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

[Evie]

There's many good Ancient candidates for Mesoamerica and Mexico in general.

A civilization best known for a city that never came close to being one of the great metropolis of Mexico-Central America, and myths written several centuries after the fact by a people who had never encountered them about their alleged empire, aren't it.

That's not to say that a civilization like the Aztec describe - an enormously culturally influential empire centered on a great stone metropolis.whose influence spread all the way to the Mayan lands - didn't exist. It did.

But it wasn't Tula-Tollan of the so-called Toltecs. It was Teotihuacan.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Cordoba would fit to the Exploration era, not Antiquity. same goes for Normans, though I also wouldn't characterize the Goths as coastal conquerors...

what Gaul are you referring to? pre- or post- Roman? I would expect some form of Franks for Exploration, and some form of Celts for Antiquity. but I also don't see either of those being 'too similar to the Goths' in terms of mechanics.

as for Rome, the Goths and the Rome did compete. the Goths won.

Hm maybe. Maybe a Goth antiquity civ and a Cordoba wonder. I haven't quite figured out how antiquity Iberia will shake out, but I do think they are more inclined to give Cordoba/Andalus some sort of representation via a wonder (or even some adjacent Moorish antiquity civ), than they are compelling to include the Goths as a civ (when Rome technically does fine for both).

I'm still not sold that the Goths are happening, and I say that as someone who would normally advocate for them and initially thought Mausoleum was pointing toward that.

 

[UWHabs]

What if Teotihuacan was like an ancient era Once City Challenge civ? Give them like a massive boost to their capital, but they have the drawback that they cannot convert other towns to cities? At the very least, it would give them a unique play-style.

 

[Krikkit1]

What if Teotihuacan was like an ancient era Once City Challenge civ? Give them like a massive boost to their capital, but they have the drawback that they cannot convert other towns to cities? At the very least, it would give them a unique play-style.

That probably wouldn’t be much of a downside. One City is probably a valid way to play Antiquity

 

[stealth_nsk]

That probably wouldn’t be much of a downside. One City is probably a valid way to play Antiquity

Yes, but still a unique restriction. Together with some other mechanics, like ability to buy more buildings in towns, could be interesting way to go.

 

[Uberfrog]

What if Teotihuacan was like an ancient era Once City Challenge civ? Give them like a massive boost to their capital, but they have the drawback that they cannot convert other towns to cities? At the very least, it would give them a unique play-style.

I am not really a fan of these kinds of designs, and besides I am not sure the OCC concept really still applies with the new model of cities and towns. It seems like having a megacity supported by towns is a strategy available to many civs and leaders, and making it even more powerful by supercharging the capital artificially is probably not necessary.

 

[UWHabs]

I am not really a fan of these kinds of designs, and besides I am not sure the OCC concept really still applies with the new model of cities and towns. It seems like having a megacity supported by towns is a strategy available to many civs and leaders, and making it even more powerful by supercharging the capital artificially is probably not necessary.

Admittedly it would be less of a restriction in this version than in previous ones. For balance, they might not even need that much extra in the capital vs in towns.

I don't know that much about their history, but people talking about a big central town with slightly unknown reaches, just got me thinking about a possible reason to have them when they don't fit as much of a regional niche as other civs.

I'm not entirely sure I believe they fit the theme of "Crossroads of the World", although I guess you could argue they're a little bit on the bridge between Atlantic/Pacific or North America/South America? It's be much more of a stretch compared to anything in the Middle East or SE Asia.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Actually the idea of having only one city as a restriction in exchange of something better to do with towns is great, it's just not necessary for Teotihuacan. I could imagine Carthage having this setup, or some exploration age civilizations like Venice or Genoa.

 

[Krikkit1]

Teo could have a no towns or cities limitation (only IPs and bonuses to IPs and Capital)

 

[ehecatzin]

I think some people are underselling Teotihuacan as "just one city", yes, just one city state, in an era of city states, where it was the most inlfuential one, economically and culturally.

But it wasn't Tula-Tollan of the so-called Toltecs. It was Teotihuacan.

Thanks for bringing this up, mexican archeology really as uncovered a lot in the last decades, for example, we went from thinking the Mayans were peaceful stargazing priests, to understanding they had complex alliances of militaristic city states. Something like that is going up in our understanding that the Mythical Tollan, was actually Teotihuacan, and not Tollan-Xicocotitlan (which came only after Teotihuacan's decline)

The crux of the problem depicting Teotihuacan in game is that, because It's cultural origin is still debated , it makes choosing a set of cities to pull from a bit complicated. (most likely came out of a mixing of Totonac, Otomi and even Olmec refugees after the Xitle eruption making choosing one cultural origin even harder).

Personally I subscribe to the theory that Teotihuacan was a mix of Otomi and Totonac peoples.

IF Teotihuacan where to be a civ in game, I think a compromise could be made in using contemporary early cities from the Mexican valley (Cuicuilco Tlatilco, Otompan,), as well as heavily influenced cities that took the mantle of Teotihuacan as it was declining (Xochicalco, Cholula, Tajin, Tollan-Xicocotitlan), it would give an interesting mix of classical cities that all claim to the origins of Teotihuacan.

In game terms, Teotihuacan could easily be about a tall capital feed by towns, similar to Rome but more focused on Influence.

As for "filling" the mesoamerican path, it could provide for an excelent Antiquity counterpart for Maya, as well as providing a central Mexican baseline for most of the mesoamerican civs that could be added later for Exploration, Aztecs, Itza, Mixtecs, Totonac, etc.

All that said, yes, Aztecs should and will be added first, they must at least have the classic Maya, Aztec, Inca triad down before adding newcomers, but civ VII I think It's the best shot we've had to see way more civ newcomers in all regions.

 

[Ornen]

I am not really a fan of these kinds of designs, and besides I am not sure the OCC concept really still applies with the new model of cities and towns. It seems like having a megacity supported by towns is a strategy available to many civs and leaders, and making it even more powerful by supercharging the capital artificially is probably not necessary.

I mean, many of the civ designs are about supercharging a specific playstyle. I'm down for one-city focused civs

I think some people are underselling Teotihuacan as "just one city", yes, just one city state, in an era of city states, where it was the most inlfuential one, economically and culturally.

The crux of the problem depicting Teotihuacan in game is that, because It's cultural origin is still debated , it makes choosing a set of cities to pull from a bit complicated. (most likely came out of a mixing of Totonac, Otomi and even Olmec refugees after the Xitle eruption making choosing one cultural origin even harder).

yeah, not wholly different from say, ancient Greece in reality vs in the game. with the key difference being that ancient Greece is much better documented, studied, and understood.

but I think the challenge of uncertainty is going to affect a number of civs in the Antiquity age, and I don't think it's a prohibitive issue. (and much of what you're talking about elsewhere in this post is the answer)

 

[Oberst Kraft]

What if proportions matter?

Firaxis takes a 1/3-1/3-1/3 approach to designing new Civ game adding only 1/3 new features/content. Maybe it also works on civs and leaders?

Since the Standard Edition includes 30 civs and 20 leaders, and the Founder Edition get 9 civs and 5 leaders (Tecumseh and Shawnee Pack is officially a part of the Deluxe Edition and Founders Edition - even if not pre-ordered), then take a look at numbers below.

In the Standard Edition, there are 10 new civs (exactly 1/3 of the lineupr) and 7 female leaders (almost exactly 1/3 of the lineup). I count Chinese civs (Han, Ming and Qing) and Indian civs (Maurya, Chola and Mughals) as old civs (China and India) for this purpose because they act as complete 3-ages civilizations according to Firaxis (look at the picture showing an Indian path from the devs stream where the names are: Maurya India -> Chola India -> Mughal India).

New civs (not occuring under the exact names in Civ 1-6): Aksum, Abbasids, Buganda, Hawai'i, Majapahit, Meiji, Mississippi, Mexico, Normans, Prussia.
Female leaders: Amina, Catherine the Great, Harriet Tubman, Hatshepsut, Himiko, Isabella, Trung Trac.

Let's assume that the Founders Edition keeps the same the same aspect ratio. We would then get 13 entirely new civs (10 from the Standard Edition plus Shawnee plus two more entirely new civs with the CotW+RtR) and 8-9 female leaders (7 from the Standard Edition plus one or two more female leaders with the CotW+RtR).

 

[ombak]

What if proportions matter?

Firaxis takes a 1/3-1/3-1/3 approach to designing new Civ game adding only 1/3 new features/content. Maybe it also works on civs and leaders?

One of the recent interviews actually dealt with both these topics (1/3 rule and leader/civ choice). The interview with Pravus begins with "Vision and the need to evolve" which deals with the 1/3 approach and during the answer the developer mentions one time they actually tried to count and see if it was 1/3 in each column and of course it wasn't quite exact but they did have things in every column.

Then later in the video the topic is unconventional leaders and the devs says that by the time they list all their "obvious" ideas they have 174 people. And while I'm sure that number is hyperbole, the point he makes afterwards, that those 174 or how many ever leaders are no longer obvious if the list is that long is very relevant.

In the end I think we overthink how the devs do these things. These rules are guidelines, and I think if the whole team has them in mind, they will generally produce something along those lines without having to worry about the details every step of the way. I would wager that when it comes to picking leaders they sit down and trim those lists and let people advocate for the ones they want and maybe sometimes they vote, maybe leads veto or break ties, but sometimes someone just makes a good enough case or a lead finds a good enough reason to pick one over another and that's their list.

After that, the only consideration I suppose is filling out the checklist (art assets, script, casting, dubbing, designing, playtesting etc.) at which point maybe leaders can move down if they might not be ready in time (maybe they're hard to cast, maybe they playtested poorly and get deprioritized and replaced for release build) and by a certain date you lock in your roster and the others get divvied up for upcoming content.

 

[Chasethemage]

This Polygon Article may have revealed the content of the Crossroads DLC:

Time is running out to save on Civ 7 pre-orders

Get early access and economic victory with this deal

www.polygon.com

 

[Zaarin]

This Polygon Article may have revealed the content of the Crossroads DLC:

Ah, that reassures me even more, re:my post in the other thread. Crossroads includes no wonders, which rules out Bulgaria and Carthage.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Ah, that reassures me even more, re:my post in the other thread. Crossroads includes no wonders, which rules out Bulgaria and Carthage.

Came over to this thread to check just that... good catch. Now the question is what on earth is Polygon doing????

 

[ombak]

The steam page says 4 New Wonders for both DLCs, it no longer specifies Natural on either one. Based on the first post in this thread, Crossroads is the one that had 4 Natural Wonders when the language specified "Natural" on one of them.

 

[lo24681]

if this list is accurate, biggest surprise for me is Nepal.

 

[Black Gate]

This Polygon Article may have revealed the content of the Crossroads DLC:

Time is running out to save on Civ 7 pre-orders

Get early access and economic victory with this deal

www.polygon.com

Also confirms that when videos were removed for having Vinicunca that it indeed was because it's DLC content.

Glad to see Carthage early, and seemingly means we're actually getting new wonders so hopefully no Oxford for Britain. I also don't know what Carthage would get as a wonder either. Didn't have Bulgaria or Nepal on my bingo card though.

 

[Zaarin]

I also don't know what Carthage would get as a wonder either.

Temple of Eshmun at Sidon, hopefully.