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

[Lord Lakely]

Firaxis have fudged dates a lot, but from a gameplay perspective, they'll almost certainly have mountain bonuses, so putting them after the inca for a fun followup makes sense (or before, but after is I suspect more likely).

Yes, I can appreciate that reasoning. The biggest mystery for me is whether Nepal will be militaristic or not (their wiki very much reads "Militaristic" to me... but we already have so many militant civs in the Modern Era, and the Mughals and Qajars but both be given a Militaristic label as well. The only thing I can say with confidence is that the British will very likely not be Militaristic.)

 

[Xandinho]

That's exactly what I was thinking. It serves the purpose of adding something new (something Firaxis clearly cares about with their civ picks), adding better options for certain ages (Med -> Russia option in Bulgaria, ME modern option in Qajars) while excluding the popular options of Byzantium and the Ottomans so they can be saved for later. After all, Durrani and Tiwanaku aren't going to sell themselves.

There seems to be a noticeable pattern, at least in the first two DLCs: two highly marketable civs (Great Britain and Carthage in CofW, Assyria and Silla in RtR) + two civs that might not sell on their own (Nepal and Bulgaria in CofW, Qajar and Dai Viet in RtR). Silla may not be immediately recognizable to casual players or those who aren’t history nerds, but it's well-known enough for the Korean audience.

Personally, I believe the upcoming DLCs will follow the same pattern, and there are still plenty of highly marketable civs left to come: Ottomans, Edo Japan, Aztecs, Byzantines, Brazil, Netherlands, Poland, a Celtic civ, a Viking civ, Ethiopia, Portugal, Haudenosaunee, Zulu, Babylon, Sweden, more Korean versions, and possibly even more Chinese versions.

There are also civs that have never appeared before but have a decent demand and could serve as selling baits: Goths, Burma, Ireland, Ashanti, and maybe Nazca and Minoans.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Anybody slightly emotioned over the wonderful mountains march patch?
It is the more thrilling thing to me, the game screenshots so far has evidenced
a general lack of big mountain ranges, and scarcely any big desert patches stretching for the entirety of the equator, as it almost the
reality of the world, it is just tilted of 23 degrees... how odd... as if the equatorial desert patch of the earth formed in a time when the
axis of the Earth was not tilted like today...

Obviously vast mountain ranges in reality are vastly explored, and many civilizations used to settle fortifications and towns in all the
ages we know of... Switzerland is a gruviere... french word for a kind of cheese filled with holes...
underground mansions that are big as turkey old underground cities like Derenkuyu...

I really hope one day the mountains, except for the highest peaks, like Mt Everest, or Mt Fuji, will be explorable terrain like any
other. Countless possibilities. Romans used to build gates, big stone arches, at the start of mountain passes. Some built as far as
Georgia, Dacia. Italy-France-Switzerland-Austria of course is full of the ancient gates...

Napoleon used the same roman roads to invade Italy multiple times. Indeed France since Charles Martel used them all the time.
Anyway. Thanks devs for taking mountains to new heights!

 

[Lazy sweeper]

There seems to be a noticeable pattern, at least in the first two DLCs: two highly marketable civs (Great Britain and Carthage in CofW, Assyria and Silla in RtR) + two civs that might not sell on their own (Nepal and Bulgaria in CofW, Qajar and Dai Viet in RtR). Silla may not be immediately recognizable to casual players or those who aren’t history nerds, but it's well-known enough for the Korean audience.

Personally, I believe the upcoming DLCs will follow the same pattern, and there are still plenty of highly marketable civs left to come: Ottomans, Edo Japan, Aztecs, Byzantines, Brazil, Netherlands, Poland, a Celtic civ, a Viking civ, Ethiopia, Portugal, Haudenosaunee, Zulu, Babylon, Sweden, more Korean versions, and possibly even more Chinese versions.

There are also civs that have never appeared before but have a decent demand and could serve as selling baits: Goths, Burma, Ireland, Ashanti, and maybe Nazca and Minoans.

Nepal is a mountain civilization, and Tibet is gone within China, so in that part of the world, it makes for a great addition...

Nepal and wonderful mountain rework have me very thrilled...

 

[8housesofelixir]

Speaking of which:

The current 3rd Age roster has 3 Expansionists (America, Buganda, Qing) and 3 Militarists (France, Japan, Prussia) out of the total 9 (as Mughal is not revealed yet), or 6/9 militaristic civs.

• Russia is the only major historical empire in the 3rd Age that is not an Expansionist or a Militarist; while Buganda, which was not a major power even in pre-colonial Africa, is an Expansionist (rather than, say, Militarist).

Meanwhile, the 2nd Age has 4 Expansionists (Hawai'i, Inca, Mongolia, Spain) and 4 Militarists (Norman, Songhai, Mongolia, Spain) out of the total 11, or 6/11 militaristic civs (count Mongolia and Spain only once).

• Mongolia and Spain are both Expansionists and Militarists, making the 2nd Age very combat-heavy.

The 1st Age has 2 Expansionists (Khmer, Mississippians) and 3 Militarists (Maurya, Persia, Rome) out of the total 10, or 5/10 militaristic civs.

• Han China is the only major historical empire in the 1st Age that is not an Expansionist or a Militarist.

Considering how the Mughal Empire was founded, I suspect they might be Expansionists, which will bring the 3rd Age roster to 7/10 militaristic civs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Nepal:
depends on the age. If exploration, religion will be important. If modern, more militaristic.
Mountains will play a role for sure. Culture/happiness unique buildings (pagoda + royal palace = durbar square). Gurkha UU

Wanted to add the possibility of a civilian Sherpa recon unit that maybe could travel through mountains?

Well, I am hoping Austria also get their moment in the sun, and they would be a good pick for the Exploration Germanic Civ we're currently lacking.

If anything, I'd expect a Modern Austria alongside Prussia, playing out their rivalry and the fact they were allied with the French Empire in the Napoleonic Wars. I think it's more likely that another Exploration Germanic civ gets in instead and can go to Prussia or Austria. Exploration Hungary could go into Austria too.

Considering how the Mughal Empire was founded, I suspect they might be Expansionists, which will bring the 3rd Age roster to 7/10 militaristic civs.

My guess was Cultural/Expansionist.

 

[Lord Lakely]

If anything, I'd expect a Modern Austria alongside Prussia, playing out their rivalry and the fact they were allied with the French Empire in the Napoleonic Wars. I think it's more likely that another Exploration Germanic civ gets in instead and can go to Prussia or Austria. Exploration Hungary could go into Austria too.

Fair, but I would like Civ to be named "Austria-Hungary" for flavour. Instead of Hungary, let us have Bohemia début, then.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Wanted to add the possibility of a civilian Sherpa recon unit that maybe could travel through mountains?

A deer rider sherpa would be magical!

 

[trev1972]

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.

I have discussed Ada to death on another thread, and essentially im ok with the choice, we will get other leaders too i imagine.
I find the choice of Battersea as a world wonder to be an odd one however?. I know we wanted a change from big ben but there are plenty of other iconic choices available

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think it ties into Great Britain being scientificially flavoured, I think. Have a Wonder that doubles down on the industrialization, while keeping Oxford neutral for everyone.

I expected the British to be Expansionist & Scientific before I learned about Battersea, but that wonder choice all but confirms it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I expected the British to be Expansionist & Scientific before I learned about Battersea, but that wonder choice all but confirms it.

I expect Commercial and Scientific, especially if their unique quarter turns out to be connected to the Royal Exchange and Bank of England.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I expect Commercial and Scientific, especially if their unique quarter turns out to be connected to the Royal Exchange and Bank of England.

Expansionist is a much better choice for Britain however, as they were the largest empire based on topographu. I would expect a bunch of Settlement Limit from the Civics tree as well, as none of the other Modern Era Civs has a clear +Settlement identity.

Also, their cities had massive amounts of population, and they had a good amount of specialists. All of those things are Expansionist-coded.

My guess was Cultural/Expansionist.

Yes, that's mine as well. I'm expecting a Park quarter from the Mughals with a Mausoleum and a Garden and that should result in a good amount of Happiness and Culture. Mughals are also a good choice for a specialist-driven ability, and I don't think we have one yet for Modern yet? (Maybe Russia or French Empire? My memory on the earlier Modern Civs is a bit hazy).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Expansionist is a much better choice for Britain however, as they were the largest empire based on Geography. I would expect a bunch of Settlement Limit from the Civics tree as well, as none of the other Modern Era Civs has a clear +Settlement identity.

Also, their cities had massive amounts of population, and they had a good amount of specialists. All of those things are Expansionist-coded.

Well, I don't disagree with anything you said. I probably would have picked Economic/Expansionist if I didn't know that Ada Lovelace was a leader and most likely have synergy with them, if the Battersea Power Station wasn't the associated wonder, and the potential to get unique Great People that look like they could have Scientific bonuses.

But because of their unique quarter looking like the financial center of London, that's why I'm possibly leaning towards Economic.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Well, I don't disagree with anything you said. I probably would have picked Economic/Expansionist if I didn't know that Ada Lovelace was a leader and most likely have synergy with them, if the Battersea Power Station wasn't the associated wonder, and the potential to get unique Great People that look like they could have Scientific bonuses.

But because of their unique quarter looking like the financial center of London, that's why I'm possibly leaning towards Economic.

the French quarter also looks Culture-leaning at a glance, but the Civ itself isn't Cultural itself.

But yes, Economic could also work. But then I assume it's Eco/Exp, and not Exp/Sci.

 

[Siptah]

Wanted to add the possibility of a civilian Sherpa recon unit that maybe could travel through mountains?

A modern scout, what a Sherpa (which is an ethnicity btw) would likely be, is a bit useless though. I thought it could be the UA that all units can traverse mountain tiles (including merchants and trade routes).

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'm also worried about that age and i expect it's the first one the devs will want to revise with future content. I find the whole colonization part especially annoying. Exploration is nice, but colonization shouldn't be forced. I think you should be able to get treasure fleets through commerce rather than just settling the distant lands if they want to keep the treasure fleets mechanism (which by itself doesn't look bad).
Military legacy can stay as it is, after all it's the age's military victory so aggressive colonization fits that legacy path very well.
Culture, i don't know, i will have to see how it plays out. Some reliquary beliefs don't need to interact with Distant Lands at all but the fact that you gain nothing from religion in your own settlements is weird.
As far as scientific legacy goes however, no matter how streamers keep repeating it's easy and you just have to pile a few specialists, i have yet to see anyone actually earning the scientific golden age, so i wouldn't be too hasty discarding it as a guaranteed byproduct of any good playthrough.

I am fine with base game civs setting the backdrop of colonization for gameplay; Civ and particularly the "staples" of history were quite imperial. But I do agree that I hope most of the DLC/expansion civs are not obligated to colonize to play the same game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A modern scout, what a Sherpa (which is an ethnicity btw) would likely be, is a bit useless though.

Yeah, I know. I just couldn't think of any alternative civilian unit. But I agree with you that the Gurkha makes sense as the military UU.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

How convenient it must be to be able to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot.

The objection to Lovelace is not that she is "yet another female leader"; it's that she was not any kind of leader. If you don't think that's a fair objection, you're entitled to express that opinion, but I don't think it's acceptable to try to shut down the discussion by attributing malign intentions to any opposing viewpoint. Not everything is about race and gender.

Alas, there is a trend in 4X games now of "any face will do" for Leaders. See ARA's bizaare collection for starters, and now the Non-Leader Leaders proliferating in Civ VII.

That these are too frequently equated with Female Leaders simply calls attention to the fact that there have been very few female leaders in many cultures and polities and those that do exist are frequently disparaged in various ways by the male historians who wrote about them.

This is particularly galling given the amount of ghastly incompetence on display among the numerous male, or 'legitimate heirs' as leaders throughout history. It is so prevalent that people (including historians) all too often do not even notice it, until the exceptions of several generations of actually competent monarchs (like Prussia from the Great Elector to Frederick II) draw attention to the abysmal record of everyone around them.

 

[Zaarin]

And I’d love to see a separate Phoenicia as well. It’d be great to see a Phoenician leader beyond Dido too. Maybe Hiram or something.

I'd suggest King Tabni of Sidon as probably the best non-Dido, non-Western Phoenician leader. His idiosyncratic inscriptions are probably as close to "big personality" as you're going to get.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Forgot that Antiquity civs can also unlock Modern Age civs, like starting as Rome unlocks America and Prussia.
If that's the case than I could see just starting the game as the Maurya could unlock Nepal if they are Modern.