Polygon pre-order article includes additional information on DLC

[Uberfrog]

On the one hand I’m glad that the DLC contents have been revealed before release.

On the other, I feel bad for Sar and all those careful marketing plans!

Interesting that they've gone specifically with "Great Britain", and not "Britain" or "United Kingdom". Great Britain is defunct as a political entity by 1801, so plenty of 4th age wiggle room there...

I don’t think they’re being that pedantic with the names, and besides the 1800 Acts of Union were about the annexation of Ireland, something I can see Firaxis avoiding.

 

[Hilton1]

I feel a bit disappointed if these leaks are true.

Britain is necessary and arguably should have been in the base game, but I don't think Ada Lovelace is a suitable leader. She lacks any of the political role of Franklin, Lafayette, Machiavelli, or Tubman. Also, those four arguably only work because they are part of a varied roster - having Lovelace as the only choice for Britain sucks imo. Queen Victoria would have been perfect, while Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, or a medieval English King could have helped compensate for the lack of an out-and-out England Exploration Civ.

Happy enough with Assyria, Silla, Carthage, and Qajars. Uninterested by Bulgaria and Nepal, which are weird choices imo.

The other leaders are also cool - I don't know much about Lakshmibai, but happy to find out. Genghis Khan is a must, and Bolivar makes sense for an uncoupled South American leader (though personally I would have liked to see a Leftist revolutionary figure.)

While that breakdown sounds fairly positive, I feel a lot of the big hitters that I'm most excited for are missing: a proper British leader, Aztecs + Montezuma, Babylon + a Mesopotamian leader, Byzantium (an obvious choice for the civ progression), Celts / Norse (a non-Roman European pathway), and Ottomans + a modern Middle Eastern leader.

Edit: Forgot Dai Viet. They're unexciting but fine to me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Which ones have associated wonders? I assume Silla, Assyria and Great Britain have, do we have any one else fitting? It's possible Polygon messed the order and the first DLC pack will be based on existing wonders.

 

[Siptah]

Which ones have associated wonders? I assume Silla, Assyria and Great Britain have, do we have any one else fitting? It's possible Polygon messed the order and the first DLC pack will be based on existing wonders.

I think at this point, it‘s also an option that „CotW doesn‘t include wonders“ meant no wonders aside from the ones associated with the new civs.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think at this point, it‘s also an option that „CotW doesn‘t include wonders“ meant no wonders aside from the ones associated with the new civs.

I find it really strange to add wonders and not list them in DLC. DLC description should display its value to the maximum. So, I don't think so.

Potentially there could be some civilizations without associated wonders at all, but with some other bonuses instead. Similarly to how we've seen civilization without unique civilian units recently.

 

[Nikolai II]

I bet 2K PR is a bit miffed now.

 

[Siptah]

I find it really strange to add wonders and not list them in DLC. DLC description should display its value to the maximum. So, I don't think so.

Potentially there could be some civilizations without associated wonders at all, but with some other bonuses instead. Similarly to how we've seen civilization without unique civilian units recently.

There has been some lack of clarity whether wonders are listed or not at several times. Some months ago, Sarah stated that CotW has no wonders. But recent listings since then say it includes wonders. So… it does list the maximum?

 

[Riconatic]

She lacks any of the political role of Franklin, Lafayette, Machiavelli, or Tubman. Also, those four arguably only work because they are part of a varied roster - having Lovelace as the only choice for Britain sucks imo. Queen Victoria would have been perfect, while Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, or a medieval English King could have helped compensate for the lack of an out-and-out England Exploration Civ.

There is no such requirement anywhere.

It would be absolutely stupid for Firaxis to self inflict such restriction now that the systems below support anything.

Of course we cannot know which way "sells better", but Ada Lovelace is awesome instead "old civ way".

 

[stealth_nsk]

There has been some lack of clarity whether wonders are listed or not at several times. Some months ago, Sarah stated that CotW has no wonders. But recent listings since then say it includes wonders. So… it does list the maximum?

Text on Steam page still lists:

• 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
• Right to Rule Collection, with post-launch content featuring 2 new leaders, 4 new civilizations, 4 new wonders, a special cosmetic bonus, and more!*

I really doubt Firaxis would hide 3 wonders under "more", especially providing Right to Rule listing wonders.

So far, most convincing version to me is what we'll get all civs with associated wonders in CotW and it's just Polygon mistake. This would explain not only absence of wonders in CotW, but also their presence in RtR (it wouldn't make sense to include 4 wonders with you have Silla and Assyria which already have wonders).

With this, I guess in CotW we'll have Silla, Assyria, Nepal and Britain with Nalanda being Nepalese wonder.

 

[Siptah]

Text on Steam page still lists:

I really doubt Firaxis would hide 3 wonders under "more", especially providing Right to Rule listing wonders.

So far, most convincing version to me is what we'll get all civs with associated wonders in CotW and it's just Polygon mistake. This would explain not only absence of wonders in CotW, but also their presence in RtR (it wouldn't make sense to include 4 wonders with you have Silla and Assyria which already have wonders).

With this, I guess in CotW we'll have Silla, Assyria, Nepal and Britain with Nalanda being Nepalese wonder.

 

[trev1972]

So, if i want to play britain i need the deluxe edition game at £89.99, they want an extra £30.00 for a couple of leaders and 4 civs, right?
That is a fair bit of money for stuff that should be in the base game.

 

[Hilton1]

There is no such requirement anywhere.

It would be absolutely stupid for Firaxis to self inflict such restriction now that the systems below support anything.

Of course we cannot know which way "sells better", but Ada Lovelace is awesome instead "old civ way".

I'm not saying that Firaxis has imposed any requirement - clearly they haven't. But these figures are all being sold as leaders, who lead your civilisation - implying some sort of leadership capabilities or political influence. All of the other inclusions except Ada Lovelace have this.

It's also strange elevating someone like Lovelace to the status of a leader, when she's less influential or interesting than a lot of the figures listed as the equivalent of great people, whether Egypt's Tjaty, Greece's Logios, Abbasid's Alims, or France's Jacobins. Surely as a mathematician and a writer, Lovelace fits much better in a similar great person category - perhaps Britain could have had 'inventors' or 'scientists' with her, Babbage, Bell, Brunel, Darwin, Newton, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "instead 'old civ way.'"? I'm not against them experimenting and I like the freedom given by uncoupling civs and leaders, but for me, I think Ada Lovelace is a bad choice, especially as the only leader for England/Britain.

 

[stealth_nsk]

View attachment 717049

Yes, image is old and haven't changes since the announce. Text is newer.

 

[Siptah]

Yes, image is old and haven't changes since the announce. Text is newer.

not true, but funny to see how you stick to your point. Guess we‘ll get confirmation on Bulgaria in CotW in a few hours.

 

[stealth_nsk]

not true, but funny to see how you stick to your point. Guess we‘ll get confirmation on Bulgaria in CotW in a few hours.

If I remember correctly, original text was including just "wonders" and later it was changed to "natural wonders". Here's the link to Sarah post: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ploration-age-livestream.692874/post-16703535

 

[Siptah]

If I remember correctly, original text was including just "wonders" and later it was changed to "natural wonders". Here's the link to Sarah post: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ploration-age-livestream.692874/post-16703535

I remember that, as I checked the texts in multiple languages and stores, but the image is even newer. At that time, there was only text.

That said, antiquity Nepal is quite unlikely, and Nalanda as associated wonder even more so. That would be a super-strange choice à la ancient Albania with the Zeus statue wonder.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I remember that, but the image is even newer.

Maybe, but there could be a lot of things, like the image actually made earlier. Anyway, both options are possible, it's just a question of probabilities now. Either Polygon or Firaxis provide wrong information.

 

[evonannoredars]

So, if i want to play britain i need the deluxe edition game at £89.99, they want an extra £30.00 for a couple of leaders and 4 civs, right?
That is a fair bit of money for stuff that should be in the base game.

No, CotW and RtR will be purchaseable seperately and hopefully for a lower price. Also there's no reason why Britain 'should' be in the base game.

 

[UWHabs]

There's always a chance that since the initial announcement, they decided to re-arrange some of the roster around for whatever reason. But it's weird that the Steam description of the packs differs from the website description.

I'm assuming they'll clarify more on today's stream. Maybe not confirm the civs in each pack, but presumably re-inforce what's included in the sets.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

ada lovelace is such a good leader choice tho

i was hoping for a british scientist so this is awesome

bulgaria and nepal are really cool choices as well!