A lot of people seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the intent behind Civ VII's civilization/leader design

I see a lot of posts with people talking about wanting CA to make a perfect 1-to-1 path of civs from era to era, or being sure that this or that DLC will have "the Celts/the Anglo-Saxons/the British Empire", or that "X civ/leader doesn't have a corresponding leader/civ yet but I'm sure they'll get one in the future".

I think a lot of people seem to misunderstand that going from Rome to Hawai'i to Qing China, or having Hatshepsut lead the Mississipians, is NOT a "bug", it's a feature. It's not something that's going to be "fixed" in future DLCs so that eventually all leaders have a corresponding civ and all civs have a perfect 1-to-1 path from era to era.

The design philosophy behind Civ VII, from what we've seen so far in interviews from devs, has always been to mix and match leaders and civ combinations and evolution paths, not to have always the perfect "historically correct" path.

And if you're expecting otherwise, you are going to be disappointed, because that's not what the devs are going to prioritize in future DLCs. They'll prioritize interesting civs or leaders, not "filling gaps".