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

[RedCourtJester]

I don't mean it is forced as a historical path, I mean it is forced as a Civ in general. Choosing a Beylik of relatively minor importance when there are extremely important states from the same time period is very forced imo. Civs should be able to stand on their own.




But why? The Abbasids are already the major Mesopotamian power of the exploration age. Just give the other antiquity Civs a different exploration Civ from their region:

Babylon -> Abbasids
Persia -> Seljuks
Egypt -> Ayyubids

I am not sure exactly how minor the importance of the Artukids actually was. Certainly of the beyliks they seem to have been the most established and influential outside of what grew into the Ottoman empire.

I think Crossroads is more likely to focus on building out two leader paths with more specificity than tossing 4 civs from that region onto the map. For that reason, I think if we are using Babylon and Assyria as a base, it makes much more sense to differentiate those civs in the exploration age than the modern age (which really only has Mamluks and Ottomans as endgame options). Hence why, if that is the direction they are going, they might go for specificity, since frankly neither Abbasids, nor Sasanids, nor Seljuks really isolate the idea of Syrian or Iraqi heritage specifically.

I wouldn't be disappointed in a Seljuk civ. I just don't think it will stand out in the roster much alongside Sasanids and Timurids as compared to the Artukids.

 

[FishFishFish]

I am not sure exactly how minor the importance of the Artukids actually was. Certainly of the beyliks they seem to have been the most established and influential outside of what grew into the Ottoman empire.

None of the Beyliks are worth considering except the Ottomans imho. It is like picking a Taifa instead of Al-Andalus.

I suppose the Zengid Atabegate are notable since Nur al-Din Zengi and his father Imad al-Din Zengi were both great commanders active during the crusades. Imad al-Din Zengi would succeed in gaining power in Mosul and in uniting the major Muslim areas around the holy land. It was under this Zengid dynasty that Saladin under the care of his uncle would get his own start. I still wouldn't want them, but they fit as a successor for Assyria I guess. (Also the Artuqids were also a vassal of the Zengids)

 

[RedCourtJester]

None of the Beyliks are worth considering except the Ottomans imho. It is like picking a Taifa instead of Al-Andalus.

I suppose the Zengid Atabegate are notable since Nur al-Din Zengi and his father Imad al-Din Zengi were both great commanders active during the crusades. Imad al-Din Zengi would succeed in gaining power in Mosul and in uniting the major Muslim areas around the holy land. It was under this Zengid dynasty that Saladin under the care of his uncle would get his own start. I still wouldn't want them, but they fit as a successor for Assyria I guess. (Also the Artuqids were also a vassal of the Zengids)

Hm I could see Zengids too. Actually their placement around Mosul might actually suit a Babylon path better than the Artukids.

 

[Prester John 2]

If Crossroads is centered on the Middle East and contains civs from different ages, I suspect these (unless already in the base game) would be in it;

Antiquity: Assyria or Babylon
Exploration age: Mamluks or Timurids
Modern age: Afsharids (Nader Shah) and/or Modern Alawiya dynasty/Modern Egypt/Egyptian-Sudanese empire (Muhammad Ali of Egypt).

This would mean pathwise:

Egypt -> Mamuks -> Alawyia (More North Africa/Egypt centered)
Assyria -> Timurids -> Afsharids (more Iran-centered)

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Keen to see Goths-HRE-Germany

Hard to see what crossroads would be, sounds Middle Eastern~Central Asia
No one obvious line missing, just an assortment of big name Civs that would mix though current line up

 

[Hilton1]

Great summary. Good call about Nabataea. I'm wondering, since "Abassids" now represent the Islamic caliphates, maybe "Arabians" will represent ancient Arabs like Nabataea, the nomadic peoples of their peninsula, and maybe even Palmyra.

I'm still not convinced Hawaii is exploration. It may be modern, if it's in the base game at all. The units we saw could also be independent peoples, making Tonga the exploration civ instead. Hawaii would sell as DLC whereas Tonga not as much, making the latter more likely for the base game.

About the modern slots, I think the most likely candidates are, in order of likelihood: Mexico, Russia, Qing, Germany.

The Latin American architecture we saw and the Palacio de Bellas Artes basically confirm Mexico in the base game to me. I don't think Mexico has the star power to be its own DLC, unlike other ancient or exploration Mesoamerican civs, Brazil or Simon Bolivar, so it makes sense to have it in the base game.

Russia's omission would bring more attention to how Civ navigates geopolitics. It's best if Russia is added in the base game as just another Civ, instead of dedicating a DLC to it or worse, omitting it entirely.

I honestly think it's very likely that Qing is a DLC and will be in the Right to Rule DLC along with exploration or modern Germany. I think you're on to something that Crossroads of the World will focus on the Middle East.

Interesting ideas. Arabians could work as a catch all Bedouin civilisation, though I get the impression Firaxis is moving away from this model with Civ VII and into more specifics e.g. Chola India, Mughals, etc.

I agree on Mexico and Russia. Re: Qing, I guess it depends on the rest of the speculation about which civs will be in the base game. They do have an associated wonder that has been seen already, though as we know that alone doesn't prove a civ is in.

 

[Hilton1]

To me 'crossroads of the world' implies more than one crossroad - it won't all be Mesopotamian/West Asian Civs. The Trans-Saharan trade, the Silk Road and the Indian Ocean trade were all major crossroads so I think it's likely we'll something from each of those regions.

If this is the case, which it might well be, what do you think are the most likely civs?

From the Middle East, I think Babylon, Byzantium and Ottomans are all likely to be included in the game eventually. I think there is a good chance that Assyria, or less likely Sumer/Akkad, will also be included. And perhaps another less obvious option, like Hittities or Nabatea, or another Islamic dynasty, like the Mamluks, might also make it. I guess they might spread them out over various DLC and expansions.

But from the other regions you've listed, no civs with a very strong case of being in the game jump out to me. That's not to say they're not worthy, but that they are less of an obvious omission compared to the Middle Eastern civs.

With Songhai in the base game, I guess the most likely inclusion for Trans-Saharan trade would be Morocco (I think Mali is unlikely to appear separately to Songhai). From the Silk Road, perhaps an ancient civ like Bactria/Sogdia could be cool, or one of the Central Asian nomadic peoples implemented in a similar way to Scythia. I'm not sure who would represent Indian Ocean trade though, especially as we already have Chola as a maritime Indian power - perhaps Oman, with its Eastn African empire?

All of these would be cool, but I think the case for Assyria/Babylon/Byzantium/Ottomans is stronger.

Another comment mentioned Ethiopia as a crossroads civ, which I think is a strong contender for eventual inclusion, though Axum is themed along the lines of a 'crossroads' trade civ already, so I think Exploration or Modern Ethiopia might have a different focus.

 

[Sagax]

If this is the case, which it might well be, what do you think are the most likely civs?

From the Middle East, I think Babylon, Byzantium and Ottomans are all likely to be included in the game eventually. I think there is a good chance that Assyria, or less likely Sumer/Akkad, will also be included. And perhaps another less obvious option, like Hittities or Nabatea, or another Islamic dynasty, like the Mamluks, might also make it. I guess they might spread them out over various DLC and expansions.

But from the other regions you've listed, no civs with a very strong case of being in the game jump out to me. That's not to say they're not worthy, but that they are less of an obvious omission compared to the Middle Eastern civs.

With Songhai in the base game, I guess the most likely inclusion for Trans-Saharan trade would be Morocco (I think Mali is unlikely to appear separately to Songhai). From the Silk Road, perhaps an ancient civ like Bactria/Sogdia could be cool, or one of the Central Asian nomadic peoples implemented in a similar way to Scythia. I'm not sure who would represent Indian Ocean trade though, especially as we already have Chola as a maritime Indian power - perhaps Oman, with its Eastn African empire?

All of these would be cool, but I think the case for Assyria/Babylon/Byzantium/Ottomans is stronger.

Another comment mentioned Ethiopia as a crossroads civ, which I think is a strong contender for eventual inclusion, though Axum is themed along the lines of a 'crossroads' trade civ already, so I think Exploration or Modern Ethiopia might have a different focus.

I can see the Aztec fitting this theme, with how awkward the current Maya-Inca-(Mexico?) pipeline is shaping up.

If Meiji Japan is the only Japan representation in vanilla, then an Exploration version would also work here. As cliche as it may be, I doubt FXS will completely skip samurai units in the game.

And, of course, let’s not forget how rather liberally they applied DLC names last time with Civ 6 Leader Pass.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

If this is the case, which it might well be, what do you think are the most likely civs?

From the Middle East, I think Babylon, Byzantium and Ottomans are all likely to be included in the game eventually. I think there is a good chance that Assyria, or less likely Sumer/Akkad, will also be included. And perhaps another less obvious option, like Hittities or Nabatea, or another Islamic dynasty, like the Mamluks, might also make it. I guess they might spread them out over various DLC and expansions.

But from the other regions you've listed, no civs with a very strong case of being in the game jump out to me. That's not to say they're not worthy, but that they are less of an obvious omission compared to the Middle Eastern civs.

With Songhai in the base game, I guess the most likely inclusion for Trans-Saharan trade would be Morocco (I think Mali is unlikely to appear separately to Songhai). From the Silk Road, perhaps an ancient civ like Bactria/Sogdia could be cool, or one of the Central Asian nomadic peoples implemented in a similar way to Scythia. I'm not sure who would represent Indian Ocean trade though, especially as we already have Chola as a maritime Indian power - perhaps Oman, with its Eastn African empire?

All of these would be cool, but I think the case for Assyria/Babylon/Byzantium/Ottomans is stronger.

Another comment mentioned Ethiopia as a crossroads civ, which I think is a strong contender for eventual inclusion, though Axum is themed along the lines of a 'crossroads' trade civ already, so I think Exploration or Modern Ethiopia might have a different focus.

While I agree that all those Middle Eastern civs are obvious contenders I would be surprised if all civs from the dlc are from that one region. I imagine the pack will have some new and some familiar civs. The Ottomans might still be in the base game although they are the best modern era candidate for this theme.

The Timurid Empire would be another Asian civ that I think would be more likely than Sogdia or Bactria. Their rule is known as the Timurid Renaissance, a period reviving central Asia as a centre of learning after the Mongolian destruction. The Timurids would be a great successor to Persia and another natural path to the Mughals who's elites were descended from the Timurid kingdom.

For the Trans-Saharan region I think the Kanem-Borno Empire is a great candidate. It's one of the largest and longest lasting empires in African history. The Bornoan period cities were major centres of learning and their diaspora known as the Kanuri founded schools/madrassas in the Hausa city states as well as other African kingdoms. The Bornoan perido was also known for it's bright red brick buildings while many other African civilizations were building with earth/adobe. They conquered as far north as Libya (even annexing Tripoli), westwards towards Hausaland, southwards into what is now Cameroon. Since they lasted until the modern era they could be a modern era successor for the Songhai. They defeated the Morrocans who had destroyed the Songhai.

I'm not well versed on Indian ocean history but Fireaxis do have a historian who focuses on that area. It's yet to be confirmed that Majapahit is in the base game. If we don't see another Saharan trade civ and Majapahit is already in the game, then I suspect the Swahili civilization will be a strong contender. And a great successor to Aksum.
Edit -The Swahili ports have been described as being part of a crossroads before ;

Swahili, the Pulse of Life at the Crossroads (Published 2018)

A show dedicated to the arts of the Swahili Coast, where Africa, South Asia and the Middle East blend, nudges us away from narrow thinking about identity.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

I can see the Aztec fitting this theme, with how awkward the current Maya-Inca-(Mexico?) pipeline is shaping up.

If Meiji Japan is the only Japan representation in vanilla, then an Exploration version would also work here. As cliche as it may be, I doubt FXS will completely skip samurai units I the game.

And, of course, let’s not forget how rather liberally they applied DLC names last time with Civ 6 Leader Pass.

Very keen to see Aztec and samurai-feudal Japan make early DLC

Samurai Japan like Tokugawa in Civ 6 would play against the goals of the exploration age though. Anti exploration and anti trade

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Civs that strongly oppose the general themes of an Age are more interesting picks, if anything, especially for DLC. The whole world has bonuses towards exploration and trade while you have bonuses to turtle up and stay in your lane. There's even potential for conflict when you don't trade with civs who want to be trading with everyone, so they'll try to force you to open up relations. Not unlike Matthew Perry and isolationist Japan...

 

[Sagax]

Samurai Japan like Tokugawa in Civ 6 would play against the goals of the exploration age though. Anti exploration and anti trade

IMO that’s fine and a few civs should absolutely go against the grain dictated by their in-game era. My biggest worry with the current era design is that it may homogenize playstyles and offset the supposed variation provided by civ-switching: everyone grows their starting patch of land in Antiquity, everyone sets sail once Exploration kicks in, etc. With how ocean exploration now appears hard-coded to be impossible in Antiquity, I’ve already consigned to the fact that we probably won’t see any unorthodox early game as seen with Civ5 Polynesia or Civ6 Maori/Norse.

Civs with bonuses that go against the era’s status quo would add much needed playstyle variety - both as the civs you play as and the civs you interact with (though that will rely more on the AI quality).

 

[moysturfurmer]

Very keen to see Aztec and samurai-feudal Japan make early DLC

Samurai Japan like Tokugawa in Civ 6 would play against the goals of the exploration age though. Anti exploration and anti trade

I’d say that merits their inclusion over anyone else though. You set up a rule, and something that breaks that rule makes it way more compelling.

 

[stealth_nsk]

IMO that’s fine and a few civs should absolutely go against the grain dictated by their in-game era. My biggest worry with the current era design is that it may homogenize playstyles and offset the supposed variation provided by civ-switching: everyone grows their starting patch of land in Antiquity, everyone sets sail once Exploration kicks in, etc. With how ocean exploration now appears hard-coded to be impossible in Antiquity, I’ve already consigned to the fact that we probably won’t see any unorthodox early game as seen with Civ5 Polynesia or Civ6 Maori/Norse.

Civs with bonuses that go against the era’s status quo would add much needed playstyle variety - both as the civs you play as and the civs you interact with (though that will rely more on the AI quality).

Firaxis already presented Mongols as an option to focus on conquering your continent instead of going overseas. I could assume other playstyles could be valid as well.

 

[Sagax]

Firaxis already presented Mongols as an option to focus on conquering your continent instead of going overseas. I could assume other playstyles could be valid as well.

Agreed, though I probably hope for more drastic gameplay changes baked into the civ design. If Mongolia’s continent domination boils down to “same toys as everyone else’s just with bigger numbers”, then it’s not quite scratching the itch.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Agreed, though I probably hope for more drastic gameplay changes baked into the civ design. If Mongolia’s continent domination boils down to “same toys as everyone else’s just with bigger numbers”, then it’s not quite scratching the itch.

I think they are just focused on land units and land conquest instead of going to sea and settle. The idea is what despite having new world, Civ is still a sandbox and you're not forced to expand to other continents. You could focus on closer neighbors or just play taller.

 

[Hilton1]

While I agree that all those Middle Eastern civs are obvious contenders I would be surprised if all civs from the dlc are from that one region. I imagine the pack will have some new and some familiar civs. The Ottomans might still be in the base game although they are the best modern era candidate for this theme.

The Timurid Empire would be another Asian civ that I think would be more likely than Sogdia or Bactria. Their rule is known as the Timurid Renaissance, a period reviving central Asia as a centre of learning after the Mongolian destruction. The Timurids would be a great successor to Persia and another natural path to the Mughals who's elites were descended from the Timurid kingdom.

For the Trans-Saharan region I think the Kanem-Borno Empire is a great candidate. It's one of the largest and longest lasting empires in African history. The Bornoan period cities were major centres of learning and their diaspora known as the Kanuri founded schools/madrassas in the Hausa city states as well as other African kingdoms. The Bornoan perido was also known for it's bright red brick buildings while many other African civilizations were building with earth/adobe. They conquered as far north as Libya (even annexing Tripoli), westwards towards Hausaland, southwards into what is now Cameroon. Since they lasted until the modern era they could be a modern era successor for the Songhai. They defeated the Morrocans who had destroyed the Songhai.

I'm not well versed on Indian ocean history but Fireaxis do have a historian who focuses on that area. It's yet to be confirmed that Majapahit is in the base game. If we don't see another Saharan trade civ and Majapahit is already in the game, then I suspect the Swahili civilization will be a strong contender. And a great successor to Aksum.
Edit -The Swahili ports have been described as being part of a crossroads before ;

Swahili, the Pulse of Life at the Crossroads (Published 2018)

A show dedicated to the arts of the Swahili Coast, where Africa, South Asia and the Middle East blend, nudges us away from narrow thinking about identity.

www.nytimes.com

Thanks for those examples. All three - Timurid, Kanem-Borno, Swahili - would be great.

I think you're probably right about having a mixture of new and familiar. Firaxis have talked about being excited to include a more diverse roster, partly enabled by the splitting of civs into eras, so maybe we're likely to see various new civs alongside series staples in the DLC.

In my speculation, Nabatea and Zenobia would be new and fun, alongside the familiar Ottomans, Byzantium and Assyria. But perhaps this skews too familiar - I could see them including two new and two familiar civs, for example, in which case they may swap out Byzantium for one of the ones you mentioned. I personally think it would be cool and thematic to have the Ottomans and Byzantium in the same pack, especially given the focus on end of era transitions and layered cities in the base game, and the role of Constantinople/Istanbul for both civs.

I guess much depends on whether the Ottomans are in the base game. I suspect they are not, based on what we've seen, which leaves a big hole for a Middle Eastern modern civ that I expect early DLC to cover.

Eventually, I imagine we will end up with a vast (and expensive!) roster from multiple expansions and numerous DLC packs. So I think the main question for this thread is: what will Firaxis focus on first after launch. Will they be aiming to provide fans with series favourites that missed out in the base game? Will they focus on plugging gaps in civ evolutions and ensuring historical and geogpraphical diversity? Or will they prioritise interesting and fun gameplay over all of the above? Financial considerations obviously run through all of these too.

My feeling is that it makes sense for Firaxis to use DLC for various fan favourites that will encourage people to part with their money, and then use wider expansions to include less popular civs as they will be purchased for their mechanics and other non-civ content regardless.

For me, there is both gameplay and commercial logic for Crossroads of the World to be themed on the Middle East and include 2-3 series staples: Ottomans, Byzantium and Babylon.

Right to Rule is more vague as a title, and others in this thread have rightly pointed out the theme could easily work with other popular choices such as Shogunate Japan, or maybe even the Aztecs. I do think Germany will be a priority to include in the first DLC in some form if it's not in the base game, but it could be alongside civs from elsewhere, especially if Firaxis is not prioritising civ evolutions as its main focus for DLC.

 

[Rac]

Ok giving my 5 cents:

- Crossroads of the World: Kushan (Age 1); Polynesya (Age 1); Byzantium (Age 2); Singapore (Age 3)
- Right to Rule: Assyria (Age 1); Aztec (Age 2); Afghanistan (Age 3); (depends on the vanilla roster) Russia or Germany (Age 3);

 

[CitizenEifgt]

Interesting explanations, thoughts and assumptions ... A question that has not yet been raised: When might Crossroads of the World be released? Immediately after the release of CIV7? Before Right to Rule? Or sometime in 2026 ... ?

 

[RedCourtJester]

I’d say that merits their inclusion over anyone else though. You set up a rule, and something that breaks that rule makes it way more compelling.

I think some obvious design space for an expansion would be "isolationist/defensive/enduring" leader/civ type, as kind of the inverse of "expansionist."