I'm guessing Vietnam will be in the game as a Exploration or Modern Age civ. The fact that Trung Trac is Vietnamese is a strong indicator. And Khmer are an Antiquity Age civ, and it would make sense to have a neighbouring civ like Vietnam for the Khmer to evolve into.
I don't think it will be at all, probably a later addition. I mean look at Amina, she should be Hausa or Nigeria, yet there are African Civs that has no correlation to her at all.
Hi Jumbo, love your videos. Just wanted to answer that question about why the peaceful persona of Ashoka was wearing red. In both hinduism and buddhism, orange is considered a sacred colour, representing purity and renunciation. Hence why i believe the renouncer is wearing a similar colour (it’s not exactly red, rather a more dull, almost orange version of it with orange accents as well). Whereas the more militaristic and aggressive persona is wearing majestic jewellery and purple clothing representing his craving for power and grandeur (if I remember correctly purple was one of the most expensive dyes back then). So imo it’s actually great visual design and shows that the artists have really gone in depth about the culture and personalities of both these phases of Ashoka. And btw i do recommend checking out Ashoka’s life and rule. Pretty interesting read.
Honestly, I love going naval but it just is never really thaaat beneficial, having navigable rivers will hopefully make them a lot more useful with being able to patrol through territories and would hopefully give an advantage if fighting against any armies trying to cross rivers
I don't get why your leader would stay the same throughout the ages. Surely it makes sense to also change leader each age? Augustus -> Charlemagne-> Bismarck for example.
I think I heard once they said it's because the player usually identifies as the leader they pick and it might get too confusing if leaders change over time (probably mostly in diplomatic relations)
@@-nxchtwolf-305 Yeh I seem to remember them saying that too, and I do think it would be harder to keep track of the who is who if loads of changes occur. Begs the question, why bother changing any of them at all? Why not keep to the tried and tested, but have the ages and allow players to chose new bonuses based on their accomplishments in the previous? I'm sure they played out the options in play tests and maybe this is the best course...
@@TheSideshowtom maybe the idea is to have more depth in gameplay. I mean it's weird and unrealistic but let's be honest civilization isn't really realistic anyways. I think it could be interesting to build your civilization out of different ones from the past, probably very interesting for replayability and more tactical choices during the game. It has always been weird to play as Napoleon in stone age or fight with tanks against medieval knights from time to time and I think a new game also needs some new approaches, otherwise people will just say 'but it's the same game what a scam', especially since there is a bigger competition in the 4x genre recently.
idk personally I'm not a huge fan of the multiple variations of the same leader thing, and haven't been since civ VI. I don't necessarily think it's a ~bad~ feature per se it just simply holds zero appeal to me. first of all it feels weird and almost like it's sloppy/incomplete that only a few leaders get this treatment. if every single leader had two personas I'd like it more since it would feel like a whole feature, but I don't think that's gonna happen. I'd 1000% prefer to just have additional leaders, especially since they've opened up having non heads of state as options. like why do we get Napoleon in two outfits when we could get Napoleon (who we've seen before) PLUS like Joan of Arc or someone who wouldn't have qualified as a leader in a previous game? if it's really just a budget thing I get it, but if that's the case I'd rather them put the resources from the extra personas into something else. again I certainly don't think this detracts from the quality of the game it just doesn't excite me at all
Man, i liked the fact they didnt go full napoleon in Civ 6 for france and yet here we go again. There's so many to choose from why stay with him. Why not Louis XIV, Henri IV, Francis I, Louis IX hell go for Poincaré or adolphe thiers, Robespierre even if you want a revolutionnary. Civ 4 spoiled us too much it seems.
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. The game looks great, and I really like the combat changes. But the civilization changing seems really jarring. Personally I like to play the civ I've never really care who the leader was.
@@joeyjoejoeshabadoo1411 That's kinda funny because I'm basically the opposite. I've always been able to keep up with what leader abilities are but never really cared for the civs unique units or district/building. I think civs changing is just easier from a consistency sort of point too. Since leaders have their biases and agendas I can see it being very tedious and annoying if leaders changed. At least with leaders staying the same I know that Xerxes, The Achaemend will favor trade routes and economic civs rather than just going off and choosing something with culture and science.
Love your content dude! And its seems so does the bots. lol. Thanks for going through the leaders even though I will probaly pick a favorite and never play the others.
Good grief, so not only is the base game an outrageous price, not only do we need to pay extra to get the extra versions of certain leaders, but we need to have a 2K account as well as Steam etc? Why is there so much needless faff in loading up a modern game, not to mention extortionate cost?
bro the game looks insane i can't remember the last time i was this excited to play something. and i was one of the guys chanting "Humankind 2" after the initial reveal!
Honestly switching civs will keep stuff interesting, but it should be possible to have the ability to play the same civ all the way through the game while still being a somewhat competitive choice. As someone with over 150hrs in Humankind, I will say that they fumbled the ball with the civ/culture switching by making it occur far too frequently. 3 Switches throughout a game seems much more manageable. What I do have legitimate gripes about, is the "online-only" type of DRM software the devs chose to utilize. I am spacing on the name but I have heard that when used with other titles have suffered from frequent crashes due to this DRM software. If your internet stutters the game will close, and knowing recently firaxis games at launch it will most likely crash without saving progress. Also this means essentially no mods can be developed because it will be incredibly difficult to access the source code. To me, this is a much larger issue than a gameplay change such as changing civs mid game twice. Let me know what other peoples thoughts are on the new Civ 7 DRM software
It doesn't seem like any of this civs announced so far have any synergies with coastal/ocean tiles or gameplay. I guess that could be more of a focus during the second era, but there were plenty of ancient-era naval powers too. I hope they re-introduce someone like Carthage. Naval/coastal gameplay has always been my favorite way to play civ games.
This new edition is different from what I'm used to, therefore I shall denounce it entirely and complain about it endlessly without even having tried it yet.
Come back in a year or two when they’ve implemented all the era-specific civs for cultures that spanned thousands of years of history. India will have three on launch, so you can play as “India” for the whole game. Others will get the same treatment. In my opinion, it balances the issue of early and late game focused civs and gives additional historical context. The modding scene will be amazing for filling in hypothetical era specific versions of civs that either didn’t last or were founded later. I’ve only seen this change as positive.
Why Xerxes and not Cyrus? Cyrus is so great, they added it to his name. Disappointed. I do want to see more Mesopotamian civs and leaders. Also interested in the new world civs and leaders. Surely Shawnee isn't the only one?
I really hope Poland is available as a Civ at launch. In the past Poland has been a DLC Civ, but I feel like Poland could lend itself well to the new changing of the civilization mechanics. The belief that we Poles descended from the Sarmatians/Scythians of antiquity was a major part of Polish culture, forming the dominating ideology of Sarmatianism and concepts such as Aurea Libertas or “Golden Liberty”, which happens to be the name of Jadwiga’s culture bomb ability in Civ 6. Even today it is not uncommon to see Poland poetically referred to as Sarmatia. The new era mechanics leave me both intrigued yet wary. I expect I’ll be disappointed with the execution of this new gameplay mechanics unfortunately. It would seem to lend itself well to some Civs, such as China and India, much better than others. Take my Poland for example. Will we go from Sarmatians, to Proto-Slavs, then to Poles? Very unlikely. Sarmatians, Lechites, to Poles? Also unlikely. I imagine we will have to arbitrarily play another civilization that has little to no historical connection to Poland. Like Sarmatians, to Normans, to Poland. Ideally I would like to begin as Sarmatians, transition into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, then into modern Poland. This would allow them to include Lithuania as a proper Civ as well. This would even allow them to make the logical jump from Rome to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth haha. Lithuanians via the legendary Palemonid once claimed to be of a Roman origin.
You know, as much as I like this idea, I think that it is very unlikely that Poland will be available at launch. Each age will only have 10 civilizations, and the problem is that they try to represent the whole world with those 10 civs. So obviously many will be missing. Also I'm afraid that we won't get a full three-civilizations path for Poland, I think from the perspective of developers, Poland is just not important enough and won't be given such privilege. So if Poland is even added, I think the most likely path will be: Some Ancient Civ (Maybe Slavs but I think it is unlikely) - Poland or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Russia or Soviet Union. I don't like this path, but I think it is the only realistic one given the new game mechanics. Because I highly doubt we will get Commonwealth and Modern Poland as well, it will be one of those. This is why I am also not in favor of this new mechanic, I mean it sounds cool, but only works for certain civilizations. And doesn't take into account that some transitions will feel like game over. But to be honest, I am bit worried that Poland won't be added at all. Because each civilization have some wonder associated with them, for example Rome has Colosseum. And I can't think of anything in Poland that could be classified as a world wonder. There are many beautiful buildings of course, but nothing known worldwide, like TajMahal or Tower of London
@@janolbratowski1814We share the same fears as it relates to Poland’s potential presence in this game. I really hope we aren’t forced down a path towards a Civ like Russia or Germany. It seems to me that by doing so would suggest the superiority of Russian or German culture over Polish if in every game the Polish Civ, at least when AI controlled, advances into the modern age then suddenly and arbitrarily turns into Russia. I’d hope the game developers are more cognizant of the potential problems optically with such an outcome. Indians, you get to play as a form of India in all three eras. Poles, you get to change into a peer and rival that attempted to destroy your language and culture and now actually roleplay as if they had succeeded in this evil and fully stamped out Polishness. Unfortunately, I’m with you and believe this outcome is fairly likely. If done well, the new mechanics can be a boon for the series, but if done poorly as we both seem to fear, it will dissuade me from ever continuing a play though past the point of no return. When it comes to wonders I thought perhaps they could go with the most obvious choice and just use Wawel Castle.
@@Konrad9119 Good to see I am not alone being concerned about Poland. You are right, it will feel anticlimactic to lead your civilization only to have Russia or some other foreign nation as and available choice. But I'm afraid that in case of Easter Europe, the developers will go with the simplest path: Slavs or Kievan Rus for Ancient (I know Kievan Rus is more like early medieval, but so is Khmer), Poland for Exploration (because it covers medieval and renaissance eras, and gives a chance to add Winged Hussars as a unique unit) and Russia/Soviet Union for Modern. And given that in the trailer we saw tanks resembling Soviet T-34, I think this is what will happen. On the other hand, there is still a small chance that due to a war on Ukraine, the developers might actually be more careful when designing Easter Europe's progression and will be aware about the potential problems and controversies. I would so much prefer if you didn't have to change your civilization every age, but instead stay for a whole game as for example Rome, and chose new sets of bonuses and unique buildings when transitioning into new era. But I guess we will have to wait and see what will happen. As for the wonder, I would be really happy if they picked Wawel Castle, but I am a bit worried that it is very special building for Poles, but for the rest of the world it's just a castle. But maybe Częstochowa Monastery, giving some unique bonuses to defense? And lastly, I think it's possible that Poland might be included in Crossroads of the World DLC, given that it was bordering with Protestant Sweden, Orthodox Russia and Islamic Ottomans, so it could fit into this DLC. But that's just my theory.
For real some of the biggest civilizations ever were Germanic. And it’s annoying they won’t add Hitler despite him being the most famous leader of all time.
@@allenzelt4481 Are you under the impression that Germany, a civ which has been in every single Civ game since the first, isn't going to be in the next installment? Or are you just complaining about non-white people?
This would be so dope, I really want to see some communist civs or cold war civs in general. I love the antiquity history that's getting portrayed right now but I still want to see something more modern.
Well hell - you just told me they kept a feature I hated in CIV VI - leader tendencies that make no sense and/or ruin the immersion - leaders that don't like it if you have 'more wonders.' Likes civs at war and doesn't like those at peace. Think about that - really
You had me out the door at foreigners automatically get to take over your civilization whether you like it or not. Its snot about hating it, it's about never touching it in the first place.
I think it would be a cool mechanic if between ages you can switch the personality of the leader so then there’s a little bit more interaction. This wat its not like a completely different leader in the game then it can somewhat connect to the age switching mechanic kind of well.
I think one of the bigger things that makes a difference is the fact that the leaders have 2 persona's. Yeah, you may run into the same leaders more often, but the double persona's seem like a easy way to in a way double the amount there actually are.
No turks, no arabian (Abbasid is more persian) and no Indonesian (Srivijaya or Majapahit or Kutai or Aceh or Indonesia itself) means I'll stick to civ 6
I really hate the personas. For me a leader is not a set of bonusses, but a distinct historical person. And playing napoleon the revolutionary when I could play Simon Bolivar instead is just robbing me of 1 leader in the game. I would really prefer they quit making the mosels of a leader ever more complicated and instead give us more of them. What use is it to me if a person speaks one kind of incomprehensile gibberish or another? Whx do tge animations need to have 100 phase instead of just 3-10 different looks, depending kn mood and subject.
I'm guessing Vietnam will be in the game as a Exploration or Modern Age civ. The fact that Trung Trac is Vietnamese is a strong indicator. And Khmer are an Antiquity Age civ, and it would make sense to have a neighbouring civ like Vietnam for the Khmer to evolve into.
I don't think it will be at all, probably a later addition. I mean look at Amina, she should be Hausa or Nigeria, yet there are African Civs that has no correlation to her at all.
Vietnam has historically been a DLC civ
Hi Jumbo, love your videos. Just wanted to answer that question about why the peaceful persona of Ashoka was wearing red. In both hinduism and buddhism, orange is considered a sacred colour, representing purity and renunciation. Hence why i believe the renouncer is wearing a similar colour (it’s not exactly red, rather a more dull, almost orange version of it with orange accents as well). Whereas the more militaristic and aggressive persona is wearing majestic jewellery and purple clothing representing his craving for power and grandeur (if I remember correctly purple was one of the most expensive dyes back then). So imo it’s actually great visual design and shows that the artists have really gone in depth about the culture and personalities of both these phases of Ashoka. And btw i do recommend checking out Ashoka’s life and rule. Pretty interesting read.
Navigable rivers will open up so much naval and ground combat options😮💨
Honestly, I love going naval but it just is never really thaaat beneficial, having navigable rivers will hopefully make them a lot more useful with being able to patrol through territories and would hopefully give an advantage if fighting against any armies trying to cross rivers
It is unironically the single most exciting new feature for me. Viking civs just got a whole lot more fun
I don't get why your leader would stay the same throughout the ages. Surely it makes sense to also change leader each age? Augustus -> Charlemagne-> Bismarck for example.
I think I heard once they said it's because the player usually identifies as the leader they pick and it might get too confusing if leaders change over time (probably mostly in diplomatic relations)
@@-nxchtwolf-305 Like who does that? Honestly? You see your leader like 1 time and then never think about them again.
@@-nxchtwolf-305 Yeh I seem to remember them saying that too, and I do think it would be harder to keep track of the who is who if loads of changes occur. Begs the question, why bother changing any of them at all? Why not keep to the tried and tested, but have the ages and allow players to chose new bonuses based on their accomplishments in the previous? I'm sure they played out the options in play tests and maybe this is the best course...
@@TheSideshowtom maybe the idea is to have more depth in gameplay. I mean it's weird and unrealistic but let's be honest civilization isn't really realistic anyways.
I think it could be interesting to build your civilization out of different ones from the past, probably very interesting for replayability and more tactical choices during the game.
It has always been weird to play as Napoleon in stone age or fight with tanks against medieval knights from time to time and I think a new game also needs some new approaches, otherwise people will just say 'but it's the same game what a scam', especially since there is a bigger competition in the 4x genre recently.
idk personally I'm not a huge fan of the multiple variations of the same leader thing, and haven't been since civ VI. I don't necessarily think it's a ~bad~ feature per se it just simply holds zero appeal to me. first of all it feels weird and almost like it's sloppy/incomplete that only a few leaders get this treatment. if every single leader had two personas I'd like it more since it would feel like a whole feature, but I don't think that's gonna happen. I'd 1000% prefer to just have additional leaders, especially since they've opened up having non heads of state as options. like why do we get Napoleon in two outfits when we could get Napoleon (who we've seen before) PLUS like Joan of Arc or someone who wouldn't have qualified as a leader in a previous game? if it's really just a budget thing I get it, but if that's the case I'd rather them put the resources from the extra personas into something else. again I certainly don't think this detracts from the quality of the game it just doesn't excite me at all
Man, i liked the fact they didnt go full napoleon in Civ 6 for france and yet here we go again. There's so many to choose from why stay with him. Why not Louis XIV, Henri IV, Francis I, Louis IX hell go for Poincaré or adolphe thiers, Robespierre even if you want a revolutionnary.
Civ 4 spoiled us too much it seems.
Insane that Robespierre isn't a civ leader yet.
I'm agree. I would have prefered Louis XIV, Francis I, Henri IV or Charles de Gaule.
@@Isthecakereallyalie Confucius is a civ leader?
I assume they add some of the most famous historical figures simply for marketing reasons alone.
@simsportif i still want Germany most iconic leader even if it causes people to cry other genocidal leaders are in the game such as gengis khan
I wish they had taken the decision to change leaders throughout your game and not your civilisation.
I suspect the majority of civ fans feel the same
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking. The game looks great, and I really like the combat changes. But the civilization changing seems really jarring. Personally I like to play the civ I've never really care who the leader was.
@@joeyjoejoeshabadoo1411 That's kinda funny because I'm basically the opposite. I've always been able to keep up with what leader abilities are but never really cared for the civs unique units or district/building. I think civs changing is just easier from a consistency sort of point too. Since leaders have their biases and agendas I can see it being very tedious and annoying if leaders changed. At least with leaders staying the same I know that Xerxes, The Achaemend will favor trade routes and economic civs rather than just going off and choosing something with culture and science.
I can't can't shake my hatred of changing civs....
Yeah like Crusader Kings 3.
Love your content dude! And its seems so does the bots. lol. Thanks for going through the leaders even though I will probaly pick a favorite and never play the others.
You're a natural entertainer Jumbo! Thank you for the knowledge my man!
Good grief, so not only is the base game an outrageous price, not only do we need to pay extra to get the extra versions of certain leaders, but we need to have a 2K account as well as Steam etc? Why is there so much needless faff in loading up a modern game, not to mention extortionate cost?
bro the game looks insane i can't remember the last time i was this excited to play something. and i was one of the guys chanting "Humankind 2" after the initial reveal!
the great wall looks appropriately great in this game finally!!!!
You definitely aren’t alone. I’m so hyped
Honestly switching civs will keep stuff interesting, but it should be possible to have the ability to play the same civ all the way through the game while still being a somewhat competitive choice.
As someone with over 150hrs in Humankind, I will say that they fumbled the ball with the civ/culture switching by making it occur far too frequently.
3 Switches throughout a game seems much more manageable.
What I do have legitimate gripes about, is the "online-only" type of DRM software the devs chose to utilize. I am spacing on the name but I have heard that when used with other titles have suffered from frequent crashes due to this DRM software. If your internet stutters the game will close, and knowing recently firaxis games at launch it will most likely crash without saving progress. Also this means essentially no mods can be developed because it will be incredibly difficult to access the source code.
To me, this is a much larger issue than a gameplay change such as changing civs mid game twice. Let me know what other peoples thoughts are on the new Civ 7 DRM software
"We'll start with Hatshepsut - the chick with the PRONOUNCED 5 o'clock shadow. Hey! They didn't have razors back then."
7:18 the logos of Chola and Mughal is swapped
Really excited for them game, new to the genre and I enjoy humankind and going through civs, can’t way to see how civ 7 plays out
It doesn't seem like any of this civs announced so far have any synergies with coastal/ocean tiles or gameplay. I guess that could be more of a focus during the second era, but there were plenty of ancient-era naval powers too. I hope they re-introduce someone like Carthage. Naval/coastal gameplay has always been my favorite way to play civ games.
This new edition is different from what I'm used to, therefore I shall denounce it entirely and complain about it endlessly without even having tried it yet.
forced civ changing is a deal breaker for me
So I prob missed this. Is there an option to turn off changing civ throughout the ages? Or will there be and option? If not this is a pass for me.
The only way to do that is to play within just one era, which Firaxis confirmed.
@@drsuchomimus Ok thanks for the info 👍
Come back in a year or two when they’ve implemented all the era-specific civs for cultures that spanned thousands of years of history. India will have three on launch, so you can play as “India” for the whole game. Others will get the same treatment. In my opinion, it balances the issue of early and late game focused civs and gives additional historical context. The modding scene will be amazing for filling in hypothetical era specific versions of civs that either didn’t last or were founded later. I’ve only seen this change as positive.
@@CharlieQuartz Haven't you heard... modding is going to be next to impossible for Civ 7.
@@drsuchomimus No one is doing that lol.
the Japanese leader looks really but like REALLY bad imo
Why Xerxes and not Cyrus? Cyrus is so great, they added it to his name. Disappointed. I do want to see more Mesopotamian civs and leaders. Also interested in the new world civs and leaders. Surely Shawnee isn't the only one?
They just had Cyrus in civ 6
i see himeko is leading Majapahit... 🔥🔥🔥
I really hope Poland is available as a Civ at launch. In the past Poland has been a DLC Civ, but I feel like Poland could lend itself well to the new changing of the civilization mechanics. The belief that we Poles descended from the Sarmatians/Scythians of antiquity was a major part of Polish culture, forming the dominating ideology of Sarmatianism and concepts such as Aurea Libertas or “Golden Liberty”, which happens to be the name of Jadwiga’s culture bomb ability in Civ 6. Even today it is not uncommon to see Poland poetically referred to as Sarmatia. The new era mechanics leave me both intrigued yet wary. I expect I’ll be disappointed with the execution of this new gameplay mechanics unfortunately. It would seem to lend itself well to some Civs, such as China and India, much better than others. Take my Poland for example. Will we go from Sarmatians, to Proto-Slavs, then to Poles? Very unlikely. Sarmatians, Lechites, to Poles? Also unlikely. I imagine we will have to arbitrarily play another civilization that has little to no historical connection to Poland. Like Sarmatians, to Normans, to Poland. Ideally I would like to begin as Sarmatians, transition into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, then into modern Poland. This would allow them to include Lithuania as a proper Civ as well. This would even allow them to make the logical jump from Rome to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth haha. Lithuanians via the legendary Palemonid once claimed to be of a Roman origin.
You know, as much as I like this idea, I think that it is very unlikely that Poland will be available at launch. Each age will only have 10 civilizations, and the problem is that they try to represent the whole world with those 10 civs. So obviously many will be missing.
Also I'm afraid that we won't get a full three-civilizations path for Poland, I think from the perspective of developers, Poland is just not important enough and won't be given such privilege. So if Poland is even added, I think the most likely path will be: Some Ancient Civ (Maybe Slavs but I think it is unlikely) - Poland or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Russia or Soviet Union. I don't like this path, but I think it is the only realistic one given the new game mechanics. Because I highly doubt we will get Commonwealth and Modern Poland as well, it will be one of those. This is why I am also not in favor of this new mechanic, I mean it sounds cool, but only works for certain civilizations. And doesn't take into account that some transitions will feel like game over.
But to be honest, I am bit worried that Poland won't be added at all. Because each civilization have some wonder associated with them, for example Rome has Colosseum. And I can't think of anything in Poland that could be classified as a world wonder. There are many beautiful buildings of course, but nothing known worldwide, like TajMahal or Tower of London
@@janolbratowski1814We share the same fears as it relates to Poland’s potential presence in this game. I really hope we aren’t forced down a path towards a Civ like Russia or Germany. It seems to me that by doing so would suggest the superiority of Russian or German culture over Polish if in every game the Polish Civ, at least when AI controlled, advances into the modern age then suddenly and arbitrarily turns into Russia. I’d hope the game developers are more cognizant of the potential problems optically with such an outcome. Indians, you get to play as a form of India in all three eras. Poles, you get to change into a peer and rival that attempted to destroy your language and culture and now actually roleplay as if they had succeeded in this evil and fully stamped out Polishness. Unfortunately, I’m with you and believe this outcome is fairly likely. If done well, the new mechanics can be a boon for the series, but if done poorly as we both seem to fear, it will dissuade me from ever continuing a play though past the point of no return. When it comes to wonders I thought perhaps they could go with the most obvious choice and just use Wawel Castle.
@@Konrad9119 Good to see I am not alone being concerned about Poland. You are right, it will feel anticlimactic to lead your civilization only to have Russia or some other foreign nation as and available choice. But I'm afraid that in case of Easter Europe, the developers will go with the simplest path: Slavs or Kievan Rus for Ancient (I know Kievan Rus is more like early medieval, but so is Khmer), Poland for Exploration (because it covers medieval and renaissance eras, and gives a chance to add Winged Hussars as a unique unit) and Russia/Soviet Union for Modern. And given that in the trailer we saw tanks resembling Soviet T-34, I think this is what will happen. On the other hand, there is still a small chance that due to a war on Ukraine, the developers might actually be more careful when designing Easter Europe's progression and will be aware about the potential problems and controversies. I would so much prefer if you didn't have to change your civilization every age, but instead stay for a whole game as for example Rome, and chose new sets of bonuses and unique buildings when transitioning into new era. But I guess we will have to wait and see what will happen.
As for the wonder, I would be really happy if they picked Wawel Castle, but I am a bit worried that it is very special building for Poles, but for the rest of the world it's just a castle. But maybe Częstochowa Monastery, giving some unique bonuses to defense?
And lastly, I think it's possible that Poland might be included in Crossroads of the World DLC, given that it was bordering with Protestant Sweden, Orthodox Russia and Islamic Ottomans, so it could fit into this DLC. But that's just my theory.
Please, do one of these for Civs
You mean this video? 😁
Civilization 7 - The First 20 CIVS REVEALED!
ua-cam.com/video/UUJmJxkANGI/v-deo.html
@@JumboPixel ohh Thank you!!
As a German, I have to admit that "no German yet" means I'm "not interested yet".
As a Polish person I agree, that sounds very German
For real some of the biggest civilizations ever were Germanic. And it’s annoying they won’t add Hitler despite him being the most famous leader of all time.
Why have Germany when you can have a bunch of African and Asian civilizations
@@allenzelt4481 Are you under the impression that Germany, a civ which has been in every single Civ game since the first, isn't going to be in the next installment? Or are you just complaining about non-white people?
Would Xerxes love it if you attack him?
Xant wait to play this
Lenin and Kievian Rus>Russian Empire>Soviet Union when?
This would be so dope, I really want to see some communist civs or cold war civs in general. I love the antiquity history that's getting portrayed right now but I still want to see something more modern.
Never. F communists
@@MaxHardcore-p7t Lenin and Stalin already appeared in the past Civ games, so they can appear again.
Why don't you talk about Napoleon passive and agenda? they're on the site
Thanks for the resume
Well hell - you just told me they kept a feature I hated in CIV VI - leader tendencies that make no sense and/or ruin the immersion - leaders that don't like it if you have 'more wonders.' Likes civs at war and doesn't like those at peace. Think about that - really
Augustus looks terrible. Other leaders look fine😅
idk, Himeko looks like a minecraft character.
@@SDZ675 was going to let that pass, but true your right. I hope they fix them before release
I think they all look really bad
You had me out the door at foreigners automatically get to take over your civilization whether you like it or not. Its snot about hating it, it's about never touching it in the first place.
Ben Franklin a as a "modern age" leader makes no sense. the 18th Century is not the "modern age"
I guess they could put him in their exploration age, but that feels like a worse fit to me.
There's no way the graphics in civ 7 could possibly be this bad
They’re not
I think it would be a cool mechanic if between ages you can switch the personality of the leader so then there’s a little bit more interaction. This wat its not like a completely different leader in the game then it can somewhat connect to the age switching mechanic kind of well.
I just want Masa Musa
I think one of the bigger things that makes a difference is the fact that the leaders have 2 persona's. Yeah, you may run into the same leaders more often, but the double persona's seem like a easy way to in a way double the amount there actually are.
Also relax someone Will make a mod where you change leader
Unless you play console, of course.
Sorry to say but leader design is just awful - looks like a mobile game.
Most of what you’re looking at is switch footage .
I want it to be optional.
No turks, no arabian (Abbasid is more persian) and no Indonesian (Srivijaya or Majapahit or Kutai or Aceh or Indonesia itself) means I'll stick to civ 6
Surayaman 1 where!???!
I really hate the personas.
For me a leader is not a set of bonusses, but a distinct historical person. And playing napoleon the revolutionary when I could play Simon Bolivar instead is just robbing me of 1 leader in the game.
I would really prefer they quit making the mosels of a leader ever more complicated and instead give us more of them.
What use is it to me if a person speaks one kind of incomprehensile gibberish or another? Whx do tge animations need to have 100 phase instead of just 3-10 different looks, depending kn mood and subject.
Put Hitler in the game please
Je suis NAPOLEON!
*Arrogant glaring*
I still think you are shilling.
CIV V for life
Not for me. The first civ game [and I have owned and played every one up to this point] I will not buy.
lol why?
That's okay, first one I'm buying so I'll take the baton
You sound like a bot
Why?
Lol we won't be...
So they took ideas from other games that we didnt even like??? I DONT WANT TO CHANGE CIVS
Dumb system, civ switching is stupid and idc if I’m in the minority
This game looks WOKE ASF. 🤣
Thanks I hate it
Garbage system, civs thats no one care. And leaders that no one ever heard of. Civ VII gonna be a flop
The graphics look bad for the leaders
Is there gonna be tsl? 🥹