As the Prophets foretold

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If we don't get DLC I don't see why we wouldn't get two more expansions since I don't expect one more to contain all previous Civs and I don't see how we would leave some of the regulars out.
2nd Expansion:
European Slot: Portugal
"Turkey" Slot: Ottoman
Americas Slot: Inca
Near East Slot: Babylon
Africa Slot: Mali

3rd Expansion
European Slot: Austria
"Turkey" Slot: Byzantines
Americas Slot: Mayan
Near East Slot: Carthage? Close enough
Africa Slot: Ethiopia

That leaves 3 more slots for each expansion for new or possible returning ones.
I would do Italy, Samoa and the Navajo for the second and Benin, Assyria, and Gran Colombia for the third.

 

[UWHabs]

There were 5 previous version of Civ. For me, that means you need to have been in at least 3 versions (aka more than half) to be a "Series Regular" that must be included in Civ 6.

If you ignore for a moment the conglomerations for "Vikings/Denmark/Norway" + "Celtic/Scottish" + "Sioux/Iroquois/Native American/Shoshone/Cree".

That leaves these Series Regulars (by my definition) missing from Civ 6:

• Babylon: 5 for 5 appearances (Civ 1-5)
• Carthage: 4 out of 5 times (Civ 2-5)
• Byzantine: 3 times (Civ 3-5)
• Inca: 3 times (Civ 3-5)
• Maya: 3 times (Civ 3-5)
• Ottoman: 3 times (Civ 3-5)
• Portugal: 3 times (Civ 3-5)

The only two Civs that have appeared twice (and are not in Civ 6) are Austria (Civ 3 and 5) and Ethiopia (Civ 4 and 5). And although many would disagree, I do not consider either of these "Series Regulars". Again, personal opinion, but if these 2 do not show up in Civ 6, I won't care at all. How many people were up in arms that they left Sumeria (who appeared in both Civ 3 and 4) out of Civ 5? (I mean that as a real inquiry, not just a rhetorical question.)

Not that I want this, but Firaxis could do those 7 Regulars, plus one more alternate leader, and one brand new Civ (likely from Western Africa, Ashanti Empire perhaps?) all in one final Expansion and call it a day. There would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but at the end of the day I would guess that most of us wouldn't pinpoint a specific flaw in this lineup. Sure it is poor from a TSL/geographic representation stand point. Yes, it lacks originality and unique flare. Certainly some very deserving Civs would be left out. But comparably, at least to me, if they did just one final expansion and left out one of those 7, I think the complaints would be a considerably louder (and well justified).

Getting back to the point. I hope that they do more content than just the 1 more "expected" expansion. It could be a 3rd expansion pack. I actually still feel that DLC on-top of an Expansion pack for a game like Civ isn't a bad plan. Honestly how many people play Civ 5 Vanilla vs. Gods & Kings vs Brave New World? I would argue, as I have in other threads, that the people who are buying the DLC are going to also have these expansion packs. Remember, we are in that odd in-between state between Vanilla and final content. We are playing the equivalent of Gods & Kings.

Nice breakdown. I do think when they're done, there will likely be at least one of those series regulars that they do end up leaving out, as they definitely seem to be more interested in filling out new civs overall. I'm not sure which from that list it will be, but even with 1 missing, that's still 6 returning civs to add, which likely means at least 4-6 new civs to be added as well, which is too much for a single expansion.

 

[PrairieDad]

If we don't get DLC I don't see why we wouldn't get two more expansions since I don't expect one more to contain all previous Civs and I don't see how we would leave some of the regulars out.
2nd Expansion:
European Slot: Portugal
"Turkey" Slot: Ottoman
Americas Slot: Inca
Near East Slot: Babylon
Africa Slot: Mali

3rd Expansion
European Slot: Austria
"Turkey" Slot: Byzantines
Americas Slot: Mayan
Near East Slot: Carthage? Close enough
Africa Slot: Ethiopia

That leaves 3 more slots for each expansion for new or possible returning ones.
I would do Italy, Samoa and the Navajo for the second and Benin, Assyria, and Gran Colombia for the third.

Wishful thinking, I'm afraid...though I'll really admit it's what I wish for, too.

 

[acluewithout]

I’m really hoping we get two more expansions. It might be wishful thinking, but hopefully not impossible.

The next expansion will hopefully focus on the mid / late game, governance (governments, policy, governors, loyalty, ideaology and diplomacy) and industrialisation. I’m fairly confident we’ll get some if not all of that.

I’m hoping we might then get another expansion focusing on exploration, colonisation and de-colonisation. But I can see that might be wishful thinking, sadly.

 

[Duuk]

I'm not optimistic about 3 expansions. It would be a break from Firaxis' modus operandi in a big way.

If you said "the 2nd xpac will have 10 civs instead of the normal 8" I might think that was an interesting idea, but betting on a whole 3rd xpac seems less likely than the idea of DLC was.

 

[acluewithout]

Sadly, I think you’re right @Duuk .

The only reason I think we might get more than one ‘expansion’ (perhaps an expansion and some slightly larger dlc) is because, perhaps counterintuitively, the base game is just so complete. The base game is so solid, it feels crazy FXS would then move to interrating a new version of civ, rather than just build on what they have.

EU4 is a good example here: a very solid base game, with a few key expansions, which has then put out additional dlc building out specific game systems.

If the next expansion basically nails the late game and diplomacy, Civ will be awesome. But at that point, it would be surely so easy to have a “colonization” dlc, or “near future tech” dlc, or “expanded governors” dlc, or whatever. I find it hard to believe a big chunk of existing players wouldn’t pay for that, and surely that would drive more sales?

But, no ... that’s probably not going to happen.

 

[UWHabs]

I'm not optimistic about 3 expansions. It would be a break from Firaxis' modus operandi in a big way.

If you said "the 2nd xpac will have 10 civs instead of the normal 8" I might think that was an interesting idea, but betting on a whole 3rd xpac seems less likely than the idea of DLC was.

If I remember my timing, the first expansion here was quicker out the door than last time. But yeah, the fact that every civ going back to even civ 2 has had exactly 2 expansions for it, definitely hard to think of them breaking that concept.

I guess my main argument in favour of there potentially being 2 more packs is that of the missing civs, it "feels" like they would want to split up Ottoman/Byzantime and maybe Inca/Maya into separate packs (although obviously Inca and Maya are in different regions, they tend to get lumped together).

But if they do 1 more pack only, then I'd expect we'll get one of Babylon or Carthage, one of Byzantine or Ottoman, one or both of Inca and Maya, and then probably one Mali or Ethiopia, with the rest as either new civs or less used ones from the past (Iroquois/Sioux/etc...).