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

[Arcaian]

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.

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.

I really don't think this Inca logic is very sound, if we are using this logic of paths through history. The Inca may have 'shared' New Granada territory with the Maya in the most technical way, though I don't think they did? The Maya barely got into modern day Honduras, where New Granada barely got into Costa Rica. But even if they did, that's almost the same argument as "Armenia is somewhat satisfying as a change into Great Britain, because both were controlled by the Romans at one point". There's some limited evidence that we have for contact between northern regions of Tawantinsuyu and Mesoamerica from metallurgical similarities like the axe-monies, but even then it's between western mesoamerica (and not the Maya). There's no strong evidence of any meaningful interaction between the Maya and the Inca, and once having been controlled by the same imperial force is not a very satisfying argument, I think. Similarly, the argument that Pachacuti leading Maya -> Inca -> Mexico is in less need of finishing out than something like Greece -> Spain -> France just feels like it's putting indigenous civs in the box of "well they're all civs connected to indigenous american groups, so they're basically connected". Greece had a meaningful connection and impact on medieval Spain, and IMO is in less need of 'finishing out' than Meso- and South America by basically any relevant standard for these geographical/historical pathways.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

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.

I don't consider the Red Fort, Petra, or the Terracotta Army because the associated civs/dynasties are either already in or unlikely to be put in.

I don't necessarily like the remaining options (particularly Kingdom of France and Britain), but it's where the train of thought took me.

I'm not entirely certain that Teotihuacan is in under that name. Maybe Firaxis would opt for the fictionalized Toltecs or use the name of the extant culture that claims to have lived in Teotihuacan, the Totonac.

 

[Xandinho]

As much as I’d love to see Teotihuacan, I honestly don’t think they would add another civ so close to the Maya and from the same era this soon. Especially since there’s still no representative from Mesoamerica during the Age of Exploration.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And exploration Age France seems so… redundant at the moment?

It is redundant, though about as redundant as all the French leaders.

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.

When talking about that region and age, I think a Mesopotamian civ, like Assyria is more likely. Plus, Petra is a memeish world wonder at this point, so they were probably going to put it in the game anyways.

 

[Xandinho]

Plus, Petra is a memeish world wonder at this point, so they were probably going to put it in the game anyways.

I wonder what the chances are of seeing the other "Petras" from Civ6 return: Chichen Itza, Etemenanki, Huey Teocalli, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, and St. Basil's Cathedral.

 

[Siptah]

When talking about that region and age, I think a Mesopotamian civ, like Assyria is more likely. Plus, Petra is a memeish world wonder at this point, so they were probably going to put it in the game anyways.

I fully agree. As I said, I don‘t expect Nabataeans, at least not that early. I just feel that if we discuss France as likely because of Notre Dame, Teotihuacan because of PotS, and Britain because of Oxford, we might as well include the Nabataeans - because, frankly, those are for me unlikely candidates (except Britain) if it weren‘t for the wonders - and I think Petra, Notre Dame, Taj Mahal, and Oxford might as well be unassociated civ regulars.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wonder what the chances are of seeing the other "Petras" from Civ6 return: Chichen Itza, Etemenanki, Huey Teocalli, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, and St. Basil's Cathedral.

I'd like Etemenanki to be associated with Babylon, and Huey Teocalli could at least come with the Aztecs.

I fully agree. As I said, I don‘t expect Nabataeans, at least not that early. I just feel that if we discuss France as likely because of Notre Dame, Teotihuacan because of PotS, and Britain because of Oxford, we might as well include the Nabataeans - because, frankly, those are for me unlikely candidates (except Britain) if it weren‘t for the wonders - and I think Petra, Notre Dame, Taj Mahal, and Oxford might as well be unassociated civ regulars.

Oh, I do agree that these wonders, along with Hanging Gardens, are the most likely the ones to stay unassociated.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I really don't think this Inca logic is very sound, if we are using this logic of paths through history. The Inca may have 'shared' New Granada territory with the Maya in the most technical way, though I don't think they did? The Maya barely got into modern day Honduras, where New Granada barely got into Costa Rica. But even if they did, that's almost the same argument as "Armenia is somewhat satisfying as a change into Great Britain, because both were controlled by the Romans at one point". There's some limited evidence that we have for contact between northern regions of Tawantinsuyu and Mesoamerica from metallurgical similarities like the axe-monies, but even then it's between western mesoamerica (and not the Maya). There's no strong evidence of any meaningful interaction between the Maya and the Inca, and once having been controlled by the same imperial force is not a very satisfying argument, I think. Similarly, the argument that Pachacuti leading Maya -> Inca -> Mexico is in less need of finishing out than something like Greece -> Spain -> France just feels like it's putting indigenous civs in the box of "well they're all civs connected to indigenous american groups, so they're basically connected". Greece had a meaningful connection and impact on medieval Spain, and IMO is in less need of 'finishing out' than Meso- and South America by basically any relevant standard for these geographical/historical pathways.

I'm not saying it's a perfect logic, but at least it just barely fits; New Granada reached almost up to Merida in the middle of the Yucatan, and the Incan empire did extend quite a bit into Colombia. But it doesn't affect my logic too much since I think since I put the odds of Gran Colombia in either Crossroads or Right to Rule as very low; I think we will only see Gran Colombia around the time that South America gets its own antiquity start civ. I.e., when South America gets a lot more than just one new civ. I agree that Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia is dissatisfying, and imo on the level of Maya -> Aztec -> Mexico; more is begged to make these regions feel less forced.

My argument, if I can put it more finely, is that at least Latin/South America has a leader and a three-civ path, as does Africa, Southeast Asia, and North America (with the Shawnee). Polynesia/Australia is the only region that currently has civs on the map without a satisfying three-civ path. Hawaii sticks out like a sore thumb in such a way I would not have included it in base game if there were not goals to, sooner than later, bring it to the same level of "historical plausibility" as the other civs in the base game.

 

[Evie]

Purepecha in ancient makes no sense whatsoever - they were Aztecs contemporary and imperial arch rivals.

I get that the game has flexible timeline, and the Mississippian are ancient, but that’s part of a regional logic for North Americas where it’s the contract people who are in exploration : in Mesoamerica there is no regional logic to Purepecha as Maya contemporary and Aztec precursors.

 

[Ornen]

when using wonders as civ clues, my big question is "Would they put this in the game even if the associated civ wasn't included?"

by that logic, the Goths are in baby. Mausolem of Theodoric is not going in the game unless they're adding Goths. (they're also a fantastic springboard for all sorts of Exploration age Euro civs)

in general though I don't think filling in clean 3-piece paths is that important to them. I think the base game roster pretty clearly speaks to that. so I think the roster's going to have notable gaps in era transitions, at least until the first full expansion drops.

 

[Ornen]

in other news, I have decided to start pulling hard for the Xiongnu to be added as an Antiquity civ

 

[Evie]

Welcome to the club!

 

[RedCourtJester]

Purepecha in ancient makes no sense whatsoever - they were Aztecs contemporary and imperial arch rivals.

I get that the game has flexible timeline, and the Mississippian are ancient, but that’s part of a regional logic for North Americas where it’s the contract people who are in exploration : in Mesoamerica there is no regional logic to Purepecha as Maya contemporary and Aztec precursors.

I know this. I'm just trying to conceive of a more interesting/holistic way of depicting Mexico than "Teo -> Aztec -> Mexico." I just don't find Teo to be a very compelling representation of a "civ" so much as a singular city, and would rather the resources be devoted to a larger region of Mexican heritage I think more than deserves representation.

I am just sticking to my Burma prediction and hoping Pyramid of the Sun remains an unassociated wonder. For me it's not even much of a competition; Burma was just as much a regional power as Khmer and Siam.

 

[RedCourtJester]

when using wonders as civ clues, my big question is "Would they put this in the game even if the associated civ wasn't included?"

by that logic, the Goths are in baby. Mausolem of Theodoric is not going in the game unless they're adding Goths. (they're also a fantastic springboard for all sorts of Exploration age Euro civs)

in general though I don't think filling in clean 3-piece paths is that important to them. I think the base game roster pretty clearly speaks to that. so I think the roster's going to have notable gaps in era transitions, at least until the first full expansion drops.

I wouldn't be so hasty. I think the Goths kind of struggle to compete with Rome and Cordoba, as well as to establish themselves mechanically differently from Gaul/Normans/Franks. I think this is all we are getting.

 

[Evie]

"A singular city" that was one of the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world at its height, hosting diplomats and merchants from across the Mexico area, with military and political influence stretching all the way into the Yucatan over Mayan City States. I struggle to see how they could be uninteresting ; to me they're perhaps the most interesting Mesoamerican polity of all (though the Purepecha are close).

As a big fan of both, the idea of messing up Purepecha representation (by putting them in the wrong era) in an effort to *not* have Teotihuacan is really not something I can understand.

 

[RedCourtJester]

"A singular city" that was one of the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world at its height with military and political influence stretching all the way into the Yucatan over Mayan City States. I struggle to see how they could be uninteresting ; to me they're perhaps the most interesting Mesoamerican polity of all (though the Purepecha are close).

Meh. We already get a lot of that flavor with the Aztecs. I could see it as a later addition, maybe, much later. But I also think unassociated wonders may be better planned this time to remain unassociated and Pyrofun exists mostly to add flavor to Maya or another antiquity civ if you play as Mexico. I would sooner predict we get antiquity Olmec (!?) and/or exploration Purepecha before we get Teo, and that is even considering the poor attestation of the Olmecs.

Perhaps antiquity Purepecha isn't a great depiction of them (they could maybe stretch there, but it's not where they want to be), but I think that's just to emphasize I would rather have that representation than Teo as a full civ.

I would, however, be totally content to play as Maya (Pyrofun) -> Aztec -> Mexico as Spearthrower Owl. The right Teo leader stringing together the three civs would be fine by me.

 

[Evie]

You could also just...not play Teotihuacan, and then not ask for a civ being put entirely in the wrong era just to keep them out of the game? There"s disliking a civ, and then there"s being remarkably petty about it, and this is the later.

Are there other good alternatives in the ancient era? Certainly. And there"s a more than real chance the Mesoamerican path remain at just Maya-Aztec. And I won't shed a tear if any of those happen - I would like to see Teo, but I can live without. But Purepecha in Ancient just to block Teo? That's just plain ridiculous in the sheer pettiness of it all.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I know this. I'm just trying to conceive of a more interesting/holistic way of depicting Mexico than "Teo -> Aztec -> Mexico." I just don't find Teo to be a very compelling representation of a "civ" so much as a singular city, and would rather the resources be devoted to a larger region of Mexican heritage I think more than deserves representation.

Does the Maya not count? In that case all you would be missing is the Aztecs, in my opinion. Then any other civs like Teohuatican/Purepecha/Zapotecs etc. would be just extra options if they get in.

 

[Ornen]

I wouldn't be so hasty. I think the Goths kind of struggle to compete with Rome and Cordoba, as well as to establish themselves mechanically differently from Gaul/Normans/Franks. I think this is all we are getting.

Cordoba would fit to the Exploration era, not Antiquity. same goes for Normans, though I also wouldn't characterize the Goths as coastal conquerors...

what Gaul are you referring to? pre- or post- Roman? I would expect some form of Franks for Exploration, and some form of Celts for Antiquity. but I also don't see either of those being 'too similar to the Goths' in terms of mechanics.

as for Rome, the Goths and the Rome did compete. the Goths won.

 

[Xandinho]

If I were a Civ7 designer, I’d structure the Mesoamerican path like this: Maya, Teotihuacan > Itza Maya, Aztec.

I’d be quite happy if we got that.

I also agree that Teotihuacan might not even be called that—it could possibly be Toltec instead. Zapotec would be my fifth choice—not exactly necessary, but still nice to have. I’m not sure if I’d place them in Antiquity or the Age of Exploration, though.

I think Civ7 is the perfect opportunity for them to expand Mesoamerica. With no leader limitations and a much broader roster of civs now, it would be a shame if they considered only the Maya and Aztecs as worthy of inclusion.