I actually don't see a half-pack happening, given that they just implemented the season model and would want to keep it consistent so it will stick with consumers.
But I could see it happening as you predict, Maria Teresa excluded lol.
I honestly think 8 more civs is too much to expect, especially considering we are at 50 civs already.
A half-pack like I mentioned will definitely give us the things that are missing at least from Civ 5 (2nd NA tribe, North Africa, something Italian).
Well I also had to pair new (Italy) with old (Maria Theresa)
I honestly think 8 more civs is too much to expect, especially considering we are at 50 civs already.
A half-pack like I mentioned will definitely give us the things that are missing at least from Civ 5 (2nd NA tribe, North Africa, something Italian).
Well I also had to pair new (Italy) with old (Maria Theresa)
Eh, in thinking of it as a business which likely wants to keep artists occupied/employed for another year, and the fact that we conveniently have 4 easy "returning" civ options in Austria, Assyria, Morocco, and the Iroquois...I think they could fill out a second season with those plus some other highly requested ideas like Italy, the Inuit/Navajo, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't expect them to go with half of a season pass. Either they will fill out a whole season pass with civs, or they will fill out a whole season pass without civs, or they will switch to a "content bomb" model without any structured release schedule. I don't see them doing a six month planned release.
Eh, in thinking of it as a business which likely wants to keep artists occupied/employed for another year, and the fact that we conveniently have 4 easy "returning" civ options in Austria, Assyria, Morocco, and the Iroquois...I think they could fill out a second season with those plus some other highly requested ideas like Italy, the Inuit/Navajo, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't expect them to go with half of a season pass. Either they will fill out a whole season pass with civs, or they will fill out a whole season pass without civs, or they will switch to a "content bomb" model without any structured release schedule. I don't see them doing a six month planned release.
I just have a hard time picturing where the other 4 new ones would come.
I don't expect anything new from South America. If they go indigenous with NA they probably won't go with something post-colonial with Argentina or indigenous either. Which is why I mentioned Haiti in the Caribbean as an option not being in the continental part of North America.
It's also hard for me to picture getting another new civ from East Asia/Central Asia after the release of several city-states: Ayutthaya, Samarkand, Lahore etc. in the NFP, which means probably no Siam, Timurids, Mughals etc. I also don't expect a 4th SEA civ with Burma.
I also believe that nothing else is coming from Oceania after the way they designed the Maori.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love Austria with Maria Theresa, but I agree that Europe is full and I unfortunately think their niche was taken by both HRE inspired Germany and Hungary. Though Venice is/was popular, and the whole concept of something Italian coming to Civ 6 would be popular despite it being another European civ.
That really only leaves Sub-Saharan Africa as the next best possibility which can definitely get another civ.
We've always had 8 new civs released in cycles since the base game. You are right that 4 might be awkward but well it was half of 8 which is why I said it.
Of course Civ 5 ended on 43, which was an odd number.
I'm perfectly fine with adding in Austria though as the fifth instead of making Maria Theresa an alternate leader.
There is no "we". Everyone would like to see different Civs, many people would like to see just some polishing, and there is a large group that wait for Civ VII
There is no "we". Everyone would like to see different Civs, many people would like to see just some polishing, and there is a large group that wait for Civ VII
my biggest issue with anything is civ’s design puts an upper cap on how many civs and famous leaders we can see. Whereas Paradox games encompass the world and every nation as playable, and humankind’s civs are low resource and can easily be pumped out, Civ’s require so much work, especially on the leader animation side.
This means that Civ should aim to last longer with each game so more and more civs can be included. If resources can be upscaled and reused in future games, that would be good too.
This is what Civ needs to look at doing because even at 50 civs, the distribution historically and geographically is frankly atrocious. And as long as they don’t build upon this and just restart for Civ 7, it’s going to likely stay that way cuz there’s a feasible cap on how many civs can be released at a time.
Firaxis should be thinking about updates in expansions from here on out which not only add more features to the game but radically change and replace the features which are now 5 years old. They should refresh and redesign older civs to be more historically accurate and fun to play. They should split up the blob civs here and now into new ones, and add a couple more here and there. Have civ 6 last another 4-5 years. If there’s constant improvement and more civs being added all the way through, I wouldn’t mind.
With a nice round 50 Civs and the game full of more then enough content, I think it would be best to not release any more now and go onto Civ7; otherwise the game will get too saturated with stuff based on existing mechanics. I think leaving Civ6 as it is (at least after the April rebalance patch) for a year or so will be best so we can can get some new mechancis that can't be implemented through optional game modes and the engine at present; such as map changes (altitude/elivation variation comes to mind), more indept climate change (such as desertification, oasification, plate techtonics), city mechanics (like an evolution on the districts system), better barbarians/minor-civs (an evolution on Barbarian Clans). And of course with these you will get more oppotunity to add new civilization unique abilities that you can play around with.
Although I love the new civs and leaders (and really wanted all of those that were included in the NFP in the end) we're just getting another trade civ with a modifier/yeild bonus, +1 movement, +1 vision, +1 housing and gold but no freshwater, +10% yeild in some but -15% in others, +1 great prophet point, +yeild equal to 15% of faith if X etc...
I'm not saying I will say no to another 7 new Civs for Civ6; but I think it's best to quit whilst you're ahead and on a high; leaving something in a good place, rather then going too far to the point of beating a dead horse (in this case, the engine and mechanics of Civ6) to the point where people are turning their nose up at it and start demanding actual new content and a fresh new look and feel. (And gives Civs a chance to re-invent themselves again with the new engine/mechanics)
Otherwise if we get more, I'm hoping for:
A great plains or Pacific/western USA native peoples civ
Switzerland (diplomacy, renting of units for gold, gold/banking bonuses. Can also benefit from mountains, maybe early ski resorts and hostile units take damage within Switzerland's boarders (would have to make them defensive and not expansive and offensive though))
Assyria (I really want Sennacherib's canal and irrigation achivements realised)
Nepal (I love Nepal! I think it would make a great mountain civ which is not Inca or Mapuche*. The Gurkhas would be great to represent too)
Burma/Myanmar/Pagan (although, due to current events this might not be such a good choice...)
I cannot agree more with everything you've said. -it is now bloated for what mechanics they can utilize and make unique, they need a fresh start and a new set of mechanics to "ease the bloating" once again and grow into.
Firaxis should be thinking about updates in expansions from here on out which not only add more features to the game but radically change and replace the features which are now 5 years old. They should refresh and redesign older civs to be more historically accurate and fun to play. They should split up the blob civs here and now into new ones, and add a couple more here and there. Have civ 6 last another 4-5 years. If there’s constant improvement and more civs being added all the way through, I wouldn’t mind.
I don't really see what blob civs there really are to split up, other than possibly India, but I don't see them making a separate Maurya civ and Republic of India civ at least for Civ 6?
I think the main ones from Civ 5: the Celts and Polynesia, have been rectified with Gaul and the Maori.
my biggest issue with anything is civ’s design puts an upper cap on how many civs and famous leaders we can see. Whereas Paradox games encompass the world and every nation as playable, and humankind’s civs are low resource and can easily be pumped out, Civ’s require so much work, especially on the leader animation side.
Paradox literally has a single civ (Western European) that happens to span however much of the globe the game in question covers. Adding different ones is what they do with their DLCs and those take time.
Humankind, likewise, doesn't really skimp on civs too much either. You've got civ-specific music tracks, different unit equipment, avatar's clothes design, and of course the design of the civ itself, particularly keeping in mind how its bonuses will interact with the factions down the line, while (almost) everything in Civ is self-contained.
Really any game in this space puts some decent time into these things. There really is no dodging that one.
To be fair the final two have some of the best designs in the game.
I think to me the least appealing one was Byzantium, but even then it's better compared to some base game civs or ones from R&F.
Enumeration of potential Civs and Wonders cost no effort and time, making a completed, well-designed, and balanced game from it does. This is the point here
I think they are all quite unique, but I guess why you can be disappointed after Babylon I see that not every uniqueness hits the same, but to dismiss that the majority doesn't feel new or unique is a different thing. Not everyone can be Vietnam that's all I'm gonna say
As the matter of fact, the only design I dislike is Ethiopia. I really hate a heap of passive yields as a reward for breathing or doing something you would want to do as a regular civ anyway.
To be fair the final two have some of the best designs in the game.
I think to me the least appealing one was Byzantium, but even then it's better compared to some base game civs or ones from R&F.
Vietnam and (presumably) Portugal have been solid, and I like the Maya. But Gran Colombia, Gaul, Byzantium, and Ethiopia have all been pretty boring, and I think Babylon is the worst design in the game.
I think they are all quite unique, but I guess why you can be disappointed after Babylon I see that not every uniqueness hits the same, but to dismiss that the majority doesn't feel new or unique is a different thing.
It's fine if you enjoyed them, but personally I think the Maya are the only really unique design in the entire pack, even if I also enjoyed Vietnam and hope to enjoy Portugal. No, I don't expect every civ to be Maori or Maya, but NFP has just been uninspired.
I agree strongly To me and my friends, Civ VI feels much more bloated than Civ V and IV. There are so many cool systems and ideas that were introduced but FXS didn't smooth the edges very well. Maybe they did that so they could release continuously more "flashy" content but it just has caused a already long game to feel almost too involved-especially by the late game.
Tbh, the spy mechanics and the world council are egregiously awkward and are constantly bugging you (Could go into so much depth on these issues). The builder charges make so that you can't put your builders on any kind of auto (Which has it's pros and cons in VI)-this is even MORE obvious when you try to make railroads with MEs. Power generation is a cool concept but just adds another complex system that you're constantly having to check up on. All of this and because tall play is basically unviable, you have much more cities to manage with all their individual issues. It's a massive mess when you sit back to look at it and I don't think the devs have done much to really streamline the game as a whole. THIS is why it feels bloated-its the systems and not due to having more civs in the game.
So I'd rather see them spend time fixing up Civ VI's mechanics and fixing what's already there as opposed to just adding more and more unecessary and often uninspired (Zombies really disappointed me) game modes. If they need the money the can start working on Civ VII early to start from scratch on a new engine...hopefully taking these issues into account (While of course new ones spring up XD).
All this to say I still love Civ VI and want the best for it, and the series as a whole.
Vietnam and (presumably) Portugal have been solid, and I like the Maya. But Gran Colombia, Gaul, Byzantium, and Ethiopia have all been pretty boring, and I think Babylon is the worst design in the game.
Lol I thought you said it was Sumeria with Gilgabro that was designed the worst? But I do agree both lack focus...it's like they initially thought of not having Babylon in vanilla (Giving Sumeria the Ziggarats UI) but then was like-"uh guess we have to put in Babylon since everyone wants them...now how do wee make the most OP science civ in the game THIS time?"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
