Indian here with close to 600h on Civ6! Love your channel. I think we're slightly over-represented here with 3/30 and would have preferred a different leader from the Chola dynasty or Mughals. Mauryas have been done to death 😢
I can see Mongols easily spiralling out of control on Pangea maps.. On the other hand . Normans seem like the kings of their castle, perfect defensive civ - but with decent offensive punch too.
Seems like this game probably discourages playing Pangea and rightfully so. I always felt like Pangea undermines a huge aspect of the game. I'd love to see Navy-based Civs actually dominate for an era instead of being relegated to "TH-cam-challenge Video" status
Maybe 36 minimum.30 viva in total means games with a max of 10 players. Ok for most games still a good number of people that like to play with 12 (I like huge maps)
@@williamcadman6333 Well the idea is the map expands outward as the eras go on, so they don't need as many ancient civs because you can't fit them on the map. :p
My thoughts exactly! I get they want all parts of the world represented but ignoring actual historical civilizations seems ridiculous. No doubt they will come in the form of expensive DLC's. Doubt I will get Civ 7 based on all I have seen so far - until the cheap prices start coming in.
What I really like to know is the prerequesits for each civ to be able to be picked at the beginning of the exploration age. We know that most civs can be played if you pick a certain civ and leade in the first age (like augustus and rome for the normans, or greece and isabella for spain), but there are also in game requisites you can achieve to pick a certain civ. The only one I know of is that you need at least 3 improved horses to play mongols. But what are the others?
Ferdinand Magellan (Fernão de Magalhães) was actually Portuguese, so not sure with their plan on including Portugal. Having said that, he navigated for the Spanish so that could be the reason.
Also they have updated great people in previous civ games. If I’m not mistaken Simon Bolivar was a great general before being introduced as a leader for Gran Colombia in the civ 6 expansion
I'm hoping it will be fairly easy to mod in new civs, since you don't also need to create a leader for it. I'm planning on just creating these around the official civ I want to play.
I hate that we can only pick from that small list for the exploration age. What if i don't want to play any of those? Seems ultra limiting. Hope im missing something because this seems horrible.
I got into the 1632 (Ring of Fire) series recently and I have to say I absolutely love the fact that Spain's unique "unit" is a Tercio. Definitely a much more important/relevant part of overall Spanish history than the run of the mill conquistador that historic games usually go for. (Though conquistadors are definitely more iconic.)
Really sad to not see a lot of civs to be included from start. Particularly, of course, my own country in its historical forms. Kievan Rus could had been a nice Ancient era civ (despite existing in Middle Ages, it is perceived as "ancient progenitor" for Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians and actually was kinda that); Muscovite Tsardom/Russian Empire could had been a nice Exploration era civ with focus on broad and rapid continental expansion; And Soviet Union as Modern era civ with some focus on science and military. Sadly, Firaxis ceased to sell its games in Russia (through Steam), losing significant market for audience here. And, seeing how much emphasis they put on growing markets like China and India by adding several civs to attract customers there, Civ 7 seems to be the first Civ game not to include Russia from start. Considering that and current political situation with historical debates, I'm afraid that Civ 7 might not get any form of historical Russia at all, even in DLCs.
An exploration age without the British is criminal... the Normans aren't a good substitute even if you argue the Norman conquest. Also, Russia? Where's Japan in any of this early history? Hellooooo?
I am worried that civs that only benefits from terrain would be difficult to pick, either because is hard to get them, ou because the bonus don't will benefit you, unless you planned what civ will you pick for the 3 ages from the beginning.
This actually looks horrible as a civ selection for the exploration age. No Britain, no France, no Italy, no Dutch, no Portuguese, no Russians, no Ottomans. I'm guessing the Normans are supposed to be a replacement for both the English/British and the French, however that works for the early medieval era, but by the time of the exploration age the Normans were mostly integrated into their respective society and not really viewed as a separate civilization/group. It feels like they hyper fixated on all other continents and cultures apart from the European ones. Huge let down.
Yeah it's because they decided to include musket units in the modern era instead of the end of the exploration age. It's pretty disappointing imo considering it means that at launch we probably won't have actually modern units like jets and composite tanks
Netherlands The Ottomans and the Portuguese are usually as DLCs, France is confirmed for the modern era while Great Britain and Russia are probably also in the modern era and Italy did not exist at that time.
Every early civ should have a corresponding geographical/historical civ for each age (i.e.): Etruscans -> Ancient Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire -> Kingdom of Sicily/Italian City States -> Italy during/after Risorgimento/Unification -> Fascist Italy -> Modern Italian Republic. Of course there could be many more "civs" inbetween the eras I just listed. My point is, starting as India and turning to Monghols half way through is just ridiculous for those of us who prefer to immerse themselves in TSL earth maps. I have experienced this playing Humankind and its so damn immersion breaking.
Exploration age no, and it seems like a bit of a gaping hole so I'm assuming DLC with a Sengoku era leader later down the line. They do have Himiko for Antiquity tho.
I really don't like that we'll only get 10 civs per age, and that a lot of leaders won't have a civ to match (and vice-versa). I was 100% behind the idea of no longer limiting leaders to rulers or heads of state, go ahead and give me a bunch of historical weirdos, but from what I've seen they've really stripped down leaders as a whole, presentation-wise. Them no longer having a background but just sorta standing awkwardly over the map, and no longer looking at you but at each other, takes away a lot from the experience, imo. And that's without going into the leader skills we've seen so far, which are all just... bog-standard "get bonus X when in X" types. I really appreciate that civs have unique models for their units and buildings this time around, and I like a lot of other ideas like civ-specific techs and civics, but the whole thing is giving me pause.
I want to tell people who watch this video the important civilizations that will not be in the base game, for example the Vikings, I say this because when talking about the civilizations that CIV 7 will have, I see many people who ignore them. the DLCs and take it as if the fifty civilizations of CIV 6 were in the base game.
I have 3 small things that I hope they would do in Civ 7 that I think would make fans happy about changing civ: - Add a lot more leaders (at least to the same number of the amount of civs at start of each of the previous Civ games), - Make us able to rename our first civ on the antiquity age, and - Not shoving in our face on the exploration and modern age the fact that our civ have more than 1 name, That way at least we can immersed ourself to think when we pick our leader we pretty much picking pur civ too, and the civ we pick each age pretty much just the flavor of the civ. That way I think we will still be able to immersed ourself on controlling 1 civ through and through. Bonus hope: Maybe make all the opponents on each game have a randomized name for their civ too from the start so we can immersed ourself to think to face the same civs from start to the end game.
Modern gonna include America, England, Ottoman, China, Russia, Brazil, Japan and/or Korea. Maybe Ethiopia, Australia, Germany, France. I wonder though how they'll choose to include modern African nations.
Pretty sure anyone will be able to conquer anybody they like, wherever they like, but perhaps won't receive victory points for doing so like the Mongols. I certainly hope so - not being able to conquer your neighbours in the early game would be a major departure from everything Civ has been for the last 30 years!
SO in reality there are only going to be 10 civs per map at launch and the whole concept of Civ 7 kills the ability to play on a real world map. I hate this game already and I've not only played every civ at release, I worked on the Civ 2 expansions Napoleonic scenario. There's no way this is going to work and they've already admitted in a showcase that the AI is not going to be a challenge militarily. What a disaster.
How would this stop civs from playing on a world map? In fact, why does this matter at all to you? This simply just reads to me as being afraid of change
Maybe they should make it possible, not to change the civ. While you can stay with your old bonuses, you will not be able to adapt well… I feel such sadness, when I imagine someone to change their national civ to some other (sometimes like Spain -> Mexico) random civ
I will not be buying this game in February, if ever. Todays political leanings are too involved by the use of ce, so many female leaders and so many new world Indians especially since Portugal and others are missing. I have 2, 4, and 6 but I will likely pass on 7. Taking a wait and see attitude here but doubtful.
"I don't like women and indigenous Americans" is a crazy way to discredit a game 😂 also what's wrong with using Common Era? That's the term we use in academics.
@hexalas you guys just make me laugh. Sitting behind your computer when you don't have the nuts to say anything like that to somebody's face. You probably play on the girls softball team because you can't beat a man
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
Indian here with close to 600h on Civ6! Love your channel. I think we're slightly over-represented here with 3/30 and would have preferred a different leader from the Chola dynasty or Mughals. Mauryas have been done to death 😢
I can see Mongols easily spiralling out of control on Pangea maps..
On the other hand . Normans seem like the kings of their castle, perfect defensive civ - but with decent offensive punch too.
Imagine getting ur Calvary from one side of the map to another in a single turn bc of strategically placed urdus
Seems like this game probably discourages playing Pangea and rightfully so. I always felt like Pangea undermines a huge aspect of the game. I'd love to see Navy-based Civs actually dominate for an era instead of being relegated to "TH-cam-challenge Video" status
Now that they're all known, a video on which civs from age 1/2 pair well would be great!
10 civs per age sounds really low, but in modders I trust
I hope they add some more in the future and with more in the future i hope that they just add extra without a leader
That isn't a bad base game start imo. Hopefully each age gets five more civs.
The lack of civs per age is making me consider not buying it. Perhaps i'll just have to learn modding the game so i can add more civs out of spite.
How many would make you buy the game?
Maybe 36 minimum.30 viva in total means games with a max of 10 players. Ok for most games still a good number of people that like to play with 12 (I like huge maps)
@@williamcadman6333 Well the idea is the map expands outward as the eras go on, so they don't need as many ancient civs because you can't fit them on the map. :p
Consider that in previous games there were a number of civs with next to no abilities/boons/units in specific ages.
Yeah its really bad.
I'm rather annoyed that there are only two Europeon civs in the age of exploration, seeing how this pretty much was the golden age of Europe
My thoughts exactly! I get they want all parts of the world represented but ignoring actual historical civilizations seems ridiculous. No doubt they will come in the form of expensive DLC's. Doubt I will get Civ 7 based on all I have seen so far - until the cheap prices start coming in.
@@stevedaytona indeed, they better release a lot more civs in dlcs
Not even the king of exploration and colonial empires, the British...
@@stevedaytonaWe also should have north euro in antiquity.
@papiew1 I belive they will be in the modern age
I die every time I see someone pronounce Yongle as "Yon-gle," as opposed to "Yong-le"
My bad. Sorry for the death.
Yongle
LIVE YONGLE REACTION
What I really like to know is the prerequesits for each civ to be able to be picked at the beginning of the exploration age.
We know that most civs can be played if you pick a certain civ and leade in the first age (like augustus and rome for the normans, or greece and isabella for spain), but there are also in game requisites you can achieve to pick a certain civ. The only one I know of is that you need at least 3 improved horses to play mongols.
But what are the others?
Ferdinand Magellan (Fernão de Magalhães) was actually Portuguese, so not sure with their plan on including Portugal. Having said that, he navigated for the Spanish so that could be the reason.
I think conquistadors are about people who worked for the Spanish crown: Columbus was Italian, for example.
@younesgeek1313 that makes sense then
Also they have updated great people in previous civ games. If I’m not mistaken Simon Bolivar was a great general before being introduced as a leader for Gran Colombia in the civ 6 expansion
No ottomans or Byzantines is wild
Ottomans might be modern age
I’m annoyed that there won’t be a geographical/historical path for all three ages for all of the “civs.”
Me “too”
I think there will be after the many DLCs they will sell 😂
The biggest failure of the new age/civ system.
@@tiga8032Bingo. I def suspect that a lot of those holes are going to get filled via dlc and xpacs...for a cost lol
I'm hoping it will be fairly easy to mod in new civs, since you don't also need to create a leader for it.
I'm planning on just creating these around the official civ I want to play.
I wish we got a few more European civs for the EXPLORATION age
The level of emphasis on navigable rivers gave me one desire, that desire was to go Viking. They have failed me.
I hate that we can only pick from that small list for the exploration age. What if i don't want to play any of those? Seems ultra limiting. Hope im missing something because this seems horrible.
Don't buy it then
@@de6212 Your actually right! Seriously considering not even getting it.
@@SamMathewsOfficial Cool, Try a new hobby. I recommend sea kayaking. Make sure to buy a life vest too.
@@de6212 maybe I should just be a loser troll like you. Im sure thats great.
@@SamMathewsOfficial I'm just a fan of the civ games, excited to see what's new.
I got into the 1632 (Ring of Fire) series recently and I have to say I absolutely love the fact that Spain's unique "unit" is a Tercio. Definitely a much more important/relevant part of overall Spanish history than the run of the mill conquistador that historic games usually go for. (Though conquistadors are definitely more iconic.)
Your videos are always so colorful and fun! Thank you for your sincerity and talent in creating funny content!🐹🐶🐫
Hey brother, from India here, keep the good work!!!!
Really sad to not see a lot of civs to be included from start. Particularly, of course, my own country in its historical forms.
Kievan Rus could had been a nice Ancient era civ (despite existing in Middle Ages, it is perceived as "ancient progenitor" for Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians and actually was kinda that);
Muscovite Tsardom/Russian Empire could had been a nice Exploration era civ with focus on broad and rapid continental expansion;
And Soviet Union as Modern era civ with some focus on science and military.
Sadly, Firaxis ceased to sell its games in Russia (through Steam), losing significant market for audience here. And, seeing how much emphasis they put on growing markets like China and India by adding several civs to attract customers there, Civ 7 seems to be the first Civ game not to include Russia from start. Considering that and current political situation with historical debates, I'm afraid that Civ 7 might not get any form of historical Russia at all, even in DLCs.
I still find it shocking that England and Aztec are not in the base game 😢
Maybe Britain is a modern Civ
For England, it's probably because of how the eras are in terms of tech and when that tech was actually invented
Britain will probably be a modern Civ, likely centered around the industrial revolution.
An exploration age without the British is criminal... the Normans aren't a good substitute even if you argue the Norman conquest. Also, Russia? Where's Japan in any of this early history? Hellooooo?
It really feels like they're still missing a TON of civs. Especially European civs.
@@jaypabhello DLC
Also Exploration is more of the medieval to the early modern period.
We are getting Britain in the modern age.
I just wanted Portugal 🥲
DLC incoming! (Eventually, surely)
Though they could also be modern era
I am worried that civs that only benefits from terrain would be difficult to pick, either because is hard to get them, ou because the bonus don't will benefit you, unless you planned what civ will you pick for the 3 ages from the beginning.
This actually looks horrible as a civ selection for the exploration age. No Britain, no France, no Italy, no Dutch, no Portuguese, no Russians, no Ottomans.
I'm guessing the Normans are supposed to be a replacement for both the English/British and the French, however that works for the early medieval era, but by the time of the exploration age the Normans were mostly integrated into their respective society and not really viewed as a separate civilization/group.
It feels like they hyper fixated on all other continents and cultures apart from the European ones. Huge let down.
Yeah it's because they decided to include musket units in the modern era instead of the end of the exploration age. It's pretty disappointing imo considering it means that at launch we probably won't have actually modern units like jets and composite tanks
Netherlands The Ottomans and the Portuguese are usually as DLCs, France is confirmed for the modern era while Great Britain and Russia are probably also in the modern era and Italy did not exist at that time.
Japan is also not even present anywhere?
Every early civ should have a corresponding geographical/historical civ for each age (i.e.): Etruscans -> Ancient Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire -> Kingdom of Sicily/Italian City States -> Italy during/after Risorgimento/Unification -> Fascist Italy -> Modern Italian Republic. Of course there could be many more "civs" inbetween the eras I just listed.
My point is, starting as India and turning to Monghols half way through is just ridiculous for those of us who prefer to immerse themselves in TSL earth maps. I have experienced this playing Humankind and its so damn immersion breaking.
There’s no premodern Japan?
Exploration age no, and it seems like a bit of a gaping hole so I'm assuming DLC with a Sengoku era leader later down the line.
They do have Himiko for Antiquity tho.
I really don't like that we'll only get 10 civs per age, and that a lot of leaders won't have a civ to match (and vice-versa). I was 100% behind the idea of no longer limiting leaders to rulers or heads of state, go ahead and give me a bunch of historical weirdos, but from what I've seen they've really stripped down leaders as a whole, presentation-wise. Them no longer having a background but just sorta standing awkwardly over the map, and no longer looking at you but at each other, takes away a lot from the experience, imo. And that's without going into the leader skills we've seen so far, which are all just... bog-standard "get bonus X when in X" types. I really appreciate that civs have unique models for their units and buildings this time around, and I like a lot of other ideas like civ-specific techs and civics, but the whole thing is giving me pause.
Indian here
Lots of love❤
Where’s
North Korea - Kim
Russia - putton
Iran - Shaw
I want to tell people who watch this video the important civilizations that will not be in the base game, for example the Vikings, I say this because when talking about the civilizations that CIV 7 will have, I see many people who ignore them. the DLCs and take it as if the fifty civilizations of CIV 6 were in the base game.
Do we know how many leaders there will be for the base game?
Can Han Great Wall connect with Ming Great Wall to form a line of Greater Wall?
I thought the switch ad said you could play as different japans during all 3 ages.
Edit: nvm it just says meiji japan
Byzantium, I think they should be included, besides Russia, Ottomans, England, France, Portugal, and others.
Wouldn't the natural pairing of Normandy be Charlemagne and not Machiavelli?
This is not Sid Meier’s Civilization. This is Humankind copy
I have 3 small things that I hope they would do in Civ 7 that I think would make fans happy about changing civ:
- Add a lot more leaders (at least to the same number of the amount of civs at start of each of the previous Civ games),
- Make us able to rename our first civ on the antiquity age, and
- Not shoving in our face on the exploration and modern age the fact that our civ have more than 1 name,
That way at least we can immersed ourself to think when we pick our leader we pretty much picking pur civ too, and the civ we pick each age pretty much just the flavor of the civ. That way I think we will still be able to immersed ourself on controlling 1 civ through and through.
Bonus hope: Maybe make all the opponents on each game have a randomized name for their civ too from the start so we can immersed ourself to think to face the same civs from start to the end game.
Does anybody know if Civ7 will have mods on the steam workshop?
Modern gonna include America, England, Ottoman, China, Russia, Brazil, Japan and/or Korea. Maybe Ethiopia, Australia, Germany, France. I wonder though how they'll choose to include modern African nations.
No venice?
where is brazillll I wanna play brazilll
No Aztecs? :o
No England?
All I want is Canada or Byzantine
how tf are the English and Portugese NOT in the exploration age? Preposterous!
Hoping to see a Hawaiian leader for Hawai'i
PLEASE BRAZIL COME ON
Pretty sure anyone will be able to conquer anybody they like, wherever they like, but perhaps won't receive victory points for doing so like the Mongols. I certainly hope so - not being able to conquer your neighbours in the early game would be a major departure from everything Civ has been for the last 30 years!
I'll stop watching, can't handle the hype
SO in reality there are only going to be 10 civs per map at launch and the whole concept of Civ 7 kills the ability to play on a real world map. I hate this game already and I've not only played every civ at release, I worked on the Civ 2 expansions Napoleonic scenario. There's no way this is going to work and they've already admitted in a showcase that the AI is not going to be a challenge militarily. What a disaster.
How would this stop civs from playing on a world map? In fact, why does this matter at all to you? This simply just reads to me as being afraid of change
Civilization 7 looks amazing! (unlike cities skylines 2 😡😡😡😡😡😡)
Maybe they should make it possible, not to change the civ. While you can stay with your old bonuses, you will not be able to adapt well… I feel such sadness, when I imagine someone to change their national civ to some other (sometimes like Spain -> Mexico) random civ
I will not be buying this game in February, if ever. Todays political leanings are too involved by the use of ce, so many female leaders and so many new world Indians especially since Portugal and others are missing. I have 2, 4, and 6 but I will likely pass on 7. Taking a wait and see attitude here but doubtful.
Extremely cringe reasoning
Next time save yourself the time and just type "I'm racist"
"I don't like women and indigenous Americans" is a crazy way to discredit a game 😂 also what's wrong with using Common Era? That's the term we use in academics.
@hexalas you guys just make me laugh. Sitting behind your computer when you don't have the nuts to say anything like that to somebody's face. You probably play on the girls softball team because you can't beat a man
Oh, my mistake. I missed a bit. Next time write "I'm racist and sexist"