Ed Beach's quote / future expansions

[The QC]

I don't think pre-agriculture play to be good.

Personally, I would like a small nomadic phase at the start of the game. Simply to be able to choose my settling place without losing turns. I'd appreciate this addition, even though it wouldn't change the game dramatically.

Some notable things that I feel that would still be missing from the game are racial/ethnic issues, colonies and decolonization issues, and pre-agriculture play. I think Civ needs to cover, in some manner, the darker side of humanity and civilization. You know, to show that civilizations aren't always composed of civilized people.

Slavery could also be part of that. It's an interesting idea, to have an expansion dedicated to adding more options for playing evil, but I don't think Firaxis would go for that, It would bring a type of controversy that they generally prefer to avoid (unlike, say, Rockstar).

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

Slavery could also be part of that. It's an interesting idea, to have an expansion dedicated to adding more options for playing evil, but I don't think Firaxis would go for that, It would bring a type of controversy that they generally prefer to avoid (unlike, say, Rockstar).

They had slavery as a civic in Civ IV, though, in which you could sacrifice population for rushing buildings.

 

[The QC]

They had slavery as a civic in Civ IV, though, in which you could sacrifice population for rushing buildings.

Yes, and slavery definitely could be a feature in a new Civ game or expansion. What I was saying is that I doubt they would create an expansion made ENTIRELY out of "dark side" elements, like slavery, ethnic conflicts, colonization and so on.

 

[ferretbacon]

I think a prehistoric nomadic era would be pretty cool. It would allow you to find the ‘perfect’ spot to settle and you could pick your civilization based on your surroundings. For example, if I found a coastal region with swamp everywhere, I’d be the Dutch. It would make a whole lot of sense really, as most civilizations are the products of their geography. Another example: I come across Mt. Sinai, I’d probably pick the Byzantines, as it would virtually guarantee me a religion.

 

[fat_tonle]

I think a prehistoric nomadic era would be pretty cool. It would allow you to find the ‘perfect’ spot to settle and you could pick your civilization based on your surroundings. For example, if I found a coastal region with swamp everywhere, I’d be the Dutch. It would make a whole lot of sense really, as most civilizations are the products of their geography. Another example: I come across Mt. Sinai, I’d probably pick the Byzantines, as it would virtually guarantee me a religion.

Yeah that works for the human players at least. What about the AI? How does it weigh its decision in choosing a civ? I don't think it could make a compentent decision just based on a few unique features. All we have is one UA and two UB/UU's. I don't think it works from a design standpoint. In theory, perhaps so. I just think the civs would need even greater variation than what we have now. But I'd like to see a prehistoric era based on what you've described.

A future era perhaps. Maybe a space colonization component, although I'd go as far as Mission to Mars and then Alpha Centauri way down the line. I think the Space Race is kind of silly as is. It should be first civ to land on the moon or Mars. I don't really consider the space race an era by itself in history. It was an extension of the Cold War and did not last much more than a decade. Plus missions on an interplanetary and of course interstellar scales would require a joint humanitarian effort. However, I believe this can a separate scenario or mod in the game as opposed to being in the base game.

I think civs should evolve into corporations. If you want to do a future era accurately that is. Your country should be less relevant and your corporation should be the new driving force. So how do you transition to a mechanic like that when you have been building a civilization for the past 10,000 plus years in the game?

I think you need a system where private corporations can emerge, and you win by producing the dominant corporation that is largely independent of state control. That to me plays better than a traditional scientific victory. Set out a grant for your Great Scientist/Engineer to produce a new technology to revolutionize the world. Projects can include the Internet, renewable energy, whatever. You develop this company/technology independently of your civilization, and you gradually work with other civs in the game, including your founding civ, to develop this company/technology. Producing a product that is most accessible globally will lead to victory. That to me plays better than the current scientific victory.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I think a prehistoric nomadic era would be pretty cool. It would allow you to find the ‘perfect’ spot to settle and you could pick your civilization based on your surroundings. For example, if I found a coastal region with swamp everywhere, I’d be the Dutch. It would make a whole lot of sense really, as most civilizations are the products of their geography. Another example: I come across Mt. Sinai, I’d probably pick the Byzantines, as it would virtually guarantee me a religion.

This sounds so awesome. Shame they almost certainly won't do it in CiV, but I think it would be a really neat concept for CiVI - instead of start bias, start on a random map and pick any Civ you like once you have explored a bit...

 

[Leugi]

I hope that era-dependant-music gets in the game somehow, but I don't think CivV will see that...

Anyway, a "Dark-side" Civ Expansion would be amazing... I also believe more leaders instead of more civs is likely for the next expansion...

 

[kaspergm]

Great news, just the hint of a possibility for added content after Brave New World is intriguing!

Personally, what I would like was some fleshed out mid-game content - collonial era stuff between Renaissance and Industrial. BNW may or may not succesfully tackle this period, it's a bit early to say. Coorporations is still something I would dearly see return in terms of actual game play, and in a way that succesfully involves bonus resources. Apart from that, I'm hard pressed to find major game features I really miss, but I'd be excited to see what they could come up with.

 

[Matthew.]

I think an entire expansion dedicated to diplomacy--while may not sound exciting from a selling point--would please many fans. Ever since day 1 vanilla release diplomacy has been a constant complaint.

People would complain that since it isn't adding anything new and just fixing what should have been fixed long ago isn't enough to warrant an expansion, but people will complain either way.

 

[Gucumatz]

2 things that come to mind:

1: Corporations, they were never used to their potential in Civ 4 and the idea of resource trade could be further added on to.

2: Disease, Disease has been one of the most important things in Humanity's history. And I am not saying implement a mechanic like Civ 4 had, but rather a mechanic like the Sumerian scenario in Civ 4 had: You could actively control the spread of disease. Sort of like customizing a religion, make disease something you can work to create/refine or work to cure other civilizations biological weapons. Your people are relatively immune to your diseases but when you spread them to other civilizations they can turn into weapons. Spreading healthcare could also boost happiness, population growth, offer unique promotions, to units, etc. so that disease wouldn't be limited to just being a weapon.

[Disease in my mind would be a 2 staged approach, a limited thing in the earlier eras, but something you can control in later eras to a much higher precision and work on eradicating diseases together with other civs]

 

[mo123567]

Yeah that works for the human players at least. What about the AI? How does it weigh its decision in choosing a civ?

The game developers should be able to figure it out. If, for example, there were bands of barbarians that had the potential to become civilizations, each band could be pre scripted to become a certain civ and to eventially reach a certain location that the current start location calculation would have put them in. There should be more barbarian groups than civ slots, so if the player gets in the way or something else stops the pre-civ from reaching it's goal, it would become one of the pre-civs that fail to advance to true civ status and remain as barbarians.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Ethnic Diversity DLC please, chock full of unique unit and city styles.

Here's my money.

 

[Aristos]

Ed Beach was credited for "Additional Design and Gameplay" in the Design Team and "AI/Gameplay Lead" in the Programming Team for Civ5 Vanilla. So 'brought on' means 'handed the reins'. So credit should certainly go to Ed Beach, but assuming the Lead Designer doesn't have dictatorial power, there's a whole team around them (of which Ed Beach seems to have been a key part for Jon Shafer) that deserves credit too.

Are you trying to fish credits for Shafer where they do not exist, or am I getting you wrong?

Is it pretty clear to me that Ed Beach has been "returning the beast to its roots" as much as he can given the foundations given to civ5 by Shafer. Ed is clearly trying to return to the game what was stripped by Shafer, and was being asked for by these very forums since the release of Vanilla. He cannot do magic, but he is clearly doing a great job in filling the holes that Shafer left as much as he can.

 

[Villager720]

BNW overhauled economics and culture. Other expansions could overhaul other systems. Conquest comes to mind. As of right now, conquering your way to victory is fairly simplistic: build troops, beat other troops, capture cities. There is none of the complexity that should be in war and occupation.

Just to name a few ideas I came up with off the top of my head : Supply lines, popular opinion, insurgencies, independence movements, colonization, disease, troop morale, vassal states, "just wars".
This would also be a great time to introduce ethnic unit skins (a guy can dream) to make armies look distinct and would make for some great scenarios. And hopefully a retooling of the Happiness system, 'cause honestly, who likes it as is?
Scenarios could include: Napoleonic Wars, the World Wars, various Wars for Independence

 

[Pouakai]

I'd like the ability for minor skrimishes. Basically, the ability to attack a unit / settler without a full declaration of war. You'd suffer a diplo hit, and if you did it too many times it would lead to war

 

[kaspergm]

I'd like the ability for minor skrimishes. Basically, the ability to attack a unit / settler without a full declaration of war. You'd suffer a diplo hit, and if you did it too many times it would lead to war

Could be well tied in with an overall casus belli system for DoW: If I attack your units without declaring war, you can DoW me without diplomatic consequences.

The victory condition I think needs most attention is, besides diplomatic victory (will that be changed in BnW with the World Congress?) Scientific Victory. That one could really use some updating to be less boring.

 

[Camikaze]

Are you trying to fish credits for Shafer where they do not exist, or am I getting you wrong?

Is it pretty clear to me that Ed Beach has been "returning the beast to its roots" as much as he can given the foundations given to civ5 by Shafer. Ed is clearly trying to return to the game what was stripped by Shafer, and was being asked for by these very forums since the release of Vanilla. He cannot do magic, but he is clearly doing a great job in filling the holes that Shafer left as much as he can.

I'm saying that it's easy to forget that there's a whole team at Firaxis that deserves credit; there wasn't just one guy working on G&K, or even just one guy working on its design. But I guess the corollary of that is that when people say Shafer's design was bad, they should probably remember that Ed Beach was a part of that team too, and that design was even less likely the product of a single mind. When you say "Ed is clearly trying to return to the game what was stripped by Shafer", it's probably more accurate to parse that as "the design team of Ed Beach, Scott Lewis and Anton Strenger (G&K) is clearly trying to return to the game what was stripped by Ed Beach, Scott Lewis and Jon Shafer (Vanilla)". It would be a stretch to suggest, as your post might, that the godlike G&K design team is the yin to the satanic Vanilla design team's yang, seeing as 2/3 of the people on those teams were exactly the same. With Dennis Shirk being in the same position for both too. Of course, the lead designer is the most important role, and I'm not saying Ed Beach hasn't brought something new to that role. Rather, I'm of the opinion that the differences might have more to do with factors other than the personnel involved (e.g. more time, more to work with), and that it's easy to overplay the significance of one person, when the game was made by a whole team.

 

[Securion]

1. Fix multiplayer. (allow custom maps, AI that can interact with you, advanced AI settings, etc)
2. More diplomacy options. (random events, long term alliances, military and economic aid, military planning, shared defense of city states, etc)
3. Smarter AI.

Expansions are fun and nice, but these three issues have been brought up on every CIV forum for years now. Over and over and over again.
If Firaxis listen to the community, as they claim they do, they should at least talk about these things and explain to us why this hasn't been fixed, or when it will be fixed.

 

[Bakspatel]

3. Smarter AI.

I totally agree, I really dislike how the current system works.

When I increase the difficulty I would like to compete against a more challenging AI, not an AI that just gets more advantages because it just really feels fake. Its like having a competition sprint against someone in a wheelchair, but that person gets to start 10 meters in front of the finish, has an engine in his wheelchair and got a shot of steroids and your legs are strapped together. Even if you win, would you feel it like a real victory? You want to compete against someone, on equal level that is capable of beating you. I dislike playing on higher difficulties as I find it a waste not being able to build any (early) wonders or not being one of the first with a religion; its all content that you will have to miss because the 'Wheelchair' AI needs mega-advantages to actually being able to compete against you.

 

[Avatan]

When I increase the difficulty I would like to compete against a more challenging AI, not an AI that just gets more advantages. You want to compete against someone, on equal level that is capable of beating you. I dislike playing on higher difficulties as I find it a waste not being able to build any (early) wonders or not being one of the first with a religion; its all content that you will have to miss because the 'Wheelchair' AI needs mega-advantages to actually being able to compete against you.

T think everybody agrees there, but it's not going to happen anytime soon, because it is just not technically possible yet.

The only way would be to add scripted behaviors for the AI, making it more consistent but also far more abusable...