Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[acluewithout]

It would be a huge pity not to get a Third Expansion.

First, there are a lot of really great mechanics in RnF but which just need a bit more fleshing out - loyalty, a Governors, Government Plaza and Legacy Cards. These really don’t need any massive rework, but just a little more development would make these elements awesome.

Second, the game really needs Ideologies. The system in Civ 5 - social policies, and the way Ideologies and cultural influence affected happiness - were pretty solid. If these systems could basically be re-introduced, the mid to late game would be extremely solid.

Third, FXS have barely touched the possibilities of near future tech. There are lots of solid ideas from BERT that could be implemented, particularly ocean cities (which would be even easier to implement now we have districts). Lots of low hanging fruit. Introducing a bit more of this stuff would make this version of Civ a real standout - finally a game that really takes you from Caveman to the stars.

I also think that after a third expansion, FXS could really easily add more content via dlc with very little developmental work, which would hopefully be a really good revenue stream. You know, maybe thematic dlc (colonization, WW2, whatever) that could include alt leaders, alt or unique Governors, unique Emergencies or Scored Competions or unique Government type etc.

Seriously FXS (or 2K). If you have any concerns, I’m more than willing to pre-buy or crowd source / kick starter this. GS is great. RnF and Vanilla have great ideas that need just a little more time. You’ve got a great game, but with just a little more you’d have the best version of Civ, or perhaps any 4X, ever.

#onemoreexpansion

 

[Ziad]

It would be a huge pity not to get a Third Expansion.

First, there are a lot of really great mechanics in RnF but which just need a bit more fleshing out - loyalty, a Governors, Government Plaza and Legacy Cards. These really don’t need any massive rework, but just a little more development would make these elements awesome.

Second, the game really needs Ideologies. The system in Civ 5 - social policies, and the way Ideologies and cultural influence affected happiness - were pretty solid. If these systems could basically be re-introduced, the mid to late game would be extremely solid.

Third, FXS have barely touched the possibilities of near future tech. There are lots of solid ideas from BERT that could be implemented, particularly ocean cities (which would be even easier to implement now we have districts). Lots of low hanging fruit. Introducing a bit more of this stuff would make this version of Civ a real standout - finally a game that really takes you from Caveman to the stars.

I also think that after a third expansion, FXS could really easily add more content via dlc with very little developmental work, which would hopefully be a really good revenue stream. You know, maybe thematic dlc (colonization, WW2, whatever) that could include alt leaders, alt or unique Governors, unique Emergencies or Scored Competions or unique Government type etc.

Seriously FXS (or 2K). If you have any concerns, I’m more than willing to pre-buy or crowd source / kick starter this. GS is great. RnF and Vanilla have great ideas that need just a little more time. You’ve got a great game, but with just a little more you’d have the best version of Civ, or perhaps any 4X, ever.

#onemoreexpansion

I actually think a third expansion should focus more on the mid-game slump (through colonization, revolutions, health/disorder, and resource monopolies).

 

[oski90]

Impossible to know for sure, but my hunch is that GS will do well enough to justify a third expansion. Here are WA guesses leveraging the Typhoon's guys hints:
Maya - Lady Six Sky
Byzantium - Justinian
Portugal - Henry the Navigator
Babylon - Hammurabi
Ethiopia - Haile Selassie
Vietnam - Trung Sisters (I know, not really rulers, but cool narrative and first double leaders?)
Argentina - Eva Peron (a little edgy but I'm guessing they might want another SA civ. Plus...Evita)
Alt Leader - Eisenhower/America (focused on infrastructure benefits, ideology)

 

[Ezerin]

Only one word: specialists. It would be a disaster if they leave up CivVI with the specialist system in it's current state. I'm actually hoping they have some ideas to make out of it very interesting system in 3rd expansion rather then just increase yields output.

 

[NegativeZero]

I actually think a third expansion should focus more on the mid-game slump (through colonization, revolutions, health/disorder, and resource monopolies).

A 3rd expansion to polish mechanics would be nice.

If something like healthcare and plague comes into play again, I'd still forsake hospitals for factories. Gotta squeeze the populace of everything worthwhile before they can sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor (death).

Edit: The whippings will continue until moral improves.

 

[PhilBowles]

I still can't see them adding a full expansion, and there aren't that many 'staple' civs missing (oski90 covers all of them and still has room for Vietnam, Ethiopia and Argentina as well) even if an expansion were the only way they could add new civs. I do expect that we'll see some additional content in the form of civ packs or scenario DLC - I'm sure they're aware that not having Babylon is a major break with Civ tradition, and for a game crammed with Wonders we still only have six of the original seven.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I mean, after giving us an alternative leader in Xpac1 and one leader for two civs (with a unique leader model for either Civ!) in Xpac2, the logical next step for Xpac3 is to have two leaders that lead the same Civ AT ONCE.

Trung Sisters confirmed???

 

[Cerilis]

I mean, after giving us an alternative leader in Xpac1 and one leader for two civs (with a unique leader model for either Civ!) in Xpac2, the logical next step for Xpac3 is to have two leaders that lead the same Civ AT ONCE.

Trung Sisters confirmed???

And you can freely switch between their bonuses in a game? That doesn't actually sound too bad.

 

[acluewithout]

I actually think a third expansion should focus more on the mid-game slump (through colonization, revolutions, health/disorder, and resource monopolies).

Well, I’d be happy with that too!

In the whole health, diseases etc thing, I really hope a third expansion does something to make Neighbourhoods a bigger part of the game.

I love you Cities in Endless Legends really stretch out into surrounding hexes, and just feel so massive. Civ VI doesn’t do that, and I think that’s really a failing of Neighbourhoods- they come too late, aren’t worth the effort, and just don’t look all that good (too suburban). The map needs a lot more density.

Impossible to know for sure, but my hunch is that GS will do well enough to justify a third expansion. Here are WA guesses leveraging the Typhoon's guys hints:
Maya - Lady Six Sky
Byzantium - Justinian
Portugal - Henry the Navigator
Babylon - Hammurabi
Ethiopia - Haile Selassie
Vietnam - Trung Sisters (I know, not really rulers, but cool narrative and first double leaders?)
Argentina - Eva Peron (a little edgy but I'm guessing they might want another SA civ. Plus...Evita)
Alt Leader - Eisenhower/America (focused on infrastructure benefits, ideology)

When you list it out like that, yeah there really are some mainstays and some other really strong choices missing from Civ.

A 3rd expansion to polish mechanics would be nice.

If something like healthcare and plague comes into play again, I'd still forsake hospitals for factories. Gotta squeeze the populace of everything worthwhile before they can sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor (death).

Edit: The whippings will continue until moral improves.

There is a lot of polishing going on in GS. Well, at least a lot of rebalancing. The linking certain policy cards to specific governments is very welcome.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens in the patches. I’m hoping they look at IZs a bit more - the IZ itself and Workshop need some love, and they should move the adjacency bonus to Factories.

But yeah, there are existing mechanics that need some fleshing out, particularly the stuff from RnF.

 

[DWilson]

I still can't see them adding a full expansion, and there aren't that many 'staple' civs missing (oski90 covers all of them and still has room for Vietnam, Ethiopia and Argentina as well) even if an expansion were the only way they could add new civs. I do expect that we'll see some additional content in the form of civ packs or scenario DLC - I'm sure they're aware that not having Babylon is a major break with Civ tradition, and for a game crammed with Wonders we still only have six of the original seven.

I would say Ethiopia is a staple, and that would mean two non-staples. Which isn't unusual, e.g. Georgia and Mapuche or Maori and Hungary.

 

[Xandinho]

I think the game is not complete without Maya and Babylon and without the Statue of Zeus.

Well, I would say they are planning a third expansion, they would finish Civ6 with exactly 50 civs if I had one, it seems to me to be a very appropriate number.

 

[acluewithout]

I think the game is not complete without Maya and Babylon and without the Statue of Zeus.

Well, I would say they are planning a third expansion, they would finish Civ6 with exactly 50 civs if I had one, it seems to me to be a very appropriate number.

Right?

Come in FXS, #onemoreexpansion.

 

[MACKA0ili]

I'm might be in the minority here, but I wouldn't mind having and expansion filled with a bunch of alt leaders rather than new civs

Maybe one or two new civs but then a large amount of alt leaders based on the time period they are focusing on

 

[acluewithout]

I’d like an expansion that fleshes out the existing mechanics and introduces ideology, with mainstay Civs and other strong contenders, and then smaller thematic dlc with minor mechanic updates, a heap of alt leaders based around that theme, and a few extras (maps, scenarios, graphic updates).

For dlc, key themes would the Colonialism, Coldwar / Espionage, Near Future / AI and automation.

Is that too much to ask?

Hmm. Yeah, probably is. ...Bother.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would say Ethiopia is a staple, and that would mean two non-staples. Which isn't unusual, e.g. Georgia and Mapuche or Maori and Hungary.

Interestingly there has been a pattern with both expansions though: 4 new Civs, 4 returning, and 3 female leaders.
R&F New Civs: Cree, Mapuche, Scotland, Georgia. Female Leaders: Seondeok, Tamar, Wilhelmina
GS New Civs: Maori (Not Polynesia), Phoenicia (technically not Carthage), Hungary, Canada. Female leaders: Dido, Eleanor (Pending), Kristina
The question is what staple would they leave out (Maya, Portugal, Babylon, Byzantines, Ethiopia) if they follow the same pattern, or would they rearrange it to where we would get something like a Byzantine alt leader for Rome?

 

[PhilBowles]

I would say Ethiopia is a staple, and that would mean two non-staples. Which isn't unusual, e.g. Georgia and Mapuche or Maori and Hungary.

I think Ethiopia ought to be in every Civ game, but as it's only been in two prior versions of the game it can't reasonably be called a staple.

I’d like an expansion that fleshes out the existing mechanics and introduces ideology, with mainstay Civs and other strong contenders, and then smaller thematic dlc with minor mechanic updates, a heap of alt leaders based around that theme, and a few extras (maps, scenarios, graphic updates).

Ideology was the one black spot in Brave New World, and while it certainly could be implemented better I don't see any need for it. It's rather out of keeping for a game of Civ's scale.

I don't think the game can really take much more feature bloat (look how absurdly overburdened the tech tree now looks with the numbers of units, buildings and Wonder icons beneath each tech alone), but if there's one underexplored theme it's internal empire management - a proper civil unrest mechanic, reintroduction of civil wars, disease, population migration, possibly slavery, updates to the way luxury and bonus resources work (such as plantable bonus resources to simulate agriculture, or manufactured luxuries not tied to Great Merchants).

Interestingly there has been a pattern with both expansions though: 4 new Civs, 4 returning, and 3 female leaders.
R&F New Civs: Cree, Mapuche, Scotland, Georgia. Female Leaders: Seondeok, Tamar, Wilhelmina
GS New Civs: Maori (Not Polynesia), Phoenicia (technically not Carthage), Hungary, Canada. Female leaders: Dido, Eleanor (Pending), Kristina

I don't think this is a real pattern since Phoenicia and the Maori are very much just renamed versions of the previous civ - Phoenicia even has the same leader. As I noted when they were revealed, as an ocean-going naval expansion civ, the Maori play very much like Polynesia a in Civ V and not as much like the New Zealand warrior culture the civ is named for.

 

[DWilson]

I think Ethiopia ought to be in every Civ game, but as it's only been in two prior versions of the game it can't reasonably be called a staple.

In that case Mali is out. And I didn't mention Canada. And the Cree are probably out. And Sweden. Maybe Scotland, unless you agree with the Celts replacement mindset.

 

[PhilBowles]

In that case Mali is out. And I didn't mention Canada. And the Cree are probably out. And Sweden. Maybe Scotland, unless you agree with the Celts replacement mindset.

What do you mean? No one's called any of those civs staples - and while Scotland is evidently aimed at representing the geographical area the Celts were used to fill, Scotland per se is a new civ. "Staple" doesn't mean "a civ that should be/is included", it just means a staple feature of the series rather than a civ that's been in one or two entries.

 

[DWilson]

What do you mean? No one's called any of those civs staples - and while Scotland is evidently aimed at representing the geographical area the Celts were used to fill, Scotland per se is a new civ. "Staple" doesn't mean "a civ that should be/is included", it just means a staple feature of the series rather than a civ that's been in one or two entries.

Your argument was that there weren't enough staples for a full expansion. On those grounds, there were only four staples in R&F (Korea, Netherlands, Mongolia, and Zulu) and only three staples in GS (Inca, Phoenicia/Carthage, and the Ottomans). So neither of those should've been a full expansion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think this is a real pattern since Phoenicia and the Maori are very much just renamed versions of the previous civ - Phoenicia even has the same leader. As I noted when they were revealed, as an ocean-going naval expansion civ, the Maori play very much like Polynesia a in Civ V and not as much like the New Zealand warrior culture the civ is named for.

As I stated both of those Civs technically are new in name, just like how you mentioned Scotland is probably the Celtic replacement, even though the Maori and Phoenicia are basically revamped versions of Polynesia and Carthage from last game. I just don't think it's a coincidence in my view.