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

[CrackerJack45]

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

No but it would be pleasant for my lizard brain for them to all be nice and even

 

[Acepox]

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.

A horrible choice in my view.

For both gameplay, lore, and psychological reasons

It means you'll get things as ridiculous as, as I've mentioned in another thread, something like Cecil Rhodes ruling the Zulu or an Aztec ruling Mongolia.

And in terms of gameplay it means the leaders' unique abilities all have to be neutered, à la Civ 4, in order to prevent overpowered combinations with Civilization uniques. That makes individual leaders much less interesting than they could be, as they were in Civ 5, and 6 especially.

Lastly, it's psychologically bad because it contributes to choice overload, while also degrading the identity of your Civ. We're all just meaningless blobs now. Not only are you not Japan anymore in 60 turns, your leader isn't even Japanese either.

 

[Arent11]

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.

Wonders could definitely be unique to a civilization.

Could even be a victory condition - build your unique civ wonder & hold it for 100 turns to win a culture victory.

 

[Professor Phobo]

My main point is, the Civilization series has always had lots of "this is a thing from history" ... "but you can build it outside of it's historical location" and similar things. Great people, wonders, why not civ leaders?

 

[bbbt]

(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.

If you are just selecting traits/UA/UU etc from the existing base, that doesn't actual reduce the incentive to buy additional civ packs, as buying more adds more options for your custom civ.

I think if they ever do a 'classic mode', it will be something along those lines, where you basically just pick from available civ traits instead of "changing" civs.

 

[Arent11]

My main point is, the Civilization series has always had lots of "this is a thing from history" ... "but you can build it outside of it's historical location" and similar things. Great people, wonders, why not civ leaders?

Well of course, it's the question where you draw the line. The Romans building the Pyramids or tanks to conquer the world sounds pretty cool, adds to the game & might be possible

The Romans being led by Montezuma is a completely different culture/ethnic group.

Did the Aztecs subjugate & wipe out the Romans? Then they are Aztecs, but just ruling over enslaved/colonized Romans & this is already present in the current game mechanics. You should say that in the game to make it clear. The Aztecs razed all Roman cities and resettled their lands. Happened in many civ games already for sure.

Did the Romans voluntarily elect Montezuma, the enemy king of the Aztecs, that doesn't even speak latin, as their next Emperor? Then make that clear as well. Have him wear a Toga, speak latin & refer to Mars, after all, he adopted the Roman culture & became a full fledged Roman, right?

But... why do we need him at all, and not just a Roman senator that fills the role? What does it add to the game? Why is making Montezuma a Toga wearing Roman emperor a fun game mechanic? Isn't he cooler in his leaf outfit, referring to some Aztec god & leading the Aztecs?

Most importantly: Was this done because it is really a fun game mechanic or to promote diversity?

I'm all for fun game mechanics if they make sense & add something to the game. Razing cities & wiping out other civs is mechanically already present. And of course the subjugated Roman cities become "Aztecs". Adopting an emperor from foreign lands is not yet present, probably because it doesn't really add anything to the game that can't be done by an additional Roman leader.

 

[Arent11]

If you are just selecting traits/UA/UU etc from the existing base, that doesn't actual reduce the incentive to buy additional civ packs, as buying more adds more options for your custom civ.

I think if they ever do a 'classic mode', it will be something along those lines, where you basically just pick from available civ traits instead of "changing" civs.

Well, they didn't add such an option in civ 6 despite adding zombies & vampires. So, I don't think the designers want people to create their own civs

Yes, additional civ packs could still introduce new visuals, flags, architecture & traits. You would then just buy them to get a cooler flag or a new trait.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Well of course, it's the question where you draw the line. The Romans building the Pyramids or tanks to conquer the world sounds pretty cool, adds to the game & might be possible

The Romans being led by Montezuma is a completely different culture/ethnic group.

Did the Aztecs subjugate & wipe out the Romans? Then they are Aztecs, but just ruling over enslaved/colonized Romans & this is already present in the current game mechanics. You should say that in the game to make it clear. The Aztecs razed all Roman cities and resettled their lands. Happened in many civ games already for sure.

Did the Romans voluntarily elect Montezuma, the enemy king of the Aztecs, that doesn't even speak latin, as their next Emperor? Then make that clear as well. Have him wear a Toga, speak latin & refer to Mars, after all, he adopted the Roman culture & became a full fledged Roman, right?

But... why do we need him at all, and not just a Roman senator that fills the role? What does it add to the game? Why is making Montezuma a Toga wearing Roman emperor a fun game mechanic? Isn't he cooler in his leaf outfit, referring to some Aztec god & leading the Aztecs?

Most importantly: Was this done because it is really a fun game mechanic or to promote diversity?

I'm all for fun game mechanics if they make sense & add something to the game. Razing cities & wiping out other civs is mechanically already present. And of course the subjugated Roman cities become "Aztecs". Adopting an emperor from foreign lands is not yet present, probably because it doesn't really add anything to the game that can't be done by an additional Roman leader.

So in the ideal form of Civ VII, we do away with specific leaders and replace them all with generic “administrators” in European, Indigenous American, and African, and Asian garb, and use them as the figureheads by which we identify our allies and rivals? Is that the solve here?

 

[Arent11]

So in the ideal form of Civ VII, we do away with specific leaders and replace them all with generic “administrators” in European, Indigenous American, and African, and Asian garb, and use them as the figureheads by which we identify our allies and rivals? Is that the solve here?

Nope, because the motivation for me and other players is to play my own custom civ & play against cool enemy civs like Romans led by Caesar, Aztecs led by Montezuma, Mongols led by Ghengis Khan.

Imagining here that in another life we hold off the Mongol hordes, flirt with the Egyptian queen Cleopatra or barter with the king of Portugal.

Having generic administrators would be boring. Having Cleopatra flirting with you in some old Egyptian language & traditional garb while leading the highly aggressive Mongols would just be confusing.

 

[Thormodr]

This was my thought as to why the crossroads may in part be about Afghanistan:

Afghanistan

Understanding, revealing, and protecting the past
Aghanistan is the quintessential “crossroads of cultures” where the civilizations of the Near East, Central Asia, South Asia, and China interacted over thousands of years through a constantly shifting mixture of trade, cultural borrowings, migration, imperial conquests, and periodic conflict. This complex history of contacts gave rise to some of the most important archaeological, artistic, architectural, and textual treasures in world cultural heritage—encompassing cultures as diverse as the Bronze Age cities of Bactria, the Achaemenid Persian Empire, the easternmost colonies founded by Alexander the Great and his Hellenistic successors, the Kushan Empire astride the Silk Road, the monumental Buddhas of Bamiyan, and the Timurid masterpieces of late medieval Islamic architecture in Heart.

Afghanistan | Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures

isac.uchicago.edu

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Praying for Kushan -> Timurids -> Afghanistan dream progression path

 

[Thormodr]

Praying for Kushan -> Timurids -> Afghanistan dream progression path

That is not too bad, actually.

 

[BuchiTaton]

This was my thought as to why the crossroads may in part be about Afghanistan:

Afghanistan

Understanding, revealing, and protecting the past
Aghanistan is the quintessential “crossroads of cultures” where the civilizations of the Near East, Central Asia, South Asia, and China interacted over thousands of years through a constantly shifting mixture of trade, cultural borrowings, migration, imperial conquests, and periodic conflict. This complex history of contacts gave rise to some of the most important archaeological, artistic, architectural, and textual treasures in world cultural heritage—encompassing cultures as diverse as the Bronze Age cities of Bactria, the Achaemenid Persian Empire, the easternmost colonies founded by Alexander the Great and his Hellenistic successors, the Kushan Empire astride the Silk Road, the monumental Buddhas of Bamiyan, and the Timurid masterpieces of late medieval Islamic architecture in Heart.

Afghanistan | Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures

isac.uchicago.edu

By the way Central Asia is another example of how CIV7's limitation to 3 ages create its own dilemmas.
- ANCIENT, could be Sogdians , Bactrians or Tocharians since they were the core trading cultures of the silk route and seems like this time civ candidates could borrow others leaders. Still they are good material for Independent Peoples, so more empire-like entities like Kushan and Hephthalites could take the place.
- EXPLORATION, the arrival of Turkic peoples particularly Karluk > Chagatai and the introduction of Islam would be obviously covered by something like Gurkani (Timurids>Mughals).
- MODERN, it seems like this age would cover something around 1850 onwards, we know that proper Central Asia had Kokand and Bukhara triying but not as their best shape, so cross the Hindu Kush to Kabul>Afghanistan would fit for the era.

Now this bring another elephant to the room of CIV7...Would we going to have the same (or close) amount of civ options for each of the three ages?
I mean, could be me but the Modern Age seems to need to be filled mostly with pretty boring recent incarnations of cultures that could be more interesting in previous eras, many times just under a specific ideology, goverment or ruling group.

 

[Thormodr]

By the way Central Asia is another example of how CIV7's limitation to 3 ages create its own dilemmas.
- ANCIENT, could be Sogdians , Bactrians or Tocharians since they were the core trading cultures of the silk route and seems like this time civ candidates could borrow others leaders. Still they are good material for Independent Peoples, so more empire-like entities like Kushan and Hephthalites could take the place.
- EXPLORATION, the arrival of Turkic peoples particularly Karluk > Chagatai and the introduction of Islam would be obviously covered by something like Gurkani (Timurids>Mughals).
- MODERN, it seems like this age would cover something around 1850 onwards, we know that proper Central Asia had Kokand and Bukhara triying but not as their best shape, so cross the Hindu Kush to Kabul>Afghanistan would fit for the era.

Now this bring another elephant to the room of CIV7...Would we going to have the same (or close) amount of civ options for each of the three ages?
I mean, could be me but the Modern Age seems to need to be filled mostly with pretty boring recent incarnations of cultures that could be more interesting in previous eras, many times just under a specific ideology, goverment or ruling group.

Yes. Central Asia could be very interesting.

Also agree that the Modern Age has the potential to be a little dull if they shoehorn Civs into exclusive ages. Will have to see gameplay to really find out.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

While a 'Silk Road' leader/civ is a given, there's also the Indian Ocean and Trans-Saharan trade routes to be considered. But with the Songhai in the base game I don't know if the latter is likely.

However the Hausa were another major hub of cultural transmission between sub-saharan Africa and North Africa. There were Hausa merchants in so many different African civilizations (from Mali to Ashanti to Tripoli). If the Hausa are not in the base game they might make it to DLC. That's assuming Fireaxis didn't just mix up the Hausa & Songhai.

 

[Zaarin]

While a 'Silk Road' leader/civ is a given, there's also the Indian Ocean and Trans-Saharan trade routes to be considered. But with the Songhai in the base game I don't know if the latter is likely.

However the Hausa were another major hub of cultural transmission between sub-saharan Africa and North Africa. There were Hausa merchants in so many different African civilizations (from Mali to Ashanti to Tripoli). If the Hausa are not in the base game they might make it to DLC. That's assuming Fireaxis didn't just mix up the Hausa & Songhai.

I don't think they confused the Songhai and the Hausa; more likely they said "Amina is interesting so close enough." However, I also hope we see the Hausa at some point.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I don't think they confused the Songhai and the Hausa; more likely they said "Amina is interesting so close enough." However, I also hope we see the Hausa at some point.

That's my thought as well. And since leaders are divorced from civs, "cool and interesting" supercedes "directly associated".

 

[Acepox]

I'm all for fun game mechanics if they make sense & add something to the game. Razing cities & wiping out other civs is mechanically already present. And of course the subjugated Roman cities become "Aztecs". Adopting an emperor from foreign lands is not yet present, probably because it doesn't really add anything to the game that can't be done by an additional Roman leader.

You just sparked an idea in mind. That we should have the option, when we conquer a city, to quick-rename it in accordance with our own Civ's city name list, and purge half its population (in historical terms, the male half), causing short-term, well... population loss, and unhappiness, but increased long-term loyalty.

Basically, giving us four total choices: hold-to-cede, raze, integrate, or assimilate.

Assimilate has worst immediate diplomatic consequences, but fade away over time, while integrate leaves room for irredentist resentment.

 

[Ornen]

My best guess for Crossroads: Kushan (ancient), Ottomans (exploration), Oman (exploration), Turkey (modern)

"Right to Rule" is pretty vague. Based on what we know so far about the current list for release, though, I wouldn't be surprised to see Edo Japan / Tokugawa Shogunate as a headliner civ in this pack. Austria would also make a very fitting choice.

Would love to see nomadic mechanics in a full expansion, and/or maybe more fleshed out crisis periods.

 

[Big J Money]

Doesn't it make sense to have more Civs in later ages? Since two ancient era civs could evolve into the same exploration era Civ, it'd be best to give them more options.

In fact I suspect that's why there's a 5 player limit for the 2 earlier ages, and that that limit is probably temporary until more civs are added.

The map also expands in later ages, making more room for more civs. I don't know if this is correct/confirmed, but I've been assuming that when the map expands, more AI civs will be added to the map that weren't there before. That would influence yet another reason to have more civs from later ages.