Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Ziad]

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.

Ah good point. One of my favorite parts of Civ5 Vox Populi is their implementation of monopolies and corporations. That would definitely be fun.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Except we don't really need Argentina because the Mapuche represent the northern half of both Chile and Argentina.

I would say that the Aztecs and then the Mayans represent Mexico more than the Mapuche represents Argentina. In addition, the majority of the Mapuche population is in Chile and not in Argentina.

Just my opinion, Mexico would be nice, but I think Argentina is the most solid option to represent Spanish America, and I would add here all that @Siptah said. About Gran Colombia, it lasted very little time to make it a solid option.

I kind of agree with a little bit of both of these posts. Which is why I would like Colombia, if we were to get another post-colonial Civ.
I'm not saying the Mapuche totally represent Argentina, because they don't, but geographically the southern region of South America is covered by them, in my opinion, however I wouldn't object to Argentina as they would be my second choice.
As for Mexico, I don't think it would be necessary to bring them in especially since I believe we would get the Maya before them with the Aztecs already.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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.

This is as good a summary of the difference between this community and the broader civ player base as any.

Civfanatics: America always gets "meh" abilities.
Typical American Civplayer: I can't wait to win with America!

It's hardly surprising that Firaxis is motivated to add Australia, Sweden, Canada, etc. I suspect the average civ buyer wouldn't notice if Babylonia (Mali, Maya, Inca, etc.) was or wasn't in the game. It has Rome (history!), it has America (slash my country), it has a few other places I've heard about.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is as good a summary of the difference between this community and the broader civ player base as any.

Civfanatics: America always gets "meh" abilities.
Typical American Civplayer: I can't wait to win with America!

It's hardly surprising that Firaxis is motivated to add Australia, Sweden, Canada, etc. I suspect the average civ buyer wouldn't notice if Babylonia (Mali, Maya, Inca, etc.) was or wasn't in the game. It has Rome (history!), it has America (slash my country), it has a few other places I've heard about.

If this trend continues the next Civ will be Italy who has the tenth highest gaming revenues in the world as of this year. The other nine in front will already be in the game, if we are including Canada and there will be a third expansion. Good thing I looked it up.

 

[cvb]

...I keep checking this thread. But I fear it is never going to give me any further insight on whether we are or aren’t going to get another expansion or dlc or whatever.

Perhaps for any further insight it is better to reflect on what is inherent in ourself / what we know already.

In an interview 3 years of support were mentioned by Ed (afair). This period ends in September 2019. Very well timed to bring 2nd into a good shape - but how could this satisfyingly cover a hypothetical 3rd?

Last week they placed a lot of emphasis on the fact, that GS will be the largest expansion ever (in the history of Civ or the enterprise?) ... so I don't think, anything has changed.

Maybe one DLC package follows to symbolically outnumber the civ5 count of civs.

Announcement of 'Complete Edition' will give certainty.

 

[Kamino]

Last week they placed a lot of emphasis on the fact, that GS will be the largest expansion ever (in the history of Civ or the enterprise?)

To justify the $40 price tag?

 

[Leyrann]

To justify the $40 price tag?

Are you seriously implying it's not justified with the ocean of content the expansion brings?

 

[Sagax]

If this trend continues the next Civ will be Italy who has the tenth highest gaming revenues in the world as of this year. The other nine in front will already be in the game, if we are including Canada and there will be a third expansion. Good thing I looked it up.

Funnily enough, Italy is probably the least controversial one among the “Do we really need to add them?” civs. With their whole Renaissance culture potential, the only thing that holds back their inclusion is the existence of Rome. Which is really a moot point, given that the game is fine with having both Ottomans and Byzan-... oh wait.

 

[Guandao]

This is as good a summary of the difference between this community and the broader civ player base as any.

Civfanatics: America always gets "meh" abilities.
Typical American Civplayer: I can't wait to win with America!

It's hardly surprising that Firaxis is motivated to add Australia, Sweden, Canada, etc. I suspect the average civ buyer wouldn't notice if Babylonia (Mali, Maya, Inca, etc.) was or wasn't in the game. It has Rome (history!), it has America (slash my country), it has a few other places I've heard about.

Sadly, this is so true.

 

[Stringer1313]

I'm kind of confused as to why most of this thread is about Civs that people find missing... I think what's more exciting than "MOAR CIVs" is new features or better yet -- revamped old features -- since too many new features can make a chaotic and unfun game

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I kind of agree with a little bit of both of these posts. Which is why I would like Colombia, if we were to get another post-colonial Civ.
I'm not saying the Mapuche totally represent Argentina, because they don't, but geographically the southern region of South America is covered by them, in my opinion, however I wouldn't object to Argentina as they would be my second choice.
As for Mexico, I don't think it would be necessary to bring them in especially since I believe we would get the Maya before them with the Aztecs already.

If Canada got in despite the Cree, purely because there are many Canadian gamers, then Mexico stands a shot given how many Mexican-American gamers are in the U S. I don't think it's a strong argument, but as Australia and Brazil have shown, profit margins seem to be winning out when pitted against historical/cultural options.

Funnily enough, Italy is probably the least controversial one among the “Do we really need to add them?” civs. With their whole Renaissance culture potential, the only thing that holds back their inclusion is the existence of Rome. Which is really a moot point, given that the game is fine with having both Ottomans and Byzan-... oh wait.

I've said it several times and I will say it again. Byzantium will not be a separate civ in VI. It will be an alt Rome leader. Byzantium doesn't have geographic (Macedon, Ottoman) or mechanical (Russia, Poland, Georgia) design space in VI, and it carries more value as an extension of Rome that would open design space for Italy than it does as a separate civ. And now that we know Italy has a strong gaming population, I think that makes it even more likely that Byzantium will be sacrificed to justify it.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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.

I think it's fairly clear why Portugal has been left out. It's historically been a Spanish kingdom, and Spain had a stronger colonial identity within the mechanics of the base game, with a specifically religious bent. And the Netherlands as a trade empire had more interesting side mechanics. So as of those two releases, Portgual wasn't mechanically distinct or unique, and I'm presuming the case is the same for GS.

There definitely appear to be plans to include Portugal given its omission from the Spain CS list. But they are clearly waiting for a point where they can introduce enough mechanics that would make it feel more unique than just a boring hybrid of England/Netherlands/Spain.

 

[cvb]

In an interview 3 years of support were mentioned by Ed (afair). This period ends in September 2019. Very well timed to bring 2nd into a good shape - but how could this satisfyingly cover a hypothetical 3rd?
Last week they placed a lot of emphasis on the fact, that GS will be the largest expansion ever

To justify the $40 price tag?

No, to make the obvious (or not) explicit to the broader audience.

Is all what you have to add the '$40 price tag'??! By far the greatest investment is the lifetime, potential time of living ... if $40 are not just peanuts, perhaps one shouldn't play games at all.

“It is not that we have a short time to live, but that we waste a lot of it. Life is long enough, and a sufficiently generous amount has been given to us for the highest achievements if it were all well invested. But when it is wasted in heedless luxury and spent on no good activity, we are forced at last by death’s final constraint to realize that it has passed away before we knew it was passing. So it is: we are not given a short life but we make it short, and we are not ill-supplied but wasteful of it… Life is long if you know how to use it.” - Seneca -

PS. I won't disturb this thread of wishful thinking any longer! (I mislead myself by the keyword 'Hint' in the header)

 

[Ivan Hunger]

I'm kind of confused as to why most of this thread is about Civs that people find missing... I think what's more exciting than "MOAR CIVs" is new features or better yet -- revamped old features -- since too many new features can make a chaotic and unfun game

It's pretty funny. No one in this thread is trying to look at this debate from Firaxis' perspective. They can save a lot of money on assets with another expansion, but a sequel with a new engine could mean radically innovative new features. That's an example of the kind of considerations Firaxis has to make.

Meanwhile, people in this thread are arguing about civ and leader choices like that's the only factor that matters at all. Most of the people arguing in favor of a new expansion just want their favorite civ to be included in Civ 6. Most of the people arguing in favor of a new sequel didn't like the leader choice for their favorite civ and want a do-over. Both groups are completely myopic. The amount of tunnel vision in this thread is ridiculous.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If Canada got in despite the Cree, purely because there are many Canadian gamers, then Mexico stands a shot given how many Mexican-American gamers are in the U S. I don't think it's a strong argument, but as Australia and Brazil have shown, profit margins seem to be winning out when pitted against historical/cultural options.

I've said it several times and I will say it again. Byzantium will not be a separate civ in VI. It will be an alt Rome leader. Byzantium doesn't have geographic (Macedon, Ottoman) or mechanical (Russia, Poland, Georgia) design space in VI, and it carries more value as an extension of Rome that would open design space for Italy than it does as a separate civ. And now that we know Italy has a strong gaming population, I think that makes it even more likely that Byzantium will be sacrificed to justify it.

Would they include both the Maya and Mexico in the same expansion?
As for the Byzantines we don't know for sure. Nothing has ruled them out yet, as Antioch as a city-state could be replaced. Even if Byzantium would have appeared on the Roman city-list it would be called Constantinople.
All I know is if Theodora does become an alt leader she better come with some dromons.

 

[pokiehl]

I can't see Byzantium ever being represented as an alt leader, especially considering they carved out an entire new civ for Macedon/Alexander..

 

[Prima Italia]

If Byzantium is added, it will be as a new civ. Looking at the Rome city list, it has no Byzantium cities at all.

 

[Ziad]

I was thinking about what possible features an Expansion 3 would have:

• New civs and alt leaders (Portugal, Berbers, Maya, Byzantium, etc)
• Health mechanic to complement Housing
• New resources and addition of corporations and monopolies
• Corruption system (expansion of loyalty system)
• Random events system that simulates human developments to complement GS natural random events.

I figure since Gathering Storm has a focus on civilization's adaptation to and influence on natural disasters, that Expansion 3 could shift the focus to disasters of a more human nature.

Plagues, economic depressions, cultural revolutions... They could even tie it to the theme of colonialism.

Any other thoughts?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I was thinking about what possible features an Expansion 3 would have:

• New civs and alt leaders (Portugal, Maya, Byzantium, etc)
• Health mechanic to complement Housing
• New resources and addition of corporations and monopolies
• Random events system that simulates human developments to complement GS natural random events.

Any other thoughts?

I don't know much about corporation or monopolies, but I wouldn't mind them being added.
I agree with a health mechanic, and it probably will be implemented into the game. To add to that immigration from other civs and, subsequently, cultural identity being added to cities would be nice as well.

 

[Ziad]

I don't know much about corporation or monopolies, but I wouldn't mind them being added.
I agree with a health mechanic, and it probably will be implemented into the game. To add to that immigration from other civs and, subsequently, cultural identity being added to cities would be nice as well.

Ha I edited my post to elaborate just that. Cultural identity could be a great way to expand the loyalty system.

My point is that it could be an expansion that better highlights disasters of a more human nature.

Colonialism for example brought plagues, cultural revolutions, and exploitation of resources.

In terms of gameplay, health is something you manage in cities with invasions leading to possible disease outbreaks etc..

Dunno.. random thoughts I had