DLCs after Brave New World

[AbsintheRed]

I really just wished they would add an option of removing an unliked civilization from the random generator. There, problem-solved.

This was a very simple XML setting in Civ IV
Changing <bPlayable>1</bPlayable> or <bAIPlayable>1</bAIPlayable> to 0 for the corresponding civ in the CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml
Didn't check in Civ V, but I'm sure it's not harder there either...

 

[mitsho]

Good list, though:

Seriously though, off the top of my head, I could easily think of enough to get to 50 (9 in the Expansion, 7 as DLC):

35. Poland
36. Assyria
37. Portugal
38. Zulu
39. Majapahit Indonesia (more marketable, amalgation civ)
40. Khmer Israel (Khmer has too big an overlap with Thailand, if we go for 50 civs)
41. Kongo
42. Brazil
43. Vietnam
44. Mali too big an overlap with Songhai, I'd say "another African civ": Nigeria, Ashanti, Benin, Sudan, Uganda (Idi Amin!) OR Tibet/Modern option from 49. & 50.
45. Sumeria
46. Hittites
47. The Moors Morocco (sounds better than Moors)
48. A second Native North American Civilization (i.e. Cherokee, Inuit, Hopi, Sioux, Apache, Navajo, Comanche)
49 & 50. Two modern nations, i.e. Italy, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Argentinia, Colombia, Cuba, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, "Serbia/Yugoslavia" (Tito!), Armenia which would be quite marketable
51.+ Other options include "Non-Modern Era exotic civs" like Maurya, Chola, Chachapoya, Tupi, Tibet, Goths, Etruscans, Seleucids, Lithuanians, etc. ...

That's before going into some of the controversial options that they likely couldn't do.

And to be honest, I wouldn't want to see all those options in civ, at some point, it's an overkill! I personally would fill up the last two places with

49. Tibet (resp. another African Civ)
50. Australia

(for global spread and diversity).

I'd say, Sumeria has good chances for a DLC civ, maybe with an upgraded scenario which in my mind would greatly benefit from Religion, Trade Routes and a few more wonders. Other civs that I can see sell well (maybe coupled with other civs) as DLCs are:
Portugal, Zulu, Israel, Australia, Vietnam, "Native North American Civ" (as US is biggest market OR in case of Inuit they offer very unique gameplay), Israel and Tibet. I'd say they got enough to chose from. Though I don't know the sale of DLC civ's in general, so that might be a totally wrong guess

@imalich, There is a mod that allows you to do that: Real Advanced Set Up, easy to find in the modding forum.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Well ....

Civ 3 : Vanilla > 16 civs Conquests > 31 civs + 1
Civ 4 : Vanilla > 18 civs Beyondthesword > 35 civs
Civ 5 : Vanilla + DLC > 25 civs Brave New World > ~50 civs ?

 

[Menzies]

You still missed a Hungary and Phoenicia from the top civs
Also instead of modern nations I think they might release Tibet as a DLC, it's not that controversial that way
A great list othewise
I could even imagine them adding Armenia or Nubia, they would also be very unique and worthy additions historically, and they are probably popular enough (and well-known)
So yeah, somewhere between 50-55 civs after a second DLC run sound very plausible to me too

I also missed the Khazars, Timurids, Olmec, Zapotec and innumerable others, it was just the first bunch that popped into my head. I thought about Phoenicia and Hungary, but some would think that Phoenicia would overlap too much with Carthage, whilst many would argue that Hungary is somewhat covered by Austria, but I agree they are both pretty decent options.

The reason I picked 50 was that they had 7 Civs in the original DLC run, and I doubt they've got over that for the final one, if they have one, but you never know.

 

[kingchris20]

This was a very simple XML setting in Civ IV
Changing <bPlayable>1</bPlayable> or <bAIPlayable>1</bAIPlayable> to 0 for the corresponding civ in the CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml
Didn't check in Civ V, but I'm sure it's not harder there either...

That would look like this for

Spoiler :

<GameData>

<Civilizations>​

<Update>​

<Set Playable="0"/>
<Where Type="CIVILIZATION_AUSTRIA"/>​

</Update>​

</Civilizations>​

</GameData>

 

[Menzies]

Good list, though:



And to be honest, I wouldn't want to see all those options in civ, at some point, it's an overkill! I personally would fill up the last two places with

49. Tibet (resp. another African Civ)
50. Australia

(for global spread and diversity).

I'd say, Sumeria has good chances for a DLC civ, maybe with an upgraded scenario which in my mind would greatly benefit from Religion, Trade Routes and a few more wonders. Other civs that I can see sell well (maybe coupled with other civs) as DLCs are:
Portugal, Zulu, Israel, Australia, Vietnam, "Native North American Civ" (as US is biggest market OR in case of Inuit they offer very unique gameplay), Israel and Tibet. I'd say they got enough to chose from. Though I don't know the sale of DLC civ's in general, so that might be a totally wrong guess

@imalich, There is a mod that allows you to do that: Real Advanced Set Up, easy to find in the modding forum.

Saying Mali has too big an overlap with Songhai is like saying that England has too much of an overlap with France. Well... actually it's more like Byzantium and the Ottomans.

Anyhow, we won't see Tibet or Israel, there are far too many issues surrounding these two sadly.

At this point in time we don't know what form the DLC would take, if it does come, as they may opt to make them vanilla compatible, in which case any civs that would be very specific to Brave New World, would like be released with it.

Why would you prefer the name Morrocco? At least with 'the Moors' it could cover a large part of history in the region, particularly with Al-Andalus.

 

[mitsho]

Saying Mali has too big an overlap with Songhai is like saying that England has too much of an overlap with France. Well... actually it's more like Byzantium and the Ottomans.

I'm talking in-game, not historically speaking. Just look at the two city lists.

Anyhow, we won't see Tibet or Israel, there are far too many issues surrounding these two sadly.

I respectfully disagree on that. These discussions have been had and I don't think they lead anywhere meaningful, so are we okay at leaving it like that, with us two disagreeing on it

Why would you prefer the name Morrocco? At least with 'the Moors' it could cover a large part of history in the region, particularly with Al-Andalus.

Because it's more precise (for choice of uniques for example), more modern, fits better with a 'Scramble for Africa' scenario and it still can cover the whole region if we want to.

Additionally, but not directly related to it, in most languages (not sure about English though), Moor is the 19th century equivalent of the N-Word for Black People.

 

[Menzies]

It's not about us disagreeing or agreeing on Tibet, they just won't be in as they almost certainly like their game not being banned in certain regions.

Being modern actually makes it worse as their height was back in the days of Al Andulas, it would be like including the modern City of Rome instead of ancient Rome.

Never heard of Moor being an offensive term, and I've seen in used in numerous contexts.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I also missed the Khazars, Timurids, Olmec, Zapotec and innumerable others, it was just the first bunch that popped into my head. I thought about Phoenicia and Hungary, but some would think that Phoenicia would overlap too much with Carthage, whilst many would argue that Hungary is somewhat covered by Austria, but I agree they are both pretty decent options.

Yeah, but I said you missed Hungary and Phoenicia from the top civs.
I don't consider those you mention here among the top options, altough most of them won't be bad choices of course
On the other hand, both Hungary and Phoenicia are among the best remaining civ options...
Btw, this is the latest poll result:
(the poll and the thread are here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=460009)

Alright, here is another sum of the results:
In the grouped options, the method is similar than previously:

Spoiler :

Based on feedback and on other polls to some extent, I try to guess the votes for the civs in the grouped options

Other Middle Eastern civs
In this category, Assyria, Israel and probably Armenia are the most popular candidates.
109 votes are a lot, there is a good chance all 3 of those made it over 60 votes
I would put Assyria around 80-85, the Hebrews around 75, and Armenia around 65 if I had to make a very rough guess
I'm pretty sure all the others are below 60 by much, maximum around half of the votes for the category.

Other European civs
They are not too popular with their 46 votes
Not surprising, mostly because of the eurocentrism of the 1st expansion
Anyway, this combined option is on the last place currently
So, none of the other european civs would have gotten more than 25-30 votes so far

Other North American native civs
This is the hardest category to guess, there are just too many similarly popular options, and it got 107 votes
Which could be the dominant civs there? Apache? Navajo? Comanche? Pueblo? Inuit? Cree? Mississippian? Or one of the 5 civilized natives?
Really hard to guess...
Also, it's in this category where IMO it matters the less whether someone get's the Apache or the Comanche in the end...
So I cannot really have any good guesses, only have a clue based on the few comments, but that's not enough here

South American native civs
57 votes. Not that few, but no real leading candidate here
I would say none of the options can have more than 35-40 votes
Probably the Mapuche is leading, but not by much

Other African civs
75 votes for them. As opposed to the previous category, I think there are some popular options here (based on feedback). Probably Nubia and Kilwa/Swahili got around 80% of the votes.
Possibly both could make it somewhere between 60-65

Other South Asian civs
Similar case to Africa, with 65 votes
Here is a clear leading candidate, Vietnam. Based on feedback almost everyone would gladly see them ingame who voted for this option
Somewhere around 60 votes seems plausible.
None of the other civs could possibly reach anything more than 40 votes

Other Central Asian civs
53 votes. Very similar to the South American civs.
Don't think any of these have more than 35 votes.

Other colonial or "modern" civs
94 votes are not few, but in this option most voters are opting for their own country.
So no real leading option here IMO.
Most likely none of the civs have more than 1/2 of the votes

After 360 votes (+34):

1. Portugal: 181 (+19)
2. Zulu: 163 (+14)
3. Indonesia: 142 (+9)
4. Brazil: 128 (+12)
5. Poland: 125 (+11) - confirmed as a civ in BNW when it was on the 4th place
6. Sumer: 125 (+12)

7. Kongo: 112 (+10)
8. Hittites: 108 (+8)
9. Sioux: 101 (+7)
10. Hungary: 90 (+13)
11. Khmer: 88 (+8)
12. Tibet: 87 (+7)
13. Phoenicia: 86 (+11)
14. Assyria: ~83 (+10) - confirmed as a civ in BNW when it was on the 14th place
15. Morocco/Moors: 82 (+13)

16. Hebrews: ~77 (+9)
17. Mali: 69 (+9)
18. Armenia: ~67 (+9)
19. Zimbabwe: 61 (+6)
20. Khazars: 60 (+8)
20. Vietnam: ~60 (+8)
20. Nubia: ~60 (+10)
20. Swahili/Kilwa: ~60 (+10)
With at least 3-4 North American Native civs going in this list somewhere between 60-80 votes
Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Mississippian are among the most likely candidates that made it over 60.

 

[nokmirt]

I'm not sure we will see any DLCs post-BNW. The fact there haven't been any in the year-long gap between G&K and BNW suggests to me that they're not interested in standalone DLCs for CiV any longer.

There is a profit-cost balance in having people working on this stuff, and I'm not sure they won't just move onto a different project entirely.

Besides, after this, there will be 43 civs. I'm not sure there's any need for any more past that.

I agree all the rest of the important civs will be in this expansion. The Zulus, Portugal etc. After the expansion comes out it will be patched a few times, but CiV should be pretty much finished.

Tibet should also be in. I care less what the Chinese think. This is a video game not a politcal propaganda tool.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

They need to release an ethnic diversity DLC, chock full of unique looking units/city sets for both civilizations and city states.

I'd be the first one spending my money.

 

[mitsho]

It's not about us disagreeing or agreeing on Tibet, they just won't be in as they almost certainly like their game not being banned in certain regions.

You misunderstood, I disagree that this is going to be a problem for their inlcusion as a DLC. I see the bigger problem in finding a good scenario to put them in, as one focused on China runs into the problems you allude to and a generic "Asian scenario" could lack a certain oomph. But one can couple them in with a Vietnam, Khmer, Phillippines or "Ancient or Early Modern India Civ (i.e. Maurya, Moghul, etc.) or even with a "Silk Road civ" and an updated Mongol Scenario.

I can see them going for Tibet as there are not many more "hill" civs left that can be added and that is one terrain type that could use a few more in the current civ 5, which does put a lot of weight on terrain types. I can only think of "Native South American Tribe" like Chachapoya, Pueblo or Afghanistan that could get such bonuses? That makes them a good candidate imho. Gameplay!

Being modern actually makes it worse as their height was back in the days of Al Andulas, it would be like including the modern City of Rome instead of ancient Rome.

So? It's not a simulation. They don't strive to create a list of the "50 best civilizations" with distinct and clear categorisations. It's a game after all and I say Morocco has a better name recognition (Moroccon restaurants/cuisine!) than Cordoba*. Also Morocco does fit better than the Moors in the current scenarios. If they update the Medieval one (maybe with the added Portugal, Poland and new Bulgaria civs), then they look more probable, but until then...

*The Moors btw. would be a deviation from their naming sheme, no? There's only a few that follow that scheme (i.e. Aztecs, Maya, Iroquois, Huns, Celts) and a few of those the name has become synonymous with the empire (Inca, Ottomans). Of the former, most didn't have a real contiguous empire after all. Wouldn't fit for the Moors, no?

 

[nokmirt]

They added Lhasa as a city state and plenty of people in China bought copies of CiV. They certainly would do the same with Tibet. Lhasa is and represents Tibet. Besides my dog is a Lhasa Apso named Theodore. How can he play co op with me, without being able to choose Tibet for his first game of BNW?

 

[soprof]

Hungary also belongs to this category. The way Firaxis set up their Austria civ is very upsetting, medieval Hungary was one of main powers (if not the biggest power) of central and eastern Europe.
Unique culture and heritage, one of the most successful dynasties, continuous rule over a huge territory for more than 600 years, very colorful history, etc...
You cannot just scratch that and lump Hungary into Austria because of Austria-Hungary and it's role in WW1 are more well-known

Location: Szeged, Hungary

INDEPENDANT SOURCE OF INFORMATION, yeh?

 

[Il Corvo Bianco]

Location: Szeged, Hungary

INDEPENDANT SOURCE OF INFORMATION, yeh?

It is the truth, though - Hungary dominated the area for half a millennium, from the settlements of the Magyars to the Battle of Mohacs. In the middle there have been kings of Naples, Archdukes of Austria, Kings of Bohemia and Poland...a powerful player, ended for a dynastic mishap not unlike Burgundy.

 

[Pouakai]

While that may be the case, I wouldn't want to see them in Civ V simply because there are too many European civs already. It's bedlam on a TSL map.

 

[AriochIV]

You guys throw country names out there, but then say nothing of how they would add unique play in the actual game. How would Khmer play differently from Vietnam? How would another Native American civ play differently from Iroquois? How would Etruscans play differently from Greeks or Romans? How would Mali fit in the mix when all their city names are already used by Songhai? How do you give unique units to modern New World colonial nations like Canada and Brazil that never really had any?

 

[Guandao]

Why do people find Khmer/Cambodia and Thailand/Siam too similar? It's not like they speak a related language (Khmer is Austro-Asiatic and Thai is Tai-Kadai). They may share religion in modern times, but Khmer can have Hinduism as their first choice (many Khmer kings practiced it). You got Austria and Germany speaking dialects of German.

You may counter saying that Austria has more impact on the world, but I disagree. I think Khmer and Austria had an equal impact on
my life.

Khmer also descends from people indigenous to mainland Southeast Asia, before the Thai languages came down from what is now SW China.

Khmer can have a baray (those artificial pools) as a unique improvement or building. For a unique unit, the developers can prolly think up of something different than an elephant.

I see Khmer getting into Civ5 as likely as Vietnam. They've been in Civ4, and Angkor Wat is a wonder. Their chance is not as likely as Indonesia of course, but prolly more than Burma, Laos, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

 

[Pouakai]

You guys throw country names out there, but then say nothing of how they would add unique play in the actual game. How would Khmer play differently from Vietnam? How would another Native American civ play differently from Iroquois? How would Etruscans play differently from Greeks or Romans? How would Mali fit in the mix when all their city names are already used by Songhai? How do you give unique units to modern New World colonial nations like Canada and Brazil that never really had any?

They play differently through unique attributes that you give them. Khmer would be a religious builder civ, so you could give them a UA for a faith boost for every wonder completed (Random idea from the top of my head) or something similar. As for the UU issue, it wouldn't be that hard to think of UUs. Peacekeepers or Mounties have come up for Canadian UU, while Llaneros have been suggested for Gran Colombia. I'd suggest you take a look at the Civ5 Civilizations/Leaders Wanted topic, which at my count has approximately 84 unique civilization proposals, including many New World modern civs, as you put them

 

[AriochIV]

As for the UU issue, it wouldn't be that hard to think of UUs. Peacekeepers or Mounties have come up for Canadian UU, while Llaneros have been suggested for Gran Colombia.

It's apparently hard to think of good ones: Mounties and Llaneros aren't even military units, but rather police and herders, respectively. What unit would the Llaneros replace? Cavalry? That's only slightly less ridiculous than having a Hockey Player unit that replaces Pikemen.

Similarly, Peacekeepers are not a unit type, and even if they were, there's nothing characteristically Canadian about them.