DLC 05 anticipation thread

[Leyrann]

Judea?

That'll never happen.

I'd love it, but yeah, I think Firaxis would consider that too hot an issue. What about modern Israel though? It's the only stable democracy within several thousand kilometers and has won every single war they have been in, despite typically being outnumbered greatly.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'd love it, but yeah, I think Firaxis would consider that too hot an issue. What about modern Israel though? It's the only stable democracy within several thousand kilometers and has won every single war they have been in, despite typically being outnumbered greatly.

Even less likely. The Palestine issue dogs Israel.

 

[Rup]

I am not an Israeli or a Jews . But I will love to see Israel in this game . Because only country with that much science output in that area . Surrounded by big enemies and yet standing strong .

 

[The Kingmaker]

I know it's not a Firaxis game, but Call to Power included Israel without any blowback.

Somehow I expect that this is 2k's call though.

 

[Rup]

If there is Israel in CIVI . Which is unlikely , I want it to favor tall gameplay .

 

[Leyrann]

Even less likely. The Palestine issue dogs Israel.

People should just look up some facts about the "issue" and it would cease to exist.

 

[Siptah]

I think modern Israel could be fine, you might ran into some troubles in some countries. So unlikely for an expansion - but as a DLC, it seems possible to me. Ancient Israel or Judaea should be avoided for various historical, religious and political reasons in my opinion.
A civ I'd favor that is also unlikely for political reasons is Tibet. And I think here it would even be trouble as a DLC, since China might just ban the game altogether.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Honestly, I think the reverse is true. It's modern history that is creating the issues for including both Israel and Tibet.

The rest is, as they say, ancient history.

 

[Katakanja]

Well, we could at least get a Nepalese civ to represent the Himalayan area in general, since Tibet would indeed probably cause all sorts of problems for the China market.

 

[Siptah]

Well, we could at least get a Nepalese civ to represent the Himalayan area in general, since Tibet would indeed probably cause all sorts of problems for the China market.

And since Gurkhas are kind of official the best troops ever used by the British Empire...
No, really, Nepal would be my favorite 'new' civ and I think it could play different enough form generic civs if you just look at its history and topography.
I think it is unlikely for DLC though. A typical expansion civ.

 

[agonistes]

No, really, Nepal would be my favorite 'new' civ and I think it could play different enough form generic civs if you just look at its history and topography.
I think it is unlikely for DLC though. A typical expansion civ.

For similar reasons I'd like to see Singapore.

 

[Leyrann]

For similar reasons I'd like to see Singapore.

Singapore would be a possible new take on a one-city-challenge. This time not through city-states, but instead through being an incredible trading hub. Maybe things like gaining who-knows-how-many bonus trade routes that also get bonuses for science and culture so you can keep up there, and maybe a food bonus so you can build more districts because you need less farms.

 

[NN23]

Do you think it makes sense to look at he Firaxis TSL map for what to expect and not expect in the form of future dlc civs?

Since the only change to the TSL map was that they added support for Alex and Cyrus and they didn't make changes to city-state spawn (random CS's instead of the current and constant 12 CS's), do you think that we can expect future DLC civs in the places of the map where no civ has it's TSL, places like South Africa, West Africa, SE Asia, Central and North Asia, the north part of South America and the Pacific Coast of North America?

Secondly, is it possible that the CS's on firaxis TSL map could be indicators for future civs in an expansion pack? We could expect civs like Korea, Indonesia, Argentina, Canada, etc...

This is all highly speculative, since we don't know if Firaxis has any plan to make some changes and improvements to the TSL map in the upcoming dlc's.

 

[Morningcalm]

I would like to see an ancient Judah civ, not a modern Israel civ (as others have pointed out, it's modern Israel that causes issues).

If they have Australia in the game, I do not see why the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity cannot be represented in some form slightly more compelling than the Jerusalem city-state.

I don't think Singapore really qualifies as a civ, but the medieval Tibetan Empire could well fit. The ancient Tibetan empire was quite impressive and they even had puppet leaders installed in China

 

[agonistes]

I would like to see an ancient Judah civ, not a modern Israel civ (as others have pointed out, it's modern Israel that causes issues).

If they have Australia in the game, I do not see why the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity cannot be represented in some form slightly more compelling than the Jerusalem city-state.

I don't think Singapore really qualifies as a civ, but the medieval Tibetan Empire could well fit. The ancient Tibetan empire was quite impressive and they even had puppet leaders installed in China

I was thinking like V's Venice. 1 city. Trade empire. Like 1 trade route per envoy, work well with the diplomacy district we are getting (wink wink). They could even have a diplomacy specialty district.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think the Venice-style one city challenge was only feasible because Civ5 had diminishing returns with new cities and many people stopped at 4.

I don't know if Firaxis will try something like that again, as Venice got very mixed reviews.

If they did, they might as well just make city-states playable imho.

 

[agonistes]

I think the Venice-style one city challenge was only feasible because Civ5 had diminishing returns with new cities and many people stopped at 4.

I don't know if Firaxis will try something like that again, as Venice got very mixed reviews.

If they did, they might as well just make city-states playable imho.

People attempted 1 city challenges on III all the time, and that was the grand daddy of expansion civs. Its about the challenge. 1 city victory on deity? Haiiii Ya! (tourists love that kind of thing)

edit: and now u've got me thinking, dang it... 1 city deity, I'd go with Russia and religious victory

 

[ComradeDavo]

I'd love it, but yeah, I think Firaxis would consider that too hot an issue. What about modern Israel though? It's the only stable democracy within several thousand kilometers and has won every single war they have been in, despite typically being outnumbered greatly.

You do realise you just stated that there are no stable democracies in Europe?

 

[MIS]

I don't see 2k/ Firaxis doing anything at all controversial like Israel/ Tibet. There are plenty of other possiblities. That said, if they do Israel, I don't know why you need a distinction between old and new, in the game. It's the same area, same religion, same race, just 1300 years further on. But given Firaxis is a business, I fully expect Korea at some stage. People say Australia was strange, but they probably wanted something special on the tile appeal function.

With the amount of time leaders stay in charge in Israel, it feels like a civ game! Netanyahu was first made prime minister in 1996. For comparison, that's before Putin. I can't think of any other current democratic leader that got in so long ago (and I know he's been in and out).

 

[Kodimus]

Ah, ok. So there are people who think modern civs deserve their spot in the game

Considering the game's science victory culminates in the near-future colonization of Mars, yes, it's perfectly valid for modern civs (and leaders) to be a part of the game. It's not like Germany has been Germany for the 600,000 years that it has been traced back to having humans living there.