BTS: More civs, but why?

This applies to Warlords too, I guess. Both expansions add new Civs to the game and use this fact to market the game, but why? What's the point? What do they really add to the game? And why are so many people so excited about which Civs leaders get added? And why do people get upset that some Civs don't have as many leaders as others? It's just skins for the AI at the end of the day.

I don't feel inclined to buy either expansion, and I can't help thinking that Firaxis are expending their effort in the wrong areas. Kind of like pushing a new version of an operating system on the basis that it comes with some nice new wallpapers for your desktop.

I'd be very happy to go and buy an expansion that I thought was worth the bother. I know the expansions aren't just new Civs but I just don't see any compelling reasons not to carry on playing Vanilla.

More Civilizations, mean more random games. I get sick from the fact that in every game i play i see Germany and/or England. And mostly I see Khan or Monty.
And I want to play with a other nation, I want to play with Willem van Oranje.

I agree with the OP. We can make as many new leaders as we like through mods. Sure we can't make nice animated leaderheads, but it doesn't affect the game in the slightest. If you want to play yourself as a civ that's not in the game, you don't even need to make mods... you just need to rename the leader and the civ when you're setting up the game.

well, you don't need to buy BtS and Warlord if you don't care about the changes.

I love the idea of new leaders and new civs. I was really disapointed there was no celts in vanilla, and even if i had mod them, it's so much better when it comes from Firaxis..

more civs means more leaders, personalities, UUs, UBs, graphics, traits, etc.
also more people are happy when their civs are represented in the official version

mods are usually not as good as firaxis' one

feldmarshall said:

more civs means more...personalities

Click to expand...

If only that were true.

LAnkou: You're right, but my disappointment also comes from the fact that if Firaxis were producing the right kind of expansion then I'd really be looking forward to it. By the 'right kind' I mean I'd like to see improvements in the AI as a number one priority. It seems that Warlords was worse than Vanilla in that department since it introduced new game mechanics that the AI wasn't especially good at making use of and badly balanced UBs. BTS varies this theme by improving the AI and then (it seems) failing to re-balance the rest of the game (which is what's stopping me from using Blake's mod with Vanilla).

So instead of concentrating on stuff that (imo) really matters we get new leaders and scenarios. Wooooo!

Bagpuss said:

This applies to Warlords too, I guess. Both expansions add new Civs to the game and use this fact to market the game, but why? What's the point? What do they really add to the game? And why are so many people so excited about which Civs leaders get added? And why do people get upset that some Civs don't have as many leaders as others? It's just skins for the AI at the end of the day.

Click to expand...

You just answered your own question... they add more because people want them.

LAnkou said:

I was really disapointed there was no celts in vanilla, and even if i had mod them, it's so much better when it comes from Firaxis..

Click to expand...

count me in there. i don't even like ANY mods. using a mod feels like tainting the game. i like it pure

OP you missed the biggest point or what I figured was the reason for your stance.

This is the 1st time you can't combine the new civs with the old ones. What I mean is you have to sub in.
In this way the OP is right, the focus on new civs has diminshed and should be less touted these days.
Why do these Xpaks no longer provide the option of "all in" Epic games. Why should you have to replace a Civ to see another one put in. It wasn't always like this. (who cares if you personally prefer only 8-12 civs to compete against, mybe others liked the ability to have more if they chose)

Have you heard anyone getting 24 civs to work? Imagine that many civs on a 'huge map' end game?
The only thing you could do is smush them all on 'large' maps where they each have enough room for 2 cities a peice.

Thats crap, how is 32-34 civs on the same map going to play out faster or better? I can't see it, but thats exactly what happend in Civ3.
PtW gave more CIvs and shortend turn times-Conquests comes along adds more Civs,lowers turn times! Now BtW is comin to game already realing with complaints on performance and it plans on piling on some more? I don't think so.

The big additions this round should have been the removal of what makes further additions a nusiance.

The new civs and leaders are just part of the overall package. Lots of people probably won't by an expansion if did not have new civs and leaders. However I agree that an improved is the most important thing that needs to be done. But honestly, they need to put lots of new stuff in as well as improving the AI otherwise people wouldn't see something new with game and a lot of people would just deal with the AI being silly.

Yeah, more civs are nice and all, but they are nothing compared to actual gameplay additions. I like them, but they are just above scenarios in order of preference in my books, which is pretty low. New civs can be modded in. New gameplay features and better AI are more interesting.

More civs = more fun, more unique game experiences
New expansion pack = new features and improved gameplay
Expansion pack = $30
For Civ Fanatics, expansion packs add plenty of updated features to make it worth spending $30 a year (what's $30 for a game that you play that much?)
Personally, I can't understand how people who claim to be 'fanatics' can still be playing Civ Vanilla, they're missing so much of the game...

well, if they release the Xpack "Beyond the AI" with just AI improvement, it would be pretty expensive for what should have been just a patch...

That's why expansion pack have several "ooooh...shiny" stuff: AI improvement, new civs, new toys (vassal states in warlords, enhanced space race in BtS) and, I hope, better optimisation of game engine...

It's not the money that bothers me. It's the lack of any incentive to buy.

I wouldn't call myself a fanatic as I don't like the connoitations of the word, but my wife might disagree. Funny, I actually think of Warlords as polluting the game rather than adding anything worthwhile to it. The Shopping Mall, Vassalage that the AI isn't equipped to use, leaders traits changed for no good reason, Creative becoming super-powered....GGs seem interesting, but by all accounts it's another thing that unbalances the game in the player's favour because the AI doesn't use them intelligently. Oh, and scenarios and civs & leaders which I really couldn't care less about. If the leaders and civs had been invented instead of being based on the real-world players would see them for what they are: a paper-thin veneer over a generic AI. It's interesting to play with different trait combos, but I find that there's plenty of variety in the Vanilla game.

LAnkou said:

well, if they release the Xpack "Beyond the AI" with just AI improvement, it would be pretty expensive for what should have been just a patch...

That's why expansion pack have several "ooooh...shiny" stuff:

Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that the 'shiny stuff' makes it better value and worth buying.

If it was 'Beyond the AI' without the shiny stuff, but with a re-balanced game I'd be queueing up for it.

More civs is not the first feature i would like to see in an expansion, but they add a bit more replayability and except for Leaderheads they should be really easy to create, so i don't see anything against introducing new civs

Have you even read the complete list of what BTS is going to bring? I can tell you that, though I like new Civs, it is not what I am most excited about.

* Expanded Epic Game: We've added more new units, buildings, and technologies to the epic game with a tremendous amount of effort focused on the late game.

* New Game Scenarios: The expansion will deliver 12 new scenarios custom designed by the team at Firaxis and some members of the Civ Fan Community.

* Corporations: A new gameplay feature similar to religion that allows players to found companies and spread them throughout the world. Each corporation provides benefits in exchange for certain resources.

* Espionage: Now available earlier in the game, this feature offers players many new ways to spy on opponents. Each civilization has the opportunity to fund espionage development, which will allow them to gain intelligence, sabotage structures, poison water supplies, cause rebellions, and much more.

* Events: New random events challenge players with unique ways of interacting with the world. Players are presented with interesting decisions to make when faced with events such as natural disasters, pleas for help, or demands from their citizens.

* New Wonders: There will be five new wonders including the Statue of Zeus, Cristo Redentor, Shwedagon Paya, the Mausoleum of Maussollos, and the Moai Statues.

* Expanded Space Victory: Winning a space ship victory will now require more strategic planning and tactical decision making.

* Apostolic Palace: The United Nations will become available earlier in the game providing a way for players to win a diplomatic victory earlier. New resolutions will also be added which will expand the available diplomatic options.

* Advanced Starts: A major fan request, this new feature will enable players to "buy" components of a custom-tailored empire and begin play in the later part of the game, allowing them to experience many of the new features of the expansion in a shorter amount of time.

* Enhanced AI: The AI has received many enhancements making it tougher to beat on the higher difficulty levels. The ways in which the AI will attempt to achieve victory have also been expanded.


Tossing in new Civs and leaders is the easiest thing for Firaxis to do and I *guarantee* you that every single one of the above mentioned additions took far more effort to complete.

So what's the complaint here?

We're getting natural disasters, new units, new buildings, new wonders, enhanced espionage (poison water supply, come on!), corporations... I mean, it's even quite possible that "Events" could include such things as civil war!

And if that's not all, they spent their focus on what is the deadest part of the game: the gunpowder age and beyond. Everyone knows that the early years are where the fun is at and that the meta game is slow and drawn-out. They're enhancing that with a ton of new crap that'll up the ante and make it as fun as the earlier ages.

What more do you want from them, exactly? Everything that I mentioned above modifies and adds to the gameplay, keeping the game fresh.

I mean... I really don't see how you could possibly think that new Civs and leaders is Firaxis's focus when there is so much on that list.


As for new Civs and leaders, it's simple: people like variety. Official variety. Mods are lame and most gamers are purists. Firaxis knows that.

If every single gaming company operated on the "well, the fans have already made a mod for that, so I guess we won't bother to make an official version of that great idea" philosophy, then we'd be seeing some reaaaaaally crappy development.

Companies can't and shouldn't rely on the community to make their additions for them. Which is why they make official versions of the mods, that's how the industry works. It benefits them and the purists, who are the majority of their playerbase.

Bagpuss said:

If the leaders and civs had been invented instead of being based on the real-world players would see them for what they are: a paper-thin veneer over a generic AI.

Click to expand...

While I'm certainly aware that the AI civs all use the same generic code but with different values for various parameters, I think Firaxis did a fantastic job in making that generic code very flexible - the different leaders really do seem to have their own personalities. Surely you have certain mental associations about how you expect, say, Mansa Musa, Catherine or Louis XIV to behave while playing? Most of the leaders are very easily distinguishable - in other words, they have their own personalities.

This is one of my favourite features about the game. It's true that we have plenty of leaders already, but I'm happy for there to be even more leaders to meet. Obviously, it's also true that the animated leaderheads are just sugary gloss, but they're very well-produced sugary gloss and I like them a lot. They add a lot of atmosphere to the game; it makes it feel very different to me from what Civ II was like.

I certainly want to see plenty of "hard" features in an expansion pack, as well as "soft" stuff like new civs and scenarios; Hyoga's post does a good job of demonstrating that BtS is not deficient in this respect. But please don't try to make us feel shallow for liking the shiny leaderheads...we're not shallow, honestly, we just like atmosphere...

I am a big fan of multi-player CIV, even though I can't stand waiting 30s sometimes between turns, but I think the new additions they are going to add to the game is going to change how we play quite dramatically. I would agree with your case, as most leaders can be found in mods, but they are adding way more to the game than what your complaint stipulates. I can understand that playing vanilla civ would interest most, and a lot of people seem let down with the warlords expansion, but I think the next release will add a lot more dynamics to the game than what warlords did, which would make it that much more appealing to purchase. Some people like my Dad still play Red Alert 2 just because the new gadgetry just doesn't appeal to him. So you are entitled to your opinion, but I won't agree with it.

magicalsushi said:

I think Firaxis did a fantastic job in making that generic code very flexible - the different leaders really do seem to have their own personalities. Surely you have certain mental associations about how you expect, say, Mansa Musa, Catherine or Louis XIV to behave while playing? Most of the leaders are very easily distinguishable - in other words, they have their own personalities.

This is one of my favourite features about the game.

Click to expand...

This is something I actually would complain about, I think it provides LESS flexibility to make each leader have a predetermined personality every time. So every game I play, I know this leader is not going to declare war, or always will backstab me, etc. Boring. And that's not how the spirit of Civ was meant to be...each game should be unique and the personalities should be determined by the situation of the game, the land, the interactions of other civs in that particular game. What if Alexander was on his own continent while I am fighting with others on another continent.. why is the game coded so that Alexander is always an ass? Maybe in that situation the AI would try to find the best way to win and adjust, deciding in some games that a peaceful strategy would be better?

I agree that adding new leaders to the expansion is generally like window dressing, although if they are coding each one to always behave certain ways, then you can certainly say they are adding more variety in the expansion. But my problem is in the concept of coding each AI this way to begin with.