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

[Evie]

The "they mixed the civs up" theory that put Great Britain, Assyria and Silla in COTW is certainly alluring, but I don't see Antiquity Nepal with Nalanda as a great fit for the last slot : Nalanda has pretty much nothing to do with Nepalese history, and Nepal itself is a better fit for both of the other two eras (Gorkha/Gurkha Kingdom in exploration, Nepal proper/Gorkha Empire in modern).

Honestly, if either of the unassigned Indians wonders are Nepalese, I think the Red Fort is more likely to be it, because of the Gurkha connection (as the Gurkha certainly DID garrison the Red Fort under the Raj). I don't think this is particularly likely, but I think it would make more sense than Nalanda of the available clues. This would also fit Nepal in modern, which make much more sense.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The "they mixed the civs up" theory that put Great Britain, Assyria and Silla in COTW is certainly alluring, but I don't see Nepal as a great fit for the last slot : Nalanda has nothing to do with Nepalese history ; Nepal itself is a better fit for both of the other two eras (Gorkha/Gurkha Kingdom in exploration, Nepal proper/Gorkha Empire in modern).

Honestly, if either of the unassigned Indians wonders are Nepalese, I think the Red Fort is more likely to be it, because of the Gurkha connection (as the Gurkha certainly DID garrison the Red Fort under the Raj).

I think the term "associated wonder" is loose enough to fit both Nalanda (Gupta controlled Nepal during building of Nalanda) and Red Fort (due to Gurkha connection).

I think link with Nalanda is stronger, but Red Fort is more attractive, because it allows more even civilization spread between ages.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Nepal I assumed would be modern because of one of the IPs

 

[GeneralZift]

I hope to see some kind of Modern Arab continuation somewhere. Ottomans would also be acceptable

 

[Evie]

That Nalanda connection strike me as incredibly weak : the Gupta collected tribute from Nepal so the Nepalese get to claim a Gupta wonder (that there is no evidence the Nepalese contributed to building or using) as their own?

By that same principle, the Forbidden City could be a Japanese, Vietnamese or Korean wonder.

I don't like the Red Fort link much either, but at least that link is about what actual Nepalese people (the Gorkha/Gurkha) did.

 

[Ryansinbela]

I know it’s unlikely but what if they actually add some wonders for the new civs (the RtR wonders will be unaffiliated)

 

[UnknownHuman]

I'm in the camp that Nepal will get its own wonder, despite what has been said about wonders in CoW.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm in the camp that Nepal will get its own wonder, despite what has been said about wonders in CoW.

Yes, I feel certain now that the new civs will have new wonders integrated into their design, and that these new associated wonders will not be listed separately as features in the DLC because they are implied as part of the civs.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That Nalanda connection strike me as incredibly weak : the Gupta collected tribute from Nepal so the Nepalese get to claim a Gupta wonder (that there is no evidence the Nepalese contributed to building or using) as their own?

By that same principle, the Forbidden City could be a Japanese, Vietnamese or Korean wonder.

I don't like the Red Fort link much either, but at least that link is about what actual Nepalese people (the Gorkha/Gurkha) did.

Yeah, I don't like both of the links either. But again, "associated wonder" is totally indirect term, so ancient Buddhist monastery located near ancient Buddhist kingdom of Nepal clearly could be called "associated". With Red Fort associations are weaker to me.

There's actually possibility that 4th civilization just doesn't have associated wonder, although I think that would be quite offensive for modern successors of that civilization.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, I feel certain now that the new civs will have new wonders integrated into their design, and that these new associated wonders will not be listed separately as features in the DLC because they are implied as part of the civs.

I already wrote, it's hard for me to believe. Developers needs every scrap of content to justify their $30 DLC packs and "forgetting" to mention what each has 4 additional wonders seems really odd.

Another point here is that DLC list doesn't list wonders from RtR as separate pack. Which likely means those wonders are part of the civ releases already.

 

[pokiehl]

I already wrote, it's hard for me to believe. Developers needs every scrap of content to justify their $30 DLC packs and "forgetting" to mention what each has 4 additional wonders seems really odd.

Another point here is that DLC list doesn't list wonders from RtR as separate pack. Which likely means those wonders are part of the civ releases already.

I agree with this but I would prefer the opposing viewpoint end up correct. More wonders would definitely be more fun.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I already wrote, it's hard for me to believe. Developers needs every scrap of content to justify their $30 DLC packs and "forgetting" to mention what each has 4 additional wonders seems really odd.

Another point here is that DLC list doesn't list wonders from RtR as separate pack. Which likely means those wonders are part of the civ releases already.

It's not "forgetting". Associated wonders are integral to civ designs in Civ 7. That's why they are listed and detailed on civ guides.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree with this but I would prefer the opposing viewpoint end up correct. More wonders would definitely be more fun.

There's an interesting twist here. By the end of development cycle we're likely to have 20+civs per age, even if one of the expansions will be fully dedicated to 4th age. If every civ will have associated wonder, we'll have kind of wonder overload. So, I think associating as many wonders as possible could be a good thing in a long run.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's not "forgetting". Associated wonders are integral to civ designs in Civ 7. That's why they are listed and detailed on civ guides.

No matter, which word to use, both points stay. From marketing perspective it makes zero sense not to mention those wonders everywhere.

 

[Xandinho]

I don't see any point in Nalanda being associated with Nepal, this civ doesn't even make much sense for Antiquity. Nalanda would be associated with Gupta, in which I think will appear at some point.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't see any point in Nalanda being associated with Nepal, this civ doesn't even make much sense for Antiquity. Nalanda would be associated with Gupta, in which I think will appear at some point.

I find one more Indian dynasty appear in antiquity to have nearly zero chances - too many other civs to make. More likely Nalanda will stay unassociated forever.

This potential Nalanda - Nepal association is not great, but it was suggested by exclusion. If there are no hidden wonders in DLC, and each civilization has associated wonder, that's the most likely 4th civilization-wonder match for CotW. Others are worse.

EDIT: Spelling.

 

[UWHabs]

I think either way could work for marketing. I do agree that the associated wonders are different enough from the civ that it wouldn't be a stretch in the least if the "4 new wonders" in a pack were simply the 4 associated wonders. And given the cost of the packs, anything more that they can mention in the packs helps justify the cost more.

It does make a slightly uneven pack if, for example, a couple of the civs add a completely new wonder, but maybe a couple of the civs steal one of the un-associated wonders that already exist. Although maybe we got the marketing wrong - maybe the Right to Rule pack mentions 4 new wonders because the 4 civs in that pack have associated wonders that are already part of the game, and the Crossroads pack explicitly doesn't mention wonders because the only wonders coming in that pack are associated ones.

The other option too is that I can certainly foresee some civ not having an associated wonder at all, but getting like a generic boost to all wonders instead, or some other special bonus (in the antiquity, probably would be some other way to get cultural VP like Mongolia does in exploration, for example). I'm sure down the line, someone will have something like that, although thematically I have no idea if it matches any of the current leaks.

 

[Xandinho]

I find one more Indian dynasty appear in antiquity to have nearly zero chances - too many other civs to make. More likely Nalanda will stay unassociated forever.

This potential Nalanda - Nepal association is not great, but it was suggested by exclusion. If there are no hidden wonders in DLC, and each civilization has associated wonder, that's the most likely 4th civilization-wonder match for CotW. Others are worse.

EDIT: Spelling.

It’s possible that Nalanda will remain disassociated and Gupa never appears. But Nepal will certainly get its own wonder, and there are some great options there.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It’s possible that Nalanda will remain disassociated and Gupa never appears. But Nepal will certainly get its own wonder, and there are some great options there.

It's not about Nepal not having wonders, it's about pairing released civilizations with unassociated wonders. 3 of them have perfect association, but for the 4th, Nepal - Nalanda is the best combo left.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

IIRC, people have seen Safavids as an Exploration Age IP. Not a direct confirmation per se, but an interesting implication nonetheless.

I know Sassanids were seen, not sure about Savafids.

If you believe Burma would make it, then I guess Dai Viet is the one taking its place, not Nepal, no?
Considering how many people want the inclusion of Tibet, I once thought that either Nepal or Bhutan was the closest thing we could get, and judging from importance throughout history, Bhutan is an isolationist tiny nation, so Nepal we got instead.

It was late for me. I was mainly focusing on the never-before-seen civs and forgot to type "new" considering we already got Dai Viet last game, at least in the form of Vietnam.