Jester's Final Prediction Thread

[RedCourtJester]

While we are at speculations, one piece of information that we are missing is the role of personas. Any speculation that revolves about leaders as „glue“ requires an assumption on personas.

We know the game releases with 18+ leaders and personas. We don‘t know the ratio between these categories, and neither whether the count includes the two Napoléons nor Tecumseh (I’m inclined to think they are included as they are free and available on launch). As we are getting 4 additional personas with deluxe/founders, I wouldn‘t expect too many personas in the base game. Maybe 3-5 and 12-15 leaders.

Now the vital piece of information about personas is whether they have different associated civs. I‘m unsure of this so far. For someone like Ashoka (who is a good candidate for an alternate persona at release due to the nickname), different unlocks seem unlikely imho. However, for Napoléon and Augustus, this would make sense. Revolutionary Napoléon maybe doesn’t unlock Spain and the Netherlands, but America, while Emperor Napoléon unlocks Spain (and Italy). Plus, this would make personas more distinct and thus you get more mileage out of them. Hence, it might be an option for some personas.

Sweet yea, so I have a working theory about this, but it's in the range of somewhat to highly speculative past a point. And there is some foundational logic that is kind of lengthy, but please bear with me.

Leader Pathways:

First, the foundation: leader pathways. I think what we are seeing with Hatshepsut trailer revealing Abbasids, Augustus trailer revealing Spain, and Confucius trailer revealing Ming, is that each leader will have a single preferred pathway that defines our old idea of a "civ," just across three eras (which, if we are assuming the leaders are indeed acting as logical threads, we could very comfortably point toward Mamluk, Italy, and Qing being the termination points for those regions/leaders). I think it exists to acclimate the old idea of Civ into VII's three era model so fans aren't totally alienated, as well as make solo play, if the player chooses to feel more like playing against the old idea of a "civ+leader." We've already been given indication for this, to some extent.

I also think that, almost as a necessity of game design, if the leaders are defaulting down a particular pathway specific to them, it makes sense to give each leader a different preferred pathway. Example would be (please treat these as hypotheticals, however sure I may be of them): Cnut leads Norse -> Normans -> Britain ("the Norse path" defining "the North Sea Empire"), but Henry the Lion leads Norse -> Teutons/Hanseatic League -> Germany (the "Prussian path" defining "Hanseatic Germany").

This accomplishes a few pretty important things for solo play (because we know none of it matters in multiplayer). The most important one, mechanically, is that if distributed roughly evenly (which will happen to some extent naturally if you try to utilize each civ in as many adjacent pathways as are natural), AI will not be outcrowding itself for preferred civ choices. The second most important one, is that it prevents AI from ever feeling "similar" to each other as compared to sharing two (and to some extent does better job at "defining" the idea of each civ as it develops), which just increases distinctiveness and immersion and reduces disinterest by the solo player. And the third, is that, on the player side, if a player wants to play Civ the old way, in a predictable, consistent, plausible three-era path, they pretty much can.

Consequently, it follows, that we would want a game where no two leaders share the same antiquity -> exploration or exploration -> modern era path (and as yet to be seen, antiquity/modern, although I think there is a case that those kind of paths can instead feel like "alternate leaders; but I think otherwise the other two features are necesssary).

Napoleon's Personae and Pathways

What I do know about Napoleon is that, if the "preferred leader pathway" pathway guides design, we don't have a unique pathway for him at launch. He can't do Rome -> Normans -> America, that is taken by Benny. He can't do Rome -> Normans -> (modern), because that is Augustus' preferred pathway. And no other pathway makes sense for Napoleon.

Now, granted, let me address a potential counterargument. Couldn't Augustus be progressing to Byzantium instead, and Napoleon progresses Rome -> Spain -> France? I don't think that's particularly likely. For one, each antiquity leader video has almost outright stated what their preferred exploration era civ is (Hatshepsut's Abbasid, Confucius's Ming, and Augustus's Spain). And for two, when I was hashing out permutations, Rome -> Byzantium -> kind of naturally wants to lead to Russia as a sort of mirror to America, while the idea of "Byzantium" wants to be represented by Greece -> Byzantium -> Ottomans (as Greece kind of ties back better geographically to Ottomans and culturally to Byzantium, and when you look at the three you can definitely claim both Greece and the Ottomans were "Byzantine."). So, in as many words, I do still think Augustus leads into Spain, and Napoleon has no preferred pathway.

So, what do we do? How do we reconcile Napoleon's pathway? Well I noticed he leads the "French Empire." And we all have been noting what a weird choice that was, because it was a blip in time, and kind of tyrannical/inconvenient for Europe, and not a great representation of modern France overall. In fact, one could say it covered so much territory, how would you even begin to draw the most satisfying path to it (I think France isn't the best example of this idea of lacking a clear pathway, but see below.)

To help lead into the idea of what I am getting at: a brain teaser. If we never get modern Spain, where does the inevitable Spanish leader progress? Perhaps Mexico (New Spain), but then how would we fairly represent the colonialist legacy in New Granada, Peru, and Rio De Plata? We can't have Al Andalus -> Spain -> Colony for all three pathways, even if they have different leaders. If we get Alexander as a leader, where does he go to in exploration era? He can't go to Byzantium, that doesn't feel like him; could go to Sassanid I suppose, but then where after that?

EDIT: He likely does have a unique pathway, I was just trying to keep Europe lean. Carolingians/Franks very likely.

"Mega Civs" or "Empires":

Enter what I am calling "Mega Civs," which Civ VII seems to be calling "Empires." Those brief periods of cults of personality where a single leader (or powerful dynasty) took a civ so fast and so far, we almost don't really identify it as any particular culture so much as a "movement that took over an entire continent/subcontinent." Where we don't really have a good answer as to a specific origin or ending point for that leader's legacy. This is different from India and China having endured over centuries. I'm talking things like Alexander's "Mega Greece," Attila's "Mega Xiongnu," Isabella's "Mega Spain," arguably Al-Walid's "Mega Arabia" and Genghis Khan's "Mega Mongolia," Victoria's "Mega Britain," Roosevelt's "Mega America, Stalin's "Mega Russia," etc. (I'm expecting these leaders to be to some extent "additional content," like say a third leader in a 4 civ expack, and not normally the express focus of DLC packs).

What I think "Imperial France" is, a civ specifically associated with Napoleon, is a kind of "upgrade" for France when you lead France with him. I have no idea precisely how this changes the normal France civ mechanically (it may even be a totally different "civ," although I am currently speculating that it isn't), other than the very reasonable assumption that "Imperial France" does not have to progress from Rome -> Spain/Normans. It likely has some degree of free progression from multiple civs.

But this could (and likely does) solve the issue of Napoleon's persona and preferred pathways. Napoleon's French Empire does not need any specific progression. It can likely proceed from any prior civ (or maybe a continent-defined subset like Normans, Spain, Byzantium, Teutons). Both systems, which might, and to different degrees, through chance share a progression with another civ, will be relatively rare because we are only talking a very small handful of leaders with "Empire" upgrades.

And that, is the rather long explanation of how I think Napoleon personae will progress. I also think that, as a matter of practicality, the only leaders to get these persona packs are those that lead "Mega Civs," because that avoids the pathway issues.

EDIT: Mega Civ theory is no longer needed thanks to @stealth_nsk pointing out Ashoka and Ben likely having alternate personae.

Addendum: "Micro States"

With one potential exception. If speculation is correct that, due to not introducing new wonders, Assyria and Babylon are two of our four Crossroads of the World civs, we may also see an equivalent which I would call a "micro civ." This would be reserved for civs which tended to be comparatively small, confined to a single era, and were largely encompassed by a larger civ within that same era. This categorization makes sense with the prior logic, because Assyria and Babylon don't really suggest to lead anywhere; they--and all Mesopotamian and most Levant civs--both themselves led into "Persia," which is already almost certainly an antiquity civ in some capacity, and later almost equally into Abbasids or Sasanids. That doesn't give them really good pathway representation. So, instead, we could treat the entire region as "Mesopotamia and the Levant," (as contained within the larger "antiquity Persia"), from which all of those civs could then progress in pluripotential directions. Another example I think we are likely to see are the Italian City States in exploration era, which all equally want to progress from Rome and into Italy, but in exploration era would otherwise be defined as "The Italic League within Spanish/French territory." I could conceive of, say, if we wanted to represent the United Arab Emirates individually (a very silly idea), the same concept could afford that.

I have a less clear idea of how these micro civs might express leader personae, but for similar reasons I think they may fall into that same sort of "pathless" category that will make personae easy to implement for them. We may know whether this is the case as soon as Crossroads of the World is announced.

I think it is less likely the Micro State theory holds either. Most likely it's just Assyria -> Sassanid -> New civ and Babylon -> Sassanid -> New civ. Though I have no idea where they would progress from there, so maybe Assyria and Babylon will need exceptions. We will need more info, I think.

Anyway, I hope that gives you some food for thought. I agree we likely won't see too many personae. It's interesting in a way, because if you look at which leaders got personae in Civ VI, it maps onto this idea pretty cleanly: Teddy (America), Victoria (mega Britain), Cleopatra (mega Egypt), Harald (mega Norway (there were several mega Norways but he qualifies)), Kublai (mega Mongolia), Suleiman (mega Ottomans), Saladin (mega Arabia, though not a great representation of it). I would say Qin Shi and Catherine don't capture the idea quite as well, and we missed out on an easy Phillip opportunity, but it's kind of there. EDIT: Yes, but also sort of no. Personae seem to be working pretty much as they did before in VI: "two sides of the same empire," (as above) or "two separate kingdoms" (Eleanor and Kublai).

 

[RedCourtJester]

Have you not seen Rings of Power? Financial suicide is very much in vogue right now for continuations of popular series.

You aren't going to recognise anyone else's theories or engage with anyone else's hypothesis on the basis you've outlined above, as you are firmly in denial about what this game is based on the information presented to us so far. Historical nitpicking criticism is not something the devs have demonstrated anything more than a passing concern for. Their Khmer justification demonstrates that they care more for their models being applied to the game than anything resembling real history. They've leant further into the alt history path pursuing that audience in the belief that it opens doors.

I think effectively they have tried to make a rogue like 4X because rogue like is all the rage and think that will expand the audience.

Rings of Power is actually surprisingly decent as an adaptation and I think will be received more favorably with age. It's still gross that it cost so much, but as art it is not only fine, but also has been extremely calculated to try to sync up with the LotR films.

I recognized your theory, I didn't find it persuasive for many reasons. I'm sorry if you don't, but you haven't been swayed by my theory either, so I don't really know what you are expecting. It's a prediction/speculation thread.

I think the design of this game will facilitate both your Rogue-like idea, as well as still play very much like prior Civ games, if the player wants it to. I acknowledge right now it seems very "alt history," but I can only suggest that you remain patient and see that it may end up being the most historically accurate and sensitive 4X game to date. And the best alt history playbox. At the same time.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think we have pretty good estimation of the number of personas:

1. I really doubt any personas will be at core as it's perceived as more "addendum" feature
2. Napoleon persona is unlocked by connecting 2K account
3. 2 personas in Deluxe content pack
4. 2 personas in Founders content pack

That's 5 personas overall at launch.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think we have pretty good estimation of the number of personas:

1. I really doubt any personas will be at core as it's perceived as more "addendum" feature
2. Napoleon persona is unlocked by connecting 2K account
3. 2 personas in Deluxe content pack
4. 2 personas in Founders content pack

That's 5 personas overall at launch.

Oh wow you're right, I forgot they had announced personae, I've been so focused on base game leaders and paths.

Read my little essay above and take a look at my map in my initial post. I was leaving out a British leader and a Spanish leader because they don't have a unique path (and Ottomans because I don't think they have a path yet, but that doesn't prevent a Mega Ottoman leader).

I was thinking it odd they might release the game without leaders for these specific "civs," since otherwise I cover nearly every expected idea of a "civ" as led by a specific leader (one German leader, one Norse leader, etc.). I would not be surprised if two of those personae are for one leader, and two for another.

I think we stand good odds that the four personae at launch are something looking like two of Elizabeth/Victoria, Phillip/Isabella, or Suleiman. Though other "mega civs" which could get in with my base game roster would also include Greece (Alexander), Russia (two Stalin personae), America (two Teddy personae again lol?), or maybe even Mongolia (Genghis/Kublai Khan), Japan (Hirohito), or China (Kangxi Emperor), "Arabia" (two Al-Walid/Abu Akbar personae, would be weird though).

It will be interesting to see which two they pick. I think Elizabeth/Victoria is a safe lock, you can't release base game civ without a British leader. The other is a gamble, I think they may go with someone not Spanish because of the high likelihood we are getting two modern Spanish Colonial leaders at launch (they kind of form two personae of Spain as they are). If I were to bet, I would guess either Alexander or Suleiman have the best odds.

 

[Siptah]

Sweet yea, so I have a working theory about this, but it's in the range of somewhat to highly speculative past a point. And there is some foundational logic that is kind of lengthy, but please bear with me.

Leader Pathways:

First, the foundation: leader pathways. I think what we are seeing with Hatshepsut trailer revealing Abbasids, Augustus trailer revealing Spain, and Confucius trailer revealing Ming, is that each leader will have a single preferred pathway that defines our old idea of a "civ," just across three eras (which, if we are assuming the leaders are indeed acting as logical threads, we could very comfortably point toward Mamluk, Italy, and Qing being the termination points for those regions/leaders). I think it exists to acclimate the old idea of Civ into VII's three era model so fans aren't totally alienated, as well as make solo play, if the player chooses to feel more like playing against the old idea of a "civ+leader." We've already been given indication for this, to some extent.

I also think that, almost as a necessity of game design, if the leaders are defaulting down a particular pathway specific to them, it makes sense to give each leader a different preferred pathway. Example would be (please treat these as hypotheticals, however sure I may be of them): Cnut leads Norse -> Normans -> Britain ("the Norse path" defining "the North Sea Empire"), but Henry the Lion leads Norse -> Teutons/Hanseatic League -> Germany (the "Prussian path" defining "Hanseatic Germany").

This accomplishes a few pretty important things for solo play (because we know none of it matters in multiplayer). The most important one, mechanically, is that if distributed roughly evenly (which will happen to some extent naturally if you try to utilize each civ in as many adjacent pathways as are natural), AI will not be outcrowding itself for preferred civ choices. The second most important one, is that it prevents AI from ever feeling "similar" to each other as compared to sharing two (and to some extent does better job at "defining" the idea of each civ as it develops), which just increases distinctiveness and immersion and reduces disinterest by the solo player. And the third, is that, on the player side, if a player wants to play Civ the old way, in a predictable, consistent, plausible three-era path, they pretty much can.

Consequently, it follows, that we would want a game where no two leaders share the same antiquity -> exploration or exploration -> modern era path (and as yet to be seen, antiquity/modern, although I think there is a case that those kind of paths can instead feel like "alternate leaders; but I think otherwise the other two features are necesssary).

Napoleon's Personae and Pathways

What I do know about Napoleon is that, if the "preferred leader pathway" pathway guides design, we don't have a unique pathway for him at launch. He can't do Rome -> Normans -> America, that is taken by Benny. He can't do Rome -> Normans -> (modern), because that is Augustus' preferred pathway. And no other pathway makes sense for Napoleon.

Now, granted, let me address a potential counterargument. Couldn't Augustus be progressing to Byzantium instead, and Napoleon progresses Rome -> Spain -> France? I don't think that's particularly likely. For one, each antiquity leader video has almost outright stated what their preferred exploration era civ is (Hatshepsut's Abbasid, Confucius's Ming, and Augustus's Spain). And for two, when I was hashing out permutations, Rome -> Byzantium -> kind of naturally wants to lead to Russia as a sort of mirror to America, while the idea of "Byzantium" wants to be represented by Greece -> Byzantium -> Ottomans (as Greece kind of ties back better geographically to Ottomans and culturally to Byzantium, and when you look at the three you can definitely claim both Greece and the Ottomans were "Byzantine."). So, in as many words, I do still think Augustus leads into Spain, and Napoleon has no preferred pathway.

So, what do we do? How do we reconcile Napoleon's pathway? Well I noticed he leads the "French Empire." And we all have been noting what a weird choice that was, because it was a blip in time, and kind of tyrannical/inconvenient for Europe, and not a great representation of modern France overall. In fact, one could say it covered so much territory, how would you even begin to draw the most satisfying path to it (I think France isn't the best example of this idea of lacking a clear pathway, but see below.)

To help lead into the idea of what I am getting at: a brain teaser. If we never get modern Spain, where does the inevitable Spanish leader progress? Perhaps Mexico (New Spain), but then how would we fairly represent the colonialist legacy in New Granada, Peru, and Rio De Plata? We can't have Al Andalus -> Spain -> Colony for all three pathways, even if they have different leaders. If we get Alexander as a leader, where does he go to in exploration era? He can't go to Byzantium, that doesn't feel like him; could go to Sassanid I suppose, but then where after that?

"Mega Civs" or "Empires":

Enter what I am calling "Mega Civs," which Civ VII seems to be calling "Empires." Those brief periods of cults of personality where a single leader (or powerful dynasty) took a civ so fast and so far, we almost don't really identify it as any particular culture so much as a "movement that took over an entire continent/subcontinent." Where we don't really have a good answer as to a specific origin or ending point for that leader's legacy. This is different from India and China having endured over centuries. I'm talking things like Alexander's "Mega Greece," Attila's "Mega Xiongnu," Isabella's "Mega Spain," arguably Al-Walid's "Mega Arabia" and Genghis Khan's "Mega Mongolia," Victoria's "Mega Britain," Roosevelt's "Mega America, Stalin's "Mega Russia," etc. (I'm expecting these leaders to be to some extent "additional content," like say a third leader in a 4 civ expack, and not normally the express focus of DLC packs).

What I think "Imperial France" is, a civ specifically associated with Napoleon, is a kind of "upgrade" for France when you lead France with him. I have no idea precisely how this changes the normal France civ mechanically (it may even be a totally different "civ," although I am currently speculating that it isn't), other than the very reasonable assumption that "Imperial France" does not have to progress from Rome -> Spain/Normans. It likely has some degree of free progression from multiple civs.

But this could (and likely does) solve the issue of Napoleon's persona and preferred pathways. Napoleon's French Empire does not need any specific progression. It can likely proceed from any prior civ (or maybe a continent-defined subset like Normans, Spain, Byzantium, Teutons). Both systems, which might, and to different degrees, through chance share a progression with another civ, will be relatively rare because we are only talking a very small handful of leaders with "Empire" upgrades.

And that, is the rather long explanation of how I think Napoleon personae will progress. I also think that, as a matter of practicality, the only leaders to get these persona packs are those that lead "Mega Civs," because that avoids the pathway issues.

Addendum: "Micro States"

With one potential exception. If speculation is correct that, due to not introducing new wonders, Assyria and Babylon are two of our four Crossroads of the World civs, we may also see an equivalent which I would call a "micro civ." This would be reserved for civs which tended to be comparatively small, confined to a single era, and were largely encompassed by a larger civ within that same era. This categorization makes sense with the prior logic, because Assyria and Babylon don't really suggest to lead anywhere; they--and all Mesopotamian and most Levant civs--both themselves led into "Persia," which is already almost certainly an antiquity civ in some capacity, and later almost equally into Abbasids or Sasanids. That doesn't give them really good pathway representation. So, instead, we could treat the entire region as "Mesopotamia and the Levant," (as contained within the larger "antiquity Persia"), from which all of those civs could then progress in pluripotential directions. Another example I think we are likely to see are the Italian City States in exploration era, which all equally want to progress from Rome and into Italy, but in exploration era would otherwise be defined as "The Italic League within Spanish/French territory." I could conceive of, say, if we wanted to represent the United Arab Emirates individually (a very silly idea), the same concept could afford that.

I have a less clear idea of how these micro civs might express leader personae, but for similar reasons I think they may fall into that same sort of "pathless" category that will make personae easy to implement for them. We may know whether this is the case as soon as Crossroads of the World is announced.

Anyway, I hope that gives you some food for thought. I agree we likely won't see too many personae. It's interesting in a way, because if you look at which leaders got personae in Civ VI, it maps onto this idea pretty cleanly: Teddy (America), Victoria (mega Britain), Cleopatra (mega Egypt), Harald (mega Norway (there were several mega Norways but he qualifies)), Kublai (mega Mongolia), Suleiman (mega Ottomans), Saladin (mega Arabia, though not a great representation of it). I would say Qin Shi and Catherine don't capture the idea quite as well, and we missed out on an easy Phillip opportunity, but it's kind of there.

It doesn‘t really give me any food for thought. For once, you’ve completely evaded the question I raised and instead wrote on different topics. I also disagree on many fundamentals (unique leader pathways - a concept that would have to go with more leaders and personas anyway, so why use it as a base; Napoléon having no preferred path at launch).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Oh wow you're right, I forgot they had announced personae, I've been so focused on base game leaders and paths.

Read my little essay above and take a look at my map in my initial post. I was leaving out a British leader and a Spanish leader because they don't have a unique path (and Ottomans because I don't think they have a path yet, but that doesn't prevent a Mega Ottoman leader).

I was thinking it odd they might release the game without leaders for these specific "civs," since otherwise I cover nearly every expected idea of a "civ" as led by a specific leader (one German leader, one Norse leader, etc.). I would not be surprised if two of those personae are for one leader, and two for another.

I think we stand good odds that the four personae at launch are something looking like two of Elizabeth/Victoria, Phillip/Isabella, or Suleiman. Though other "mega civs" which could get in with my base game roster would also include Greece (Alexander), Russia (two Stalin personae), America (two Teddy personae again lol?), or maybe even Mongolia (Genghis/Kublai Khan), Japan (Hirohito), or China (Kangxi Emperor), "Arabia" (two Al-Walid/Abu Akbar personae, would be weird though).

It will be interesting to see which two they pick. I think Elizabeth/Victoria is a safe lock, you can't release base game civ without a British leader. The other is a gamble, I think they may go with someone not Spanish because of the high likelihood we are getting two modern Spanish Colonial leaders at launch (they kind of form two personae of Spain as they are). If I were to bet, I would guess either Alexander or Suleiman have the best odds.

Other than Napoleon, which was already confirmed, I'm 90% sure we'll get a persona for Ashoka. First, because he has a title (World Renouncer), which most likely serves to distinguish personas. Second, he had 2 very different periods in history, going from aggressive conquest to peaceful Buddhism spreading.

Another quite likely candidate is Benjamin Franklin. I vaguely remember seeing him in different outfit colors (although I could be totally wrong here), plus he has his political and science sides, which could be represented by personas. Finally, America always need some additional attention due to being primary market. And now with it covering only one era it makes sense to have more focus on associated leader.

 

[Siptah]

Other than Napoleon, which was already confirmed, I'm 90% sure we'll get a persona for Ashoka. First, because he has a title (World Renouncer), which most likely serves to distinguish personas. Second, he had 2 very different periods in history, going from aggressive conquest to peaceful Buddhism spreading.

Another quite likely candidate is Benjamin Franklin. I vaguely remember seeing him in different outfit colors (although I could be totally wrong here), plus he has his political and science sides, which could be represented by personas. Finally, America always need some additional attention due to being primary market. And now with it covering only one era it makes sense to have more focus on associated leader.

Yes, I agree these two are the most likely so far. I also believe that the reason why there hasn‘t been an Ashoka FL yet is due to the persona. I think his alternative persona will be in the base game, so that everybody gets familiarized with the general concept.

 

[dagriggstar]

Honestly speculation this far out like, the expectation should be you get it maybe 20% correct. My vibe on for instance the Byzantines is that they get put into DLC because they are popular so will sell.

Having distinct leader pathways strikes me as going against a design philosophy of what if things were different. Like, surely part of the benefit of having multiple pathways is that it makes things less predictable in the mid late game.

Maybe it’s just that Spain doesn’t have a leader, so they decided there should be a way to guarantee Spain outside of picking one of their feeder civs. Like if for some reason you want to go Khmer into Spain you can pick Augustus to guarantee that. But Augustus of Rome has equal chance of being Spanish/Norman/Third Roman option

 

[RedCourtJester]

It doesn‘t really give me any food for thought. For once, you’ve completely evaded the question I raised and instead mostly wrote on a different topic. I also disagree on many fundamentals (unique leader pathways - a concept that would have to go with more leaders and personas anyway, so why use it as a base; Napoléon having no preferred path at launch).

You asked whether they have different associated civs. I gave you the explanation that I thought most likely. I'm sorry if you don't like that answer (it honestly sounds like you didn't read/internalize it particularly carefully, as I do explain why Napoleon's Mega France would be designed as an exception, because it's not really "France," so much as "all of continental Europe"), but that precisely answered the question you raised.

I do appreciate you brought it up though, because it led to this:

Other than Napoleon, which was already confirmed, I'm 90% sure we'll get a persona for Ashoka. First, because he has a title (World Renouncer), which most likely serves to distinguish personas. Second, he had 2 very different periods in history, going from aggressive conquest to peaceful Buddhism spreading.

Another quite likely candidate is Benjamin Franklin. I vaguely remember seeing him in different outfit colors (although I could be totally wrong here), plus he has his political and science sides, which could be represented by personas. Finally, America always need some additional attention due to being primary market. And now with it covering only one era it makes sense to have more focus on associated leader.

See this is the sort of discussion I was looking for, because it helps me refine these theories (which I did say that the Mega Civ theory is not super solid). I hadn't caught that only Ashoka had the Title.

This would also track with Ashoka NOT being officially revealed alongside the Maurya (like we got with Hatshepsut and Augustus, the only other civs with leaders that were added to the website int hat batch). He's keeping secrets from us, like alternate personae.

What this indicates to me then, probably, is that my Mega Civ theory is wrong, at least in part. At least one of the leader personae has a preferred pathway. This narrows possibilities:

1. Ashoka, World Renouncer, has a preferred pathway, and that pathway is most likely Maurya/Chola/Mughals. I think that's a pretty safe bet, given he is practically synonymous with the Maurya and there's no reason to proceed through a different path (and also heavily suggested simply by his announcement alongside that path). Similarly, that means that Napoleon needs a path that isn't Rome -> Normans, which I think is heavily suggesting that the Franks/Carolingians are in the base game (which actually works as a good "central Rome" idea to pair with America and Russia also splitting off Rome, before we start getting more granular ideas of civs).

2. I don't think the "Mega Civ" theory is needed anymore and can be set aside until we see any further evidence of leaders doubling up pathways with other leaders.

3. But now we need to look at whether personae will double up with themselves, and how feasible that is. I could see the Pala Empire (we have Nalanda) as a possible alternate pathway for Ashoka to progress through. Perhaps World Renouncer moves through Pala, while emperor moves through Chola. But can we do the same with Napoleon? I don't think we can without introducing a new antiquity or exploration civ like Gaul. Possible, but if the alphabet announcement pattern continues I don't think we are getting Gaul base game.

4. Applying this logic to the proposal of Ben Franklin, it tracks. Ben cannot reasonably progress from two different preferred civ paths, it's Rome -> Normans all the way.

Conclusion: I think, it is more likely than not, both personae progress down the same path. It's possible all personae have specifically an "Emperor" alternative that turns the civ into an "Empire," but we don't have enough information to conclude either way (I do still think calling it the French Empire is weirdly specific). I don't think either persona needs to have specifically different unlocks, especially when you look at Ben Franklin's realistic options for switch-ups (or Ashoka's for that matter). I think they will be differentiated mostly by different leader abilities, and maybe some sort of power inequity if it's a "normal/emperor" dichotomy and not just two roughly equal personae.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Also, I take Victoria back, she still has no unique path. I think we are launching without an English leader, guys, unless Cnut get two personae.

So good candidates:

* Ashoka
* Possibly Ben
* Possibly Kublai (get both Mongolia and a second Chinese leader to match India)
* Possibly Cnut (so we at least have someone "representing" England/Britain).
* Poooooooossibly Irene but unlikely (so we at least have someone "representing" Greece)

At least by my model, no other leaders really need or facilitate that idea. I would pair Ben with Ashoka as representing kind of "oldest and newest," as well as indisputably single polity eras. Whereas Kublai and Cnut (or Irene) are the best candidates representing two distinct kingdoms, as well as answer the important question to me which is whether/how Britain gets a leader at launch.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Honestly speculation this far out like, the expectation should be you get it maybe 20% correct. My vibe on for instance the Byzantines is that they get put into DLC because they are popular so will sell.

Having distinct leader pathways strikes me as going against a design philosophy of what if things were different. Like, surely part of the benefit of having multiple pathways is that it makes things less predictable in the mid late game.

Maybe it’s just that Spain doesn’t have a leader, so they decided there should be a way to guarantee Spain outside of picking one of their feeder civs. Like if for some reason you want to go Khmer into Spain you can pick Augustus to guarantee that. But Augustus of Rome has equal chance of being Spanish/Norman/Third Roman option

While that solution is totally possible, I don't think it's really necessary to start the game off on a bad foot like that. If it took like 70 civs to do, maybe, but we are talking fewer civs than Humankind launched with (I am at 48, these fine people have forced me to accept the Franks/Carolingians are likely in the base game).

I think there is a benefit to multiple pathways, but there will likely be a setting in solo play for allowing more random progression. I think, if the game wants to give players the opportunity to play against AI with realistic pathways, it needs to start with that goal in mind, not just haphazardly string whatever is available together.

Game design is very much like that, if you do not set your expectations, define the "Bible" you are going to reinforce beforehand, especially with fairly intricate systems like in a Civ game, the game tends to fall apart or water itself down by a lack of direction and specificity. And indeed, Civ VI was extremely rigorous in adhering to an overall design philosophy; it was extremely unlikely after they had decided on whether and how civs could get into the game, and probably more of an exception born of serendipity than just "hey lets toss X requested civ in!" whenever they felt like it, like how so many people on these boards seem to hope the process is. I think Georgia was like that and fortunately worked very well; I think Babylon was like that and didn't work at all because Babylon, more than any other civ in the game, did not really align well with VI's design sensibilities and was more of a desperate pandering move.

Also, you have to keep in mind. Many of these devs have been working on the civ franchise for years. They have mountains of research and half-developed civs. They are totally at the point where they could have sat down, looked at their years of "almost" civs, and drawn together better throughlines than everyone is giving them credit for.

 

[chaosprophet]

I think wonders per age is going to be less of an issue. If they are adding as many civs as I think they are, we are just going to have a lot of wonders start doubling up like they did in VI. Which will actually be kind of fun and chaotic I think.

I was just talking about vanilla. If, from seeing tech and civic trees, we know the total of wonders in an age for the base game, then we can know that the total of civs on that era in the base game is at most that amount, probably a bit less as there should be some wonders without a associated civ at launch, even if just the 4 for one of the packs that comes with 4 civs but no wonders.

 

[Siptah]

even if just the 4 for one of the packs that comes with 4 civs but no wonders.

This pack is not likely to exist in that way. It seems to be an error in the description of the founder's edition.

On Steam and on the 2k website, it actually says under the descriptions of the founders edition:

Crossroads of the World Collection, with post-launch content featuring 2 new leaders, 4 new civilizations, 4 new Natural Wonders, a special cosmetic bonus, and more

But other stores (Xbox, PS) say it includes 4 wonders. Steam also says it includes 4 wonders in languages besides English.

If you look at the actual description of the pack itself on not the founder's edition, it says even on the English Steam page:

CROSSROADS OF THE WORLD COLLECTION
Explore new possibilities for your personalized empire with post-launch add-on content, including 2 new leaders, 4 new civilizations, 4 new wonders, a special cosmetic bonus, and more! Full details will be revealed at a later date.

I think this enough evidence to put the idea that crossroads of the world comes without new wonders to rest. In consequence, we can expect that all wonders in the antiquity era tech and civic trees either come with a civ or are unassigned, which is important information for the topic of this thread.

 

[Zaarin]

I think this enough evidence to put the idea that crossroads of the world comes without new wonders to rest. In consequence, we can expect that all wonders in the antiquity era tech and civic trees either come with a civ or are unassigned, which is important information for the topic of this thread.

That's new information for me, but I think it's very useful.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I was just talking about vanilla. If, from seeing tech and civic trees, we know the total of wonders in an age for the base game, then we can know that the total of civs on that era in the base game is at most that amount, probably a bit less as there should be some wonders without a associated civ at launch, even if just the 4 for one of the packs that comes with 4 civs but no wonders.

I see what you mean now. I'm almost wondering if things have been deliberately omitted? I am seeing "gaps" in our images of the tech tree where an unlocked building or wonder or something should go. Maybe you can't even play wonders until you've "unlocked" them by playing the civ.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Rings of Power is actually surprisingly decent as an adaptation and I think will be received more favorably with age. It's still gross that it cost so much, but as art it is not only fine, but also has been extremely calculated to try to sync up with the LotR films.

I recognized your theory, I didn't find it persuasive for many reasons. I'm sorry if you don't, but you haven't been swayed by my theory either, so I don't really know what you are expecting. It's a prediction/speculation thread.

I think the design of this game will facilitate both your Rogue-like idea, as well as still play very much like prior Civ games, if the player wants it to. I acknowledge right now it seems very "alt history," but I can only suggest that you remain patient and see that it may end up being the most historically accurate and sensitive 4X game to date. And the best alt history playbox. At the same time.

I hope you are right, but I just don't believe it.

Cases like your Egypt line cement this for me. Yeah, it would be great to have a Mamluk civ in an age from an Egypt civ, but why Abbasid in between, a mesopotamian empire led by Arabs? The Ayyubids / Sultanate of Egypt would've been a much more sensible choice if they were following your logic, and then that naturally progresses into the Mamluks. As it stands, the Mamluks are a vassal state of the Abbasids effectively, so it would be odd to have them succeed the abbasids, abd given the tenuous nature of the Egypt / Abbasid link I think the more likely successor in this line is the Ottomans who had the same relationship with Egypt that the Abbasids did.

 

[chaosprophet]

This pack is not likely to exist in that way. It seems to be an error in the description of the founder's edition.

On Steam and on the 2k website, it actually says under the descriptions of the founders edition:

But other stores (Xbox, PS) say it includes 4 wonders. Steam also says it includes 4 wonders in languages besides English.

If you look at the actual description of the pack itself on not the founder's edition, it says even on the English Steam page:


I think this enough evidence to put the idea that crossroads of the world comes without new wonders to rest. In consequence, we can expect that all wonders in the antiquity era tech and civic trees either come with a civ or are unassigned, which is important information for the topic of this thread.

I'm aware of that divergence too, but so far I think the 4 natural wonders may be more accurate because it is listed both in on the 2K site and in the FAQ. This may be a case of maybe asking @FXS_Sar , cause they should probably correct whatever version is wrong to avoid giving wrong info on content that can be problematic.

 

[Siptah]

I'm aware of that divergence too, but so far I think the 4 natural wonders may be more accurate because it is listed both in on the 2K site and in the FAQ. This may be a case of maybe asking @FXS_Sar , cause they should probably correct whatever version is wrong to avoid giving wrong info on content that can be problematic.

Let's hope for he best possible outcome: 4 wonders in conjunction with 4 natural wonders

 

[Black Gate]

Let's hope for he best possible outcome: 4 wonders in conjunction with 4 natural wonders

After seeing how gorgeous Zhangjiajie is in game I can't help but agree.

 

[RedCourtJester]

This pack is not likely to exist in that way. It seems to be an error in the description of the founder's edition.

On Steam and on the 2k website, it actually says under the descriptions of the founders edition:

But other stores (Xbox, PS) say it includes 4 wonders. Steam also says it includes 4 wonders in languages besides English.

If you look at the actual description of the pack itself on not the founder's edition, it says even on the English Steam page:


I think this enough evidence to put the idea that crossroads of the world comes without new wonders to rest. In consequence, we can expect that all wonders in the antiquity era tech and civic trees either come with a civ or are unassigned, which is important information for the topic of this thread.

This doesn't really affect my speculation much either way, since I still do not have enough information to really predict the contents of that pack beyond "wouldn't it be nice" ideas.

But, I do think it is more likely the steam and 2k webpages are incorrect, as opposed to the official Civ VII website, especially when it went out of its way to specify "natural wonders" in one description and "wonders" in another.

Unless we have an idea of authorship of these descriptions, I don't think we can really conclude either way. It may have 4 natural wonders, it may have 4 wonders. This is actually one thing I don't think anyone can be making hard conclusions about yet.

I hope you are right, but I just don't believe it.

Cases like your Egypt line cement this for me. Yeah, it would be great to have a Mamluk civ in an age from an Egypt civ, but why Abbasid in between, a mesopotamian empire led by Arabs? The Ayyubids / Sultanate of Egypt would've been a much more sensible choice if they were following your logic, and then that naturally progresses into the Mamluks. As it stands, the Mamluks are a vassal state of the Abbasids effectively, so it would be odd to have them succeed the abbasids, abd given the tenuous nature of the Egypt / Abbasid link I think the more likely successor in this line is the Ottomans who had the same relationship with Egypt that the Abbasids did.

So I haven't fully thought through the logic yet as it applies to Abbasids (it might come as I'm typing this), but some of these civ choices will likely be somewhat prospective. Like, I am reasonably, but not totally sure that the exploration era civ for Japan will be Edo at launch, because in order to accommodate an Ainu leader, the exploration era would need to occur sometime after the Ainu were incorporated into Japan (for better or worse). (It also just happens to work a bit better with Himiko specifically, because the Itsukama Shrine is more comfortably placed in Edo period and fits her themes better than Himeji Castle or Kotoku-In).

So I suspect the Abbasids were picked because of some future "sync-up" with the civs planned to expand that region. For example, we could have used the Rashidun Caliphate if the idea was that we wanted a leader to eventually progress from Rashidun -> Almoravid -> Morocco (probably an Umayyad leader to coalesce that idea). Maybe it wasn't that complicated but as simple as, like Itsukama Shrine, wanting the House of Wisdom as the Arabian exploration era wonder, or Harun Al-Rashid to return as a fairly unproblematic Arabian leader. Actually, I bet it's probably just that.

Abbasids are pulling dual duty here. They are both a middle ground for Egypt, as well as probably the only exploration era Arabian caliphate in the game (meaning they are the most likely to also get an Arabian leader). That, I think, Harun Al-Rashid and the House of Wisdom, explain why Abbasids.