What do we know about the next expansion?

[Sherlock]

What do we know - nothing. Firaxis doesn't believe in contacting the community unless they want to sell us something. Sigh.
I wish Stardock or Paradox would step forward and make a Civ-type game. They could show Firaxis a thing or two about respecting the fanbase.

Stardock ... I gave up on their games years ago. They're just embarrassingly bad.

 

[Cagarustus]

What do we know - nothing. Firaxis doesn't believe in contacting the community unless they want to sell us something. Sigh.
I wish Stardock or Paradox would step forward and make a Civ-type game. They could show Firaxis a thing or two about respecting the fanbase.

It seems to me that Fireaxis is taking a different approach to things as they have in the past. No doubt they’re aware of the community’s concerns and are working hard to patch these in.

I think a big part of the issue before was that Fireaxis was ‘overselling’ and under delivering. They want to avoid this now by underselling and over delivering.

At least I hope this is the case, otherwise Civ 6 could turn out to be a massive failure.

 

[acluewithout]

Firaxis have a different approach to media, but it’s fine. Sarah’s occasional likes on this forum are enough for me (Sarah is a legend).

I wish Firaxis would give more insight into how they make the game and design decisions, but that’s just because I think that would be Super interesting. What little Ed has said about design to date is fascinating - if I had a choice, I’d be more interested why they did x and not y, rather than hearing about plans to do z.

I also think there is a real gap in the market for a Civ VI competitor - think Civ 4 with districts and unstacked units. I’m surprised no one has taken a shot at that, but who knows?

 

[Bechhold]

That all depends on Paradox deciding to put dev time in making a TBS/Civ type of game.

 

[Zaarin]

That all depends on Paradox deciding to put dev time in making a TBS/Civ type of game.

Stoic makes the best TBS type game. It honestly took me a few minutes to figure out that you did not mean The Banner Saga.

 

[mal_man]

What I really want them to add are Canal districts/improvements. Nothing is more annoying than getting a start where you think your Capital has access to the ocean, only to find out it's one really large inland sea. And then you finish exploring and realize that there are no outlets to the ocean, and no isthmus for a Canal City.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Honestly, I felt like BNW exceeded mechanic saturation and was the lesser of the two expansions for Civ V. The WC in particular was tedious, like complication for complication's sake. Trade routes also, but the interface has been sufficiently improved for Civ VI thankfully.

It's a legit issue.

The trouble with World Congress was execution, again. Compelled to select a resolution every interval, when there are plenty of times that none of the resolutions are appealing, leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and probably a sense of tedium in yours. Also, throwing money at CSs is super boring. Envoy points are a good system only because diplo victory is not in the game, so you can expect that to change.
I think the fact is, empire games need two axes of influence on CPU factions. City-States, who should be puppets not players, not disputing that, still are going to need to feel more alive if the "ally all of them" victory is going to feel exciting.

If the idea of "advancing" the congress agenda on the basis of era remains, there could be some interesting interplay with Civ VI's dual era system that way.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Also, throwing money at CSs is super boring. Envoy points are a good system only because diplo victory is not in the game, so you can expect that to change.
I think the fact is, empire games need two axes of influence on CPU factions. City-States, who should be puppets not players, not disputing that, still are going to need to feel more alive if the "ally all of them" victory is going to feel exciting.

I agree. And I struggle to imagine a Civ approach that will help the City States feel alive. Whether it's throwing gold at City States or completing disjointed quests for envoys, I can't see the process of gaining suzerainship over City States becoming interesting under mechanisms.

I hope I'm wrong and the development team comes up some good ideas (well executed) to breathe life into the diplomacy game.

Going back to ideas I expressed before about changing the various victory conditions into an integrated system where you gain recognition from other civs that you are the world leader, a similar approach could be applied to City States. That is, they could follow you if you have sufficient influence in a variety of categories (military dominance, economic influence, cultural influence, religious influence, scientific prowess, etc.) and more such categories than any other civ. Maybe that could lead to a diplomatic game that ties all the other game mechanics together into a multi-faceted battle for control over the minds of City States.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree. And I struggle to imagine a Civ approach that will help the City States feel alive. Whether it's throwing gold at City States or completing disjointed quests for envoys, I can't see the process of gaining suzerainship over City States becoming interesting under mechanisms.

Just fixing Civ6's illogical quest system would be an improvement. "No, Toronto, I can't send you a trade route from my empire centered in Iran."

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Just fixing Civ6's illogical quest system would be an improvement. "No, Toronto, I can't send you a trade route from my empire centered in Iran."

You can. You just have to send trade routes to intermediate cities first to establish trading posts that extend your trading range.

 

[Zaarin]

You can. You just have to send trade routes to intermediate cities first to establish trading posts that extend your trading range.

I know technically you can, but that's a lot of work for not much reward. I often sent trade routes to city-states in Civ5, but they made them pretty undesirable in Civ6. There really ought to be a distance limit for trade route and religious conversion quests.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You can. You just have to send trade routes to intermediate cities first to establish trading posts that extend your trading range.

The challenge is in how long those intermediate routes themselves are. Unless you're Genghis, you need to wait for that intermediate route to finish before the Trading Post is received. That could be 50 to 60 turns when trying to reach a City State on another continent.

By that time, I've forgotten why I was running that route in the first place, but that's just me LOL.

 

[Mesix]

What do we know - nothing. Firaxis doesn't believe in contacting the community unless they want to sell us something. Sigh.
I wish Stardock or Paradox would step forward and make a Civ-type game. They could show Firaxis a thing or two about respecting the fanbase.

Amplitude Studios is another good company. They do a good job of involving their community in the development process. Their 4x title, Endless Legend, is a few years old now. Some of the mechanics will seem familiar as the Civ6 developers borrowed many ideas from Endless Legend. Their best title is Endless Space which is more of a space 4x game similar to MOO.

 

[Proclo]

and there is a part in the last expasion trailer that make me feel as if they were to add some kind welth and /sanitation mechanic?!

That will be awesome!!!! I would love to have that mechanic implemented in-game. A crime mechanic would also be really nice and with the current situation... a migration mechanic would be very appealing to me.

Just fixing Civ6's illogical quest system would be an improvement. "No, Toronto, I can't send you a trade route from my empire centered in Iran."

They would also have to be more numerous, not just one per era; more diverse and more City-State related... why jerusalem would want me to have a galley

 

[acluewithout]

I agree. And I struggle to imagine a Civ approach that will help the City States feel alive. Whether it's throwing gold at City States or completing disjointed quests for envoys, I can't see the process of gaining suzerainship over City States becoming interesting under mechanisms.

I hope I'm wrong and the development team comes up some good ideas (well executed) to breathe life into the diplomacy game.

Going back to ideas I expressed before about changing the various victory conditions into an integrated system where you gain recognition from other civs that you are the world leader, a similar approach could be applied to City States. That is, they could follow you if you have sufficient influence in a variety of categories (military dominance, economic influence, cultural influence, religious influence, scientific prowess, etc.) and more such categories than any other civ. Maybe that could lead to a diplomatic game that ties all the other game mechanics together into a multi-faceted battle for control over the minds of City States.

I wish City States could be more like mini- or minor Civs. Honestly, they could keep working the same way as they do, but let them expand to maybe 3 cities (or maybe up to 5) based on how many envoys they have, give them more diplomatic options than just declare war and levy units, and maybe give them some unique units (which you could use if you levy them). And also let them place their own UI if they have one.

The challenge is in how long those intermediate routes themselves are. Unless you're Genghis, you need to wait for that intermediate route to finish before the Trading Post is received. That could be 50 to 60 turns when trying to reach a City State on another continent.

By that time, I've forgotten why I was running that route in the first place, but that's just me LOL.

I wonder if Trade Routes would be more interesting if their routes were “locked”?

What I mean is: say there is your Capital and three cities A, B and C. You run your first route from your Cap to City A. Once they route resets, you no longer have the option of sending it directly from your Cap to City B or C. Instead, it now has to go via City A (which might mean it can only go to, say, city B because City C is too far from City A.

 

[Scaramanga]

I know technically you can, but that's a lot of work for not much reward. I often sent trade routes to city-states in Civ5, but they made them pretty undesirable in Civ6. There really ought to be a distance limit for trade route and religious conversion quests.

A lot of work for one envoy, you do get gold for your trade routes going through foreign cities though.

 

[row2infinity]

I hope they bring back natural disasters like in Civ 4. I'm not really one to buy into how Civ 4 is so much better than later iterations (I know some believe that), but the natural disasters is one area where the game was definitely more alive to me.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I hope they bring back natural disasters like in Civ 4. I'm not really one to buy into how Civ 4 is so much better than later iterations (I know some believe that), but the natural disasters is one area where the game was definitely more alive to me.

A lot of people didn't care for the way their carefully laid plans could be wrecked on the fickle whim of a RNG.

 

[leif erikson]

I hope they bring back natural disasters like in Civ 4. I'm not really one to buy into how Civ 4 is so much better than later iterations (I know some believe that), but the natural disasters is one area where the game was definitely more alive to me.

As long as it can be turned off in the options. More than one Game of the Month was ruined because of the RNG related to this.

 

[pokiehl]

A lot of people didn't care for the way their carefully laid plans could be wrecked on the fickle whim of a RNG.

I think they would be a great way to spice up the game, especially if there were ways for the player to understand and control the risk. Say, settling near places where continents intersect makes earthquakes more likely, and this is communicated to the player.

At any rate, I would love to see them (infixo's mod was a great proof of concept) and an easy solution for players who don't like them would be a toggle to turn them on or off.