It is actually very unfortunate that we will not see Tibetan Empire in Civ series, because of politics. I must admit that before I studied them I didnt really understand how impressive their empire was.
Also after knowing more about so called "Byzantine Empire" I have understood that it makes little sense to have them as separate Civ from Rome. They were Romans and they also identified as Romans. Would be cool to see Justinian as a new leader though.
Civ I - 1991
Civ II - 1996
Civ III - 2001
Civ IV - 2005
Civ V - 2010
Civ VI - 2016
Unless the devs think Civ VI is a failure (and I don't think they do) and cut the development cycle short we should see a new title in 2021 or 2022, so plenty of room for a third expansion. Civ VI still has to win more people over from Civ V and I think the Gathering Storm might just be thing that piques the interest of veteran players with some new and pretty unique game mechanics.
Well Beyond Earth and it's expansion was the reason for the 6 year gap between Civ V and Civ VI. However i'd like to think Firaxis would do a 6 year gap again with a 3rd expansion being the reason there is 6 years between Civ VI and Civ VII.
Will there be an expansion 3? Maybe? There has not been one before, but then the game is still on the top selling list on Steam, so it could be a profitable move if they could pull it off.
I hope there is a third expansion or more dlc. There is a lot more content that could be added around governance, ideologies, and expanding how governments, Government Plaza, Governors and Loyalty work.
Well Beyond Earth and it's expansion was the reason for the 6 year gap between Civ V and Civ VI. However i'd like to think Firaxis would do a 6 year gap again with a 3rd expansion being the reason there is 6 years between Civ VI and Civ VII.
I think we'll see a bigger gap this time between Civ6 and Civ7 for 2 reasons.
Firstly the Civ6 engine appears to lend itself to more improvements and add-ons than previous versions, so it's difficult to know at the moment what benefit an entirely new game would offer.
Also because of the engines flexibility and new game mechanics like Districts placed outside of the cities, I think it's ideally equipped to finally give us a new version of Colonization which could benefit from some of the new systems. It goes without saying that a new Beyond Earth 2 would be most welcome as well.
It is actually very unfortunate that we will not see Tibetan Empire in Civ series, because of politics. I must admit that before I studied them I didnt really understand how impressive their empire was.
After a success of Civ 5 and Civ6 I don see reason why would FX make spinoff games in future. Expanssion for Civs are almost spinoffs right know if they are content full like Gathering Storm. Why make game about lets say era of Colonization when you can add another era into Civ game, make loyalty and revolutions in game a real thing , and sell it for almost a price of full game.
Would rather see a spinoff focusing on ancient civs, mythology, or early tribes. We would get to see civs we like and which are missing (Babylon, Goths, etc) in the case of the ancient civs, and in any game based on one of the aforementioned three themes, we would get genuinely new mechanics rather than merely additive fillable bonus buckets or quirky one-off improvements like mountain tunnels (though I like those too).
And we might also see better leaderscreen backgrounds, game intros, better government UIs (no red/gold/purple plastic symbols), new main menu music (lacking in Rise and Fall and therefore likely lacking in Gathering Storm), and a change to the blue plasticky aesthetic of the Civ VI menus. We might also see cool new maps and scenarios.
I don't envy Firaxis having to guess where 5 different platforms will be in 2-3 years to make the decision the next civ project. I would think it would be a safer bet to put out a 3rd expansion/spinoff otherwise they run the risk of civ 7 being just a slightly different version of 6. I personally would like a 3rd expansiton because I like more stuff and they also add some improvements/fixes to existing features.
I do.. focussing on one particular era is very interesting. That's why we had it in past and i i would welcome new iteration using civ 6 mechanics. Anyway civ6 for me is most interesting those early/mid game eras extending this by stand alone game or civ 6 expansion is the right move. Drop the ideas of next BE.. please.
I just can’t imagine we won’t get the Maya or Babylon in some form.
While we haven’t seen the release of DLC Civs post-expansion before - that also holds true for a 3rd expansion; we’ve never seen one.
In either case, I expect we will see something unprecedented this go around.
Civ VII would be the right approach if they had fundamental changes that would justify a new platform. Consider the big changes from V to VI
New flexible game engine
New UI paradigm (colorful palette, exaggerated leader features motif, higher resolution/animation)
City unfolding (districts) and geography inclusion in general
Civics tree
Religion as a fundamental victory
Anything else? All the other features (e.g. leader agendas etc) are more features on these basics than fundamentals it seems.
I have a hard time seeing equal changes coming along. I assume the game engine will be used for a few major releases at least, the graphic paradigm is great/good enough, no need to update that. Don't know, seems like there more features than fundamentals to add so maybe another expansion makes more sense. I'd certainly appreciate that, frankly I don't want a Civ VII anytime soon, would rather have more features in VI.
They have already hinted at a new disease mechanic and it just seems to me that an economic mechanic is most likely. Disease and globalization have had a major impact on the real world throughout world history. They go hand-in-hand in exploration and colonization which leads me to believe they would make the perfect expansion.
Right, the plague scenario. That ties in to climate change - for example one prediction is a rise of ticks (Lyme disease) and mosquitos (all sorts of fevers and diseases here) with global warming. I think they've done that before haven't they? A teaser in an expansion or whatever which turns into a full feature next time around. Locusts, all sorts of things here.
And also with GS there's only sea level rise, I don't think they put in changing moisture patterns. I could see adding in deserts turning green, or expanding, or green areas drying out as the climate changes.
It is actually very unfortunate that we will not see Tibetan Empire in Civ series, because of politics. I must admit that before I studied them I didnt really understand how impressive their empire was.
Also after knowing more about so called "Byzantine Empire" I have understood that it makes little sense to have them as separate Civ from Rome. They were Romans and they also identified as Romans. Would be cool to see Justinian as a new leader though.
I think with Colonization and Beyond Earth, it could be reasonably argued we had two expansions + spinoff from each game engine. The question whether 3rd expansion vs. another spinoff. Frankly, I'm feeling third expansion.
For my part I'd love to see about 9 more civ choices more in the style of the Maori: very unique bonuses with tradeoffs. The Civs I definitely want to see include:
Salish
Pueblo
Iroquois
Maya
Berbers
Babylon
Hittites
Chola
Khazars
I think with Colonization and Beyond Earth, it could be reasonably argued we had two expansions + spinoff from each game engine. The question whether 3rd expansion vs. another spinoff. Frankly, I'm feeling third expansion.
For my part I'd love to see about 9 more civ choices more in the style of the Maori: very unique bonuses with tradeoffs. The Civs I definitely want to see include:
Salish
Pueblo
Iroquois
Maya
Berbers
Babylon
Hittites
Chola
Khazars
In the current one unit per tile system it is way to easy to create bottle necks and shoot down invading units. It is not fun and it takes for ages (literally). I like Civ VI but the current combat system is so boring and tedious I never go on or have time for big invading campaigns like in earlier games. I have never won a combat victory in Civ VI. Have you?
I would make a new expansion that overhaul the combat system. The current system could be kept for skirmishes when you have lone units fighting. But I would ad a new army mechanic where could you stack up to perhaps 6-9 units. When a battle occurs you would zoom into a battlefield generated by the hex where it occurs and those around it (Much like in Age of wonders 3).The combat would be automatic like in Call to power. Perhaps would you be able to chose your tactic before combat and arrange your troops. You would arrange your troops in two or thee lines. Outflanking would be good but having your line broken would be very bad.There would be mechanics for scouting the enemies likely tactic. The combat would play out and the armies unit composition, setup, chosen tactic and terrain would be the mayor factors of the results. Perhaps could the armies be led by generals that could level up 3-4 steps but become obsolete much like the present generals when moving into new eras. Giving them abilities to boost certain unit types, tactics or preferred terrains. The battle would be animated and maybe take 30 to 90 secs depending on size. This army system could work from the ancient ages until the modern ages where artillery is more effective and bombardment would make them rather obsolete. Bombarding army stacks would hurt all unis a percentage of their hit points much like in earlier games. I would also ad stats for attack, defense and hit points for each unit type. Also enhance the system where some units types is better against others. Archers would be good against infantry but you would like to have a screen of melee in front of them or they would take mayor damage.
The armies should also have some sort of morale. One battle would normally not kill units completely. The beaten army would retreat a tile if possible and take a bigger morale loss. The morale would affect combat outcome. Perhaps should the normal early era army map movement speed be 1 tile (Maybe 2 for only cav) But you would be able to march the armies. That is moving 2 or 3 tiles at marching speed. But each march move would lower your army morale. Moving armies along roads in friendly territory would hurt much less. If you been marching to much or taking to much damage you would have to rest the troops a few turns to regaining hit points and morale. Each battle would also lower morale. The troops get tired. Big losses would give worse morale penalty. This would help against the stack of doom syndrome. No big doom army would be able to beat too many smaller ones in a short time without resting, or move so fast you wouldn't have time to build or arrange countermeasures.
This would allow the game to ad more units without slowing down the game. Perhaps would you be able to build them twice as fast. More units would give much more choices concerning army composition.
So a faster and more interesting combat system would be the result. But the main benefit of the enhanced army and battle system would be to be able to build a better ai.
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.
