Civ 7 - Crossroads DLC no bueno

[GunsGermsandSteel]

Not a fan of Crossroads of the World DLC format. Specifically that not all the civs have their leader and not all leaders have their civ.

Bolivar doesn't have Gran Colombia or anything comparable. Carthage, Bulgaria, Nepal all missing a leader.

I know that leaders and cis are "more separated" this time around, but it still feels way wrong to not have at least some matching going on.

 

[Kwami]

The base game had some leaders without civilizations and the reverse, too. The DLC is just following that format.

 

[Siptah]

Also, we need more new civs than we need leaders. The base game provided enough leaders, but 10 civs per age is really the minimum. Hence, 4+2 is good imho. Of course, 4+4 for the same price would be better. But 6+2 even more.

 

[CliffCo]

Also, we need more new civs than we need leaders. The base game provided enough leaders, but 10 civs per age is really the minimum. Hence, 4+2 is good imho. Of course, 4+4 for the same price would be better. But 6+2 even more.

Especially once we get larger maps.

 

[uppi]

Also, we need more new civs than we need leaders. The base game provided enough leaders, but 10 civs per age is really the minimum. Hence, 4+2 is good imho. Of course, 4+4 for the same price would be better. But 6+2 even more.

Maybe even 8+0

 

[Kwami]

Also, we need more new civs than we need leaders. The base game provided enough leaders, but 10 civs per age is really the minimum. Hence, 4+2 is good imho. Of course, 4+4 for the same price would be better. But 6+2 even more.

Yes, more civs! Hopefully, now that the leader art is decoupled from the civilizations, it's easier to add new civs and we can get more of them in future DLCs and expansions. I think ~20 per age would feel much better.

 

[sixty4half]

9+2?!?

I think ~20 per age would feel much better.

That, and for the AI to stop selecting it's suggested Civ all of the time.

 

[Barbarian King]

While the format of the game does mean that there will necessarily be civs without leaders, my own preference is that every leader should have their civ. This version of Civ is much more leader focused than previous iterations, and leaders just feel incomplete to me if they can't lead their historical civ. Bolivar should have come with Gran Columbia.

 

[Siptah]

While the format of the game does mean that there will necessarily be civs without leaders, my own preference is that every leader should have their civ. This version of Civ is much more leader focused than previous iterations, and leaders just feel incomplete to me if they can't lead their historical civ. Bolivar should have come with Gran Columbia.

I agree on that. Yet, a few leader will likely remain without their civs, such as Himiko. Maybe also Confucius and Trung Trac. And iirc RtR will add another leader that would be difficult: Rani Lakshmibai. Yet, all of these (expect Rani) can at least be connected to later civs that count them as „theirs“ to some extent.

 

[sixty4half]

We should have the Philippines. Why is Rizal leader of Hawaii again?

 

[Barbarian King]

I agree on that. Yet, a few leader will likely remain without their civs, such as Himiko. Maybe also Confucius and Trung Trac. And iirc RtR will add another leader that would be difficult: Rani Lakshmibai. Yet, all of these (expect Rani) can at least be connected to later civs that count them as „theirs“ to some extent.

You're right that some civs have a more tenuous connection to the leaders than others, and I do admit I count "close enough" civs as being a leader's civ. The Han are "close enough" IMO to be Confucius's civ, since he had such a great influence on that civilization even though he lived before it arose. There are some leaders like Himiko and Charlemagne that kind of have a civ, but not really, and while I would like a civ closer to being "their" civ I would consider it a lower priority. I think leaders like Jose Rizal who definitely don't have a civ should have one added for them. And for a leader like Rani, I would accept it as "close enough" if they added the Marathas.

 

[Ryansinbela]

We should have the Philippines. Why is Rizal leader of Hawaii again?

It technically makes sense thematically (anti-colonial stuff) but yeah we need a Filipino Civ

 

[evonannoredars]

I agree on that. Yet, a few leader will likely remain without their civs, such as Himiko. Maybe also Confucius and Trung Trac. And iirc RtR will add another leader that would be difficult: Rani Lakshmibai. Yet, all of these (expect Rani) can at least be connected to later civs that count them as „theirs“ to some extent.

Previous games haven't had the leaders always be from the same timeframe as when the civ's uniques are from (eg Civ 6 Germany), so aye in that spirit Himiko and Meiji Japan counts imo, as does Confucius with all the China civs and Trung Trac with Dai Viet soon.

 

[evonannoredars]

Also aye idm civs without leaders, but leaders without civs feels odd - especially when it comes to leaders who 'have' vaguely related civs (ie right-ish timeframe, similar geographic area and synergises well with the leader but aren't actually the right civ), eg. Charlemagne with the Normans, Bolivar with Mexico and Amina with Songhai. Makes me worry a bit, I don't know how often people read up on leaders but I feel it's very possible there's someone out there who now thinks Charlemagne was a Norman king or etc lol.

 

[moondog385]

Amina being loosely connected to the entire continent of Africa is what bothers me the most right now tbh. But Rizal/Hawaii is a close second.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Africa needs more expansion

 

[Yzman]

We should have the Philippines. Why is Rizal leader of Hawaii again?

He isn't the leader of Hawaii. Not every civ has a leader in the game.

 

[UWHabs]

Also, we need more new civs than we need leaders. The base game provided enough leaders, but 10 civs per age is really the minimum. Hence, 4+2 is good imho. Of course, 4+4 for the same price would be better. But 6+2 even more.

Yeah, I would agree we need way more civs than leaders. I'm a lot closer to playing each civ once than each leader once.

 

[bigjim1]

I would definitely like more civs and more historically interesting leaders connected to them. But one of my big gripes with Civ 7 is the introduction of historical figures, like Harriet Tubman, as military/political leaders of nations/civilizations (esp. As she's so mindlessly aggressive in the game). Same with Ada Lovelace; fascinating and historically important woman, but not a politician of any kind. Britain has had lots of female leaders (Boudicca, two Elizabeths, Victoria, Thatcher, etc.), do why have Lovelace as an imperial conqueror? Its like having Greta Thunberg as leader of warlike Sweden; not just weird but slightly insulting to the actual person. I know it's only a game, etc, etc, but please...

 

[Nikolai II]

That, and for the AI to stop selecting it's suggested Civ all of the time.

Should really be an on/off button for that. Some really like their historical choices after all.