Civilization 7 - NEW CIVS Revealed, BETTER AI & Evolving Cities!

[@kgosch1]

The graphics for the environment and cities look so beautiful, I just really hope they can still improve the leaders to match. They currently look a little lacking.

[@pierreproudhon9008]

A little lacking is a huge understatement, they are hard to look at.

[@danyoutube7491]

Hmmm, for a cartoony style the environment looks good, but I actually think the leaders look just fine.

[@larrote6467]

I hate the diorama feel, i want sprawling cities and tons of emprty space between them

[@scrapmetal4429]

My thoughts exactly, I hope the ones they have right now are just place holders.

[@lilceser11]

They definitely need more fine detail in general, especially to their faces. Rn their facial details & expressions look bland, simple and just very "meh". I think if they focused on motion capture to make the body language and movements, it would bring more "oomph" to all the leaders

[@mcboonekamp5400]

"The Civs' AI will act according to actual history" > Ghandi starts placing aircraft carriers with nuclear bombers close to your shores.

[@EricNovello]

classic!

[@shethek1733]

As he should!

[@jdd_yt]

"Why is there a missile silo on my border?" 🖥🤔

[@Marisha0111]

But it is according to actual history. Civ history.

[@renhensen9298]

The most legendary coding error in Civ history. I'm lowkey sad that they've learnt from it and we prob won't see it happen again

[@EstrellaViajeViajero]

They should just put a checkbox in for AI choosing historical (default checked) - that way both playstyles are supported.

[@philippenachtergal6077]

I hope and guess that we will be able to let the AI choices of further civs be more random.

[@zunjin]

I very much hope this

[@samuelmcelroy1767]

sorta like how HOI4 has non historical ai mode

[@舞蹴-t2h]

Like random personalities in civ5

[@mr.p215]

this civ switching mechanic will alow them to pump out so much DLC that I can already gear shareholders drooling at the mouth.

[@mr.p215]

​​@@awtqrtrkjsrsthat will cost us 200 dollars more to have that many after 10 years of constant DLCs

[@BenjiroDE]

yeah, and I will buy each one.

[@linknlogs2273]

@@awtqrtrkjsrs Nowhere have they said there are only 20 civs in the base game... They have already revealed 15 of them and they haven't even shown the USA, Germany, England, or Russia. At the rate they are announcing them there will probably be around 60. There may be only 20 individual leaders though, which makes sense.

[@Tresorthas]

Only if they hamstring the modding system. Otherwise people will just download hundreds of handmade Civs

[@mr.p215]

@@Tresorthas fear not, denuvo will make sure of that. the modding scene will be dead and burried.

[@RoughRouser]

Glad they understand how important the storytelling and consistency is for us. Hope they continue to focus on that.

[@oufukubinta]

What are you talking about? How is it consistent to change civilizations mid-game?

[@CurrentlyDuck1]

​@@oufukubinta Because that's how it works irl

[@andrewhooper7603]

@@tutkarz very odd things to get worked up about, tbh.

[@paulszki]

@@tutkarz Maybe tone down the passive-agressive tone and then maybe a civlized (ha) discussion can be had. Anyway: I'd rather have consistent starting leaders too and if you're playing single player... I don't think anybody will stop you from doing exactly that. I'm pretty confident there will even be an option to have AI-leaders start with their "home" civ. Worst case: mods. Here's what I think happened during development: They probably realized that if they let you switch civs throughout the ages, that the starting leaders will end up in non-matching civs in the later ages. E.g. If you follow, rome -> byzanthium -> ottomans/turks is already going to not make much sense. Then they might have experimented with chosing a different leader (or having an auto-assigned leader to the civ that you're representing) but noticed that players not having a recognizable face throughout the entirety of the game could make it difficult to know who you're talking too in a multiplayer game. So the leaders needed to stay the same (and maybe change outfits according to the age, but augustus still being augustus, just him wearing a suit or something.) There's a possibility that they looked at the Govenors from civ 6 and saw that most people didn't have an issue with those being not only very... anachronistic but also didn't fit every civ. E.g. Pingala has a turban and clearly looks like he's from india but nothing stopped you, to play as, say the Maori and having him as one of you goveners. I honestly was always a bit bothered by them. But not many others were bothered I guess?

[@RoughRouser]

@@oufukubinta I was referring to how they mentioned the AI will always pursue the “historical” route; an AI India will stay India throughout the game. I still find it really dumb to start as Egypt and then switch to Mongolia if “I have enough horses”, but I think most players are going to pursue the civ route that is historically consistent.

[@brandonc2860]

as a hater of the civ switching idea, this video actually made me feel a lil better about it

[@jaredkrol3739]

Agreed. Wasn’t a total hater but what they presented seems way more compelling than the way Humankind does it.

[@GnosticAtheist]

The civ switching would be a mode that can be turned of in settings. For me I like it, as thats how reality works, even though seeing certain countries morph into completely different ones (historically) will be silly. But civilisations morphing happens all the time, so the concept doesnt bother me. If I want to play as Rome and never morph, Ill never morph. Its that easy.

[@chrisfelouzis7195]

If Civ switching is optional and they bring back all the civ's from previous civ games then I will be on board but this civ switching idea is terrible terrible terrible.

[@KasumiRINA]

I'm still really worried they treat Africa as one country, Egypt to Buganda as default, REALLY?

[@pcdog8903]

@@jaredkrol3739my thoughts exactly

[@Kargald]

What I would like to see is that the leaders would switch clothes to suit the age they are in just like the advisors did in Civ: Revolution.

[@KasumiRINA]

@@Kargald Civ 3 too! And the FMV advisors in Civ 2. I missed that in later games.

[@josephskinner3893]

The only issue with that is how the clothing style all converged to modern western standards of dress. What really would be cooler is if they always wore age & culturally accurate attire

[@PotatoMcWhiskey]

Great video! Keep it up chief

[@EpochWin]

This really assuages a lot of my trepidation about the whole civilization evolution mechanic; the devs seem to be extremely cognizant of how important the narrative is. The mention of modders also piqued my interest. I'm not sure how mods are handeled in Civ 6 since I never switched from Civ 5, but modding for multiplayer has always been an awful experience and I hope that isn't an issue in Civ 7.

[@the_robinbrown]

Mods are relatively painless in Civ 6 multiplayer tbh, at least in my experience.

[@annaairahala9462]

mods in civ 6 work, but can also be a pain. There's a few must haves if you want to do anything at all with mods just because the base integration is so poor, but generally you'll have no issue installing and playing mods as long as you don't install any that can't be used together. Once you do have a set of mods that work together, it's pretty smooth playing from there. My biggest complaint which is not unique to civ 6 is that it never tells you what mod crashes the game. You CAN figure it out by digging through the files, but it's such a pain to do so when that wouldn't have been too difficult to implement in the first place. Every other game I have experience modding with usually has at least a semi decent log you can go through to figure out what exactly the issue is. Civ has never had this for some reason, which just makes modding harder to get into. When it comes to multiplayer, mods aren't as much the issue as just their classic horrible netcode. I don't understand why civ has never had good online multiplayer... I honestly feel like I could do better and that's not even my specialty.

[@Commander_Ray]

The quarter bs where they avoided answering actual questions doesn't jive with me and doesn't make it seem like the civs will feel continuous

[@nuance9000]

The biggest issue with Civ 6 is the .dll. Nowadays I think it has to do with console + Mac compatibility, but man, remember Civ Revolution..?

[@Grunfffff]

7 will have denuvo which will make modding a lot harder

[@perkeletto640]

Why the Queen Himeko looks like from PS1 era?

[@KopeknKedi]

This has not changed from Civ 4 or 5. Quite sloppy on their part...They better make things actually realistic now ffs.

[@perkeletto640]

@@KopeknKedi being cartoony is fine but the character looks like the Tomb Raider 1 Lara Croft or a Tekken 1 Character

[@simxander]

Isn't the Himiko image from the Nintendo Switch trailer? That could explain it.

[@PeterFraser-hp3rs]

5:22 This is info that should be taken as a golden rule by all game developers across the board when trying to make a halfway decent AI system for their games.

[@Skeety08]

I think Rome should evolve into Florence or Venice in the age of discovery, then in the modern era the kingdom of Italy

[@digiorno1142]

Rome shouldn’t evolve into anything, historically Rome split up into France, Italy, Spain, etc.

[@CurrentlyDuck1]

Maybe they will, we haven't seen Rome's full evolution tree yet

[@Martin-di9pp]

Maybe the entire game should unfold completely historically accurate with no input or choice from the player at all, just to be sure we don't offend anyone.

[@arhicluj2008]

Yes, and to keep everything historically accurate, you should only be able to play Romans in the Italian peninsula, only build Roman wonders and units.

[@XGD5layer]

​@@arhicluj2008never mind that they went to the british isles, went to germany, went to the middle east, and went to africa

[@olindbck]

The Denuvo spy software may be a dealbreaker.

[@eomer2000]

I'm not bothered by civ switching mechanic. I'm bothered by them calling some paths historical, but them not being so, like Egypt one. Don't say they are historical, just call it all evolution if you cant really make them accurate.

[@haukionkannel]

We only have about 20 civs total in the release. 5 in stone age 6 to 7 in explore era and 8 in modern age. It is not just possible to cover all paths with so few civs! 20 DLC later Egypt civ path most likely is more historical when we have 100 civs to divide to 3 eras!

[@eomer2000]

@@haukionkannel yes, that's why I'm bothered by them calling paths historical this early with few civs. Would be better if they promised to make them historical later, not call them historical now.

[@awtqrtrkjsrs]

Yeah Egypt (Northeast African/Middle Eastern) going into Songhai (West African) going into Buganda (East African) is complete nonsense. Would make so much more sense for Egypt to go into one of the Caliphates or Arab Kingdoms (Fatimids, Ayyubids or Mamluks) and then into either modern Egypt (or maybe Khedivate) or another modern Arab/North African state. Songhai would be so much better to follow from Ghana and then lead into maybe the Sokoto or Asante. Buganda inheriting from something like the Swahili would make much more geographical and historical sense. Another thing is that for some of these civs there definitely needs to be more than one path. Rome shouldn’t be exclusive to the Normans, but should also lead into civs like Eastern Rome/Byzantium, Spain, Italy (or maybe some Italian city-state) and HRE/Germany. Then further, Byzantium could lead to the modern Greeks, the Russians and the Turks/Ottomans. There definitely needs to be a combination of both linearity (for continuity purposes) and some element of range and selection (for historical and gameplay purposes).

[@haukionkannel]

@@awtqrtrkjsrs This needs so many DLC to allow that! But rome to england rome to USA is there! Many other, needs DLC that add more civs to fill the gaps!

[@haukionkannel]

@@eomer2000 True! With these there is so few options to follow real history. I can see so many DLC to this civ…

[@SwedishYouthHumanist]

7:30 a bit of a shame that older wonders don't degrade aesthetically through the ages...

[@haukionkannel]

DLC? The teeth of the time! 😂 That will ruin the old wonders!

[@SwedishYouthHumanist]

@@haukionkannel No, I mean just aesthetically, not their function, would degrade.

[@haukionkannel]

@@SwedishYouthHumanist Yes, it can be done with DLC. Just diffrent graphics to old wonders for later era!

[@danyoutube7491]

Or even change use - I think it would make sense for the Colosseum to become a theatre under the Normans, or be used as slum housing or simply fall into disrepair as you say.

[@wisamzeid5465]

That happened in rl where those empires faded away. But yours stood the test of time.

[@WalterWorldGames]

14:24 Perhaps not Civ3, but I still play Civ4 from time to time. For some reason, I never got used to this new style. Played a bit of Civ5 once, then quit; a couple of years later, I managed to play it through, then uninstalled it and never played it again. Needless to say, I didn't even bother buying Civ6. I've been playing the franchise since Civ1 -it was the first game that had me pull an all-nighter, until I started hearing the birds singing outside my window-, but Civ4 is the last one I actually enjoy. And I still miss the throne room…

[@danyoutube7491]

I've played every one too, and I was disillusioned with Civ 5. I had bought a new PC for that and Mafia 2, but was disappointed with both. That said, I did persevere with 5 and got enjoyment out of it, but wasn't fully satisfied and I don't feel like we've had a true Civ game since Civ 4. For some reason I've never gone back to 4, even though I was impressed by it and played it loads - I think it's because I have an impression of it being rather full of concepts and mechanics that I'd have to learn all over again, a general feeling of it being too hard to get back into, though it probably wouldn't be like that in practice. In the last decade I've dabbled with Civ 6 but not stuck with it, gone back to Civ 2 (though never able to get the digitised advisers working through emulation and digital download versions!) and Civ 3 and had a good time. Haven't played any Civ games for a couple of years though. I'm miffed to once again see a huge price tag on the game (£60) and given that the Civ 6 price was kept stubbornly high (about £50 if I remember rightly) for several years after release I might never buy Civ 7, even though I can't help getting a little bit excited at the announcement of a new Civ game.

[@ThaGamingMisfit]

People making full videos about one leader in Civ 7, while no one is talking about the 30 leaders in Ara:History Untold. Firaxis can sell bags of air to many people why other devs of 4x games have to put life and soul in it just to get one general video of their game covered. Sad times.

[@JuanManuel-ii1ov]

Thats how everything has always worked sadly, make one good game or one good movie once and your reputation can carry as many bad sequels as you want.

[@gebzeppelin6740]

I like how civ switching actually has to do with historical accuracy and gameplay choices, you can’t just switch to a completely random civ that has nothing to do with your previous civ

[@haengeltheknight1212]

I mean, Egypt and Mongolia, so historical route is accurate, but gameplay wise will be kinda random.

[@KasumiRINA]

​@@haengeltheknight1212 Egypt was never conquered by Mongols, everything else was but they didn't go all the way to Egypt. Also, Buganda is like the opposite corner of Africa. Just let us have Kemetic Egypt to Arabic FFS.

[@Commander_Ray]

It isn't historical accuracy sure you have actual civs retaining their identity which they should have simply done for all of them and remove leader swapping.

[@leeboy26]

@@KasumiRINA Perhaps it's tied to a what if? scenario where the Mamluks didn't fight them off at Ain Jalut. The Burundi one is a curious one though.

[@Jinkypigs]

no? LOL Egypt changing to stupid mongolia is "historically accurate" eh? LOL

[@westarrr]

I'll never get over Egypt turning mongolian.

[@arnomora8847]

I mean, it makes about as much sense as them becoming songhai. I'm guessing a lot of these are gonna be like that. But then again, that's just civ, in previous games you can have a war between Babylon and Canada and stuff like that

[@graethynne]

has't it been pretty explicit that the settlement cap is soft? did that change?

[@noel9090]

It's more of a soft cap, you can go over the limit, but you'll get some disadvantages, that you'll have to manage around.

[@graethynne]

@@noel9090 cool thanks, that's what I thought

[@Morgotth1916]

It's a hard cap check out 12:27

[@noel9090]

@@Morgotth1916 Another Content Creator tested going over the limit, during his test time and talked about it in his video. He mentioned capturing a city, being over the limit and having some manageable disadvantages.

[@danyoutube7491]

I think it would be better if you could go over the limit, but that the new city would have increased corruption and perhaps other similar disadvantages. The more cities you build and the further away they are from your core cities, and the longer the amount of time has passed, the higher chance that they actually secede and each become individual city states or a new faction closely related to yours in culture (could even be something as simple as 'Western Egypt' if you were playing as Egypt; you built your 'extra' cities to the west and these became the new culture). The new culture(s) would start off as allied to you but not paying any tribute or any bonuses. Over time you might be able to bring them back into the fold if your culture becomes powerful enough, your city cap allows it, and you build enough cities close to the new culture. If not, then they could go into the next age and become another civ and the cultural ties to Egypt would be more tenuous; they would be a bit less inlcined to go to war with you than other civs, all other factors being equal, but they no longer considered you as a close nation to theirs and there would be no chance of them peacefully coming back under your control. I remember a great expansion/mod for Civ 4 that did something similar; if you made lots of distant cities then they could revolt and start a new nation.

[@yeehaw5024]

Would you be able to check out ARA: History Untold? It comes out this month and looks pretty solid!

[@Cris1Mac]

Yeah I am very interested in that game as well.

[@Jinkypigs]

yeah at the rate that this bullshit is going, I am more leaning towards ARA, instead of both. Mind you ARA seems to have its flaw but at least it does not fucked up the 4X game play and seems like it will be a great civ like game to play, unlike Civ 7

[@ylfaer]

ARA looks very good. Indeed, I am much more interest on this game than in CIV VII.

[@etienne8110]

Yep, my hype is on this one too. Ara will get my money while civ will wait a few years soni can get a pack with all dlcs if the game proves to be worth it.

[@ThaGamingMisfit]

I'm also baffled that I've seen nothing here about that incredible looking game that is coming in 4 weeks ! But of course every Civ 7 fart half a year away turns into a complete video ! Sad times.

[@solreaver83]

By default I don't mind the shifting eras and nations too much but what worries me is for eg if I want to be Australia then I will ah e to play the specific nations in a specific way to get to Australia. Forcing me to play a style or nations I don't like and having to do it every time. I think the shifting eras may have been less an issue if it was a choice in game mode. Additionally the more I think about it the more I dislike the idea of builders being gone. Through the whole life of the series when I look back all my memories have workers running around the map being busy and adding life to the game map

[@VampguyN85]

So my one complaint, is that Ahsoka is suppose to have her Togruta hair style. And where's the lightsaber?

[@soapgaming4903]

Is this one of those glitched comments?

[@mirandabee2323]

@@soapgaming4903 It's a joke about Ashoka (Indian leader) has a name similar to Ahsoka Tano from Star Wars.

[@ExNihil0]

wow such an incredibly funny joke

[@peterdodds2694]

I see you Clone Wars fan

[@etienne8110]

Still look like a mess. Not even mentionning denuvo, the cut to mod support or the flood of costly dlcs just in year one (6!!). Doesn t bode well, whatever game mechanics there are.

[@KingNios]

The multiplayer restrictions are actually a huge issue for me, I usually play with 6-8 other people, which I now can't do at all...

[@MercuriusIX]

Ok, I am really sorry, but I have to ask this. First of all, I really like the reveals here, like that there will be different versions of Japan or India, so that you can keep playing as the same civilization. And whilst Rome turning into the Normans is a bit of a stretch, since the Normans were originally invaders who conquered today's northern France and were originally definitely not Roman, but at least over time they started to speak early versions of French and are a part of modern day France, so there is at least some connection there. But can someone please, for the love of God, explain to me, how on earth it's supposed to make either geographical or historical sense for Egypt to turn into Songhai? Egypt is in Northeast Africa and Songhai is in West Africa on the opposite end of the continent. They most certainly didn't share the same culture, or language, or area. So why can there be three Indias or three Japans (a change that I really like), but no three Egypts?

[@ashaler__]

Exactly, I also feel like making Songhai evolve into Buganda is equally as unhistoric. We could have had the Abbasid Caliphate for the exploration age, and modern Egypt/maybe Kingdom of Egypt for the modern age. Going with a random, unrelated civ such as Songhai seems like a bad choice.

[@MercuriusIX]

@@ashaler__ I couldn't agree more. And the funny thing to me is, there is actually an interesting idea at the concept here. Take Rome for example, let's say you start with Rome and then focus strongly on Religion, so in the exploration age you become the papal states. But if instead you focus strongly on sea faring and trade, maybe you become the republic of Venice, like your choices in antiquity could shape what form of Italy you become. And when you enter the modern age you could either become the kingdom of Italy or the Italian republic. My point is, most civilizations have over time gone through different forms of governance and had different strengths or weaknesses. Why not lean into that by allowing civilizations to effectively evolve into different forms depending on the choices that you make as a player. I think that would be a lot more interesting and would create a lot more connection to the civ you're playing since it literally became the thing it is, due to your decisions without delving into the realm of absurdity where Egypt magically moves across the entire African continent for no apparent reason

[@CorrionReap]

Because Egypt stopped being relevant after the first age... the other two did not. Egypt as a civilization died out, Japan and India did not.

[@ashaler__]

@@CorrionReap Fair enough, but there were other civilizations on the territory of modern-day Egypt that would be a much better fit than Songhai which is nowhere near Egypt

[@ashaler__]

@@MercuriusIX Yeah, they really could've gone somewhere good with this. They could have based it off of city-state classifications, where if you're focused on Trade, you can become one country; if you're focused on Religion, you can become another, etc.

[@hansanderson9556]

When you look at the Roman and Norman cities, the purple for the banners and cloth remains consistent so maybe the border color remains the same after changing civilisations.

[@awtqrtrkjsrs]

Honestly a shame; Byzantium should have purple. Unless maybe it’s linked to the leader or a colour choice by the player in the game setup?

[@pilgerfuchs219]

@@awtqrtrkjsrs in civ 6 every country had 4 choices for a combination of two colours and if needed the game could make new combinations for "random" civs. Roman and byzantium both had at least one possible colour choice that included purple, so i guess we will have some choice in that matter again.

[@danyoutube7491]

@@awtqrtrkjsrs Purple was the colour of emperors and kings because it was considered beautiful and it was a hard dye to create. It was something used by the Romans and not exclusive to the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines).

[@awtqrtrkjsrs]

@@danyoutube7491 I know, I meant "exclusive" to Byzantium as in only Byzantium should inherit it from Rome, not the Normans and French

[@danyoutube7491]

@@awtqrtrkjsrs Ah, I see. I wonder if they will add Byzantium as an alternative exploration age successor to Rome?

[@-JustHuman-]

Denuvo and only 5 CIV's in era 1 and 2 isn't going to change, and the switch of CIV's are to blame for the lower count. They have also claimed better AI with the last 2 games and there really hasn't been a huge jump.

[@oufukubinta]

Bloody oath!

[@gabrielandy9272]

the civ AI usually does better with standard settings, the more you deviate from it the worse it is, the same happens on civ V and on VI VI AI on default settings, default game acctualy plays OK, the more you deviate from the standard, the worse it will play, it will play terrible on marathon and it will do horrible if you enable the custom modes like zombies barbarian clans and stuff, basically the ai is only good at the default settings, i think V and VI ai are almost the same level as good, but since VI have more customization more options you can deviate more from the default :/

[@Martin-di9pp]

@@gabrielandy9272 One of my biggest pet peeves about VI was the AI's inability to use airplanes remotely effective AND never builds AA units. Getting airplanes made you pretty much invincible.

[@gabrielandy9272]

@@Martin-di9pp not only airplanes SEA stuff is also pretty bad =( and again, its even worse if you deviate from the default settings.

[@haukionkannel]

You need 15 civ minimin to have 5 civ in one era! Or you need 30 civs total to have 10 civ in era… If you want to have 30 civs in each era, you need 90 civs total! At minimum… I see a lot of ”More civs” dlc for this game to be released Durin the next 10 years!

[@spacerice1808]

I like the updated news but also wish if they could add civilizations that historically didn’t stand the test of time a chance to give an imaginary future of what if! If there could be an option where one of the next civilizations change could include the advanced aztec civilization, would be a great joy too.

[@haukionkannel]

DLC?

[@KassandraWinkelbauer]

I hope there is some kind of tie from Scandinavia liking Normans cause that would make more sense of Romans finding their way into something that was founded by vikings getting land granted to them

[@XGD5layer]

Scandinavians only settled to become the Normans in the 9th century, hundreds of years after Rome fell

[@pilgerfuchs219]

well there was a time in history when the normans controlled big parts of France and italy (especially sicilia) while spreeding their culture. But their origin doesnt make to much sense, thats true.

[@KassandraWinkelbauer]

@@XGD5layer What's your point

[@hanscarlsson6583]

What I want is a new Old World with more eras, that game is very well designed!

[@andrewhooper7603]

they should let the lead designer of OW take a crack at a civ game.

[@EstrellaViajeViajero]

@@andrewhooper7603 Didn't he make Civ IV?

[@andrewhooper7603]

@@EstrellaViajeViajero lol, that was the joke, yes.

[@EstrellaViajeViajero]

@@andrewhooper7603 Oh. Since it was the other way around - it was hard to get.

[@deohere7647]

What a great panel. They addressed so, so, so many concerns. I only wish the panel was a longer open, and thst 2k didn't demand the worst drm

[@danyoutube7491]

I know; I've been reading about Denuvo and I have to wonder how many people are pirating Civ games to make them think they need to have this DRM. Surely such a huge franchise makes more than enough sales to withstand a bit of piracy. Moreover, if they are going to have it then why do they also have to have the exorbitant price of £60? Perhaps at £40 piracy would be far lower, though I don't mean to give pirates an excuse. I remember Civ 6 was extremely expensive too, and that lasted for years after its release.

[@robotictoast65]

I know non-Indians understandably don't care about India, but I appreciate that Mauryans into Cholas is roughly as ridiculous as Romans into Normans.

[@mackycabangon8945]

India should have two paths imo, one indo aryan for north india and one dravidian for south india

[@Jinkypigs]

LOL. good to see that the stupid dev are at least consistent in their incompetence.

[@jlferrell123]

Or how about progressing into the Mughal Empire (which was a conquering Muslim power that native Indians fought for centuries)?

[@madaranotsoanonymousnowuch1539]

@@jlferrell123 Mughal Empire as Indian as the Mauryans and Cholas.

[@tuehojbjerg969]

roman areas became a 1000 years later rnorman ones, languague culture and history are linked

[@discootter]

It actually warms my heart that you said “for” in the sense of because ❤

[@Dunno1999]

> Modern India > Mughal I think this would make majority of Indian enraged

[@GWT1m0]

Should turn into Pakistan /s

[@jlferrell123]

Thank you. I made the same comment myself before finding yours here. I mean Jesus Christ. Why not the East India Company instead?

[@jamesbarrell8921]

@@GWT1m0imagine 💀

[@Shekhar21402]

Just a game

[@realEpicGold]

This is Civilizarion, all "modern" civs are industrial aged civilizations. Don't give me that crap of "enraged", it's a bloody videogame.

[@zionosphere]

I'm feeling better about the changes. Hopefully, they can strike a good balance between tall and wide. Also, slick outro.

[@Zulooth1]

I'm pretty excited for this. I'm glad the AI looks like it will be more interesting.

[@dextertron2609]

Personally I’m not too sure how I feel about the civ switching . If it is historically accurate , and every nation has there own unique formables throughout the ages . For instance England having Wessex, England and the British Empire , or alternatively Germany having the Holy Roman Empire , Prussia and German Empire , with every unique formable coming with a unique leader then I believe it will be a good feature . However , and I know the civilisation franchise isn’t meant to be the most accurate simulation , if it strives too far from realism , for example Egypt and Mongolia which have little to not correlation , then I can see it becoming quite a problematic addition .

[@justTyping]

I think for german it would start with Goths, Saxons or "Germani tribes" into HRE into German. HRE as the first one makes no sence since it is no ancient civ. Maybe they will build something like this. The Egypt Mongolia one needs to be unlocked first. I guess becuase they have no historical precessor of Mongolia, but they want them in the game, so they need an option to get there. Also it is giving the players more options, which is always nice. Since you can follow the more historical path. They key will be the balancing. If Mongols is one of the superior Civs it might become favorite over the historical path. You also need to have in mind that switching the civ will give you the option to use new advantages for the current situation. Imagine you only have one path and this will lead the bonuses you cant use. This is also one reason for the civ change. Some civs have early advantages which will be useless in the end and the other way around. With the switch they can balance the civs better so there bonuses dont become obsolet.

[@mythicdawn9574]

@@justTyping Yes on your last paragraph, I think that's what the devs were talking about, about the balancing issues of single civs from previous games. Historically ancient era civs were OP because they got their special units and buildings first before everyone else, and could use them to snowball the game, if not kill all other players before even reaching medieval tech. Now everyone will be garanteed to have a special thing up their sleeves at any time during the game, and will have options to adapt their gameplay by picking different civs. If they wanted to play culture but get harassed hard by a neighbor, they will be able to pick a militaristic civ for the next era and turn the tide.

[@frazonedracaoo6981]

Ya sure the devs are cherry picking specific examples gloss over everyones concerns. China, india, japan, most kf Europe. These are places where the general narative of these places is that they have been a distinct place thoughtout history regardless of changes to giverment. But what about the nations that wont be that easy? What about subsaharan African nations, what about any native American civs? Do they have to switch iver to beinf their colonizers? Becouse thats incredibly offensive. What if you want to play as America, or mexico or Brazil? Who is Franklins recommended start?

[@robotictoast65]

IIRC Tecumseh will be a preorder ruler, so maybe the Shawnee will be Modern. Perhaps the Comanche or Lakota could make it. But Aztec/Inca into Shawnee would be like Normans into Korea.

[@GnosticAtheist]

Same problem has always been there. Starting a game in the ancient times as anything but the ancient civs is comical. Doesnt bother me much. Also, offense doesnt bother me either. I just want good mechanics. If it feels good, go for the eyes. If I dont want to switch, Ill turn it off in settings or dont switch at all. Im sure its fine. More importantly, I dont play games until several months after release to make sure all the bugs are out and mods are playable. Ill pick and choose whatever I like. Problems are for the emos.

[@mat_correa]

As a Brazilian i have absolute no problem with Brazil starting as a Native civ then in the exploration age turn into the Portuguese and then turn into Brazil in the modern age. This can be aplied to the other American civs aswell, like Aztec > Spain > Mexico or Native American > Britain > USA

[@samtarly3916]

@@GnosticAtheist the most sane take I've seen about the change.

[@figurecollector5796]

We already know that the Shawnee are in the exploration era. What we don't know is who flows into the Shawnee from the Ancient era and who they become in the Modern Era. Like the Egypt example, the civ choices will make (some) sense historically and some not. If the game were entirely accurate historically, then Shawnee civ from the exploration era would flow into the Shawnee Nation of the modern era. I really think the devs are trying too hard to sell the idea of changing civs at eras "because history is like that". That worries me because ultimately this is game not a history class, so playability and enjoyability need to be the most important things. Plus, while it is nice that the game can be modded, the devs shouldn't develop a half-baked game and then depend heavily on the community to fill in the missing things.

[@TheMarcHicks]

My biggest concern at the moment-outside of Denuvo-is that it sounds like the game is going to end around 1950 or so.....before the Space Race. I hope that is wrong.

[@gregoriahthanielsonward]

minutely reminder that this game is launching with denuvo which is totally not malware

[@GnosticAtheist]

Oh no. I dont have an issue with civ switching or doing new things, but real world applications like that is horrible.

[@soapgaming4903]

Malware has to do something malicious and has to spread from computer to computer. Denuvo might be bad, but it’s not that bad.

[@annaairahala9462]

@@soapgaming4903 Malware is anything malicious that steals data or ruins the computer in some way. They do not have to self-propagate...

[@marcbennett9232]

@@soapgaming4903 agree, not malware, but absolutely a detriment to the game... I dont know if I will be buying if they dont walk it back.

[@Cramblit]

Friendly reminder, that this game has Denuvo Anti Tamper.. Not Denuvo Anti Cheat.. two TOTALLY different things here... The Denuvo everyone is foaming at the mouth about, is Anti Cheat, which as the kernal level access.. This Denuvo is simply a executable check that does nothing else.. It's not malware, bloatware, or kernal level privacy threat.

[@Kjotleik]

One thing that has not been on my mind due to other - worse - things is this: Five (?) starting civilizations only? Already back in the Civ IV days we could have up to eighteen (18) civilizations in one game (unless you mod in a higher cap). Computers getting better. Firaxis making games worse. There is no performance issues that says a computer cannot handle even more civilizations today than it did back in the early 2000's. On the contrary. A 64-bit game should outperform a 32-bit game (Civ IV is a 32-bit application).

[@Hawkatana]

I'm still not buying until they get rid of Denuvo.

[@bumblebeetunayoutube3711]

Guess you will never buy it then. Captain Jack Sparrow

[@Hawkatana]

@@bumblebeetunayoutube3711 Looks like it.

[@Commander_Ray]

I just won't buy it which is very sad as I love civilization

[@blackjacktrial]

Eh, they tend to remove it when it gets cracked (so about a week after release).

[@Jinkypigs]

I am not buying EVEN if they get rid of denuvo ... stupid limited cities number, choosing to implement humankind style of era instead of other civ like game's era progressing that is more based on tech and advancement of culture that do not artificially swap your civ to another, denuvo and now I hear that starting a game in era 1 will only have 5 playable civ? Really now? No this game is utterly dead to me

[@Onedayz-q4u]

I’ve never ever seen the AI go for domination victory, I hope in the new game that will change and the AI will be more aggressive and strategic

[@Vismark1171]

Denuvo is their biggest issue now. 🤷‍♂️ I liked the Graphics, army mechanics, was 'meh' about the leader system till they show more. They just need to promise the dlc/expansion from prior games will be included in this e.g Global warming feature, Zombie one for the people who liked it etc not it being dlc

[@Cramblit]

Friendly reminder, that this game has Denuvo Anti Tamper.. Not Denuvo Anti Cheat.. two TOTALLY different things here... The Denuvo everyone is foaming at the mouth about, is Anti Cheat, which as the kernal level access.. This Denuvo is simply a executable check that does nothing else.. It's not malware, bloatware, or kernal level privacy threat.

[@Vismark1171]

@@Cramblit I said Denuvo? Its common sense what the issue part is and the one which people have issues with 🤷‍♂️

[@Cramblit]

@@Vismark1171 Read, and try again.

[@haukionkannel]

I am sure that we will get at Lear 20+ DLC to civ7 also so don’t worry we will see many of those things eventually!

[@MarxistKnight]

I’m still unsure on the civ evolution. In principle, initially I was really opposed, and then I thought it could work if done well because I do find I’m taken out of the game when you have ‘Rome’ in the modern age with tanks, even though I love to play as Rome in ancient times. But I’m probably back to concerned, because they say the AI will “almost always” choose the historical path “if available”. So, Egypt can become Mongolia if it has enough horses, but the Rome might not become Italy? The cities look absolutely amazing though.

[@Dysputant]

Tbh... i kinda like this changes. I always felt that it is silly... you have a USA in ancient era and need to wait 150 turns to use its passive...

[@BiNumLi]

Egypt to Mongolia is about as historical as Scotland to Aztec. Don't understand the optional choices. Seems the game is historical but... totally random if you like it that way. Trying to straddle two horses.

[@VitZ9]

So let me get this straight. 😆 Firaxis actually employed legit historians for this game to summarise the history of Japan. One of the most xenophobic countries of all time still to this day, known for thousands of years of closed borders, isolating themselves for 300 years from the rest of the world, invading all of their neighbours multiple times, and employing some of the most brutal torture methods in human history upon their enemies. Civ7 Devs: "We decided Japan is focused on friendship". What? 😂🤣 And Himiko leads Japan? The woman who was most likely of Chinese origins, of whom there are absolutely zero Japanese records of her existence, only Chinese and Korean records? I'm starting to think the "historians" Firaxis hired got their degrees from a cereal box.

[@ashaler__]

In all fairness, there are Japanese records of Himiko existing, but I agree with you; Japan hasn't exactly been a nation "focused on friendship" for most of its existence, and what pains me the most is *they could've gone with that*. They could've made it so that Japan has an early-game focus on army-building.

[@kjn3350]

To be fair, cherry-picking the 50 years of Japanese history when they were at their worst as opposed to the hundreds of years accumulating culture from the Chinese and Koreans (and also the allowance of Europeans until it became clear that the Catholics were very intent upon using Japan as a pawn to spread their religion) will make it seem that way. But apart from the period of time between 1895 and 1945, Japan has generally been rather peaceful and friendly towards other nations. The self-imposed isolation wasn't out of xenophobia but the fear that excessive foreign influence would see Japan become, essentially, a colony of Spain or Portugal, and that belief in Christianity would undermine the emperor's right to rule over Japan. It's quite disingenuous to look at the entirety of Japanese history and insist that they were always racist warmongers, when the truth is that that was a very recent occurrence.

[@MrShnier]

I feel like a UK route is going to be so simplified like Rome didn't create England nor did the Normans, it was a mixture of Romans, saxons etc- so would there be multiple ways to form "England" from different leaders?

[@haukionkannel]

I think so! Also DLCs that add more civs, opens up more historically accurate civ paths!

[@JumboPixel]

Yup, if it’s anything like the pathways they were hinting at for the French Empire there could be 3-ish over time. Maybe more, I don’t know 🤷‍♂️

[@XGD5layer]

@@MrShnier they did say that the AI would TRY to take the most historically accurate path after the player has chosen, which implies that multiple civilisations can lead to the same civilization

[@MrShnier]

Thank you :)

[@rumulux21]

egypt going to mongolia is very strange

[@bjornandersson3837]

Yes. It should have been Arabia or the Ottomans.

[@haukionkannel]

@@bjornandersson3837DLCs?

[@Infernal_Elf]

Is bloody Heresy. Immortal leaders and civs arent exactly historically correct but it has worked very well. Imagine hating on Ramses and suddenly he is Ghengis khan it ruins Grudges u might have during a play session. and Continuity during a match.

[@justTyping]

@@Infernal_Elf The leader stay, because of this concern. So Ramses will not change into Ghengis. For myself I always identified the other players by Civ not by leader. So more an issue for me.

[@TheRobinCox]

The three different Indias through the ages are great, good to be able to play as three different stages of the same empire. I wish that they would do the same with Egypt and Rome for instance. You could start with Uppe Egypt turning into The Unified Egypt turning into the Egypt of today.

[@deosilic]

We aren’t going to forget about Denuvo.

[@rheyza4475]

Lovin these!, keep em comin bro

[@mkc_templates]

Shouldn't Rome develop into Holy Roman Empire and then into Italy? I don't understand this choice of.. default path I guess?

[@justTyping]

Rome is not so close to the Holy Roman Empire besides the name. The Holy Roman Empire is more based on Germanic people like Franks and will historical lead into Germany. Only north Italy was part of the HRE and was ruled by the Franks after Rome. But anyway: It could be a future part, even if I am not sure if they introduce Italy at all.

[@mythicdawn9574]

@@justTyping But HRE might be accessible for Rome through their "achievement" system. Maybe if you are allying a lot of city states you onlock HRE, or something like that. It's not because the option was not deemed "historical" (ie. a garanteed right to evolve into that civ) that you can't make it :) Time will tell, we will see once they release more info.

[@dudewatevs56]

The question I have is: Is there going to be a setting to allow you to play any civ at any time? What if I want to be Rome from the first era to the last, never changing? Or what if I want to go from America to start, then Rome, then finish as the Normans? I know that isn't historical, but what if that's the kind of story I would like to tell? I hope that it is a setting, because I would love to be able to be Normans from start to finish with those beautiful looking cities, lol.

[@domagoj905]

Not gonna lie, I am not convinced at all. Gonna have to wait till February.

[@RocksInMyHeadNZ]

Nice outro. Slick 💪.

[@jeongbun2386]

00:08 As a Desi this made me scream with joy

[@arjunkansal]

True but if onlyyy. If only they could add more choices. Give me maratha alongwith mughal, give me gupta alongwith chola, give me even ahom as choices at different ages. Also what happens after modern age? Do we enter the nuclear and information era with Mughal india as the civ😂?

[@masti733]

Whar is a desi

[@arjunkansal]

@@masti733 hindi word that loosely translates to native/ethnic. So basically someone who's indian

[@srinjaychatterjee2446]

The Mughals are not an Indian Empire

[@arjunkansal]

@@srinjaychatterjee2446 since most of the world refers to this piece of land as "india" and not the indigenous cultures like we might want to, mughals are an indian empire because they ruled over this region that most people refer to as India.

[@oufukubinta]

Basically, nothing's changed since CIV VI except now there are 3 ages instead of 9 so the game wouldn't be resource heavy on the Nintendo Switch, and you have a hard limit on the number of settlements. Also everyone progresses through the ages at the same time to make everyone happy or something. It's like CIV VI but worse

[@gabrielandy9272]

ok the game have 3 AGES, but does this 3 AGES kinda have all the gameplay for the 7-8 ages of previous games?

[@haukionkannel]

There are no time jumps… So in some sentense there will be. But do they have any game play effect? Not nesessary.

[@RSpracticalshooting]

i really like the map design and how mountains feels like mountains. the verticality is a nice change.

[@HolyAlric]

Well im glad ai will pick historic i hope you can turn that off for just fun

[@Interitus1]

It feels a bit weird that countries kinda.. stop existing. While others keep going. I'm glad some keep going, and i hope we get more. Egypt is wild to me because Buganda doesn't even exist anymore. But Egypt is still around. It's not at it's highest point anymore but why act like it stopped existing. Some of these i compeltely understand. But others baffle me.

[@danhynes2]

Its hard for the AI to be any worse. I don't understand how Civ AI is so terrible compared to all the other AAA 4x games (old world, humankind, millenia).

[@kenickity]

I've only played a bit of Old World, so can't say for sure, but I'd assume Civ games have waaay more mechanics that the AI has to engage with - religion, tech, policy, districts, yields, governers, spies, climate, culture, diplomacy, war (moving an army efficiently and knowing how to control it when units can't stack), etc.; all of this modified by specific Civs, specific leaders, with different map types, difficulties, and game lengths. In Civ 6 at least and slightly less so 5 there are just too many things that the AI needs to do well at once, and it can't

[@larrote6467]

​@@kenickityquite naïve. Its the other way around. Civ games have become so simple...

[@franceforthewin4917]

I wonder if two civs can evolve to the same civ in mp. I wonder what would happen then. Who would get it?

[@seathomplay4167]

One of the things that has always bothered me about the Civ series is the limited number of active civilizations in the game. I'd rather see the map painted with city states/minor nations/tribes so that there is no free expansion and have more city states allied with other minor nations and larger civilizations to make expansion more difficult/slower and with a cost in manpower and treasury.

[@sphaera2520]

Sounds like you want a paradox game. I don’t think it’s in the cards for a civ game to completely forgo expansion and founding new cities. But I could be wrong.

[@XGD5layer]

So you want Europa Universalis 5?

[@ThaGamingMisfit]

I think Ara:History Untold will be exactly the game for you. For some reason nothing is said about this game here, but it's coming in 4 weeks. And I think I heard the devs said you can have 32 or even more civs on a map at once. Check it out, I personally think that Civ7 will have no place in my gaming future because Ara will exist.

[@seathomplay4167]

@@ThaGamingMisfit I'm looking forward to Ara. Already have it in my library, just waiting for it to drop.

[@CSRiddick]

Actually Civ 4 was more like this, I don't know exactly why but the early expansion was pretty fast, by the end of the classical age almost every piece of land was taken and the map looked like an actual geo-political map. After Civ 5 expansion was slowed down considerably and now you have empty plots of land even in the modern era.

[@halfLotusMusic]

I love the civ switching. No idea why it is so triggering

[@smallemo]

i think the Normans may have the potential to become Brittan due to the Norman conquest in 1066

[@Morgotth1916]

Britain aint a country dude - common mistake try England

[@danyoutube7491]

@@Morgotth1916 Well, he didn't say it was a country. Great Britain would be a more natural name for a modern age civ, because Great Britain was formed around the start of the 18th century and it functioned as one nation for the notable periods of the Industrial Revolution and the World Wars. It is still one nation, notwithstanding Scotland and Wales having their own parliaments in recent years. For England to be a civ it would make more sense in the age of exploration, the era of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

[@smallemo]

@@Morgotth1916 brother this game is about civilizations not countries also I'm English so i knew that already and i don't know any British person who would go outa their way to correct me on that either

[@smallemo]

@@Morgotth1916 on top of that Brittan through most of the union was ruled by a single monarch there fore despite it being multiple countries it was 1 realm not only that but the Normans were not a country either and they are in the game as a civilization in the tree

[@Morgotth1916]

@@smallemo Fair play point is there is no British person just "english" u can enjoy your day

[@roseheartfire]

yes, i hear your sick outros :P. As for the game, im still on the fence about how i feel, i feel like the ages thing is both neat but less than what we had before. Maybe its just the way its been presented, but I feel like the scale of things is being brought down. Smaller maps, smaller civ count on maps, smaller tech tree, smaller amount of cities, etc Like, it looks good, but its defintily feels very different than anything we've seen before. Not bad, just different. As you said they mentioned. Restructured. But on the flip side, while the scale has gone down it feels like the level of detail and attention has gone up. But again, its so early on, and we've only seen portions of things.

[@Kropolis]

I kind of get the Rome to France thing, but I would have probably separated them entirely. Maybe like: Rome -> Papal States ‐> Italy Franks -> Normans -> France Alternatively something like: Rome -> Byzantium -> Russia Rome -> Byzantium ‐> Ottomans Franks -> Prussian -> German For both having shared nation choices: Rome -> Papal States -> Holy Roman Empire Franks -> Germans -> Holy Roman Empire

[@ylfaer]

Rome gave origin to MANY nations after its fall. The European ones are pretty close if you want to continue. It is pretty much unfeasible to create a game that caters to ALL possibilities without being silly.

[@christopherg.6282]

Ottomans are not modern, holy roman empire are not modern. Byzantium isn't exploration. Rather I can see sth in the vein of: Byzantium -> Ottomans -> Turks Goths -> Holy Roman Empire -> Germany Slavs -> Mongols -> Russia (Modern) Slavs -> Russia (Tsardom) -> Russia (Modern)

[@haukionkannel]

That just needs a lot of more civs aka lot of more DLCs. There are about 20 civs in the release divided at 3 eroaa. 5 for stone age. 7 for exploration and 8 for modern age. We need much more than 20 civs total to do what you suggest. But 15 DLC later that is possible!

[@christopherg.6282]

@@Kropolis I think in terms of Russia, a development could be: Slavs -> Russia (Tsardom) -> Russia (Modern) Slavs -> Mongols -> Russia Slavs -> Jagellonians -> Poland I think theres a lot of potential in general. I could also envision sth in the vein of Anglo Saxons -> Prussians -> Russia Anglo Saxons -> England (Exploration) - England (Modern) Anglo Saxons -> Holy Roman Empire -> Germany

[@Kropolis]

@ylfaer oh yeah no I totally agree lol

[@Dogeman73]

Egypt should be called ancient egypt and then it should become Fatmid Caliphate in Medieval Age and then Modern Era is Present Day Egypt.

[@bricelevai8520]

You see I like that India progression it’s pretty cool, I think the French example works fine too, still not liking the Egypt Songhai tho

[@52flyingbicycles]

Egypt can also become Mongolia, which seems even weirder. I guess Egypt is in a weird spot where they’ve been Egypt for like 6000 years so there aren’t a lot of options to swap into.

[@GojiraFan25]

@@52flyingbicycles well considering india can just become 3 different indias idk why they couldnt do that for egypt, new kingdom, nasser egypt etc.

[@bricelevai8520]

I’d be satisfied with an option to start as Egypt go into the Umayyads or Mamluks or something like that, and then into modern Egypt or the ottoman. That would at least make some sense, I wonder if they planed a historical route for every Civ like they did for India but for every Civ… doesn’t look like it based on the Shonghai example

[@Matt-uk7zq]

@@bricelevai8520ottoman is turk… it’d make more sense for mongolia to evolve into it than egypt

[@jlferrell123]

How is it cool? The Mughal Empire was a conquering Muslim power that the native Hindu and Sikh populations battled for hundreds of years before the East India Company swooped in and took control when it collapsed. The natural progression of Indian society equals Mughal Empire makes zero sense.

[@SmellyHam]

I was skeptical at first but I've warmed up to this "3 ages" concept, it actually sounds pretty intuitive.

[@leonardoaquino3669]

So will the AI actually be competent or just cheat their way to win with extra resources coming from nowhere?

[@soapgaming4903]

Probably cheat

[@annaairahala9462]

Probably cheat. But if they don't I'll be impressed that Civ finally did what every game has been doing with their AI for the past decade. There's no reason for AI to cheat anymore, and for a game like civ it really shouldn't be too difficult to make a non-cheating AI.

[@KasumiRINA]

​@@annaairahala9462 Wait strategy games figured out CPU not cheating? This feels surprising and sad because Westwood doesn't exist and Blizzard aren't doing them anymore.

[@annaairahala9462]

@@KasumiRINA Yes, like 10-15 years ago is when it started to become commonplace. Most strategy games on the market nowadays do not use cheating AI

[@gabrielandy9272]

@@annaairahala9462 its ok to have cheaty options, the oproblem iis when you only have cheaty options, age of empires iv, starcraft 2, and many other games have AI that don't cheat and plays OK/well, and they do give a option to give a buff to the ai if you desire.

[@Westkane11]

Going back to the CIV5 graphic style hmm.. I love it!

[@danyoutube7491]

Well they say that's where they got their inspiration, but does it look more like Civ 5 to you than Civ 6? It doesn't to me; too cartoony.

[@Westkane11]

@@danyoutube7491 Yes the leaders still looks cartonny, but the board's and figure's style looks more like CIV 5 then CIV 6.

[@haengeltheknight1212]

Wondering if they add Mexico, they will do Rome-Spain-Mexico or Maya-Aztec-Mexico.

[@MTRON-lq3rx]

Probably both I guess

[@danyoutube7491]

Is Mexico considered a notable modern civilization though? Without meaning to offend, it's just another modern country isn't it? Much like most European countries.

[@jonathanchimaras5428]

Haven't they shown a Mexican wonder already? I mean, Mexico is pretty much confirmed by now

[@MTRON-lq3rx]

@@jonathanchimaras5428 Probably will be Azteks-Mexico and Castile-Spain

[@JuanManuel-ii1ov]

​@@danyoutube7491 One of the largest countries both population and economy-wise, the only logical succesor to either the Aztecs or Maya, also the most famous spanish speaking country asides from Spain itself; given that we have had Scotland, Canada and Australia as civs before, I'd say there is room for like five Mexicos.

[@zackleonard8559]

it would be cool if there are multiple different historical options for civ switching. Like Rome > Norman > Australia or like Britons > Medieval England > Australia

[@Luzitanium]

so what are the new civs??

[@AbdoZaInsert]

You’ll know when DLCs release

[@kfirlevy7635]

2:00 is exactly how it should be done. Each civ should have its own development through history which makes sense. Such as this one right here, and something like Athens->Byzantium->Greece. It should be like in the CIV4 mod "Realism Invictus", but we shouldn't get immersive breaking nonsense like Egypt becoming Mongolia or even Mali for that matter. Each era, according to the player's choices, should develop each civ into its own version of the next tier civ, but the civs overall should stay the same, like in the examples I said.

[@shitstorm222]

Not a fan of changing up the civs. The entire thing was if your civ can stand the test of time.

[@Astronenot]

to stand the test of time is to change

[@mr.p215]

​@@Astronenotno, it is to weather the change and stay the same at your core

[@mats8375]

I'm glad they're going back to Civ 5 graphics style. I love it!

[@eo5485]

Watch me play as Poland and my only choices going to be between becoming germany or russia

[@hydralance8837]

The visuals look great BUT im missing one thing. Where is the farmland, where are the food coming from to these cities? Im hoping city sprawling isnt to bad because late game most off the land should be farms if you want to be realistic.

[@dae8837]

Looks great tbh

[@Will-sj6kt]

Major shout out to the background music today, bro was shredding

[@erickr6400]

imagine telling italians the civs can evolve with ages but the romans will become the french

[@KasumiRINA]

Both Caesar and Napoleon were Italians, the difference is one is a salad and the other is cake... So just flavor.

[@joeyjoejoejrshabadu]

I think Italians are fully aware that the Roman province of Gaul turned in to France.

[@zacharybecker8228]

@@KasumiRINA it still doesnt make sense they led 2 entirely different empires and both the french and italians go back far enough to each have 3 of their own

[@erickr6400]

@@joeyjoejoejrshabadu i meant they haven't had a proper civ. no need to flex your middle school history in the comment section

[@MrDeadDivision]

@@erickr6400 Venice weeps in the corner

[@whatsoeverest]

Do I HAVE TO change my civ after each epoch, or can I stay with my civ? This is so essential for me. I want to feel the time I spend with my civ throughout history

[@adavis5926]

I hope they include the ability to start the game with a somewhat randomized tech tree, like Civ 6

[@hilding2063]

The concepts and the graphics start to grow on me. Looks really promising

[@Liiqquuiidd]

There is no way only 3 ages...that doesn't make since until you realize they forced it to make the other machanics work...this is craziness

[@ashaler__]

I'm assuming they're keeping Ages and Eras separate. At least, I really, really hope they are

[@Jacknyancat]

I hear and see your slick outros :P

[@TheDarkRivet]

I want to build a civilization that STANDS the test of time !! NOT one that is forcibly changed /"evolved" into another !! Give players the option to NOT do this and I will buy/ play it. Without it I will not.

[@ItchaBoi]

Option is already there. You don't have to change if you don't want to

[@CurrentlyDuck1]

Trust me, this is not something worth getting offended over

[@mr.p215]

​@@CurrentlyDuck1you gonna buy him the game then otherwise he has the right to complain about it

[@lukegreen9558]

Slick outro bro

[@esnoob2282]

for me, I’m still buying the game the Ui itself it’s much better than the other competitors. The graphics and finally cultural skin is a win. I’ll just wait if the Ai is good and waiting for jumbopixel to play this in full game

[@Ayem427]

I'm so unreasonably pumped for this!

[@sonodietrodithe4iltuoincub848]

As an italian if the Romans cant become italians then im not buying the game i mean i exist fireaxis you hear me? I EXIST!

[@robotictoast65]

One day. One day Italy will be a Civ civ.

[@soapgaming4903]

Italy doesn’t exist! The government can’t fool me!

[@KasumiRINA]

We non-Italians just assume Romans are just Italians from era they ate Caesar salad instead of pizza who are called by their capital, kind of pre-cossack Ukrainians being called Kyivan... They should just rename France to Paris and give them Hilton hotel unique buildings for outdated reference. P.S. Special war condition to link pineapple resource to Italian civ.

[@haukionkannel]

DLC! We have about 20 civs in the release. 5 in historical era, 6 to 7 at the age of exploration. And 8 for modern era. Italy is not one of those 7 modern age civs! We need DLCs, a lot of them to get Italy as modern age civ option!

[@edpistemic]

How do roads come about?

[@infinitedonuts]

I wish people would be a bit more open minded to the civ switching mechanic I mean we haven’t even seen how it’s implemented yet. If the game releases and it’s implemented poorly then people would be justified in their negative views.

[@Martin-di9pp]

People seem very stuck about how things deviate from real life. Guess those people always played the earth maps with historical accurate starting points for fear of England starting next to the Mayas and their whole worldview collapsing or something.

[@andrewhooper7603]

some people want civ to be like CoD, where incremental changes build on a safe and familiar formula. instead, every iteration is a near complete rebuild and they have to adapt and learn new strategies. despite being strategy gamers, this infuriates them. until its in people's hands, i don't care what is said about it. this is just the natural civ release cycle and i would be worried if a segment of the fanbase wasn't angry at the idea of change.

[@darkrain491]

​@@andrewhooper7603 Nobody cares about it changing you condescending individual, they think the change is badly done and don't like it because of that.

[@frangarcia1699]

​@@Martin-di9ppyou are playing civilizations that didn't exist in the prehistoric era?

[@larrote6467]

​@@andrewhooper7603translation: "i dont undetstand the issue" nice strawman btw

[@busbee247]

Can I ask a question? I loved Civ 5, its one of my most played games on steam. I never really liked Civ 6 though, the biggest things i disliked were the city districting restricting building certain buildings in certain cities, and the barbarians being a massive pain to deal with. do you think I'll like civ 7?