No Britain at launch

[Mightymagyar]

Insane.

[JerBeware]

Originally posted by Akarin:

I'm just not a fan of locking in Catherine and not be russia, to lock in the leader of the roman empire who somehow is leading china.

I'm fine with civs cultures evolving each era, seeing britian change in their strengths each era would have been interesting but the devs didn't want to do the amount of work that would have required.

Yeah. Switching leaders would have made much more sense and been truer to the roots, premise, and title of the franchise.

But instead they took an idea from another game they were seriously worried about as competition, tried to expand on that, and baked it into the core game. Then they doubled and tripled down on that. And instead of true balance, we get further limits on what civ can even be in what era.

[JerBeware]

Originally posted by marcopolomalta:

Originally posted by Oaks:

So you are going to wait years to buy the game because you are so insulted England is not in the game? Too funny.

Yes. It's my money, and I would have happily paid the full £120 and for other dlc later.

Or it could just be for some that they'll lose a sale entirely. I'd be happy be proven wrong, but the more I see, the worse it looks.

Probably going to skip the entry entirely at this point. I bought it once and already refunded.

[Akarin]

Originally posted by JerBeware:

Originally posted by Akarin:

I'm just not a fan of locking in Catherine and not be russia, to lock in the leader of the roman empire who somehow is leading china.

I'm fine with civs cultures evolving each era, seeing britian change in their strengths each era would have been interesting but the devs didn't want to do the amount of work that would have required.

Yeah. Switching leaders would have made much more sense and been truer to the roots, premise, and title of the franchise.

But instead they took an idea from another game they were seriously worried about as competition, tried to expand on that, and baked it into the core game. Then they doubled and tripled down on that. And instead of true balance, we get further limits on what civ can even be in what era.

People will also get tired of having to manually figure out who is who every game every time you see the guy who leads rome you will have to manually click on him to see who he actually is then mentally assign them as that for only that play though and the next time he will be different civ, almost nobody will be able to adapt to that.

[Magnapinna Pacifica]

There's Normans so that's England. What they'll need to add as time goes on are:
Something in Antiquity to represent the pre-Norman British Isles, Angles perhaps. Or who knows, Druid-led peoples? Northern celts?
Something after the Normans in the Exploration Age. I see there are two different versions of France in modernity - the French Empire or just France. I would assume the same of the British Empire

[Bouncer]

Originally posted by Akarin:

Originally posted by JerBeware:

Yeah. Switching leaders would have made much more sense and been truer to the roots, premise, and title of the franchise.

But instead they took an idea from another game they were seriously worried about as competition, tried to expand on that, and baked it into the core game. Then they doubled and tripled down on that. And instead of true balance, we get further limits on what civ can even be in what era.

People will also get tired of having to manually figure out who is who every game every time you see the guy who leads rome you will have to manually click on him to see who he actually is then mentally assign them as that for only that play though and the next time he will be different civ, almost nobody will be able to adapt to that.

Yeah Civ has never before had any info or mechanics that was only majorly relevant for 33% of an entire game, ever. You can't expect anyone to think this much.
Truly this will be the straw that broke the camel's back, the complexity that'll be too much to handle.
If only we had switching leaders, which is somehow totally different and not just the exact same thing except switcheroo'd.

[Cordy39]

No Britain in a CIV game is just ridiculous. It's literally the civilisation that started the industrial era and went on to form the largest empire in history. Yet we have obscure civs that barely anyone has heard of. At this point this will be the first CIV game I won't be buying at launch.

[reoman56]

You know they held Britain back on purpose to sell to you later right? The stockholders must be fed a steady drip of your hard earned money y'all! This will go on for years and years and years!

Civ 7 is all about this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and this only!

[reoman56]

Originally posted by Baba Zina:

But if they will put these civs in a free dlc or at least in the decent addon, that would be fine.

This is where we throw back our heads and laugh! 2K CEO and stockholders probably.

[Akarin]

Originally posted by Bouncer:

Originally posted by Akarin:

People will also get tired of having to manually figure out who is who every game every time you see the guy who leads rome you will have to manually click on him to see who he actually is then mentally assign them as that for only that play though and the next time he will be different civ, almost nobody will be able to adapt to that.

Yeah Civ has never before had any info or mechanics that was only majorly relevant for 33% of an entire game, ever. You can't expect anyone to think this much.
Truly this will be the straw that broke the camel's back, the complexity that'll be too much to handle.
If only we had switching leaders, which is somehow totally different and not just the exact same thing except switcheroo'd.

You had to opt into that and quite frankly the majority of people did not, your painting a bias light knowing this or are just ignorant.

Its like claiming the main player base of rts games are in ranked when in reality most people play rts for the campaign then move on to a different game.

[JerBeware]

Originally posted by Bouncer:

Originally posted by Akarin:

People will also get tired of having to manually figure out who is who every game every time you see the guy who leads rome you will have to manually click on him to see who he actually is then mentally assign them as that for only that play though and the next time he will be different civ, almost nobody will be able to adapt to that.

Yeah Civ has never before had any info or mechanics that was only majorly relevant for 33% of an entire game, ever. You can't expect anyone to think this much.
Truly this will be the straw that broke the camel's back, the complexity that'll be too much to handle.
If only we had switching leaders, which is somehow totally different and not just the exact same thing except switcheroo'd.

I don't disagree, even with the sarcasm. At least the leader swap would have been truer to the roots of the series.

For me, it wasn't the main factor in my decision to refund. It was more about the way things are locked by the age, the reduced complexity in the early age and forced arbitrary reduction of options for each age.

For me, the early age and future ages were my favorite portions to play. One has been entirely cannibalized and the other doesn't exist in the 'new base game'.

[Empire autogladiators]

deal breaker for me then

[plaguepenguin]

Originally posted by Witski:

Originally posted by plaguepenguin:

I thought there was still one more civ to reveal.

Where can we see all the civs?

The definitive source is the 2K site (https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/). There you can find the Game Guide, and the Explore the Game Guide button will take you to a list of civilizations for which they have revealed the full details. These civs are pretty clearly in. They have already posted all 10 Antiquity civs, and all 11 Exploration civs. For the modern, there are only 6 out of 10 that have a game guide. Add to those 6, 3 others that have appeared on age succession charts at the 2K site (Buganda, Mughal India, Meiji Japan), and that left only one yet to be identified. The OP here, mightymagyar, reports, from some other source I haven't checked out, that Prussia is that last remaining initial release modern civ. I have no reason to doubt this report, as there are clearly other reliable sources beyond what I have been following, which is just 2K's page.

[Pangolin Legends: Arceus]

Denuvo and no England? No sale

[Pooch]

Collector's Kit Unboxing Shows All Modern Age Civs

If any of you have seen the unboxing of that, you'll notice the final modern age civs do NOT include the British.

How can Firaxis justify launching a Civ game without the LARGEST empire in human history? We seriously get Buganda and not Great Britain.

[Bobs]

We have the Shawnee and Hawaii though. We all know how much these two changed the world. Worlds largest empire? Industrial Revolution? Most spoken language? Home of Newton, Shakespeare, Darwin, Babbage et all.

Nope, not important. The Shawnee is where it's at. They really look good in mighty Oklahoma. All 10,000 of them. Changed the world they did.