Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Guandao]

I still think Tibet and/or Sakha stand a good chance of inclusion. I think they're more deserving than Vietnam for several reasons.

Tibet won't ever be added to the game.

Role-play. To me it is more than a name.



They do but I have no interest in anthropology.

Then you are my enemy then.....
I studied Anthropology.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, Tibet would be great but is a political nonstarter.

 

[Siptah]

Yeah, Tibet would be great but is a political nonstarter.

Tibet won't ever be added to the game.

CK2 and EU4 have it as playable and formable country and it doesn't seem to be a problem for selling these game sin China. But this may be because those games have a more strictly historical setting, and not even the Chinese can ignore that there was a political entity Tibet at some point in history...

 

[Prima Italia]

I would really be interested to see some stats on what Civ players actually play on average, in terms of difficulty, map size and type, and civilization preference.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people actually played on middle difficulties (Prince or King), random maps (small or medium), quick games and European civs.

This would make a lot of concerns often expressed on this forum (AI, geographical location on the Earth map, Eurocentrism) rather irrelevant for most of the player base.

I do not know about map sizes or speed of the game but the three civs that players have won a game as are the same as Civ V, albeit in a different order. Rome, Germany and America.

 

[DWilson]

Argentina is actually a pretty good option for a former Spanish colony, it has an interesting history and was economically super successful between 1850 and 1929. I don't see a reason why it should not be good enough for civ inclusion. It's also pretty distinct culturally. Sure, Mexico is as a good option as well, but I think Aztec and Maya are enough for the region. With Argentina, Mapuche, Inca and Brazil, we would only need a very one more civ from the historical New Castile region, either post-colonial and native and we would have a pretty good South America for once. 3 natives and 2 post-colonial nations would also be a pretty nice distribution imho.

Argentina is absolutely the most interesting post-colonial civ left for me. I'd place roughly tied with Brazil, at second/third.

 

[Guandao]

CK2 and EU4 have it as playable and formable country and it doesn't seem to be a problem for selling these game sin China. But this may be because those games have a more strictly historical setting, and not even the Chinese can ignore that there was a political entity Tibet at some point in history...

I didn't know that. Thanks for letting us know.

 

[PhilBowles]

You most certainly can have them all. If Civ 5 with Gods and Kings could do it then there is no reason why it is not possible. I would rather not have new civs if it means getting the regular civs. I think most of the new civs are unneccesary. I have no desire even playing against the likes of Brazil, Poland, Australia, Canada, Mapuche, Cree and Hungary, never mind playing as them. I would rather see them added later after the regular civs have been added or not at all.

I'm not a big fan of Civ VI's push for novelty for the sake of novelty, but there's no way I can see them including 50+ civs in the game - the fact that we already have more than Civ V did is as good a sign as the feature bloat of Civ VI in its current form that a third expansion isn't really feasible. I still don't know why people so widely assume there will be no DLC civs - expansions aren't just a vehicle for adding excess civs.

No Civ game has ever had complete overlap with a previous one other than Civ I. At this point the only missing 'regulars' (more than one past Civ game) are:

Babylon (Civs I-V)
Byzantium (Civs III-V)
Celts (Civ II-V, essentially replaced by Scotland)
Ethiopia (Civ IV, Civ V)
Iroquois (Civ III, Civ V. Replaced by the Cree)
Austria (Civ V, technically Civ III)
Maya (Civ III-V)
Portugal (Civ III-V)

"Vikings" have been replaced by Norway and Carthage by "Phoenicia". The Ottomans and Inca are in Gathering Storm.

Only one of those predates Civ III, discounting the Celts who've been replaced, two have substitutes in the game, and Austria isn't widely seen as a series regular anyway as it was a 'hidden level' cheat code civ in Civ III. It's not ideal that we're missing such significant civs as Byzantium, Portugal, Ethiopia, Maya and above all Babylon. Nevertheless they've managed to do pretty well at covering most of the major series regulars, adding some new civs, turning multiple Civ IV and V civs into new regulars (Polynesia/Maori, Indonesia, Poland, Brazil, Khmer, Sweden, Mali) and one or two of the all-new ones even deserve representation on historical grounds (Nubia, Kongo) rather than just because they're in a bit of the map they haven't used before.

All things considered, they've done a better job than many - me included - have usually credited them with, and it's not as though Civs IV and V didn't have duds no one's going to miss ("Native Americans", Holy Roman Empire, Huns).

There are Civ VI civs I don't like seeing on the roster that to my mind have earned their place on the basis of music or animations (Australia) or doing something mechanically unusual (Cree), just as I grew to like the Huns and Polynesia in Civ V, for all that there are duds like Georgia and Mapuche that score low on both criteria, and Macedon which simply shouldn't exist in the same game as Greece for the same reason as HRE and Germany in Civ IV. Neither of the Gathering Storm civs we've seen is deserving of a Civ spot on 'traditional' criteria, but both look interesting to play.

 

[_Calyx]

I'd be happy to get a few of the mainstay civs - Babylon, Portugal, and Byzantium especially - but what I feel is most missing at this point is alternate leaders. After this expansion we will have... three civs that allow for more than one leader to be selected? Seems like a waste, and I would love to play as Churchill, Lincoln, Kublai, or Marcus Aurelius.

I would be more excited about a third expansion, or even just a large DLC pack, with 10+ alternate leaders than I would be about one with more civs.

 

[Siptah]

I'd be happy to get a few of the mainstay civs - Babylon, Portugal, and Byzantium especially - but what I feel is most missing at this point is alternate leaders. After this expansion we will have... three civs that allow for more than one leader to be selected? Seems like a waste, and I would love to play as Churchill, Lincoln, Kublai, or Marcus Aurelius.

I would be more excited about a third expansion, or even just a large DLC pack, with 10+ alternate leaders than I would be about one with more civs.

I remember that the devs did state very clearly at or probably even before vanilla release that the alternate leaders mechanic was mainly included for modding and not for "official" leaders. While this could have changed meanwhile, it appears to be still true. I can also view Eleanor's inclusion under this modding paradigm: open up for leaders that are not tied to a single civ, which may allow modders to create leaders independently of civs and people can finally play with Alexander leading Greece again...

Frankly, I personally view alternate leaders by Firaxis as wasted resources, since it could as well be a new civ (the main difference work-wise seems to be the music).

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I remember that the devs did state very clearly at or probably even before vanilla release that the alternate leaders mechanic was mainly included for modding and not for "official" leaders. While this could have changed meanwhile, it appears to be still true. I can also view Eleanor's inclusion under this modding paradigm: open up for leaders that are not tied to a single civ, which may allow modders to create leaders independently of civs and people can finally play with Alexander leading Greece again...

Frankly, I personally view alternate leaders by Firaxis as wasted resources, since it could as well be a new civ (the main difference work-wise seems to be the music).

That was Ed's take, but, if I am not mistaken, I think I saw other members of the team were not of the same position. I think it would make sense to offer a large leader pack as DLC, it would not be all that labor intensive and would be a great barometer for how interested the playerbase actually is in alt leaders vs fully fleshed out civs.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'd be happy to get a few of the mainstay civs - Babylon, Portugal, and Byzantium especially - but what I feel is most missing at this point is alternate leaders. After this expansion we will have... three civs that allow for more than one leader to be selected? Seems like a waste, and I would love to play as Churchill, Lincoln, Kublai, or Marcus Aurelius.

I would be more excited about a third expansion, or even just a large DLC pack, with 10+ alternate leaders than I would be about one with more civs.

Alternate leaders have largely lived up to my expectations - that is, window dressing. They either play much the same way (Greece) or are sufficiently different from the previous version of the civ that they might as well just be a different civ (India). There's no particular gain to be had from the fact that they share specific uniques - when the civs play differently you just have the Varu situation where one leader gets no real use out it at all. If they already have a similar playstyle, sharing a unique like the Acropolis just makes it seem even less necessary to have two leaders rather than one.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Alternate leaders have largely lived up to my expectations - that is, window dressing. They either play much the same way (Greece) or are sufficiently different from the previous version of the civ that they might as well just be a different civ (India). There's no particular gain to be had from the fact that they share specific uniques - when the civs play differently you just have the Varu situation where one leader gets no real use out it at all. If they already have a similar playstyle, sharing a unique like the Acropolis just makes it seem even less necessary to have two leaders rather than one.

I agree. It feels like something that was put in due to fan request but really enrich the game that much.

 

[johnlynch13957]

No Civ game has ever had complete overlap with a previous one other than Civ I. At this point the only missing 'regulars' (more than one past Civ game) are:

Babylon (Civs I-V)
Byzantium (Civs III-V)
Celts (Civ II-V, essentially replaced by Scotland)
Ethiopia (Civ IV, Civ V)
Iroquois (Civ III, Civ V. Replaced by the Cree)
Austria (Civ V, technically Civ III)
Maya (Civ III-V)
Portugal (Civ III-V)

Hungary is a replacement for Austria, and you can argue that Nubia is an Ethiopian replacement.

 

[Potworny]

To be fair, wouldn't any of these aforementioned regulars make them too much money to omit them? Also, keep in mind that not including Portugal in a civ game is widely accepted as a war crime.

 

[Siptah]

To be fair, wouldn't any of these aforementioned regulars make them too much money to omit them? Also, keep in mind that not including Portugal in a civ game is widely accepted as a war crime.

Whilst I would like to have the Maya more than I want Portugal (but this is 2nd on my list), the latter is the most puzzling omission to me, especially since civ VI is somewhat Age of Exploration-themed. But even otherwise, Portugal is historically so incredibly well suited for a game that focuses on 4X the way civ does, and it's the first globe spanning empire.

 

[Xandinho]

Perhaps they are keeping Portugal to launch it into a thematic expansion of improved trade and colonialism.

...you can argue that Nubia is an Ethiopian replacement.

No, please, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Ziad]

Perhaps they are keeping Portugal to launch it into a thematic expansion of improved trade and colonialism.

Phoenicia/Carthage fits that bill and they're in GS most likely.

I imagine if there was a third expansion it would have a general theme going in. Is colonialism really something missing from the game right now?

 

[Potworny]

Perhaps they are keeping Portugal to launch it into a thematic expansion of improved trade and colonialism.

I hope so, well developed colonialism mechanics could be brilliant. The closest I get to this is with this PerfectWorld6 mod's old world script and that's so much fun.

 

[Xandinho]

Phoenicia/Carthage fits that bill and they're in GS most likely.

I imagine if there was a third expansion it would have a general theme going in. Is colonialism really something missing from the game right now?

I think they could add economic victory with improved trade/colonialism, and include corporations. In addition to adding other smaller mechanisms such as health/disease and civil wars/revolutions.

Obviously, it's just speculation, maybe we're just leaning on weak thoughts to look for hope we get some favorites back.

 

[PhilBowles]

I agree. It feels like something that was put in due to fan request but really enrich the game that much.

Basically. It was a very common fan request through Civ V. No idea why - it didn't add anything in Civ IV either and since I see Civ games as being about, well, civs rather than characters I don't see any purpose to having extra leaders in the game just to represent individual historical figures.