Please dont remind me of beyond earth. I’ve spend so much money unwisely when i had 700 euro’s a month of leisure time to burn through each month. The advantage of living with your parents and low fixed expenses. Nowdays i must entertain myself with 60 euro’s a month included eating outdoors. Lucky for me the civilisation series is usually worth its weight in gold.
Something that I think was a lost opportunity in R&F and that maybe they can still do is to give each leader a unique alliance bonus, a weaker version of that leader ability. If I ally with Gorgo I get culture when I kill a unit equal to 5% of its combat strength. If I ally with Jadwiga I get +2 gold from my relics, if I ally with John Curtin I get 10% production when someone declare war on me and so on. It would improve alliances and encourage players to pursue specific alliances, increasing the importance of agendas since people would actually try to fulfill specific leader agendas.
Personally, my only real clue that their would be a third expansion is the title of the second one, "Gathering Storm". "Gathering Storm" doesn't make things sound complete. Something tends to happen after a gathering storm. The storm breaks, there is an aftermath, etc.
Let's also not forget that the Rough Rider's civilopedia entry states that it's a UU for America when TR is its leader, leading to believe that there has to be an alt-leader for at least America, whether in a DLC or expansion.
Let's also not forget that the Rough Rider's civilopedia entry states that it's a UU for America when TR is its leader, leading to believe that there has to be an alt-leader for at least America, whether in a DLC or expansion.
Despite the fact it's not mentoined, from logical perspective and If I am not mistaken even from the code, one of the Macedonian units is actually Alexander-ability not Macedon-ability.
Then there's Suleiman or Corvinus. Not just units, remember, Qapaq-Ňan is related to Paca, not Inca.
They simply mentoin that to make it clear for modding (and yes, for possible desire to add alt leader) that the unit is part of leader ability. It's not there as foreshadowing, it's there because the system exists and it has to be clear that should you want alt leader, official or not, you ain't getting the unit. Macedon is especially the important example, as it would be weird to release leader-only as addition to DLC Civ. Or even one to Civ from Exp Packs. It makes it possible for them to add alt leader without confusion, but isn't guarantee.
EDIT: Just checked it. It's Hetairoi. It's Alexander's unit, not Macedon. They forgot to mentoin it in tooltip.
When Teddy and Victoria were first revealed, I was excited at the prospect of each Civ having a Civ UU and a Leader UU. Alas, Cleopatra, revealed third, dashed that excitement.
My hope would start fading after the first week of December. I don't consider the last few weeks before Christmas to be the ideal time to begin a marketing push.
If we don't hear something about additional content within the next month, I wouldn't lose all hope for a third expansion, just any hope for one on a similar timeline to the earlier two.
At what point in November (or December) would you consider that a 3rd expansion is no longer feasible, in case we don't get any kind of news in relation to it?
No one here has a crystal ball unfortunately and all we're going off is precedent. That said, a 3rd XP itself is breaking precedent so it it's not announced in the same expected timeframe as the first two that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
Long story short: no one knows. Uncharted territory.
Was there more steam dB updates ahead of the last expansion? I feel like there was. And there was the whole leak thing too, which we obviously don't have this time.
The best evidence there will be a Third Expansion is one comment from the leaker, some missing Civs, and a missing Trebuchet. But the leaker could be wrong and or plans change; and some Civs and a Trebuchet don't require a whole new expansion, just some dlc.
Although, I feel like FXS would be setting themselves up for some bad press if they didn't have a 3XP in the wings at this point. It's been discussed extensively not only on these forums, but elsewhere including in the gaming press.
Sigh. I mean, we’re going to get a Third Expansion. But you know, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm finding the waiting interminable.
When Teddy and Victoria were first revealed, I was excited at the prospect of each Civ having a Civ UU and a Leader UU. Alas, Cleopatra, revealed third, dashed that excitement.
It feels like there should be a few more unique units. I want Longbowmen. I want those Chinese Chu-Chuck-howmuchwoodcanawoodchuckchuck-things. And man, Korea and a Turtle Boat would be awesome.
They can’t give every leader a UU. And just flat out two UUs per Civ sounds onerous. I guess a sprinkling of a few more UUs, and maybe a Mechanic to unlock a few more? At the moment, the only UU you can unlock are Warrior Monks. Seems like a missed opportunity.
This is why I keep saying we need something a bit like the Social Policy system. I love the Tech and Civics tree, but the way the game currently works everyone basically ends up unlocking all the same techs eventually, so there’s really no way to take your Civ culturally in a different direction. If you had some version of Social Policies in addition to the Civics tree, then you could have that unlock eg unique units (a bit like how in Civ V you got Foreign Legions from Exploration or something). I could see Longbowmen being a UU you unlock from some Medieval Social Policy.
I find it kinda interesting that Humankind is basically bringing back a version of Social Policies via choosing your Culture each age. I think FXS were right with Civ VI by making governments and policies more flexible and changeable, and by making culture it’s own tech tree, but I do think they could now bring in a little more of those “permanent choice” type mechanics. Governors and Gov Plaza were a step in that direction, but much too small a step IMO.
They simply mentoin that to make it clear for modding (and yes, for possible desire to add alt leader) that the unit is part of leader ability. It's not there as foreshadowing, it's there because the system exists and it has to be clear that should you want alt leader, official or not, you ain't getting the unit. Macedon is especially the important example, as it would be weird to release leader-only as addition to DLC Civ. Or even one to Civ from Exp Packs. It makes it possible for them to add alt leader without confusion, but isn't guarantee.
EDIT: Just checked it. It's Hetairoi. It's Alexander's unit, not Macedon. They forgot to mentoin it in tooltip.
I thought that it was always clear. Look at my name.
I'd also like to add that England under Eleanor loses a UU in the redcoat, since it's tied to Victoria.
By that reasoning if America does get an alt leader it might not necessarily receive a second UU and you would only be stuck with a P-51 Mustang.
I have a little conspiracy theory that third expansion got delayed by sudden announcement of Humankind, as civ devs went 'oh damn we better finish civ6 development in excellent manner to not look bad next to newly emergent rival'.
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.
