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

[stealth_nsk]

Realistically counting civs, we'll have 39 (13 per age) after 2 DLC packs. If the first expansion will be focused 4th age, I expect, say number of civilizations to go up to 15 per age, with a total of 60 (21 civ in expansion pack looks ok considering starting 30). If we ever have 2nd expansion pack (like all other civ games of this century) with, say, 20 civs, and 2 more DLC packs with 4 civs each, we'll hit 88 civs, 22 per age.

So, while 100 is quite optimistic it's not that far from realistic expectations.

Speaking about the number of wonders, it's not that bad. Civ7 starts with 14 wonders per age, so if all of them will be used by some civilizations, we'll have transition from 14 to 22 wonders per age, or 50% increase of wonders. Looks ok.

 

[devillock]

Realistically counting civs, we'll have 39 (13 per age) after 2 DLC packs. If the first expansion will be focused 4th age, I expect, say number of civilizations to go up to 15 per age, with a total of 60 (21 civ in expansion pack looks ok considering starting 30). If we ever have 2nd expansion pack (like all other civ games of this century) with, say, 20 civs, and 2 more DLC packs with 4 civs each, we'll hit 88 civs, 22 per age.

So, while 100 is quite optimistic it's not that far from realistic expectations.

Speaking about the number of wonders, it's not that bad. Civ7 starts with 14 wonders per age, so if all of them will be used by some civilizations, we'll have transition from 14 to 22 wonders per age, or 50% increase of wonders. Looks ok.

It's 6 DLC per pack. That should be 12 leaders and 24 civs each collection, which would add 24 leaders and 48 civs by the end of September.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's 6 DLC per pack. That should be 12 leaders and 24 civs each collection, which would add 24 leaders and 48 civs by the end of September.

Nope, it's 4 civs and 2 leaders per pack, each of them is considered a separate DLC on platforms where it's required.

 

[devillock]

Nope, it's 4 civs and 2 leaders per pack, each of them is considered a separate DLC on platforms where it's required.

And each collection contains 6 DLC. That's 12 leaders and 24 civs per collection.

 

[Riconatic]

And each collection contains 6 DLC. That's 12 leaders and 24 civs per collection.

Nope. Each collection contains 4 civs and 2 leaders. No matter how many DLCs in collection. 1-infinite gives same number.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And each collection contains 6 DLC. That's 12 leaders and 24 civs per collection.

You totally messed it up:
- On Steam, there are 2 packs, each containing 4 civs and 2 leaders. 8 civs and 4 leaders total.
- On some other platforms, that's 2 packs with 6 DLC each, but in those calculations each DLC is either 1 civ or 1 leader. For the same 8 civs and 4 leaders total.

 

[Evie]

No. The phrasing is (quite) clear that it's 4 civ and 2 leaders *per collection*. If the collection is divided in six pack, then each pack would presumably contain either 1 civ or 1 leader.

 

[Riconatic]

2k has FAQs in place just because of this (and other topics;. With speciffic answer to this speciffic questions: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/faq/

 

[devillock]

You totally messed it up:
- On Steam, there are 2 packs, each containing 4 civs and 2 leaders. 8 civs and 4 leaders total.
- On some other platforms, that's 2 packs with 6 DLC each, but in those calculations each DLC is either 1 civ or 1 leader. For the same 8 civs and 4 leaders total.
View attachment 716096

Thanks for the clarification. Despite claims to the contrary, it was not quite clear that each DLC contains either 1 leader and/or 1 civilization.

Considering the price, that doesn't seem like much.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

Well Ancient is the only one where you need extra wonders.

In the other ages it would probably just be 1 or 2 more than the number of civs.

(and in the case of ancient, once there are enough civs you won’t need too many extra there either (the civs not in the game will be enough)

 

[untitledjuan]

I don't think Civilization has ever made the distinction between the two; Teotihuacan is usually an Aztec city name.

I guess Teotihuacán is included in the Aztec city list because the Aztec used the site for religious and ceremonial activities. Even if it had long been abandoned by the time the Aztecs got to control the area, it became a religious centre for them and the Aztecs even claimed that the people of Teotihuacán were their ancestors.

Teotihuacán's inclusion in the Aztec city list can be compared to the inclusion of Los Angeles or San Francisco in the American list. They were cities founded by previous civilizations (in America's case, the Spanish), but which later were important under their new overlords.

 

[Siptah]

Considering the price, that doesn't seem like much.

The price increase from the base game to deluxe is $30. Deluxe includes a bit more than just one of the DLC pack. I consider the rest (2 personas, some cosmetics) to be the freebie, and the DLC package to be sold separately for $30.

The DLC package contains 6 larger singular items (4 civs, 2 leaders). I expect each of them to be sold for $5. I consider the other content in that pack to be the freebies (natural wonders, events, cosmetics).

$5 for a civ or leader seems not too far from civ 5 or 6. You can make the case that the civ is only valid for 1/3 of the game etc. but we had all of this often enough: if you think it's worth less, that's fine (and you are not alone), but its also comprehensible to sell it for the same price. In the end, you get a shiny new thing to play with/against in your next game for $5, as previously.

The issue for me with DLC packages isn't the price of the civs, but that the savings of bundling 6 DLCs or even putting it together with the base game doesn't result in much (if any) monetary saving, but instead freebies. Now, for me personally, that's ok as long as I'm interested in the freebies (Hello, Xerxes The Achaemenid!), but I can understand if others would prefer a logical akin to: I give you money blindly beforehand, thus I expect to pay less.

 

[King of Prussia]

And each collection contains 6 DLC. That's 12 leaders and 24 civs per collection.

There is no way they are adding that many Civs and leaders in ~7 months. I doubt any major expansions would have that many either. That is way too much stuff to make, test, market, on top of the other stuff they have planned. Not to mention patches for issues that arise or changing stuff based on feedback. That above is something like 70% or so of what we will have at release.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The price increase from the base game to deluxe is $30. Deluxe includes a bit more than just one of the DLC pack. I consider the rest (2 personas, some cosmetics) to be the freebie, and the DLC package to be sold separately for $30.

The DLC package contains 6 larger singular items (4 civs, 2 leaders). I expect each of them to be sold for $5. I consider the other content in that pack to be the freebies (natural wonders, events, cosmetics).

$5 for a civ or leader seems not too far from civ 5 or 6. You can make the case that the civ is only valid for 1/3 of the game etc. but we had all of this often enough: if you think it's worth less, that's fine (and you are not alone), but its also comprehensible to sell it for the same price. In the end, you get a shiny new thing to play with/against in your next game for $5, as previously.

The issue for me with DLC packages isn't the price of the civs, but that the savings of bundling 6 DLCs or even putting it together with the base game doesn't result in much (if any) monetary saving, but instead freebies. Now, for me personally, that's ok as long as I'm interested in the freebies (Hello, Xerxes The Achaemenid!), but I can understand if others would prefer a logical akin to: I give you money blindly beforehand, thus I expect to pay less.

Yep, it clearly feels more expensive, because in Civ6 for $5 you get full length civilization with an associated leader, while in Civ7 for the same price you get either a civilization for 1 age or a leader. But in fact the amount of assets coming with each civ is even bigger than in Civ6. So, I'd say it's fair.

 

[untitledjuan]

Among the Independent Peoples that we've seen thus far, the Muisca have been included and their city is Hunza (the native name of modern-day Tunja) and not Bacatá (the native name of modern-day Bogotá).

Back in Civ6, they added Hunza as a city-state to represent the Muisca in the same DLC in which they added Gran Colombia, whose capital is obviously Bogotá.

Could the fact that they included Hunza as the city for the Muisca Independent Peoples in CIV7, instead of Bacatá, mean that they are saving Bogotá for a potential return of a Colombia/Gran Colombia civilization?

 

[Siptah]

Among the Independent Peoples that we've seen thus far, the Muisca have been included and their city is Hunza (the native name of modern-day Tunja) and not Bacatá (the native name of modern-day Bogotá).

Back in Civ6, they added Hunza as a city-state to represent the Muisca in the same DLC in which they added Gran Colombia, whose capital is obviously Bogotá.

Could the fact that they included Hunza as the city for the Muisca Independent Peoples in CIV7, instead of Bacatá, mean that they are saving Bogotá for a potential return of a Colombia/Gran Colombia civilization?

Ah. That's interesting. When I saw Hunza, I felt very happy that FXS chose to include what I consider one of the most beautiful places in the world: Hunza of the Pashtun people (in modern Gilgit-Baltistan). Looks like I was completely wrong on this. Muisca is very nice as well though

 

[Ornen]

I guess Teotihuacán is included in the Aztec city list because the Aztec used the site for religious and ceremonial activities. Even if it had long been abandoned by the time the Aztecs got to control the area, it became a religious centre for them and the Aztecs even claimed that the people of Teotihuacán were their ancestors.

Teotihuacán's inclusion in the Aztec city list can be compared to the inclusion of Los Angeles or San Francisco in the American list. They were cities founded by previous civilizations (in America's case, the Spanish), but which later were important under their new overlords.

New Orleans might be a better example... LA & SF were towns of ~1,000 under Mexico, and not even that under Spain. Spain claimed a lot of the Pacific coast of the US, but never really 'settled' it beyond isolated forts & missions. Teotihuacan on the other hand was a thriving city. but the game is set up so that it could transition from one to the other, in any case — maybe an even better example would be London...

 

[untitledjuan]

New Orleans might be a better example... LA & SF were towns of ~1,000 under Mexico, and not even that under Spain. Spain claimed a lot of the Pacific coast of the US, but never really 'settled' it beyond isolated forts & missions. Teotihuacan on the other hand was a thriving city. but the game is set up so that it could transition from one to the other, in any case — maybe an even better example would be London...

You're right, many city lists in the game, and in previous games, include cities that were originally founded or settled by a different or previous civilization, but became important under a following civilization after conquering or acquiring said city.

 

[Oberst Kraft]

My predictions for the CotW DLC: Nabateans, Burma, Britain and Medieval France.

 

[Zaarin]

Given our slew of unclaimed Antiquity wonders, I suspect CotW will skew Ancient. I'm guessing Assyria, Tonga, ??? (Exploration), and Britain. Between our two unclaimed Exploration wonders, I'm guessing Francia with both leaders being French because we don't have enough French leaders yet. I jest. I think the leaders will be Mesopotamian but not Assyrian and English--say Enheduanna or Sargon of Akkad or Gilgamesh and Elizabeth I.