Do we want a third expansion and/or more DLC for Civ 5?

[Ogrelord]

Yes, further expansions AND DLCs

but I am bias though.
and Ed Beach is really passionate about the game, love to see his new ideas.

 

[CivCube]

Interesting turnaround from the last poll. Seems like more people want additional Civ 5 content than last time.

We should do one more poll at the end of July to see how things change.

 

[kaspergm]

Interesting turnaround from the last poll. Seems like more people want additional Civ 5 content than last time.

No, the polls ask two different things. Last poll asked whether people thought there would be more content for Civ5 - most people didn't think there will be another expansion. This poll asks whether people want more content for Civ5 - and seems the majority of people want another expansion.

But there's no reason to believe that people have changed their mind along the way.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Personally I think there's still so much that can be accomplished with Civ 5, the only thing I hope is that there's going to be 7 new civs, and if they have to even out the number so it isn't like 43.. but maybe 50 or 55 or whatever.

 

[avava]

Would love to see additional content for civ 5 with ideas new to the Civ franchise, which tie in to the current themes.

Stuff like:
- Pilgrimage: allows some civs to send pop from outer cities to Holy city / either create troops from them or a portion reside there without unhappiness for x turns. Would be fun if you could call pop from rival civs who are converted to your religion.
- Once you hit industrial age, spend money to convert workers to archaeologists / environmentalists / researchers that gain culture / happiness / science when you create outposts on desert / jungle / ice tiles.
- Nobel Prize committee, where the "x" highest science civs convene and award tile bonuses or allow things like mountain tunnels (dynamite), ocean border spread with research bonuses on ocean tiles, additional uranium (or creation of new resource like plutonium) or % science boosts.

 

[SnowKomodo]

Personally I think there's still so much that can be accomplished with Civ 5, the only thing I hope is that there's going to be 7 new civs, and if they have to even out the number so it isn't like 43.. but maybe 50 or 55 or whatever.

As great as it would be to have more civs, I doubt 'rounding it to 50' is a priority on the devs list of things to change...

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

As great as it would be to have more civs, I doubt 'rounding it to 50' is a priority on the devs list of things to change...

I was meaning in general if they planned a 3rd EXP or another round of DLC..

In fact.. don't we have 7 DLC civs in total? That'd be nice if they release 7 more (including fan favourites, maybe even Tibet and just not release Tibet in China). They could do Inuit, Sumers, Hittie among few.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

As great as it would be to have more civs, I doubt 'rounding it to 50' is a priority on the devs list of things to change...

Well if they did another expansion with 9 civs, that would bring it to a "round" 52 - a different civ for each week of the year .

 

[m15a]

i voted for DLC based on the idea that DLC could be developed while starting work on civ VI. other than new civs, i feel like most of the things that can improve civ V can either be solved with patches or would require a fresh start. of course, new civs can be packaged as a mini expansion pack, but i don't want an expansion pack if it involves more systems.

anyway, i probably won't actually have a computer than can play civ VI until a couple years after it comes out. (i've only been playing civ V for half a year.) i think by 2017 or so, i'd be ready for a new game.

 

[VainApocalypse]

Why would anyone want CiVI? They'll just rip out religion, espionage, the world congress, trade routes, and who knows what else that we take for granted and then re-introduce them piecemeal over a three year period.

Just keep building on the platform that you've already invested in or figure out how to release a complete experience.

 

[Ryoga]

Why would anyone want CiVI? They'll just rip out religion, espionage, the world congress, trade routes, and who knows what else that we take for granted and then re-introduce them piecemeal over a three year period.

Well let's just say it's a bit early for that, but not an absolute no-no.

Eventually I want a civ VI with the hope that it will introduce some novelty in the series as much as civ V did with the hexes, 1 UPT, beautiful and interesting maps and City states.

Right now, I'm fine with Civ V. I would like however if the next expansion had a better diplomacy and better AI. This last expansion seems to be going in the right direction.

 

[Petiscator]

Why would anyone want CiVI? They'll just rip out religion, espionage, the world congress, trade routes, and who knows what else that we take for granted and then re-introduce them piecemeal over a three year period.

Just keep building on the platform that you've already invested in or figure out how to release a complete experience.

I also fear this I hope they keep doing stuff for Civ V, in my opinion it is a very nice game that I got used to and still like it very much, so I'd prefer to keep playing it for many years before moving on to 6. If this is their final add-on, I'm happy they included Brazil this time

 

[mitsho]

Why would anyone want CiVI? They'll just rip out religion, espionage, the world congress, trade routes, and who knows what else that we take for granted and then re-introduce them piecemeal over a three year period.

Just keep building on the platform that you've already invested in or figure out how to release a complete experience.

That is true, but I wouldn't expect a "classic" game as well. If they were to do civ6 now, it would be something experimental. There really would be no sense in rehashing the same old model of civ3,4 and 5 anew. I don't know what their long-term plans are, but I can see anything from mobile gaming (not necessarily the light version as CivRevolution was), free-to-play browser game (not necessarily the light version as CivWorld was), "spore"-like civilization building, more educational or more fun, etc...

Or maybe they want to use the underlying system of civ5 for another game, a la civ:colonization for civ4. But civ5 has reached more or less its capacity level with BNW. I'm not sure how much farther you can stuff the goose, though there are many opinions on this forum that go the other way...

 

[kaspergm]

I'm pretty sure Civ5 was an experimental game in their optics. They changed major parts of the game from what it had been previously. I highly doubt that they will make another experimental Civ game right after this one - and I certainly hope not, because that would be similar to not learning from your mistakes. I do hope that if and when they make Civ 6 they will stay true to the overall Civ 5 formula but (try to) fix some of the problems that is in this game.

In that regard, I think it's likely that they won't push out Civ 6 right away, but will rather focus a bit on a sideshot like Colonization and let the gap between Civ 5 and 6 grow a bit wider. One can only hope that they'll also find time to add some more stuff to Civ 5 in the meantime.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I don't think they would remove too much

They stated over and over again that the only reason that Civ 5 was so basic was because of so many changes (hex, 1 unit per turn, different culture, no sliders, etc.)

They added so much new content they were afraid that Religion and other features would make it too complicated to learn in a single go.

If they were to keep Hex and 1 unit per tile, I woulda ssume Civ 6 would still retain some of the features.

 

[mitsho]

Civ5 was experimental in that it relied on steam and they tried the DLC model. I didn't mean game mechanics, but the "genre" or "distribution system" or "structure". Let's say - they won't, it's a hypothetical thing - they decide to go Real Time Strategy instead of Turn based. Stuff like that is what I'm talking about. But yes, make the gap larger and make civ6 "more classic" again. I'm all for it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

How the game is published and what comes after the game is released has nothing to do with what is in the game. Yes, they did experiment with the DLC model, but that was mostly rejected due to the players impression taht we would never be getting an expansion pack..

However, Civ 5 was experimental in the sense it revolutionzed the game fully, as I've said earlier, i.e hex, 1 unit per tile etc.

Unless Civ 5 introduces pentagons and different unit formation, I would expect Civ 6 to have more basic features than Civ 5.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

There's some areas where they've raised the bar so much I wonder how they can do it better. Leaderheads, for example, are now full-screen animated and talking characters - what could they do better for a potential Civ 6 (other than, for example, different outfits per era which would take up a lot of room on that download!) Would it be liked or disliked by the community if, when Civ 6 came along, all the graphics were of the same format as Civ 5 - making it straightforward for modders to port in new leaderheads, buildings and units? In the highly unlikely circumstance of them doing this, they would need to have a different leader for each of the civs (i.e. a different historical figure to their Civ 5 counterpart) - which shouldn't be too difficult - and, perhaps, the facility to have multiple leaders per civ.

 

[XboxAddict77]

If there was another expansion i'd prefer to have his:
-Revamped science victory
-Vassalage
-Colonies

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The only thing I think they could improve on is making the engine more efficient while retaining the graphics quality, in fact, I think that's the only thing I feel they can do better outside of gameplay elements.