Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule DLC - themed predictions based on what we know

[stealth_nsk]

I think the DLCs will just flesh out civs that don't have a full historical path, Inca, Maya, Hawaii, Shawnee. At least that should be the focus, why add a new germanic civ tree when the Mesoamerican Mayans have to pick an Andean civ from a different continent and vice versa. Or Hawai'i which is so far the only Oceanic civ in the entire game.

My thoughts are quite the opposite. Historical paths aren't and shouldn't be a priority. It's better to cover more diverse civilizations.

 

[Xandinho]

I think the DLCs will just flesh out civs that don't have a full historical path, Inca, Maya, Hawaii, Shawnee. At least that should be the focus, why add a new germanic civ tree when the Mesoamerican Mayans have to pick an Andean civ from a different continent and vice versa. Or Hawai'i which is so far the only Oceanic civ in the entire game.

This is why I think Assyria and Tonga are more likely than Goths for Crossroads of the World. Antiquity Polynesia and Mesopotamia are empty.

 

[lo24681]

heck even for gameplay reasons it makes more sense to fill in the gaps in other places, rather than add another antiquity age euro civ rn, especially cause I am predicting that crossroads will only have 2 antiquity, and would rather those go to civs I feel are needed more

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I think the DLCs will just flesh out civs that don't have a full historical path, Inca, Maya, Hawaii, Shawnee. At least that should be the focus, why add a new germanic civ tree when the Mesoamerican Mayans have to pick an Andean civ from a different continent and vice versa. Or Hawai'i which is so far the only Oceanic civ in the entire game.

Assuming the Devs plan to flesh out the trees in the first place. I've also seen the Inca-May-Aztec trope far too often to expect the gaming public to notice the issue.

 

[Riconatic]

I think the DLCs will just flesh out civs that don't have a full historical path, Inca, Maya, Hawaii, Shawnee. At least that should be the focus, why add a new germanic civ tree when the Mesoamerican Mayans have to pick an Andean civ from a different continent and vice versa. Or Hawai'i which is so far the only Oceanic civ in the entire game.

When these DLCs arrive, lot's of people have version without Shawnee. DLC can not depend on that.

 

[Siptah]

For Crossroads of the World, I expect:

Assyria (Antiquity)
Silla (Antiquity)
Goths (Antiquity) - it could be just Visigoths, but the associated wonder is for an Ostrogoth king. Hence, I believe it's just Goths.
Toungoo or Burma (Exploration) - not sure which name they'll go with. I assume Burma has a better name recognition.

Sargon of Akkad
Bayinnaung

While I think it would be good to have Britain as soon as possible, I expect them in Right to Rule together with a novel leader: Cromwell, Henry VIII., Edward I.

 

[UWHabs]

My thoughts are quite the opposite. Historical paths aren't and shouldn't be a priority. It's better to cover more diverse civilizations.

I think there's different levels of "filling out the paths". I think being able to fill out a regional niche that is lacking that fills in a path should be the priority. So like the Maya-Inca-Mexico (?) path that is the likely base game path just feels awkward, splitting that up into Maya-Aztec-Mexico, and, say Tupi-Inca-Brazil would balance out those 2 regions in the ages.

But yes, just filling out the paths with Rome-Venice-Italy to me would be less of a priority, since we already have civs from those eras from that region. I'd love for them to get there eventually, definitely. But I think it could wait until we get more of the map covered for the eras.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think there's different levels of "filling out the paths". I think being able to fill out a regional niche that is lacking that fills in a path should be the priority. So like the Maya-Inca-Mexico (?) path that is the likely base game path just feels awkward, splitting that up into Maya-Aztec-Mexico, and, say Tupi-Inca-Brazil would balance out those 2 regions in the ages.

But yes, just filling out the paths with Rome-Venice-Italy to me would be less of a priority, since we already have civs from those eras from that region. I'd love for them to get there eventually, definitely. But I think it could wait until we get more of the map covered for the eras.

I see it in more radical way - the reason why we don't have Aztecs in the base game (they were available on release in all previous civ games) is exactly because Maya and Mexico already exist in Central America. The reason why we have Inca (they weren't on release in any previous civ games) is because they are currently the only representation of South America.

So, those "historical paths" don't help civs to appear in game, quite the opposite. In other words, filling map is more important than filling ages for the same spot.

Sure, India and China are an exception showing what Firaxis don't mind filling one region through ages where needed. But I wouldn't read too much from those two examples. All other civs are as dispersed geographically as possible.

 

[UWHabs]

I see it in more radical way - the reason why we don't have Aztecs in the base game (they were available on release in all previous civ games) is exactly because Maya and Mexico already exist in Central America. The reason why we have Inca (they weren't on release in any previous civ games) is because they are currently the only representation of South America.

So, those "historical paths" don't help civs to appear in game, quite the opposite. In other words, filling map is more important than filling ages for the same spot.

Sure, India and China are an exception showing what Firaxis don't mind filling one region through ages where needed. But I wouldn't read too much from those two examples. All other civs are as dispersed geographically as possible.

Yeah, I mean if I'm picking, filling map > filling ages in the map > filling chains.
The base civs cover most of the map right now, depending on how tight you want to break down the regions (ie. does Hawaii count towards Polynesia). Probably could be argued that we still lack a good non-Egyptian North African civ (Carthage? Morocco? Berber?), as well as missing the Ottoman/Turkish/Byzantine zone.
South Africa is also lacking too, which would usually be Zulu in past civ games.

Once you get past those 3, I think the argument would be how you count filling the map. ie. do we need Australia/Maori? Do we need something non-Russian in Eastern Europe? or are those close enough that you circle back to regions which lack a civ in specific time period.

Of course, as with life, just because the high level priority might fall that way, you always have to sneak in some new civs for variety, some old favorites that people recognize, and all that. Hopefully at least those first few missing spots on the map are filled in these first DLC passes. And could easily - I can certainly see both the North Africa and Ottoman civs count towards Crossroads of the World, and it wouldn't be the biggest stretch to have the Zulu with Shaka as a headliner in the Right to Rule collection.

 

[Bast]

For Crossroads of the World, I expect:

Assyria (Antiquity)
Silla (Antiquity)
Goths (Antiquity) - it could be just Visigoths, but the associated wonder is for an Ostrogoth king. Hence, I believe it's just Goths.
Toungoo or Burma (Exploration) - not sure which name they'll go with. I assume Burma has a better name recognition.

Sargon of Akkad
Bayinnaung

While I think it would be good to have Britain as soon as possible, I expect them in Right to Rule together with a novel leader: Cromwell, Henry VIII., Edward I.

I would be in absolute shock if a Burmese leader appeared. But it would actually make sense for that leader to go from Khmer to Burma to Siam from a historical point of view. The Theravada civilizations.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I see it in more radical way - the reason why we don't have Aztecs in the base game (they were available on release in all previous civ games) is exactly because Maya and Mexico already exist in Central America. The reason why we have Inca (they weren't on release in any previous civ games) is because they are currently the only representation of South America.

So, those "historical paths" don't help civs to appear in game, quite the opposite. In other words, filling map is more important than filling ages for the same spot.

Sure, India and China are an exception showing what Firaxis don't mind filling one region through ages where needed. But I wouldn't read too much from those two examples. All other civs are as dispersed geographically as possible.

Filling up the map and filling up historical or "geographic" paths are both going to happen.
If you go with the argument that we don't need Aztecs, because we already have the Maya and Mexico, then you could also say we don't need Assyria or Babylon because we already have Persia and Abbasids.
And well you might as well forget about the Goths because at this rate we have most of Europe pretty covered. And why include Tonga when we have Hawaii?

But it's more than likely we'll still get one of those above. As for the Aztecs, the only reason we probably didn't get them is because they wanted to include Inca, and South America, in the base game and both of them would have been in the same age.

 

[Siptah]

I would be in absolute shock if a Burmese leader appeared. But it would actually make sense for that leader to go from Khmer to Burma to Siam from a historical point of view. The Theravada civilizations.

I think for civs like Burma, the DLC that adds the civ is the only chance to get a leader. We could always get a completely non-related leader in a pack with such civs (say, Talleyrand), but I think so close to the base game, there should be an incentive to stay away from this and add leaders that are at least somewhat associated with the included civs. Hence, I thought a Mesopotamian leader and a Burmese leader would make more sense with my pack prediction than Theoderic (there are more than enough European leaders to lead the Goths) and I expect later leaders for Korea (and not Seondeok again) to come with later Korean civs.

 

[Xandinho]

I see it in more radical way - the reason why we don't have Aztecs in the base game (they were available on release in all previous civ games) is exactly because Maya and Mexico already exist in Central America. The reason why we have Inca (they weren't on release in any previous civ games) is because they are currently the only representation of South America.

Incas were in the base game in Civ4. I'm not surprised to see them at the launch of Civ7. The Mayans, however, have never been part of the launch or even close to it, but they make perfect sense now as the best option for Antiquity Latin America.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Filling up the map and filling up historical or "geographic" paths are both going to happen.
If you go with the argument that we don't need Aztecs, because we already have the Maya and Mexico, then you could also say we don't need Assyria or Babylon because we already have Persia and Abbasids.
And well you might as well forget about the Goths because at this rate we have most of Europe pretty covered. And why include Tonga when we have Hawaii?

But it's more than likely we'll still get one of those above. As for the Aztecs, the only reason we probably didn't get them is because they wanted to include Inca, and South America, in the base game and both of them would have been in the same age.

I'm not saying we don't need Aztecs, they just have lower priority now.

 

[ehecatzin]

I think I'm one of the main Aztec fanbois in the site and I'll say it. Mayans deserve the vanilla spot. I don't mind having to wait a while for the Aztecs to make it in, hopefully that means they will get more complex mechanics eventually, and under the new civ design philosophy, there's plenty to go for them between temples, military focus, extracting tribute, chinampas and canals.

I have the hunch that we'll see Venice, Netherlands and Aztecs together eventually due to all of them having something to do with canals, terraforming and trade which, makes me think we won't see Aztecs on the first DLC batch, they probably are expansion material. (but if that means Aztecs with Chinampas I'll wait)

Both Incas and Mayans seemed easier to implement with It's terrain type, lots of science and culture for vegetated, and lots of food and production for mountain.... building on top of lakes and swamps in the other hand.

all that said, I really hope they push the visibility for both mesoamerican and south american civs beyond the usual suspects.

Dark horse guess for DLC : Teotihuacan, and we already have the Pyramid of the Sun in game.

 

[Hilton1]

I think the DLCs will just flesh out civs that don't have a full historical path, Inca, Maya, Hawaii, Shawnee. At least that should be the focus, why add a new germanic civ tree when the Mesoamerican Mayans have to pick an Andean civ from a different continent and vice versa. Or Hawai'i which is so far the only Oceanic civ in the entire game.

I think this is what fans are expecting, and informed my original predictions for the DLC.

However, now that we know the full base game roster, I think in reality Firaxis will focus more on gameplay, marketing and diversity of civilisations and leaders.

I don't expect them to prioritise full pathways, though I do expect all the major pathways to be fleshed out eventually, as I think there is going to be a vast amount of DLC for the game over the next five years or so.

 

[Ornen]

Of the wonders that presumably have to be used for the 4 civs in the first DLC (since it doesn't add any new wonders), only one is really usable for a Modern civ, and that's Oxford. So I think it's very likely that we see Britain in the first DLC. (It's really the only guess that seems extremely likely.)

• Hanging Gardens (Babylon)
• Colossus (Rhodes)
• Pyramid of the Sun (Teotihuacan) [IP]
• Emile Bell (Silla Korea) [IP]
• Ha'amonga'a Maui (Tonga)
• Nalanda (Gupta India)
• Terracotta Army (Qin China)
• Petra (Nabateans)
• Mausoleum Theodoric (Ostrogoths) [IP]
• Shwedagon Zedi Daw (Burma)
• Notre Dame (Medieval France)
• Oxford University (Britain)

You may have missed Dur-Sharrukin (Assyria)

Good list though — this is why I'm convinced Babylon, Assyria, Ostrogoths, Britain, and some form of medieval France are all fairly likely for early DLC.

I don't know if someone being an IP makes a big difference. On the one hand, why would they be an IP if they were planned for early DLC? But on the other hand, what do IPs require aside from a list of cities, which would also be used for a civ?

Pyramid of the Sun is an Antiquity wonder and Aztecs are presumably an Exploration-era civ, so they'll either need a new wonder or some changes.

Both DLC include an "and more", so Ottomans with a wonder is not prohibitive... but it does feel less likely. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Tokpapi or the Blue Mosque in Right to Rule, but that comes after Crossroads, so not sure how that would work. All in all, I'm less confident now that we'll see Ottomans before the first expansion.

All that being said, I don't know how many civs with existing wonders fit the "Crossroads" theme. Babylon and Assyria make plenty of sense... Would they really throw Tonga in a DLC themed "Crossroads of the World"? I think not.

FWIW, I don't think Firaxis is that worried about accurate full pathways much at all. I think they'll get there in time, but the initial roster makes pretty clear it's not their first concern. That said, I do think they're especially interested in adding civs that can draw multiple connections across eras. Think Normans,Goths, Byzantines, HRE — names that aren't quite on tier 1 in terms of overall impact, but can draw lines to several progenitors or successors.

 

[Xandinho]

Pyramid of the Sun is an Antiquity wonder and Aztecs are presumably an Exploration-era civ, so they'll either need a new wonder or some changes.

Pyramid of the Sun is a Teotihuacan wonder, not an Aztec one. Not to be confused with Tenochtitlan, which was the capital of the Aztecs.

The Aztecs will probably come with Huey Teocalli.

 

[Zaarin]

Good list though — this is why I'm convinced Babylon, Assyria, Ostrogoths, Britain, and some form of medieval France are all fairly likely for early DLC.

I'll be very disappointed if the Hanging Gardens are Babylon's associated wonder. If they existed at all, they were almost certainly in Nineveh; I think the Hanging Garden should be left unassociated with either the Nisan Processional Way or Etemenanki for Babylon's wonder.

 

[ehecatzin]

Pyramid of the Sun is an Antiquity wonder and Aztecs are presumably an Exploration-era civ, so they'll either need a new wonder or some changes.

No changes, Aztecs should remain exploration, Huey Teocalli as wonder.

Pyramid of the Sun points to Antiquity Teotihuacan not earlier Aztecs.