Speculation on civ unlocks in the base game

[uppi]

Now that we know all 10 civs of the antiquity age in the base game and we think we know all the exploration age civs, we can try to speculate which antiquity civ unlock which exploration civ. So the unlocks you get just by playing the civ, excluding any gameplay or leader unlocks.

I have made the following assumptions. These are mostly for gameplay reasons, but there is nothing so far that contradicts these:

• each antiquity civ unlocks two other civs
• each exploration civ is unlocked by two other civs
• Each pair of unlocks for a civ is unique (so no A1 -> E1, E2, A2 -> E2, E1)

This is the best I have come up with (for a very low value of "best"):

Rome​	Spain​
Rome​	Normans​
Greece​	Normans​
Greece​	Abbasid​
Egypt​	Songhai​
Egypt​	Abbasid​
Aksum​	Songhai​
Aksum​	Chola??​
Persia​	Mongols​
Persia​	Ming??​
Maurya​	Chola​
Maurya​	Majapahit?​
Khmer​	Majapahit​
Khmer​	Hawaii?​
Maya​	Inca​
Maya​	Spain?​
Mississippians​	Inca​
Mississippians​	Hawaii?​
Han​	Mongols​
Han​	Ming​

Notes:

• I have left out the Shawnee, because the base game will need to work without them and they destroy the symmetry anyway
• Spain: After Rome, it is hard to find a second unlock for them, so I went with Maya (Aksum would make even less sense)
• Aksum / Persia were left over, so I assigned them the last spots available, although this is very, very much of a stretch

Now, some of these transitions are very awkward. One of the three unconfirmed civs might be wrong, but there is no evidence for other exploration civs. Or some of my assumptions are wrong. Do you have better proposals?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Persia -> Abbasid is likely, no? I’m not sure about the second Aksum path though. They did trade with India and they’ve probably at least got synergy with the Chola bonuses…

 

[uppi]

Persia -> Abbasid is likely, no?

You would thinks so, but Egypt->Abbasids is confirmed and we had that Augustus icon on the locked Abbasids. That makes me think that we will have Greece->Abbasids. So under these assumptions there is no spot left for Persia->Abbasids

 

[Zaarin]

You would thinks so, but Egypt->Abbasids is confirmed and we had that Augustus icon on the locked Abbasids. That makes me think that we will have Greece->Abbasids. So under these assumptions there is no spot left for Persia->Abbasids

I don't think there's any indication of how many civs can have a historic or regional unlock on a particular civ. I think Persia's default historic path will be Abbasids, just like Egypt's.

 

[Krikkit1]

You would thinks so, but Egypt->Abbasids is confirmed and we had that Augustus icon on the locked Abbasids. That makes me think that we will have Greece->Abbasids. So under these assumptions there is no spot left for Persia->Abbasids

I don’t think civs are limited to 2 progenitors …maybe at least 2
so I would guess

Rome..Norman, Spain
Greece..Norman, Spain, Abbasid
Egypt..Songhai, Abbasid
Aksum..Songhai
Persia..Abbasid, Mongol
Maurya..Chola, Ming, Abbasid, Mahajapit
Khmer..Majahapit, Chola, Hawaii
Han..Ming, Mongol
Maya..Inca, Hawaii
Mississipian..Inca

edited

 

[Evolena]

In the Gameplay reveal showcase, when choosing Hatshepsut's civilization, the preview for Aksum showed only 1 blurry unlock (where the Songhai and Abbasid unlocks for Egypt were "leaked").
But it may as well be because it was an early build.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Egypt > Majapahit > America could quite nicely tie together the ancient aliens pyramid building cultures.

 

[Krikkit1]

In the Gameplay reveal showcase, when choosing Hatshepsut's civilization, the preview for Aksum showed only 1 blurry unlock (where the Songhai and Abbasid unlocks for Egypt were "leaked").
But it may as well be because it was an early build.

It did also show only one unlock for Songhai (Buganda).

so it is likely possible that a civ may only unlock one other civ.

 

[uppi]

I don't think there's any indication of how many civs can have a historic or regional unlock on a particular civ. I think Persia's default historic path will be Abbasids, just like Egypt's.

That could be the case. But the more Antiquity civs go into the same Exploration civ, the less variety there will be. Abbasids would be more or less guaranteed to be in every one of your games. But having Abbasids in every game might be the way to avoid those very awkward transitions

I don’t think civs are limited to 2 progenitors …maybe at least 2
so I would guess

Rome..Norman, Spain
Greece..Norman, Abbasid
Egypt..Songhai, Abbasid
Aksum..Songhai, Abbasid
Persia..Abbasid, Mongol
Maurya..Chola, Ming
Khmer..Majahapit, Chola, Hawaii
Han..Ming, Mongol
Maya..Inca, Spain, Hawaii
Mississipian..Inca, Norman

4 civs into Abbasids is a bit much, isn't it? But if we are going with that, I would add Majahapit to Maurya, so it has two progenitors

In the Gameplay reveal showcase, when choosing Hatshepsut's civilization, the preview for Aksum showed only 1 blurry unlock (where the Songhai and Abbasid unlocks for Egypt were "leaked").
But it may as well be because it was an early build.

That would eliminate the need for a second Aksum unlock. But how would that work gameplay-wise? If the player chooses Songhai, what does Aksum do?

 

[Krikkit1]

That could be the case. But the more Antiquity civs go into the same Exploration civ, the less variety there will be. Abbasids would be more or less guaranteed to be in every one of your games. But having Abbasids in every game might be the way to avoid those very awkward transitions



4 civs into Abbasids is a bit much, isn't it? But if we are going with that, I would add Majahapit to Maurya, so it has two progenitors



That would eliminate the need for a second Aksum unlock. But how would that work gameplay-wise? If the player chooses Songhai, what does Aksum do?

Right I missed that (Maja only having 1 unlock)

Also if all of a civs unlocks (gameplay, leader, or civ), are taken , then they may just have duplicates. So only one unlock is required. (even if more are useful for variety)

 

[mitsho]

There really shouldn‘t be some hard symmetry. What‘s the benefit? Just our OCD? Gameplay Balance? Can‘t really be that since the options give flexibility as well and that can be counterbalanced in other areas. Also, civ will never be balanced, it‘s too complex of a game. And that symmetry would stand against the history they want to portray. Rome needs to be at the base of a wide range of European and Middle Eastern civs - and again, thats a bonus for them.

 

[dagriggstar]

Finally get to role play as Sassanids after being conquered by Arabia then marrying into a royal Chinese dynasty except this time taking it over.

That initial list is pretty good I think actually although Persia and Han leading to the same two choices isn't ideal. I can't see an obvious alternative beyond the more than 2 options idea though.

Maya into Spain I think is just setting up Mexico. Since they talk about history is built in layers and Mexico strikes me as a good candidate to demonstrate that concept.

 

[Siptah]

There really shouldn‘t be some hard symmetry. What‘s the benefit? Just our OCD? Gameplay Balance? Can‘t really be that since the options give flexibility as well and that can be counterbalanced in other areas. Also, civ will never be balanced, it‘s too complex of a game. And that symmetry would stand against the history they want to portray. Rome needs to be at the base of a wide range of European and Middle Eastern civs - and again, thats a bonus for them.

In addition to that, I also don't believe in a strict formula of exactly 2 transitions in and out of each civ because I don't see how they could keep this up with more civs added along the way. Take Rome as an example. Spain and Normans are good ways out in every respect. But we will see some form of HRE and Byzantium along the way, maybe also an exploration age Italian state. What happens then? Keep the formula and drop Spain, Normans, and the Italian state because their successor claims are weaker than HRE and Byz due to not having produced roman emperors? I can't see this happening. Rome will at some point just unlock 5-8 civs, period. It is possible that, in the base game, they stick to a more stricter formula, but even there I don't believe it until I see it. Especially if we add the modern age to the thought experiment.

 

[Wabnosa]

Michi sipi to Shawnee
Maya to Shawnee
No Maya to Spain
Maya to Inca
Maya to Azteca
Michi sipi to Hawaii
Maya to Hawaii

 

[Krikkit1]

Michi sipi to Shawnee
Maya to Shawnee
No Maya to Spain
Maya to Inca
Maya to Azteca
Michi sipi to Hawaii
Maya to Hawaii

Except no Shawnee (or Aztec) in Base game

I could see Greece being the other lead in to Spain and Mississippi only unlocking Inca.

 

[uppi]

There really shouldn‘t be some hard symmetry. What‘s the benefit? Just our OCD? Gameplay Balance? Can‘t really be that since the options give flexibility as well and that can be counterbalanced in other areas. Also, civ will never be balanced, it‘s too complex of a game. And that symmetry would stand against the history they want to portray. Rome needs to be at the base of a wide range of European and Middle Eastern civs - and again, thats a bonus for them.

This is what I would want from the civ unlocks (from a gameplay point of view, excluding any historical arguments)

• The player should have always have more than one option at an age transition. And since leaders can be mixed and matched, the only way to guarantee this it having at least two unlocks
• With the limited amount of civs available on release, we want to make the most variety of the ones available. The easiest way to accomplish this would be symmetry: each civ has an equal number of paths into it, so it will be chosen with roughly the same likelihood. I'd get bored if I would see the same 5 civs every game.
• Choice should be somewhat limited, so that unlocks are meaningful. If it will be a free-for-all anyway, why bother with unlocks?

The 2-in-2-out symmetry accomplishes those goals nicely. And I still think it will hold as the general rule in the beginning. The only question is, if there are exceptions and how many.

Rome will ultimately be at the base of a wide range of civs, but it is obvious that this won't happen on release.

That initial list is pretty good I think actually although Persia and Han leading to the same two choices isn't ideal. I can't see an obvious alternative beyond the more than 2 options idea though.

Good point, I went against my own assumptions there. But I am not sure how to fix it.

In addition to that, I also don't believe in a strict formula of exactly 2 transitions in and out of each civ because I don't see how they could keep this up with more civs added along the way. Take Rome as an example. Spain and Normans are good ways out in every respect. But we will see some form of HRE and Byzantium along the way, maybe also an exploration age Italian state. What happens then? Keep the formula and drop Spain, Normans, and the Italian state because their successor claims are weaker than HRE and Byz due to not having produced roman emperors? I can't see this happening. Rome will at some point just unlock 5-8 civs, period. It is possible that, in the base game, they stick to a more stricter formula, but even there I don't believe it until I see it. Especially if we add the modern age to the thought experiment.

Well, yeah, keeping this up with the DLCs is going to be impossible. So I expect DLC civs to be added on top. But this also means that the system needs to be somewhat robust, so it does not collapse when you add singular civs as a DLC

I might try the modern age, but it is even more variable, since we don't know all the civs, yet.

 

[chaosprophet]

In addition to that, I also don't believe in a strict formula of exactly 2 transitions in and out of each civ because I don't see how they could keep this up with more civs added along the way. Take Rome as an example. Spain and Normans are good ways out in every respect. But we will see some form of HRE and Byzantium along the way, maybe also an exploration age Italian state. What happens then? Keep the formula and drop Spain, Normans, and the Italian state because their successor claims are weaker than HRE and Byz due to not having produced roman emperors? I can't see this happening. Rome will at some point just unlock 5-8 civs, period. It is possible that, in the base game, they stick to a more stricter formula, but even there I don't believe it until I see it. Especially if we add the modern age to the thought experiment.

I agree, albeit I think that every Antiquity and Exploration civ will at least lead to two other vanilla civ for free, just to give the player who only has vanilla and any dlc civ at least two option of evolution in case they unlock nothing during the age.

Similarly, wouldn't surprise me if every Exploration and Modern civ has at least two civs going to them, so to make the probability of the AI becoming them more viable.

But even then I see that as a minimum, and not something that has to be limited to just two, even if you just take in account the vanilla civs between themselves, as how your argued, would soon get messed up by dlcs anyway.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I think Persia to Spain can potentially be the case

 

[vorlon_mi]

I agree, albeit I think that every Antiquity and Exploration civ will at least lead to two other vanilla civ for free, just to give the player who only has vanilla and any dlc civ at least two option of evolution in case they unlock nothing during the age.

Similarly, wouldn't surprise me if every Exploration and Modern civ has at least two civs going to them, so to make the probability of the AI becoming them more viable.

But even then I see that as a minimum, and not something that has to be limited to just two, even if you just take in account the vanilla civs between themselves, as how your argued, would soon get messed up by dlcs anyway.

I agree. I expect a LOT of paths. Each Exploration civ will have two "easy" routes to choose it, and at least two more than can unlock to choose it. I'm certain that they know which Antiquity civs can easily choose Shawnee, and what are the unlock paths to Shawnee, even if they haven't told us yet.

I don't expect rigidity; I expect that they will want to promote choice and experimentation by the players. Each time they add a civ -- regardless of era -- the paths out of, or into, that civ will be additive to the released civs not subtracting or replacing. A DLC civ with too few paths into it, or succeeding it, will not get chosen widely. Some may be focused for a particular style or victory path; consider the unique aspects of Kupe or Mvemba in Civ6, or Enrico Dandolo (Venice) in Civ5. They're corner cases, not played the usual way.

I fully expect that the choices that we recommend / find to work well in 2025 will be superseded by the addition of new civs in 2027 and 2028. Egypt, Greece and Rome may each end up with 8 potential Exploration civs to move into.

 

[Krikkit1]

I agree. I expect a LOT of paths. Each Exploration civ will have two "easy" routes to choose it, and at least two more than can unlock to choose it. I'm certain that they know which Antiquity civs can easily choose Shawnee, and what are the unlock paths to Shawnee, even if they haven't told us yet.

I don't expect rigidity; I expect that they will want to promote choice and experimentation by the players. Each time they add a civ -- regardless of era -- the paths out of, or into, that civ will be additive to the released civs not subtracting or replacing. A DLC civ with too few paths into it, or succeeding it, will not get chosen widely. Some may be focused for a particular style or victory path; consider the unique aspects of Kupe or Mvemba in Civ6, or Enrico Dandolo (Venice) in Civ5. They're corner cases, not played the usual way.

I fully expect that the choices that we recommend / find to work well in 2025 will be superseded by the addition of new civs in 2027 and 2028. Egypt, Greece and Rome may each end up with 8 potential Exploration civs to move into.

That’s what I expect, every DLC will be unlocked by at least one base game civ and unlock at least one base game civ. (they will probably also have DLC-DLC connections, but those rely on both DLC being present so will be optional)