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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, and so are Babylon, Assyria, Silla and Goths. I'm increasingly unsure if that actually means anything; if it does, that knocks a lot of names off the list.

I meant that probably makes it unlikely that Teotihuacan will be part of an Aztec civ in this game. Because it's now it's own IP in most likely another age as what the Aztecs would appear in.

 

[Ornen]

in the past, Firaxis has very rarely added civs with heavy overlap like Aztec/Teotihuacan/Mexico. they've treated civs such as India, China, and England as stand-ins for any number of distinct entities cropping up in a given geographical area.

the civ progression system makes Teotihuacan far more likely, as they're now looking to add progressions over eras where possible. I would just expect them fill in Africa & Europe a bit more before they add another Antiquity civ to contemporary Mexico

(on the Africa front, I'd place my bets on Ghana (A), Ethiopia (E), Zulu (M), and Morocco (M) for likely names we could see in the near future. unfortunately the above logic means it might be a while before we see my good friend Mali, as they're very near to Songhai for their era)

 

[Archanist]

I have a hunch that each of the packs will have at most 2 popular civs, then the other civs will be newcomers.

 

[sTAPler27]

When these DLCs arrive, lot's of people have version without Shawnee. DLC can not depend on that.

I mean I listed 3 other civs too which have the exact same issue

 

[UWHabs]

in the past, Firaxis has very rarely added civs with heavy overlap like Aztec/Teotihuacan/Mexico. they've treated civs such as India, China, and England as stand-ins for any number of distinct entities cropping up in a given geographical area.

the civ progression system makes Teotihuacan far more likely, as they're now looking to add progressions over eras where possible. I would just expect them fill in Africa & Europe a bit more before they add another Antiquity civ to contemporary Mexico

(on the Africa front, I'd place my bets on Ghana (A), Ethiopia (E), Zulu (M), and Morocco (M) for likely names we could see in the near future. unfortunately the above logic means it might be a while before we see my good friend Mali, as they're very near to Songhai for their era)

They also open up the possibility of having Teotihuacan as a civ, skipping the Aztecs entirely (if they so desired), and still having Montezuma as a playable leader. They could have both civs in the game too, obviously, and I think given numerous factors, it's more likely that the Aztecs appear than Teotihuacan does, if only for the current era progress to balance out. I know in the leadup when they mentioned splitting civs and leaders, as well as splitting out by era, I think that also opens the door much more to a civ like the Olmecs as well - a civ with some history known, but knowing almost nothing about any actual historical figures associated with them. And I think the odds of there being 3 Mexican ancient era civs is pretty remote, at least not until the game has like 75 or 100 playable civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

in the past, Firaxis has very rarely added civs with heavy overlap like Aztec/Teotihuacan/Mexico. they've treated civs such as India, China, and England as stand-ins for any number of distinct entities cropping up in a given geographical area.

Except for the Balkans and the British Isles in Civ 6, not that I minded Macedon, personally.

(on the Africa front, I'd place my bets on Ghana (A), Ethiopia (E), Zulu (M), and Morocco (M) for likely names we could see in the near future. unfortunately the above logic means it might be a while before we see my good friend Mali, as they're very near to Songhai for their era)

Yeah, I agree, unfortunately about Mali. But Mansa Musa could always appear as leader.

 

[Bast]

I think for civs like Burma, the DLC that adds the civ is the only chance to get a leader. We could always get a completely non-related leader in a pack with such civs (say, Talleyrand), but I think so close to the base game, there should be an incentive to stay away from this and add leaders that are at least somewhat associated with the included civs. Hence, I thought a Mesopotamian leader and a Burmese leader would make more sense with my pack prediction than Theoderic (there are more than enough European leaders to lead the Goths) and I expect later leaders for Korea (and not Seondeok again) to come with later Korean civs.

Actually right now, I'm skeptical they will add the Burmese leader or the civ despite the wonder in exploration age. I'm just totally skeptical.

 

[AriochIV]

Actually right now, I'm skeptical they will add the Burmese leader or the civ despite the wonder in exploration age. I'm just totally skeptical.

Having both Siam and Burma this early in the game lifecycle does seem very unlikely.

 

[Ornen]

Having both Siam and Burma this early in the game lifecycle does seem very unlikely.

South Asia is the region of the game that feels most filled in at this point, IMO

 

[pokiehl]

Having both Siam and Burma this early in the game lifecycle does seem very unlikely.

I agree but it also would have seemed unlikely to have both Lafayette and two Napoleon personas this early at the same time too.

 

[Bast]

Having both Siam and Burma this early in the game lifecycle does seem very unlikely.

I wouldn't expect them to even know the difference late in the game lifecycle lol

 

[AriochIV]

I wouldn't expect them to even know the difference late in the game lifecycle lol

Well, their resident historian seems to be a devotee of the region, so they probably do.

 

[Bast]

Well, their resident historian seems to be a devotee of the region, so they probably do.

This game isn't about history though. It's just about adding in civs and leaders that will sell the game more.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This game isn't about history though. It's just about adding in civs and leaders that will sell the game more.

I'd expect a Burma civ before a leader, at least. I think they have a good chance for Crossroads of the World. They do fit the theme as being a crossroad between South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia, if they are going for the theme.
Also, I'm not sure if the Khmer specifically unlocks the Majapahit, or not? I know they unlock Siam in the Modern, considering the Majapahit only goes to Meiji Japan.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I wouldn't expect them to even know the difference late in the game lifecycle lol

เราก็เข้าใจความแตกต่างระวังสยามกับพม่าแล้านะครับ
(“We get the difference between Siam and Burma” - in Siamese. I took seven years of it, only one year of Burmese I’m afraid, but I do have a PhD on the region)

 

[Thenewwwguy]

this talk of map vs. pathways is ridiculous

the long-term goal is almost certainly map *within the age* which is effectively a synonym for good pathways. they won’t prioritize just one, and if DLC alone introduces 4 civs every time, we’ll get far more (12-15?) in expansions. if the endgame isn’t like…100 civs and 40-50 leaders, i’d be very surorised

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Or my personal bête noire, Mississippians to Hawai'i.

Tonga antiquity Maori modernity is still the best solution

 

[Xandinho]

this talk of map vs. pathways is ridiculous

the long-term goal is almost certainly map *within the age* which is effectively a synonym for good pathways. they won’t prioritize just one, and if DLC alone introduces 4 civs every time, we’ll get far more (12-15?) in expansions. if the endgame isn’t like…100 civs and 40-50 leaders, i’d be very surorised

As a wonder enthusiast, having more than 100 wonders in the game would be a dream.

By the way, considering the hard work they’ve done to gather such a massive number of IPs, I wouldn’t be surprised if this game ended up with 100 civs or something very close to it.

 

[UWHabs]

As a wonder enthusiast, having more than 100 wonders in the game would be a dream.

By the way, considering the hard work they’ve done to gather such a massive number of IPs, I wouldn’t be surprised if this game ended up with 100 civs or something very close to it.

100 wonders would get a little ridiculous... Although that being said, given the ancient era unlock is 7 wonders, if you had a larger map with, say, 10 or 12 civs in it, you probably need at least 30 or 40 wonders available in the era to give a few of those civs a chance... Which if you expand out to 3 eras is your 100 wonders.
Although with that many wonders, the map would fill will with them all. Maybe they'd have to start letting you over-build some wonders, or change some of them to only take up half a tile?

The bigger balance is probably if you have 30 or 40 wonders available in the ancient era, if you're playing a small map with only 6 civs, then there might be enough for everyone to max out the criteria. Feels like there should be some sort of cap of like 5 x #civs or something.

 

[chaosprophet]

Although with that many wonders, the map would fill will with them all. Maybe they'd have to start letting you over-build some wonders, or change some of them to only take up half a tile?

Time to create a new map size larger than Huge: Wondrous map size!