There will be a third expansion and/or more DLC for Civ5?

Roman Emperor said:

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.

Click to expand...

To go off on a tangent, exactly what is it about Civ 5 that is so taxing on a computer? Bear in mind I know virtually nothing about this subject so in your explanation if you must use jargon or technical terms please explain them. Like I see other games that look like a movie is playing with fast changes (eg. many first person shooters and the like). Civ being turn based, and much of the background being static relative to FPS games, and obviously animated graphics, I wonder why this is so hard on a computer. Can anyone explain?

VermelhoRed said:

There WON'T be DLCs, that's for sure. The DLCs would either be designed for Vanilla, or they'd be exclusive to people who bought both expansions, and at this point, neither seem plausible. Please don't suggest they may release all the new mechanics for free in an one-civ DLC.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't some of the new BNW civs still be able to exist in Vanilla? Take Ashurbanipal for example. If they make the civs not involved with the BNW mechanics the possibility is there for them as DLC's right>?

alpha2117 said:

So many options - not trying to replicate any in your list

Florence/Naples
Visigoths/Vandals
Kievan Rus/Golden Horde
NW Nth American native/ SE Nth American Native (a few options for both)
South Africa/Swahili
Ostrogoth/HRE
Mughal/Khazar
Scotland/Aragon/Burgandy triple pack
A couple of the Sth American native civs
Nepal/Afghanistan
Papal States/the Arabic state containing Mecca (I'm blanking on my eu3 names now) but it would be a cool synergy.
West Indies/Cuba/Haiti triple pack

there are huge numbers of options if they are looking for them.

Click to expand...

Oooh oooh and the "Controversy Pack" Israel/Palestine

alpha2117 said:

So many options - not trying to replicate any in your list

Florence/Naples
Visigoths/Vandals
Kievan Rus/Golden Horde
NW Nth American native/ SE Nth American Native (a few options for both)
South Africa/Swahili
Ostrogoth/HRE
Mughal/Khazar
Scotland/Aragon/Burgandy triple pack
A couple of the Sth American native civs
Nepal/Afghanistan
Papal States/the Arabic state containing Mecca (I'm blanking on my eu3 names now) but it would be a cool synergy.
West Indies/Cuba/Haiti triple pack

there are huge numbers of options if they are looking for them.

Click to expand...

People really need to get this "I played Europa Universalis / Crusader Kings / Victoria and now I want every single iteration of every Civilization that there ever was" nonsense, it's just getting silly now.

From the above list:

Mughals - Already part of India in the game
Kievan Rus - Already part of Russia in the game
Golden Horde - Already part of the Mongols in the game
"the Arabic state containing Mecca" - ...really?! I mean, really?! The game already has "an Arabic state containing Mecca", it is the Arabian Civilization
Scotland - As horrifyingly done as the Celts are in this game, they are clearly intended to cover Scotland

Beyond that, why on Earth do we need more Native North American groups?! Between the Iroquois and Shoshone they are hilariously overrepresented in the grand scheme of things and adding more would be a right kick in the teeth to many of peoples around the planet and a blatant show of Americo-centrism.

Also, why have nothing minor states like Burgundy and Aragon or Germanic tribes (which are arguably covered by Germany)? Surely we should be aiming to move away from this "any European Civ'll do" rubbish.

Then South Africa? Sure, there are some "interesting" gameplay options there if institutionalised racism is your thing. Yes there is an obvious choice of leader who could get away from all of that, but it is still very recent and not something that a video game should bring up at this point in time.

As for the Holy Roman Empire, people vary from hating having it, declaring it "part of Germany" (or Austria) to demanding it's inclusion. I don't get this. Yes, the Holy Roman Empire of Civ IV was nonsense and actually Charlemange's Empire (who whilst "Holy Roman Emperor" did not rule the "Holy Roman Empire" which arguably began with Otto I). That said, in this version at least it's pretty damn clear that you can't have Germany, Austria and the Holy Roman Empire.

We've also just about got over including Venice, who can just about differentiate themselves as a "Civ" (I still dislike them as an option, but hey), but suddenly Florence and Naples (who aren't even in as a City State).

Also, get over the Papal States, they aren't a Civilization. They are a political institution of questionable morals who manipulated people's deepest fears for profit and political gain for centuries and having them as a city state is more than enough.

In fact, of that whole list, only:

Khazars
Swahili
Afghanistan
Nepal
West Indies
Cuba
Haiti

...and of them only the Khazars and Swahili are really decent options. That said, Swahili is a bit of a sticky option in and of itself, and an Omani Civ would probably be an better option, although maybe both could work together (the name Zanzibar or Swahili could work in principal). I don't quite get the relevance between Afghanistan and Nepal though, nor Swahili, and South Africa for that matter (maybe being vaguely in the same vague region is close enough?). This is particularly confusing when there are plenty of very obvious DLC packs which could be done if that was the road they want to go down:

Khazars & Afghanistan - The Silk Road
Zanzibar & Oman - The Swahili Coast and Trade
Mali & Kongo - Africa of the middle ages
Khmer & Pagan - South East Asia of the middle ages

There'd even be:

Canada & Australia - Colonies of the Commonwealth
Argentina & Gran Colombia (or another) - Former Spanish Colonies

If you're into that kind of thing.

Nice rant, though I am not sure what Germany all needs to represent. The Visigoths? Vandals? Are you sure? Just because they have "Germanic" in their name, doesn't mean they belong to the civ of Germany. It's not without cause that the German language differentiates between the old Germanic Tribes and Deutschland as a cultural nation. Like the distinction between Anglosaxons (who were Germanic as well...) and English. No?

But otherwise, nice rant...

I would refute though any sort of "distribution key" making North America overrepresented. It's not abouf fair diversity (*cough* Europe *cough*), but what is fun for the game. And I can see a few North American Tribes offering nice visuals and gameplays (like the Inuit as a snow civ or the Cherokee as "quick adaption of foreign tech" civ). That wouldn't make them overrepresented in my book.

mitsho said:

I would refute though any sort of "distribution key" making North America overrepresented. It's not abouf fair diversity (*cough* Europe *cough*), but what is fun for the game. And I can see a few North American Tribes offering nice visuals and gameplays (like the Inuit as a snow civ or the Cherokee as "quick adaption of foreign tech" civ). That wouldn't make them overrepresented in my book.

Click to expand...

There is no conceivable metric which shows that Native Americans are over-represented. The closest one could even approach a coherent argument to that effect is to claim that groups that didn't build cities aren't civilizations because that's the root of the word. But that's a definition the series itself has never used, because the Mongols have been in from day one. And no other argument I've ever seen anyone make means anything. "I've never heard of them," say some. Who cares? Then adding more means they'll learn something. "They didn't have an effect on world history," say others. Thereby showing off their profound ignorance about the history of the landmass. All the more reason to add more so they can learn something. Native Americans are one of the most under-represented (and when represented at all, traditionally poorly) groups in the world. No argument claiming the Iroquois and Shoshone is too many is valid.

mitsho said:

Nice rant, though I am not sure what Germany all needs to represent. The Visigoths? Vandals? Are you sure? Just because they have "Germanic" in their name, doesn't mean they belong to the civ of Germany. It's not without cause that the German language differentiates between the old Germanic Tribes and Deutschland as a cultural nation. Like the distinction between Anglosaxons (who were Germanic as well...) and English. No?

But otherwise, nice rant...

I would refute though any sort of "distribution key" making North America overrepresented. It's not abouf fair diversity (*cough* Europe *cough*), but what is fun for the game. And I can see a few North American Tribes offering nice visuals and gameplays (like the Inuit as a snow civ or the Cherokee as "quick adaption of foreign tech" civ). That wouldn't make them overrepresented in my book.

Click to expand...

If we're going for what is fun for the game, then why on Earth would we go for more Native North Americans (particularly of the United States), where there are far better options. Let's think:

Sami - Arctic focus
Inuit - Ice focus, Seals (The only Native North American group that could work in this category, and in truth a different region to what I was discussing)
Kazahk - Heart of the Silk Road
Afghanistan - Graveyard of Empires, Heart of the Silk Road
Ainu - Cultural factors
Any number of Australian Aboriginal groups - Potential religious gameplay, geographic, potential tie in to natural wonders?
Any number of African groups - various

There are far far far better options on the "fun gameplay" side of things as well. If we go by shear significance, there's no contest, if we go by diversity, the region is well represented, and if we go by "gameplay" there are clearly better options as well. The only thing left is just good ol' fashion bog standard Americo-centrism.

Menzies said:

The only thing left is just good ol' fashion bog standard Americo-centrism.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. Sheer, total, pants-on-head rubbish. The game has two civs from the British Isles, two civs from Scandinavia, two civs from Iberia, and two civs from German-speaking Central Europe. Your claim that the Natives of North America, more culturally and linguistically diverse than all of those European civs combined, is over-represented because there are now two of them is flat out wrong. The series is not and has never been Americo-centric. It is Euro-centric, plain and simple.

So the Inuit are not Native North Americans? Then what were you talking about?

It's hard to better describe the "fun" thing better. Basically, when it suits the developers. That can very well be true for another native northern American group.

And you conveniently overlooked my example of the "adaption"-themed Cherokee. I'd actually prefer the Sami myself, but then they're "european based"...

@Loaf_Warden, see Menzies post below and two above you. There's someone claiming exactly that. But I would hold that "underrepresentation" shouldn't matter at all here.

mitsho said:

@Loaf_Warden, see Menzies post below and two above you. There's someone claiming exactly that.

Click to expand...

And I'm saying he's wrong.

I hope there is no next expansion because they will start adding these ridiculous "civs" most of you suggest.

Menzies said:

Also, get over the Papal States, they aren't a Civilization. They are a political institution of questionable morals who manipulated people's deepest fears for profit and political gain for centuries and having them as a city state is more than enough.

Click to expand...

Watch it.

Loaf Warden said:

There is no conceivable metric which shows that Native Americans are over-represented. The closest one could even approach a coherent argument to that effect is to claim that groups that didn't build cities aren't civilizations because that's the root of the word. But that's a definition the series itself has never used, because the Mongols have been in from day one. And no other argument I've ever seen anyone make means anything. "I've never heard of them," say some. Who cares? Then adding more means they'll learn something. "They didn't have an effect on world history," say others. Thereby showing off their profound ignorance about the history of the landmass. All the more reason to add more so they can learn something. Native Americans are one of the most under-represented (and when represented at all, traditionally poorly) groups in the world. No argument claiming the Iroquois and Shoshone is too many is valid.

Click to expand...

No metric at all? Well I'll just point out that my issue is with the over representation of Native People's of the United States and Southern Canada, not the Inuits (who could be interesting or Meso America). So, let's start with a simple one, population:

Native People's of USA and Southern Canada: ~4.5 million people today (and a similar number in pre-Columbian times) accounts for about, so about 0.000643% of modern population, and about ~0.5-2% in around 1200-1500 AD
Number of Native North American Civs: 4.65%

So, by that metric it is clear that they are greatly over represented in terms of population, both modern and before the arrival of Columbus. So that's one metric by which you are wrong.

How about geographic terms?

USA and Southern Canada: ~7% of the Earth's land
Civs in USA and Southern Canada: ~7% of Civs

So that's about par, and any more would be over representation on this metric too.

How about just a simple one:

Australian Aboriginal Civs: 0
Arctic Civs: 0
Sub Saharan African Civs: 3
Native North American Civs: 2

Quick comparison by the way:

Population: 0.000643% (~0.5-2% historical)
Africa: ~12%

Area:
USA and Southern Canada: ~7%
Sub Saharan Africa: ~19%

Civs:
Native Civs of USA and Southern Canada: ~5%
Sub Saharan Africa: ~7%

Yet, they have the same number of Civs. Sub Saharan Africa has been pretty much ignored in comparison. So no, there are plenty of metrics that show that having two Native North American Civs is comparative over representation, although in truth two is fine, it's acceptable. More however, would not be.

Loaf Warden said:

Rubbish. Sheer, total, pants-on-head rubbish. The game has two civs from the British Isles, two civs from Scandinavia, two civs from Iberia, and two civs from German-speaking Central Europe. Your claim that the Natives of North America, more culturally and linguistically diverse than all of those European civs combined, is over-represented because there are now two of them is flat out wrong. The series is not and has never been Americo-centric. It is Euro-centric, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Your bias is showing. You mention this linguistic diversity, yet ignore the linguistic diversity in Europe as well. Odd, but understandable, educations can be expensive. The most interesting point though is that a place that is completely ignored by the game is also one of the most linguistically diverse of all, Australia. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

The point of Americo-centric in this case is that the only reason there are two Native-North American civs is because of the origins of the game. If the game were Chinese produced, we'd see more smaller Chinese Civs, if it were Japanese, we'd likely see a group like the Ainu, if it were Scandinavian the Sami would of course be in, if it were German, we'd have seen various Germanic Tribes, if it were Australian there'd be various Australian Aboriginal groups and so forth. It is however from North America and what do you know, they get special treatment. That is Americo-centrism, and that's the bias in your own education showing, but that's understandable as without a special interest in other cultures or specific (and normally quite expensive) education you likely don't know much about other cultures around the world, and the diversity of our wonderful world. It's sad that people miss this point so much and seem to act like it's an attack on Native North Americans, it's not, it's just a complaint due to seeing them get special treatment over other "Native" groups around the World that are also entirely ignored despite offering not only cultural diversity, but great gameplay options.

[delete]

Menzies said:

Odd, but understandable, educations can be expensive.

Click to expand...

Personal insult. Classy. We're done here.

@Menzies
Loafwarden's point was that the game is Eurocentric. Using one of your metrics:

Europe:
6.7% land area
37.2% civs in civ 5

I don't disagree that other areas should have more representation, but saying North America is over-represented with only two civs is plain silly imo. It's quite clear what geographic region is over-represented.

Loaf Warden said:

Personal insult. Classy. We're done here.

Click to expand...

You didn't even read the post did you? As mentioned again later in the post:

If the game were Chinese produced, we'd see more smaller Chinese Civs, if it were Japanese, we'd likely see a group like the Ainu, if it were Scandinavian the Sami would of course be in, if it were German, we'd have seen various Germanic Tribes, if it were Australian there'd be various Australian Aboriginal groups and so forth. It is however from North America and what do you know, they get special treatment. That is Americo-centrism, and that's the bias in your own education showing, but that's understandable as without a special interest in other cultures or specific (and normally quite expensive) education you likely don't know much about other cultures around the world, and the diversity of our wonderful world.

Click to expand...

That is, generally people are educated primarily about their regional history and so generally, without more specific (and again, expensive) education, people aren't going to know much about the specifics of other cultures and have an inflated sense of their own region.

Speaking of insults though:

hereby showing off their profound ignorance about the history of the landmass. All the more reason to add more so they can learn something.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. Sheer, total, pants-on-head rubbish.

Click to expand...

I didn't need to resort to insults though, although you seem to have confused my actual thoughts about education in general with an insult somehow. I guess where you come from tertiary education is free to all or at least cheap enough for all demographics eh?

Seek said:

@Menzies
Loafwarden's point was that the game is Eurocentric. Using one of your metrics:

Europe:
6.7% land area
37.2% civs in civ 5

I don't disagree that other areas should have more representation, but saying North America is over-represented with only two civs is plain silly imo. It's quite clear what geographic region is over-represented.

Click to expand...

I doubt anyone is claiming that Europe isn't over represented. Their claim to fame however is the historical significance of European Civilizations. The point was about no metrics finding the specific groups as over represented, which was clear false, not that the metrics were actually great measures. The only one that should really matter is that they are being over represented in comparison to other interesting "Native" groups and Civilizations around the World which are being ignore seemingly only because they don't happen to be North American.

A lot of people, inside the United States and out, are profoundly ignorant about Native American history. It's not an insult to point that out. Native American history is poorly taught, and views on it are being revised by the experts all the time. I personally insulted no one to say that the inclusion of more Native American civs could show some people that they're more diverse, interesting, and important than the average person realizes.

Contrast that with your remark about how I obviously don't know that Europe has linguistic diversity (and when five of the eight European civs I mentioned speak languages from the same family, and two of the remaining three from another, that remark of yours is downright nonsensical when contrasted with the Native American linguistic diversity I was talking about in the first place). And then you snidely toss in that I wouldn't know that because "education is expensive". "We're done here" is the most civil three-word phrase I could think of to respond to that. What I really wanted to say would get me banned.

And calling an argument rubbish is also not a personal insult. The idea that "Native Americans are over-represented" is rubbish, regardless of who says it.

Loaf Warden said:

The idea that "Native Americans are over-represented" is rubbish, regardless of who says it.

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. Regardless of representation (or any other nonsense that clearly doesn't matter as much as prominence), noone would really say Europe is finished with if there wasn't an England civ or a France civ.

Equally, North America isn't finished without the Pueblo and Cahokia. I'm sure people could ask for others too, but these two were so big.

There are however problems with both of these civs. Pueblo we all know about and I could stretch a civ out of Cahokia but i'm sure people would complain about some of my choices because we don't have a wealth of information on them yet. What we do know already however, is that they were boss and i would love to see them in some form in another expansion.

Also to Menzies, i'd be interested to find out where you got those precise figures for pre-columbian population of north america from considering even the experts in the field can't agree a figure

If I can dodge all this North American business and get back to something else contentious—

mitsho said:

Nice rant, though I am not sure what Germany all needs to represent. The Visigoths? Vandals? Are you sure? Just because they have "Germanic" in their name, doesn't mean they belong to the civ of Germany. It's not without cause that the German language differentiates between the old Germanic Tribes and Deutschland as a cultural nation.

Click to expand...

Not to be too glib, but wouldn't you say that "the German language" differentiates between the old Germanic tribes and modern Germany because Hitler didn't?

For whatever it's worth, the game's Civilopedia entry covers the Visigoths, Suebi, Vandals, Saxons, Burgundians, Franks, Lombards, and Carolingians, as well as the Holy Roman Empire, Bavaria, Austria, and Prussia. Austria, obviously, made the jump to being a civ in its own right, despite having been referred to as part of Germany right there in the Civilopedia. Maybe it gets special treatment because it persists as an independent nation-state, or maybe there's room for a Frankish civ. Or even a Bavarian one!