There will be a third expansion and/or more DLC for Civ5?
- Thread starter JaGarLo
- Start date
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
Totally this. I hated Civ5 on release, but ever since whats-his-face was removed and Ed Beach took got promoted to designer, things have gotten great. It feels like a completely different game now, something much more like a true sequel to Civ4.
I can't wait to see what he could do with Civ6.
Other than a less passive science victory (as kaspergm mentioned) and any gameplay mechanics associated with it, I don't really feel like the game needs any major overhauls after BNW (though this may be premature, I feel that BNW will address all my major complaints). However, I am absolutely not opposed to a third expansion. In lieu of unnecessary gameplay mechanics, a third Unique Building or Improvement along with 7 to 9 new Civs would get my money (this would really flesh out and give more character to each civ, especially to those civs that got two Unique Units).
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
One thing I've been thinking of. I've had a hard time thinking of much they -could- do for a third expansion that would be possible (I figure the feature I want most, multiple leaders per civ, would be practically an impossibility due to expansion and DLC civs anyway).
It'd be nice to maybe see a new victory. I mean I'm not sure what you'd do, but I figure if there's any area I'd love to see Civ get experimental with, it'd be really awesome to have even more victories.
Maybe something similar to domination in Civ4. Or the popular Civ4 mod victory Mastery.
Roman Emperor
Chieftain
If everything goes well with BNW we might see another expansion pack instead of more DLCs. BNW looks like it's going to be a great expansion. As a few people stated before their computer might not be able to handle playing Civ 6, I know my computer might not be able to handle it unfortunately 
so I prefer another expansion until I am able to afford a new PC.
so I prefer another expansion until I am able to afford a new PC.The devs didn't like making DLC and, having seen the relative sales figures of the DLC and the expansions, the suits probably won't be interested in DLC anyway. A third expansion might be a remote possibility, but I think it's our best hope for more content from Firaxis.
* health/pollution/global warming was all good stuff and I miss it from previous games, but it's most effective as a way to limit growth city-by-city, and it looks like, after BNW, Civ 5 will be in a state that already strongly favors wide development and doesn't need more checks on tall growth
* colonization/nationalism/revolutions would be my pet choice; I think it's a fascinating subject, I think it'd make the late game dynamic and interesting in a way that BNW (as cool as it sounds) won't, and I think it might be a good way to finally impose some effective limits on expansion in Civ 5
* corporations were terrible in Civ 4worse than people remember, I thinkand I think they're effectively, abstractly covered by trade routes and tourism
* vassals were fun and a very clever way, gameplay-wise, to wrap up wars that you might otherwise slog through for centuries after effective resistance was mopped up, but they were wildly ahistorical and made the game way, way too easy
Major rebalancing and tuning of core systems is probably what the game needs most of allthe sort of changes that might be too big and radical for a patch (like the move to 100 HP and changes to naval units in G&K). Combat is still embarrassingly bad, particularly the power of early-/mid-game ranged units.
* health/pollution/global warming was all good stuff and I miss it from previous games, but it's most effective as a way to limit growth city-by-city, and it looks like, after BNW, Civ 5 will be in a state that already strongly favors wide development and doesn't need more checks on tall growth
* colonization/nationalism/revolutions would be my pet choice; I think it's a fascinating subject, I think it'd make the late game dynamic and interesting in a way that BNW (as cool as it sounds) won't, and I think it might be a good way to finally impose some effective limits on expansion in Civ 5
* corporations were terrible in Civ 4worse than people remember, I thinkand I think they're effectively, abstractly covered by trade routes and tourism
* vassals were fun and a very clever way, gameplay-wise, to wrap up wars that you might otherwise slog through for centuries after effective resistance was mopped up, but they were wildly ahistorical and made the game way, way too easy
Major rebalancing and tuning of core systems is probably what the game needs most of allthe sort of changes that might be too big and radical for a patch (like the move to 100 HP and changes to naval units in G&K). Combat is still embarrassingly bad, particularly the power of early-/mid-game ranged units.
mitsho
Deity
I agree with Wigwam, most systems that we can think of wouldn't necessarily add any gameplay value to the game as we see it at the moment (before the release of BNW). Just adding stuff would be the wrong way to go after all. Other systems like 'random events' don't seem big enough on their own, but would be cool as minor additions to a larger pack. They also may run into problems. Like, a 3rd unique per civ would be interesting, allowing more depth and all, but a) they already seem to struggle with good unique units (due to their rule "no effect twice") and get increasingly random there and b) that addition would screw over all the civilization mods done so far who would need a rework with another unique (doable, to be sure 
).
A third category seems to be balance enhancements (take a look at air or naval combat, general AI enhancements, wonder and SP rebalancing). A last one would be 'thematic' additions, like futuristic units, but those seem to be even more of "moar" and not "is it necessary?".
So I don't see now (before BNW) a need for another big expansion pack altering gameplay. I'd rather they smooth the edges over. My list would be: 3rd unique (because it's cool and it offers depth not width), 5-7 new civs, naval and air enhancements, late-game rebalancing, few more wonders/mapscripts/etc. , 2-4 new scenarios (Europe at war [WWI,II or Napoleonic], Cold War/MAD, ...)
).A third category seems to be balance enhancements (take a look at air or naval combat, general AI enhancements, wonder and SP rebalancing). A last one would be 'thematic' additions, like futuristic units, but those seem to be even more of "moar" and not "is it necessary?".
So I don't see now (before BNW) a need for another big expansion pack altering gameplay. I'd rather they smooth the edges over. My list would be: 3rd unique (because it's cool and it offers depth not width), 5-7 new civs, naval and air enhancements, late-game rebalancing, few more wonders/mapscripts/etc. , 2-4 new scenarios (Europe at war [WWI,II or Napoleonic], Cold War/MAD, ...)
In my opinion yesterday brought us a very interesting hint for the future additions in Civilization franchise. I mean addition of civilization which cannot make their own cities, a core gameplay mechanic that stood with the franchise since day one, is in my humble opinion a real revolution! or at least a major precedent and should ... must be remembered. The changes made with BNW, portugese Feitoria, indonesian UA and now the Venetian UA are all a fresh look at the game, it`s mechanics, the future development.
For the past years we had #number of civilizations with diffrent Traits, units, buildings, UA, all of this was a way of distinguishing one civilization from another. Don`t get me wrong, this was important but after some period of time, the diffrences got smaller and smaller. The above stated in first paragraph makes me a believer that we`re set for REAL brand new waters in future of Civilization franchise and I`m thrilled and curious what the Dev team will come up with for future 3#Xpack or even Civ6!
Anyone with me?
For the past years we had #number of civilizations with diffrent Traits, units, buildings, UA, all of this was a way of distinguishing one civilization from another. Don`t get me wrong, this was important but after some period of time, the diffrences got smaller and smaller. The above stated in first paragraph makes me a believer that we`re set for REAL brand new waters in future of Civilization franchise and I`m thrilled and curious what the Dev team will come up with for future 3#Xpack or even Civ6!
Anyone with me?
BrokenSky
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2013
- Messages
- 251
The way I understood it, they weren't intending to do another expansion pack unless fans wanted it.
That said, I've got a list of features I'd like to see if they do release a new expansion. (these aren't my ideas, just ideas I like - well a couple are mine but anyway)
Revolutions!
In addition to national happiness, cities have local happiness relating to how much a city agrees with the ideology of the government, religious matters (I'll get to this in a second), and local happiness buildings. Unhappiness from population is part of Local Unhappiness, and in addition certain buildings, policies, ideologies and religious tenants may cause either happiness or unhappiness at a local level.
National Happiness is used for Empire Wide stability, but local happiness can cause a single city, or a few neighbouring cites to brake away from an empire and, depending of the circumstances, join another city, found a new city state or found a minor civ (I'll get to this later too).
If there is high national unhappiness ~20, rebels can spawn near the capital and around particularly unhappy cities. If they Capture the Capital, its a revolution, which may change one or more factors e.g. Ideology, (Policies Piety vs. Rationalism e.g.) or State religion.
State Religion:
The dominant religion in your capital; Bonus Happiness for Cities where your state religion is dominant, unhappiness where it is dominated by another religion.
In addition Religions could have tolerance levels Ranging from very tolerant (of other religions) to very intolerant, decided when the religion was founded (and maybe changed when it was improved?) Basically: More Intolerant religions get a religious pressure bonus and speed bonus and allow the inquisitor unit, but get a greater unhappiness modifier for differing from the state religion or having followers of other religions in a city and have greater Diplomatic bonus/penalties for the same/different religions, while tolerant religions get happiness for having the same religion as the capital, but less/no penalties for differing, and maybe even being able to use the beliefs of more than one religion if the number of followers is high enough, but have less religious pressure and cannot use inquisitors? Also maybe spread slower.
Maybe tolerance is the wrong word there, suggestions for a better one welcome.
Local health
Based of health buildings, local health resources as well as policies, religion, ideologies.
Affects the probability of Plague starting in a city, as well as how long it lasts for in a city. Spread by trade routes?
Minor Civs
Sufficiently advanced City States can become minor civs by building another city. There should probably be a restriction so they can only do it when they are 'advanced'. At least among city states.
Minor Civs become city states by only having one city.
Major civs can form minor civs by local rebellion (as stated earlier).
Losing a capital to a foreign empire should probably cause significant local discontent so large empires start to break up if their capital is taken.
Minor Civs become major civs (i.e. ones that can win) if they become significant enough (e.g. overtake the bottom major civ with score?, build a wonder etc.)
I agree that Espionage needs a bit of work done to it; I would like to be able to recruit more spies, either with money or a lot of productivity (I mean about the same as a national wonder, per spy) as well as more variety of spy missions, cold war style; Encouraging rebel factions who agree with your ideology and/or religion, Poisoning the water supply to increase chance of starting a plague, swaying local and national opinion of my ideologies stealing more that just tech- maps or even great works!
I like the idea of random events returning, and the 3rd Unique was a great idea.
Obviously more civs and city states, also new improvements like the canal (good idea Princeofnigeria) although I think they should be able to cross roads, or at least railroads.
That said, I've got a list of features I'd like to see if they do release a new expansion. (these aren't my ideas, just ideas I like - well a couple are mine but anyway)
Revolutions!
In addition to national happiness, cities have local happiness relating to how much a city agrees with the ideology of the government, religious matters (I'll get to this in a second), and local happiness buildings. Unhappiness from population is part of Local Unhappiness, and in addition certain buildings, policies, ideologies and religious tenants may cause either happiness or unhappiness at a local level.
National Happiness is used for Empire Wide stability, but local happiness can cause a single city, or a few neighbouring cites to brake away from an empire and, depending of the circumstances, join another city, found a new city state or found a minor civ (I'll get to this later too).
If there is high national unhappiness ~20, rebels can spawn near the capital and around particularly unhappy cities. If they Capture the Capital, its a revolution, which may change one or more factors e.g. Ideology, (Policies Piety vs. Rationalism e.g.) or State religion.
State Religion:
The dominant religion in your capital; Bonus Happiness for Cities where your state religion is dominant, unhappiness where it is dominated by another religion.
In addition Religions could have tolerance levels Ranging from very tolerant (of other religions) to very intolerant, decided when the religion was founded (and maybe changed when it was improved?) Basically: More Intolerant religions get a religious pressure bonus and speed bonus and allow the inquisitor unit, but get a greater unhappiness modifier for differing from the state religion or having followers of other religions in a city and have greater Diplomatic bonus/penalties for the same/different religions, while tolerant religions get happiness for having the same religion as the capital, but less/no penalties for differing, and maybe even being able to use the beliefs of more than one religion if the number of followers is high enough, but have less religious pressure and cannot use inquisitors? Also maybe spread slower.
Maybe tolerance is the wrong word there, suggestions for a better one welcome.
Local health
Based of health buildings, local health resources as well as policies, religion, ideologies.
Affects the probability of Plague starting in a city, as well as how long it lasts for in a city. Spread by trade routes?
Minor Civs
Sufficiently advanced City States can become minor civs by building another city. There should probably be a restriction so they can only do it when they are 'advanced'. At least among city states.
Minor Civs become city states by only having one city.
Major civs can form minor civs by local rebellion (as stated earlier).
Losing a capital to a foreign empire should probably cause significant local discontent so large empires start to break up if their capital is taken.
Minor Civs become major civs (i.e. ones that can win) if they become significant enough (e.g. overtake the bottom major civ with score?, build a wonder etc.)
I agree that Espionage needs a bit of work done to it; I would like to be able to recruit more spies, either with money or a lot of productivity (I mean about the same as a national wonder, per spy) as well as more variety of spy missions, cold war style; Encouraging rebel factions who agree with your ideology and/or religion, Poisoning the water supply to increase chance of starting a plague, swaying local and national opinion of my ideologies stealing more that just tech- maps or even great works!
I like the idea of random events returning, and the 3rd Unique was a great idea.
Obviously more civs and city states, also new improvements like the canal (good idea Princeofnigeria) although I think they should be able to cross roads, or at least railroads.
Tsar NicholasII
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 301
I'd like to see an Enlightenment era added so that the game can have the political movements of the Age of Revolutions as well as new combat units such as Line Infantry.
mitsho
Deity
@BrokenSky The problem I have with your wish list is that none of those suggestion bring something new to the table. They are just making existing systems more complex and I need to ask what's the gameplay value there. Revolutions f.e. is just a negative check that doesn't give you something new to do. State Religion and the Tolerance level seems similar, though I can see the idea behind differing speeds of religious spreading. Both of those don't give you a new "tool" to play around with. Gameplay-wise I really don't see any system that can improve the game. Religion already is kinda superfluous since it only gives you other yields...
So while I see why these systems might be interesting for some people, I feel they either bring too much simulation for simulations sake into the game or they make the game too complex.
The same thing applies to political movements (what makes it different from ideologies?) and a line infrantry unit (line?). My Industrial-and-later battlefield is already cluttered up, I don't need more units there.
So while I see why these systems might be interesting for some people, I feel they either bring too much simulation for simulations sake into the game or they make the game too complex.
The same thing applies to political movements (what makes it different from ideologies?) and a line infrantry unit (line?). My Industrial-and-later battlefield is already cluttered up, I don't need more units there.
ehecatzin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,498
That would be really cool, and it would help in easying the transition to industrial, special regarding unit upgrades.
I agree in that adding too much would make a third expansion a clutter of mechanics, however I think there's 3 things that can be added and would,at least for me complete the game. Colonization, Revolutions and Casus Belli.
Colonization and revolutions could be the core of a third expansion, the reworked ideology and trade would certainly make those additions very interesting as they are tied together. The new trade system would make colonies that much more fun,and would require you to actually keep the trade routes safe, and diferent ideologies could be particulary influential on your colonies, manage them badly and you could get a revolution on your hands. Diferent options for dealing with possible revolutions would be interesting as well, granting independence in the form of allies, like a commonwealth, stablishing viceroyalties, annexing, using your Iron fist to keep them in line, etc.
A very simple casus belli system, in which you state why you are going to war with X, if you fullfil it you dont get warmonger penalty, if you go overboard you do. It could open the door for holy wars, liberation wars, and cold wars, etc. It could even tie with the revolutions, as they would have a clear goal, not just spawning rebel units and pillaging.
More diplomatic options are always interesting, BNW is going in the right direction, I think there's still space for improvement.
baptismbyfire
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 126
I'd love an expansion that was even just a new set of scenarios and civilizations, maybe with a tweak or two for certain existing civs.
I really love all the revolution type ideas. Each civ could have some default civs that would be spawned (unplayable to start, though). Give America the CSA, Nat Turner's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, John Brown's Rebellion, for example. No unique units or abilities necessary (although that would be cool), but just a new leaderhead. I don't know if this is possible for all the civs, but I would imagine the devs could come up with something. Or just limit the civs that are playable when Revolutions are switched on. I know you could definitely get civs for Rome, Greece, Egypt, Ottomans, England, Germany, Brazil, Austria, France and whatnot. Another idea for civs that don't fit this scheme, like the Celts, would be to have them break into civs like the Basques, Gauls, Bretons, Picts, Scots, Irish, Welsh, etc.
I really love all the revolution type ideas. Each civ could have some default civs that would be spawned (unplayable to start, though). Give America the CSA, Nat Turner's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, John Brown's Rebellion, for example. No unique units or abilities necessary (although that would be cool), but just a new leaderhead. I don't know if this is possible for all the civs, but I would imagine the devs could come up with something. Or just limit the civs that are playable when Revolutions are switched on. I know you could definitely get civs for Rome, Greece, Egypt, Ottomans, England, Germany, Brazil, Austria, France and whatnot. Another idea for civs that don't fit this scheme, like the Celts, would be to have them break into civs like the Basques, Gauls, Bretons, Picts, Scots, Irish, Welsh, etc.
BrokenSky
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2013
- Messages
- 251
@mitsho
Ok, Yes I understand your position, but the point of about half the features in most last expansions should be a round about capstone type thing where everything was given a polish and all the misc. features people want were added.
But as for the gameplay value, really its for diplomacy of the espionage driven kind, because as it stands espionage isn't really a feature which has been used to the fullest it could be. Revolutions add a greater level usefulness of espionage, as instigating revolutions makes a spy a weapon. The city state - minor civ features keep the world, and hence gameplay, more dynamic, as do revolutions. The religious features also help the political espionage mechanics pre-ideology era.
As for religion only boosting yield, a sudden change in yield can completely change the capabilities of a city, and besides; these ideas would help to give the religion mechanics more significance to gameplay; surely that would help combat the superfluous-ness?
Now I tend to prescribe to realistic complexity more than simplistic accessibility and this probably affects my judgement on the matter, but then again, what's BNW adding? Trade? We had trade routes since vanilla. World Congress? We had the UN. Ideologies? They were already in the social policy tree. Much of what BNW does is take simple existing features and open them up to be more customisable, with the intention of enhancing gameplay. These things are suggested with that same intention.
Ok, Yes I understand your position, but the point of about half the features in most last expansions should be a round about capstone type thing where everything was given a polish and all the misc. features people want were added.
But as for the gameplay value, really its for diplomacy of the espionage driven kind, because as it stands espionage isn't really a feature which has been used to the fullest it could be. Revolutions add a greater level usefulness of espionage, as instigating revolutions makes a spy a weapon. The city state - minor civ features keep the world, and hence gameplay, more dynamic, as do revolutions. The religious features also help the political espionage mechanics pre-ideology era.
As for religion only boosting yield, a sudden change in yield can completely change the capabilities of a city, and besides; these ideas would help to give the religion mechanics more significance to gameplay; surely that would help combat the superfluous-ness?
Now I tend to prescribe to realistic complexity more than simplistic accessibility and this probably affects my judgement on the matter, but then again, what's BNW adding? Trade? We had trade routes since vanilla. World Congress? We had the UN. Ideologies? They were already in the social policy tree. Much of what BNW does is take simple existing features and open them up to be more customisable, with the intention of enhancing gameplay. These things are suggested with that same intention.
Grumpbeard
Warlord
- Joined
- May 31, 2013
- Messages
- 154
I'd like more DLC, but I don't expect more DLC.
Specifically, for me - If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(series)#Civilizations_and_leaders_represented you'll see that there's only 6 civs that have been in previous versions that aren't in 5 after BNW in some form or another (ie Native American is represented by Iroquoi, Viking by Denmark...). They are:
Hittite
Holy Roman
Khmer
Mali
Sioux
Sumerian
Just to satisfy my OCD, it would be neat if they released DLC (probably multiple ones) that covered those 6. Then Civ V would contain ever Civ ever made!
But it probably won't happen.
Specifically, for me - If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(series)#Civilizations_and_leaders_represented you'll see that there's only 6 civs that have been in previous versions that aren't in 5 after BNW in some form or another (ie Native American is represented by Iroquoi, Viking by Denmark...). They are:
Hittite
Holy Roman
Khmer
Mali
Sioux
Sumerian
Just to satisfy my OCD, it would be neat if they released DLC (probably multiple ones) that covered those 6. Then Civ V would contain ever Civ ever made!
But it probably won't happen.
mitsho
Deity
Grumpbeard, Holy Rome is in as Germany (the uniques), France (the leader), Austria (various) and various City States. I'm not sure why those would need to return specifically. But there's a huge thread to discuss that.
@BrokenSky, Totally Agree, but then what they "open up" in BNW mostly gives us new active things to work with (i.e. Trade Routes, move around Great Works, make Culture Victory more transparent) rather than just posing challenges for us (I fear a revolution, my mismanagment of my state religion has lead to unhappiness). If you can find a way to make those "opened up" subjects active and engaging, I'd be okay with it.
And btw. I love the simplicity of Espionage. I don't think it needs to do more. Ideally for me, the number of decision you have to take in a civ game would stay more or less constant from the ancient to the modern era (slightly rising of course). At the moment, it's more an exponential growth and tedious repetitious tasks take overhand in the late game...
@BrokenSky, Totally Agree, but then what they "open up" in BNW mostly gives us new active things to work with (i.e. Trade Routes, move around Great Works, make Culture Victory more transparent) rather than just posing challenges for us (I fear a revolution, my mismanagment of my state religion has lead to unhappiness). If you can find a way to make those "opened up" subjects active and engaging, I'd be okay with it.
And btw. I love the simplicity of Espionage. I don't think it needs to do more. Ideally for me, the number of decision you have to take in a civ game would stay more or less constant from the ancient to the modern era (slightly rising of course). At the moment, it's more an exponential growth and tedious repetitious tasks take overhand in the late game...
Grumpbeard
Warlord
- Joined
- May 31, 2013
- Messages
- 154
Okay, so take out Holy Roman. I'm fine with that; I obviously didn't pay enough attention in History class.
-GB
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,576
There is no doubt that if they were to make a third expansion, there would need to be at least one and possibly several major new features added to the game. They can't promote an expansion based on 'hey, we fix diplomacy, and we expand a couple of existing features a bit'. Much delighting as that would be for the fans, I think it's completely unrealistic in terms of marketing.
I would die (figuratively) for a third expansion, but I do see a serious problem here: So far, I haven't seen anybody bring any major NEW features to the table, not even myself. Sure, there are a couple of half suggestions - Coorporations might cut it with some creativity, Colonization also might have some perspective to it, but I have yet to see the latter explained in a level of detail where I can actually see how it would work and what it would actually add to the game.
A lot of people come with wishes to change things back to how it was in Civ4 - local happiness and health for once. I find it extremely unlikely that we would see these come back, because these were deliberately discarded for Civ5 for not bringing anything constructive other than micromanagement to the game. I liked health, but I have also accepted that Civ5 has it as its identitity to be less micromanaging than Civ4 - plus, I have yet to see anybody come up with a health description that would really bring something needed to Civ5 (ok one point: We need a pollution feature to limit uncontrolled production increase, so that spamming Factories is not always a no-brainer, but that's not something you sell an expansion on either).
There are definitely game features that need a serious overhaul which has also been suggested here - like I said myself, resources and espionage is a cornerstone for me, and obviously AI and diplomacy is something many people bring up. But being realistic, that's probably more of a subject for a new chapter of the game rather than an expansion. After all, if you are going to allocate resources to reprogram a major part of the game, it'll probably give better payback to simply make a new game. If they move on to Civ6, I do hope they will be true to Civ5 and try to fix the things that aren't working perfectly rather than trying to change too much. I think Firaxis have been fairly succesfull with updating civ so far (I know many Civ4 fans will disagree with me on that, but ...), but there's always the chance that things go wrong - the disaster that happened to the Heroes of Might and Magic series (twice! First Heroes 4 and 3D0 going bankrupt, and then UbiSoft destroying the game completely with Heroes 6) is scary proof of how bad it can go when developers decide to move on to a new chapter and therefore feel that they need to make a "new" game in order to justify a new release. But on the bright side, if they decide to move on after BnW is patched and working - plus/minus some extra civ DLC - there's a good chance they'll release the full source code, and then who knows what we can achieve.
I would die (figuratively) for a third expansion, but I do see a serious problem here: So far, I haven't seen anybody bring any major NEW features to the table, not even myself. Sure, there are a couple of half suggestions - Coorporations might cut it with some creativity, Colonization also might have some perspective to it, but I have yet to see the latter explained in a level of detail where I can actually see how it would work and what it would actually add to the game.
A lot of people come with wishes to change things back to how it was in Civ4 - local happiness and health for once. I find it extremely unlikely that we would see these come back, because these were deliberately discarded for Civ5 for not bringing anything constructive other than micromanagement to the game. I liked health, but I have also accepted that Civ5 has it as its identitity to be less micromanaging than Civ4 - plus, I have yet to see anybody come up with a health description that would really bring something needed to Civ5 (ok one point: We need a pollution feature to limit uncontrolled production increase, so that spamming Factories is not always a no-brainer, but that's not something you sell an expansion on either).
There are definitely game features that need a serious overhaul which has also been suggested here - like I said myself, resources and espionage is a cornerstone for me, and obviously AI and diplomacy is something many people bring up. But being realistic, that's probably more of a subject for a new chapter of the game rather than an expansion. After all, if you are going to allocate resources to reprogram a major part of the game, it'll probably give better payback to simply make a new game. If they move on to Civ6, I do hope they will be true to Civ5 and try to fix the things that aren't working perfectly rather than trying to change too much. I think Firaxis have been fairly succesfull with updating civ so far (I know many Civ4 fans will disagree with me on that, but ...), but there's always the chance that things go wrong - the disaster that happened to the Heroes of Might and Magic series (twice! First Heroes 4 and 3D0 going bankrupt, and then UbiSoft destroying the game completely with Heroes 6) is scary proof of how bad it can go when developers decide to move on to a new chapter and therefore feel that they need to make a "new" game in order to justify a new release. But on the bright side, if they decide to move on after BnW is patched and working - plus/minus some extra civ DLC - there's a good chance they'll release the full source code, and then who knows what we can achieve.
BrokenSky
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2013
- Messages
- 251
@ mitsho
Ok fair enough.
One of the core ideas here is to open up espionage, although I understand how it could cause problems in that religion management might be detrimental to the enjoyment of the player if it gets out of hand, but I'm inclined to agree with Kaspergm on the first page, at least in the assessment on espionage; I feel it could be a fun, useful mechanism and could do far more than it currently does. As I already posted, many of the suggested features are inclined to help this. But think of it like this; if you fail to manage culture, now another civ will be able to eclipse your culture with tourism. If you fail to manage your army, civs will declare war.
But if you like simplicity in Espionage, then I can fully understand why this might come across as needlessly complicated to you.
Aside from this I would also suggest that having your own spies in your cities could be used to improve their stability, and equally having a spy in the capital working to improve national stability.
As a sort of secret police I mean.
Ok fair enough.
One of the core ideas here is to open up espionage, although I understand how it could cause problems in that religion management might be detrimental to the enjoyment of the player if it gets out of hand, but I'm inclined to agree with Kaspergm on the first page, at least in the assessment on espionage; I feel it could be a fun, useful mechanism and could do far more than it currently does. As I already posted, many of the suggested features are inclined to help this. But think of it like this; if you fail to manage culture, now another civ will be able to eclipse your culture with tourism. If you fail to manage your army, civs will declare war.
But if you like simplicity in Espionage, then I can fully understand why this might come across as needlessly complicated to you.
Aside from this I would also suggest that having your own spies in your cities could be used to improve their stability, and equally having a spy in the capital working to improve national stability.
As a sort of secret police I mean.
Similar threads
- Poll
