Civilization 7 announced

>cleopatra for the Xth time in a row
>agricultural powerhouse? Pyramid builders? How about diplomacy and trade with added subterfuge, thats what egypt was really known for!
Egypt better have multiple fucking leaders. Im tired of this shit.

All i care about is science victory. that and i want future eras

How's Humankind? Did they add anything inew after the launch?

>zulu
>core civ
I never really got this, they weren't historically significant.

I hope it's Test of Time, that shit is the best.

>protruded jaw past brow
>deeper socket of eyes from brow ridge to nose
They're gunna blackwash egypt...

Zulu were in Civ 1.
Having them not in the base game feels off

Cleopatra was born 2500 years after the Pyramids were built. Her leader ability is fine.

>You are more annoying than the sjws were 8 years ago
YOU FAGGOTS STARTED IT. I will never not be obnoxious about woke shit for the rest of time, I will torment you in every way possible. There is nothing you can do to stop me. Now tongue my anus you fucking nigger.

>silhouette of Cleopatra the 7th
WE

>Zulu were in Civ 1.
I thought that was just about it, so many better civs, but they just wanted some kind of representation.

they were in the first game, it's basically just a meme to have them at this point

>woke shit
Like african leaders being black? Some historical leaders being women?
That's woke shit to you?
You sound like a lunatic.

Civ has been shit for years now. It has not progressed at all since V and only remains popular because normies are too stupid to tell the AI is retarded. Even the quotes and soundtracks went to shit.

>Civ 6 soundtrack is shit
Another worthless contrarian opinion.

>blocks your path

Attached: o;kjsfaejkofj.jpg (800x965, 188.29K)

why are they going backwards when it comes to player choice? i remember being able to pick between up to 3 different leaders for a nation, and that let players mix and match their bonuses and abilities with their own play styles.

i except your response to be as pedantic and annoying as the ess jay dubyas from eight years ago

Attached: 1518192837518.jpg (1805x1340, 1.71M)

take your fucking meds you schizophrenic retard.

>seething faggot with a sogno di volare shirt
Why don't you f-f-f-fly the fuck out of here?

Nope, you've got a completely rational and fair point. They should go back to doing that.

Well they are a memorable and unique culture, and really the only choice for a representative of Southern Africa.

Cleopatra was shitty ruler and they only picked her because she's cunt
Yes, it counts woke shit

can't wait until Civ 8 comes out so I can buy the full version at a steep discount

>YO WE TOOK THIS SONG AND RECORDED SEVERAL, NEARLY IDENTICAL VERSIONS!

That's not true at all, considering Civ V was locked to 1 leader per nation. They did a u-turn with VI, if anything.

Lots of people were shitty rulers.
Cleopatra is one of the most well known people who ever lived.
That is not what woke is.

Absolute shit opinion. The medieval version vs the atomic themes are completely different. Imagine not liking Vietnam's theme.

you simpleton. why would you think i was talking about V?

Attached: 1505210190489.jpg (1979x2692, 1.14M)

Cleopatra was a fantastic pharoah, and the best of her dynasty.
She only really fucked up by choosing to side with Mark Antony over Octavian in the Roman civil war, which led to the annexation of Egypt by Rome.
Which, granted, is a big fuck up

In Civ 5 they probably chose only one leader for a nation because
>It was cheaper not having to find multiple voice actors and doing new full animations for multiple leader
>Civ 5 was designed to be an entry point for tons of new fans, so they wanted to keep it simple, and multiple leaders per civilization would complicate things

>civ 6 is already five and a half years old
wtf

i know why they made their choices to be retrogrades. it is your choice to be smug about having the more recent entry of the franchise you play to be lesser than the previous entry

Attached: 1494521018451.jpg (1200x900, 397.57K)

I just hope for Civ 7 we can go back to leaders actually having tangible backgrounds. It really made them feel more like powerful world leaders instead of a bunch of cartoon characters standing in front of a painting.

youtube.com/watch?v=vRFXG-mdeGU

Attached: 1648070579793.jpg (1615x2880, 1.09M)

Also... proof?

You're missing the point, retard. Nobody fucking wants cleopatra.

Civ 6 is the best civ since 1.

I do.
She's neat.
But I won't complain if they pick someone else either.

>Nobody fucking wants cleopatra.
Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony beg to differ, Octavian.

I'm here hoping for Atem

I liked V and VI but I don't know if I want to buy a new Civ game ever again, the series needs to reinvent itself.

Civ has been fucked ever since they switched to hexes and 1UPT at the same time and broke everything
>each tile has less movement options than on square grid
>add in that now your units get blocked and stuck behind each other like checkers
>any land feature will turn your army movement into a three stooges bit

and then there were the post mortem assessments written by the devs that showed how the rest of the game balce fell apart
>holy shit, our new map system just creates a giant carpet of units all across the land! We'd better make land units really expensive to build
>but it doesn't make sense for a horseman to be more expensive than a library, so we need to make buildings more expensive now too
>with science left alone, you can advance from The Alphabet to Scientific Theory faster than your third town can construct a fucking water wheel and bank
>players parading around veteran units they've been levelling up from the stone age to the space age like it's fire emblem
>by the endgame, or really any point in time against the AI, there's STILL a retarded carpet of units, making serious warfare such a slog that it's more satisfying to just not do war at all
if they went ahead and fixed all of that in civ 7 then I'd buy it

oh yeah, and still can't play as Hitler

oh boy another half finished game that can't hope to compete with any other title until they've added a dozen dlcs to nickel and dime you

Deal with it you fruity niggers

oh boy another iteration where they drop decent additions from past games only to maybe package them back in with an expansion and create a bunch of civ dlc

A modern strategy game having more content or even the same amount as the previous one on launch is impossible.
This is the hell world we live in, sequels are always downgrades

people who look forward to video game title announcements are the people who have more play time and enjoyment out of browsing the catalogue for what to play instead of playing some game that is at a minimum 5 years old

>generic chinaman instrumentation AND this monster
Nah I'm good

Attached: file.png (521x560, 304.4K)

cool, I'm still playing 3

They kinda were important to Africa and indirectly responsible for Gandhi being a symbol of civil rights for pajeets

>and really the only choice for a representative of Southern Africa
That's what makes it so pathetic, it's only to have representation, not about interesting or historically significant civs.
>Well they are a memorable
Only in the context European colonization of the area, more specifically on the backs of films like Zulu.
>and unique culture
Maori/Polynesian blow them the fuck out completely, they have a legitimately interesting unique trait in that they can embark on ocean tiles from the start of the game.

If you don’t like black people in your video games just say so, nobody here cares and it’s not a unique opinion

>They kinda were important to Africa
No they weren't, they were important to the colonization of Africa by europeans, that's it.

Civ 5 is the worst in the series, acquire taste

Nah that dumb bitch from Sweden was shit too, shit additions are shit additions regardless of race.
>don’t like black people
Well no because Polynesians are an actual good addition to the game.

6 is not fun and unlike 5 the dlcs didnt make it good enough