So we got the probably final roster for Civ 7. What are you takes on this.
>>1896206>What are you takes on this.Upgrading between different civilizations with random leaders is the stupidest shit I can think of and I will not play this game.
>>1896206Here, I removed all the non-civilizations and non-leaders. There's still time to fix it firaxis!(they will not)
>>1896206Dead on arrival.
>>1896206why are chuddies so mad about benjamin?
>>1896259Because the US is flush with good leaders who haven't been used and instead we get a womanizer who was more at home in France.
>>1896220What's wrong with Maurya? They were a pretty big deal.
>>1896288They lasted less than 200 years and just ate some other smaller states who already existed. Absolute nothingburger.
>>1896293Smelliest poos burn brightest. I don't get the issue.
>>1896306They already get 3 civs, they get 10% of all civs in the fucking game.
>>1896206>can't keep playing as Rome or ancient/exploration civs in the modern era>only three eras, so we stay as the Mughals or Qing until the endThis isn't looking good
>>1896260>a womanizer who was more at home in Francedamn, based
what's this guys problem ?
>>1896338I really don't understand how they missed one of the key draws of Civ being that you get to take your civ into eras it never existed in. Although it seems to be worse than that, in interviews they seem to be aware of that but thought that letting you keep your leader was good enough. That just makes it even worse.
>>1896350Yeah, and the leaders are kinda boring without their Civ.I just hope Firaxis finds a way to allow the player to stay as one civ through the ages. I don't mind the culture based civ switch but forcing it to "evolve" is too much.
>>1896350What is extra stupid is that the civ bonuses are absolutely miniscule too. There is next to zero difference between them, which means that the choice is meaningless and circles back around to the question: Why did you do this?
>>1896396>bonuses are absolutely miniscule too.Have you even read the list of these bonuses? They actually seem much more substantial than in the previous games (with all those unique civics, buildings and improvements, civil and military units, adjacency and terrain bonuses for every civ) and I can already see the potential for some wild comboes, especially if you choose your leader correctly as well. It's confirmed that the game will require you to have multiple 40 yield tiles to achieve science victory in the Exploration age, this is actually insane to even think about all these yields the game will allow you to get if you play it correctly.
The more I learn about Civ 7 the less I want to play it.
Dropped Civ after 3 bros, we can’t stop winning
>>1896403I saw the initial reveal and they showed a civ that got like +1 food on two tile types and a granary type building. Absolutely snoring.
>>1896412Well, in every civ games there were civs that suck ass, nothing new there. Only actual experience with the game will tell what is op and what's not.
>>1896426A shame nobody will buy it to tell us.
>>1896432RP autists and "history" nerds are a minority.
>>1896440Yeah and people not in those categories who buy civ at launch are even fewer.
>>1896440kek didn't civ games used to have every major European culture?
>>1896206I was willing to give the civ switching a chance as long as you could have some logical paths to follow, say, Celts -> Kingdom of France -> Quebec/Canada or somehthing along those lines. You could have had potentially interesting trees with some civs sharing branches , like say Byzantines being an option for both Rome and Greece, or two same antiquity civs ending up as completely different by the end of the game. But this is just as schizo as humankind. I'd much rather have changing leaders that changing civ if we must change stuff for no reason.If I started the game as Rome why would I ever want to pick any of those exploration era choices? Rome into Inca — very cool! Lot's of upboats on reddit, I bet.
>>1896453>kek didn't civ games used to have every major European culture?I'm sure this game also will have them all by the end of its life cycle. For an additional 300$, kek>>1896461>like say Byzantines being an option for both Rome and Greece,It is like this right now tho. There won't be Byzantium at the release but in their Spain stream devs showed that both Greece and Rome could become Spain in the Antiquity age.>If I started the game as Rome why would I ever want to pick any of those exploration era choices? Rome into Inca — very cool! Because you spawned and spread in a highly mountainous terrain and want to use it to your advantage? Actually playing a competitive game instead of useless larp, you know.
>>1896206Mother of God, why would they do it like this? It's fine if they get experimental at times but this just turns it into a completely different game. Age exclusive leaders? What on earth were they thinking? Tons of these make no sense either. >>1896461 put it really well. In theory, your civilization evolving or splitting as a logical evolution tied to the actual civilization isn't bad but this is just silly. This is gonna be one of those games I pick up on Steam at a 95% discount after all DLC drop and still feel like I should've bought a burger for the same price instead.
>>1896476nayrt but I just don't like them radically changing a mechanic I like for no reason and turning it into an imitation of a different game that I had no interest in playing and I don't think there's any reason to get snarky about it. Entirely swapping out a core fundamental is definitely something questionable when it's worked fine with tweaks for decades.
>>1896453Gotta make room for 3 china civs, 3 india civs and a bunch of mesoamerican civs including one we know nothing about! Oh and throw out mesopotamia too, 'cradle of civilization'? Fuck that!
>>1896478>as a logical evolution tied to the actual civilizationWhat is the "logic" in becoming Abbasids as Egypt if you don't have a single desert tile in your empire's borders but it's situated on tropical islands somehow (anyone who actually plays civ games knows it can happen). There is your "logic"? I don't see it in this case.
>>1896480>when it's worked fine with tweaks for decades.Maybe this the answer? They probably reached a dead on how to further improve the old formula.>it into an imitation of a different gameFrom this illiterate statement I can tell that you play neither. Civ 7 has a lot more stuff from civs 5 and 6 than from Humankind. It's already noticeable.
>>1896206I live less than 1000 feet from Firaxis and they come in to my family's restaurant every day. What should I tell/ask them?
>>1896549tell them they're retarded for copying a failed game's mechanic and they should fire whoever made that decision.
>>1896493>Firaxis shill>Acts like a rude cunt for no reason Checks out.
It's like they assumed that Humankind would be a massive success and that they needed to copy it's mechanics for their game, and then Humankind was a massive flop but they were too deep in development to backtrack.
>>1896476>Because you spawned and spread in a highly mountainous terrain and want to use it to your advantage? Actually playing a competitive game instead of useless larp, you know.Then how about multiple choices of leaders upon age change then? Or any of the myriad of choices you already have available on civic or culture trees? This isn't a sound basis for such a schizo mechanic which undermines the very foundation of the whole game. Himankind is proof enough that "copetitivess" and isn't going to carry the game.
>>1896206>if you want to play as India you'll end up getting owned by Muslims or Brits no matter whatDamn, that's rough.
>>1896476>civ>competitive gameLOLThe LARP is what sells these types of games.
>>1896206>can play as China from start to finish>can play as India from start to finishI guess we know who the target audience are for this game.
>they changed game difficulty names cause gendered King, Prince, Emperor were too problematicyou cant make this shit up
>>1896564>Then how about multiple choices of leaders upon age change then?The thing is that unique units, buildings and the like have always been attached to civs, not leaders. And tying these attributes to leaders not only doesn't make sense overall, but we'll get the same problems as with civ switching anyway. Just imagine, I don't know, Jadwiga rules Vietnam with her winged hussars which is even more absurd.>Himankind is proof Shut up about this shit already. Slopkind was just a bad strategy game where devs somehow got every single aspect of the genre wrong, from combat to multiplayer. Remove civ switching from this game and it's still crap.>>1896582Civ has always been awful for larping. Every game session is so absurd that you need a very unique way of thinking to justify what is going in there. And if you were able to do this in the previous parts, then civ switching is much less of a problem.
>>1896585Shouldn't have let your cultural tradition to cease, LOSER.
>>1896585Don't worry, we'll get Celts and Germanic tribes as dlcs
> no akkadia> no macedonia> no assyriaWhat is this antiquity category even?
>>1896634We'll need some 30 civs per era to properly play this
>>1896602>jadwiga in vietnam???How about having Jadwiga as a choice for Poland alongside Casimir or Pilsudski or whoever, and having Vietnamese leaders for Vietnam? Changing leaders is far less schizo than changing the civ and you can have different bonuses attached to them without any issue.You are so weird and contradictory for arguing that civ-changing is ok, but at the same time saying that we can't tie unique stuff to leaders since unique units and building have always been attached to civs. What is your damage, my friend? Fucking multiplayer brainrot must be real. How would you feel like if you hadn't eaten breakfast today?When people think about why humankind failed then they won't be thinking about some civs were imbalanced for multiplayer or how some lacking qol made sessions bothersome or whatever your problems in mp were. Instead the vast majority will be mentioning the schizo civ-shuffling as the very first thing.
The most pathetic Civ roster to date. Thirty civs translates to only ten options per age. It's very obvious that they want Civ to become a paradox style DLC pipeline rather than a complete game.
>Firaxis doesn't frees the DLL to modders in VI>they 99% won't do it in VII>tfw large scale mod that nixes the civ swapping never ever
>>1896654I jumped in at IV on the last expansion and was blown away by how extensive the modding was. 5 was a disappointment after seeing what modders were once capable of. Having mods also block achievements, even basic UI ones, didn't help matters.
>>1896642>How about having Jadwiga as a choice for Poland alongside Casimir or Pilsudski or whoever, and having Vietnamese leaders for Vietnam?Well okay, in that case we'll just have a whole bunch of civs that won't have their leaders either for Antiquity or in Modernity, or in between because some of these either didn't exist back then or are dead.>Instead the vast majority will be mentioning the schizo civ-shuffling as the very first thing.Those who haven't played this game and know about it from memes surely will. But for me, the switching mechanic was the last thing worth complaining about. This game failed at the very basics of 4X games.
>Civ I-IV China was the CCP>In the Chinese version of III and IV, China was represented by Taizong of the Tang Dynasty>Civ II, V-VI, Wu Zetian, also Tang Dynasty> Qin Shi Huang (IV, VI), Qin Dynasty>Kublai Khan (VI), Yuan Dynasty> Yongle (VI), Ming DynastyOkay so in VII, China will be the Han dynasty, the peak of Chinese culture, so who's going to be the Chinese leader? Liu Bang, the peasant-turned-emperor? Han Wudi, the great conqueror? Maybe even Liu Bei as a more "popular" choice...FUCKING CONFUCIUS IS PICKED INSTEAD
>>1896649>The most pathetic Civ roster to date.Civ 6 had 19 at the release, lmao. And I have a feeling that civ 5 had even less than that.
>>1896663Imo they're focusing too much on the leaders and this goofy "personalities" stuff than the actual Civilisations
>>1896663Confucius is a much better choice than all those literally who emperors. All Chinese empires (except Qin) relied on his teaching and were organized accordingly.
Really no HRE or Germany? LmaoAlso no Italy or Ottomans, horrible list.
>>1896680They had to make space for titanical civs like Hawaii and Shawty and such
>>1896659The age thing hasn't been a problem for civ since the very beginning. Both Ghandi and Alex are iconic despite being from the relative opposite ends of the history depicted in the game. And anyway, I'd still argue that having decoupled leaders is less schizo than having decoupled civs.>basicsHistory and historicity have always been the foundational tenets of civ that make it distinctly civ and not just a 4x game optimized for multiplayer that just happens to have a historical paint over it, like say, Ozymandias. Schizo civ-swapping undermines this core immensly, swapping leaders less so.
>>1896685>Both Ghandi and Alex are iconic despite being from the relative opposite ends of the history depicted in the game.Yeah, because previously they represented their respective civ entire history. Now, with much deeper and more divisional eras you need to adapt leaders to the characteristics of these eras as well, much like in civ 7 civs seem to be adapted to the eras they exist in. How you're supposed to adapt, say, Washington to the Antiquity age is beyond me.>History and historicity have always been the foundational tenets of civWhat fucking "history", what "historicity"??? Do you really believe that Sumerians fighting their neighbor Japan in 1289 over who'll control the Pantanal while their neighbor Zulu is ready to finish Angkor Wat has anything to do with "historicity"? This is absurd by any margin. Civilization is a game with a historical flavor, not a historical game per se.
>>1896412there's much more than that tho. you gonna be able to see some only during gameplay in a culture overview tab or something and there are shits only your civ can specialise to
>>1896206What the fuck is Mississippi civ?
>>1896732>need to adapt leaders to erasNot neccessarily, as I already stated. In case of Washington you'd obviously have him either as an expansionist or a defensive military leader, contrasting, say, Franklin who'd be a science or culture/civic leader. Something along those lines.>"historicity"Now I'm questioning whether you have even played civ. Civ has alwaysed emphasized history and, yes, historicity. It's self-evident from having a civpedia in every game as well as having historical leaders with fitting characteristics and personality values. The unique stuff has always been more or less historical and tied to the civ and/or leader with recognisable logic, though obviously some examples have been more sound than other. It goes beyond, for example again, Ozymandias which has only a mere history-flavoured paint over a table-top 4x game core. You can also ompare civ units with Gothic Knights or Sherwood archers or whatever they were called from M2TW. It's readily apparent that historicity has been more important to Civ than RTW and M2TW. That you can't follow this simple reasoning makes me question the state of your mental faculties and the quality of basic education of whichever third-world shithole you reside in.
>>1896206I wish I could play as Parthia in civ
>>1896762https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=235685139
>>1896764Noice, thanks. Might reinstall Civ 5 for old times sake, too.It makes me wonder about the whole civ switching thing, gamewise Parthia could fit in the ancient Persian civ (even if they were a different Iranian people)
>>1896750they wuz Kangs and had anti gravity flying pyramids but whitey flu got them
>>1896589You're pulling my leg now, are they just going to remove every single thing they've put in every civ before?
>>189666419 > 10
>>1896750They built some mudhuts and we don't know what their language or culture were like. Great choice for a game about civilizations!
>>1896754>Not neccessarily, as I already stated.You shifted the goalpost. You haven't answered how you suppose to make leaders thematically fitting to each era they are in, but rather gave these leaders small unrelated bonuses and that's it. This undermines the very concept of eras itself and turns them into nothingburger again.>Civ has alwaysed emphasized history and, yes, historicity. It's self-evident from having a civpedia in every game as well as having historical leaders with fitting characteristics and personality values. The unique stuff has always been more or less historical and tied to the civ and/or leader with recognisable logic, though obviously some examples have been more sound than other.And this doesn't even make sense if we are talking about "historicity". Why does this "Japan " even exists in the first place if it lacks the fundamental cultural traits that shaped this country in the real world, such as its insular location, close ties to Korea and China, abundance of marine resource but lack of natural minerals, etc. In any civ session you can never get all these factors together and yet you are getting a representation of our world's Japan inspired by RL geography and history of this country. How could it develop all these uniquely Japanese traits in the middle of Pangea, surrounded by Zulu and Sumer and producing ivory as a main luxury resource? This is anything but "historicity"
no germans, no purchase
>>1896750https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_cultureSome North American Injuns were possibly in the early stages of developing something that may have ended up akin to Mesoamerican civilization. We need to be very impressed by this because otherwise that's racist.
>>1896869Germans are notorious civilisation-destroyers, not builders. You can pretend the barbarians are Germans.
>>1896898barbarians got removed.
>>1896350>Rome or China can't exist for thousands of years>but Ben Franklin canits all so stupid
>>1896941It's a shame Civ never made proper nomadic barbarian mechanics so we could interact with them, like paying off one tribe to attack your enemy as Byzantium did
>>1896944They sorta added that in VI with the barbarian game mode toggle, but it didn't work well.
>>1896869
>>1896951Now that's a well-trained kraut.
>>1896858>leaderaThats's ultimayely technical question that could be approached in many ways. How about having each civ have leaders for each of the victory paths, forcing you to choose from the same pool every era, but you can only use each one once. There's one idea.>japanAbstraction in games isn't all or nothing, it can be a gradient. The more you abstract mechanics away the more you lose context and relatability. Games by definition need a degree of abstracation, but going too far can create a disociation effect where you just end up clicking to make numbers go up. This is a pitfall eu4 fell into where instead of developing your nation you just click to make the number next to "development" button get bigger. Civ has always leaned into the context and relatability, hence all of the effort which has gone into the civs and leaders. Compare this to, say, Millenia where it's just a name and nothing else.You must literally have assburgers if this isn't obvious to you, but then again you are a mpfag.
>>1896963>How about having each civ have leaders for each of the victory paths, forcing you to choose from the same pool every era, but you can only use each one once.And how does this solve the problem of the lack of unique meta (bonuses, units, buildings and improvements) for ancient civs in modern era and for modern civs in ancient era? In no way, indeed.>Games by definition need a degree of abstracation, but going too far can create a disociation effectOh, now we are talking about abstractions, very well. But who decides what is "too far" and what's not? By that logic I can pretty much say that civs have always been abstractions as well. You start your game in a riverine terrain, so you are "Egypt" in the sense that it is a riverine civilization, but then you spread out into more mountainous terrain, gradually becoming a somewhat mountainous civ which is represented by "Inca" in the game. But no, apparently abstraction of Japan breeding elephants and selling ivory to Sumerians for their fur is a more believable thing according to you. Of course, you personally have the right to believe this nonsense but it is a hypocritical position for anyone who is unbiased enough.>Civ has always leaned into the context and relatability,A settler difficulty enjoyer, I see. If you don't play the game efficiently enough (i.e. don't make your abstract points getting bigger and bigger all the time) and choose to larp instead, then you'll find yourself getting rect by boosted AI pretty quickly on anything higher than king.
>>189685030 > 19
>>1896851> we don't know what their language or culture were likeNot true at all. The Natchez still exist today.
DOA./thread(it will still set a new sales record with plebs)
>>1897014You don't get 30 civs retard, you get 30 .3 of a civ.
>>1897060Objectively wrong. Civs in 7 are even more full-fledged than civs in previous games. Now all of them have their own unique civic trees, military and civil units, buildings, improvements and districts and even their cities and non-unique units are fully represent their cultures visually for the first time.
>>1897073bait used to be believable.
>>1897090I was just stating the facts, kid.
Remember how civ5 had multiple (more than 3) ages with different renditions of each civ specific music piece?
>>1897094oh, a leftist.
No gaul...
>>1897102No I don't, because it was in civ 6, actually.
>>1897134It wasn't, you're thinking of Civ5
>>1896206>HimikoThey straight up pulling myth figures now.Also why do some leaders have 2 versions?
>>1896206>two napoleonsgee mom
>>1897165>now.Since civ 4, newfag.
>>1896206It cannot be that low number.It would be a disaster.
>>1897179anon...
>>1897060All 30 of them have all of the features of civs from past civ games. In what sense exactly are they .3 of a civ?
>>1897102>>1897138Literally just not true. The Civ themes in 5 had peace and war variants but that was it. In 6 they got rid of war themes and instead have variations for Ancient/Medieval/Industrial/Atomic era.
>>1897186you get them for .3 of the game so they're .3 of a civ. If I wanna build a roman empire I can only do that for .3 of the game.
>>1897165You're confusing the Pimingo/卑弥呼 from the 3rd century Chinese record of a diplomatic expedition made by Cao Cao's Wei kingdom with Tenseu, later Amanderasu/天照, a mythical we-wuz of the Japanese Imperial family from the 8th century.
>>1896206not a single one of those exploration age civs seem remotely interesting. jesus.
>>1897198You can play a full game with China and India. Just stop being a stereotypical strategy nerd and play something other than Rome for once in your life.
>>1897198>pick rome in civ 3/4/5/6>get some uus and ubs that are only relevant in ancient/classical era and become essentially a generic civ from medieval era onwards>pick rome in civ 7>get some uus and ubs that are only relevant in ancient/classical era and then get to pick another civ with medieval-era bonuses to play in medieval eraHow is this not an improvement?
>>1896669Jesus is a much better choice than all those literally who Europeans. All European nations relied on his teaching and were organized accordingly.
>>1897295Jesus didn't exist.
>>1897310Neither did Confucius, nor Dido nor Amaterasu for that matter. Hasn't stopped them before, why should it factor in now?
>>1897318>Neither did ConfuciusLol, lmao even. There is nothing in Confucius' biography to indicate that he didn't exist.
>>1896206why were there never Jews in this game?
>>1897351Venice had a Jewish leader in 5.
>>1897351There's no mechanic to expel them from civ to civ
>>1897351The real answer is that it'd be way too controversial because of Israel. Same reason we've never had a Serbian or Croatian civ.
>>1896206Wait a minute, Russia's not on this list.Damn
>>1897396There's screenshots of T-34s in battle, so maybe they're in. Or in a dlc alongside Germany, because y'know, Buganda had to be in
>>1897351judaism has been in at least 3 of them. It turns out the jews haven't had a nation in a place and time that they didn't usurp the land from their neighbors(who eventually get rid of them) so it's easier to just not include a jewish state.
>>1897310ummm sweetiehttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/jesus-christ-shroud-of-turin-b2601565.html
>>1897351corruption was a hugely impactful mechanic in civ 3
>>1896206I wonder what civ evolves into Hawaii, they really have nothing at all in common with anything in the first age, nothing from the same continent or even a vague historical connection. Maybe they won't have any associated civ and you can only unlock them via having a bunch of coastal cities or something?
>>1897565Or having many cities on small islands
>>1897565egypt and mississippi
>>1897565>and you can only unlock them via having a bunch of coastal cities or something?Yes. Your geographic location and available resources unlock civs as well. They showed this on Mongolia, where you need access to 3 horse resources to unlock it. Similarly, we already know that you can unlock Abbasids by having enough camels and desert tiles in your empire's borders.
>>1896206My guess is the last civ will be Ottomans or maybe Morocco or a modern-age Egypt/Iran, Modern age is the only one missing a Middle Eastern civ.
>>1896206There's only 10 to choose from at the start? Man, if their mid-game and late-game balancing is garbage none of the other 20 will even matter for the average player. That's quite the risk from a game design perspective.>Maybe they will make mid-game and late-game take 2 hours to get to so people can't refund.
>>1897688The whole point of the civ switching feature is better balance so that early-age civs don't snowball the game.
>>1896206Not playing it/10But if someone mods Ben Franklin into Chris Chan then I will pirate it for the shiggles.
>>1897375That's also because slavs aren't civilised.
>>1897690Which already worked fine. Warlike civs are warlike, science civs make science. Of course gilgamesh is gonna do better in ancient era and sejong better the longer the game goes. Dicing everything into thirds means they will be even less impactful.
>>1897774The problem is that because of how the game works bonuses that you get in the early game are way, way stronger than bonuses that you get in the late game, because those early game bonuses allow you to snowball. Why play America when in most games the result is already decided by the end of Medieval? Those unique planes and modern-era buildings may as well not exist because they'll almost never be relevant, but if you play a civ like Egypt or Rome you'll get use out of your Chariots and Legionaries every single game.With the civ 7 system this is no longer an issue because you will always be playing a civ who is balanced around the current era.
>>1897821The way to balance it out is to give late game civs meaningful game-long abilities that they can lean into until their units come online. Manifest Destiny, for example, should allow America to expand like a motherfucker in every era.
>>1897821Weren't some of the strongest civs in 5 mid-late game focused anyway?Yeah sure setting up next to monty and genghis probably meant a hell of a fight if not game over, but not spawning next to super early aggressors just meant you could set up a snowball yourself. Part of babylon's strength for instance was being science centric to snowball while having a UU and UB to survive the early game.
We need way more civs, there's too many classics left out
>>1897864>there's too many classics left outIt was always like this at the release (well, at least in 5 and 6) But yeah. not having Russia and Germany from the start is unprecedented.
>>1897867>not having Russia and Germany from the start is unprecedentedI'll miss them, they're two of my favorite civs to play
>>1897090> each civ has at least 1 unique building and a smattering of unique great people> on top they have other typical bonuses pertaining to the tile bonuses> the leader is a vessel to apply bonuses that apply across all ages> civic policies for each civ you choose stay with you into new ages> each age, you’ll be working towards new goals while unlocking new buildings to replace the old buildings from the previous age> this stacks and you are expected to reach 20-40 yields on tiles based on strategic placementsYou neigh-sayers are humourous. While you hate things before you even play it, I’ll be happily playing with friends. The worst part is that modding will probably be heavily locked down like the last few civ games hence why they dodged modding questions in their livestreams. I miss renaming Judaism to Parasitism. But more to the point, civs are now always relevant within an age instead of a civ being interesting only when their UU or UB goes online and then fizzles back to being generic civ playing. I find it hard to see why people are so fucking infuriated without even playing it. We all know Firaxis has gone full woke for a while. They literally made a DLC for Civ6 that was “ocean levels rising is inevitable so build those ocean walls or you’ll drown.” They also were trying to highlight lesser known cultures to “give them visibility”.
>>1897991>They literally made a DLC for Civ6 that was “ocean levels rising is inevitable so build those ocean walls or you’ll drown.”Global warming is in since Civ 1
>>1897991There's nothing "woke" about environmentalism you've just been psyoped by big oil into fighting against your own self-interest.
>>1896206>Antiquity>Khmer>Exploration>Norman...?Why is Exploration not a part of Modern?Who the fuck is Buganda? Is that a racist dogwhistle?>Before the arrival of Europeans in the region, Buganda was an expanding, "embryonic empire". It built fleets of war canoes from the 1840s to take control of Lake Victoria and the surrounding regions and subjugated several weaker peoples. These subject peoples were then exploited for cheap labor.>embryonic empire>fleets of war canoesLOL>the parliament of Buganda, declared independence on 8 October 1960 and requested that the British protectorate be terminated.>declared independence, then requested Britain to agreeLMAOGreater Buganda is smaller than Sicily. The Romans would have genocided them and not bothered writing about it. I can't tell if it's an insult or a joke that they're in the same game list as Romans, Mongols, the Spanish, and literally fucking who "First Nation" nomads and cannibals. Only history's greatest conquerors and giants should be in a Civ game.>>1896338>can't keep playing as RomeMakes me think of Humankind. If you take out politically acceptable regimes, you wind up needing to insert modern ones and modern Italy, even if not Mussolini's, is completely unacceptable, despite being far less genocidal, slaving, and well everything else the Romans did that's not really worth saying when comparing to their mass genocides.>>1896942What makes you think Rome or China could last for a thousand years? That sounds really stupid.
>>1898056This Firaxis guy explained the civ-age thing as pic rel. I kinda see where they're coming from, but it is still weird in some aspectsAlso>CEYikes
>>1898013climate change is caused by:>drydocks>laboratories (but not the internet)>nuclear weapons>nuclear power plants>large populations created thanks to hospitals and modern medicinewot climate change does:>trees die>grassland becomes marginal land>marginal land becomes the sahara desert>coasts become swamps ???>coasts become floodedhow to avoid:>more trees>mass transit (trains and buses don't emit CO2)>recycling>solar and wind power>science will remove CO2 somehowAs a game mechanic, it's... underdeveloped and a holdover from the first game. It makes sense that you'd want to throw a wrench into the works for higher level play that exploits the game better with more snowballing, but the fact that it affects everyone equally and therefore is an argument to lean into polluting rather than avoiding it, is peculiar, which hasn't changed in any game at all.>>1898031>There's nothing "woke" about environmentalismIt's supported by the same people who support "woke" things. It's a virtuous pursuit. It's for the rich to signal they're doing something right... when they're actually doing the opposite behind closed doors. It's a drum middle men retailers and the media bang to scare you. It's something only the west cares about.Why isn't that woke?
>>1898115I've never played Civ 6 because they botched movement so incredibly badly in an incredibly basic way that it shattered my belief that the game could ever be any good. Does the game really have nuclear weapons and power plants cause climate change? Because that might be the most insanely ignorant thing I've ever heard.
>>1897991ok CHUD
>>1898172>they botched movement so incredibly badly in an incredibly basic way that it shattered my belief that the game could ever be any good.wonder what can that possibly mean
>>1898115>because rich hypocrites are hypocrites you shouldn't do the right thing Actual subhuman logic
>>1898172nuclear weapons have caused climate change since at least 2 dude.
>>1898082>CE>They have been promoted as more sensitive to non-Christians by not referring to Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, especially via the religious terms "Christ" and Dominus ("Lord") used by the other abbreviations.I feel like the people asking for this the least are the atheists.
>>1898214What is the Right Thing™, anon?
>>1898225But what about power plants? It should be clean energy. Nuclear weapons causing climate change is just the nuclear winter meme which is about as old as nukes themselves.>>1898272And who do you think asks for it, Muslims? Anglicans? It's atheist Jews who push this stuff. They don't even write + in Israel because it will forever remind them.
>>1898298https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Nuclear_Plant_(Civ2)EffectIncreases Factory output by 50%.Cleaner than Power Plant (same as Hydro Plant)Risk of Nuclear Meltdown unless civilization has discovered Fusion Power.
>>1898115>It's supported by the same people who support "woke" things. Hitler drank water.
>>1896206This game needed at least twice as many civs for this idea to work. But the concept is already naturally flawed as Humankind showed.
>>1898329I don't find the civ switching that bad, but I agree, there must be many more civs. I did a mini list myself just for autistic fun and imo the correct amount of civs for the game should be, at least, 25-30 for each era.
>>1898172>botched movementYeah it's really awful.>Does the game really have nuclear weapons and power plants cause climate change?Nukes have always caused climate change... except in Civ6.Nuclear power plants I think only did on meltdown but in Civ6 they always contribute to climate change, though it's negligible. The big problem is that you need to risk meltdowns to use nuclear power properly in game, which is weird given the message of the DLC.
>>1898357Same lmaoPost yours, maybe modders will make it a reality
nothings says modern age more than huts made of shit
>>1896338Yeah they need to add a mechanic where civs can continue into the next age maybe with a debuff like no unique unit. Especially if they're concerned about about colonialism and erasure of indigenous people.
>>1898326And look how he turned out, he shot Hitler.
>>1898375Hah, you are relying too much on modders, where is the DLL then
>>1896206Once again there is a SEVERE lack of representation of BIPoC civilizations.Honestly, I find it disgusting and inexcusable at this point. They cannot claim ignorance and they have a RESPONSIBILITY as a major game publisher to present a whole and diverse array of civilizations.This is outright ERASURE of cultures and histories just so we can have another copy and paste Greece or Rome. Everyone is bored of these stale European factions anyway can we please get something interesting like the Eora nation which we have not seen before?
>>1898583At least put some effort in.
>>1898583Ancient Greece and Rome are BIPoC though?
>>1896206Where's Harriet tub man?
>>1896338Literally the mechanic from Humankind but somehow worse
>>1898705It's nothing like Humankind, the mechanics are totally different.
>>1898708Yeah, they're even worse lmao, humankind at least let you stay as the civ
>>1898400I don't know how to make a dll but here's mine so far.Green is for existing civsYellow I changed the era or nameRed I removed
>>1898954
>>1898718Why would you want to stay as an ancient age civ in the medieval age?
>>1898974Because rome is eternal
>>1898955Good one, but for Iran I'd keep Persia for the name to encompass all Iranian dynasties, and for Mongolia maybe add the Hsiong-nu as an ancient alternative.Also Japan could have an ancient civ as the Yamato, but for an exploration civ I'd would not know what to call them besides, well, Japan
>>1899373Maybe the shogunate ?
>>1898974People don't want to abandon their civs for an unrelated one. I think it's ok if every civ has a cultural successor option but most don't.I don't know why firaxis didn't just have large overarching civs where you change between states by era. Take a Mexica civ for an example with Olmecs/Maya, Aztec/Tlaxcal Mexican Empire/Republic as States you can switch between.Or German you can have Saxony/Suebians, Hre/Hanseatic league, Prussia/Austria.Italian: Rome Republic/Empire, Venice/Papal, Piedmont/two siciliesJust seems like a more fun and historical way to do civ switching
>>1901800>I think it's ok if every civ has a cultural successor option but most don't.Yeah I went from "this is an awful idea" after the reveal to "actually this could really work" when they showed the India line and the Chinese line. Now we've seen they are the only ones with reasonable paths. Can't wait for them to turn this into DLC bait with tiny nation packs.
>>1901046I thought of it, but wouldn't it sound more like a system of government than a country? But at least it fits to leave (modern) Japan for last>>1901800My thoughts exactly
>>1901803One of the devs did say modders will do the rest on account for civ paths and that the modding scene will largely be like past games which gives me a lot of optimism.
>>1901850I'm sure they'll say that and still make modding as hard as they possible can to sell DLC. I don't remember Civ6 having a very healthy mod scene. I could be wrong though, can't say I've looked in years.
>>1901855I feel like Civ 6 had a much healthier scene than 5. Still nothing compared to 4 of course.
>>1896206Civilization is my favourite game series ever but holy shit I might not even but Civ VII
>>1896259Because he wasn't actually a leader. Not even in a defacto or co-rulership sense. It would be like making Potemkin the ruler of Russia or Francis Drake as the ruler of Elizabethan England.
>>1902359>It would be like making Potemkin the ruler of Russia or Francis Drake as the ruler of Elizabethan England.Not at all. Franklin was never president but he was still a Founding Father and massively influential in the politics and culture of the US, he's on the money for a reason. Potemkin and Francis Drake were just a general and a navigator, the real equivalent is Gandhi being the leader of India in every game despite never actually being the head of state. Do you think that's a problem too?
>>1902384This>>1902359Reminder that the USA had no Head of State until 10 years after the revolution. Franklin was an original member of the Continental Congress, was part of the committee that drafted the declaration of independence, ambassador that secured the crucial support of the French and negotiated the end of the war for the Americans. He was as much a leader as Washington and was much more involved in decision making.
>>1902384>Potemkin and Francis Drake were just a general and a navigator,Potemkin wasn't "just a general" tho. He actively participated in the governance of the state and actually organized the development of the new territories conquered from Ottomans, which proved to be quite successful. If anything, there is a theory that he might have been the de facto ruler, because after his death Catherine's rule took a very unpleasant and unproductive turn. So Potemkin as the ruler of Russia would be quite fresh, actually.
>>1902449I'd like Elisabeth Petrovna for a new Russian female ruler
>>1902452I'd like to get Russia as a civ first of all, lmao.
>>1902462Kek same. But I think Firaxis will cuck out and leave Russia as dlc, unfortunately
>>1902473Firaxis has the opportunity to meme with the Kyivan Rus into Russia play.
So no Sengoku era Japan just Meiji era?
>>1902495Lul that'd be extremely based. I'd like to play as Scythia - Rus' - Russia, it could be an excellent cavalry power combo
>>1902499At least on release, yeah. Maybe in the DLCs.
>>1898974gaul is mother to us all
NO AZTEC NO PLAY
>spend thousands of in-game years building up a thriving civilization, a beacon of culture and science>SORRY CHUD, YOUR EMPIRE IS IN A CRISIS>SOMEONE ELSE TAKES YOUR PLACE NOWwhat were they smoking
>>1902495>>1902504you will be playing as Alania > Rus > Kazakhstan and you will like it
>>1902689Oh right no body here is talking about the equalization mechanic
>>1902689They should go even further and go with a complete and utter collapse.All towns destroyed, all cities back to 1 pop. The beginning of the exploration age should be fighting barbarians (independent powers) over a sea of ruins that was once your mighty civilization.
>>1898955wait, there was a cholera india?
>>1896206>Modern Age!>Will you pick the British Empire?>Perhaps France, the US or the ascendant Meiji Japan?>Or will you pick BUGANDA, known for their beautiful large straw huts?I just don't get it.Is it mockery?
>>1903869You mean liberalism. Leftists understand the faux representation of the corporate liberal is inherently counterproductive
*leftist liberalism
>>1896206How can some of these support TEN (10) great people?
>>1903887>>1903869It's just capitalism that reinvents itself to get more money from the (non)issues of the day, like pink money and shit
>>1903887His description of leftism still applies.
>>1907140Great people are a mechanic unique to specific civs, some civs just won't have any.https://youtu.be/JjUdkPW3zLg?t=4499
No Germany? No buy. Simple as.I'm sure all the thirdies will buy it and save Firaxis as a company. Except they all pirate their shit and then it's "evil whites" fault for being nazis when the devs have to give blowjobs behind a trainstation during unemployment.
>>1914157>I'm sure all the thirdies will buy it and save Firaxis as a companySave them from what? Firaxis is doing extremely well and Civ 6 sells gangbusters (which is why they keep making fucking DLC for it) and there's no reason to believe that 7 won't also be extremely succesful. 6 was also very "woke" with retards like you complaining about the civ and leader choices constantly yet consumers evidently didn't care.
>>1914157Germany was never a historical civilization, it's an artificial concept created by ethno-nationalists in the 19th century that led to two world wars and the genocide of innocent Jews. It doesn't deserve to be in a video game.
>>1897867Monty/Aztecs is out for the first time in series history. He was my favorite civ not only to play in 4-6 but also to have in games because I love aggressive tards like him and Miriam in SMAC.
>>1914166>Monty is out because early game aggression is now verboten
>>1914163>A nation state is not a real countryBut I'm sure "America" totally is a valid civilization, or modern China that tries to eliminate all ties to Han culture.Guess I'll have to play as the *checks chart* Mughals for the modern age.Fuck outta here retard and stay gone.
>>1914171America has never committed any warcrimes and was never founded on ethno-nationalist garbage.
>>1914162I never complained about "woke" DLC leaders that got added later for variety. The base game had all the important civilizations in it. See you back when civ 7 releases and the playerbase drops by 90% after one week with the devs releasing patch notes in mandarin.
>>1914173Uh hu. Go be retarded somewhere else.
>>1898955Who Nok>Saudeleur>Puebloans chads here? Or Maya>Papal State>Iran? Truly the civs that stand the transition of time.
>>1896206Is Britain confirmed? They dropped England as a civ?
I haven’t played Civ since 3 but this looks like absolute dogshit
Final nail in the coffin.
>>1898056>What makes you think China could last for a thousand years?Actual history, retard.
>>1914171>modern China that tries to eliminate all ties to Han culture.Who the fuck told you that? It's not true, the Cultural Revolution ended several decades ago and is now largely regarded as a colossal mistake even by the CCP.
>>1915160Did some retarded jeet misspelled Harry Truman's name and other jeets just coded this into existence by accident wtf
>>1914204The Maya, Papal State, and modern Iran are unironically important in their respective eras. The others were ancestors of important groups. That anon was trying to make continuous cultural progressions instead of random flipping.
Nothing about the new design makes sense unless you realize it's a pretext to shove as many minority leaders as possible. They are scraping the bottom of the DEI barrel to promote total nobodies while actual civs will miss the official release. They must think that playing as the same leader from start to finish is heckin' problematic.
you think they would still change course and bring back the old leaders as DLC once this base game doesn't do well
>>1896220>>1896221>>1896260>>1896293I'm really weary of the low-IQ racism and especially with regards to video games and especially with regards to ALTERNATE HISTORY.Leave 4chan and never come back.
>>1915184Can you show me the part of actual history where China has remained united for more than 200 years at a time?
>>1915193no this is deliberate DEI
>>1915320okhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_dynastyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynastyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Weihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynastyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liao_dynastyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynastyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynastyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty
>>1915321>American history is now DEILet me guess, you think the Abraham Lincoln and the Union are "woke".
>>1914166Aztecs weren't in Civ 6 vanilla, they were the first DLC released a few months later.
>>1915357>>1915305>illiterate slave is on par with the wartime leader of the conflictShe worked with the Underground to save 70 slaves. That's the long and the short of what she did. It's an achievement, but she wasn't the only one in the organization. Tubman is like Parks- she's a historical mascot who's promoted because she's establishment approved and a woman.Frederick Douglas and Dubois were actual leaders who had a major influence on the political zeitgeist. But they're not as kosher to the left-wing narrative in general and to the American establishment in particular. John Brown was an actual catalyst for the civil war, but he's never taught because he led an armed insurrection against the government and that's a big no-no. We don't want the proles to think they might take up arms and fight for their rights. But you're just a disingenuous nigger faggot who's baiting, at best, or shilling for slop.
>>1915322Most of these are cliques or fragments of china dude. You can just admit you're stupid and not keep digging your hole deeper.
>>1896206Niggas concerned with DEI shit while this game only got worse each new version, same bland shit and no cool new ideas they had back on call to power or alpha centauri
>>1915367> Tubman is like Parks- she's a historical mascotLeaders exist in civ to be historical mascots. That's their entire purpose, it's why we've had Gandhi in every single game and very rarely any of the actual historical rulers of India. What's the problem?
>>1915386>and very rarely any of the actual historical rulers of IndiaThats because picking a historical leader like Akbar or Victoria would piss off the jeets who work on the game.
>>1915386nice try firaxis, you can't gaslight us that easily.
>>1898056>Why is Exploration not a part of Modern?They just took the eras and paired them off to form ages>Antiguity is Ancient + Classical>Exploration is Medieval + Renaissance>Modern is Industrial + Modern>They'll probably have a fourth age DLC with Atomic + InformationAs vehemently as firaxis will deny eurocentrism, transitions are obviously based on the fall of Rome and the Age of Revolutions, with other civs being assigned their eras based on a stretched analogy of their regions' histories to these events.While this game is making it more obvious, that sort of shoehorning did arguably happen in earlier games. For example, the Aztecs' Eagle Warriors are an ancient unit even though the Aztec Empire was founded 300 years after Oxford University.
>>1915193Don't blame the Poos. This entire DEI stuff is literally, unequivocally, USA's doing
>>1915397They are literally historical mascots, they're cartoon characters. They exist to give a face and a personality to the AI.
>>1915398>Modern is Industrial + Modern>They'll probably have a fourth age DLC with Atomic + InformationPretty sure modern just covers the whole endgame. Adding a fourth age makes no sense with how the civ switching works, there wouldn't be any Information age countries to switch into since it's essentially all the same shit as Modern.
>>1915412R*ddit says one of the devs mentioned in the livestream that the modernmn age is meant to cut off around the 1950's, and devs are planning to add contemporary stuff post launch.I wouldn't be surprised if they just didn't switch civs, considering the current lineup would force them to add civs like the PRC and USSR which they've avoided in the past couple games.
>>1915416They've avoided adding Stalin or Mao, I don't see any reason why they would avoid the USSR/PRC entirely.
>>1915386Gandhi was a leader of the free India movement and heralded as something akin to a saint or even deity among Indian nationalists today. I don't think he's a great choice, but at least he has legs and international fame and acclaim. Civ has had a lot of questionable leaders and civilization picks in the past, but that doesn't mean I have to like it in the present.Civ I>The Zulu in general>GandhiCiv II>every female leader except for Maria Theresa, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, maybe Cleopatra, and Isabella>special mention to Dido, a literary figure, and Amaterasu, the mother goddess of Shinto>Zulu get grandfathered inCiv III>Hiawatha>Gilgamesh, a legendary figure who may or may not have existed>Joan of Arc, patron Saint of FranceFor all it's other flaws, Civ III has a really historically relevant roster of civilizations and leaders. Joan of Arc is easily the most questionable on the list, but Gilgamesh is excusable because there aren't many better options.Civ IV>Boudica, led an unsuccessful slave revolt that was basically a blip in the Roman histories>De Gaulle, leader of the French undergroundHeroic individual, but not much actual impact. His greatest achievement was giving France some relevancy leading up to the end of the war. I think he was included so they could have all of the "good guy" leaders of World War II in the game- note the conspicuous absence of a certain Austrian Painter or Japanese Emperor.>Gilgamesh, again>The Native Americans in generalSitting Bull isn't a bad choice but the Native Americans as one political unit is a bafflingly stupid choice. Civ III at least acknowledged the Sioux and Iroquois so going back to this is just very weird. Aside from that, Civ IV's biggest problems are weird unit placements (Keshik come in the classical era) and really bad names (Praetorians for Rome).
>>1915421Civ V>Dido, yet again>Askia and the Songhai in generalCulturally irrelevant warmongering squatters, probably included to try to get some more African representation.>Maria I, an utter incompetent more well known for presiding over the downfall of Portugal's relevance than anythingAnother really solid block. Haile is borderline, but he was both the last emperor of Ethiopia and managed to bloody Italy's nose pretty badly.Civ VI>The Nubians in generalNubians have basically zero relevance. They were basically a kingdom to the south of Egypt that was known to be backwards and a source of slaves.>Gorgo is highly questionable, but at least has some historical value due to how Sparta operated>Cleopatra is borderline, again>Dido, yet another fucking time>Australia, CanadaCome on, they're still part of the Commonwealth. Yes, they're technically separate countries, but why does Britain get to have three slots?>ScotlandCome the fuck on>KristinaFascinating historical figure who I love on a personal level, but an absolute trashfire leader. Holy shit, she took literally everything her father accomplished and dumpstered it. Probably the best example of what fatherless behavior looks like in history.>Lady Six Sky- nice character model, completely irrelevant individual who was only rediscovered in the 1960s>Ludwig II is borderline, but at least he's a German leader who isn't a warmonger>Nzinga MbandeKongo is a solid addition. They were a peaceful, prosperous civilization that was utterly wrecked by the slave trade which the state actively tried to suppress, but they really can't support more than one leader.>WilhelminaOnly relevant for passively supporting the Dutch resistance- for what little that's worth. Like De Gaulle, only ten times worse.>TomyrisAnother semi-legendary figure, might be an outright fabrication. Mostly recorded through Herotodus and his Histories.
>>1915421>>1915423Overall, Civ VI is the worst of the lot with a ton of really questionable or outright terrible choices driven more by idpol and a need to sell DLC than anything. Some of the leader choices in the game are really good- like Basil II or Jadwiga- but a lot of them are scraping the barrel for female representation. Firaxis's obsession with adding Dido to their games is baffling but it might be because Sid is a Romaboo. Civ III and Civ V are the two games that are tightest on historical value with Civ IV and VI being the ones with the most inaccuracies. Of course, Civ VII is set to blow them both out of the water and I look forward to seeing it bomb.
when i was a teen i hoped that one day a civ game would have my europoor nation in it. I hated 6 but I did like how many different civs it ended up having and some of the literal whos made me hope again. Now I get this shit. Fuck this man, I'm done.
>>1915424>Civ VI is the worst of the lotSo far!
>>1915366I believe they were initially a pre-purchaise bonus civ just like Shawnee in civ 7.
>>1915421>>1915423>>1915424I just don't understand why it matters that every leader isn't Napoleon or Julius Caesar tier. There are plenty of other interesting characters in history, there's no reason Civ needs to just be a list of all the most influential and powerful people. The same goes for the civ picks themselves, are Scotland, Mapuche, or Zulu on the same level of historical importance as China, France, or Arabia? Obviously not, but why does that matter? They're fun and interesting to play with, it's a video game.>>1915451If I remember correctly the DLC was a pre-order bonus but it wasn't actually released until a few months after.
>>1898272CE just means Christ Era and they won't convince me otherwise
>>1915427What nation?
>>1915464>>1915464Not ever leader needs to be an Augustus Victoria, but they do need to be a well known representative of their home nation/culture. For example, Kristina is among the absolute worst because of how she basically sabotaged everything her father ever accomplished and doomed Sweden to international irrelevancy. She's a slap in the face to everyone who values the culture as something other than SWEDEN YES. Dido is a similar problem- they skip over Hannibal, both statesman and general, in order to add a literary figure. I make no bones about the enlightened despot Maria Theresa or the good emperor Trajan. They might not be the absolute pinnacle of leadership, but they both have massive cultural and historical relevancy to their home cultures. Even Montezuma, a flash in the pan, is important to the development and culture of Latin America.Now look at the current line up. Aside from moving away from actual leaders, many of them are barely culturally relevant in the culture they hail from. Confucius, Franklin, and Machiavelli- yes, they're well known and massively important everywhere. But Japanese students don't know who Himiko is, let alone anyone from outside of the country. Trung Trac is similar- maybe some Vietnamese know her, but she's basically completely irrelevant unless you're a history buff or a member of the Viet Cong. Amina? Leader of an African city-state who, yes, led some very successful campaigns. But outside of maybe Nigeria, nobody has ever heard of her. The only information I can find about her is linked to feminist and afro-centrist propaganda. Then we get Tubman, who accomplished something but is unknown outside of America and irrelevant except when the powers that be want to replace white figures. On top of that, it looks like Napoleon, Ashoka, and Xerxes are double dipping, which limits the pool of leaders to choose from. It strikes me as a cost cutting/DLC making measure.
>>1915464On the topic of nations, I like variety and the more of it the better. However, Bugunda is... it's almost a joke of a nation. It's like having Belgium, but with even less relevance. At least Belgium was the opening gambit to two world wars. At least Belgium is the bureaucratic home of the EU. At least Belgium is renowned for chocolate and cutting off people's hands. Mississippi are similarly problematic- there's no written record and very little archaeological support. This is like adding the Olmec but with even less to support them. And look- the Songhai are back again!Aside from being nations basically nobody cares about other than diversity hires, they're coming at the cost of Civs that are the cornerstones of human history. Where's Germany/Prussia, the little polity that could? The nation that is at the center of the second world war? Where is Russia, one half of the Cold War equation? No, seriously, where the fuck is Russia, there isn't even Kiev. Why is Modern China the Qing? Sure, stick a thumb in the eye of the CCP, but that's the entity that's relevant. People would be willing to tolerate Siam or the Shawnee if those core components were in the game, but they aren't so people won't.Also, if we're expanding the definition of leaders, why aren't we including more, you know, relevant figures? Where's St. Paul the Apostle, the man who brought the word of Christ to the gentiles and changed the world? Where's Christopher Columbus, discoverer of the New World and harbinger of the Columbian Exchange? Fuck it, where's Karl Marx, the man who wrote a book that ruined half of Europe? Why not John Snow or Louis Pasteur? Their work has saved more lives than almost anyone else in mankind's history.
>>1896206>Confirmed (DLC)The game's not even fucking out yet, why are they already pitching DLC?
>>1915520The pre-order has DLC. if you don't pre-order you're already behind! This game is gonna have paradox level DLC.
>>1915502>But Japanese students don't know who Himiko is,Eh? I thought she was kind of a meme in Japan. Well, maybe it was 20-30 years ago, I don't know, but if it's true, then it says more about the modern Japanese education system than anything else.>on top of that, it looks like Napoleon, Ashoka, and Xerxes are double dipping,These "personas' don't count as single leaders on the official page.
>>1915526>The pre-order has DLC.These people need to be killed
I hope this game flops and rights to the game will be sold to someone more competent
>>1915534They won't be. Firaxis will just be shut down, and 2K will hold onto the rights forever.
>>1915160Huh, i thought it was an edit
>>1915534I don't see anything incompetent in the gameplay department to date. All people whine about is the leader and civ rosters which in itself doesn't make the GAME good or bad.
>>1915540No, it does. A game is some of all its parts. I, personally, won't buy a civ game that won't let me live through my "Ancient Egypt in modern age" fantasy. If I want to play a game stripped of all the flavor I would just open excel
>>1915540The core mechanic of changing civs with a detached leader is fucking vile. It's more than half the reason Humankind flopped.
>>191554>gets more elaborate cultures than they've ever been before.>Acshually, the game lacks flavor now, because I can't play my highly abstracted "Ancient Egypt" which feels generic all the way after Antiquity and only my schizo mind makes it stand out as something unique.You are genuinely schizophrenic. >>1915547Humankind flopped because it had bad and broken gameplay mechanics.
>>1915548Why does it matter if Hawaii or Mughal culture is elaborate if I don't care 1 bit about it? I don't care about any culture outside Europe or ancient middle east, in fact. Spent thousands of hours in Civ5, but never played Ethiopia or Siam or whateverthefuck. Gameplay won't matter to a lot of people if there isn't a pretty wrapping around it. Have fun with 3.5 cripples in your competitive civilization games
>>1915555You, larpers, greatly overestimate your significance in the grand scale of things, lmao.
>>1915557We, normies, don't overestimate our significance. A normie civ player is not going to read wiki to learn best civilization to min max. A normie civ player won't open youtube to check the news on the game. A normie will open the game three days after release, see no Germany, America or G'oit Britain in the starting civilization and turn off the game (probably without a refund because he has no idea that he can refund the game). And -that-caricature is the majority of players
>>1915421De Gaulle is the founding father of the Fifth Republic and he is much more than just a figure from WWII. He revitalized the french national idea after their whole raison d'etre collapsed with their empite in the 50s.
>>1915560Real normalfag civ player doesn't care less about "historical accuracy" or role playing, or any of that other bullshit larpers love to present as significant. Normalfags will play civ 7 simply because there is no real alternative to this game. The same story as with FIFA or CoD in their respective genres.
>>1915557Normies tend to pick civs they know, like the aesthetics of, or are connected to. I just watched a streamer who played Germany across Civ I through IV just because she likes Bismarck.
>>1915565>I just watched a streamer who played Germany across Civ I through IV because shelet me guess, you're a coomer
>>1915564cod and fifa normies don't play civ lol
>>1915572and don't tell me there's an equivalent to fifa and cod normies in the turn based strategy crowd, because there isn't.
>>1915565pipipipipi
>>1915526They've been doing day 1 DLC since 5.
>>1915520They have a full year of DLC planned out, anon.
>>1915305saaaaaaar do not redeem the game saaaar bloody benchod firaxis bloody i rape your ass saaaar
>>1898298>They don't even write + in Israel because it will forever remind them.Schools in Israel are divided between secular schools (the vast majority) and religious schools (only for the ultra Orthodox communities which self-isolate).The secular schools (again, the ones attended by almost all Israelis) use the + sign.
>>1896206I was going Macchiaveli was rad choice, on second thought I feel like Caesar Borgia would have been much better choice.
>>1915659Mussolini would be even better though.
>>1915520why wouldn't they be?>NOOO they can't just release the game before absolutely EVERYTHING they have in mind has been added to the base game because they just can't okay!ok, enjoy your delayed game and higher base price. except people don't want that so it doesn't happen that way.
>>1915659Machiavelli, Ibn Battuta and Harriet Tubman are all stretching the premise too thin for me. It feels jarring to do such theme park shit and then insist on the age-tied civ switching as a reflection of history*. If you're going to add meme shit for leaders then let players keep the name and theme of Ancient Egypt or play Ancient America.*exploration and modern have significant overlap too so the arbitrary assignment and then disappearance of your civ feels weird
>>1915659Agreed. Also I think only rulers and actual leaders should qualify. But at least Machiavelli and Confucius are related to governance and shiet
>>1915575>and don't tell me there's an equivalent to fifa and cod normies in the turn based strategy crowd, because there isn't.Civ players are literally this for the strategy game genre tho. It's an entry level franchise and even people who are not familiar with this genre know about civ and may even play it occasionally while remaining indifferent to the genre as a whole.
>>1915796no they are not. I was a big civ fan, but have almost stopped playing civ and now look more forward to anno 117. most civ fans are fine with continuing to play the older games, unlike cod and fifa normies who exclusively play the most recent release.
>>1915800>most civ fans are fine with continuing to play the older games, unlike cod and fifa normies who exclusively play the most recent release.Well, no shit because these games much more dependent on MP (=recency) than civ. But that's irrelevant to the discussion.
>>1915810>MP (=recency)only because cod and fifa normies only play the latest stuff instead of sticking to one or a few good entries. other games with other player bases aren't all like that.
>>1896206>Indonesia for the Exploration age.Indonesia is a modern country. I assume they mean Majapahit. In which case why not call it that?
>>18962062024 and they are still making a civ game inferior to civ2 and its clones, lol, I blame tards who still play this slop
>>1897209Because that results in distinct playstyles and unique identity for rome. It shows that I'm playing an early game civ so I want to establish an early snowball before my opponents reach their powerspikes, which means I am actually playing a unique civ. In civ 7 eveyone may aswell be the same civ since they are all going to play the same way.
>>1915875It's called Majapahit, indeed.
>>1898974Rome only changed IRL because they took Ls. What this implies is that no matter how competently you play your civ takes an L offscreen and your civ changes against your will.Aztecs only became Mexico because they got owned by Spain, so no matter what you do Spain will always beat you if you play as the Aztecs, even if they're not even a civ in your game.Shit sucks
>>1915540>civs have boring bonuses>research catchup between ages, getting a lead is literally pointless>global happiness is back >SETTLEMENT LIMIT LOL>forced civ switching>no workersShit is looking more and more ass by the moment
>>1915540It mostly looks uninspired. I have a feeling every game will basically play the same with the suite of dull flat bonuses among already limited of roster of civs per age, and the massive rubber banding that happens per age stopping any sort of snowballing. The AI will have some hotfixes to make them better at planes and boats than before that will easily be cheesed.
>>1915498Romania
>>1915427they will add a ton of civ dlc including your country, but you will never get a leader
>>1916003Vlad Dracula would have been a nice leader, kek.
>>1915981>Rome only changed IRL because they took Ls.That's how they should have implemented this mechanic. When you take an L in a new age you get the chance to change into a civ with bonuses that will help you in that age.That way if your Roman Empire is strong enough to last thousands of years you can keep it until the end of the game. But if you lose some cities in a war, or a foreign religion takes over, or you fall so far behind in tech/production you get the chance to catch up by switching to a civ that will be better in that situation.That gives them a catch-up mechanic so they don't have to do the research reset each age and it makes the civ switching more reasonable. But I guess it would mean that players won't have the opportunity to play as Buganda as often, so they'd never go for it.
>>1915981>Rome only changed IRL because they took Ls.Don't bullshiting. Rome and Byzantium are essentially two different things, but there were no major breaks until 1204 at least. Yes, some territories were lost before that, but Eastern Rome changed significantly because it had to adapt to changing circumstances, not because it was destroyed or anything like that.
>>1916051They lost the entire western half and their capital how is that not a loss?
>>1916052>They lost the entire western half and their capitalThey didn't even control it really since the 4th century (long before the barbarians took over it) and Constantinople became the new capital of the empire as a whole anyway. Even the political center of Western Rome itself was effectively moved to Ravenna. So all this is not really the reason.
Have they confirmed at least one leader for every culture or no?
>>1916059No. There are some civs like Aksum or Mississippians to which you can't give their own leader even if you want, because their leadership is unknown to us due to the complete absence of written sources from these cultures.
>>1916062Yeah but it will be weird as fuck if we can play as Siam but have no Siamese kings or anything.
West African civilizations are significant because they originated the aesthetics, music, and cuisine of African-American culture, which has now undoubtely become one of the most influential cultures on Earth. But chuds will continue to deny this.
>>1916059No, with DLC there will probably be about 3 or 4 times as many civs as leaders if anything albeit some just being the same country in different eras. I suspect this means tons of minor countries getting totally fucked when it comes to having a leader.
>>1916097That's a full scale of retardation they could have avoided by sticking to the old system, but oh well.
>>1916097This could have all been avoided if they just made the leaders a static or 2.5D image with limited movement instead of pretending they're fucking pixar elevating primitives.
>>1915421>>1915386picking tubman when you have better options is like picking tokyo rose when you could have picked hirohito or tojo. it's bizarre especially when you factor in how 99.9% of people outside USA have zero idea who she is. meanwhile everyone outside italy knows machiavelli, everyone outside usa knows benjamin franklin
>>1916181>picking tokyo rose when you could have picked hirohito or tojoFor me, it's Tokyo Breakfast
>>1916182i don't get the reference
>>1915193She did special forces work during the Civil War and led people to freedom on the Underground Railroad before that.
>>1916188which clearly makes her a better leader than the thousands of americans who did that and more.
>>1916190Did I say that? They're clearly reaching if they're making Confucius and Machiavelli leaders.
im theorycrafting how this game could actually be fun>pick the DEI nog and go into fascism (maybe fun for 1 or 2 games)>the meme train victory condition>sim city shit and never touch any military wincon because how convoluted they are making it (in a game that is meant to be babby's multicolored lego play doh strategy game)
>>1896941>new game>core features removedfor what purpose?
>>1916196Most fun is spending $70 on 3 really good indie titles instead.
>>1916193Harriet Tubman makes those two choices seem obvious and reasonable. In all honesty choosing leaders who heavily influenced the direction and character of their civilization despite never technically being a head of state isn't necessarily a bad thing, per se. In fact, it's been in the series since the very beginning. Gandhi, anyone? But this decision reeks of bad faith and I can no longer trust them to be responsible with this non-head-of-state-super-influencer model.
https://x.com/CivGame/status/1869119118928191949extremely fun read
>>1915976It also results in a balancing nightmare. Because of the snowbally nature of 4x games an early advantage is also a mid-game and late-game advantage because you can race ahead of your opponents in science and therefore everything. Whereas a mid-game and late-game civ only gets advantages in the mid-game to late-game or just late-game respectively.The idea of always having relevant bonuses in whatever the current era is makes some sense. The execution here is leaving me feeling very uneasy, though. Maybe they just should have given each civ different bonuses for each era but let them be permanent. Splitting the difference if you will. Too late for that though; February will be here before anyone knows it.
>>1916223> Maybe they just should have given each civ different bonuses for each era but let them be permanent.Civ Revolutions (a dumbed-down console spin-off they made in 2008) actually did this, every civ got a unique bonus in each era, e.g. Russia got bonus food on plains in the Ancient era and half-cost spies in the Modern era. I'm surprised they never developed on that idea further in the later games.
>>1896941I genuinely cannot tell if this is true or just bait.
>>1897203>Trusting the chinese on anythingI wouldn't trust them to accurately report on if they drank water or if the sky ever turned checkerboxed.
>>1916242yah early barbs got axed, but it seems like after you progress out of ancient age the game spawns a bunch of city states(?) so it sounds like it could be like the barbarian clans setting
>>1916242Players complained barbarians were unfair and didn't let them explore and settle so they were removed.
>>1916250Good riddance. On deity and above they can just ruin a good start and force a reset.
>>1916245>after you progress out of ancient ageThey exist in the Ancient age as well. Firaxis simply combined the city-states and barbarian mechanics into one thing. Also, one of the crises of Antiquity is literally a massive barbarian invasion, although it occurs at the very end of the era now.
>>1916232That was a good idea for traditional Civ. Reminds me of Rise of Nations, where they kinda did that. For example, the British had ship building bonuses (referring to British colonialism), free archers when building barracks (medieval English Yeomanry and Welsh longbows) and bonuses for anti-aircraft units/buildings (the Blitz and WWI air raids)They also gave each civ extra unique units per eras, again, the British had longbowmen in Medieval, Highlander linemen in Enlightenment and Lancaster bombers in Modern. I think Empire Earth also did this, it was cool.
>>1916232>>1916334it's a good mechanic, sure, but the problem is that you can't do this trick with cultures that are either extinct or too recent to have such level of continuity. So you either have to come up with your own unique buildings and units for such cultures in earlier/later eras, effectively turning the game into fantasy or give ancient cultures their respective ancient buildings and units for the modern era but scale their bonuses as if they were modern, which is also absurd.
she's hot
>>1916367I see your point, but isn't playing as the US in ancient era or as Rome in modern just as absurd? If we can fantasise about the past, why not give the old civs some (plausible) units in the later eras?Anyway, I guess this is why I think this civ shifting isn't such a bad idea. But still, it would be cool to keep playing as the older civs into the future as always.
>>1916374>but isn't playing as the US in ancient era or as Rome in modern just as absurdI mean, yeah but in previous civ games you really play as this very abstract european/asian/mena/african/whatever civ most of the time and only in the era when your civ historically shined the most did you get your unique buildings/units and so game didn't turn into a complete fantasy, at least from my perspective.
>>1916374i like it from the standpoint that i like when in eu4 the map stays the same but places change name because some mission fired when i wasn't looking. it would be cool to end up with some mutt of a country and even tho civ7 has some rp options its not quite on the level of paradox games (for good reason)im sure after people play the game for a month 99% have forgotten it exists, because it will just be a mechanic like your buildings changing models between ages.
>>1916392I agree, honestly I also don't want Civ to go full fantasy but I would accept that compromise, probably because I played a lot of RoN and EE. But I can see why many people wouldn't like it too>>1916393That is cool, the closer thing I've seen for Civ 5 and 6 is a dynamic faction name mod that changed the civs' name according to the social policies and/or religion it adopted. It is nice for rp purposes imo
>>1916374I agree with this. I was really excited about civ switching for that reason but I've come to realize that you're really looking at leaders the whole time and it's still going to be world wars with Darius and Antiquity with Ben Franklin.I find it kind of odd how much they act like animating leaders is such a difficult thing. Maybe it is but I think for this civ switching idea to have a good effect they need to switch leaders too.
>>1896549You should ask them if they want a job app because they're going to be laid off this time next year
>>1896589No fucking way, what did they name them now? That's hilarious
>>1915547it really is not, the mechanic itself is interesting but they needed to concentrate entirely on it instead of poorly baking it. It was just extremely boring and the gameplay revolving around a few core civs made you chase one repeatedly and do the exact thing you needed to get the most score every time. Also I don't know if they ever fixed it but pollution was absolutely fucking busted when it first came out. You'd build an airport and your city would fall to shit instantly lol
my perfect aryan waifu
India and China get 3 civs each. 20% of total civs. lol. lmao, even.
I thought Juarez would be Mexico's leader but seems to be a unitPorfirio chads is our time?
Huh. Still no leader for Greece?>uh use Machiavelli or something I guessWas kinda hoping for Epaminondas but at least they dropped most ladies as Great Persons lol
>swappable civs from Humankind>non-leader leaders from AraWhat trash element will they steal from this failed Civ's killer?
>>1916864Nuke dlc.In fact they already did,late era will be dlc, they confirmed it.
>>1916051There's are huge differences between the early and late republics as well as the principate and the dominate. The late republic faced a mounting crises since what was essentially a city-state had gotten so many W that found itself in control of most of the Mediterranian. It had to adapt in some form.
>>1916250wtf, playing with raging barbs was great
>>1916856You will never get Epaminondas nor Pelopidas as leaders. Even their contemporaries would come first, such as Agesilaus or Thrasyboulos, not to mention Phillip and Demosthenes. And they are too close to both the big names of the early hellenic as well as the ones from the 5th century for them to be picked. It will never happen unless as a token pick that's all about their gayness. That's the only potential they have for being made into leaders in this day and age of modern firaxis.
>>1916866nuked were invented before 1950, kid
Just give me diogenes as a leader
>>1896206Where the FUCK is HITLER...
>>1896206this idea just seems badadd the woke shit and forget about it, I have zero interestwouldn't be surprised if its somewhat popular anyway, maybe this civ changing works and the woke shit is ignorable enough, still not really that interested though
>>18962062024 and civ3 crown will never be taken lol, see ya later losers
>>1896206we wuz modern and shit
>>1914173>America has never committed any warcrimesThis is bait
I haven't looked into anything at all about Civ VII. What will it do differently? Are (You) looking forward to it? (I either want to wait for Civ VII or buy Old World now)
>>1922243Tub. Man.
>>1916880> It will never happen unless as a token pick that's all about their gayness. That's the only potential they have for being made into leaders in this day and age of modern firaxis.We've already had Alexander in every game though.
>>1915548>Humankind flopped because it had bad and broken gameplay mechanicsYeahLike civ switching
>>1896669This is like putting Aristotle as the leader of the Romans.
>>1896206Tbh if they were going to do this they should have have just scrapped the concept of using specific civs at all and just allowed you to select between different 'archetype civs' that gave you the same bonuses and functionality. A bit like:>Instead of going from 'Egypt' to 'Mongolia' you got from 'river empire' to 'Nomadic horde' and so on.You could keep the switching historical leaders if you want. Granted that wouldn't really be Civ anymore this isn't really Civ either.Also>Mississippi in antiquityThe Mississipians were contemporary with the Angevin empire. If you want to look fancy and cultured by not inserting the Olmecs for the Nth time the least you could do is make Caral into a civ, not only does it fit the time period. It also leads into the Incans.Mayan in antiquity feels a bit cheap but that's a nitpick.
>>1917294Hey, they were incredibly advanced by 19th century AFrican standards. And by that I mean they had the organization of a random Arab princedom and a lake navy.
>>1927124>Instead of going from 'Egypt' to 'Mongolia' you got from 'river empire' to 'Nomadic horde' and so on.That game by Civ 5 director already did just that and failed miserably.
>>1927124>Instead of going from 'Egypt' to 'Mongolia' you got from 'river empire' to 'Nomadic horde' and so onNo. That was Empire Earth 3's most terrible idea: generic civs
>>1927124If they were going to steal anything from Humankind they should've taken the neolithic period so the mongols could find plains and the Egyptians a river, etcAlso the Khmer are in the wrong place
>>1927124They can't elevate mudhut civs if they do that!
>>1927198It failed miserably because most people looked at it and immediately noped out because it looks like a shitty merge of Civ IV and V.
>>1927198>sponsored ecelebs all didn't bother with it as soon they did their one required shilling video
>>1933676Kek
>All this talk about changing civsBe honest with me guys, have you never wanted to create your OWN civ?I just don't understand why we can't do it, worse I can't understand why don't people ask for it.I mean, do you guys really rather play Rome/India/USA/Buganda USA at ancient age, kek than create your own Civ, give it an unique name, choose one bonus from a list of avaiable bonuses, choose one aesthetic for your civ and play it?
>>1937251It's a good question. Again I assume it's because they want complete creative control. Look at the drama around RPGs coming out now which preset the player with a single pre-made character. Why would you not have a minimum of two genders, both fully voice acted and the ability to customise the avatar? This is tech that's been around for decades.I guess there's an argument they want to prevent 'metagaming', but who fucking cares about that in a singleplayer game? If someone wants to make the ideal trade/war/science civ why not?
>>1927198Fuck off, that was one of the only 4x that came out last year with interesting new mechanics. Crisis ages are awesome and it's damn better than humankind's switching civs.
>>1937251the last civs had "build your own religion" letting you pick and choose abilities. "build your own civ" wouldn't be any different.
>>1937251>Be honest with me guys, have you never wanted to create your OWN civ?No, I like historical stuff
