Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Villager720]

Honestly, one of the first things I considered with Alt-Leaders was that's how Byzantium should be handled : As a Roman Alt-Leader.
Gets past that whole "they were never called Byzantium" thing and could potentially lead to a "Western Roman Empire v Eastern Roman Empire" situation in game, which would be fun.

 

[Leathaface]

I think if there isn't a 3rd expansion we'll know within a couple of months of GS being released because Firaxis could come out and announce GS was the final expansion.

If they don't then there's probably a 3rd expansion. Probably.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If there isn't any additional content, they will release a Complete Edition.

 

[awesome]

Would Italy technically be a new civilization, or a "fixed" civilization, since Venice was in civ5?
Anyway, if they went with 4 new and 4 returning for the last 2 expansions, I don't think they'll change that formula for a third one (I'm not expecting a fourth expansion at all, we'll definitely get civ7 instead).
I said in another thread that I could see them skipping Maya this game, just like I'm expecting them to skip Babylon, and bring both back in the next game.
Portugal is almost a lock, and Byzantine is pretty likely, only because it's looking like 2 out of the 3 current alternate leaders are European, and I'm expecting either another Asian one next, or one for Egypt or Arabia.

I also think the postcolonial civ will be either (Gran) Colombia or Nigeria, with Nigeria being the less likely of the two.

 

[bite]

Well we we look at things 'missing' from Civ 6 going back over the history of the game we have

Civilizations

Babylon (5 entries, last Civ 5)
Byzantium (3 entries, last Civ 5)
The Maya (3 entries, last Civ 5)
Portugal (3 entries, last Civ 5)

Ethiopia (2 entries, last Civ 5)
Iroquois (2 entries, last civ 5)



World Wonders

United Nations (5 entries, last Civ 5 G&K)
Hoover Dam (3 entries, last Civ 3)
Stature of Zeus (3 entries, last Civ 5)
Pentagon (3 entries, last Civ 5)

Notre Dame (2 entries, last Civ 5)

 

[Metecury]

So this was the guy (almost certainly an insider) who correctly predicted the civs in GS before the announcement.

If he's right about the 3rd expansion then those 6 civs also look very likely. For the other 2 slots my guess/preference would be for Vietnam (no SEA civ in GS) and one last new/wildcard. Hopefully Italy. I can't see two African Civs in one expansion.

Vietnam and Italy have been in high demand since civ V, I guess it is about time, besides they would make fine new civs to add to the franchise along classic civs.

 

[Xandinho]

If we get a third expansion, I am inclined to think that they will represent the Byzantines as a Roman alternative leader, probably focused on religion and with a unique unity of leader.
My bets right now are:

• Maya
• Ethiopia
• Portugal
• Babylon
• Italy (some form of Italian civ)
• Argentina (or Gran Colombia, representing Spanish America)
• Another civ Native American (I think it will be Navajo or Apache)
• Vietnam (due to high demand)
• Roman Alternative Leader (Byzantine)

This means 4 returned civs and 4 never seen before, totalizing 50 civs in Civ6, and they still would not abandon the Byzantines.

 

[Siptah]

The most puzzling thing that could happen after GS is if a map pack or something similar to the Vikings DLC appears. But I'd take that at a hint that it's over soon.

 

[agonistes]

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???

Trung sisters would be a cool idea to play around with design wise.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm not so sure of this. I see a much more calculated bias toward adding new civs which appeal to large demographics. The Cree are the largest (or the Ojibwe? Either way largest or second largest) tribe in Canada, maximizing appeal to those of native heritage or native adjacence in Canada.

By the latest census, there are about 2 million indigenous Canadians. Whatever Firaxis' motivation for including the Cree - and I'm quite happy they did, as it's an interesting culture and an interesting civ design - it wasn't a calculated move to tap a large demographic.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I would like to point out that Eleanor uses both Paris and London as her capitals. Meaning she is represents the first time any leader or civ overlaps capitals with another leader or civ.

This brings us slightly closer to getting something like Italy, Mexico, or (*spits*) Byzantium.

I am going to continue pushing for Burma over Vietnam and Swahili over Ethiopia. I'd rather the last few long shots make a big expack and the sure sellers be saved for DLC.

And in the meantime, we can campaign for the devs to just overhaul the Nubia expansion to replace it with Ethiopia.

 

[ehecatzin]

Honestly, one of the first things I considered with Alt-Leaders was that's how Byzantium should be handled : As a Roman Alt-Leader.
Gets past that whole "they were never called Byzantium" thing and could potentially lead to a "Western Roman Empire v Eastern Roman Empire" situation in game, which would be fun.

To me it's still a coin toss, while a Byzantine leader as alt Roman would be nice, I guess it all depends on how different they want to make Byzantium, if it's different enough they might go the Macedon and Alexander route. I wouldnt' mind either option tho.

I would like to point out that Eleanor uses both Paris and London as her capitals. Meaning she is represents the first time any leader or civ overlaps capitals with another leader or civ.

It will probably default to Poitiers if both Victoria and Catherine are in the game (or at least I would hope so). I think we have to wait until the livestream to see, I suspect they used Paris and London for clarity's sake and it's going to be Poitiers on release.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I think adding Byzantium as a Roman alternate would be pretty misguided. Yes, they styled themselves as the Roman Empire, but they were culturally distinct and had a unique history separate from that of Rome. Do you really want the only representation of the Byzantines to be one ability? Do the abilities of All Roads Lead to Rome, the Legion, and the Bath fit Byzantium? I don’t think so. As such, I think they should be their own Civ.

Here’s my wish list: Babylon, Maya, Ethiopia, Portugal, Austria, Iroquois, Byzantium, Vietnam, alt-leader for Egypt.

Also, Firaxis—pals. If you dropped DLC packs that added more new Civs and/or leaders, I would buy that in a heartbeat. Navajo, Sioux, Cherokee, Assyria, Gran Colombia, Argentina Thailand, Swahili, Morocco, Denmark, Italy/Italian city-state, Ghana, Ireland/Celts, Armenia, or Philippines would all be welcome additions from me, but I don’t see them getting into the next expansion over mainstays. However, I’d buy them immediately as DLC. And if we added alt-leader packs, the floodgates just open up. Washington, Lincoln, FDR for America; Alfred the Great, Elizabeth, Churchill for England; Louis XIV, Henry IV, Napoleon for France; Isabelle for Spain; Frederick the Great, Bismarck for Germany; Hapshetshut & Ramses II for Egypt; Harun al-Rashid for Arabia; Taizong, Wu Zetian for China; the list goes on & on.

Point is, why stop at just one more expansion? Obviously work burnout is a factor, but if the concern is over whether or not people will jump on it or to impose some arbitrary constraint, I don’t see why not to have more DLC. I get that the word is a bit of a taboo, but if I get more quality content, I will have no objections.

EDIT: Oh, and if there were to be DLC, I’d expect one of the fan-favorites to be DLC to move units; Babylon or Portugal would sell better than Thailand/Sukhothai or Cherokee. But in that case, one of those flex picks would be included in the expansion. My wishlist is just a prediction that if we just get an expansion, those would be the nine.

 

[awesome]

Well we we look at things 'missing' from Civ 6 going back over the history of the game we have

Civilizations

Babylon (5 entries, last Civ 5)
Byzantium (3 entries, last Civ 5)
The Maya (3 entries, last Civ 5)
Portugal (3 entries, last Civ 5)

Ethiopia (2 entries, last Civ 5)
Iroquois (2 entries, last civ 5)

Huns, Sioux, Moroccans, Hittites, Austrians, etc.
I obviously don't expect half of those I listed, but I could honestly see them putting Moroccans in before Babylon, because that fills an empty spot on the map. Same goes for Maya.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

I’m still holding out for an alternate leader DLC bundle — the possibilities are endless!

 

[Phoenix1595]

I am pretty content with the game now that the GS features have been disclosed. The only real civ that I feel missing is the Byzantines, which I am comfortable with being an alt leader for Rome. Cataphracts could replace the legion, Constantinople is the new capital, and a good leader choice would do it some justice.

Also, I am still curious about the suspicious absence of the Italian city-states from the game. Who has a video game about cities and civilization without the cities that defined civilization during the renaissance? Even their representation as actual City States in-game would be fine... but c’mon, Ed, no Florence or Venice?

 

[Siptah]

Also, I am still curious about the suspicious absence of the Italian city-states from the game. Who has a video game about cities and civilization without the cities that defined civilization during the renaissance? Even their representation as actual City States in-game would be fine... but c’mon, Ed, no Florence or Venice?

While I miss them as well, there are a whole bunch of Great People in the game to represent them:

• Michelangelo
• Donatello
• Tizian
• Brunelleschi
• Da Vinci
• Marco Polo (a bit earlier)
• Giovanni di Medici
• Piero de' Bardi
• Vivaldi (a bit late)
• Thomas Aquinas
• Francis of Assisi (both a bit early)
• Galileo
• Machiavelli

That's 13 out of roughly 200 Great People.

And there's of course Bologna in GS.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I am pretty content with the game now that the GS features have been disclosed. The only real civ that I feel missing is the Byzantines, which I am comfortable with being an alt leader for Rome. Cataphracts could replace the legion, Constantinople is the new capital, and a good leader choice would do it some justice.

Also, I am still curious about the suspicious absence of the Italian city-states from the game. Who has a video game about cities and civilization without the cities that defined civilization during the renaissance? Even their representation as actual City States in-game would be fine... but c’mon, Ed, no Florence or Venice?

No Florence or Venice is a bit suspect, which makes me think that we’ll have an Italian Civ in a hypothetical third x-pack. I’d rather see other Civs in and the city-states as, well, city-states, but there are some cool things you could do with an Italian Civ.

As for Byzantium, you’d have to make a new Civ to have the Cataphract replace the Legion. Byzantium having Roman Legions would not make any sense. Plus, the Bath and All Roads wouldn’t fit. I think Byzantium could totally warrant a unique play style, so having them just be an alt-leader would be a shame. Plus, if we want alternate Roman leaders, there’s a slew of bonafide Roman Emperors to pick from. Just making a Byzantine Roman-alt puts them on the chopping block.

 

[ehecatzin]

Plus, if we want alternate Roman leaders, there’s a slew of bonafide Roman Emperors to pick from.

Or an alt leader from the Roman Republic.

 

[oski90]

Agree that an expansion needs a 'hook' - without that we might be left with new/alt leader + map/scenario DLCs.

Ideology is such a hook. Underdeveloped in Civ6 to date, and could work in interesting ways with the loyalty system (also underdeveloped IMO). Would jazz up end game as well.

Economics is such a hook. Resource monopolies and corporations could play into the loyalty system and the GS resource stockpile/depletion system.

Add a few more tweaks and we could have Civ 6: Time and Treasure (terrible name but all I could think of at the moment)