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

"Crossroads of the world" just screams Timurids to me, and I think it's high time for their civ debut.

My hopes/guesses:

CROSSROADS OF THE WORLD
CIVS
Assyria - Antiquity
Carthage - Antiquity
Timurids - Exploration
Qajars - Modern

LEADERS
Timur
Sennacherib

(I suspect they save Babylon as a big name for an expansion)

RIGHT TO RULE
Celts - Antiquity
Holy Roman Empire - Exploration
Britain - Modern
Ghana - Modern

LEADERS
Victoria
Boudicca?
 
Assyria's inclusion as an IP kinda hints they aren't dlc, which saddens me, and I'm going to cope with it by not guessing them.

So instead i'm going to guess: Goths, Silla, Capetian France and Britain for the first DLC.

For the second DLC we know four wonders will be added (unknown if they're associated or not), so I am going to guess Ghana for Ancient, Byzantium for Exploration and Ottomans + Poland for Modern.
 
There are so many IPs, including IPs of series staples, that it’s hard to feel like being an IP is exclusionary for being added as a full civ.
I hope you're right. But since Poland and the Netherlands are missing from the game as IPs (from what i can tell anyway), I suspect they're being saved for future DLC.

and if they're being saved, you can reverse the argument and assume that the IPs currently in the game aren't in development for at least the first DLCs, which are set to release in a few months, right?

Maybe I'm getting caught up a bit in my doomthink (I definitely think the Ottomans and Assyria should be among the FIRST Civs added in any roster expansion), but you know: expect the worst and secretly hope for the best.
 
I hope you're right. But since Poland and the Netherlands are missing from the game as IPs (from what i can tell anyway), I suspect they're being saved for future DLC.

and if they're being saved, you can reverse the argument and assume that the IPs currently in the game aren't in development for at least the first DLCs, which are set to release in a few months, right?

Maybe I'm getting caught up a bit in my doomthink (I definitely think the Ottomans and Assyria should be among the FIRST Civs added in any roster expansion), but you know: expect the worst and secretly hope for the best.
I just don’t think IP presence or absence is too much to go on either way, and don’t forget we don’t actually know all the IPs.

And to your point about Ottomans etc: precisely. Ottomans and Babylon are practically shoe-ins to the game. Their being IPs is exactly what makes me think IP status doesn’t mean much.

And of course don’t forget many city-states in 6 were eventually “promoted.”
 
And of course don’t forget many city-states in 6 were eventually “promoted.”
Oh I absolutely haven't forgotten about that. It's just that, if I recall it correctly, none of the DLC Civs added before R&F were represented by City States.

The first City States to be replaced in Civ6 (again IF I recall correctly), were Amsterdam and Seoul, when the Dutch and Koreans were added in R&F.
 
I just don’t think IP presence or absence is too much to go on either way, and don’t forget we don’t actually know all the IPs.

And to your point about Ottomans etc: precisely. Ottomans and Babylon are practically shoe-ins to the game. Their being IPs is exactly what makes me think IP status doesn’t mean much.

And of course don’t forget many city-states in 6 were eventually “promoted.”
The point isn't that they are excluded, it's that the first DLC have never once replaced a city state in Civ 5 or 6.

So the IPs in that are in the game might not be the targets for the first two DLCs.

Denmark was the first DLC to replace City States (replacing Copenhagen and Oslo)

While Khmer & Indonesia DLC was the only DLC to replace CIty State (replacing Jakarta with Bandar Brunei)
 
While Khmer & Indonesia DLC was the only DLC to replace CIty State (replacing Jakarta with Bandar Brunei)
This isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison, right?

You're saying "first DLC" to refer to an entire series of individual DLC packs. Khmer and Indonesia for Civ 6 was essentially part of the same thing (call it the "Deluxe pack" rather than "Crossroads of the World" or whatever).

Not that I think past actions are wholly indicative, but just going off this example:

- Khmer and Indonesia DLC was part of the earliest DLC/first DLC package (coming out within 1 year of the game's release, and prior to any expansions)
- Khmer and Indonesia DLC resulted in the replacement of the Jakarta CS with Bandar Brunei

So just going off the past, why isn't it feasible for some of the 8 known year-1 DLC releases so far to replace some IPs?
 
Assyria's inclusion as an IP kinda hints they aren't dlc, which saddens me, and I'm going to cope with it by not guessing them.

So instead i'm going to guess: Goths, Silla, Capetian France and Britain for the first DLC.

For the second DLC we know four wonders will be added (unknown if they're associated or not), so I am going to guess Ghana for Ancient, Byzantium for Exploration and Ottomans + Poland for Modern.
it wouldn’t be the first time—City States were removed and replaced as dlc civs were added in 5 and 6. I don’t think their status as independent peoples means anything
 
it wouldn’t be the first time—City States were removed and replaced as dlc civs were added in 5 and 6. I don’t think their status as independent peoples means anything
Well I hope you and Pokiehl are right and that I'm proven wrong. Assyria is my most wanted Civ by a WIDE margin.

Hopefully we can both be happy with the additions down the road (you with Chola, me with Assyria)
 
Assyria's inclusion as an IP kinda hints they aren't dlc, which saddens me, and I'm going to cope with it by not guessing them.

So instead i'm going to guess: Goths, Silla, Capetian France and Britain for the first DLC.

For the second DLC we know four wonders will be added (unknown if they're associated or not), so I am going to guess Ghana for Ancient, Byzantium for Exploration and Ottomans + Poland for Modern.
Goths, Silla and Tonga also have been spotted as IPs. My best guess is that there is so many IPs at this point, anyone of them could easily be switched out for DLC.
 
Are you sure that Ottoman will be / Should be Age III instead of II?
Janissaries are well within Age II. so Ottoman WILL DUKE IT OUT against Byzantium.
While Ottoman Empire continued to exists past Age II (in fact a strider). and well into half of Age III. Janissaries didn't.

And Janissaries began BEFORE they get guns. and Janissaries did not becomes musketeer during the Fall of Constantinople. In fact they were combined arms infantry, and multidiscipline infantrymen (trained to use a variety of weapons--swords, axes, maces, spears, pikes, bows, and later, firearms.)
 
I vastly prefer Age 2 Ottomans over Age 3 Ottomans, yeah. Even if it griefs the Seljuks a bit.
 
This isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison, right?

You're saying "first DLC" to refer to an entire series of individual DLC packs. Khmer and Indonesia for Civ 6 was essentially part of the same thing (call it the "Deluxe pack" rather than "Crossroads of the World" or whatever).

Not that I think past actions are wholly indicative, but just going off this example:

- Khmer and Indonesia DLC was part of the earliest DLC/first DLC package (coming out within 1 year of the game's release, and prior to any expansions)
- Khmer and Indonesia DLC resulted in the replacement of the Jakarta CS with Bandar Brunei

So just going off the past, why isn't it feasible for some of the 8 known year-1 DLC releases so far to replace some IPs?
I was mostly refering to the release. Khmer and Indonesia were not the first DLC, and replaced a City State.

Neither of the first DLC releases replaced any City States was my core point. Got lost in translation.

When I mean "first DLC" I mean the actual first release.

In fairness, Civ 7 has already flipped this since Crossroads and Roads to whatever sounds more like what the New Frontier Pack was rather than what Civ 5 and 6 offered as individual/paired civs with scenarios.
 
Are you sure that Ottoman will be / Should be Age III instead of II?
Janissaries are well within Age II. so Ottoman WILL DUKE IT OUT against Byzantium.
While Ottoman Empire continued to exists past Age II (in fact a strider). and well into half of Age III. Janissaries didn't.

And Janissaries began BEFORE they get guns. and Janissaries did not becomes musketeer during the Fall of Constantinople. In fact they were combined arms infantry, and multidiscipline infantrymen (trained to use a variety of weapons--swords, axes, maces, spears, pikes, bows, and later, firearms.)
They are the best bet for a Middle Eastern civ to get into Modern. It's also very possible that Istanbul stays an IP in Exploration and then the Ottomans becomes a playable civ in Modern.
I expect sooner rather than later that it will go Abbasids>Ottomans and eventually Byzantines>Ottomans.

As far as Janissaries go, all depictions of them in previous games has solely had them use firearms, so I don't see this as an issue. They can start out similar to Tier one Line Infantry in the Modern.
 
Are you sure that Ottoman will be / Should be Age III instead of II?
Janissaries are well within Age II. so Ottoman WILL DUKE IT OUT against Byzantium.
While Ottoman Empire continued to exists past Age II (in fact a strider). and well into half of Age III. Janissaries didn't.

And Janissaries began BEFORE they get guns. and Janissaries did not becomes musketeer during the Fall of Constantinople. In fact they were combined arms infantry, and multidiscipline infantrymen (trained to use a variety of weapons--swords, axes, maces, spears, pikes, bows, and later, firearms.)
the logic for putting the Ottomans in Age III is presumably because a) they’d be a good successor to future Byzantines or Seljuks, b) because they’re one of the three golden empires of the east along with the mughals (already age iii) and safavids (presumably age iii), and c) because the ages are designed to end with the world wars, meaning a age ii that extends from 400 AD to 1800 would be too long, so it starts in 1700 and the shawnee are oddly placed in exploration anyway
 
the logic for putting the Ottomans in Age III is presumably because a) they’d be a good successor to future Byzantines or Seljuks, b) because they’re one of the three golden empires of the east along with the mughals (already age iii) and safavids (presumably age iii), and c) because the ages are designed to end with the world wars, meaning a age ii that extends from 400 AD to 1800 would be too long, so it starts in 1700 and the shawnee are oddly placed in exploration anyway
They went on the record that say that the placement of Civs isn't strictly restricted by our timeline but more the "evolution" of their individual stages. So Khmer are an Antiquity because they were just forming or something along those lines.
 
They are the best bet for a Middle Eastern civ to get into Modern. It's also very possible that Istanbul stays an IP in Exploration and then the Ottomans becomes a playable civ in Modern.
I expect sooner rather than later that it will go Abbasids>Ottomans and eventually Byzantines>Ottomans.

As far as Janissaries go, all depictions of them in previous games has solely had them use firearms, so I don't see this as an issue. They can start out similar to Tier one Line Infantry in the Modern.
They replaced linear infantry sure. but historically... Ottoman Empire did reform. a new military system called Nizam I Cedit replaced Janissary system.

and Janissary was purged in 1826. to the last man. Janissary as UU only last at the first third of the game. and Nizam I Cedit Infantrymen were totally different thing entirely.


Otherwise. if Ottomans will be Age III. they should get Nizam instead of Janissary (which didn't last long).
 
They went on the record that say that the placement of Civs isn't strictly restricted by our timeline but more the "evolution" of their individual stages. So Khmer are an Antiquity because they were just forming or something along those lines.
Which would still fit the Ottomans as the last major caliphate in the Modern, succeeding the Abbasids.
 
Back
Top Bottom