For those of us who are greedy...

Sometimes, adding more stuff just doesn't work. You have to start from scratch again to make everything really fit in together properly. For example, great people were added in a Civ3 expansion, but it took Civ4 to really make them work.

Start work on Civ6. Perhaps no need to go completely back to the drawing board. The game elements post BNW will probably be fine building blocks, but they will almost certainly benefit from being put together again in a more consistent and well integrated way.

TheKingOfBigOz said:

I would want another Expansion pack purely so the total amount of civs is 50.

Click to expand...

The first DLC run was 7 Civs, the two expansions have 9 new civs each making a total after the release of Brave New World of 43. As such, another DLC run of 7 civs as with the first would make it 50.

I can't see much reason to start afresh just yet. There are still plenty of options to continue with civ v. Noone is particularly anti civ v anymore, and the game certainly isnt a disaster.

Firaxis seem very happy with the new systems they've brought in too. The only reasons i could really justify a new game with is either a radical new approach to game systems or the possibility of optimisation of the game beyond development of the current version or a new game engine that offers much more development options that had to be compromised on before.

I don't think there strictly needs to be a new game on the horizon, and i would more than happily keep on going with civ v for another 10+ years if it was continually added and developed. But if firaxis judge that development has reached a point were it is more effective to start anew, so be it.

To me I cant see them moving to Civ 5 yet. Technology wise nothings that much better than it was at Civ 5 release date for this kind of game. You really want a Civ 6 to be a leap forward and right now there isn't new graphic, sound tech that would justify the effort to develop. I'd milk this cash cow and when there is tech that really is in front of whats in Civ 5 then develop Civ 6. I think touch screen and the new eye movement tech or kinnect style movement from Microsoft (for X-Box) are in early days. Civ 6 needs to have that sort of tech at a perfected level before it becomes worthwhile using something like that.

With the new Civs debate there are clearly about 60 options that are feasible total in terms of Civs which means they could get two new releases out of this over the next couple of years and then develop Civ 6 for release in 3-1/2 to 4 years. That would really be end of life of Civ 5. So Civ 6 targeted for Christmas 2016 would allow them to start design planning now whilst maximising the earning potential of the current product. That also means in all likelyhood Australia, Majapahit, Moors, Kongo, Hungary, Inuit, Argentina, Sumeria, Hittite, Vietnam, Timurid, Phonecia and a slew of other civs get in making the community satisfied even if those civs miss out now.

2 extra releases = happy community + money for Firaxis + hopefully a Civ 6 using exciting new tech which means Civ 6 sells more rather than just being a slightly better version of civ 5

Expansion wise maybe they do a ancient civ themed pack with more and a modern pack with upgraded future tech modern era options.

alpha2117 said:

To me I cant see them moving to Civ 5 yet. Technology wise nothings that much better than it was at Civ 5 release date for this kind of game. You really want a Civ 6 to be a leap forward and right now there isn't new graphic, sound tech that would justify the effort to develop. I'd milk this cash cow and when there is tech that really is in front of whats in Civ 5 then develop Civ 6. I think touch screen and the new eye movement tech or kinnect style movement from Microsoft (for X-Box) are in early days. Civ 6 needs to have that sort of tech at a perfected level before it becomes worthwhile using something like that.

With the new Civs debate there are clearly about 60 options that are feasible total in terms of Civs which means they could get two new releases out of this over the next couple of years and then develop Civ 6 for release in 3-1/2 to 4 years. That would really be end of life of Civ 5. So Civ 6 targeted for Christmas 2016 would allow them to start design planning now whilst maximising the earning potential of the current product. That also means in all likelyhood Australia, Majapahit, Moors, Kongo, Hungary, Inuit, Argentina, Sumeria, Hittite, Vietnam, Timurid, Phonecia and a slew of other civs get in making the community satisfied even if those civs miss out now.

2 extra releases = happy community + money for Firaxis + hopefully a Civ 6 using exciting new tech which means Civ 6 sells more rather than just being a slightly better version of civ 5

Expansion wise maybe they do a ancient civ themed pack with more and a modern pack with upgraded future tech modern era options.

Click to expand...

Even if we only had a DLC run after Brave New World I would expect Civ VI wouldn't be released until around September 2016, if there were two expansions it would almost certainly be around late 2017 at the earliest in such a case. To put it another way:

~August 2012-July 2013: Brave New World
~August 2013-July 2014: Third Expansion
~August 2014-July 2015: Fourth Expansion

So if they put basically no resources into producing patches after the release of the Fourth expansion, they'd have about 2 years and 2 months to produce Civ VI... could be done. The gap between Beyond the Sword and Civ V was 3 years and 2 months, although some would make the argument that Colonisation and Revolution were both made in the first year after the release of Beyond the Sword. In any case, you have to budget at least two years from the last release if you want to stay realistic with a timetable for your expectations. You couldn't have two new expansions and see Civ VI as early as 2016 as that would leave just over a year for the production of an entirely new game in the series.

I love civ 5, but I can't think of enough addons that could justify another expansion after BNW, I don't play scenarios and we've definitely got enough civs now. I'd prefer for firaxis to work on civ 6 after BNW and subsequent patching, I think it'd feel like time for change in a few years' time.

Menzies said:

Even if we only had a DLC run after Brave New World I would expect Civ VI wouldn't be released until around September 2016, if there were two expansions it would almost certainly be around late 2017 at the earliest in such a case. To put it another way:

~August 2012-July 2013: Brave New World
~August 2013-July 2014: Third Expansion
~August 2014-July 2015: Fourth Expansion

So if they put basically no resources into producing patches after the release of the Fourth expansion, they'd have about 2 years and 2 months to produce Civ VI... could be done. The gap between Beyond the Sword and Civ V was 3 years and 2 months, although some would make the argument that Colonisation and Revolution were both made in the first year after the release of Beyond the Sword. In any case, you have to budget at least two years from the last release if you want to stay realistic with a timetable for your expectations. You couldn't have two new expansions and see Civ VI as early as 2016 as that would leave just over a year for the production of an entirely new game in the series.

Click to expand...

At the moment BNW is mid year 2013 if you had 2 new expansion packs in the same time of year 2014 & 2015 that would be 18 months before a X-Mas 2016 release for civ 6. Since CIV 5 is pretty much solid tech at this point relatively junior development staff can work on the expansions whilst more senior staff would be moving towards a civ 6 product. I think X-mas 2016 is a relatively realistic target date on a game that isn't overly graphic intensive. I'd be certain that prelim discussions would already have occurred on wishlist level in terms of a next iteration. Given civ's previous cycles for a new version I also think late 2016 or mid 2017 is about the latest in terms of timing. They tend to come out around a 5 year cycle and civ 5 was released late 2010 (91, 96, 01, 05, 10) so I really would expect a new civ between late 2015 and early 17 depending on development delays. I think with 5 they initially tried the DLC route but it didn't work as well as expansions so they then went with these 2 expansions. I kind of expect at least 1 more next year and then either a 4th or civ 6 in 2015.

alpha2117 said:

At the moment BNW is mid year 2013 if you had 2 new expansion packs in the same time of year 2014 & 2015 that would be 18 months before a X-Mas 2016 release for civ 6. Since CIV 5 is pretty much solid tech at this point relatively junior development staff can work on the expansions whilst more senior staff would be moving towards a civ 6 product. I think X-mas 2016 is a relatively realistic target date on a game that isn't overly graphic intensive. I'd be certain that prelim discussions would already have occurred on wishlist level in terms of a next iteration. Given civ's previous cycles for a new version I also think late 2016 or mid 2017 is about the latest in terms of timing. They tend to come out around a 5 year cycle and civ 5 was released late 2010 (91, 96, 01, 05, 10) so I really would expect a new civ between late 2015 and early 17 depending on development delays. I think with 5 they initially tried the DLC route but it didn't work as well as expansions so they then went with these 2 expansions. I kind of expect at least 1 more next year and then either a 4th or civ 6 in 2015.

Click to expand...

That's not how they've done things in the past. 18 months is far too short for the development of a game like Civilization. I would say that 2016 is the date for Civ VI, hence why I don't think there'd ever be 2 new expansions after this one. If they release any new content past BNW, it will be 2016, if they release any after that 2017, any more after that 2018, etc. Don't account for any less than 26 months when discussing how long it will be without a new release when talking about Civ VI's release, because it just isn't realistic, and you'll only end up disappointed.

As other people have said, another expansion would give us the Hittites and Kongo types that didn't get in this time, but will have abilities that aren't run of the mill, assuming they incorporate new gameplay mechanics into them. On the other hand, we could have them as DLCs, but they wouldn't be as interesting or exciting. Besides, I don't want civ 6, I want a complete civ 5. The devs came up with so much this time, I'd love to see what else they can add.

Few more DLCs & patches for improved gameplay perhaps & then moving on to cVI. Another expansion after BNW would be too much for AI to handle & there would might be just too many civs to choose form. More is not always better IMO.

Babri said:

More is not always better IMO.

Click to expand...

Exactly. With this possible new EP, turns would take even longer because you and the AI have to work through every single feature added into the game. Heck, the UI would be so cluttered with all the counters at the top, I don't know where they'd get the space to add more! Some people seem to want an EP that fixes the AI and such, but I don't think Firaxis would be able to or wants to do that. That's the kinda thing that is either done bit-by-bit in patches or in a new Civ.

RandyG said:

I picked no opinion but if it were an option i would have picked

Neither, onward to Alpha Centauri 2

Click to expand...

This, so very, very, much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7PP2o9njuA From 8:30 minutes onward, Ed Beach's answer to the future.

I don't know, maybe we really get a 3rd expansion, I hope I interpret Ed that way.

And I can think stuff that wouldnt feel forced-on and wouldn't require too much micromanagement.
For example revolutions that might cause a city to secede from an empire.
Corporations, only done cooler than in Civ IV. (like Civ V has done with all the features!)
Expanded City-state system
Expanded barbarians

I hope something else is due for civ 5 but I can see them making a couple of patches, DLC pack then calling it quits. That would put them on for 2016.

I'd love to see more done with Civ 5 in some ways, but I think it'll be time after BNW that they get on to designing and planning and getting people together to work on Civ 6.

Why?


1. From what I've heard, BNW is already verging on changing things around too significantly. No gold along rivers or on coasts. New resource. Overhaul to the closing policy trees (which now are 'Ideologies'). Tourism. Archaeology. Units that are specific to an ideology/policy tree. Great works and Great works slots along with changes to Artist slots. World Congress. Trade Routes.

All that sounds like fun stuff, but that list is pretty long and some changes are pretty big. Hence, another expansion would be dangerous, as the game may become too different from what fans already know and play, and beyond that, BNW just sounds like the amount of new features and changes is going to be plenty.

That said, I still could see them adding a bit of DLC, but with 9 new civs, I'm not sure even that will be needed after BNW.


2. When did Civ 5 come out again? That's not just rhetorical, in that I don't remember when. If it was in 2010, then ~ 4 years will have passed since release by the time BNW likely has its first patch (2010, 2011, 2012, and most of 2013). If it was in 2009, then about 5 years.

In either case, with Directx9 fading away and with other advances, it's likely that they'd rather start developing/licensing a new, improved engine soon rather than do yet more DLC or expansions.


3. New DLC and expansions sometimes lead to a funnel-like affect in sales. If any more DLC comes out and ends up needing G&K and/or BNW, then there's a good possibility that that DLC will sell less well than vanilla's. The more stuff added on, the less and less likely it is that someone picking the game up just now will buy it all, unless it's as a gold (or, after BNW, platinum or whatever) package. While I expect another Steam sale of Civ 5 Gold just prior to BNW being available, I still wonder how well BNW will do.

***

All just IMHO. I'd love to see Civ 5 get AI improvements and a few other things, but if BNW doesn't get those things accomplished, then I'd rather see Civ 6 start the design and pre-production phase.

voted for another expansion; I think there's still more which can potentially be done with Civ 5. The only major fix would need to be A.I. according to a lot of people (I honestly don't see any thing wrong with it, but I'm not a very clever man).

Plus, I don't think my computer could handle another graphics overhaul; I have to monitor it close enough as is with civ 5.

Didn't notice this thread when it came out, but found it on the polycast.

Onward to Civ VI: There's already been two expansions and it was preceded by a lot of DLCs. (But whenever Civ VI is being developed, allow six more months of beta testing / pre-game release game balancing tweaks than was done for Civ V Vanilla.)

If more work done on Civ V, I'd have teaching the AI enough to be suitable for the AIs standard handicap to be Prince with an intermediate goal of Warlord as the top priority. (Up for current Chieftain.)

Another thing that would be nice would be:

Allow mods to be built that would have national wonders need X copies of the building (say 4) instead of 100% (base game) or other percentage (75% VEM/GEM)

Allow mods to be built that would have espionage buildings a %X chance of killing enemy spies ; along with increasing %chance of defensive spies killing the enemy spy.

Allow mods to be built that would have cities with more population have more of a religious impact spread than tiny cities.

I voted more civs and scenarios because I thought that BNW was announced to be the last expansion. If it wasn't; then a new expansion.

Securion said:

AI and MP fixes for sure.

Click to expand...

This. Please, please, please, this. Please? Please!

Even if no new content comes after BNW, I would love to see one last patch that did these two things:

1) Made the AI know how to use its units more effectively.
2) Made the multiplayer side of CiV game playable.

They said they consider CiV complete now, but its just good PR to say that.

The fact we are expecting BNW should show that expansions were more profitable than DLC, if BNW does very well I dont see a reason why they wouldnt devote time to a third x-pack.

As long as any new mechanic they add uses whats on the table already (ideologies,religion, trade, etc) I dont think it would prove that unbalancing to the game.

Following that I think there's still plenty of space for colonization, smoothing the transition from Renaissance to Industrial, revolutions and CS evolving over the eras, as well as improving the tactical AI.

Not to mention new civs and reworked civs. If there's ever a colonization mechanic, It would be nice to see Spain reworked into a colonial power.