Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[trev1972]

From my perspective, the likely, simplest "all-Briton" full path would be Celts (wide, I know) for Antiquity, England for Exploration, and Great Britain for Modern.

The Antiquity slot can vary if they feel like innovating with other similar cultures (i.e. Boudica and the Iceni), but the existence of an Exploration Age Spain practically necessitates a contemporary England*. Possibly along with Francis Drake, taking advantage of the new "actual rulers optional" paradigm. Oliver Cromwell would be an interesting leader, too, but I wouldn't go as far as predicting his inclusion.

I'm not sure Wales would be particularly worthy, but Exploration Age Scotland would likely capture the period of most strife with its southern neighbor, assuming its inclusion, of course.

*The certain existence of the Normans creates a bit of a pickle there, though...

This would possibly tip me to buying the game to be honest, it would allow me to play a british isles tsl for a start (and i have seen tsl maps appearing already)

I can see other posters discussing historical accuracy, but to be honest all that will matter to the developers is market potential (that is why they left Britain out for dlc, to sell dlc).
I have no idea if there is a demand for more british isle civs at all. To be honest the price of a civ and leader seems even more extortionate when you consider the civ only lasts 1/3 of a game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Your All-briton path is two-thirds Germanic, not actually Briton. The Celtic British path should go to just about anybody *except* England (or any England-adjacent civ) in Exploration, and the actual English path has no business emerging from a Celtic start.

That point is a little bit moot since the Norman Civilization can emerge from Greece, for example. Emerging from a Celtic Antiquity Civ such as Gaul is at least a little bit more justifiable, especially since the Normans also fill in for the medieval French, who are a direct descendant of the Gauls via the way of the Franks and the Gallo-Romans.

Ideally we get a separate Celtic path, but the cross-pollination between paths based on geographic proximity (such as Celtic/British/French) is just how the system has been designed to work from the get-go. It is what it is, best we accept that, rather than run in the same "Actually, Historically Speaking" circles like pedantic hamsters.

As to the idea that Spain's inclusion require the inclusion of England, hardly. England got into the colonization game significantly later than Spain, and the brief Anglo-Spanish rivalry of the (later) Elizabethan years, while interesting, is not so crucial to world history to warrant inclusion (far more important to world history is the much longer-lived Franco-English rivalry).

Moreover because the Normans already represent England, and Castile is the more iconic colonization and naval Civ anyway. Spain over England is the correct choice, if overseas expansion is the niche they were going for.

The Normans on their end, are an excellent choice for a romantic, chivalrous castle-and-knights Civ. (probably the second best after the Franks proper). The only quibble I have is that they're not the best-suited representation of the industrious and mercantile English, but that's what modern Great Britain is for.

In the presence of the Normans, who are the immediate predecessors of Tudor England, I doubt very much there will be a rush to add England to the game, or that there is even a particula rneed to do so. A leader from the Elizabethan period is more likely, in my opinion.

Two stages (Normans + Great Britain) is definitely enough for now. Tudor representation is better left by adding a leader from that Era (Elizabeth, Henry VIII, Drake, Shakespeare) while the devs focus on filling in gaps and niches elsewhere. Mods are going to fill up that gap eventually for those that care.

I'm expecting to see Elizabeth down the line, maybe even in the first major expansion alongside Alexander and Gandhi.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

This would possibly tip me to buying the game to be honest, it would allow me to play a british isles tsl for a start (and i have seen tsl maps appearing already)

I can see other posters discussing historical accuracy, but to be honest all that will matter to the developers is market potential (that is why they left Britain out for dlc, to sell dlc).
I have no idea if there is a demand for more british isle civs at all. To be honest the price of a civ and leader seems even more extortionate when you consider the civ only lasts 1/3 of a game.

there is a huge demand for british isles content. probably more than any other civilization if i had to estimate and based off anecdotal observation on these forums.

 

[Evie]

Oh yeah, having a Celtic civ that can evolve into Normans is perfectly fine. I just object to calling Celtic-England-Great Briton the "full Briton path" when England (and Norman) are the *least* Briton of all British Isles options.

I also think that the first no-Roman British Isles path we get will almost certainly be Anglo-Saxon - Norman - Great Britain, because I fully expect our first Celtic civ to be the Gauls (not British).

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

That point is a little bit moot since the Norman Civilization can emerge from Greece, for example. Emerging from a Celtic Antiquity Civ such as Gaul is at least a little bit more justifiable, especially since the Normans also fill in for the medieval French, who are a direct descendant of the Gauls via the way of the Franks and the Gallo-Romans.

Ideally we get a separate Celtic path, but the cross-pollination between paths based on geographic proximity (such as Celtic/British/French) is just how the system has been designed to work from the get-go. It is what it is, best we accept that, rather than run in the same "Actually, Historically Speaking" circles like pedantic hamsters.



Moreover because the Normans already represent England, and Castile is the more iconic colonization and naval Civ anyway. Spain over England is the correct choice, if overseas expansion is the niche they were going for.

The Normans on their end, are an excellent choice for a romantic, chivalrous castle-and-knights Civ. (probably the second best after the Franks proper). The only quibble I have is that they're not the best-suited representation of the industrious and mercantile English, but that's what modern Great Britain is for.



Two stages (Normans + Great Britain) is definitely enough for now. Tudor representation is better left by adding a leader from that Era (Elizabeth, Henry VIII, Drake, Shakespeare) while the devs focus on filling in gaps and niches elsewhere. Mods are going to fill up that gap eventually for those that care.

I'm expecting to see Elizabeth down the line, maybe even in the first major expansion alongside Alexander and Gandhi.

aren't the gauls celtic? i think they could cover a lot of bases

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Oh yeah, having a Celtic civ that can evolve into Normans is perfectly fine. I just object to calling Celtic-England-Great Briton the "full Briton path" when England (and Norman) are the *least* Briton of all British Isles options.

I also think that the first no-Roman British Isles path we get will almost certainly be Anglo-Saxon - Norman - Great Britain, because I fully expect our first Celtic civ to be the Gauls (not British).

gauls would make more sense as a pan european option

 

[Lord Lakely]

Oh yeah, having a Celtic civ that can evolve into Normans is perfectly fine. I just object to calling Celtic-England-Great Briton the "full Briton path" when England (and Norman) are the *least* Briton of all British Isles options.

I also think that the first no-Roman British Isles path we get will almost certainly be Anglo-Saxon - Norman - Great Britain, because I fully expect our first Celtic civ to be the Gauls (not British).

Most Civs don't need more than two paths anyway to feel complete. The only one that -for me anyway- needs direct representation is China, and that one's already in the game. India too, but that's more of a "deblobbing a whole subcontinent" thing than a "direct millennia-old culture evolving with time" thing.

As far as the Celts are concerned, I'm kind of digging the idea of Iberians in Antiquity, alongside Gauls lately.

I also feel like you can definitely shove an early English kingdom into Antiquity (like Mercia) if you really must have English Antiquity representation, following the same logic as Khmer - the first congruent regional power in their own right, not some part of someone else's conquests. It's a bit weird because that makes them contemporaneous with Rome and ancient Greece, but like... it's not stranger than having the Mississipians become Hawai'i even though those two are contemporaneous with each other.

aren't the gauls celtic? i think they could cover a lot of bases

Yes, and other than their language, they're fairly well attested. They're probably the best choice for a Cultural/Scientific Civ in antiquity, barring maybe Babylon. But yeah, they cover plenty of bases - Ambiorix was chosen as a leader specifically to also have them vicariously represent the Belgians as well (including the Gallic theme, which is very loosely based around the outro of the Belgian national anthem).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Normans on their end, are an excellent choice for a romantic, chivalrous castle-and-knights Civ. (probably the second best after the Franks proper). The only quibble I have is that they're not the best-suited representation of the industrious and mercantile English, but that's what modern Great Britain is for.

That's how I feel. I'd have preferred the Franks to take on that role, so we could have had a proper Exploration England. I picture Exploration England as economic and expansionist so that could take a different approach than a more industrious and scientific Great Britain.

I also feel like you can definitely shove an early English kingdom into Antiquity (like Mercia) if you really must have English Antiquity representation, following the same logic as Khmer - the first congruent regional power in their own right, not some part of someone else's conquests. It's a bit weird because that makes them contemporaneous with Rome and ancient Greece, but like... it's not stranger than having the Mississipians become Hawai'i even though those two are contemporaneous with each other.

It would feel less weird alongside an Antiquity Norse civ, at least.

 

[AD1730]

That's how I feel. I'd have preferred the Franks to take on that role, so we could have had a proper Exploration England. I picture Exploration England as economic and expansionist so that could take a different approach than a more industrious and scientific Great Britain.

It would feel less weird alongside an Antiquity Norse civ, at least.

It would have been better to get a medieval era rather than the rumored post-modern era. The most awkward civ switches in my view are those that go from ancient to exploration. An intermediate step would have been helpful.

 

[Uberfrog]

Civ-switching options aside, I’m actually happy with the three-act structure now I’ve played it. The medieval era does feel represented in the Exploration Age - there’s actually quite a few turns to get through before any treasure fleets will spawn.

Religion certainly needs to be fleshed out, and the gameplay feels very distant-lands focused, but in terms of buildings, wonders and units the start of the age feels quite medieval, especially if you are unlucky enough to be drawn into an early war with knights, archers etc.

I think adding a fourth age this early in the game would harm rather than improve the pacing.

 

[Ryansinbela]

The main problem would still be having to redistribute all the civs and content
My main hope would probably not be new eras but expanding the current eras
My thoughts on an Aromic Age could change depending on how they do it so I’ll just wait and see

 

[AD1730]

Civ-switching options aside, I’m actually happy with the three-act structure now I’ve played it. The medieval era does feel represented in the Exploration Age - there’s actually quite a few turns to get through before any treasure fleets will spawn.

Religion certainly needs to be fleshed out, and the gameplay feels very distant-lands focused, but in terms of buildings, wonders and units the start of the age feels quite medieval, especially if you are unlucky enough to be drawn into an early war with knights, archers etc.

I think adding a fourth age this early in the game would harm rather than improve the pacing.

They are adding the fourth age anyway. I don't see much point in adding a post-1950 era.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I think there's too much weight given to the idea of playing as the same nation/ethnic group for all of history. It doesn't seem to be what Fireaxis are going for.

I still think the Gauls are the best antiquity Civ for the Celts. They cover France, Belgium, Austria, parts of Croatia, Italy, the Balkans and Anatolia at their peak expansion (migration). There's also plenty of evidence suggesting Gaulish migrations into Britain. And in early medieval Ireland, a few Irish chiefdoms claimed Gaulish ancestry (most notably the Laigin who controlled between a fifth to a quarter of Ireland).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They are adding the fourth age anyway. I don't see much point in adding a post-1950 era.

I'm not sure how much of that information is indeed confirmed. It could very well be cut content.

 

[Uberfrog]

They are adding the fourth age anyway. I don't see much point in adding a post-1950 era.

Nor do I, but the game seemingly ending in the 1950s is something a lot of people seem to be complaining about. Atomic and Information era technologies are not represented whatsoever, so could be added quite neatly. Whereas splitting the current Exploration Age in two would involve reworking and developing unique game features, units and buildings for both the new Medieval Era and the altered Exploration Age. It would be a lot messier to implement.

So if we’re getting a fourth age it will almost certainly be after the Modern.

 

[queenpea]

The only tangible argument, in my mind, against adding further Ages to the game is the issue of DLC bottleneck.

For simplicity's sake, let's say they add ten new civilizations to Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern before the new Fourth Age DLC is announced. That DLC includes ten new "Information Age" civilizations. We then would have 20 choices for Antiquity, 21 in Exploration (including Shawnee), 20 for Modern, and 10 for the Fourth Age. Naturally, that would feel imbalanced and strange to players who are used to greater player choice.

Because an Expansion Pack being a one-and-done DLC delivery, no further civilizations would be added to the additional age. Unless, of course, they walk the dreaded path of DLC for DLC. If Firaxis/2K is wise, they will avoid this misstep at all costs. That said, it would be the only way out of the bottleneck, unless the Fourth Age does not require a civilization switch.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

It would have been better to get a medieval era rather than the rumored post-modern era. The most awkward civ switches in my view are those that go from ancient to exploration. An intermediate step would have been helpful.

medieval era would definitely be the best thing they could add.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

The only tangible argument, in my mind, against adding further Ages to the game is the issue of DLC bottleneck.

For simplicity's sake, let's say they add ten new civilizations to Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern before the new Fourth Age DLC is announced. That DLC includes ten new "Information Age" civilizations. We then would have 20 choices for Antiquity, 21 in Exploration (including Shawnee), 20 for Modern, and 10 for the Fourth Age. Naturally, that would feel imbalanced and strange to players who are used to greater player choice.

Because an Expansion Pack being a one-and-done DLC delivery, no further civilizations would be added to the additional age. Unless, of course, they walk the dreaded path of DLC for DLC. If Firaxis/2K is wise, they will avoid this misstep at all costs. That said, it would be the only way out of the bottleneck, unless the Fourth Age does not require a civilization switch.

i do not think anyone would be against adding medieval era though.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

I think there's too much weight given to the idea of playing as the same nation/ethnic group for all of history. It doesn't seem to be what Fireaxis are going for.

I still think the Gauls are the best antiquity Civ for the Celts. They cover France, Belgium, Austria, parts of Croatia, Italy, the Balkans and Anatolia at their peak expansion (migration). There's also plenty of evidence suggesting Gaulish migrations into Britain. And in early medieval Ireland, a few Irish chiefdoms claimed Gaulish ancestry (most notably the Laigin who controlled between a fifth to a quarter of Ireland).

yes, gauls is the obvious choice. especially considering they were already in civ 6 so they have some pedigree.

 

[AD1730]

The only tangible argument, in my mind, against adding further Ages to the game is the issue of DLC bottleneck.

For simplicity's sake, let's say they add ten new civilizations to Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern before the new Fourth Age DLC is announced. That DLC includes ten new "Information Age" civilizations. We then would have 20 choices for Antiquity, 21 in Exploration (including Shawnee), 20 for Modern, and 10 for the Fourth Age. Naturally, that would feel imbalanced and strange to players who are used to greater player choice.

Because an Expansion Pack being a one-and-done DLC delivery, no further civilizations would be added to the additional age. Unless, of course, they walk the dreaded path of DLC for DLC. If Firaxis/2K is wise, they will avoid this misstep at all costs. That said, it would be the only way out of the bottleneck, unless the Fourth Age does not require a civilization switch.

I'm also against further ages. But, if they were going to do one, I would have rather had a medieval era.