Yeah, I noticed they don't have base yields too. I can't imagine the combination of a coast/nriver adjacency and a mountain adjacency are going to be so powerful together that they nixed the base yields for balance. I hope it's just a typo.
So do I, but it might also be because they get the extra specialist that would compensate for that. I sorta hope I am wrong on that.
The Sultanate of Brunei would be a great option for another modern Southeast Asian civilization, serving as an alternative to Siam. Even better, it has historical connections to Majapahit.I hope at one point we gonna get second Indonesian civ with a different flavor, for example Islamic one (say Aceh or Mataram Sultanate), it's the third time we are getting Hindu-Buddhist Javanese empire(I was tempted to say "Majapahit" but to be fair kris swordmen and candi of civ5 Indonesia preceded Majapahit empire)
In the Exploration stream we saw that the Education technology increases the Specialist Limit.
Yes, there are a few places in Exploration that increase this Limit. It's necessary for the Enlightenment Legacy Path. Which makes Majapahit particularly adept at it!
And the nice thing is they can sell DLCs to get those numbers up, so that if there is enough demand for 5 different Balkan civs, well that's some more DLCs.If that's what they want, that's what they want. It's not any more or less right than wanting any other mix of civs and leaders. And I suspect they represent a large segment of the buying audience. Probably at least as many if not more than the segment that wants a lot of Asian civilizations. Almost certainly a lot more than the segment that wants significant African, South American and Polynesian representation.
The good thing about Firaxis launching the base game with only 10 civs per age is that they're likely to annoy every segment of their potential audience in roughly equal measure. Other than the "I'm just happy to play anyone" and the "civs are just bonus numbers anyway" segments.
Ugh, I hope not. I hope Civ6 was an aberration with its weird fixation on modern nation-states. What we've seen so far of Civ7 looks like that is the case IMO.
Well if there are enough others, then I think that is fine, if they churn out a regular stream of DLCs to get to 80-90 civs by the end then if
I'm fine with adding more Modern (as in era), but every boring 20th century nation-state is taking up a slot that could literally be anything else IMO.
Though at least in Civ7 they don't have to drag in a boring 20th century "Person In a Nondescript Suit" along with each boring nation-state. 
All that being said, their modern age selection definitely seems to skew towards the 17th/18th century and to a lesser extent 19th century, and I thoroughly approve of that....that a young man in possession of a large fortune must be in want of a wife.
There's definitely a higher level of synergy with this pair than we have seen with most Antiquity->Exploration civ sequences, although Egypt->Abbasids has some secret synergy with Wonder/Quarter adjacencies and Aksum->Songhai looks promising.Seems like starting as Khmer, going for a massive capital, then swapping to Majapahit in exploration AND moving palace to a new coastal city thus unlocking the Majapahit noncap specialist bonuses is a pretty good option. Extra limit as Majapahit+Angkor, stacking maintenence reductions, extra gold+culture, what's not to like?
Either we like it or not with our modern idealistic view, most rulers were males in human history. That doesn't mean female rulers didn't exist and shouldn't be represented, but stuff like Gorgo leading a Greek civilization appear silly. Of course, such options are now more acceptable since Firaxis has outright presented their intention to pick non-rulers as leaders for Civilization VII, but it isn't wrong when someone wants the most infamous or celebrated leader of his/her nation to lead his/her civilization in the game.
No, but the opposite view that most of the famous leaders are boring choices is equally valid. One of my biggest disappointments with Civ7, aside from the bad take on religion, is that they've gone back to Civ5's "marble hall" philosophy of leader selection. Civ6 made much more interesting choices, and not just with female leaders--e.g., who expected Hojo Tokimune or Teddy Roosevelt? I get some people want the "these leaders and civs were mentioned in my grade school history classes" take on Civilization, but I personally find that vision extremely, extremely dull. (And I'm not saying they're wrong for having it, but I wouldn't want to play a version of Civ built around that philosophy myself.) I'm still waiting for Civ7 to really surprise me with a leader choice, but at least that's been offset by some pleasant surprises among the civs (particularly Mississippians).
As many on these forums have noted, the rationale seems to be that the safer leader choices are meant to counterbalance the drastic change that is civ switching and uncoupled leaders. I'd give it a few DLC packs, and then we can see if the leader diversity has improved.
