• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

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

I will update my predictions based on clues (wonders and leaders shown so far), geographical distribution (despite the number of leaders being heavily European, the distribution of civilizations around the world has been fairly balanced), geographical gaps, historical gaps, and sales bait. I believe we will have 13 civilizations per era once we obtain all from Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule.

Crossroads of the World: Assyria, Tonga, Capetian France, and Burma.

Assyria. Reasons:
1. Mesopotamia is a significant gap.
2. We already have an Assyrian wonder in the game.
3. It is indeed at a crossroads of the world.
4. It could bring a Mesopotamian leader to the game, addressing another major gap.

Tonga. Reasons:
1. We already have a Tongan wonder in the game.
2. Hawaii feels out of place without an appropriate historical predecessor.
3. It could bring a Polynesian leader to the game, which is also a major gap at the moment.

Capetian France (or however they choose to name Exploration France). Reasons:
1. A great sales bait—probably the biggest of this pack.
2. Notre Dame is already in the game as a wonder.
3. France is highly popular, and fans enjoy playing with it, so this civilization would provide a more historically appropriate predecessor for Modern France than the Normans.

Burma. Reasons:
1. We’ve seen a Burmese wonder.
2. It has been a fan-requested addition for years.
3. It could serve as a bridge between the historical paths of Southeast Asia and India.

---

Right to Rule: British, Edo Japan, Morocco, and Andean Civilization.

British. Reasons:
1. Very popular and highly requested.
2. A strong sales bait.
3. Could introduce a monarch leader of its history to the game, presumably Elizabeth.
4. Personally, I believe Big Ben fits better as a wonder associated with the British Empire than the University of Oxford.

Edo Japan. Reasons:
1. Modern Japan feels disconnected without a coherent historical predecessor.
2. A strong sales bait.
3. Samurais are very popular, and I personally doubt their inclusion will take long.

Morocco. Reasons:
1. Africa, as a whole, feels quite empty.
2. A historically appropriate transition from Songhai.
3. We already have a Moroccan leader.

Pre-Inca Andean Civilization (presumably Nazca). Reasons:
1. The Inca feel very disconnected without a historical predecessor.
2. Latin America, as a whole, feels quite empty.
3. It could be a unique new addition to the franchise, like Mississipians.
 
Crossroads:
  • A - Babylon
  • A - Assyria
  • E - Byzantine
  • M - Ottoman
I'm still hoping for Exploration-age Ottomans, but have come to believe in Modern based on the timeline so far

Right to Rule:
  • A - Goths
  • E - Francia or HRE
  • E - England
  • M - Britain
not going to speculate on leaders, but hoping to see Theodoric
 
Plot twist: the first DLC is called Crossroads of the World because it refers to the DLC itself, and not the historical nature of the included civs.
 
Pre-Inca Andean Civilization (presumably Nazca). Reasons:
1. The Inca feel very disconnected without a historical predecessor.
2. Latin America, as a whole, feels quite empty.
3. It could be a unique new addition to the franchise, like Mississipians.
What are the chances that the Muisca could be in Antiquity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Right to Rule:
Civs: British, Ottomans, Aztecs, Byzantines
Leaders: Elizabeth or another British king or queen, Montezuma or other Aztec leader.

I would love to see this, but I think it might be them putting all their DLC eggs in one basket - all four of these civs are popular and important and would attract sales in their own right.

My current thinking is that they'll mix big hitters and series staples with lesser known civs and more risky new leaders to sell DLC. The latter make it harder to predict, sadly!
 
What are the chances that the Muisca could be in Antiquity?
Acording to archeologists, the Muisca period began around the year 800AD and ended in 1538, after the Spanish founded the city of Bogotá.

The exact founding of the Muisca Confederation is unknown, as there are no written records made by the Muisca.

The earliest written records about the Muisca were written during the 16th century by Spanish chroniclers, friars and priest and go as far back as about 1390, approximately. They used the oral stories of the remaining Muisca peoples of the early 16th century.

These Spanish account of the Muisca, obviously, show their evident Medieval/Renaissance bias, so they should be read with caution and compared with the archeological records.

In that sense, I belive that the Muisca work best as an Exploration Era civilization that might bridge the gap between Central America/Caribbean/Mesoamerica and South America, due to the Chibchan ancestors of the Muisca emmigrating from Central America to the Andes circa 800AD.
 
I would love to see this, but I think it might be them putting all their DLC eggs in one basket - all four of these civs are popular and important and would attract sales in their own right.

My current thinking is that they'll mix big hitters and series staples with lesser known civs and more risky new leaders to sell DLC. The latter make it harder to predict, sadly!
Well, the Ottomans are an IP for some reason, so they might not be in for a while now.
I'd expect at least the British and Aztecs to be in sooner, rather than later. Though as mentioned above another Antiquity South American civ might also work for the time being.
 
Assyria is also an IP, so i think its chance for inclusion have dropped. ( and i am NOT happy about it :-/)
 
If Burma or some form of the civilization doesn't make it in Crossroads after having a wonder and all the versions of the game, I'm going to scream. I read somewhere that it could have be a lake oriented civilization. It would make sense for Inle Lake (one of the most famous lakes in the country for the culture and natural beauty) and also Indawgyi Lake, one of Southeast Asia's largest lakes. It would be about time.
 
City-states were routinely changed into civs in Civ 5 and Civ 6. I don't expect that being an Independent Power is an obstacle to being a civ in some future DLC or expansion.
 
City-states were routinely changed into civs in Civ 5 and Civ 6. I don't expect that being an Independent Power is an obstacle to being a civ in some future DLC or expansion.
It's not an obstacle, but you would think if Firaxis were planning on adding the Ottomans or Assyria this year they wouldn't have bothered adding them to the base game as an IP, especially since they have little models now.
 
It's not an obstacle, but you would think if Firaxis were planning on adding the Ottomans or Assyria this year they wouldn't have bothered adding them to the base game as an IP, especially since they have little models now.
Also just because it’s a civ option doesn’t mean it couldn’t also be an IP in a game where it’s not selected as a civ.
 
Well, the Ottomans are an IP for some reason, so they might not be in for a while now.
I'd expect at least the British and Aztecs to be in sooner, rather than later. Though as mentioned above another Antiquity South American civ might also work for the time being.
I agree on Britain and Aztecs. Also Babylon or another Mesopotamian civ.

After those, I'd say the other big civ sellers are:
Ottomans, Byzantium, Edo Japan, some form of Korea, Celts/Anglo-Saxons/'England', Netherlands, Portugal, and Brazil. Perhaps Canada and Australia too.

Of course leaders also now have the potential for marketing. Classics like Genghis Khan, Alexander, Shaka etc could all drive sales. I expect Firaxis to include many more controversial curveball leaders too, but combine them with big sellers across many DLC or future expansions.
 
Assur, Silla and Istanbul are all Independent Powers.

For whatever that's worth.
We've seen before that former city-states are promoted to civilization status in future DLCs. However, I think it would be weird to have those as independent powers for just a couple of months before promoting them immediately to being civilizations. Though I could be wrong and, instead, we can use independent powers as hints for future civilizations. I guess we'll see.
 
Like I mentioned in another thread some expected civilizations are already seen as IP's so far so normally that would indicate that they are not in the immediate 2 dlc releases like Assyria, Sumeria, Korea, Byzantium and the Ottomans.
But there are also some civilizations that could be expected that we haven't seen yet as IP's for the antiquity and the exploration ages, like the Netherlands, Poland, the Aztecs and Portugal (and I haven't seen Babylon yet either I think).
Though we've seen a lot less of the exploration age, so maybe they just didn't come up yet, because there are so many now.
But I realy suspect that if big civilizations are an IP in the base game they are planned for big expansion packs later on and not the smaller dlc packs. But who knows :).
 
Top Bottom