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

There's still much room for expansion but I'm not sure whether Civ 5 can handle it. It already takes ages to pass an AI turn on huge maps in late game and the AI itself is often lacking in basic wits. As for today, AI is often incapable of proper development of its land, establishing a reasonable religious expansion system and most importantly, waging a war. Further additions could cripple both AI and hardware even further. I'm already afraid that AI will not be capable of managing its trade routes properly.

If it's possible, I'd like to see one more expansion with:
- flexible borders (territory trading, peace-treaty territory adjustment, cultural influence making tiles flip)
- real religion (proper diplomatic modifiers, religious unrest, general reduction of unhappiness etc.)
- random factors (technology-related "inventions" and "events" like random great works of art, temporary tourism boost due to successful tv series, citizens start to fancy horse riding which results in bonus happiness from the resource etc. etc.)
- borders sparking tension in relation to international relations (real tension: decreased production, random sabotage of improvements OR bonus tourism, bonus culture, bonus commerce)
- tech and resource dependent development ("your trade routes generate only 50% of potential commerce because you have only 5/10 horses needed to properly maintain them all [or you could just invent cars]" or "construction of buildings in Berlin is at 66% efficiency because you have only 20/30 iron needed for your empire's development")

Now civilizations are internally static and I'd really love to see that changed.

Do I want more content? Yes, definitely, both an expansion and DLC. I doubt that we will actually get it, maybe a DLC or two, but that is another question. I definitely do not even want to think about a Civ VI. Too much time has gone into making Civ V a complete game to shift to VI, both with the developers and the community.

With BNW, the game finally seems to be what it should have been. Not only was vanilla unfinished upon release, with the first 3-4 patches completely overhauling the game again and again, but the VCs were simply stupid. I don't mind the bonuses the AI gets, but when they were so flagrant and obvious, they really detracted from the fun. I have high hopes (too high?) for these areas.

Now that Civ V is finally reaching maturity, let's give it the love it deserves.

Makavcio said:

There's still much room for expansion but I'm not sure whether Civ 5 can handle it. It already takes ages to pass an AI turn on huge maps in late game and the AI itself is often lacking in basic wits. As for today, AI is often incapable of proper development of its land, establishing a reasonable religious expansion system and most importantly, waging a war. Further additions could cripple both AI and hardware even further. I'm already afraid that AI will not be capable of managing its trade routes properly.

If it's possible, I'd like to see one more expansion with:
- flexible borders (territory trading, peace-treaty territory adjustment, cultural influence making tiles flip)
- real religion (proper diplomatic modifiers, religious unrest, general reduction of unhappiness etc.)
- random factors (technology-related "inventions" and "events" like random great works of art, temporary tourism boost due to successful tv series, citizens start to fancy horse riding which results in bonus happiness from the resource etc. etc.)
- borders sparking tension in relation to international relations (real tension: decreased production, random sabotage of improvements OR bonus tourism, bonus culture, bonus commerce)
- tech and resource dependent development ("your trade routes generate only 50% of potential commerce because you have only 5/10 horses needed to properly maintain them all [or you could just invent cars]" or "construction of buildings in Berlin is at 66% efficiency because you have only 20/30 iron needed for your empire's development")

Now civilizations are internally static and I'd really love to see that changed.

Click to expand...

This, as well as:
-Civ Points/Glory Points/Honor Points - Every time you build a wonder, find a Civ, win a battle, found a pantheon, be the first to unlock a SP branch, or discover a tech first, you earn CP, which you can spend in various ways (upgrading cities, upgrading a unit line (so all melee boats for example start with a certain promotions(s)), and buying GPs)
-Growable Cities - See above. When you found a city (except for your Capital), you have the ability to upgrade your city to the next level, using Civ Points. The tree would look like: Hamlet->Village->Town->City->Metropolis. Each level would have quicker growth, higher combat strength, and be able to work an extra ring of tiles (Hamlet=1, Village=2...Metropolis=5), but would take an exponentially larger toll on your happiness. When a settlement is captured, it suffers a 20% population loss, AND defers to the settlement grade below it. A hamlet is automatically destroyed upon capture. Cities would also have a sort of policy tree, with five levels of upgrades available (bought using CP). A hamlet has access to the first tier, a village to the first and second, all the way to a metropolis which has access to all five tiers.

What do you think?

Rob (R8XFT) said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is the only reason I would be in favor of Civ 6. I have always wanted this feature in the game and hope that it does eventually get implemented.

But unless that happens I hope they just focus on CiV right now. Maybe some amped-up DLC instead of ust a civ here and there. A DLC with a few new civs, a couple new scenarios (maybe a space one), or potentially some small gameplay mechanism (I don't think they really need an entirely new expansion if they just add cororations or something).

Rob (R8XFT) said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm not sure "better" is the right word here. I think it's more a question of what fits the game itself. Having fully-animated talking leaders fits with what Civ V is, but we don't know yet what style or tone Civ VI will take. It might turn out that more scaled-back leaderheads could be more appropriate for the look and feel of Civ VI.

Of course I understand that some people will insist that anything that's not explicitly bigger and flashier than what they've done before is going "backward", but I would say it depends. For one thing, the resources it takes to get a fully-animated leader speaking (ostensibly) their own language might be better spent elsewhere. Not every dead language has been sufficiently reconstructed to use, but some of the leaders speak entirely the wrong language even when there are other languages available that would have been more appropriate. (Having Ramesses speak Arabic when Coptic still exists would be comparable to having Hiawatha speaking English on the grounds that he's from upstate New York.) The voice acting is decidedly hit-or-miss; some of them sound good, but others have voices that don't fit the character or simply have poor line readings. (I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like listening to either of the English speakers, and people who speak Chuvash have said that Attila's line readings are so atrocious as to be absolutely jarring.) And I don't know for sure that this is true, but I have the very strong suspicion that it's problems with translating dialogue and finding voice actors competent to read the lines that is keeping out some of the ancient civs we want to see, like the consistently-high-in-the-polls Sumerians and Hittites. If not having leaders talk means that they can come back, then I'm perfectly happy for the leaders not to talk.

The animated leaderheads of Civ III looked better than the still portraits and jerky heralds of Civ II, but still removed the option of alternative leaders for each civ. The leaderheads of Civ IV moved more smoothly and looked much nicer than the Civ III bobble-heads, but sacrificed having era-specific appearances with different outfits and fresh backgrounds. Civ VI doesn't have to continue farther in the same direction that Civ V took. Losing the fully-animated talking leaders isn't necessarily a step down if whatever they look like instead fits the style and tone of the game itself.

The thing about leaderheads is that a choice has to be made: one option is to make them complex and have, IMHO, something that is impressive. I've still not tired of them after logging well over 1,100 hours of gameplay. The other choice is to scale them back and give modders like me a chance of creating alternative leaderheads that fit in with the style of the game. In Civ III, I was able to do this (plenty of uploads to CFC ), but in Civ V, whilst I've created static leaderheads, they'll never be animated and speaking.

I'd actually rather have "Dynasties" (or later on: Political Parties) than leaderheads. Just to name one example where they could go different.

Rob (R8XFT) said:

The thing about leaderheads is that a choice has to be made: one option is to make them complex and have, IMHO, something that is impressive. I've still not tired of them after logging well over 1,100 hours of gameplay. The other choice is to scale them back and give modders like me a chance of creating alternative leaderheads that fit in with the style of the game. In Civ III, I was able to do this (plenty of uploads to CFC ), but in Civ V, whilst I've created static leaderheads, they'll never be animated and speaking.

Click to expand...

Given my choice, I'd prefer the latter, for three reasons:

1) Simpler leaderheads that take less time and effort to develop re-opens the possibility of having multiple leaders per civ, as Civ IV did. I would appreciate that kind of variety.

2) Losing the obligation to get translators and voice actors increases the potential number of civs that could get in. I want the Sumerians more than I want leaders vocalizing at me.

3) As you say, simpler leaderheads make it easier for modders to fit the style of the game. I don't know the first thing about making my own leaderheads, so in any given Civ game I'm still limited by what other people come up with. But I'm still an avid user of Civ III modded leaderheads (I've been using your own Attila v.2 to replace their hideous Genghis Khan leaderhead for years), and I like how well they fit in alongside the official ones. It would be nice if that were possible in Civ VI again.

I know not everyone will agree. There are those who will say they have to be bigger and badder every time, and that Civ VI leaders have to speak all of their dialogue or be played by live action actors or something or it's a ripoff. But I'd prefer if the developers tried to capture the right tone, rather than just struggle to outdo themselves every time.

I'd prefer better leaderheads that are well designed.
Quality>Quantity, Going back to the Civ4 level in LHs in Civ6 would be a disappointment.

I'm in agreement with Rob: if they were to start work on Civ 6 today, what changes would they make? The Civ V engine is pretty modern for this type of game; I don't see many obvious improvements.

Killlbray said:

Or you know they could make a fantasy civ.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but there are already good fantasy civ-type games out there. Whereas there hasn't been a really good space strategy game since MOO2. (And no, I wouldn't characterize GalCivII as "really good.")

A lot of guys here should be playing Europa Universalis instead of Civilization :/

There is also Endless Space for those who love space-faring 4X games.

StarCraft II is obviously a space-based strategy game that is extremely popular (but is an RTS).

God of Kings said:

There is also Endless Space for those who love space-faring 4X games.

StarCraft II is obviously a space-based strategy game that is extremely popular (but is an RTS).

Click to expand...

I bought Endless Space and while I had fun with it, I don't really find myself wanting to play with it more than that. It is very well done in every regard beating civ V in the diplomacy department and the many victory options, however the combat system is silly and the interface makes it look more like a web based game.

Starcraft II, well it's not comparable since it's an RTS through thorough designed to either be played in campaign mode or competitive multiplayer.

I wouldn't mind if they turn to Civ VI (if there will be next Civilization generation game?). The main reason is that I would not like this game (by far the best in series, by my humble opinion, and I played all but first one) to be crowded more with new feature. It is already full glass to the top and spilling a little, as somebody already stated more and more is not always too good for the game play. I like how the game look like now with what is included in BNW. However it is way different (not worst) than how it was two years ago, but adding more I would think will made this some other game, not Civ V anymore (if I can interpret my self enough for You to understand) and I would not want that.

Saying all this, I would not like that "the book is closed after BNW". There is some small things to be worked on true patches or DLCs that can beautifies the game graphically more and made minor tweaks in game play for better. I have many suggestions but I cannot type too much to explane all of them Also couple of more Civilizations would not hurt specialy if among them is Serbia.

Important part : Also as some suggested I would really like some more standalone game like CivIV Colonization was. Same Colonization (but CivV version) would be great. Since I am not a big fan of future SF I would stay with proposal for similar game also in past. My biggest wish would be recreation of the best mod for CivIII (that I still actually play) in CivColonization style and that is MEM [Medieval European Mod]. That would knock me down from happiness . Any era can be done that way as separate game, with there own special rules and there own leaders (kingdoms, civilizations..) units etc. on the base of the CIvV game, there engine and base rules. I think that would be cool, rather than add more game change to exiting CivV core game.

VermelhoRed said:

A lot of guys here should be playing Europa Universalis instead of Civilization :/

Click to expand...

Yeah, I tried EUIII out two months ago and it's amazing. Visually, it's lagging behind Civ IV, but gameplay-wise, it's leaps and bounds ahead of civ. I can't believe there was such a superb game hiding in the shadows as I wasted time on civ.

That being said, I still love Civ and will definitely enjoy BNW. Civ brings in a much more polished and vibrant experience, even if it still has ways to go for its AI.

I realize that Civ is a hardcore game and I'm walking among hardcore fans of it, but I think that at some point, once you add a certain number of game features, they get too hard to keep track of. Even with just G&K, I (rarely, but sometimes) wish that certain game elements just weren't there because I just want to play without having to worry about them. BNW is adding several new game elements and while you don't have to worry about all of them 100% of the time, they're all kind of there.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I expect BNW to push me pretty close to my "things I'm able to simultaneously care about" threshold. Maybe I'll feel differently when I've more fully internalized BNW's new game systems, but right now I'm just not sure I could really mentally handle another three game systems running on top of all of that, which is why if there is a third expansion, I would probably -not- want it to look like G&K or BNW in terms of introducing several new game systems of different scopes. I consider myself a moderately dedicated Civ player, but I sort of feel like there's still a cap on the number of different plates I can keep spinning.

For that reason, I'd almost want a third "expansion" to be more of a comprehensive rejuvenation than "here's tons of new things to pay attention to". It's inevitable that complexity will rise with an expansion, and I'm perfectly okay with that, but I think that the game's reached a point where any new content that layers on top needs to be deeply aware of the game's already significant complexity. You can see that to some degree with BNW already, where some of the new systems are more in-depth versions of old systems (trade, the late-game ideologies), rather than new things running completely alongside of what's already there (faith, espionage.)

Maybe I'm alone in feeling like several new game systems on top of what BNW adds would push the game into hard-to-manage territory, but for that reason, I feel like if there is a 3rd expansion, it should probably look different than the first two.

Yngvi said:

Do I want more content? Yes, definitely, both an expansion and DLC. I doubt that we will actually get it, maybe a DLC or two, but that is another question. I definitely do not even want to think about a Civ VI. Too much time has gone into making Civ V a complete game to shift to VI, both with the developers and the community.

With BNW, the game finally seems to be what it should have been. Not only was vanilla unfinished upon release, with the first 3-4 patches completely overhauling the game again and again, but the VCs were simply stupid. I don't mind the bonuses the AI gets, but when they were so flagrant and obvious, they really detracted from the fun. I have high hopes (too high?) for these areas.

Now that Civ V is finally reaching maturity, let's give it the love it deserves.

Click to expand...

Very well said. I agree with every word. With the release of Brave New World right around the corner all I want to do is play Civ 5 the way it should have been from the very start. Fully fleshed out early to late game with depth and plenty to keep me busy. Civ 5 is reaching its maturity you're right. All I want now is some patches and maybe a few DLC if anything. Civ VI can wait. The world needs to let Civilization 5 settle. Vanilla left me wanting and disappointed but now it finally feels complete, I just want to enjoy it.

Bisqit said:

Very well said. I agree with every word. With the release of Brave New World right around the corner all I want to do is play Civ 5 the way it should have been from the very start. Fully fleshed out early to late game with depth and plenty to keep me busy. Civ 5 is reaching its maturity you're right. All I want now is some patches and maybe a few DLC if anything. Civ VI can wait. The world needs to let Civilization 5 settle. Vanilla left me wanting and disappointed but now it finally feels complete, I just want to enjoy it.

Click to expand...

Well said.

does anyone have an educated guess as to how long it'd be between the start of the civ 6 design/development and the game's release? i've been guessing that it'd have to take 2 or 3 years just because an expansion pack seems to take about a year, but i don't really know.

m15a said:

does anyone have an educated guess as to how long it'd be between the start of the civ 6 design/development and the game's release? i've been guessing that it'd have to take 2 or 3 years just because an expansion pack seems to take about a year, but i don't really know.

Click to expand...

They said in one of the interviews (the Kotaku (sp?) one I believe) that they'd been working on Civ V for 7 years - since 2006, then. It was originally brought out in late 2010...so we're talking 4 years.