DLCs after Brave New World

Basically this. The Hittites would have been great but I'm not sure there's room for them - or any new Civs - after the expansion comes out. I think there's an outside possibility for them as a 'wildcard' Civ but that slot may go to Serbia or Yugoslavia.

Why Serbia?
I'm sorry, but they was never that significant
I would prefer Sumer, Phoenicia or the Hittites over them anytime
 
A clue as to whether there will be new civs: If Zulu or Portugal do not appear now, we can wait for more ...

That makes sense. Hold off on the fan favorites as DLCs. I'm all for it.
 
I bet Portugal and Zulu are in the expansion and this is because "Scramble for Africa" -scenario.
 
Why Serbia?
I'm sorry, but they was never that significant
I would prefer Sumer, Phoenicia or the Hittites over them anytime

Calm down, I was only going off the Serbia/Yugoslavia speculation that has been all over this place the last couple of days. Given how Eurocentric Civ is, I think it's sounding like an increasingly plausible option, whether or not you agree with it.

Like you I would prefer another ancient Civ but I don't think that's going to happen now with Assyria. And I still think no more DLCs.
 
Calm down, I was only going off the Serbia/Yugoslavia speculation that has been all over this place the last couple of days. Given how Eurocentric Civ is, I think it's sounding like an increasingly plausible option, whether or not you agree with it.

Hmm, calm down? Did it seem i'm not entirely calm? Sry then
Having said that, no, they are not plausible at all
Yugoslavia is just nonsense. Serbia could work, but a lot of Euro civs comes before them when you think about historical significance
Seriously, why would anyone prefer medieval Serbia over medieval Hungary (not counting nationalistic and/or patriotic reasons)?
Bulgaria, Bohemia, Lithuania, Kievan Rus, Burgundy are also before Serbia for most neutral people IMO, and the list goes on...

Like you I would prefer another ancient Civ but I don't think that's going to happen now with Assyria. And I still think no more DLCs.

I agree that they are very unlikely to happen in BNW, with Assyria confirmed
Still, I can't imagine a Civilization game without a Sumer civ, at least when we are talking about this much civs...
With 20 civs they might skip on them, but with 40-50 civs? No chance IMO
So I very much anticipate that there will be further DLCs for Civ V
 
A lot of Euro civs? Such as?

With G&K and including what we know about BNW so far, pretty much the entirety of Europe has been represented, with the exception of:
- Serbia and the other former Yugoslav states
- Hungary
- Belgium (there have been some people suggesting they might get added as a fully-playable Civ because of the Scramble for Africa scenario, but I just can't see them over some of the other gaps)
- Bulgaria (but we know they won't be in, because we've seen Sofia as a CS)
- arguably Italy (but there have been some pretty convincing arguments against Italy ever making it into CiV)
- The Baltic States (but it seems Lithuania at least have been amalgamated into Poland given that we saw Vilnius as a Polish city)
- Ukraine (but would there be room for them alongside Catherine the Great's Russia?)
- There are other Eastern European tribes doubtless worthy of a spot, but I don't see how any of them deserve to be in ahead of Serbia/Yugoslavia or Hungary

I have absolutely no interest in getting into a Serbia v. Hungary debate - with all due respect, noting your location, I honestly couldn't care less about the inclusion of either of them - but I could see Serbia sneaking in as the wildcard Civ. Likewise Hungary, although I feel they might be slightly less likely to make it in due to the presence of existing Civs i.e. Austria and the Huns (and yes, before you say, I am aware that the the Huns are not the same as the Hungarians ;) but the name may present some confusion. We would have to call them Magyars or something, which I guess is plausible).
 
Oh, and Burgundy - no way. Already represented by France and partly Germany.

The Swiss would be more plausible than the Burgundians, but I think their current City-State role suits them fine.
 
A lot of Euro civs? Such as?

With G&K and including what we know about BNW so far, pretty much the entirety of Europe has been represented, with the exception of:
- Serbia and the other former Yugoslav states
- Hungary
- Belgium (there have been some people suggesting they might get added as a fully-playable Civ because of the Scramble for Africa scenario, but I just can't see them over some of the other gaps)
- Bulgaria (but we know they won't be in, because we've seen Sofia as a CS)
- arguably Italy (but there have been some pretty convincing arguments against Italy ever making it into CiV)
- The Baltic States (but it seems Lithuania at least have been amalgamated into Poland given that we saw Vilnius as a Polish city)
- Ukraine (but would there be room for them alongside Catherine the Great's Russia?)
- There are other Eastern European tribes doubtless worthy of a spot, but I don't see how any of them deserve to be in ahead of Serbia/Yugoslavia

I think we are talking about different things
I'm about the most worthy remaining candidates - which is definitely medieval Hungary (it's true even if I'm somewhat biased), among the civs you or I mentioned
I also beleive that most of the civs I mentioned in my last posts comes before Serbia in that regard...

On the other hand you are talking about chances of the civs getting in BNW.
I agree with most of your thoughts regarding that
 
I fail to see how "worthy" is a good way to distinguish civs. It's not as you can make an exact ranking. And it's also not about one being better than the other. I'd put Hungary on the same rough level of "worthiness" as the Minoans, Etruscans, Bulgaria, Serbia/Yugoslavia, Illyrians/Dalmatians*, Bohemia/Czechs, Lithuanian, Cordoba, Burgundy, Venice. And that's before you start going into Belgium/Flanders, Italy, Switzerland and so on. This list is just to show that a ranking doesn't make sense. Now you can create tiers and then I'd say Hungary would be in the top tier for sure out of those candidates, but that doesn't say anything about their worth.

What counts more in my mind is the gameplay and as Poland has been made very horse-focused in BNW, Hungary's chances dwindle very low as how would you differentiate them? (Also what about the Austrian Hussar?)

*Huh, I just found another possible female leader, Queen Teuta would be a real Wildcard civ/leader, wouldn't she?
 
Btw, if we do talk about chances:
Belgrade is still a city-state, it was confirmed in the second PAX video
So apart from my opinion of Serbia is not as significant as some of other options that came up in the various civ threads, we also know that ;)

La Venta, Zanzibar, Belgrade, Ur, Riga and Sofia are known city-states in BNW
This means the Olmecs, the Swahili, Serbia, Sumer, Livonia/Latvia and Bulgaria have 0 chance
 
One of the main reasons for this thread is the ancient wonders DLC
There are many small clues pointing to the direction that Sumer and the Hittites were meant to be released as full civs, in a double civ pack

Can you elaborate on what these were? I only played the scenario once, but all I saw was that those two civs were included with existing leader screens and stills, and a new unit animation each, exactly as for the Normans and Saxons in the 1066 scenario. I don't think anyone's suggested that implies any intent of adding Normans or Saxons to Civ V (a shame actually since the Huscarl graphic was great, the Motte & Bailey too). The UAs were not UAs that would be very appropriate for full civs, either, being somewhat specific to the scenario's time period. It also looks as though Assyria's UU will not use the UU graphic from the Ancient World scenario, so they don't seem to have been "holding over" a partially-completed civ for later release.

I think if there'd been a planned civ double-pack they'd have withheld Ancient Worlds a lot longer so that development could be completed on those civs, or would have had more content for those two civs.

Another big reason is that there are still many civs I would love to see in Civ V, and obviously I'm not alone with this
While the game and the new civs are popular, probably Firaxis will want to add as many civs as possible, for further profit of course
So, there is a strong possibility that they will still keep some of the most popular civs out of Brave New World, and will add them later as DLCs
Apart from the aformentioned Sumer-Hittite civs, the Zulu, the Sioux, maybe even Portugal can get into this category (though the last is rather unlikely)

Probably there will be further DLCs after the expansion.

Also, I really hope that the remaining civs from previous civ titles will also get in eventually. Only the serious ones of course: Khmer and Mali
They are somewhat unlikely to get into the expansion, as there are some opinions against them

I'd like the Khmer back as long as they can somehow fit with the fact that Korea stole their colour scheme. They've been one of the most requested returning civs aside from Zulu and Portugal, so they probably have a good chance.

The overlap between Songhai and Mali are not bigger than the overlap between Denmark and Sweden for example, the overlap between Siam and Khmer is less then the overlap between France and Germany...

The game's Denmark and Sweden are separated by almost a thousand years. The Khmer and Siamese were very close in time and tech level, as were the Malians and Songhai. I think there's a lot of room for the Khmer at least to do something significantly different from Siam, however the game already has a lot of medieval Asian civs, which is why I expect Vietnam has a better chance than Khmer of making it into the expansion - a modern Asian civ is completely lacking.

Hungary also belongs to this category. The way Firaxis set up their Austria civ is very upsetting, medieval Hungary was one of main powers (if not the biggest power) of central and eastern Europe.

But the Austria represented in the game isn't a medieval power, it's the Austria-Hungary of the modern era, just as the Swedish civ represents a time period when Finland was part of that country.

I will also add Phoenicia to this category. Not totally the same case as for the previous 3 civs, but still close enough.
There is an overlap with Carthage of course, but it's not bigger than it was in the previous examples. Not bigger than it is between England and the USA
Phoenicia, one of the earliest (and such a successful) trading/colonizing power, home of one of the first alphabets, cannot remain absent from the civ franchise forever

It's got three city-states, which represent the Phoenician state structure well. There's no real overlap with Carthage - despite Dido's introductory greeting, the Carthaginians were not Phoenicians, except ethnically, they were a fully separate power that happened to have Phoenician ancestors.

Finally, civs probably absent from the expansion because of political reasons.
Israel, as in the ancient Israel/Hebrews, and Tibet, as in the Tibetan Empire.
These civs also have very low chance, but would also be very worthy additions, would fit into Civ V very much.

Israel would have little chance without political controversy; with it it's impossible. This was a minor nation remembered widely today only for an accident of history that resulted in the world's dominant religion being founded there, and the development of which Israelite culture had little bearing on.

So, what this means for actual (potential) DLCs:
The most popular civs, which may go as DLCs exactly because of their popularity:
Zulu
Sioux
Portugal

At least two of these are all but certain to be in BNW, the third has a realistic chance of inclusion.
 
A lot of Euro civs? Such as?

With G&K and including what we know about BNW so far, pretty much the entirety of Europe has been represented, with the exception of:
- Serbia and the other former Yugoslav states
- Hungary
- Belgium (there have been some people suggesting they might get added as a fully-playable Civ because of the Scramble for Africa scenario, but I just can't see them over some of the other gaps)
- Bulgaria (but we know they won't be in, because we've seen Sofia as a CS)
- arguably Italy (but there have been some pretty convincing arguments against Italy ever making it into CiV)
- The Baltic States (but it seems Lithuania at least have been amalgamated into Poland given that we saw Vilnius as a Polish city)
- Ukraine (but would there be room for them alongside Catherine the Great's Russia?)
- There are other Eastern European tribes doubtless worthy of a spot, but I don't see how any of them deserve to be in ahead of Serbia/Yugoslavia or Hungary

You're also missing Switzerland, Romania, The Czech Republic / Bohemia, Slovakia. There are also some historical nations/constructs/groups that could be counted, like the Holy Roman Empire, the Goths/Visigoths, the Normans. Plus all the ancients like the ones that mitsho mentioned.

It's overall a long enough list that nobody is guaranteed a spot, even if Firaxis suddenly decides that they MUST have another European nation (and I don't know if they will).

Honestly, looking at the list it feels like they would be truly scraping the bottom of the barrel by adding any of those.

I sort of can see the Swiss, maybe. They're reasonably distinct, well known and with a long history. The rest are a tougher sell for anyone who isn't from the respective location. Hungary could have been worthwhile, but I feel that they've been lumped in with Austria already. Plus, it would be hard to find a way to distinguish them enough.
 
A lot of former great powers and civilizations will never be in Civ. Just look at how long it took for Sweden to get into a civ game... That country's people basically created Russia (Kievan Rus), fought for the Byzantine Empire (Varyags), secured protestantism as a major religion in Europe and beat the Holy Roman Empire on the battlefield, had colonies in North America, invented modern warfare, is known all over the world for many things (nobel price, vikings, engineering, "lion of the north", etc).....
If warfare is a measurement, they are the only country known to man that have been in a constant state of war for more than one thousand years.

But they add "civs" like Zulu and Sioux instead....

Its not always historically accurate and fair, the way they choose civs.
 
What you are doing right now is talking the same old talk about civilizations, and not discussing possible DLCs or aspects of the game that could be improved or included in future third (I hope) Expansion Packs. We can always have a nice big talk on what civilizations are worth including in game of course, but I just wanted to draw your attention on that you generally offtoping.
 
Can you elaborate on what these were? I only played the scenario once, but all I saw was that those two civs were included with existing leader screens and stills, and a new unit animation each, exactly as for the Normans and Saxons in the 1066 scenario. I don't think anyone's suggested that implies any intent of adding Normans or Saxons to Civ V (a shame actually since the Huscarl graphic was great, the Motte & Bailey too). The UAs were not UAs that would be very appropriate for full civs, either, being somewhat specific to the scenario's time period. It also looks as though Assyria's UU will not use the UU graphic from the Ancient World scenario, so they don't seem to have been "holding over" a partially-completed civ for later release.

I think if there'd been a planned civ double-pack they'd have withheld Ancient Worlds a lot longer so that development could be completed on those civs, or would have had more content for those two civs.

I'm only echoing the words of others regarding the Sumer-Hittite DLC
It mostly came from modders, civilization and icon makers
Let me find some part of the conversation:

Also, actually that DLC was probably meant to be a double civ pack, similarly to the previously released Spain+Inca
Not sure why they changed their minds, maybe the previous double DLC didn't sell well enough

I've actually always been certain of this. Those two scenario civs have more work done on them than most fake scenario civs: civ icon, UU and UB icons, 3D unit art, map finished, plus the only constant error in the database logs is that the game can't find the paths for the Hittite and Sumer units, meaning at one point they were planned for the base game and the code was never cleaned up.

I have no idea why they abandoned the idea as well, though, I can't really say if it makes them more or less likely for the expansion (you can argue either way). However, the Hittites and Sumer both deserve to be in the game much more than a lot of suggestions that get thrown around.

Based on this, I'm really hoping Firaxis will get back to them eventually
So both Sumer and the Hittites will find their way as full civs with another DLC/expansion
 
With the amount of change in this expansion I don't see a third expansion as likely. With more expansions comes more problems if people don't buy them all. One last DLC run with a handful of civs, scenarios, maybe even one last set of wonders is a possibility, but we'll have to wait and see.

If they announce a "tenth" civilization as a special preorder DLC, then I'd take that as confirmation that there will be one last DLC run to round out the Civ V release cycle.
 
I'm only echoing the words of others regarding the Sumer-Hittite DLC
It mostly came from modders, civilization and icon makers
Let me find some part of the conversation:

Based on this, I'm really hoping Firaxis will get back to them eventually
So both Sumer and the Hittites will find their way as full civs with another DLC/expansion

Sumer and the Hitties have a completed drawn map that's never even used in the scenario but still in the files. But yeah, the biggest indication is the constant database error when you start a normal game, looking for the art files for the Sumer and Hittite units. The game doesn't look for the unique unit graphics used in other scenarios (the Vikings for instance).
 
Top Bottom