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

[Calcifer]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the civs are meant to be sold as separate DLCs too, and it wouldn’t make sense to put their associated wonder in another DLC. Makes more sense if each civ DLC includes the associated wonder.

Edit: I do share the concerns about “wonder inflation” though, if every new civ has a new wonder we’re gonna end up with a lot of those.

 

[Ornen]

Good idea. This civilization could, for example, have the ability to count conquered cities with wonders as filling the progress bar on the culture path in the Antiquity Age (similar to Mongols ability in the Exploration Age - they can complete the military path by conquering settlements on the home land).

pretty sure any civ can fill culture path via conquered wonders — text is "house X wonders within your empire", not "build X wonders"

 

[j51]

Others have said this before but this whole associated wonder thing is dumb. It negates decoupling leaders from civs, making it so it’s still difficult to include less well attested, or construction oriented cultures in the game. They really should drop it.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

pretty sure any civ can fill culture path via conquered wonders — text is "house X wonders within your empire", not "build X wonders"

From what I saw from watching videos, conquering Wonders didn't help fill the bar. On the same screen with a word "house" is a word "construct" too. Maybe am I wrong?

 

[Sagax]

pretty sure any civ can fill culture path via conquered wonders — text is "house X wonders within your empire", not "build X wonders"

From one of the preview streams, this legacy path appears to be all sorts of wonky. Conquering cities with wonders doesn’t seem to count, but inconsistent wording in UI makes it unclear if it’s a bug or a feature.

 

[Xandinho]

Others have said this before but this whole associated wonder thing is dumb. It negates decoupling leaders from civs, making it so it’s still difficult to include less well attested, or construction oriented cultures in the game. They really should drop it.

On one hand, I like this because it adds an immense diversity of wonders from all over the world—something I could never have expected in previous versions of Civ. On the other hand, as you rightly pointed out, this creates a barrier to the inclusion of lesser-documented civilizations or those that weren’t great builders.

Personally, I don’t think every civ should have associated wonders. Many civilizations could simply have a unique project instead.

 

[GeneralZift]

I found it very unlikely. I'd say one of the ideas of associated wonder is to have at least one almost guaranteed wonder, which won't work in that case (although I should admin, I still don't have full understanding while this feature is needed at all).

Wait, are the 'associated' wonders, unique to the Civilisation?
I thought being associated simply meant that they had a unique bonus for that wonder...

It would be pretty boring if a huge portion of wonders are just unique, I feel like it defeats the point of wonders if they're guaranteed.

Anyhow, admittedly, I don't see any case where a wonder would be associated with more than one Civ, as opposed to just adding a new Wonder.
But as some other posters say, that could result in bloating.

 

[Zaarin]

Wait, are the 'associated' wonders, unique to the Civilisation?
I thought being associated simply meant that they had a unique bonus for that wonder...

Your impression was correct. Anyone can build any wonder. Civs have a bonus to their associated wonder and the possibility of accessing it early through their unique civics tree.

 

[Kankan]

It would be awesome to have the Timurid instead for the Exploration Era. The Qajars and Safavids are too similar, imho, to be shown as separate civilizations. The Timurids could work as the "Persian representation" for the Exploration Era, even if the rulling class wasn't exactly Persian or Iranian, but they ruled Persia as one of their many dynasties. They could aslo transition into the Mughals and the Qajars in the Modern Era.

I think the Safavids would make for a better modern Iranian civ than the Qantas especially since the Qajars are often viewed as the worst Iranian dynasty especially for their failure to modernise. The Safavids on the other hand would be more interesting as alongside being a Gunpowder Empire they were also instrumental towards the development of modern Iranian culture (particularly in the arts).

 

[Ornen]

I think the Safavids would make for a better modern Iranian civ than the Qantas especially since the Qajars are often viewed as the worst Iranian dynasty especially for their failure to modernise. The Safavids on the other hand would be more interesting as alongside being a Gunpowder Empire they were also instrumental towards the development of modern Iranian culture (particularly in the arts).

the problem here is that the tech tree is mostly a blank between 1600 and 1900, there is a huge gap in the timeline and civs like the Safavids & Ottomons simply do not fit in the modern era as currently designed.

it's a big hole in the game IMO, you go from the invention of gunpowder to WW1 landships in the span of 1-2 columns on the tech tree. much bigger than the 1950-present gap everyone has been so worked up about

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

the problem here is that the tech tree is mostly blank between 1600 and 1900, there is a huge gap in the timeline and civs like the Safavids & Ottomons simply do not fit in the modern era as currently designed.

it's a big hole in the game IMO, you go from the invention of gunpowder to WW1 landships in the span of 1-2 columns on the tech tree. much bigger than the 1950-present gap everyone has been so worked up about

Civilization's idea of a tech tree has largely been simply a place to hang desired constructions and units siince at least Civ IV. Any coherence or even vaguely realistic progression has been conspicuously absent, never more so than in Civ VI and not unexpectedly, also in Civ VII.

IF Civ VII's tree at least gets the units and constructions in the right place relative to each other and other things in the game, that's the best we can hope for. Something as bad as the Eiffel Tower available at 'Steel' (it was a Wrought Iron Wonder, FYI) as in Civ VI would probably cause me to lose what little hair I have left, but I'll wait and see how it plays - that it at least allows a playable flow of progression in game is the most I expect anymore.

 

[ehecatzin]

Personally, I don’t think every civ should have associated wonders. Many civilizations could simply have a unique project instead.

I want to see the "associated wonder" extended into other areas as well. As other have mentioned, it does put civs that weren't great builders in a though spot. But making natural wonders "discovereable" by certain civs could be interesting, for example adding the Lakota, and revealing Matȟó Thípila (Devil's tower) within your homeland territory

 

[Kankan]

the problem here is that the tech tree is mostly a blank between 1600 and 1900, there is a huge gap in the timeline and civs like the Safavids & Ottomons simply do not fit in the modern era as currently designed.

it's a big hole in the game IMO, you go from the invention of gunpowder to WW1 landships in the span of 1-2 columns on the tech tree. much bigger than the 1950-present gap everyone has been so worked up about

That is true (albeit the Ottomans were still around until 1922)
The Safavids on the other hand collapsed in the 1700s so I do get what you mean.

 

[Ornen]

Civilization's idea of a tech tree has largely been simply a place to hang desired constructions and units siince at least Civ IV. Any coherence or even vaguely realistic progression has been conspicuously absent, never more so than in Civ VI and not unexpectedly, also in Civ VII.

IF Civ VII's tree at least gets the units and constructions in the right place relative to each other and other things in the game, that's the best we can hope for. Something as bad as the Eiffel Tower available at 'Steel' (it was a Wrought Iron Wonder, FYI) as in Civ VI would probably cause me to lose what little hair I have left, but I'll wait and see how it plays - that it at least allows a playable flow of progression in game is the most I expect anymore.

I'm not talking about mixing up natural history and archaeology, I'm talking about roughly 300 years of history being glossed over in the game. going to make a separate thread on this topic when I have time, but zipping past the entire early modern period is different from a few techs being inspecific or slightly off

 

[Ornen]

That is true (albeit the Ottomans were still around until 1922)
The Safavids on the other hand collapsed in the 1700s so I do get what you mean.

sure, Ottomans were around but it makes no sense to include them in an era focused on 1880-1950. I don't believe (as some argue) that the Ottomans went into serious decline as early as 1600, but they certainly weren't in great shape by 1900.

janissaries had been disbanded by then, so you'd have to come up with UUs from 1850 onward that are going to be a lot less satisfying (or sensical) than theming them around early gunpowder.

I think there's a much better case for Ottomans in Exploration for various reasons. they were very much not a 'modern' 19th-20th century state, and they vied with exploration age civs (notably the Portuguese) in the Indian Ocean during the exploration age. I don't think there's a very good case to put them in the modern era other than "I want to go Byzantines to Ottomans" and "we don't know what other civs to put in the modern Mid East"

 

[Evie]

It's been made rettY clear I thought that modern is 1750 onward, even if the tech tree is lacking for parts of it. So looking for 1850+ only for UUs for the OtTomans feel quite silly,

 

[Sagax]

sure, Ottomans were around but it makes no sense to include them in an era focused on 1880-1950. I don't believe (as some argue) that the Ottomans went into serious decline as early as 1600, but they certainly weren't in great shape by 1900.

Neither were Qing or Mughal, but here we are…

 

[Ornen]

It's been made rettY clear I thought that modern is 1750 onward, even if the tech tree is lacking for parts of it. So looking for 1850+ only for UUs for the OtTomans feel quite silly,

ok, look at the tech tree. what techs will UUs align with? industrialization? electricity? because those are in the second column. are they going to field janissaries & bombards against landships and machine guns?

made a number of other points in that post as well, ignore them if you will. the Ottomans were at their peak in 1600. even if you date the modern era to 1750 (which I think is a weak fit, given how quickly the tech tree gets to 20th century technology) it's not the best period for the Ottomans.

 

[ehecatzin]

I think just like Rome needs to go into Byzantium, I think also Ottomans could just as well take an exploration and modern spot. I wouldn't mind an Ottoman, Turkiye split.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

sure, Ottomans were around but it makes no sense to include them in an era focused on 1880-1950.

Prussia says hi.