. Until we can be for sure, I'll dream that it's Hatshepsut.

 

[choevi]

Well, these are the 100% canon, included in any CIV so far:
America (Would be surprised at all if they'd go for a lesser known leader. I mean probably not all the way to Harriet Tubman but maybe Hamilton )
China (Somebody uncontroversial from the classic perdiod, maybe Qin again)
Egypt (Female leader speculation seems legit)
England (Lots of well-known Kings & Queens to pick)
France (I would love to see Napoleon III, both President and King)
Germany (def somebody medieval, but the list of candidates that don't double as Austrian/Italian/English/Spanish etc. is surpringsingly short. Sigismund could be an interisting choice)
Greece (The Hellenic period and Alexander are so essential for the very idea of civilization that I would hate to see another focus)
India (please anyone but Gandhi)
Rome (As with Greece, I'd prefer a "classic" solution like Augustus)

Russia used to be canon, but I think it's reasonable to assume they're not included


Also very likely, but also possible/previous DLCs
Aztec (Moctezuma or somebody I don't know)
Babylonia (Hammurabo or somebody I don't know)
Mongolia (please Ghengis Khan, he's such a Civ staple...)
Japan (somebody from the Meiji restoration period could be exciting to play)
Persia (Cyrus, Darius - somebody from those times)
Zulu (Shaka!)
Spain (Isabella would be great)

Reasonable to assume given recent developments and the teaser:
Scotland (Mary Stuart)
Vikings (?)
Maya (given how little we know about their leaders, anyone is as good as the next to be honest)

More or less wild guesses without a leader in mind:
Ethiopia
Brazil
Peru
Korea
North-American native tribe

 

[Connor_CivFan]

Like Kristina -- literally abandoned her country to go live in Rome. Cleopatra's actions led to the end of even Ptolemaic independence for Egypt. Theodora -- never led, not even as an empress dowager, and was largely a political liability for Justinian (who is also way overrated). Wilhelmina was a modern mascot-monarch who made big bucks but she didn't have concrete power even to the extent of Victoria I. Dido is straight up a myth!

Kristina as a good ruler is up for debate, like many of the male rulers. However, she was not the terrible leader people like to think she is.
Cleopatra: Egyptian independence was doomed one way or another, she did what she thought was best (and likely prolonged Egyptian independence)
Dido: Whether Dido is a myth is also up for debate and ultimately personal opinion. (Though Gilgamesh I think most will agree is a myth)
Theodora: So what if she didnt actually lead? She was a significant figure in Byzantium, like Ghandi

None of your complaints are necessarily wrong, but to apply them specifically to one group of people and not the other is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If I were Firaxis, here is how I would start the game:

• There would be a Discovery mode option.
• In the very first game set up players would choose map specs and some number of potential AI civs up to half of the total civs in the game
• Map size would have limits on the number of civs present
• At the very first civ selection screen there is one (random) unnamed civilization to play.
• When you found your first city, the civ and leader are revealed. (or they might give you a leader choice)
• As you meet new civs in your games, they will be added to the start option choices when you start a new game
• When you start your second game, your civ choices become all those civs and leaders you met in game one.
• With each game your choices grow until all of them have been revealed
• Discovering all civs and leaders might take multiple games.
• Unknown civs should have increased likelihood of appearing as your game count goes up
• Such discovery could even be linked the historical proximity of civs to the random one from game #1. If you drew China as you starting civ, then there would be a greater likelyhood of meeting Asian Civs first.

Such an approach would create a mini game within the game and allow players to develop a strategy to discover all the other civs. Different map options might allow faster or slower paths to find more distant civs. If my first civ is Mayan and yours is Japan, then we will be on differnt paths to discover all 12, 16, 24, or 32 civ options the game has. It also will encourage players to try civs they might ignore initially. This approach has lots of flexibility too. Perhaps there would be an option that you have to conquer a civ before it gets added to you start choices.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Well, these are the 100% canon, included in any CIV so far:
America (Would be surprised at all if they'd go for a lesser known leader. I mean probably not all the way to Harriet Tubman but maybe Hamilton )
China (Somebody uncontroversial from the classic perdiod, maybe Qin again)
Egypt (Female leader speculation seems legit)
England (Lots of well-known Kings & Queens to pick)
France (I would love to see Napoleon III, both President and King)
Germany (def somebody medieval, but the list of candidates that don't double as Austrian/Italian/English/Spanish etc. is surpringsingly short. Sigismund could be an interisting choice)
Greece (The Hellenic period and Alexander are so essential for the very idea of civilization that I would hate to see another focus)
India (please anyone but Gandhi)
Rome (As with Greece, I'd prefer a "classic" solution like Augustus)

Russia used to be canon, but I think it's reasonable to assume they're not included


Also very likely, but also possible/previous DLCs
Aztec (Moctezuma or somebody I don't know)
Babylonia (Hammurabo or somebody I don't know)
Mongolia (please Ghengis Khan, he's such a Civ staple...)
Japan (somebody from the Meiji restoration period could be exciting to play)
Persia (Cyrus, Darius - somebody from those times)
Zulu (Shaka!)
Spain (Isabella would be great)

Reasonable to assume given recent developments and the teaser:
Scotland (Mary Stuart)
Vikings (?)
Maya (given how little we know about their leaders, anyone is as good as the next to be honest)

More or less wild guesses without a leader in mind:
Ethiopia
Brazil
Peru
Korea
North-American native tribe

I think it's definitely time for Isabella to make a comeback.

 

[Leyrann]

If I were Firaxis, here is how I would start the game:

• There would be a Discovery mode option.
• In the very first game set up players would choose map specs and some number of potential AI civs up to half of the total civs in the game
• Map size would have limits on the number of civs present
• At the very first civ selection screen there is one (random) unnamed civilization to play.
• When you found your first city, the civ and leader are revealed. (or they might give you a leader choice)
• As you meet new civs in your games, they will be added to the start option choices when you start a new game
• When you start your second game, your civ choices become all those civs and leaders you met in game one.
• With each game your choices grow until all of them have been revealed
• Discovering all civs and leaders might take multiple games.
• Unknown civs should have increased likelihood of appearing as your game count goes up
• Such discovery could even be linked the historical proximity of civs to the random one from game #1. If you drew China as you starting civ, then there would be a greater likelyhood of meeting Asian Civs first.

Such an approach would create a mini game within the game and allow players to develop a strategy to discover all the other civs. Different map options might allow faster or slower paths to find more distant civs. If my first civ is Mayan and yours is Japan, then we will be on differnt paths to discover all 12, 16, 24, or 32 civ options the game has. It also will encourage players to try civs they might ignore initially. This approach has lots of flexibility too. Perhaps there would be an option that you have to conquer a civ before it gets added to you start choices.

This seems kinda... arbitrary?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Exactly; Discovery is not an exact science. It is a process not unlike opening up the advancements tree.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If I were Firaxis, here is how I would start the game:

• There would be a Discovery mode option.
• In the very first game set up players would choose map specs and some number of potential AI civs up to half of the total civs in the game
• Map size would have limits on the number of civs present
• At the very first civ selection screen there is one (random) unnamed civilization to play.
• When you found your first city, the civ and leader are revealed. (or they might give you a leader choice)
• As you meet new civs in your games, they will be added to the start option choices when you start a new game
• When you start your second game, your civ choices become all those civs and leaders you met in game one.
• With each game your choices grow until all of them have been revealed
• Discovering all civs and leaders might take multiple games.
• Unknown civs should have increased likelihood of appearing as your game count goes up
• Such discovery could even be linked the historical proximity of civs to the random one from game #1. If you drew China as you starting civ, then there would be a greater likelyhood of meeting Asian Civs first.

Such an approach would create a mini game within the game and allow players to develop a strategy to discover all the other civs. Different map options might allow faster or slower paths to find more distant civs. If my first civ is Mayan and yours is Japan, then we will be on differnt paths to discover all 12, 16, 24, or 32 civ options the game has. It also will encourage players to try civs they might ignore initially. This approach has lots of flexibility too. Perhaps there would be an option that you have to conquer a civ before it gets added to you start choices.

I don't hate it. Unlocking things is a major fun factor for Age of Wonders 4. I'm kind of skeptical that Firaxis would do this though.

 

[Navelgazer]

I've posted this elsewhere, but some of my "wishlist" civs/leaders for Civ 7 are:
Songhai: Askia or Sonni Ali
Mughal Empire: Shah Jahan
Siam: Whoever, really. The SEA designs always surprise me in cool and fun ways, so I trust them here.
Florence: Lorenzo de' Medici
Ireland: Grace O'Malley
Cherokee: Sequoyah
Argentina: Don't care that much but it'd probably be Eva Perón.

Of these, I think that Argentina is by far the most likely to be included in a Wild Card slot in the base game. They're the biggest missing piece of post-Columbian America (aside from Mexico, but I think the franchise considers Mexico to be like Italy, i.e. both are covered "well enough" by prior empires, namely Aztec and Rome.) Next most likely (though probably not in the base game) I think are Ireland and Mughal Empire. Both have gotten a lot of requests for a long time now. Whenever Ireland does arrive, it probably won't be led by my preferred Pirate Queen, but whatever. And the Mughals have several good options to choose from.

Korea, Poland and Brazil are all interesting question marks for me, in that they're all large gamer markets and their inclusion has been well-received, but so far only one of them has been in a base-game (Brazil in Civ6) and I don't expect them to return to the base game this time around (maybe though!) Australia has only been in the one game so far, but they also likely fall into this category, and we might see them in the base game this time, but I wouldn't put money on it.

With the "which African civ do we choose for the base game?" slot, I would be neither surprised nor disappointed if they went with Ana Nzinga again, but with better execution this time around (i.e. actually having her lead Angola, with an LUA that better reflects her accomplishments.) They can keep that amazing leader model, though.

For SEA, I think Siam's return is likely, though it's certainly possible that we see Burma or Malaysia instead. I expect Vietnam to return in a later expansion.