Future Update - Speculation Thread

[Gedemon]

How do you deactivate it?

See that thread

 

[Pistol90]

There is a lot of other games trailers and news this week, so maybe its time for Civ also.

 

[AntSou]

Now I've got my hopes up for the 12th.

"Surprise game reveal"... they wouldn't make such a big deal for a small indy game, so even if it isn't Civ, it should still be good.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Now I've got my hopes up for the 12th.

"Surprise game reveal"... they wouldn't make such a big deal for a small indy game, so even if it isn't Civ, it should still be good.

I feel like that's going to be a new game, not an expansion or season pass or whatever Firaxis is cooking up.

 

[criZp]

I'm not sure if DLC counts as a "game reveal"

 

[nzcamel]

I'm not disagreeing that the Iroquois are the most represented, rightly so. My point still stands that I considered the Byzantines more represented and deserving of a "veteran" status ever so slightly because I don't count the Native American civilization as wholly representing them.
In that case both Norway, Denmark, and possibly Sweden, are considered Civ veterans having appeared in Civ 2,3 and 4 before both 5 and 6, as the Vikings, and people will be happy to know that the Pueblo did appear in Civ 4.

Even at 2 vs 3 appearances I don't see that as significantly more. The way it was being described Byzantium was a fixture and the Iroquois weren't. Which is not the case at all.
I'm not against Byzantium's addition, and I know it's fun to have an official version of them if you're playing a game with the Ottomans and Hungary, and other Civs from that time and place. But to me though, ultimately they still are part of the glory of Rome. As far as the citizens of Byzantium were concerned were they playing Civ, they'd be represented by Rome. So if it's a choice between them and Nth America's best governed people's pre 19th century (for a similar length of existance to Byzantium), I'm going with the latter.

 

[Neirai]

I'm not sure if DLC counts as a "game reveal"

If we're super, super lucky it will be both a new game announcement (maybe a year or so out) and a DLC pack for this year.

If we're super, super lucky it will be both a new game announcement (hopefully Civ 7, or some sort of Civ spinoff, maybe a year or so out) and a DLC pack for this year.

Edit: Boy I fail at using forums.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Lol it actually is, particularly as to how Byzantium returns. There are primarily two camps:

1) Those who just love Byzantium and want it back wholesale, perhaps implemented better than in V because it really was one of the worst designed civs.
2) Those who see alternate leaders as the perfect opportunity to consolidate Byzantium into Rome and open up design space for civs like Bulgaria, Romania, Kievan Rus'.

I happen to be in the second camp, because I think Georgia covers a lot of the feel and playstyle people want for Byzantium. And I think getting Simeon leading Bulgaria, Olga leading Russia, and Theodora leading Rome is more interesting than just Theodora leading Byzantium. But there are tradeoffs.

I'm partially on the second camp, because I particularly want some Dominate representation of Rome, specifically with Constantine the Great, which is fated to always get shafted on the Civ franchise because if there's only one leader for the Roman civilization, it'll be one from the Principate, and if there's a separate Byzantine civilization, they'll steal his capital while not really being able to use him as a leader. I also don't want Bulgaria or Romania, and I don't think Kievan Rus is a separate civilization from Russia if India has both Chandragupta and Gandhi. If anything they should add some alt leader from that period for Russia with Kiev as the capital, but that'd be too polemical. Enough European civs I say.

 

[Ferocitus]

I doubt that 2K/Firaxis would be happy with the approx. 68% approval for Civ6 on Steam.
Now, with the release of Old World and the imminent release of Humankind I think they must try something very substantial. (Like One Man's Sky had to do to claw back support from a very much worse position.)

 

[Connor_CivFan]

I doubt that 2K/Firaxis would be happy with the approx. 68% approval for Civ6 on Steam.
Now, with the release of Old World and the imminent release of Humankind I think they must try something very substantial. (Like One Man's Sky had to do to claw back support from a very much worse position.)

It has (Of now) 79% approval of all time
And within the last 30 days it has 92% approval

 

[RohirrimElf]

I doubt that 2K/Firaxis would be happy with the approx. 68% approval for Civ6 on Steam.
Now, with the release of Old World and the imminent release of Humankind I think they must try something very substantial. (Like One Man's Sky had to do to claw back support from a very much worse position.)

Like Conor said. The approval of civ 6 is solid enough. And civ 6 scores well in terms of player counts in the steam statistics. I havent checked that regularly. But i think it moves around place 10-15 on most active players online. If firaxis would push new content i think it would be done because the game has been succesfull. Not to claw back up because of poor reviews.

 

[Haig]

There's also cross-platform purchases for Civ 6, and it has been certified Platinum or Gold each year on Steam for sales so it's doing very well!

If there had been poor sales there would be no mystery DLC to spy at in the database. I really hope/think they are for Civ 6 in the long run.

Besides Old World, while still fun, is in very rough state. And no idea how Humankind will perform and play.

 

[Neirai]

I'm partially on the second camp, because I particularly want some Dominate representation of Rome, specifically with Constantine the Great, which is fated to always get shafted on the Civ franchise because if there's only one leader for the Roman civilization, it'll be one from the Principate, and if there's a separate Byzantine civilization, they'll steal his capital while not really being able to use him as a leader. I also don't want Bulgaria or Romania, and I don't think Kievan Rus is a separate civilization from Russia if India has both Chandragupta and Gandhi. If anything they should add some alt leader from that period for Russia with Kiev as the capital, but that'd be too polemical. Enough European civs I say.

With dual-civ leaders and alt leaders in Civ VI I think we are in the best state ever to see Constantine in-game, since he could potentially lead Rome and a Byzantium civ. We can always hope.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

With dual-civ leaders and alt leaders in Civ VI I think we are in the best state ever to see Constantine in-game, since he could potentially lead Rome and a Byzantium civ. We can always hope.

The only question is Constantine never ruled what is considered the Byzantine Empire because the empire wasn't divided yet. It's a tricky thing, though I know the same thing could be said about Justinian or Theodora, but I think it would work better.

 

[VermelhoRed]

With dual-civ leaders and alt leaders in Civ VI I think we are in the best state ever to see Constantine in-game, since he could potentially lead Rome and a Byzantium civ. We can always hope.

He cannot rule a separate Byzantine civ, he can only rule a Roman civ. But his capital is the same as the Byzantine civ, so it's either Constantine or a separate Byzantium, they can't have both. I'm hoping they choose the former just this once.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Oh look at them completely not hinting Byzantines in any way, shape or form

(I know it's likely not related but I want to believe, dammit)

https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/1258439987369873408

 

[Connor_CivFan]

Oh look at them completely not hinting Byzantines in any way, shape or form

(I know it's likely not related but I want to believe, dammit)

https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/1258439987369873408

Considering we could be somewhat close to something being said this could very well be a subtle hint at a Justinian/Byzantium in the game.
I know baseless speculation

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I'm partially on the second camp, because I particularly want some Dominate representation of Rome, specifically with Constantine the Great, which is fated to always get shafted on the Civ franchise because if there's only one leader for the Roman civilization, it'll be one from the Principate, and if there's a separate Byzantine civilization, they'll steal his capital while not really being able to use him as a leader. I also don't want Bulgaria or Romania, and I don't think Kievan Rus is a separate civilization from Russia if India has both Chandragupta and Gandhi. If anything they should add some alt leader from that period for Russia with Kiev as the capital, but that'd be too polemical. Enough European civs I say.

Also this. I see leaders as a really great way of showing the different polities/empires which make up a larger cultural legacy (i.e. the Mauryan Empire vs. modern India, the Angevin Empire vs. the British Empire, etc.). Consequentially, it's also a really great way to demonstrate mechanically how those cultural continuums changed under different regimes. You can absolutely say that Eleanor's France is just as French as CdM's France, even though they prioritize different things.

So, that's yet another reason why I really want Byzantine representation in VI's Rome. If we are getting multiple facets of England, France, India, and Greece, I think Rome is absolutely the most deserving of having its full breadth represented in the game, and I think anything less than a Byzantine alternate leader would to some extent be selling Rome short.

I recognize the tradeoff is that people don't think that Rome's uniques accurately feel like Byzantium, and I somewhat agree (although technically all of Rome's uniques could equally apply to early Byzantium; they just wouldn't be showing off later innovations that make Byzantium feel more "Byzantine"). And to that I say, fine, let's make an exception for Rome, because it deserves it. Make a Roman alternate leader that replaces the Roman uniques with Byzantine uniques. Just still call it "Rome" so the game maintains its interesting, heritage-oriented perspective on civilization rather than rotely listing off empires from a textbook. I don't think Byzantium fans care if it is called "Byzantium" or "Rome" as long as the civ feels like Byzantium.

The only question is Constantine never ruled what is considered the Byzantine Empire because the empire wasn't divided yet. It's a tricky thing, though I know the same thing could be said about Justinian or Theodora, but I think it would work better.

He cannot rule a separate Byzantine civ, he can only rule a Roman civ. But his capital is the same as the Byzantine civ, so it's either Constantine or a separate Byzantium, they can't have both. I'm hoping they choose the former just this once.

Basically, this. It's not the same as Eleanor, who distinctly ruled different polities of England and France at different points in time. Rome and Byzantium were the same thing under Constantine, and so to create two separate civs just to satisfy historical pedantry would be creating an artificial distinction with no mechanical, aesthetic, or academic benefit.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Oh look at them completely not hinting Byzantines in any way, shape or form

(I know it's likely not related but I want to believe, dammit)

https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/1258439987369873408

Could also hint at earthquakes.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Could also hint at earthquakes.

Emperor Norton leads San Francisco in Sid Meier's Civilization VI!

I wonder if they might consider releasing alt leaders alongside civs in smaller DLC packs. Like, for instance, Portugal plus Theodora as a Roman alternate leader. Just a thought; I think how they divvy things up would depend on what they had already developed.