Future DLC announced: Bulgaria, Nepal, Simon Bolivar + more

[Xandinho]

What era would Bulgaria be? Antiquity?

Most likely it's Exploration

 

[RedCourtJester]

• GB, in combination with Ed's promises of lots or Anglo content over the course of the game, is very exciting and a lot to look forward to. very interested to see what that entails.

• Bulgaria is very exciting. Interesting civilization in an interesting part of the world. I need to read up on them but i am very optimistic they will be a fun one.
• Carthage -- a mainstay. I don't know much about them besides the punic wars and need to learn more, but north african/classical representation is a great thing. good pick.
• Qajar -- Persia is such a timeless civilization, more representation for them just makes sense. I have been on a major afghan/hindustan/persian kick so i will definitely buy this.
• Dai Viet: not that interested in this. it is not a bad pick but it will not open my wallet like some of the above.

Overall, very much anticipating these DLC. just a shame the cost of everything, but i suppose you have to pay to play.

I'm hoping, after we get the obligatory three-era Iran with Sassanids/Timurids (or maybe sooner than that), we get some Pashtun civs. From Sogdia to Durrani there are a wealth of kingdoms they could construct a three act structure with, or at least a few civs.

I'm a bit indifferent to Carthage, I just hope it's represented as Phoenician Carthage and not Roman Carthage. That's where the interesting design space is imo, and if they did that I would forgive them skipping on Phoenicia and Numidia. Still would love a Garamantes civ tho.

 

[untitledjuan]

What era would Bulgaria be? Antiquity?

Probably Exploration

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What era would Bulgaria be? Antiquity?

Exploration. It has to fight with the Byzantines in the future.

 

[lo24681]

So at least for Crossroads, I think we have a good idea of what the unlocks for and from each civ will be. In the category of almost certain I would say we have Normans to Britain, and Greeks to Bulgaria to Russia. Now less certain but I would say are also very likely are Chola, and Carthage to Spain and Abbasids.

 

[RedCourtJester]

So at least for Crossroads, I think we have a good idea of what the unlocks for and from each civ will be. In the category of almost certain I would say we have Normans to Britain, and Greeks to Bulgaria to Russia. Now less certain but I would say are also very likely are Chola, and Carthage to Spain and Abbasids.

Carthage to Songhai instead of Abbasids? (Which hints at possibly modern Morocco or maybe even a Maghreb civ like Garamantes eventually).

And Chola and Ming to Nepal (with mayyyybe hints a Burma in the future?).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Carthage to Songhai instead of Abbasids?

Abbasids make sense when you realize that Carthage was taken over by the Ummayads.

And Chola and Ming to Nepal (with mayyyybe hints a Burma in the future?).

Despite being on the same sub-continent, I don't see Chola to Nepal being an organic thing, considering they were on opposite sides and Nepal is mountainous while the Chola had a naval empire. I think Ming and Mongolia is more likely just because they had influence over Tibet.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Abbasids make sense when you realize that Carthage was taken over by the Ummayads.

Despite being on the same sub-continent, I don't see Chola to Nepal being an organic thing, considering they were on opposite sides and Nepal is mountainous while the Chola had a naval empire. I think Ming and Mongolia is more likely just because they had influence over Tibet.

I could see Mongolia yeah.

I think Carthage could go either way, but between the two Songhai wants for a second start point that isn't Egypt.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think Carthage could go either way, but between the two Songhai wants for a second start point that isn't Egypt.

I agree that Songhai is a possibility too. I just wouldn't say no to the Abbasids considering how Islam took hold over that whole region.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I agree that Songhai is a possibility too. I just wouldn't say no to the Abbasids considering how Islam took hold over that whole region.

I agree, it's not the worst. However, I have also been kind of viewing the map as maybe (eventually) encouraging a conceptual split between east and west Arabic caliphates.

In which case I would expect Carthage to prefer "Morocco" (Almohad, Almoravid, other?) over Abbasids. But that remains to be seen if the devs devote the resources to a second exploration "Arabia."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In which case I would expect Carthage to prefer "Morocco" (Almohad, Almoravid, other?) over Abbasids. But that remains to be seen if the devs devote the resources to a second exploration "Arabia."

I agree with that too, but they aren't going to be in the game right now. So, I don't see the problem with them going into Spain, Songhai, and Abbasids at least for right now. I mean we're going have the Normans have so many more unlocks than that probably between leaders and civs.

 

[Ornen]

very clear from their design decisions so far that close era transitions are not a major concern. and in any case, Carthage into Abbasids or Spain makes a lot more sense than many of the other transitions in game as currently planned

 

[8housesofelixir]

Random fun fact about Bulgarians:

In many Old Russian Chronicles, there is usually a section called the List of Russian Cities. The section usually opens with the line, "These are the names of the Russian cities far and near," and continues to list cities under ten different regions.

What is interesting here is that the list includes several Bulgarian cities, mostly cities situated in Northern Bulgaria, i.e., beyond the Balkan Mountains and/or on the Danube, such as Vidin, Tarnovo, Silistra, Varna, and Isaccea, all important cities for the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. And the text always begins with the Bulgarian cities - Vidin is often the very first city on the list - while the "usual" Kievan Rus cities are always listed later.

Why many "Russian" texts did so is still under debate, although most scholar agrees that the list covers most of the East Slavonic sphere, and Bulgaria undoubtedly had a massive impact in this sphere due to its leading position in the Slavic language, literature, and faith in the Medieval times.


In any case, 2nd Age Bulgaria goes into 3rd Age Russia is culturally sound; and if we are getting a 2nd Age Byzantine, the famous Byzantine-Bulgarian rivalry could be reimagined as well.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It's true, especially the Augustus comment. It'll be especially ironic if he's a good fit to lead Carthage. I guess the answer is mostly down to perception?

You know, Britain actually is a good candidate too for "modern empire that siphons resources back to pump up a single city"

I disagree a lot with this. London was already a significant city before colonisation began significant resource extraction. Most of the rest of the UK got a significant boost from it, Liverpool, Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow all jumped from almost nothing to booming cities because of manufacturing on thr back of imports from the colonies.

Even as recently as 1936, Leicester was the richest city in the UK. I think it would be a really poor representation of this games modern era Britain to do that.

Also, what on earth were they thinking with Battersea Power Station being a world wonder?!? Much like Ada Lovelace, this is massively underwhelming for a modern Britain. Brunel would've been a much better leader essentially representing the industrial revolution itself.

If they wanted an industrial / scientific type wonder a much, much better one would've been Crystal Palace as a much more "wonderous" building, and with its association with the world's fair.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I can't say I like the choice of Bulgaria over Byzantium and Qajar over Ottomans both in the first DLC pack. I'd like some key historical spots to be filled sooner than later.

 

[Krajzen]

Civ7 has a fantastic ability to surprise us at every step - seriously, who would expect Carthage, Bulgaria and Nepal in the first DLC, and Ada Lovelace as the leader of Britain

I've very happy with Bulgaria in particular - very interesting and impressive civilization, and a great bridge between Greece with Russia, with a lot of possible connections in many ways (ancient steppe nomads, Thracians, Romania, Ukraine etc)

Also, Ada looks amazing and I hope anti woke people's brains implode when they see yet another female leader

 

[Siptah]

I can't say I like the choice of Bulgaria over Byzantium and Qajar over Ottomans both in the first DLC pack. I'd like some key historical spots to be filled sooner than later.

Hopefully, the ages provide the reason for FXS to never include Byzantium at all, and instead just have another Rome in Exploration Age. Or, if absolutely necessary, they could call it "Eastern Rome" or "Rhomaioi."

Yet, will I can probably comprehend your preferences, Bulgaria will likely fill the same role that Eastern Rome would fill in civ 7 (aside from a potential economic side), so I personally don't see much of a downside in this exchange. Qajars is a bit different: more Persia asap is always good, and they could be nice for a rivalry with the Mughals. Clearly, the Ottomans are an important cornerstone for a game like civ 7 and could have been in the base game or early DLCs.

But then again: if the Ottomans arrive later, they might be more interesting. Maybe an expansion at some point will bring something like internal empire management to the civ series to simulate that you are leading an empire and not a huge monolithic core territory? That would be a prime opportunity to include the Ottomans with some uniques that revolve around multiculturalism (not present to far aside from conquered vs. founded cities) or a struggle between centralization and decentralization (which barely exists, only in the form of a crisis). Would also be a good opportunity to have then HRE alongside then.

 

[Ryansinbela]

How do you think Bulgaria and Nepal would play

 

[8housesofelixir]

Qajars is a bit different: more Persia asap is always good, and they could be nice for a rivalry with the Mughals. Clearly, the Ottomans are an important cornerstone for a game like civ 7 and could have been in the base game or early DLCs.

It also feels like the Qajar inclusion in the 3rd Age is similar to the Mughal and Qing, all of which were the last "native" dynasties of the region before the Western intrusion or modern polities with possible controversies (I put "native" in quotation marks since it also happens that all three dynasties were conquest dynasties).

In this regard, having Qajars up front might also imply that the much bigger name, Safavids, is likely reserved for later.

But then again: if the Ottomans arrive later, they might be more interesting. Maybe an expansion at some point will bring something like internal empire management to the civ series to simulate that you are leading an empire and not a huge monolithic core territory? That would be a prime opportunity to include the Ottomans with some uniques that revolve around multiculturalism (not present to far aside from conquered vs. founded cities) or a struggle between centralization and decentralization (which barely exists, only in the form of a crisis). Would also be a good opportunity to have then HRE alongside then.

The frontier-building ability of the early Ottomans (namely, the akinjis and their kleinkrieg or "petty warfare") is very worth exploring as a case example of how decentralization could help with an empire in terms of conquest. And for their rivals, both Hungarians and Austrians would be sound choices, and I would love to see a Military Frontier-building, Kameralwissenschaft-centered "World Empire" Habsburg Austria, rather than the kinda meme-y Civ 5 edition.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I find Bulgaria's inclusion quite interesting for some reasons:

1. It provides Greece with a fitting successor.
2. It gives Russia a very suitable predecessor.
3. It brings Eastern European representation to the Exploration Age, which was lacking.

I had never thought of Bulgaria as a civ that could fill so many gaps at once at this moment. It’s a really exciting addition, and I’m looking forward to seeing how it will be designed.

I'm hoping we're getting Byzantium too, but Bulgaria was so important in the 9th & 10th century.

• The strongest military power in Eastern Europe during their two century golden age, and again during the second empire (12th century)
• Inventors of the Glagothic and Cyrillic Alphabets
• Spread Christianity all over the slavic world
• Effectively the counterpart / nemesis of Byzantium - when one was strong, the other was weak and vice versa

They were also prolific castle builders and record keepers. They're an excellent choice for the area.

I can't say I like the choice of Bulgaria over Byzantium and Qajar over Ottomans both in the first DLC pack. I'd like some key historical spots to be filled sooner than later.

Bulgaria over Byzantium is *okay* because we already have Rome and Greece in Antiquity, and Byzantium is an extension of those. Bulgaria is a more unique choice, and the objectively the best choice in Slavic Europe for Exploration, other than maybe the Kievan Rus'.

I definitely would have prefered Ottomans over modern Persians, but I think they rival each other. The Ottomans should be added to Exploration later down the road, rather than having them shoved in Modern where they are a fairly poor fit (and should be called Türkiye for all intents and purposes). The Qajars are without question going to be Modern, and they're a good and valid choice for that Era. So all in all, a decent roster.

I'm personally less receptive towards Nepal for Modern, but I am curious what dr Johnson has been cooking up with them. They vibe like a very militaristic/diplomatic Civ based on the Wiki articles I've been skimming.