There will be a third expansion and/or more DLC for Civ5?

What do you think?

  • There will be more DLC's AND an expansion

    Votes: 67 11.8%
  • There will be DLC's but not an expansion

    Votes: 225 39.5%
  • There will be an expansion, but not DLC's

    Votes: 51 9.0%
  • Neither DLC's nor expansion

    Votes: 107 18.8%
  • You're asking this way too early, JaGarLo...

    Votes: 119 20.9%

  • Total voters
    569
And just see how subjective "well-remembered" is. My list of course would be very different from Menzies, and I'd debate strongly whether these last civs are needed for a 43 list. From the list above only, I'd say I'd put the Etruscans and Illyria above Scythia alone, but then that's my opinion. I personally don't get the appeal of Nubia, but my next on the list African civs (Ashante, Dahomey, etc. ..) would be from a totally different region of Africa. There were posters in here saying that Indonesia wouldn't work as a "blob" civ and we need Majapahit or Srijavaia (I botched that name, sorry) and not Indonesia.

See, very subjective topic...

The game is about Civilizations and not political entities, and Civs are going to me more of a blob than some particular dynasty's Empire. The Etruscans would to most come under Rome, rightly or wrongly, as would Illyria arguably, although the region might be worth consideration for a Civ in the future, though Europe is pretty much packed as it is. No doubt any new expansions would still cram some more in though.

Ashanti were also mentioned in my list as Ghana, we already know all too well that they'll go for more recognisable names, which is understandable. It also allows them to cover a more diverse time period than simply one iteration of a Civilization. Dahomy is an option, but particularly in a classical sense Nubia is something that needs to be considered. If I could only pick one of Mali, Ghana and Dahomy though, I couldn't look much further than Mali, to leave them out for the Songhai would be like leaving Germany out for Austria.

You make several good points. The interesting game play is very important, but I don't think it is independent of interesting cultures. For example, the Sioux were nomadic in nature, which is contrary to conventional civs. A creative mind could find a way to incorporate that as a truly unique and game altering civ. Perhaps they don't use cities, or mobile city equivalents and tile improvements. I'm not creative, but I'm sure some people on this forum could do wonders with them.

I also wasnt saying that they are more or less deserving than those cultures of southeast Asia either. My personal preference is to increase the representation of both. All I was saying is that people said America was OVER represented, and I just could not believe that at all.

The Huns and Mongols were nomads, yet they seemingly didn't feel the need to include it in their mechanics. There are also plenty of better options for nomads still.

I do not think North America (or the New World in general) is overrepresented. Fixaris had a good idea with the Pueblo and it is very unfortunate that it didn't work out. It is likely that they chose therefore the Shoshone as there might not have been enough time to work out an idea like you suggested for the Sioux.
Europe is a little crowded now (though thats a fun thing when it comes to EU TSL maps), especially compared to (sub-Sahara)Africa. But you could see it on the positive side that almost all big players in Europe have been represented in the game now, so if a new expansion comes there's a lot more room for civs from other parts of the world.

Not to be cynical, but if they did have another expansion, they'd still cram it with European civs. You'd probably get Belgium, Serbia, Hungary and Italy or something like that. I doubt they'd ever have less than a third of new civs non-European.
 
Not to be cynical, but if they did have another expansion, they'd still cram it with European civs. You'd probably get Belgium, Serbia, Hungary and Italy or something like that. I doubt they'd ever have less than a third of new civs non-European.

I dont think its cynism considering how Firaxis has over crowded Europe, thats why in my predictions for 9 civs I always add at least 2 Europeans, not because I want more, but its most likely what Firaxis will do.
 
The game is about Civilizations and not political entities, and Civs are going to me more of a blob than some particular dynasty's Empire. The Etruscans would to most come under Rome, rightly or wrongly, as would Illyria arguably, although the region might be worth consideration for a Civ in the future, though Europe is pretty much packed as it is. No doubt any new expansions would still cram some more in though.

By that argument, Nubia is already in the game, as Egypt!

But thank you for just proving my point how subjective that whole thing is.
 
Not Italy, Italy is already sort of represented by Rome, Venice, VC and a load of other CS.

I'm not sure about Belgium or Serbia, but I doubt they'd include Hungary, as at the peak of their power they were the same civ as Austria. That said, Rome: Byzantium. But that relationship is a bit different and they may note the difference.

That said, I'm not really sure why Poland was added; it does seem to add to the claim that the civs are biased toward Europe.

Really I think the main concern with adding more NA civs is that they aren't really that well known outside of America. To be fair though, if they did add another DLC or expansion, I would probably think adding at least one more NA civ would be ok. So long as they then added none from Europe.
Except maybe Canada and Australia, as civs which can be founded by European colonies going independent, if they implemented that feature. Also for the colony thing, if one colony goes independent, maybe it can spark a thing where other colonies flip and join the party ... revolution ... thing.
 
By the way, yes I know neither Canada nor Australia are geographically in Europe, but they are European culture in the same way as America. Probably more so.
 
By that argument, Nubia is already in the game, as Egypt!

But thank you for just proving my point how subjective that whole thing is.

How on Earth is Nubia in the game as Egypt. Nubia and Egypt are seperate in pretty much every measure they can be in Civilization terms, from culture and language all the way to geography and history. They were neighbours and one had periods of ruling lands of the other, but they are as different as they come. That's like saying England is in the game as France or the Ottomans being covered by the Romans.

Not Italy, Italy is already sort of represented by Rome, Venice, VC and a load of other CS.

I'm not sure about Belgium or Serbia, but I doubt they'd include Hungary, as at the peak of their power they were the same civ as Austria. That said, Rome: Byzantium. But that relationship is a bit different and they may note the difference.

That said, I'm not really sure why Poland was added; it does seem to add to the claim that the civs are biased toward Europe.

Really I think the main concern with adding more NA civs is that they aren't really that well known outside of America. To be fair though, if they did add another DLC or expansion, I would probably think adding at least one more NA civ would be ok. So long as they then added none from Europe.
Except maybe Canada and Australia, as civs which can be founded by European colonies going independent, if they implemented that feature. Also for the colony thing, if one colony goes independent, maybe it can spark a thing where other colonies flip and join the party ... revolution ... thing.

Hungary's peak was well before being part of Austria.
 
How on Earth is Nubia in the game as Egypt. Nubia and Egypt are seperate in pretty much every measure they can be in Civilization terms, from culture and language all the way to geography and history. They were neighbours and one had periods of ruling lands of the other, but they are as different as they come. That's like saying England is in the game as France or the Ottomans being covered by the Romans.

Or that the Etruscans are covered by Rome :goodjob:
 
Ok, so maybe they'd be in. Byzantium's peak was quite a bit after being part of Rome.

Sort of.
 
How on Earth is Nubia in the game as Egypt. Nubia and Egypt are seperate in pretty much every measure they can be in Civilization terms, from culture and language all the way to geography and history. They were neighbours and one had periods of ruling lands of the other, but they are as different as they come. That's like saying England is in the game as France or the Ottomans being covered by the Romans.

Or France as part of England?
 
@Nouco

My understanding was that they weren't planning on doing another expansion or any more DLCs unless the fans wanted them/it.
 
I don't feel so. Since population is very subjective as well. Why not take land amount? Or a ratio of the two? Or the number of years an empire existed? Or the number of wikipedia mentions? And it all depends on where you're from. See, we could split up China and India into many smaller civs, but we can quite easily merge Germany, the Netherlands and Austria into one Germanic civ again. So no, there are no measurements at all to "rank civs" or "create a distribution key over the continent", that really leads to nothing. (Oh, and where does "Europe" stop with you? Are the Huns Europe? Russia? Ottomans? What about the Moors (based in Spain)? Do we count the US as Europe or America? Is Mesoamerica Northern or Southern America?)

Firstly:

we could split up China

We actually couldn't do that as it would lead to an instant ban in China. They are not fond of China being represented as anything but the one great China, and that includes Tibet being shown as an independent nation in any sense. They banned Hearts of Iron if I recall for showing Tibet as independent (which they were at the time) for example.

Beyond that it does become subjective, but how this argument came about through discussion of North America is ridiculous. Again, if the game was made and a large chunk of the English speaking player base were not Yanks we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, and we'd instead be taking about other peoples being added. It's as simple as that. It's not even as though there are great Civilizations that have been completely ignored up to now. A lack of Sumeria, Phoenicia and Khmer is completely laughable, and to be perfectly honest Burma (Pagan) should probably also be a huge consideration, as though Vietnam. Asia tends to get completely ignored though.

The idea of having a mere two Civilizations in South East Asia, one of the most densely populated areas in the World and one of the most important regions for trade in the World is utterly laughable, particularly when the Native North Americans get that much representation. Yeah, in the 13th century Cahokia may have had a population of 15-40k, at the same Angkor's population was by same estimates of the order of 1 million and one of the largest cities in the World and there were many like it at the time as well.

As of today there are about 4.5 Native North Americans, similar in number to the pre-Columbian era (although estimates range as high as 9 million). As of today there are around 650 million people in South East Asia and it has been one of the most densely populated regions historically.
 
Out of the polygon journal http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/6/27/4453070/civ-the-making-of-brave-new-world:

As for Civ V, Firaxis is confident that, after seven full years, it's put the game to bed as finally and completely as it could have.

So no expansions anymore.
It also says: "[Fans are] going to be happy sitting with [Civ V] for a couple of years until the next one is ready to roll out."

I felt that was Polygon's opinion rather than what Ed or Dennis had said. They read the forums (including this thread) and whilst opinions vary, it seems that most people would like something else for Civ V before they finalise it.
 
3rd expansion:

Some sort of Pope/Holy roman empire -system for early eras, like a world congress and with a leader

Late game pollution (with a new tile improvement over forest tiles: natural park)

Expanded barbarians and city-state systems

Australia
Gran Colombia
Hungary
Scythia
Kongo
Vietnam
Israel
Mesopotamia
Khmer
 
In general there are so many civ choices as options and the new emerging tech for pc will take some time to bed in that I think we will actually probably get one more expansion before the end of life.

The biggest new tech is Occular rift - and that isn't really civ freindly if there was a big new tech that was civ friendly I could see civ 6 being scheduled sooner rather than later but at the moment common sense says milk this cash cow for one more milking. These sort of games have a much longer shelf life than a fps or other action style game where updating and moving on to whole new tech is a neccesity.
 
3rd expansion:

Some sort of Pope/Holy roman empire -system for early eras, like a world congress and with a leader

Late game pollution (with a new tile improvement over forest tiles: natural park)

Expanded barbarians and city-state systems

Australia
Gran Colombia
Hungary
Scythia
Kongo
Vietnam
Israel
Mesopotamia
Khmer

Having some kind of intra-religion "World Congress" might be something they could explore. Not sure it worked particularly well in Civ IV though, but they seem to be doing things better this time around, so if they did choose to go down that road it would be an option.

As for Civs, Mesopotamia is a bit like having a "Levant", "Asia Minor" or "Great Steppe" Civ. It's a region, not a Civilization. Sumeria was in Mesopotamia, and I'd probably go for them if there was a new expansion. It would be interesting to see who'd they pick. Personally I'd go for:

Sumeria
Khmer
Phoenicia
Mali
Kongo
Italy - I still don't like them as an option, but at the point where we can have Venice there really isn't much of an argument against Italy, particularly as a representation of Northern Italy

Then, if there were a colonial focus, I'd have as the last 3:

Gran Columbia - Representing the region from New Grenada to the various modern states
Australia
Canada

If there isn't a colonial focus:

Afghanistan
Swahili
Hungary

But there are numerous different choices that could be made dependant on what the expansion's focus was on.
 
Screw China. Historical accuracy ftw. Let's have Tibet, Uyghurs, and Manchurians.
 
Top Bottom