@actsukrit I really like your list, but I would personally make a couple of adjustments: Replace Spain with Greece, and Brazil with Mongolia.
I recognize that it makes it a bit more “conventional”, but I can far more easily justify Spain and Brazil as DLC/Expansion civs than Greece and Mongolia. And I think it’d keep that diversity you were trying to achieve.
If I could pick one more, I’d go with Babylon.
I do hope they pick their civs a bit more carefully than what they did for Civ 6, that base game roster left a lot to be desired. Its saving grace was the huge amount of DLC it got over the years…
@actsukrit Totally right, it’s incredibly hard to condense all of history to just 20 or so cultures, specially if you’re trying to juggle being geographically and culturally diverse + including all those must-have ones + having well-known ones that appeal to a wide audience + having new ones.
For all my opinion is worth, I do think you managed very well! And if your list was Civ 7’s base roster, I’d be far happier with it than I was with Civ 6’s.
I guess if there’s one wish I have regarding this, I hope they find a way to make civs and leaders cheaper/faster to make than in Civ 5 and Civ 6, so that we can have more of them overall. Those two games did reach record numbers, but for both the devs did comment on how the work/time/budget necessary to make them had ballooned compared to previous entries.
Agree on Babylon, it feels a bit weird leaving Mesopotamia empty.
I think it would be possible to have a base game without Greece if they chose the right leader for Rome. A Rome lead by someone like Hadrian or Justinian might be just Greek enough to last until DLC.
I think some of the trouble with getting a good spread is that there are four modern European powers that are basically guaranteed for every single game. After checking off the other must-haves there aren’t that many slots left.
@actsukrit I really like your list, but I would personally make a couple of adjustments: Replace Spain with Greece, and Brazil with Mongolia.
I recognize that it makes it a bit more “conventional”, but I can far more easily justify Spain and Brazil as DLC/Expansion civs than Greece and Mongolia. And I think it’d keep that diversity you were trying to achieve.
If I could pick one more, I’d go with Babylon.
I do hope they pick their civs a bit more carefully than what they did for Civ 6, that base game roster left a lot to be desired. Its saving grace was the huge amount of DLC it got over the years…
Perfectly fair, though I personally could see a Greece + Persia DLC again like they did with Macedonia + Persia this time around.
It really can be difficult covering everyone when you’ve only so many spots!
@actsukrit Totally right, it’s incredibly hard to condense all of history to just 20 or so cultures, specially if you’re trying to juggle being geographically and culturally diverse + including all those must-have ones + having well-known ones that appeal to a wide audience + having new ones.
For all my opinion is worth, I do think you managed very well! And if your list was Civ 7’s base roster, I’d be far happier with it than I was with Civ 6’s.
I guess if there’s one wish I have regarding this, I hope they find a way to make civs and leaders cheaper/faster to make than in Civ 5 and Civ 6, so that we can have more of them overall. Those two games did reach record numbers, but for both the devs did comment on how the work/time/budget necessary to make them had ballooned compared to previous entries.
Agree on Babylon, it feels a bit weird leaving Mesopotamia empty.
I think it would be possible to have a base game without Greece if they chose the right leader for Rome. A Rome lead by someone like Hadrian or Justinian might be just Greek enough to last until DLC.
I think some of the trouble with getting a good spread is that there are four modern European powers that are basically guaranteed for every single game. After checking off the other must-haves there aren’t that many slots left.