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

I don't think this is the evidence of the Antiquity Goryeo, because FXS already showed their judgment about Korean history with IPs: the Three Kingdoms of Korea in the Antiquity Age, and Goryeo dynasty in the Exploration Age. I rather consider that it means we may get those Korean Civ(s) much later than the expectation around the CotW collection. If they planned to release Silla so soon with the associated wonder Emile Bell, they would design the wonder match well with Silla more than now.
I feel vindicated. That's what I suggested when civ switching first came up. :D
 
I feel vindicated. That's what I suggested when civ switching first came up. :D
Yes, I am also the one who always have been stood with the solid pathway of Three Koreas - Goryeo - Joseon. I hope we'll see this in Civ 7 someday, but I'm not confident with the timing.
 
It could be the whole Palace of Westminster this time though, not just the clock tower with a bit of an appendix.
But I think it depends a bit in which direction the British civ will go: economic, cultural or industrial powerhouse.
The Palace of Westminster or Big Ben are excellent choices for economic.
The British Museum is an excellent choice for culture.
Battersea Power Station or St. Pancras are a good choices for industrial.
For scientific, I'm thinking less of a wonders, but unique buildings or a quarter (e.g., Red Brick University).

The Crystal Palace would be a great wonder for industrial based Britain.
Culture could have Royal Albert Hall.
 
The Palace of Westminster (for that is its name) is iconic and fine, but we’ve had it in the previous two games and there are far more interesting options.

The Crystal Palace is a much better option, combining cultural exhibitions with the state of the art industrial techniques that made it possible! St Pancras Station is also a very good shout now we have railway stations on the map.
 
It needs more everything paths. Four civs aren't going to close all the gaps.
Yes, but that's strategy gaming for you. You always need more of everything.

Low number of Euro Civs with a disproportionately high amount of Euro leaders pushes towards more Euro paths by default.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
The Palace of Westminster (for that is its name) is iconic and fine, but we’ve had it in the previous two games and there are far more interesting options.

The Crystal Palace is a much better option, combining cultural exhibitions with the state of the art industrial techniques that made it possible! St Pancras Station is also a very good shout now we have railway stations on the map.

I would rather have Tokyo station or if we want an eldritch location on the map, Shinjuku station for a railway station wonder.
 
So I've already guessed elsewhere that the four Crossroads civs will be Assyria, Franks, Burma, and Britain based on the remaining "unassociated" wonders, their distribution, and their bonuses. Which, if true, suggests that the devs were trying to provide key missing pieces from the base game and to some extent "finish out" France, Germany, Britain, and Khmer/Siam paths. I am also expecting at least a British leader, and although the other leader could come from anywhere if I had to choose between these it would be Assyrian/Syrian.

If that turns out to be true, and we will be only 7 months away from full release of Right to Rule, I would probably bet that Right to Rule will also take the same attitude to "flesh out" key pathway gaps, or otherwise fully complete historical pathways. Here are the gaps that I think are most probable to be addressed immediately post-launch, in rough order of likelihood:

* Samoa (antiquity) - I am placing this number one because Hawaii is the one exploration era civ without any satisfying start point, even moreso than Inca who at least shared New Granada territory with the Maya. Until the Maori are released we can settle for it pivoting Hawaii to Meiji or U.S., but I think having an antiquity option is very needed for Hawaii. It also has the convenient benefit of giving Indonesia a second starting spot, given that it could reach back a little bit to Lapita culture.
* Ottomans (modern) - much like Polynesia has no starting place, the Middle East has no ending place. Ottomans are a pretty comfortable catch-all until we start seeing stuff like Iran, Mamluks, Morocco, etc.
* Byzantium (exploration) - Greece and Rome beg for some continuity, and if we have three Indias and Chinas the second Rome makes for a pretty obvious early addition. It would also mostly "finish out" Russia to the same extent Britain, France, and Germany will be.
* Aztec + Gran Colombia/Argentina/(Brazil?) (exploration and modern) - I think these would likely come as a pair to better connect Maya into Inca and Mexico paths. While I see the appeal of Brazil, I also suspect it is being saved to be released alongside Portugal. Whereas Gran Colombia or Argentina would already work well for giving Spain a second landing spot. Of course, we may only get one of these, in which case I would lean Aztecs.
* Swahili (exploration) or Silla/Goryeo (exploration) - I think both of these could provide some degree of options and closure to their respective regions. Swahili would finish out the Aksum -> Buganda path, as well as provide Amina with some options. And Silla would at least give some sort of loosely historical regional path from Han -> Silla -> Meiji (and yes, this would be a primary, if only benefit, to pushing Silla into exploration era, is that it more logically moves into Japan than Goryeo), at least until more Korean and Japanese civs are released. However, I think both of these regions are begging for multi-civ patch-ins and I think single-civ placeholders are not super-satisfying solutions.
* Norse (antiquity) - the dark horse. We have the Normans so this would give us a third European wellfont that gives them a more logical startpoint. However, Europe already has two wellfonts and Polynesia has zero, so I am still giving the edge to Samoa and predicting Norse will be put off for a proper Scandi expansion.
* Timurids/Sasanids - giving the Middle East a second exploration era civ might help open up historical paths for Persia and Maurya, but the Abbasids and Chola are fine as placeholders, I'm not expecting these guys yet, but sooner than later.

I would place Samoa and Ottomans as very likely. I will actually bump up exploration Silla (or Goryeo) because I think not giving the remaining major gaming market any leader or civ representation (as opposed to Vietnam and the Philippines) by the end of 2025 just isn't in Firaxis' interests; plus it would at least give both Korean and Japanese players at least some path that doesn't jump through Indonesia or Ming. And then, because Spain already has a valid path through to Mexico, I will assume GC/Argentina are deprioritized. So I will peg the fourth slot as Byzantium, with Aztecs as a potential upset (as I think we can loosely accept Pachacuti leading Maya -> Inca -> Mexico for now, whereas Byzantium would "finish out" Greece, Ottomans, and Russia for now.

Interestingly, after these eight civs are added, most of the base game civs will have fairly satisfying historical pathways, with the one concession being accepting the antiquity civs as much more generalized "wellfonts" (Han China for Japan/Korea, Rome/Greece for all of Europe, Maya for all of Mesoamerica, etc.) that will be given alternatives in later content.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: j51
So I've already guessed elsewhere that the four Crossroads civs will be Assyria, Franks, Burma, and Britain based on the remaining "unassociated" wonders, their distribution, and their bonuses. Which, if true, suggests that the devs were trying to provide key missing pieces from the base game and to some extent "finish out" France, Germany, Britain, and Khmer/Siam paths.
If they were going for the Franks, why not use the Palatine Chapel in Aachen rather than Notre Dame, which was built several hundred years after the fall of the Carolingian Empire?
 
If they were going for the Franks, why not use the Palatine Chapel in Aachen rather than Notre Dame, which was built several hundred years after the fall of the Carolingian Empire?

I do agree I would have preferred Aachen Cathedral, hands down. The Church of St. Etienne was around since Merovingian times so maybe it's more of a representative thing, and it's not like they haven't fudged things elsewhere (Borobudur imo is more properly a Srivijaya/Mataram wonder if we are going by first construction).

But if this is more compelling, France (formerly "West Francia") and the king were still referred to as "Francia" and "King of the Franks" as late as 1190.

Maybe we do just get boring old "France," but I think the far more interesting and obvious design decision would be to design a Frankish civ to cover much more of the exploration era as well as highlight France and Germany's shared history (much like how the Normans function). I would rather we just consolidate Francia and the HRE into a proper 400 - 1200 "Francia" civ and be done with it.

We do already have Charlemagne so it's not like people can't play out their HRE fantasy with him leading Francia -> Prussia.
 
I do agree I would have preferred Aachen Cathedral, hands down. The Church of St. Etienne was around since Merovingian times so maybe it's more of a representative thing, and it's not like they haven't fudged things elsewhere (Borobudur imo is more properly a Srivijaya/Mataram wonder if we are going by first construction).
I think they just chose Borodbudur because I'm not quite sure what other wonder like construction was built in Indonesia, or even by the Majapahit themselves? I'm not an expert so if there is I'd be curious to know.
Maybe we do just get boring old "France," but I think the far more interesting and obvious design decision would be to design a Frankish civ to cover much more of the exploration era as well as highlight France and Germany's shared history (much like how the Normans function). I would rather we just consolidate Francia and the HRE into a proper 400 - 1200 "Francia" civ and be done with it.

We do already have Charlemagne so it's not like people can't play out their HRE fantasy with him leading Francia -> Prussia.
I wouldn't mind a Frankish civ either. I'm just not sure Notre Dame would be associated with it. I think it's more likely that Notre Dame is included to pay tribute to it because it caught fire several years ago, and not to go with any civ.
 
Notre Dame strikes me as one of those "it's gotta be in civ" wonders. Same feeling for the Colossus or Hanging Gardens, they were always gonna make it even if they didn't have associated civs.

The wonders which stick out to me as strange to include if Firaxis didn't have a civ in mind is the Ha'amonga 'a Maui, the Mausoleum of Theodoric, and Shwedagon Zedi Daw. Impressive structures in their own right, but I feel like they hint at a civ for Tonga, the Goths, and Burma more than others. The anchor civ to sell the pack would either be Assyria with Dur-Sharrukin or Britain with Oxford - although I'd prefer Britain came in Right to Rule with a different wonder.
 
Something I've noticed is that each attribute type has an associated Ancient wonder:

Economic: Colossus

Diplomatic: Emile Bell

Cultural: Ha'amonga 'a Maui

Expansionist: Hanging Gardens

Scientific: Nalanda

Military: Mausoleum of Theodoric

And as a bonus, Shwedagon Zedi Daw has a wildcard attribute point in Exploration.

I think that Nalanda and Colossus being unable to be associated tends to indicate that the others in this group will also be unassociated, and therefore we can count out Silla, Tonga, Goths, and Babylon for CotW. These Attribute Wonders would be equally available to all the civs.

That leaves four possibilities and four civ slots in the pack:
Teotihuacan (or a similar pre-Aztec polity that uses PotS as an associated wonder)
Assyria
Kingdom of France
Britain
 
Last edited:
I think they just chose Borodbudur because I'm not quite sure what other wonder like construction was built in Indonesia, or even by the Majapahit themselves? I'm not an expert so if there is I'd be curious to know.

I wouldn't mind a Frankish civ either. I'm just not sure Notre Dame would be associated with it. I think it's more likely that Notre Dame is included to pay tribute to it because it caught fire several years ago, and not to go with any civ.

Notre Dame has always been kind of a baity non-wonder to me. It's significance is really more due to a literary revolution more than representing any specially wondrous architecture compared to contemporary cathedrals.

EDIT: Also Charlemagne gets celebration bonuses, which doesn't seem very common in civ or leader designs so far, so that further suggests that there could be a Frankish civ making it easier for Charlie to build Notre Dame.

Something I've noticed is that all but one attribute type has an associated Ancient wonder:

Economic: Colossus

Diplomatic: Emile Bell

Cultural: Ha'amonga 'a Maui

Expansionist: Hanging Gardens

Scientific: Nalanda

Military: ???

And as a bonus, Shwedagon Zedi Daw has a wildcard attribute point in Exploration.

I think that Nalanda and Colossus being unable to be associated tends to indicate that the others in this group will also be unassociated, and therefore we can count out Silla, Tonga, and Babylon for CotW. These Attribute Wonders would be equally available to all the civs.

That's what my theory is based on, yes. Terracotta Army is the military attribute bonus, it looks like. Also, inversely, every civ-associated wonder does not give a flat, generic attribute bonus, which further lends credibility to the idea that what few remaining non-flat bonus wonders have associated civs.

That only leaves:

* Dur-Sharrukin (antiquity) - likely pointing toward Assyria in Crossroads
* Pyramid of the Sun (antiquity) - I just don't see what benefit they have in adding an antiquity Teotihuacan civ to the game, especially this early without an Aztec civ. I am pegging this as an exception, although it could be interchanged with Burma I suppose. EDIT: Maaaybe an antiquity Purepecha could sneak in with this? Maybe?
* Shwedagon Paya (exploration) - possibly a "generic" wonder, but Ibn Battuta is also a "wild card" so if any of these generic stat boosters have a chance of not being unassociated, it's this one. I'm guessing Burma as a wild card.
* Notre Dame (exploration) - Franks all the way.
* Oxford (modern) - we don't know what this bonus is yet but by process of elimination Britain is extremely likely.
* Red Fort and Taj Mahal - I am betting, based on the surprisingly small number of unassociated wonders and the confluence of these two alongside Oxford, that the Mughals are the "two associated wonders" civ.
 
Last edited:
Notre Dame has always been kind of a baity non-wonder to me. It's significance is really more due to a literary revolution more than representing any specially wondrous architecture compared to contemporary cathedrals.



That's what my theory is based on, yes. Terracotta Army is the military attribute bonus, it looks like. Also, inversely, every civ-associated wonder does not give a flat, generic attribute bonus, which further lends credibility to the idea that what few remaining non-flat bonus wonders have associated civs.

That only leaves:

* Dur-Sharrukin (antiquity) - likely pointing toward Assyria in Crossroads
* Pyramid of the Sun (antiquity) - I just don't see what benefit they have in adding an antiquity Teotihuacan civ to the game, especially this early without an Aztec civ. I am pegging this as an exception, although it could be interchanged with Burma I suppose.
* Shwedagon Paya (exploration) - possibly a "generic" wonder, but Ibn Battuta is also a "wild card" so if any of these generic stat boosters have a chance of not being unassociated, it's this one. I'm guessing Burma as a wild card.
* Notre Dame (exploration) - Franks all the way.
* Oxford (modern) - we don't know what this bonus is yet but by process of elimination Britain is extremely likely.
* Red Fort and Taj Mahal - I am betting, based on the surprisingly small number of unassociated wonders and the confluence of these two alongside Oxford, that the Mughals are the "two associated wonders" civ.
It's The Mausoloeum of THeodoric that has the Military Attribute point. I left it blank for a bit while I double checked and updated my post
 
It's The Mausoloeum of THeodoric that has the Military Attribute point. I left it blank for a bit while I double checked and updated my post
Oh you're right, you're right I forgot about that.

Still, the Terracotta army is its own generic stat boost in a different way and I don't think we are anticipating Qin any more than Gupta/Pala at this point. Between Teotihuacan, Qin, and Assyria, I would hands-down predict Assyria will be an antiquity civ in Crossroads.

Either way, I think that the odds of antiquity Goths, Silla, Gupta/Pala, and Tonga are now extremely low. And they kind of make sense.

* Tonga wasn't our only shot at antiquity Polynesia, and as a matter of both an originating point and a larger modern market, Samoa makes more sense. Benefits to this distinction are: (a) we can have Samoa progress through a Tongan wonder into Hawaii, creating a more faceted Polynesian expansion path; (b) Samoa's stronger connection to the Lapita culture also works better as an alternate start point for the Majapahit than Tonga (not perfect, just better).
* India already has the best antiquity civ, and while a nod to the other antiquity Indian empires is appreciated we don't exactly need a whole second civ.
* Goths would be kind of difficult to distinguish from the Western Roman Empire and Normans/Franks, and I think we are far more likely to get Cordoba (Carthage?) if anything to give Spain/Portugal a more natural start (and some more distinct flavor). But they were a major transitionary period for Spain/Italy that got kind of edged out by Rome/Cordoba/Carthage and Spain/Italy that deserved nominal representation.
* Silla is the one perplexing people given that they all expect Silla -> Goryeo -> Joseon for a Korea prog, but I think this just cements the idea that Late/Unified Silla will be pushed to exploration, and some other proto-civ like the Jin will be representing Korea in antiquity, if anything. But this I think is also the "generic" wonder most likely to have its bonus changed if the devs do decide to go with antiquity Silla.

That leaves four possibilities and four civ slots in the pack:
Teotihuacan (or a similar pre-Aztec polity that uses PotS as an associated wonder)
Assyria
Kingdom of France
Britain

The only thing I could maybe imagine (and hope for) if it is Pyramid of the Sun and not Shwedagon Paya, would be Purepecha/Tarascan. Which...is stretching but they were very lake-oriented and had apparently been influenced by the Teotihuacan culture? I wouldn't be disappointed if that were the case. I would say I equally want both Purepecha and Burma in the game, so my only disappointment would be Burma's chances lessening. (and also some minor frustration at there still being no exploration mesoamerican civ on the map).
 
Last edited:
Something I've noticed is that each attribute type has an associated Ancient wonder:

Economic: Colossus

Diplomatic: Emile Bell

Cultural: Ha'amonga 'a Maui

Expansionist: Hanging Gardens

Scientific: Nalanda

Military: Mausoleum of Theodoric

And as a bonus, Shwedagon Zedi Daw has a wildcard attribute point in Exploration.

I think that Nalanda and Colossus being unable to be associated tends to indicate that the others in this group will also be unassociated, and therefore we can count out Silla, Tonga, Goths, and Babylon for CotW. These Attribute Wonders would be equally available to all the civs.

That leaves four possibilities and four civ slots in the pack:
Teotihuacan (or a similar pre-Aztec polity that uses PotS as an associated wonder)
Assyria
Kingdom of France
Britain
Very nice observation! Somehow I’m not completely convinced that those are the civs we are getting though. There is definitely a pattern, but I wouldn‘t rule out that the pattern is broken early on in development cycle.

There is also the Red Fort/Taj Mahal. One of these will not be associated with the Mughals. Do we know their stats and if one of them gives an attribute point?

Teotihuacan is a good civ choice. However, I would be surprised to see them before the Aztecs - or Aztecs in Antiquity with the PotS wonder. And exploration Age France seems so… redundant at the moment?

And then there is also Petra. I wouldn‘t think of it as a wonder that suggests Nabataeans, but if we are already discussing Teotihuacan and France, they seem at least just as likely.
 
Last edited:
Very nice observation! Somehow I’m not completely convinced that those are the civs we are getting though. There is definitely a pattern, but I wouldn‘t rule out that the pattern is broken early on in development cycle.

There is also the Red Fort/Taj Mahal. One of these will not be associated with the Mughals. Do we know their stats and if one of them gives an attribute point?

Teotihuacan is a good civ choice. However, I would be surprised to see them before the Aztecs - or Aztecs in Antiquity with the PotS wonder. And exploration Age France seems so… redundant at the moment?

Again, I am expecting it is more likely both the Taj Mahal and Red Fort are associated with the Mughals, than to have one of them be hanging as the only unassociated wonder in modern era (along with Shwedagon Paya or Notre Dame in exploration). I think it is more likely at this point, unless there are more launch wonders we haven't seen, that after Crossroads associates the last four wonders there are no unassociated exploration or modern era wonders. Only the antiquity era really needs extra wonders mechanically, not to mention is that era that is more focused on building and wonders generally.

This is the same reason why I think Burma is more likely than Teo, along with the Aztec reason you stated. Burma completes a very logical Khmer -> Siam path by itself, while Teo just messes up the map more than it fills any necessary holes like the Aztecs would.
 
Back
Top Bottom