Putting aside DLC-practices concerns, any hopes/expectations for the two 'Collections' named so far (Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule)?

[Zaarin]

Crossroads absolutely makes me think of the middle east themed pack

Either Middle East or Central Asia/Silk Road. It's high time we got some interesting Silk Road civs TBH.

 

[GeneralZIft]

They're Leader and Civilisation packs and not Expansions? Or how does it work exactly?

 

[Zaarin]

They're Leader and Civilisation packs and not Expansions? Or how does it work exactly?

I'd be surprised if we don't see more traditional expansion-style DLC later on, but these are just leaders and civs.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

They're Leader and Civilisation packs and not Expansions? Or how does it work exactly?

It's probably similar to the tail of Civ 6, there's civ and leader DLCs first and expansions a year or two down the road, and then more DLCs after that.

 

[Arent11]

In a way isn't that kind of what we're already getting? You play as your own unique empire that takes from your favourite real life civilizations from each era, lead by your favourite historical figure. Really it's the most custom the series has ever been to my knowledge.

(1) Own name
(2) Freely selectable flag (from the existing civs)
(3) Architecture (from the existing civs)
(4) Traits
(5) All of that possible for all three ages, I design my follow up civ

However, although this is an obvious choice, this would strongly reduce the incentive to buy additional civ packs so I don't think Firaxis will do it.

 

[pokiehl]

(1) Own name
(2) Freely selectable flag (from the existing civs)
(3) Architecture (from the existing civs)
(4) Traits
(5) All of that possible for all three ages, I design my follow up civ

If the modding capabilities are like Civ 5 and Civ 6 at least, you should be able to accomplish most of that pretty easily. I don't know how #5 could fit in the framework of the game though so maybe that would be challenging to mod.

 

[Arent11]

If the modding capabilities are like Civ 5 and Civ 6 at least, you should be able to accomplish most of that pretty easily. I don't know how #5 could fit in the framework of the game though so maybe that would be challenging to mod.

I think it would just be predesigning 3 civs for the 3 ages. And be honest with picking not overpowered traits.

Having a *menu* to select these names, flags and traits in-game between the ages would of course be much more challenging.

 

[Fletchers_Requiem]

Either Middle East or Central Asia/Silk Road. It's high time we got some interesting Silk Road civs TBH.

High-key agree, There's a LOT of untapped potential in that entire region tbh.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

With two leaders and four civilizations - i can't help but wonder if any of these leaders could rule more than one civ in the pack.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

With two leaders and four civilizations - i can't help but wonder if any of these leaders could rule more than one civ in the pack.

Technically, all leaders can now.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

How silly of me to forget that little detail.

I guess they're all 'historic choices' in Fireaxis' eyes. One new Mongolian leader in every DLC pack.

 

[Zaarin]

One new Mongolian leader in every DLC pack.

Oh, good, then that means sooner or later we'll get Sorghaghtani Beki, whom I've been requesting for years.

 

[Professor Phobo]

How silly of me to forget that little detail.

I guess they're all 'historic choices' in Fireaxis' eyes. One new Mongolian leader in every DLC pack.

The leader switch isn't a "historic choice" thing, it's more like "Well we let anyone build any wonder of the world, so why not...?" decision.

 

[Zaarin]

The leader switch isn't a "historic choice" thing, it's more like "Well we let anyone build any wonder of the world, so why not...?" decision.

That, and otherwise we'd only have Ancient/Classical leaders. Which, you know, I wouldn't complain about.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

The leader switch isn't a "historic choice" thing, it's more like "Well we let anyone build any wonder of the world, so why not...?" decision.

It's a little ironic that civs now get a boost towards their historic wonders given the new leader mechanics. This could be the most unique civ game yet.

Although on the topic of the Mongols (and off-topic from the thread) I wonder if we'll ever get a civ that can only found towns and not cities (save for the capital and/or captured capitals). It could be a great way to represent a nomadic empire civ (Huns). In the past we've had civs with unique restrictions (Venice, Kongo)..

 

[Zaarin]

Although on the topic of the Mongols (and off-topic from the thread) I wonder if we'll ever get a civ that can only found towns and not cities (save for the capital and/or captured capitals). It could be a great way to represent a nomadic empire civ (Huns). In the past we've had civs with unique restrictions (Venice, Kongo)..

That could be a very interesting mechanic. Even if it were just "only towns other than the capital."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

How silly of me to forget that little detail.

I guess they're all 'historic choices' in Fireaxis' eyes. One new Mongolian leader in every DLC pack.

I wouldn't be surprised if each leader is the historical choice for one of the civs. Tecumseh is coming packed with the Shawnee after all.

 

[Krikkit1]

That could be a very interesting mechanic. Even if it were just "only towns other than the capital."

Or no cities at all but some of the restrictions on towns lifted/worked around
ie Towns Can build culture buildings or produce culture with a UU stationed in it /Culture from conquest.. Commanders can buy troops with gold. Special unit that counts as the Capital.

 

[Atlas627]

I’m confused how there could be four civs each in the packs when there are three ages. Do they not intend to have an equal amount of civs per age after all?

Did they ever say they were trying to keep civs even across the Ages? I never assumed they would.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That could be a very interesting mechanic. Even if it were just "only towns other than the capital."

If you read some of the contemporary accounts/descriptions of pastoral 'cities' and compare them to archeological findings (Gelonias, Batu Sarai, etc), the 'cities' of pastoral groups tended to:
1. Cover huge areas because they liked to have room for at least some of their flocks and herds with them at all times.
2. Have a lot of 'temporary' structures like yurts and tents instead of the stone/brick/permanent buildings we associate with 'cities'.

In other words, they were structurally different from normal cities in any Age.

So, it would not be out of line to have a Civ represented that only built Towns, but its first or capital-designated Town had a special 'political center' structure of some kind - and as an added feature, they could switch the capital to a new Town almost at will - this would make them, as they actually were, very difficult to pin down and conquer.

I have been hoping for the Civ franchise to come up with a better way of representing the pastoral and the city-state Civs for years, and this might, at least, be a way of representing the pastoral Civs. In the new structure of the game this is even more important, because pastorals from Scythia/Sarmatia/Xong-Nu to Jurchen/Bulgar/Mongol will/should be important in two of the three Ages - and now, neatly side-stepping the Big Pastoral Problem, they simply become an entirely new, settled Civ in the Modern Age when pastorialism becomes non-competitive.