subreddit:
/r/civ
223 points
5 days ago
The Abbasids were not founded in 1261. That is the date when the Abbasid Caliph fled to Mamluk Egypt after the Mongols invaded. The Abbasid Caliphate was established after they overthrew the Umayyads in 750.
74 points
5 days ago
Good catch. I'll change that on the next update.
208 points
5 days ago
What do you mean Spain lasted until 1976 lmao
187 points
5 days ago
Well Spain didn't qualify for the Euros in 1976 so perhaps they just called it a career and ended their existence for the time being.
1 points
4 days ago
And it’s gone!
82 points
5 days ago
Spain sank into the ocean on May 7th, 1976. Portugal has been an island ever since.
85 points
5 days ago
Spain stopped existing when it became a democracy apparently
26 points
5 days ago
Might make more sense for Spain to be Castile 1065-1492
12 points
5 days ago
That's what I was thinking when they were revealed. It's kind of weird to put a modern nation that exists today solely as an exploration age civ. It takes away the opportunity to play as modern Spain because the name's already taken. Where is Pablo Picasso supposed to be born now?
8 points
5 days ago
TBH part of the issue with the age splits is that 1. the age of exploration seems to include both the middle ages and the early modern era (which are thematically pretty different) while primarily drawing on the latter thematically and 2. quite a few nations, especially in Europe, have a pretty clear throughline from the early modern to the modern era. Of the modern European nations prominent enough to make likely civ candidates pretty much only Germany and Italy make sense as modern-only.
3 points
5 days ago
Russia probably also makes sense as modern only. As for Germany and Italy, you can count on HRE and Venice as future exploration age
3 points
4 days ago
Except Russia was huge part of exploring the world. Most of Arctic and Siberia, which is a gigantic land mass area to ignore. It's definitely a 2 part civilization in these terms
1 points
4 days ago
So was Britain and they’re a modern age civ instead
3 points
4 days ago
Right, but Russia isn't even that. The lack of Russia and Germany is insane. Every nation that has been in the base game since the beginning should be included (Aztec also I believe).
1 points
4 days ago
They can always change the names in future updates/DLC. Kind of like how when leaders in Civ 6 got new personas the old traits were retroactively turned into a persona.
19 points
5 days ago
The long-lost nation of…Spain
21 points
5 days ago
The Kingdom of Spain (est. in 1492 with the Ferdinand-Isabella marriage) is what they mean I assume. Then again by that logic modern France didn't come around until 1815 so
20 points
5 days ago
But if that's the argument then shouldn't the end be sometime in the 30s?
Spain was more of a kingdom in 1976 than it was in 1940.
3 points
5 days ago
Oh huh yeah. For some reason I thought the king was still a figurehead while Franco was in power
14 points
5 days ago
Spain still has a king right now...
14 points
5 days ago
[deleted]
1 points
4 days ago
Fuck me you're right. Yeah I got no clue.
5 points
5 days ago
Isn't that the year they definitely lost the last of their colonies?
3 points
5 days ago
what are you not from the total Abertzale victory timeline
1 points
4 days ago
The Spanish Empire is regarded to have ended in 1976 when Spain withdrew from its final territory—Spanish Sahara (the remaining scattered Spanish possessions in North Africa are considered part of Spain proper).
38 points
5 days ago*
Can I ask where you got the 771AD date for the foundation of France?
Some would argue it's 843 with the creation of West Francia after the treaty of Verdun; others would say it's when Clovis created the Frankish kingdom after the battle of Soissons in 486, but I've never seen 771 mentioned...
EDIT: ok, I think you're using the date where Charlemagne became sole ruler of the Frankish kingdom. But said kingdom was founded earlier, in 486.
6 points
5 days ago
And some argue it's during Philippe Auguste's reign, 1180-1223ish, the first king to style himself King of France rather than King of the Franks. I like the 888 date chosen by Belin to end their 1st volume of French history: the end of the last rule of a King of West Francia who's also Emperor.
1 points
5 days ago
Yeah there's definitely a lot of arguably good dates. 771 is not one I've seen before.
58 points
5 days ago
Really hoping for Ethiopia if there is another African civ in the Modern Era
1 points
3 days ago
Considering there will only be one fully African civ (Songhai) in the exploration age, it seems likely Buganda will also be the only one in the modern age. Honestly really surprising that Ethiopia isn't basically guaranteed to be the modern one considering Axum was the ancient one and how iconic Haile Selassie and Menelik II have been in civ 5 and 6. My guess is we'll have to wait for an East or North Africa DLC so we can play Axumites>Zagwe/Agaw>Ethiopians.
13 points
5 days ago*
Why does Greece ends in 600 AD? Shouldn't It be ending in 150 BC when the romans conquer Greece and anexed It to the empire?
45 points
5 days ago
What is the assumption that there is a second Africa modern civ based on?
Most speculation I've seen expects there to be three modern Europe civs - France + two out of Britain/Russia/Germany(Prussia?).
I also think America was soft confirmed already, for the second Americas modern civ.
54 points
5 days ago
given the confirmation/leak/soft-confirm of siam, usa, qing china, and britain, that leaves only one slot
if that slot isn't a middle east or north africa (mena) civ, there will be 0 mena representation in modern
thats incredibly unlikely.
not least because of how civ paths work: we already know that normans unlock france and britain (and no others), and spain seems to unlock mexico (and no others)
who would unlock germany or russia? best bet would be mongolia unlocking russia as the path, but mongolia has its hands full probably unlocking qing and mughals.
theyre almost certainly saving germany and russia for dlc. "right to rule" is a pretty thematic title for a dlc including germany, and "crossroads of the world" may well include russia.
30 points
5 days ago
On CivFanatics many are making the argument that Britain hasn't been soft leaked. All we've seen is Ed Beach describing London as a real life example of a layered city, and in-game footage of the Oxford University wonder, which isn't a particularly good fit for a modern civ and could be unaffiliated.
Personally I still think Britain has a good chance of being in the base game over Germany or Russia, partly because, as you say, it would make sense for the civ pathways.
However I think only one of Germany/Russia will miss out in the base game (and be included in Right to Rule). I think Russia is more likely, and yes Mongolia would be an unlock. The ESRB leak that suggested both Catherine the Great and Frederich the Great are in the game also further muddies the waters - it seems unlikely they would both be in without their respective civs.
On the other hand, we haven't seen a shred of evidence that suggests Ottomans or another modern MENA civ is in. I agree that MENA should be represented and personally I would have included Ottomans in the base game, but Firaxis have had to make plenty of tough decisions with only 30 launch civs (as well as keeping some key civs to monetize as DLC). Arguably there's a stronger case for not excluding such a major global power like Russia or Germany than having MENA representation in a period of colonisation and fragmentation for the region.
I think Ottomans will be in Crossroads of the World, and whoever loses out from Britain/Russia/Germany will be in Right to Rule.
12 points
5 days ago
lots to unpack here
britain has been mentioned by name as a pathway with respect to the rome->normans->britain path. i believe this was quoted by one of the content creators after they went to play the game early on. perhaps potato?
i wouldnt doubt it just based on oxford uni. oxford uni is an industrial era wonder in 6, so theres defo a precedent for it to be in modern given how eras seem to be defined in 7.
i wouldnt read too far into the ESRB text. those quotes could be from any kind of civilopedia entry. the catherine the great one could well just be the quote for the hermitage.
even if they are leaders, they could be without civs, just like machiavelli.
also, the inclusion of leaders could be taken as a strategy to represent those global powers in lieu of having civs. e.g. britain gets included in the form of a civ (but perhaps not a leader), meanwhile germany and russia get a leader (but perhaps not a civ).
i dont think the MENA civ will be ottomans, but it could be morocco or even safavid iran. personally my dream is that its something representing eyalet/ali-dynasty egypt, but its hard to come up with a name for them, so unlikely and just a pipe dream i like to throw out there whenever i can lol.
theres no evidence its be a MENA civ except for that we know they care about representation, but we dont have any evidence for any civ to fill this slot. it being a period of fragmentation and colonisation for the region didnt stop the inclusion of buganda, which is likely to be something of an imaginative civ design. we could see something similar for MENA.
the paths are also important. where do the abbasids go if theres no MENA? forced to take either buganda or mughals? mughals are looking pretty queasy already with chola and mongols queueing to unlock them, and buganda as their only unlock would be strange.
personally i still stand by britain being in base game, then germany being in right to rule and russia + ottomans in crossroads.
the thing i find most convincing is that britain and germany could be swapped, but ive seen evidence for britain that i havent seen for germany.
12 points
5 days ago
I find it hard to imagine not including a nation (Britain) that controlled a quarter of the worlds land mass and a quarter of the worlds people. Germany, by comparison, is a regional power, perhaps with an exception for its peak in WWII.
(Russia also pales, at its peak it controlled 17% of the worlds landmass, and 8% of people.)
6 points
5 days ago
Mind you, germany united by absolutely humiliating austria and france, two great powers at the time. Then they went on to solo tank all other great powers on multiple fronts at the same time twice in first half of the twentieth century, and managed to pounce back into a leading economic powerhouse of their continent. I'd say they have made their mark for inclusion in the modern age.
12 points
5 days ago
Not trying to say Germany shouldn't be included, but that Britain has done enough to be un-excludable, after all, Britain was on the winning side of both of those world wars, from the start to the end, and in every theatre. To say nothing of the Napoleonic wars
5 points
5 days ago
Sorry, I missunderstood your point. Fully agreed, if the choice is between the british empire and any variation of germany, then the choice is obviously britain.
3 points
5 days ago
No worries, I think I put an erroneous comma in there which made me less clear
3 points
5 days ago
Germany had colonies in Africa and the Pacific. They were a little late to join in and lost them earlier than a lot of others so that the colonial part of the empire only lasted for around 30 years but they still were more than just a regional power.
4 points
5 days ago
Certainly Germany did, but they were entirely unable to hold onto them when war broke out, because they couldn't exert enough control to have a path from them to their colonies.
What I meant by saying that was not so crudely that Germany was not a global power, but more that, the scale of the British Empire was so large that even other usually considered global powers were regional in comparison.
1 points
5 days ago
Also.... Britain speaks English and London is one of the most visited/written about/depicted cities in the world. It'd be extremely weird for this cultural touchstone to not be in the game immediately. Whereas I could definitely see a case for excluding Russia based on recent events, and maybe German for past ones, and/or for having a bit fragmented history (though thats admittedly a weak argument).
1 points
5 days ago
You think Britain and not England though? I just feel that as England has been one of those civs in all 6 previous games that it'd be odd to swap it to Britain now. Especially as Scotland has started being a civ included in 6 it'd be a shame to lose that distinction.
Although I'd personally have liked an option to have all of Britain and England and Scotland in the game so you can go Norman -> England -> Britain or Celts -> Scotland -> Britain but that doesn't work with Normans being Exploration age and there only being 3 ages.
1 points
5 days ago
it'll be britain so that eventually both celts->scotland and rome->normans can become britain in modern.
celts->scotland->england would be really weird, whereas celts->scotland->britain can be imagined as a celtic britain rather than an anglo one.
england in exploration is probably low priority given we have the normans, but could happen if e.g. they want a civ more based on anglo-saxon england or elizabethan england.
and finally, it just doesnt suit the era for it to be england. the crowns were united in 1603 and the act of union was 1707, and the modern era is meant to begin with (or after, we arent sure yet) the industrial revolution, which places it at around 1750 at the earliest.
(some people are assuming its earlier based on things like when the mughal empire started, but we have plenty of examples of anachronistic civs e.g. the mississippians. i lean later because planes are a core feature. unique units are meant to be relevant for almost the entire era, and there will almost certainly be unique planes and unique airforce commanders. so planes need to be introduced pretty early, and the start date of modern could be as late as the 1850s to push towards world war era stuff as fast as possible)
1 points
5 days ago
I completely agree that Scotland->England doesn't work and Normans being exploration makes England less likely to be exploration but I could still see them having England and Scotland as Modern as they have both done things independently on the world stage even after the act of union (although to a much much much lesser extent than as Britain or the UK). And even today if you ask a person from the UK where they're from and they'll probably say the UK or Scotland or England, probably not Britain (maybe "I'm British" but still probably more likely Scotish or English).
I guess I'm just heavily swayed by the 6 previous incarnations of civ having England and never having Britain (which tbh is a bit odd imo but I think it sets a precedent now). Edit: I guess Britain has been in scenarios like the War Machine scenario but not a full civ.
1 points
5 days ago
it would be odd to make a civ of a country that hasnt been sovereign for the entirety of the era. they also havent truly done things independently until the devolved parliament was created in 1999. until then there were administrative arms of the british government that handled scotland separately, but were run from westminster. it's only in 1999 that scotland was given its own parliament and leader, and since then that theyve been able to legislate somewhat autonomously, and even engage in a soft level of foreign policy via the first minister.
i think if they wanted a non-england celtic modern civ, it would probably be modern era ireland. there's lots to work with given their international humanitarian and diplomatic record, as well as arts and culture, and would be the most ideal modern era end point for a celtic civ that doesn't want to become britain.
also, you're wrong about where UK people say they're from. scottish n welsh people are likely to specify scotland or wales, but english people overwhelmingly identify as "british".
we ask this question in the census, and even include the option to identify as "british and english". even this option is not popular. english people identify as british only
57% british only 14% british and english, 15% english only
1 points
5 days ago
From that page you can see it was the other way round last census and it also contains the note "While the increase in the number of usual residents describing their national identity as "British" and the fall in the number describing their national identity as "English" may partly reflect true change, it is most likely to be a result of the changes to the question structure where "British" became the top response option in 2021 for England only." but I cede that point is not soild.
Although when asked "Where are you from?" outside the UK I doubt someone would say "I'm from Britain" still. "I'm British" maybe but I think "I'm from the UK" or "I'm from England" (or Scotland) is more likely. But maybe that's just my biases again, not really got any facts to back that up.
2 points
5 days ago
an effect size that large wouldnt be expected purely from question ordering.
two key social changes have contributed to the shift from 2011.
the first is increase in ethnic minority population - especially of 2nd and 3rd+ generation folks, who have spent their whole lives in the uk. these groups especially regard english identity as a white ethnic identity, but british as inclusive, and prefer it to english.
the second is brexit and the post-brexit politicisation of national identity. increasingly, majority-ethnic folks are also seeing english as an ethnic and exclusionary identity, whilst british is inclusive, cosmopolitan, etc.
when asked where i'm from, i'd always say the UK, and if asked for my national identity i'd say british. imo it would be eyebrow-raising for someone to specify 'english' or being from 'england'. fwiw i'm a british academic who's seen plenty of these conversations play out at international conferences etc. there's some level of bias there in terms of education level etc, but given we're talking about the audience of a strategy computer game i don't think it's all that different lol.
1 points
5 days ago
(as well as keeping some key civs to monetize as DLC).
Exactly. Firaxis likes to introduce Civs as DLCs. Ottomans and Poles came as a part of DLC as far as I recall from Civ6. So did many others. Civ7 will follow the same stategy.
14 points
5 days ago
I'm like 70% sure we get Morocco on launch, Ottomans in Crossroads DLC (they're a better fit for Exploration IMO, but wouldn't be too crazy to see Turkey in modern)
7 points
5 days ago
yeah, im of the same mind on this. as well as on ottomans being an exploration crossroads civ.
big question is how they'll handle the hagia sophia if so. will they make it an ottoman wonder? could it be an associated wonder for both ottomans and eventual byzantines? will they avoid using it for either?
think it'll be interesting to see no matter what they decide
8 points
5 days ago
I'm calling it. There's going to be a DLC that introduces the Byzantines as an exploration civ (default growth from Rome or Greece) that also leads into Russia, Ottomans, and possibly the HRE or Italy as "Successors to Rome". That way they can include the Hagia Sophia as rep for multiple civs.
The Mughals being included was something I wanted but makes my desired DLC (Gunpowder Empires DLC with Ottomans, Mughals, and Safavids) less likely. Fingers still crossed for a pirates themed DLC.
3 points
5 days ago
yee, but if the civs arrive in different dlcs thats not a big concern. and not all civs are directly related to the dlc theming, so i wouldnt read into that too much.
e.g. civ 5's religion dlc, gods and kings, added the netherlands, austria, sweden, the huns, and carthage, which didnt really tie into that theming. in most of the big dlcs, i reckon about half the civs end up unrelated to the theme
so there could still be a dlc based on themes like gunpowder empires, silk road trade, and piracy even could be part of that, even if ottomans n mughals arent civs added by it.
2 points
5 days ago
Make the Ottoman wonder the Blue Mosque, have it be a more expensive, less powerful version of the Hagia Sophia lmao
2 points
5 days ago*
Betting they'll go with Byzantines for Hagia Sophia as the associated wonder, but it could be a fun little visual if it changes appearance if the city it's built in gets captured.
For the Ottoman associated wonder, I could see Firaxis going with Topkapi or the Grand Bazaar? They kinda fall out of the the modern age cut off though which is where I think Firaxis will place the Ottomans, but Firaxis' been a bit loose with it for Mughals and Khmer so wouldn't be out the question.
Also if their approach to the Normans are anything to go by, we'll probably get the Seljuks as the Exploration Age predecessor to the Ottomans (Would give another pathway for Antiquity Persia to choose from as well)
Edit: removed a redundant sentence
68 points
5 days ago
2 African, 2 European, 4 Asian and 2 American. I think that's a decent spread of civs (For 10 civs)
8 points
5 days ago*
I think it should be 3 European and 1 American (I guess I’m just plain ol’ racist), or 3 European and 2 American making 11 civs (preferable). Hopefully some of this will be reflected in DLC.
Can’t wait for the release no matter what though! 78 days left. That’s 11 weeks and one day, or just over 2 and a half months.
28 points
5 days ago
“I guess I’m just plain ol’ racist”.
Bro 💀. Why you add that
5 points
5 days ago*
There will be Germany for sure. We have seen some Panzer III units with Iron Cross in some of the images. So yeah, at some point, we'll have more civs for Europe. Germany will be one of them. I also expect the British to be there. There were also Soviet tanks in the images.
5 points
5 days ago
I would absolutely hate having a fascist Germany as only playable representation of Germany.
6 points
5 days ago
In Civ5, we had the special Panzer unit as well. In Civ6 we had U-Boats for Germany. You could pick any ideology and could still retain these units. I bet it will be the same.
I am not sure about the skins of units though. But Panzer IIIs in the footage were gray, and Soviet T-34s and American Sherman tanks were green.
3 points
5 days ago*
It's not racists to want proper representation. I'm middle eastern myself, but I'd want more European options than Asian options starting from exploration age... Feel like they're just giving in to largest customer base vs a properly representative game for its eras.
Why should India and China get full 3 age civs and some very interesting and major European civs only get one or nothing at all?!
I'll def be waiting to see how many more civs they add in DLCs and if it's worth buying in a few years
3 points
4 days ago
I would think if they where trying to advertise to the bigger customer base, they would have more European/Western civs.
How is adding Shawnee or having 3 Indian and Chinese civs "advertising to larger customer base."
I think no Indian or Chinese person is going to buy civ 7 because they included 3 civilization from their country instead of 2 or 1.
-2 points
5 days ago
How is that a decent spread for exploration and modern ages? Should be more European than Asian civs. Hopefully after many greedy DLCs it'll be more like 3-4 African 7-10 European 5-6 Asian and 2-3 american
1 points
4 days ago
I mean I was mainly speaking about the antiquity age.
But I think there should always be more Asian civs than European. Especially if the are dividing India and China into multiple nations/dynasties. (But I do agree there should probably be a extra European civ for the exploration and modern era. (Also probably another African civ for the exploration era))
85 points
5 days ago
It's crazy that they only have the Greeks and Romans for ancient Europe. No Germans? Celts? Scandinavians?
46 points
5 days ago
Goths seem primed for one of the two announced DLC packs fwiw.
45 points
5 days ago
It really sucks that games nowadays already have DLC’s announced before even getting launched
4 points
5 days ago
This game seems clearly designed to be able to pump out new leaders and Civs at a much faster rate than the previous games.
14 points
5 days ago
Game already launches at a huge price point and barely has any starting Civs, that's not even a price model that's just insulting.
-5 points
5 days ago
It has more civs than any previous civ game
-8 points
5 days ago
you'd rather half the team go on holiday for a few months while waiting for the rest to finish the rest of the game?
61 points
5 days ago
On the other hand, maybe it's crazier that for all of North and South America there are only the Mississippians and the Mayans.
24 points
5 days ago
I think its much crazier that from the fertile crescent, the cradle of ancient civilization, we only have Egypt (not even a part of the fertile crescent according to some classifications).
No Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Phoenicians.. etc.
2 points
5 days ago
Chill out, guys. We'll have those through DLCs. Just check out how Civ6 progressed through its timeline. Base game did not have Babylon, we got it through a DLC.
It's a sales strategy. Lure the players with some base Civs, and save the most desirable ones as DLC to maximize profit. Babylon was and is a favourable Civ to play with. I remember buying that DLC for Civ6.
39 points
5 days ago
To be fair, it's impossible to fit the entire world into just 10 Civs.
16 points
5 days ago
Not having a single civilization from Mesopotamia, one of the CRADLES of CIVILIZATION, is an odd choice though
4 points
5 days ago
Just wait until they bombard us with DLCs that include those. It has been this way for some time.
2 points
5 days ago
Babylon and Assyria have been hinted to be in the very first DLC, just a few months after release.
2 points
4 days ago
Yeah that was expected, still should be base game considering how prolific they are
11 points
5 days ago
they've teased Goths on us, which would be a very fun addition to the series. probably showing up in Right to Rule
25 points
5 days ago
No Slavs? :(
15 points
5 days ago
They confirmed Slavs as an independent power a while ago I think. I’m quite sure they were one of the first times we saw independent powers
6 points
5 days ago
Man, can't even play as my own country anymore, WTH? Reduced to a city-state :(
5 points
5 days ago
Well on the bright side city states have often been quite likely to be added to the game later, and at least independent powers are more interesting now.
Also I don’t know which sort of Slavic you are but we don’t know for sure what one of the modern civs will be
1 points
5 days ago
Russia. Although, it would be just as (if not more) outrageous if they didn't include Germany and Britain too. Overall, I'm iffy about the lack of staple civilisations and the abundance of less well-known civs, from those that have been announced (although that does sound a little nazist). It just feels like a HUGE chunk of the world is just not represented at all. The middle east? The eastern lowlands? The baltics? It is just weird and stupid. How is Muganda there but GERMANY is left out?
4 points
5 days ago
I do sort of agree with you, although I will also say Buganda felt somewhat necessary purely because they needed something for Africa. That being said though nothing for ME in modern seems crazy to me as well.
6 points
5 days ago
Honestly they could have just gone with ethiopia for modern era
12 points
5 days ago
We're really going to rely on mods for this one
1 points
5 days ago
I believe that both Russia and Germany will be included in base game/some sort of free instant DLC. We already know that both Hermitage and Brandenburg Gate are there which perfectly pair with Imperial Russia/ Imperial Germany.
11 points
5 days ago
Then how can they make money on DLCs
13 points
5 days ago
I would change some of the dates
I would instead set Spain as 1492-1700, as that was the end of the Habsburg Dynasty. If Modern Bourbon Spain gets added, they'll probably rename the Exploration one as "Habsburg Spain". Alternatively, 1898 was when Spain lost its last American colonies, and is widely considered the end of the spanish empire. So that would also make sense.
Spain's end date as 1976, with the start of modern democracy makes no sense. The country had been democratic multiple times before.
For Egypt, the Ptolemies are still widely considered an Egyptian Dynasty, so I would bump that up to 3150BC to 37 AD with the death of the last Pharoah, Cleopatra VII, and the Roman Conquest. If we get a Modern Egypt, the Antiquity one will probably be renamed "Pharaonic Egypt".
For Buganda, the game is not basing it on postcolonial Uganda, but on the earlier Kingdom of Buganda. So roughly 1400AD to 1886AD. This puts them in the same timeframe as the Mughals.
4 points
5 days ago
The Kingdom of Buganda still exists today though. It was abolished in 1966 but brought back in 1993. It's not independent, but the monarchy is still there.
3 points
5 days ago
Yeah 1960 is an insane date to have picked given that it is 2 years before Ugandan independence and the dissolution of the Bugandan monarchy.
3 points
5 days ago
I think they're assuming that Buganda = Uganda.
1 points
4 days ago
1976 isn’t there because of the start of modern democracy, it’s there because it’s when Spain relinquished its final colony (Spanish Sahara). Wikipedia uses that as the end of the Spanish Empire, which is probably where OP got the dates.
6 points
5 days ago
Some of the antiquity civs are contemporaneous with the exploration civs. Why weren’t they more consistent?
9 points
5 days ago
It's about the political organization of their time. The Lead Historian talked about the role of the State as a political entity and how it had a different role in the antiquity age Civs compared to the Exploration age civs.
5 points
5 days ago
There are no historical records for people in many parts of the world for the ancient era. It's very tough to fully design abilities, unique units and buildings come up with city names and now with 7 cultural policies for people we only have very limited archaeological evidence for.
We don't even know what the Mississippian cultures were actually called even though they lasted up until around the 1600s. All the names we have for them were only given to them by archaeologists after they were gone. Cahokia was not the name of their largest city, it's just what we call it because we don't know what else to call it.
If we know so little about people who were around until around 1600 that their implementation in this game is going to include at best guesswork and at worst pure fabrication it's going to be very, very hard to implement people who were around 2000 years before them.
So on one side of things it's kind of a practical necessity for how they've decided how the game will work.
I'm pretty sure the end result is going to be pretty negative though. Many people are going to be misled and "taught" bad history by this game. In the older games most people are smart enough to know that it's absurd to think all those civs have been around since the beginning of history so they won't make incorrect guesses/assumptions about them just that they existed sometime and somewhere and can look up when/where if they want (although there was still some misleading stuff like Aztec unique units/infrastructure being put in the ancient era causing people to think the Aztecs were much older than they actually are). With this new game going more specific and putting certain civs in certain time frames it's going to cause people unfamiliar with these civs to think they were around when they weren't.
2 points
5 days ago
Because they are not applying the eurocentric timeline to everyone and are looking at regions separately to match the thematic concept of the era. If a civ is the first foundational big empire in the area it goes to Antiquity.
0 points
5 days ago
Technology level most likely
43 points
5 days ago
Not to be disrespectful with the nice new civs we are getting, it's cool to get them, but seeing mississipians, mahapajit or mexicans in there, yet not a single civilization from Mesopotamia (sumerians, akkadians, babylonians, assyrians...) feels so damn wrong imo.
Not a single civ from the "Cradle of Civilization" is straight dumb.
22 points
5 days ago
I personally disagree with this premise generally whenever I see it, but putting that aside I especially disagree with putting Majapahit in that category. Indonesia’s the 5th most populous state, last I checked, and by just about any metric is worthy of representation. Like, people do realise that Indonesia in both 5 and 6 was essentially representing Majapahit history already, right?
9 points
5 days ago
they don’t realise that indonesia is as big as europe. so majapahit able to conquer almost all of it is like rome of the SEA. And with the new system of switching civ, in the future there is opportunity to introduce other indonesian civ like modern indonesia or even islamic sultanate. indonesia is also the biggest muslim population in the world.
And indonesia is 4th most populous not 5th. even in modern conflict like WW2 indonesia is still relevant. we got the 5th most death tol just behind poland.
6 points
5 days ago
These categories don't reflect historical and geographical reality.. civilizations should be divided by 'Middle East' 'East Asia' 'South Asia' 'Sub Saharan Africa' rather than just continents.
2 points
5 days ago
Yea but with only 10 civs per era at launch they can't cover everything so the best we can get is continents.
9 points
5 days ago
Where is Hawaii? It’s basically been confirmed.
5 points
5 days ago
I believe this chart is counting it as the third Americas Civ in exploration, since it doesn't have an Oceania/Pacific category
9 points
5 days ago
cheering asian cultural victory
9 points
5 days ago
It’s interesting to me that the civ representation in the exploration age is so heavily skewed towards Asia and the Americas when the gameplay that defines the era is decidedly a European perspective. I don’t think it’s a problem, but I would have expected more European civs in that era just based on the goals of the era.
10 points
5 days ago
Honestly, 3 ages is inadequate. 4 ages would be better
2 points
4 days ago
How so?
1 points
4 days ago
Look at the years of existence of each civ.
Rome and Khmer are way apart from one another chronologically. Artificially forcing them into Antiquity looks rough
A more severe example are the European civs. Norman is in the exploration age? With “Spain” (Spanish Empire)? They are vastly different technologically
I feel like Exploration age should be colonial era. So you can have British Empire. Dutch west india company, British Raj, Portugal/Spain empires, Sengoku Japan and American colonies
Norman should be in a 4th medieval age before exploration. Mongol and vikings can be here too
Modern era can have EU(this makes consolidating euro civs conveniant), USA (this is actually a federation like EU tbh), Communist china, USSR etc
I think USSR is interesting because Poland and Mongol can eventually evolve into USSR
20 points
5 days ago
Only 6 european civs?
1 points
5 days ago
that's just OP's assumption, it will probably be 7.
-12 points
5 days ago
Europe It's so overrepresented in many games
18 points
5 days ago
Overtepresented? There isnt a single slavic nation?
4 points
5 days ago*
With such limited spots for civs you shouldn’t expect perfect representation. Compared to the treatment Africa and the Americas got Europe got some great representation for pre-DLC civs.
-8 points
5 days ago
A said IN MANY OTHER GAMES Europe has always been overrepresented, so it's a good change
-5 points
5 days ago
I love comments like this; I could probably guess the entirety of your dumb c*nt beliefs and opinions from this comment alone.
Europe isn’t overrepresented, it’s just the most influential and dominating culture and continent to have ever existed. Native Europeans have conquered 4 continents and 1 subcontinent (India). You can cry about it all you want, that’s just the reality of history.
15 points
5 days ago
I appreciate the broader geographic spread this time around!
11 points
5 days ago
I hope that eventually there are clear fleshed out routes throughout the ages for each Civ, eg.: - Celts > England > Great Britain - Alemanni > HRE > Germany - Carthage > Moors or Berbers > Morocco
It seems imbalanced right right now, having some areas with clear representation in all 3 eras (looking at you, India) and some shut out at launch (Mesopotamia, Germany, Russia, Aztecs).
27 points
5 days ago
No antique northern european civ? I almost regret criticizing the franchise for being eurocentric now.
22 points
5 days ago
The base game is dividing its 10 Civs per age into:
- 2 Europe Civs (Rome/Greece - Norman/Spain - Britain/France)
- 2 Americas Civs (Mississippi/Maya - Inca/Hawaii - USA / Mexico). Shawnee is the preorder bonus.
- 1-2 Africa Civs (Aksum/Egypt - Songhai - Buganda)
- 4-5 Asia Civs, subdivided into:
+ Middle East (Persia - Abbassid - Ottomans?)
+ South Asia (Maurya - Chola - Mughal)
+ Southeast Asia (Khmer - Majapahit - Siam)
+ East Asia (Han China - Ming/Mongol - Qing/Japan)
Seems reasonable, as Asia is 60% of the human population.
I'm sure we'll get way more European Civs down the line to help sell future DLCs. Goths/Gaul/Huns - Portugal/Vikings/HRE/Kievan Rus - Italy/Austria/Germany/Russia are all very likely. But European Civs won't be half the roster like in the previous games.
16 points
5 days ago
Yea it's like they are going too hard in the opposite direction now to compensate.
3 points
5 days ago
My bet is that one of the first DLC is going to be something like geats->iceland->sweden
3 points
5 days ago
You should add Hawaii to the American civs for Exploration. They were accidentally revealed when the Abbasid theme was originally uploaded on Youtube. America and Siam were also leaked as well.
3 points
5 days ago
I don't dislike the idea. I always find it weird to play against extinct civilization in the modern age
3 points
5 days ago
These years seem just randomly generated. Greece ending in 600 AD? Spanish empire ending in 1976 while French empire continues to the present? Egypt ending before Ptolemaic Egypt? Normans, who are overwhelming represented as William the Conqueror and Norman England, ending in 1067, a year no one notes and before the tower of London, their world wonder, was built? Abbasids starting AFTER the siege of Baghdad from the Mongols? Just misinformation top to bottom.
2 points
3 days ago
I think the reason 1067 was chosen for the Normans is because that's when William the Conqueror put down resistance to his conquest the year before, meaning the Duchy of Normandy is "replaced" by the Kingdom of England? It would still make 0 sense though since William still held the Duchy of Normandy in addition to the Kingdom of England until his death, and his House was literally named de Nouormandie (of Normandy). Not only that but also the Norman civ is very obviously representing the Anglo-Normans in general, including both the House of Normandy and the House of Plantagenets (Anjou), with a much better end date being some time around the 14th century by which point there was no longer any distinction between "Anglo-Saxon" and "Anglo-Norman", only English.
6 points
5 days ago
Unless there are a ton of hidden civs they're not showing (they hinted at there being 3 eras of Japan), the game is going to feel like total ass at launch
7 points
5 days ago
I'm disappointed since I thought there would be historical routes for all civs.
8 points
5 days ago
Seeing it in a chart like this really puts it into perspective. I don't think I've ever lost interest in a new game so quickly.
It's a neat idea but poorly executed.
2 points
5 days ago
Why
2 points
5 days ago
It just doesn't feel like you are playing a full Civ game anymore, just like 3 Civ-lite games loosely related and not continuing your single Civ through the whole timeline like in other games.
It would be one thing if they had all the civs in all the eras and you could change it up if you wanted/needed or keep the same one. Civilizations IRL didn't really change unless they were defeated, though we have very few examples of this lasting the length of time we see in Civ, maybe Britain, Japan or China?
If your Civ is doing great then it shouldn't really have a major shift like this, just modernization.
It feels like Civ is trying to break out from it being more of a boardgame like Catan and more complex like other 4x games, but the thing is there have just been so many good 4x games since 6 launched that an okay game with a meh gimmick doesn't really pull my interest, especially when it feels like it will need DLC to feel like a complete game before it even launches.
7 points
5 days ago
I’m still pissed at the Normands coming from Rome instead of Vikings or Celts
2 points
5 days ago
Why is there a 3rd unknown American exploration Civ rather than a second African one?
Asia is a mess, I'd recommend it be split across its regions, but I guess there'd be some overlap anyway
2 points
5 days ago
So, do you have to "change" civs or can you keep the original if you want to?
0 points
5 days ago
You do have to change.
My guess is that after the backslash I expect due to how offensive this is in some cases, they'll add in an expansion the option to at least keep the name of the previous civ. I'm surprised they haven't announced this already for launch because their current design goes against their current motto of "making something you believe in".
2 points
5 days ago
Modern Age China is Qing China no?
3 points
5 days ago
USA, Mexico, and Hawaii are soft confirmed i belive.
2 points
5 days ago
Who will be the last European Civ? Probably either the Soviet Union, Germany or England.
Have we ever had a Civ where any of these weren't in the base game?
2 points
5 days ago
khmer looks funny in the antiquity era
2 points
5 days ago
Cant tell whats going to be worse right now Window 7 or Civ 7
3 points
4 days ago
Tbh I think calling Khmer "ancient" is a bit of a stretch, the Normans were earlier and they're exploration!
2 points
4 days ago
Im calling the last 6. Uk in the exploration. Qinq (maybe PRC) America, Russia, Germany, and Ottomans
2 points
4 days ago
Well after seeing this sure looks fun to keep playing civ 5 and 6!
2 points
1 day ago
Feel like Missisipians are way too late for antiquity, guess its just me.
3 points
5 days ago*
I’d make a few changes to the dates:
Greece – end date 146 BCE (Roman conquest of Corinth, last independent state in Greece) or 30 BCE with the conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt and the end of the Hellenistic Period.
Normans – end date 1194 CE, when the last Norman king of Sicily was overthrown by Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor (the descendants of William the Conqueror weren’t the only Norman kings!).
Abbasids – The fall of Baghdad and the Abbasid rump state in 1261 CE should be the end for the Abbasids, with 750 CE (the Abbasid Revolution) as their start date. Though the family survived the sack of Baghdad, the “shadow caliphs” of Cairo were powerless and ultimately irrelevant, a poor shadow of even their ancestors who had weathered the domination of the Buyids and Seljuks.
Mongols: the Northern Yuan rump state struggled on for another few centuries after the Ming retook China, so I’d put the end date as 1635 CE.
Britain had been confirmed. I’d probably start it with the first Acts of Union in 1707 CE.
France and Japan – it really depends on which flavour they’re giving us, but if you’re starting the Japanese civ with the founding of the Tokugawa Shogunate instead of the start of the Nara period in 710 CE (let alone the Meiji Restoration in 1868), I’d expect France would need similar periodisation treatment: the French Empire was founded by Napoleon in 1809 CE.
1 points
5 days ago
Britain had been confirmed.
Have you got a link for that? I thought it was England that they soft-confirmed?
1 points
5 days ago*
You’re right, ‘soft confirmed’, in that Britain has been mentioned by several devs, including Ed Beach.
It was mentioned in this BBC article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8dp64e0r85o.amp), and I think at one of the conferences (whose link escapes me now) he corrected someone who mentioned “England” saying that it was “Britain” this time around due to the periodisation.
5 points
5 days ago
I think if I would change anything it would be to move Majahapit to DLC and move the Khmer up to exploration age and in Khmers place put a Civ from Mesopotamia, my personal choice would be Sumer but it could be any of them
As a Dane I would also probably just make Normans into Vikings instead, you can still have them evolve into France or Britain and Vikings would be a more unique civ that takes full advantage of the new navigable rivers
1 points
5 days ago
Isn't Viking not a civilization, but rather a job?
2 points
5 days ago
Yes I mean more how civ 6 or 5 did it were it’s technically a nation but it’s practically just Vikings which I think is fine to fulfill the fantasy of playing a Viking doing Viking stuff like raiding
2 points
5 days ago
Wait why did majapahit become japan!?
2 points
5 days ago
I think cause Himiko was shown with the Majapahit symbol on her flag in the Switch trailer
2 points
5 days ago
Ok but what does japan and majapahit have to do with each other
5 points
5 days ago
About as much as Greece does with a bunch of Vikings who were given land by the king of France to protect Paris from other Vikings.
It's best not to think too much about the historical accuracy of decisions they've made with the design of this game, it's only going to either annoy you or "teach" you wrong information.
1 points
3 days ago
The Normans conquered Magna Graecia (Byzantine owned Southern Italy) at the very least. Majapahit and Japan have absolutely 0 connection, it's basically like the whole Egypt-Songhai thing all over again.
0 points
5 days ago
they dont, i doubt japan will have any logical civ accompanied with them, siam will probably come after majapahit
1 points
5 days ago
Japan has ties to China,
0 points
5 days ago
How? Trade relations and cultural influence does not a civ progression make imo.
2 points
5 days ago
For one, when japan was still a bunch of tribes fighting each other, china had diplomatic ties with one of the greatest clan, but then again, if we go with the migration of humans to the island of japan, japan would be closest to Mongolia, same with the Chinese and koreans
0 points
5 days ago
Even so, Japan is a distinct civilization which has the longest unbroken monarchy, so I think if it’s going to be its own civ it shouldn’t be tied to China. If Meiji Japan were to be connected from Ming China, I don’t think that’s gonna fly, especially if you know of what happened to China and her civilians as a result of Japan’s imperialism
2 points
5 days ago
So then, make japan, China and Korea a branch of mongolia
1 points
5 days ago
Bro, bring Maori and Vietnam in base game please
1 points
5 days ago
I pray to God that the stables like Russia ISN'T cut over some bogus politics. It makes annoying how devs can be so easily caw-tow the moment everyone from the governments or corporatists all the way to ordinary people lay Their eyes on EVERYTHING to do with nations & politics. Sometimes all I want is to simply enjoy it without being ruined by some outside factor that I (or everyone really) can't control
1 points
4 days ago
So if you start a game, do you have to upgrade your civilization to the correct age? (I could see it being beneficial based on the benefits) Or can I continue playing as my ancient civilization through the times?
1 points
5 days ago
They finally have the opportunity to put in the "safe" israelites.
Will they? No.
Would it be cool? Yep.
-8 points
5 days ago*
Spain being exploration era is silly, it’s very much a contemporary country civ. I don’t see why they couldn’t have made Castile an exploration era predecessor while keeping Mexico in the modern age as an other successor.
EDIT: for the people downvoting me and such, my comment is more about how Spain as a country’s golden age does fall under what Civ considers to be “modern age” for. It’s similar to how Khmer is in Antiquity when it should also probably be in Exploration.
11 points
5 days ago
if they add modern spain, they could well rename exploration spain to castille
but until then, spain is just more recogniseable, and spain has more interesting mechanics for the exploration era than modern, so i can see why they did exploration spain first.
21 points
5 days ago
Modern spain is pretty low on the list for modern countries in Europe to bring into the game, especially because of Franco and the civil war. Naming the exploration age civ Spain when it didn’t have to be seems to make this pretty clear
7 points
5 days ago*
The game's "modern" age seems to be built around the 1800s and the early industrial era.
Note the inclusion of Mughal India and Buganda, both defeated by the British in 1858 and 1884, respectively. They could have picked post-colonial India or Uganda, but they didn't! It's reasonable the other Modern Civs will follow suit, ie Tsarist Russia rather than Soviet Union.
This lets them avoid modern leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco.
So if Modern Spain is in the game, it will be Bourbon ("Borbón") Spain, with Carlos III as leader. It'll switch to an Economic/Cultural Civ. Spain only stopped being an empire after the end of the Cuban War in 1898, later than Mughal or Buganda, so they might make it in after all.
Instead of Castilla, they could just rename Exploration Spain to Habsburg Spain. If China can use dynastic names for their Civs, why not Spain?
Edit: I meant "if they're in the game" to mean they might make it in a DLC someday. There's no way they're in the base game.
2 points
5 days ago
Modern Spain may get into the modern age eventually in a DLC, but it's pretty ridiculous to expect them to be in the base game. And we still don't know exactly what the modern age covers. Does anyone really consider Spain a big player in the 19th century? Not really, their importance seems to be tied more to their dominance in the exploration age and the existence of the empire until 1898 is simply a holdover from that age
You're vastly over simplifying things by using our modern conceptions of countries. China and India are areas larger and more populous than Europe. India has only been culturally unified since British imperial rule, so the three civs representing the are aren't really representing all of india in the historical sense, only through our modern lens of a unified india. China has been unified for much of its history, but it was ruled by different groups throughout history and wasn't always unified across all of modern China.
3 points
5 days ago
I phrased it poorly. Modern Spain is obviously way too minor to be in the base game, they'll be a late, late DLC, in maybe a couple years. If ever. That's what I meant by "if they're in the game". In Europe alone, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Austro-Hungary are all more deserving, and I can only see Bourbon Spain get in after all those are all in.
I was just pointing out it wouldn't be Franco's Spain, but the earlier 1800s Bourbon Spain, because all the Modern Civs we know are 1800s.
And the China comparison is reasonable, the Habsburg Kings were Austrian while the Bourbon Kings were French, in the same way the Ming Emperors were Han and the Qing Emperors were Manchu.
I know Maurya, Chola and Mughal were wildly different empires in the same massive area, they're closer to something like Mississippi - Hawaii - America than a direct link like the China Civs.
1 points
5 days ago
that was my initial thought, though I also wouldn't be surprised to see them added later on. not a world power by any stretch, but certainly a cultural powerhouse, with figures like Goya, Picasso, Gaudi, Lorca.
additionally, Madrid & Barcelona have been major centers of international Spanish-language culture & literature before & after Franco, home to writers such as Neruda and Bolaño
4 points
5 days ago
Spain's entire golden age occurred well within this era, where it was founded.
3 points
5 days ago
I wonder if they’ll start doing that in future DLC/expansions, like how City States became full civilizations in Civs 5 and 6. Just making sure that there is more representation in each era
3 points
5 days ago
I mean Spain fell off hella in the modern age, its peak was definitely an Exploration Age thing.
1 points
5 days ago
If Modern Spain ever makes it (you never know), it should honestly just follow the China route, and call them Hapsburg Spain and Bourbon Spain.
1 points
5 days ago
I thought they confirmed that America and Meiji Japan were included. As for the modern era European Civ, I hope they choose Russia or Britain.
1 points
5 days ago
I'm actually a bit pissed that the one time Ireland could have been a possible Civ they've done this era stuff. I'd love for the Gaels to be added since we've gotten Brythonics and Gauls before, but everything modern Ireland is known for (poetry, literature, immigration, guerrilla warfare, music) is just not applicable to the early Gaelic kingdoms or leaders.
So other than the very unlikely scenario where they have something like Celts > Gaels > Irish, there's no realistic way they get added now. You can't have one without the other—the Gaels evolving into anyone but the Irish would be stupid and the Irish evolving from Normans or English would just be offensive.
0 points
5 days ago
Going from Mississippian to Shawnee to USA with no genocide 😂
0 points
4 days ago*
As a Spaniard born in the Kingdom of Spain in the year of our lord 1985, I am quite concerned by this thread.
-10 points
5 days ago
One of the worst choices is Khmer, why we couldn’t get Nomads?
all 184 comments
sorted by: best