DLCs after Brave New World

what I'd like to see in DLC, besides extra civs, are some new scenarios. If we get Vietnam or the Khmer, then I would love to see a SEA scenario. If we do get the Mughals, I think an Indian religion scenario where Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism compete for followers would be cool. One thing I've always supported would be a double civ DLC of Gran Colombia and Argentina with a South American Revolution style scenario. Those are just a few things I see as possible, but if we do get some more DLC, I always love the scenarios the devs make, and I would like to see more.

For DLC's and maybe even another expac, I hope, more Geopolitics less flare like the XCom and Giant Robot etc. Vassalage, Proxy Wars with CS etc. Religious wars, sects in regards to Islam, Buddhism etc. Tons of new luxury resources not this constant Civ specific resource crap. Tea, Pepper, Obsidian, Opium, Coco, Tobacco, Ginger, Rubber. Then manufacturing to combine strategic and luxury resources into goods that one can trade as long as you have the prereq resources. Diplomacy where the player has the same options that the AI has, defense pacts that if the player has one with both parties that go to war the player can choose to side with or make null the treaties all together. Spies that can foment unrest whether it's political or religious etc.

Jatta Pake said:

Said this on another thread but it would be nice if we could get a Game of the Year DLC that includes past civs from the series:

Sioux - debuted in Civ 2
Hittite - debuted in Civ 3: Conquests
Sumerian - debuted in Civ 3: Conquests
Mali - debuted in Civ 4
Holy Roman Empire - debuted in Civ 4: Beyond the Sword
Khmer - debuted in Civ 4: Beyond the Sword

Throw in two or three more fan favorites: Pueblo, Canada and Australia.

Click to expand...

ScottMcPwn said:

I agree with them all exept 4 of them.
1. The HRE? That is generally a terrible choice of civ and is mainly despised by much of the fanbase.
2. Although I'd like to see the Pueblo, the fact the Pueblo Council said no means there is an extremely low chance of them coming into the game.
3/4. The same reasons go to why Canada and Australia shouldn't be added - They're both very modern, still have the British Queen as an official head of state and also the reason being modern didn't exclude Brazil and the US is because they have both become World Superpowers and have achieved alot, the same cannot be said for these two.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agreed
Give me Sumer, Hittites, Sioux, Mali, Khmer from previous titles
Also Phoenicia, Hungary, Armenia, Kongo, Nubia, Vietnam, Khazars
Another couple civs which could or should get in, but won't because of political/cultural reasons: Tibet, Israel, Pueblo, Mapuche
Then my civ list for CiV would feel more or less perfect

No civs like HRE, Australia or Canada

Pouakai said:

The reasoning behind them I believe is that they (with the exception of Pueblo, Australia and Canada) have all been in previous games, while Canada and Australia had been mentioned by Dennis and Ed on the Polycast as being considered for the spot that Brazil had, while the Khmer and Vietnam were considered for Indonesia's slot.

Click to expand...

That's a shame
Firaxis shouldn't even consider civs like Canada or Australia, they are way to recent, and without any real impact on world history.

I think there will be DLC, but IMHO Civ DLCs are probably the least efficient way to add content in Civ5.

There's a ton of art involved, voice recording, UA design , unit design. I know they will need to do them to get people to bite, but I'm personally more interested in feature changes, continuous improvement to the AI and new wonders/buildings/technology coming from a DLC or a 'small' expansion after BNW.

I think for example they can do more to make the late game interesting.