Do we want a third expansion and/or more DLC for Civ 5?

Do we want to see more expansions/DLCs for Civ 5?


  • Total voters
    328
There's some areas where they've raised the bar so much I wonder how they can do it better. Leaderheads, for example, are now full-screen animated and talking characters - what could they do better for a potential Civ 6 (other than, for example, different outfits per era which would take up a lot of room on that download!) Would it be liked or disliked by the community if, when Civ 6 came along, all the graphics were of the same format as Civ 5 - making it straightforward for modders to port in new leaderheads, buildings and units? In the highly unlikely circumstance of them doing this, they would need to have a different leader for each of the civs (i.e. a different historical figure to their Civ 5 counterpart) - which shouldn't be too difficult - and, perhaps, the facility to have multiple leaders per civ.
This is why I think it would make sense for them to have a decent time gap between Civ5 and Civ6 (assuming like TheKingOfBigOz that Civ6 will not bring any major gameplay changes). Graphics does get better with time, and while Civ5 graphics doesn't feel dated at the moment (at least not in my oppinion) with time, bringing the graphics up to date, without necessarily bringing in something "new" in this area, will alone qualify as an upgrade of the game.
 
Why would anyone want CiVI? They'll just rip out religion, espionage, the world congress, trade routes, and who knows what else that we take for granted and then re-introduce them piecemeal over a three year period.

Just keep building on the platform that you've already invested in or figure out how to release a complete experience.

because there can be more than one "complete" experience. every version of civ (except maybe civ ii?) took out some systems, but every version of civ added something new also. so, with every new game, new strategies have to be developed and tested - to me, *that's* what's fun. having a representation of some real-world aspects is fun, too, but (again, for me) the lack of those systems does not take away as much as is added by the reinterpretation of the systems that are included.

to some extent, i think my real vote would be for the developers to do what they feel is right. i don't want them to put out a new game if they can't come up with some interesting ideas, but i don't want them to make an expansion pack if they can't come up with some new ideas either.
 
No, the polls ask two different things. Last poll asked whether people thought there would be more content for Civ5 - most people didn't think there will be another expansion. This poll asks whether people want more content for Civ5 - and seems the majority of people want another expansion.

But there's no reason to believe that people have changed their mind along the way.

I'm actually talking about the "Because we're greedy..." poll from a month back. It asked whether people wanted more content or not. Back then there was a sizable percentage against more content.
 
Oh ok appologies, my mistake, I thought you were referring to the other poll because someone else did earlier in the thread.
 
I read somewere a interesting idea: Mini-Expansions! They can be less than a expansion (and cheper), but more tha a just DLC! They can have some civilizations, one scenario, one or two wonders and a new mechanism. For exemple, they cold make one mini-expansion with Carthage, the Celts, the Huns and Bizantium, with the Fall of Rome scenario, and the religion system. Would be cheaper to make, faster and we can enjoy for more time! (I don't read all the thread, and sorry if someone talk about this before me...)
 
CiVI better not have Wu Zetian and Dido.

I'd like Dido. Now everyone can hate me. But, who can be Carthage leader? Hannibal? (She was the only leader who appeared in History Chanel's documentary about Cathage, all right, they show UFO files before, but neither I nor the ordinary Civilization player will known other leader.)
But Wu... I'd like her leaderscreens, she had a importance in they history, but she is overshadowed by other leaders (Mao, Shi Huang Ti, Cao Cao...)
 
I'd like Dido. Now everyone can hate me. But, who can be Carthage leader? Hannibal? (She was the only leader who appeared in History Chanel's documentary about Cathage, all right, they show UFO files before, but neither I nor the ordinary Civilization player will known other leader.)
But Wu... I'd like, she was important in they history, but she is overshadowed by other leaders (Mao, Shi Huang Ti, Cao Cao...)

There's this guy called Liu Bang(lyo Baun) and he started the Han Dynasty which lasted like 400 years, and anybody during the Tang Dynasty would be nice too.

Wu Zetian? Wtf. Seriously like these random leaders. Might as well make Mulan leader of China and Jeanne D'Arc leader of France.

Omg Dido. Dido. Wtf is a Dido. Yes everybody wants Hannibal. Makes more sense than Dido yes. Having Dido be leader of Carthage is like saying Sparta might as well be the leader of Sparta.
 
I'd like Dido. Now everyone can hate me. But, who can be Carthage leader? Hannibal? (She was the only leader who appeared in History Chanel's documentary about Cathage, all right, they show UFO files before, but neither I nor the ordinary Civilization player will known other leader.)
But Wu... I'd like, she was important in they history, but she is overshadowed by other leaders (Mao, Shi Huang Ti, Cao Cao...)

Replace Wu's place as Asian female leader with Queen Seonddeok of Korea, Rameses II with Hatshepsut of Egypt, keep Dido (she was a ruler, has some historical basis, and is one of the best leaderscreens in Civ V), and include Dahomey and the Kongo for more female leader/unit representation. Issue solved.

Would love to see Kangxi for China, especially as he was the longest-lived Emperor. Qin Shi Huangdi in battle gear would do as well, but I'm tired of Qin Shi Huangdi frankly.
 
Replace Wu's place as Asian female leader with Queen Seonddeok of Korea, Rameses II with Hatshepsut of Egypt, keep Dido (she was a ruler, has some historical basis, and is one of the best leaderscreens in Civ V), and include Dahomey and the Kongo for more female leader/unit representation. Issue solved.

Would love to see Kangxi for China, especially as he was the longest-lived Emperor. Qin Shi Huangdi in battle gear would do as well, but I'm tired of Qin Shi Huangdi frankly.

Qin Shi Huang actually never really went to war. He had like a few good generals but occasionally ignored what they said and got lots of for it and later he begged them to come back. Also he had good administrators. Kind of like Hitler.

Kangxi or Gaozu would be great. Just no Wu Zetien. I think Sejong is still the most iconic king of Korea though since he basically invented the Korean alphabet and . If Sejong isn't Korea's leader, than Korea loses all claim to being a scientific nation.
 
Dear Firaxis,

Please switch Mali back in for Songhai, or have them both. Mansa Musa is simply one of the ballingest rulers in the history of human civilization and it's a shame that he got snubbed this time.

Sincerely,
Some dude from the internet
 
Qin Shi Huang actually never really went to war. He had like a few good generals but occasionally ignored what they said and got lots of for it and later he begged them to come back. Also he had good administrators. Kind of like Hitler.

Kangxi or Gaozu would be great. Just no Wu Zetien. I think Sejong is still the most iconic king of Korea though since he basically invented the Korean alphabet and . If Sejong isn't Korea's leader, than Korea loses all claim to being a scientific nation.

Right, but surely Qin Shi Huangdi had battlegear somewhere around. I would really like to see Kangxi though. Cunning old man, longest lived emperor, and not a bad warrior in his own right.

Sejong is iconic, but if we want a *competent* female leader, Queen Seonddeok is excellent (vs. say, Wu, who didn't do much). Korea need not be scientific in the next expansion, imo, though I wouldn't mind seeing Sejong return either. I just suspect a Korean voice actress might do a better job than the Korean voice actor they had for Sejong this time around.

Nujabes said:
Dear Firaxis,

Please switch Mali back in for Songhai, or have them both. Mansa Musa is simply one of the ballingest rulers in the history of human civilization and it's a shame that he got snubbed this time.

Sincerely,
Some dude from the internet
Agreed. Next leaderscreen could have Mansa Musa leading a caravan perhaps, and with camels laden with gold.
 
If they created a version of Civ which had multiple leaders - like Civ IV - then they could potentially have the occasional revolution. Imagine dealing with a peaceful neighbour, who was overthrown by a more aggressive one, changing the dynamics completely. I'm sure multiple leaders could be a possibility for Civ V, it's just the cost and time of making new leaderheads that's stopped them from doing it.
 
I guess the question is will Brave New World bring Civ V to the point Beyond the Sword brought Civ IV. I can't say I know since I never played Civ IV, only read up on it a lot and played some vanilla Civ III. But more veteran players of course should be able to say. I just know folks were very happy with Civ IV after 2 expansions and well, this is the 2nd expansion of Civ V.

I think right now there really needs to be some UI adjustments. Like I think many people have used infoaddict so long they forgot how crappy the original UI is and how Civ V desperately needs it incorporated, especially with the expanded diplomacy system. Not being able to see alliances and whatnot during diplomacy is just ridiculous. Less mandatory but nevertheless useful would be a more customization notification thing (like the mod that lets the pop notification keep going and adds tile acquisition notifications), seeing turns till border growth on city panel, getting an actual turn calculation for golden ages and deal ends, and a great person turn notifier. Many of these things come from the Unofficial patch, which in its broken state with the new patch shows how badly some parts of it need to become official. And of course the whole mounted ranged unit issues.

Of course all these problems would most reasonably be solved from ongoing free updates. As for DLC/expansions? Personally I think ancient Israel as a civilization would be awesome, I mean we already have King Solomon's mines and IIRC Judaism is the only or one of the only religions without a leader preference towards it. I mean I think many people think it would be fun to play, and it's been clearly shown Civs are chosen based on the fun things that can be done to them rather than some arbitrary idea of them needing to "earn" their place as a civilization (Case in point: The Huns). I point this out because that seemed to be the primary reason people didn't want Israel the last time it came up (on these forums at least).

As far as gameplay is concerned, I'd like to see the Anti-tank line fixed up and maybe some distance between longswords/muskets and great war infantry/infantry on the tech line. Maybe buff some old civs. Have some sort of canal system (so far as it's possible). Maybe even separate the information era a bit? It feels a bit odd having stealth bombers which we have now so close to Giant Death Robots, which we (unfortunately) never will have, or so I've been told. I know vanilla called it the future era, and it seems they just renamed it the information era (to be fair future era is a terrible name). But the information era is the one we're in right now, and some of the stuff in there seems a bit above us (though technology right now is pretty high, possibly more than I'm aware). But beyond all that, as far as official improvements are concerned, I'm pretty much set. I mean, I'd like a Rhye's and fall type mode, but I'm satisfied with letting the mod community take care of that (which they seem to be doing). I think after that I'd be pretty satisfied. Of course they'll probably add stuff I can't think of, and that will be fun to see.
 
Wu Zetian? Wtf. Seriously like these random leaders. Might as well make Mulan leader of China and Jeanne D'Arc leader of France.

I have to disagree. Wu had much more of a claim to sovereignty than Mulan and Jeanne ever did. I don't like Wu in the game because there are many better choices for China. However, taking away the comparison and just looking at Wu for who she was, she was not too terrible of a ruler. She was, dare I say it, a better ruler than Vlad the impaler whom a lot of people are drooling about.

If the game implements the multi-leaders-per-civilization feature, I don't mind Wu being one of the available choices at all.

Liu Bang sounds great, the Ming's Hongwu and the Tang's Taizong are also solid choices. Kangxi is great himself, but I am intrigued to see how the Chinese market reacts to him as the ruler of China. China always has this dilemma about the Qing dynasty. In the one hand, they accept it as an indispensable part of Chinese history; in the other hand, they are often displeased when represented by a Qing ruler.
 
I want the Civ team to give Civilizations a rest for a while and work on a space strategy game. Either an Alpha Centauri type game or a Master of Orion type game will do.

Good point. In the end it's not like they need to call it "Alpha Centauri" or have the exact scenario and leaders. A space civ would be pretty nice.
Or you know they could make a fantasy civ.
 
Top Bottom