Jester's Final Prediction Thread

[RedCourtJester]

Oh sure, and enjoying the exercise is an excellent reason for doing this! My only point was that one's confidence in predictions shouldn't be correlated with how much one enjoyed making said prediction. If anything, it should be anti-correlated: the less data one has to work with, the more one can have creative fun with it!

We can, at least, agree that I was confident I was having fun in my predictions lol.

So, to start the other half of this thread (I have renamed it to be more aligned with what I hoped it would be at launch):

Any predictions for Tuesday's reveal? I think we can make a pretty safe assumption that most weeks will have some sort of reveal on Tuesdays. They seem to be loosely following "civ on Tuesday," and "wonders and leaders" in the following days of that week, but that seems fairly flexible depending on the goals of that week (and Con panel related stuff).

 

[AntSou]

And there was that antiquity screenshot with 13 civs. I'm dubious about the semantics of "civ." It could mean architectural styles, it could even mean "leaders" (as representing "civs").

I don't want to dogpile on you as I used to spend a lot of time making wild speculation when I first joined (though I didn't have your level of commitment), but you come across as a bit too willing to accept the stretchiest of stretches, and the quote above is a good example of that.

It makes all speculation kind of worthless if you do not set smarter red lines.

A civ is just a civ. We all know what it means, there's no space for interpretation. Firaxis only ever says exactly what it means to say.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Honestly, that's a pretty confusing thing to do IMO. Just starting a clean thread might be better (and will probably make the Mods happier). It's not like we're going to run out of space on the servers by having 1 more thread

That seems fair, I will rename this again to separate it and then make a new weekly guessing thread.

 

[Xandinho]

And there was that antiquity screenshot with 13 civs. I'm dubious about the semantics of "civ." It could mean architectural styles, it could even mean "leaders" (as representing "civs").

Time for some wild speculation: We know there are two DLCs with 8 civs coming, and if we include the Shawnee, that brings the total to 9. If we’re getting an equal number of civs per era, that means we’re getting 3 new civs per era.

Perhaps that screenshot with the blurred icons showing 13 civs - where the 3 icons after Rome are still undefined - might already include the DLC civs. If that’s the case, considering the undefined icons, the three new civs would come alphabetically after Rome. Based on the wonders we know of, we can speculate two of them: Tonga and Silla. But what about the third? Maybe Teotihuacan? The Visigoths? Or perhaps some other civ that hasn’t been speculated yet?

 

[RedCourtJester]

Time for some wild speculation: We know there are two DLCs with 8 civs coming, and if we include the Shawnee, that brings the total to 9. If we’re getting an equal number of civs per era, that means we’re getting 3 new civs per era.

Perhaps that screenshot with the blurred icons showing 13 civs - where the 3 icons after Rome are still undefined - might already include the DLC civs. If that’s the case, considering the undefined icons, the three new civs would come alphabetically after Rome. Based on the wonders we know of, we can speculate two of them: Tonga and Silla. But what about the third? Maybe Teotihuacan? The Visigoths? Or perhaps some other civ that hasn’t been speculated yet?

Well if we are just looking at alphabetical stuff:

Yamatai/Wa and Wagadu still fit and would help Himiko and Amina a lot.

Xiongnu would work fantastic for a Turko-Mongolic expansion.

Sogdia would work for a Pashtun expansion.

Scythia would work for...whatever.

Wessex could work as an English antiquity civ, but I would personally prefer Mercia (and they might just be collectively "Angles" which I think is the fairest way of saying "Heptarchy." And by that logic, Saxons or Vandals could also still be in the running somewhere though I think "Goths" are just all around the best antiquity Germanic representation.

Not an exhaustive list, just what comes to mind.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I have a craaaaaaaaaazy new/updated theory. Crazy. Insane. Utterly insane. There is so much accidental symmetry to this idea it would be scary if true.

But I'm going to wait a few weeks to post it I think. I want to wait until we start seeing more exploration wonders to see if any of my predictions start coming true. Here's at least a shortlist of good indicators to me (or alternative wonders that might represent roughly the same civ/era):

* Trowulan (several options), Malbork Castle/Kopu Lighthouse, Fire Temple, Kilwa Kisiwani, Venetian Arsenal/Uffizi, Tran Quoc Pagoda, Janggieupseong (less sure about this specific wonder), Temple of Kukulkan (or Chichen Itza), and mayyyybe Aachen Cathedral
* (less implicating but still aligning would be something Portuguese like Torre de Belem or Byzantine like Hagia Sofia)
* Bonus!: Krak Chevaliers, Great Mosque of Silvan

But what I will say, is that it would suggest a whopping ~25 wonders per era, if not exactly 25 wonders per era prior to bonus content (Shawnee), at launch. Which...wouldn't be bad for the 7 wonders cultural challenge.

Semi-related tiny prediction: Gabarnmung. Just cuz I want it badly and the numbers might allow for it to squeak in, but it's okay if not.

I think we may start seeing a lot more exploration era footage as soon as October 29th, give or take, although that does depend on what is revealed over the next two weeks.

 

[FishFishFish]

Great Mosque of Silvan

I am curious why you would predict this mosque. The Great Mosque of Silvan is cool, but I don't think it would be very fitting as a wonder. I think there are less obscure mosques built in Anatolia around the same time period (like the Divrigi Great Mosque and Hospital for instance) that would be more wonderous.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I am curious why you would predict this mosque. The Great Mosque of Silvan is cool, but I don't think it would be very fitting as a wonder. I think there are less obscure mosques built in Anatolia around the same time period (like the Divrigi Great Mosque and Hospital for instance) that would be more wonderous.

I think we may see several great mosques, not just that one.

That one in particular would mean certain hypotheses could be true, though. I will tell everyone what I think it means if/after we spot it.

I will say that the two bonus wonders are not central to the crazy hypothesis, just a smaller prediction that could align with it or stand alone.

 

[Wabnosa]

I am going to say this, some may not like it. Maya to Shawnee should be an option.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I am going to say this, some may not like it. Maya to Shawnee should be an option.

I...predict that will absolutely be an option for both solo and multiplayer.

 

[Evolena]

But what I will say, is that it would suggest a whopping ~25 wonders per era, if not exactly 25 wonders per era prior to bonus content (Shawnee), at launch. Which...wouldn't be bad for the 7 wonders cultural challenge.

Remember, the Wonders goal is only for the Antiquity Cultural Legacy Path, each age has its own goals.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Remember, the Wonders goal is only for the Antiquity Cultural Legacy Path, each age has its own goals.

I meant specifically for antiquity!

However, I wouldn't be surprised if wonders were an option for victory in exploration or modern as well (or factor into it).

 

[Evolena]

I meant specifically for antiquity!

Ok, it wasn't clear as you mentioned the Shawnee

 

[chaosprophet]

But what I will say, is that it would suggest a whopping ~25 wonders per era, if not exactly 25 wonders per era prior to bonus content (Shawnee), at launch. Which...wouldn't be bad for the 7 wonders cultural challenge.

You mean in the base game, even though what we saw of the ancient tech tree would mean that is extremely unlikely?
By the way, I'm curious, why would you want that? we already got the release total number of civs, and when they add more civs they can always add their wonders too, so there is no need to have tons of wonders in the game already for civs only coming later on DLCs.

 

[FishFishFish]

I think we may see several great mosques, not just that one.

Sure, but I don’t think they’ll be picking too many built around the same area at similar times.

 

[JNR13]

Perhaps that screenshot with the blurred icons showing 13 civs - where the 3 icons after Rome are still undefined - might already include the DLC civs. If that’s the case, considering the undefined icons, the three new civs would come alphabetically after Rome. Based on the wonders we know of, we can speculate two of them: Tonga and Silla. But what about the third? Maybe Teotihuacan? The Visigoths? Or perhaps some other civ that hasn’t been speculated yet?

They could simply come after Rome because they are loaded after Rome. In Civ VI, the game usually orders things by their database index, not the assigned name, unless scripted so in the UI. The database index goes by content first and then alphabetically, meaning the civ list is first the base game civs in alphabetical order, then the civs of the first DLC in alphabetical order, etc.

Chances are high that at least some of the ancient DLC civs involve Assyria and/or Babylon, who would come early in the alphabet.

 

[RedCourtJester]

You mean in the base game, even though what we saw of the ancient tech tree would mean that is extremely unlikely?
By the way, I'm curious, why would you want that? we already got the release total number of civs, and when they add more civs they can always add their wonders too, so there is no need to have tons of wonders in the game already for civs only coming later on DLCs.

Yeah that's part of the craziness. Really insane idea, not even worth putting out publicly unless we start seeing a lot of oddly specific wonders.

I can't really say I want that, but I can say that the antiquity era could be argued to want a decent bulk of wonders at launch to make the 7 wonders win-con at all competitive. I would not be surprised, as a matter of aesthetic/gameplay symmetry (since we can play these eras separately), that the other two eras will have the same numbers as well.

We just don't know what that number per era might be yet.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah that's part of the craziness. Really insane idea, not even worth putting out publicly unless we start seeing a lot of oddly specific wonders.

I can't really say I want that, but I can say that the antiquity era could be argued to want a decent bulk of wonders at launch to make the 7 wonders win-con at all competitive. I would not be surprised, as a matter of aesthetic/gameplay symmetry (since we can play these eras separately), that the other two eras will have the same numbers as well.

We just don't know what that number per era might be yet.

That might be part of the reason for the #player limitations

Since each player will probably get their own civs wonder fairly easily, only excess wonders can be competed for.

If 1/4 of the players go for the Wonder game, then they need about 2.5 total wonders per player.

with 5 players in ancient that means that ~12 wonders
If they get 16 ancient civs and allow 16 players, then you need 30-40 wonders for the wonder game to be competitive but achievable.

 

[RedCourtJester]

That might be part of the reason for the #player limitations

Since each player will probably get their own civs wonder fairly easily, only excess wonders can be competed for.

If 1/4 of the players go for the Wonder game, then they need about 2.5 total wonders per player.

with 5 players in ancient that means that ~12 wonders
If they get 16 ancient civs and allow 16 players, then you need 30-40 wonders for the wonder game to be competitive but achievable.

3.5 wonders per player would make it competitive. So with 5 players that would be 17.5 wonders.

But then we are also looking at where those wonders might be placed in the tree and unlocks. Maybe if enough are further down and in disparate locations, that might suggest a few more.

Another option, which may be suggested by those blanks in the exploration tree, would be that, apart from universal wonders, only the civs' own wonders would be buildable in the game. That would ensure a soft lock on the wonders cap no matter how many antiquity civs they add to the game, to keep that victory path viable.

If that happened to be the case, even in my crazy model (or indeed any speculative model), the cultural victory would be competing for: Nalanda, Teotihuacan, Terracotta Army, Mausoleum of Theodoric, Petra, Colossus of Rhodes, and (I hypothesize, a revealed number 8) + the 5 civ-associated wonders being played. In that model, the total is always 13, meaning two players can reasonably compete and the race can feel tight, but only one can win.

It would also explain why (a) we've seen so many antiquity wonders but fewer later wonders (because they needed a lot of universals), and (b) why we could very easily have not seen the wonders of unrevealed antiquity civs (since they would not have been buildable in games not played with them).

 

[Krikkit1]

3.5 wonders per player would make it competitive. So with 5 players that would be 17.5 wonders.

But then we are also looking at where those wonders might be placed in the tree and unlocks. Maybe if enough are further down and in disparate locations, that might suggest a few more.

Another option, which may be suggested by those blanks in the exploration tree, would be that, apart from universal wonders, only the civs' own wonders would be buildable in the game. That would ensure a soft lock on the wonders cap no matter how many antiquity civs they add to the game, to keep that victory path viable.

If that happened to be the case, even in my crazy model (or indeed any speculative model), the cultural victory would be competing for: Nalanda, Teotihuacan, Terracotta Army, Mausoleum of Theodoric, Petra, Colossus of Rhodes, and (I hypothesize, a revealed number 8) + the 5 civ-associated wonders being played. In that model, the total is always 13, meaning two players can reasonably compete and the race can feel tight, but only one can win.

It would also explain why (a) we've seen so many antiquity wonders but fewer later wonders (because they needed a lot of universals), and (b) why we could very easily have not seen the wonders of unrevealed antiquity civs (since they would not have been buildable in games not played with them).

I don’t think they will change the wonders available based on the civs in the game, because that means you look at ghe tech/civic tree and know what civs care out there.

It does mean bigger map sizes with more antiquity players will be probably be available in a balance way when more civs are available.

Once they Do have more wonders available (more civs /more unattached. there becomes the issue with the wonder race becoming too easy)

Keeping the player:wonder ratio at least 1:~2.5~3.5 means possibly having some random wonders disabled in this game for smaller than maximum player count game maps.

Shouldn’t be the wonders of any civ in the game, but possibly randomly disabling Some of the ones currently or permanently unattached would work.

So if the Maya wonder is missing you know they aren’t in this game, but if it is in the game they might still be missing.

(that might have to be a setting though, people would not like to have wonders disabled even though there are a lot of them)

It might reasonably balance out though. If. there are fewer players, the easier wonders will be to get so more civs will go for them. (which means more of the low level Wonder Legacy earned, but maybe just as much as the high one)