I've been thinking about the Civ VII DLC, and thought I'd start a thread with some speculation based on what we know so far - keen to hear your ideas!
What we know
Base game civ assumptions
Based on the existing announcements and Rac's excellent content spreadsheet and speculation thread, we know most of the 31 civs that are included in the base game, and have a fairly good idea of what the reamining un-announced civs will be.
Firaxis outlined how they pick civilisations in their dev diary here: Historical prominence, player representation, interesting gameplay + balance within and evolution across ages + leaders no longer tied to civs.
I think we can also add in precedence within the series as a factor influencing inclusion, but one that can work both ways: they need a mix of series mainstays and exciting new inclusions).
We don't know for certain that the civs will be split evenly between the three eras 10/10/10 (+ Shawnee), but it seems a decent assumption to make.
If true, it means the following:
1) All ten Ancient era civs have been announced already. Therefore the base game will have no Mesopotamian civilisations (Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria) at launch. This is despite two wonders associated with them being included in the base game - Dur-Sharrukin [Assyria] and Hanging Gardens [Babylon].
2) There are three remaining unknown slots left for Exploration Era. These are likely Inca, Hawaii, and Majahapit, based on evidence collated in other threads. If so, the only European exploration civs will be Normans and Spain.
3) There are three remaining unknown slots left for Modern Era. However, there are four civs that are considered likely to be included in the base game for varying reasons:
Given the announced launch number of 30 civs, one of the four modern civs above will therefore not be in the base game, but will presumably be a strong contender for early DLC.
This also leaves no Middle Eastern modern civs in the base game, including series mainstays the Ottomans.
DLC assumptions: Themed and balanced across eras?
The major assumption I'm going to make is that the two DLC collections will be themed based on their names: Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule.
This is based on a vague sense that it would be easier to market thematic DLCs as opposed to random collections of unrelated civs, which I expect will come with an expansion.
I am also going to assume that the two collections together will be vaguely balanced in terms of their eras. Of course, I don't know if they are, but I think it is unlikely a pack will have four modern civs only, for example. I think it's likely they'll have one civ from each era, and then a second in one of the three.
There's no evidence for either of these assumptions and I may very well be wrong, in which case these predictions are entirely futile, but just a bit of fun anyway!
Based on these assumptions, these are my speculative predictions:
Crossroads of the World
Focus: Middle East
Civs:
Ancient Era Civ: Assyria, militaristic + expansionist
Ancient Era Civ: Nabatea, economic + diplomatic
Exploration Era Civ: Byzantium, cultural + diplomatic
Modern Era Civ: Ottomans, militaristic + cultural
Leaders:
Ottoman Sultan [Suleiman the Magnificent? Selim the Grim? or a more modern option: Abdulmejid I or perhaps even one of the Young Turks like Midhat Pasha?]
Zenobia
Why?
The title 'Crossroads of the World' suggests the Middle East to me. It could also be Central Asia, or somewhere less obvious. However, given the base game lacks a Mesopotamian option for the Ancient Era and a Middle Eastern option for the Modern Era, I think the Middle East is more likely.
Assyria and Babylon are very likely inclusions, especially given the inclusion of their wonders already.
However, I think it is unlikely both will be included in the same pack, as they are too similar.
Bablyon is very popular with fans so I think it's more likely to be included in a separate standalone DLC. I also think this could come with Nebuchadnezzar, who is a more popular inclusion than an Assyrian leader.
Nabatea is a more rogue choice but I think it could work based on the following logic: the civ is linked to the Petra world wonder, provides an alternative predecessor for Abbasids, and potentially interesting mechanics as a desert-based land trading power with bonuses for building and trading as well as iconic architecture.
Ottomans are very likely to be included at some point due to lack of a modern Middle Eastern civ and the Crossroads of the World concept makes perfect sense for them.
Byzantium being linked to the Ottomans in the same pack also works perfectly for Civ VII's theme of age transition through crisis. They also provide good civ evolution routes from Greece (which is needed) and Rome, and into Russia.
Leaders are much harder to predict as they don't have the associated wonder or the considerations of civ progression. I think it's likely we get an Ottoman leader. For the second choice, I have suggested Zenobia could be fun - as a leader she would be loosely tied to Nabatea (not historically accurate at all but I think that's the route Civ VII is going e.g. Amina and Aksum/Songhai), provide another female leader, and a good foil to the Romans.
Alternate options:
Babylon instead of either Assyria or Nabatea - see above.
Mamluks instead of Byzantium. Reasoning: Firaxis might save Byzantium for another DLC as it will be a popular choice and ties into other themes with the fall of Rome etc. Mamluks also work as a good, historically accurate evolution for Egypt. Counter-reasoning: Mamluks may be considered too similar to Abbasids, and could be represented by Saladin as a leader rather than a civ.
Potential problem:
If we are assuming that the civs in Crossroads of the World already have their associated wonders in game, then we are missing wonders for Byzantium and Ottomans. I don't have any suggestion for this, other than speculating we might come across them between now and launch - the Hagia Sophia and the Dolmebache Palace for example.
If the civs from this pack are all linked to one of the associated wonders we've already seen, I can't seen how it remains thematic, and therefore the packs will be very difficult to predict!
Right to Rule
Focus: Germanic Europe
Civs:
Ancient Era Civ: Goths, expansionist + militaristic
Exploration Era Civ: Holy Roman Empire, expansionist + diplomatic
Modern Era Civ: Germany/Prussia, militaristic + economic
Modern Era Civ: Austria-Hungary, cultural + diplomatic
Leaders:
Charlemagne
Maria Theresa
Why?
The title 'Right to Rule' is more vague than 'Crossroads of the World' and doesn't obviously refer to a geographic territory.
However, based on the calculations above on the base game, I believe Germany is the least likely to be included at launch and therefore most likely to warrant inclusion in the first DLCs.
This is because Germany has no obvious civ evolution pathway and has fewer of the advantages that Russia, Mexico and Qing bring. I think it's a toss up between Russia and Germany, but given Russia's long historical importance, I can't see Civ VII launching without Russian representation in any era.
'Right to Rule' could therefore work themed on the idea of divine kingship, which I associate with the Holy Roman Empire - the natural predecessor of Prussia or Germany in the Modern Era.
HRE would provide a good third European civ in the exploration era with ties to various civs - a natural evolution for Rome and opening up pathways across central and eastern Europe. It's also a major power and has potentially interesting gameplay dynamics to do with vassaling smaller city states and balancing internal dynamics etc.
I think having the HRE evolve into either Prussia/Germany or Austria-Hungary would be a cool dynamic and cover two important European civs in a thematic way.
I can see the case for either focusing on Prussia (more in line with Mughals, Ottomans, Ming etc.) or Germany as the modern era civ. The latter obviously comes with the difficulty of trying to avoid the Third Reich, so perhaps Prussia is more likely.
The civ I could find the least justification for here was the Ancient Era option. I toyed with the idea of including Norse as I think they are a very strong contender to be included eventually, but figured they might strong enough to be a separate DLC option like Babylon, potentially linked to conquest of England and with their own leader.
The Goths have an associated wonder in the game already and are loosely linked to the idea of 'Right to Rule' and Civ VII's focus on crisis - the sacking of Rome being a major historical reference that could be portrayed end of an era. They could be used as a stand-in for a European tribal faction [we currently only have Rome and Greece.] They also provide multiple civ evolution pathways: into Spain as the visigoths, the HRE due to their presence in northern Italy, or maybe Normans at a reach.
The decoupling of leaders and civs means that Charlemagne could work now, as it avoids the thorny issue of whether to associate him with France or Germany or others. He's a 'great man of history' and could be a popular inclusion.
It also means they don't need to include a modern German leader, though Frederick the Great or Bismarck could work.
I think Maria Theresa is more likely as she's female, has been included before, and provides a cultural/diplomatic alternative to the rest of the civs here, which are quite warmongering. Perhaps Firaxis might go for a non-political German figure such as Goete, who knows.
Alternate options:
Norse/Danes instead of Goths. Evolves into Normans.
Alternative European ancient 'tribal' civs instead of Goths.
Anyway, apologies for the long post. I'm sure I've missed some things out or overlooked certain factors, but I hope the speculation provides fun food for thought - I fully expect to be proven completely wrong as we learn more in the next months!
What we know
- Civ VII will launch with 30 civs + the Shawnee DLC.
- It will also launch with the "most leader selections we've ever had in history."
- Each of these civs fits in one of three eras (antiquity, exploration, modern).
- Each of the civs also has an associated wonder in the game.
- Civs included in the game do not necessarily have an associated leader.
- 'The Crossroads of the World Collection, with post-launch content featuring 2 new leaders, 4 new civilizations, 4 new Natural Wonders, a special cosmetic bonus, and more'
- 'Right to Rule Collection, with post-launch content featuring 2 new leaders, 4 new civilizations, 4 new Wonders, a special cosmetic bonus, and more!*'
Base game civ assumptions
Based on the existing announcements and Rac's excellent content spreadsheet and speculation thread, we know most of the 31 civs that are included in the base game, and have a fairly good idea of what the reamining un-announced civs will be.
Firaxis outlined how they pick civilisations in their dev diary here: Historical prominence, player representation, interesting gameplay + balance within and evolution across ages + leaders no longer tied to civs.
I think we can also add in precedence within the series as a factor influencing inclusion, but one that can work both ways: they need a mix of series mainstays and exciting new inclusions).
We don't know for certain that the civs will be split evenly between the three eras 10/10/10 (+ Shawnee), but it seems a decent assumption to make.
If true, it means the following:
1) All ten Ancient era civs have been announced already. Therefore the base game will have no Mesopotamian civilisations (Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria) at launch. This is despite two wonders associated with them being included in the base game - Dur-Sharrukin [Assyria] and Hanging Gardens [Babylon].
2) There are three remaining unknown slots left for Exploration Era. These are likely Inca, Hawaii, and Majahapit, based on evidence collated in other threads. If so, the only European exploration civs will be Normans and Spain.
3) There are three remaining unknown slots left for Modern Era. However, there are four civs that are considered likely to be included in the base game for varying reasons:
- Germany: historical prominence, player representation, precedence within series + associated wonder [Brandenburg Gate] already in game. Potential disadvantage: No obvious predecessor route for evolution across ages.
- Russia: historical prominence, player representation, precedence within series + associated wonder [Hermitage] already in game. Potential disadvantage: Geopolitics.
- Mexico: balance within and evolution across ages - provides an alternative civ to the USA from the Americas and evolution path for Central/Southern America - new within the series + architecture style seen + associated wonder already in game. Potential disadvantage: The least historically prominent of the four.
- Qing: historical prominence, player representation, precedence within series (as China), balance within and evolution across ages (provides a through path for Ming and Mongolia) + associated wonder already in game. Potential disadvantage: China already covered in two other eras, and Qing not an uncontroversial choice for modern China.
Given the announced launch number of 30 civs, one of the four modern civs above will therefore not be in the base game, but will presumably be a strong contender for early DLC.
This also leaves no Middle Eastern modern civs in the base game, including series mainstays the Ottomans.
DLC assumptions: Themed and balanced across eras?
The major assumption I'm going to make is that the two DLC collections will be themed based on their names: Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule.
This is based on a vague sense that it would be easier to market thematic DLCs as opposed to random collections of unrelated civs, which I expect will come with an expansion.
I am also going to assume that the two collections together will be vaguely balanced in terms of their eras. Of course, I don't know if they are, but I think it is unlikely a pack will have four modern civs only, for example. I think it's likely they'll have one civ from each era, and then a second in one of the three.
There's no evidence for either of these assumptions and I may very well be wrong, in which case these predictions are entirely futile, but just a bit of fun anyway!
Based on these assumptions, these are my speculative predictions:
Crossroads of the World
Focus: Middle East
Civs:
Ancient Era Civ: Assyria, militaristic + expansionist
Ancient Era Civ: Nabatea, economic + diplomatic
Exploration Era Civ: Byzantium, cultural + diplomatic
Modern Era Civ: Ottomans, militaristic + cultural
Leaders:
Ottoman Sultan [Suleiman the Magnificent? Selim the Grim? or a more modern option: Abdulmejid I or perhaps even one of the Young Turks like Midhat Pasha?]
Zenobia
Why?
The title 'Crossroads of the World' suggests the Middle East to me. It could also be Central Asia, or somewhere less obvious. However, given the base game lacks a Mesopotamian option for the Ancient Era and a Middle Eastern option for the Modern Era, I think the Middle East is more likely.
Assyria and Babylon are very likely inclusions, especially given the inclusion of their wonders already.
However, I think it is unlikely both will be included in the same pack, as they are too similar.
Bablyon is very popular with fans so I think it's more likely to be included in a separate standalone DLC. I also think this could come with Nebuchadnezzar, who is a more popular inclusion than an Assyrian leader.
Nabatea is a more rogue choice but I think it could work based on the following logic: the civ is linked to the Petra world wonder, provides an alternative predecessor for Abbasids, and potentially interesting mechanics as a desert-based land trading power with bonuses for building and trading as well as iconic architecture.
Ottomans are very likely to be included at some point due to lack of a modern Middle Eastern civ and the Crossroads of the World concept makes perfect sense for them.
Byzantium being linked to the Ottomans in the same pack also works perfectly for Civ VII's theme of age transition through crisis. They also provide good civ evolution routes from Greece (which is needed) and Rome, and into Russia.
Leaders are much harder to predict as they don't have the associated wonder or the considerations of civ progression. I think it's likely we get an Ottoman leader. For the second choice, I have suggested Zenobia could be fun - as a leader she would be loosely tied to Nabatea (not historically accurate at all but I think that's the route Civ VII is going e.g. Amina and Aksum/Songhai), provide another female leader, and a good foil to the Romans.
Alternate options:
Babylon instead of either Assyria or Nabatea - see above.
Mamluks instead of Byzantium. Reasoning: Firaxis might save Byzantium for another DLC as it will be a popular choice and ties into other themes with the fall of Rome etc. Mamluks also work as a good, historically accurate evolution for Egypt. Counter-reasoning: Mamluks may be considered too similar to Abbasids, and could be represented by Saladin as a leader rather than a civ.
Potential problem:
If we are assuming that the civs in Crossroads of the World already have their associated wonders in game, then we are missing wonders for Byzantium and Ottomans. I don't have any suggestion for this, other than speculating we might come across them between now and launch - the Hagia Sophia and the Dolmebache Palace for example.
If the civs from this pack are all linked to one of the associated wonders we've already seen, I can't seen how it remains thematic, and therefore the packs will be very difficult to predict!
Right to Rule
Focus: Germanic Europe
Civs:
Ancient Era Civ: Goths, expansionist + militaristic
Exploration Era Civ: Holy Roman Empire, expansionist + diplomatic
Modern Era Civ: Germany/Prussia, militaristic + economic
Modern Era Civ: Austria-Hungary, cultural + diplomatic
Leaders:
Charlemagne
Maria Theresa
Why?
The title 'Right to Rule' is more vague than 'Crossroads of the World' and doesn't obviously refer to a geographic territory.
However, based on the calculations above on the base game, I believe Germany is the least likely to be included at launch and therefore most likely to warrant inclusion in the first DLCs.
This is because Germany has no obvious civ evolution pathway and has fewer of the advantages that Russia, Mexico and Qing bring. I think it's a toss up between Russia and Germany, but given Russia's long historical importance, I can't see Civ VII launching without Russian representation in any era.
'Right to Rule' could therefore work themed on the idea of divine kingship, which I associate with the Holy Roman Empire - the natural predecessor of Prussia or Germany in the Modern Era.
HRE would provide a good third European civ in the exploration era with ties to various civs - a natural evolution for Rome and opening up pathways across central and eastern Europe. It's also a major power and has potentially interesting gameplay dynamics to do with vassaling smaller city states and balancing internal dynamics etc.
I think having the HRE evolve into either Prussia/Germany or Austria-Hungary would be a cool dynamic and cover two important European civs in a thematic way.
I can see the case for either focusing on Prussia (more in line with Mughals, Ottomans, Ming etc.) or Germany as the modern era civ. The latter obviously comes with the difficulty of trying to avoid the Third Reich, so perhaps Prussia is more likely.
The civ I could find the least justification for here was the Ancient Era option. I toyed with the idea of including Norse as I think they are a very strong contender to be included eventually, but figured they might strong enough to be a separate DLC option like Babylon, potentially linked to conquest of England and with their own leader.
The Goths have an associated wonder in the game already and are loosely linked to the idea of 'Right to Rule' and Civ VII's focus on crisis - the sacking of Rome being a major historical reference that could be portrayed end of an era. They could be used as a stand-in for a European tribal faction [we currently only have Rome and Greece.] They also provide multiple civ evolution pathways: into Spain as the visigoths, the HRE due to their presence in northern Italy, or maybe Normans at a reach.
The decoupling of leaders and civs means that Charlemagne could work now, as it avoids the thorny issue of whether to associate him with France or Germany or others. He's a 'great man of history' and could be a popular inclusion.
It also means they don't need to include a modern German leader, though Frederick the Great or Bismarck could work.
I think Maria Theresa is more likely as she's female, has been included before, and provides a cultural/diplomatic alternative to the rest of the civs here, which are quite warmongering. Perhaps Firaxis might go for a non-political German figure such as Goete, who knows.
Alternate options:
Norse/Danes instead of Goths. Evolves into Normans.
Alternative European ancient 'tribal' civs instead of Goths.
Anyway, apologies for the long post. I'm sure I've missed some things out or overlooked certain factors, but I hope the speculation provides fun food for thought - I fully expect to be proven completely wrong as we learn more in the next months!
Last edited:
