1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by SxSnts9, Nov 24, 2018.

  1. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,684
    Location:
    Poland
    1) If Italy shouldn't be here becuse of Rome and modern national borders then we shouldn't have more than one of
    *Babylon and Sumer/Assyria (Iraq)
    *Byzantium and Macedon/Greece
    *Ottomans and Hittites (Turkey)
    *Aztec and Maya (both are now part of Mexican history!)
    *USA and Native Americans ("who cares if US is important, we already have NatAm in this area to represent history of moden US, natives of Kalahari Desert deserve representation instead)

    2) If Italy is unnecessary because Rome already represents Italian history, then would you be fine with the absence of America, France and England because they are "represented" by Iroquis, Gauls and Celtic Britons?
    Who cares if France, England and America are very big concepts - we get some other barely related people in the same general area...
     
  2. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,051
    Location:
    Lucerne
    Instant purchase.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  3. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,360
    I'm putting my influence behind an Ancient>>Classical spinoff (though could maybe be scenarios).

    A post-apocalyptic Mad Max style game mentioned in one of these pages would be pretty sweet too.
     
    Siptah likes this.
  4. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,051
    Location:
    Lucerne
    Make it Mesolithic->Bronzen age and I‘ll join in :p
     
    SammyKhalifa likes this.
  5. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,007
    Location:
    Abroad
    I'm glad you are now acknowledging how entrenched ancient Rome is in Italy. I never said Rome and Renaissance Italy had direct succession, and I disagree with your implication that somehow matters for the purpose of getting two bites at the apple for inclusion in Civ.

    Personally I think it obvious that Mexico and the Aztecs, Canada and the Cree, while not similar as such, still represent the same geographic region. Certainly Canada and the Cree lack the cultural and historical connection on the same level that modern Italians have by virtue of blood and memory to ancient Rome, however. To (a much lesser) extent this applies for Mexico and the Aztecs (notably, modern Mexicans still speak Nahuatl and are in some cases descended from the Aztecs or neighboring tribes). So these are not great examples to bolster your argument. And frankly I don't think Canada should ever have been included in the Civ series.

    Re: centuries of rule by other people--And now once again you have come to an argument that basically is in favor of multiple Chinese dynasties, Indian dynasties, etc being represented as separate civs. Maybe we should have each ruler of Italy from a specific time period as a specific civ. So we could have the Visigoths that ruled from the sack of Rome in the 5th century AD, and a separate Gothic civ led by Amalasuntha in the 6th century AD, multiple Roman emperors, a random Charlemagne leader for an "Italy" civ, etc...sure, that might be something you don't mind, but that's not typically how Firaxis does civ inclusion in Civ (for practical as much as common sense reasons), so your argument in favor of a second Italian bite of the apple still doesn't pass muster. On days where I look over historical encyclopedias I have sometimes encountered the errant desire for hundreds of unique civs covering all the rulers of every single civ ever in existence, with or without significant leaders. Maybe then we might cover how each region undergoes vast cultural, political and social changes throughout the ages. But then I realized that having hundreds of civs never happen in Civ, and that with limited civilization slots, the inclusion of one European/Western nation necessarily means another group (especially from Africa) will lose out as a result.

    Oh, and btw, I disagree re: French and Spaniards (the following based upon several years of having lived in Europe and extensively touring France, Spain, and Italy, as well as views of colleagues in discussions of race, cultural heritage and so on, both in a workplace context and outside of it). It's not about political unity or whatever. The French and Spanish appear to take pride in their blood as many citizens of other European countries do (regardless of whether such is factually justified given how much intermarriage there has been among European citizens throughout the eons). The French and Spanish may well have Roman blood somewhere, but certainly not in the same concentration as modern Italians proud of their ancient Roman heritage, and certainly not in their perception. The French like to identify more with Gauls than Romans, typically (see Asterix comics for one approach to that ancient heritage), and the Spanish tie themselves to the exploration and conquest of the New World more than the Romans.

    I have never *once* in all my years heard a French or Spanish tour guide tout Roman ancestry, but many Italian tour guides (all over Italy, not just in Rome) are quick to point their ancient Roman ancestry out. I have never once heard an Italian tour guide talk about their nation's youth, lack of unity, etc and all those other things you theorized about--no, for these tour guides (even when I was in Venice), much talk was had about their ancient ancestry going back to the time of the Romans, the continued perfusion of Christianity and classical art throughout the ages, etc. One tour guide also proudly said that Italian culture had spread all over Europe and the world as a result of the Renaissance....notice what happened there? The tour guide said "Italian" culture, not French. The fact that Italy may have influenced France during the Renaissance or at other times doesn't make that culture somehow now innately French.

    It's not just "becuse of Rome and modern national borders"--no no. I pointed out the genetic link, the cultural affinity, and the Italian pride in their ancestral Roman past. This is not something shared by, say, the USA and Native Americans. Ottomans and the Hittites are way more different from each other than ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy, and nevertheless, I wouldn't want both Ottomans and Hittites in the same game anyway. I would prefer one or the other. As far as the Aztecs and Maya, they are only as alike to each other as Mongolia and China, lol.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2018
    luigilime likes this.
  6. Guandao

    Guandao Rajah of Minyue and Langkasuka

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,530
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City
    That's not happening in a million years. :p
     
  7. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,007
    Location:
    Abroad
    One can hope! Given that we've had Australia in the game now, Judah is at least *worthy*. Whether it will make it depends on Firaxis. But I think it's ridiculous to have Judaism as a religion in the game which introduced religious victory and not a single civ that would prefer choosing Judaism historically (I had hoped for Khazaria at least, but oh well).
     
  8. luigilime

    luigilime Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2016
    Messages:
    539
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Udine, Italy
    this is an interesting point because italian nationalism as you rightly say does glorify its roman past, but as an italian i don't get it. i mean irl.
    i mean modern italy has very little to relate to roman culture (italian language has been a bit latinized when it was standardized butyou can see clearly in italian literature that there's a clear cultural as well as a linguistic difference, a similar difference seen in spanish and french, languages that from my personal experience, if you concentrate they are intelligible) yet since italian history doesn't have a great golden age where italy was unified and a proud nation, nationalist prefer to go too far backwards to glorify italy, i believe it's because since it's a divided country stil in modern times, glorifying renaissance italy is going to emphasize more this division.
    for france and spain it's easier since they are a unified state for more time and they've developed a more articulated national epic. but for italy, ironically it didn't do very well in the last two centuries so there's not much to glorify from the unified history.
    looking at this feels like italy is kind of that kid that tries so hard to be cool but gets bullied because he fails miserably of the world, did so much but not enough to be considered to be part of the cool kids group. and a bit italy is it's own worst enemy.
    since history it's a human construct every single case it's different i don't agree in comparing italy to china to mexico , they all had different histories therefore should be considered separately. china even though had a lot of dinasties stil kept itself intact culturally, i mean i don't see dividing china as a good idea, china has been for a lot of time a united entity culturally even though it had some warring states periods, mexico on the other hand had two distinct culture groups in the precolumbian era, the various nahua states and the various maya cities, spanish conquest at the start just lumped them together in a single country, and got mixed with the spanish through time but a lot of mexicans are still nahua and maya, se even mexico, imo doesn't make sense.
    but i believe that classical civilizations should be consdered separately from the geographical representation perspective, because they are the myths that embody our concept of civilization, sort of vips of history, i mean i would not correlate ancient persia to modern iran, or ancient greece to greece now. but modern iran can kind of be correlated to arabia (i know a lot of people would shout out outrage from this assumption but meh, ) and modern greece quite frankly did nothing important after the byzantine empire fell.
    italy on the other hand was the hub of european commerce for thewhole late middle ages up to the early renaissance period, and then faded away slowly until unification wher it had a rather lowsy entrance but still. it's one of the major powers of europe of the late modern age and should be represented at the same level as austria and sweden.
    rant over let's get back to speculating on the third expansion.
     
    SelmanV and altayrneto like this.
  9. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,007
    Location:
    Abroad
    A bit hard to read your post....I'll do my best to reply fairly. China, like Italy, had foreign rulers (Mongols, Manchus, etc) so insofar as they have a continuous history, it was nevertheless one that, like Italy, saw quite a bit of cultural, social and even religious change throughout its history. They are as valid for multiple civs as Italy in that regard. I repeat that many modern Italians see themselves (rightly) as descendants of ancient Romans, and identify accordingly. That doesn't mean they aren't different, but it does mean that for *representation purposes*, ancient Rome is satisfactory for the region of Italy in that sense. I agree with you that ancient Persia isn't as such modern Iran, but that's not the point--the point is that the Civ franchise always picks civs in such a fashion, and so to the extent it's unfair for Italy not to be represented in both ancient and medieval modes, the same is true everywhere, and especially for regions that aren't represented at all in the present game.

    And again, nothing anyone has said in counter to my statements thus far have disagreed that another Italian civ slot would necessarily take away another slot from a much less represented region like Africa. That's how civ selection works--you can only have so many civs. We can't all have two representatives from each region, no matter how influential that region was. And to the extent we want to make an exception for Italy, I can easily find people anywhere who would take exception to that. Pun totally intended.

    This discussion/debate over representation clearly matters, since one of the main reason people are hoping for a third expansion is *precisely* because of the lack of representation from key regions, as represented by fan-favorite civs like the Maya and Ethiopia. How can it possibly be that Firaxis would skip these, people ask? *SURELY* we will see them in Civ VI? Frankly, I doubt it. And it's because European/Western nations took up so many slots (and on a more positive note, because we had some interesting dark horse civs like the Cree and Mapuche).
     
    luigilime and DWilson like this.
  10. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,668
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    To be fair, I for one don't believe that Italy getting in the game would take away getting say Babylon or Assyria, the Maya and Ethiopia. If there is indeed a third expansion they would most certainly get in as well.
    As for someone who has been advocating for a Renaissance Italian Civ, since the beginning over other existing and new European Civs, I would like for them to be represented, not just by geography means, but by history era as well.
    And I know that Matthias is a Renaissance European leader, but his gameplay style feels like he's a medieval leader and jumps over the Renaissance and gets more uniques in the Industrial Era.
    Besides Ethiopia and Italy could always come together in a DLC as well.
     
    Meluhhan and Metecury like this.
  11. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,007
    Location:
    Abroad
    It's a matter of math--Firaxis likes to have Civ at around slightly over 40 civs in recent times. If Gathering Storm is the last expansion for Civ VI, that means we got in many Western/European nations (Australia, Canada, Scotland, Sweden) to the exclusion of other civs like Assyria/Hittites, Maya, Ethiopia, etc. So it is exclusion, and necessarily always is, because there are only so many civs per Civ game.

    I don't mind Renaissance civs in principle, but I do mind civs getting two bites of the apple. Italy would get two bites of the apple with a Roman and then a Renaissance Italian civ. Hungary being in is fine--in fact I prefer it to many other civs (like Scotland or Canada) being in. And it's not like they've been in Civ recently, either. Renaissance Italy on the other hand....wasn't that in the second expansion for Civ V? Yes. Yes it was.

    While many other civs *could* come in DLC or a third expansion, I doubt they will. Because we are at over 40 with Gathering Storm. I agree with Ed Beach that at around that number (40ish civs) it becomes hard to distinguish the civs in terms of abilities and so on--it's a practical difficulty. It's also why many other games (like the Age of Empires series) never have nearly that many civs (and to the extent that it's gotten closer with later expansions like the Forgotten and African Kingdoms, etc, I'd argue many Age of Empires II civs have become very hard to tell apart from each other, let alone remember their bonuses--on the other hand, I can recite almost all 13 base game Age of Empires II civ abilities by heart. Same with the Civ V's base game civs). With Civ VI abilities being as complex as they are, I can't recite many of Civ VI's bonuses by heart at all. And if you expand that approach to expanded civ abilities over to 40 odd civs, it becomes understandably difficult for developers and fans to distinguish those abilities.
     
  12. Leathaface

    Leathaface Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,720
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland
    I'd like a 3rd expansion for Civ VI but only if the 3rd expansion has the same amount of content as R&F and GS. I'd hate for Firaxis to start making 3 expansions for each Civ game in the future but only with the same amount of content as 2 expansions.
     
  13. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,256
    1) These are mostly not comparable - there's no close relationship between the Ottomans and the Hittites or the Aztecs and the Maya as societies, and none at all between the US and assorted Native American groups. Babylon is something of a special case: as one of the original Civ series civs, so it should always be in the game - but at the same time Sumer and Assyria were significant early cultures that warrant recognition. Rome, while not ethnically representative of modern Italy as a whole, is a hugely significant part of Italy's past and cultural identity - the Turks don't identify themselves with the Hittites any more than the Russians identify themselves with the Scythians. They're a later group that moved into the same region, while at least a portion of Italy is directly descended from the Roman Italians.

    A closer comparison would be not having the Aztecs and a modern Mexico civ together, which has never been done, while Byzantium and Greece is a similar case to Rome and Venice, which were together in Civ V. Like it or not, the series' treatment of Italy is broadly consistent with its approach for other regions.

    2) In principle this is a better argument, but for the same reason that England and France get precedence over the Celts, Rome gets precedence over Italy - England isn't the civ because it's the current political entity, but because its documented historical importance is greater. Rome's historical importance to European and Mediterranean history - and by extension global history as cultures and the religion of these areas spread more widely - is unparalleled. Italy is a wealthy 19th Century state which has been of middling political importance since its inception. If Italy were to get non-Roman representation, it's unclear why the modern version should be considered more worthy of inclusion than Venice or Florence, cultural and economic powerhouses of their time.
     
    Morningcalm likes this.
  14. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,668
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Many people, including me, are arguing for an Italy Civ with a Renaissance theme as opposed to a modern day one.
    Venice in Civ 5 was a good start, but I want something more than just playing as a single city-state. The different city-states can be represented by alternate leaders with a Medici or Sforza leading from Florence or Milan as the capital and then founding other cities.
    Greece is a good example to go off of, and it looks like we are getting also getting Phoenicia which was comprised of many different city-states. And of course we have Sumeria and the Maya before to make the claim that putting city-states together as one cohesive Civ can work.
     
    Meluhhan and Metecury like this.
  15. pokiehl

    pokiehl King

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    949
    I'm finding it hard to believe that there will be a 3rd expansion, but if there is any plan whatsoever to have extended content/DLC/etc. for Civ VI after this expansion, I will be ecstatic. A 3rd expansion sounds awesome.

    Civ VI is such a good game and a good base of a game to refine and add more stuff to. I hope it gets prolonged support before we have to start all over again with Civ 7...
     
  16. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,256
    I don't understand Phoenicia - it seems something of a regression. Carthage is a direct successor state to one of the Phoenician cities, and represented a coherent entity. Also, it allowed the other cities to be represented as CSes in Civ V. I don't know why - when other blob civs have been either de-blobbed, dropped, or repackaged with country names like Norway - Carthage is being blobbed into a fictional 'Phoenicia' (without even changing its fictional leader from Civ V).

    I wouldn't want a Renaissance Italy blob for the same reason - I'm not a fan of blob civs when an actual civ exists that can be used instead. Bear in mind that Venice in Civ V was a specific, deliberate choice in execution for that game - there's no need for a Renaissance city-state civ to be a single-city civ if it were brought back for Civ VI. Venice did have colonies in modern Croatia, after all.
     
  17. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,668
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    For all intent and purposes, Italy right now is unified, so I somewhat see that as being justifiable even if all the abilities and the unique unit and infrastructure deal with the Renaissance.
     
    Meluhhan likes this.
  18. returnofbabylon

    returnofbabylon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Number of civs by iteration, after final expansion:
    I: 14
    II: 21
    III: 32
    IV: 34
    V: 43
    VI: 42 (?)

    I'm not sure I'd say that FXS likes to have it at slightly over 40 civs yet. That's pretty much entirely based around the number of civs in V. If GS is the final piece of content for VI, then that will become a trend - but the trend of increasing the number of civs in each iteration goes back to the beginning (as does two expansions per game), so I don't think we can assume either way.

    I also don't think it's really right to say that the inclusion of Western/European nations is what's excluding some of the classic civs from other regions in VI. VI has almost the exact same number of Western/European nations as V did. They've added Canada, Australia, Hungary, Scotland, Norway, and Macedonia, sure. They've also removed Portugal, the Celts, Austria, Venice, Denmark, and Byzantium (Sweden appeared in both games). Overall, the number of Western/European civs has remained basically constant, as has the total number of civs. The new Western/European civs are crowding out some of the old Western/European civs, not old civs from other regions.

    Now, one can easily argue that both V and VI have too much Western/European representation, and that that overrepresentation is crowding out civs from other regions in both games; this may have been your intended point, and if so, I would agree. But Scotland isn't why we don't have Ethiopia, they're why we don't have the Celts. Nubia is why we don't have Ethiopia.
     
  19. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,684
    Location:
    Poland
    While Carthago, Celts and to lesser degree Ethiopia may be lost cause, it's really hard for me to imagine civ without Babylon, Portugal, Maya, Byzantium and US Native Americans.

    Also, we'll have 42 civs with GS, (less than previous iteration). Eight more and it'd be round 50 civs on 25 year anniversary of series. Excellent marketing symbolism.

    I can imagine third expansion with Babylon, Portugal, Byzantium, Ethiopia, Maya and let's say Muscogee, Vietnam and Italy.
     
    Meluhhan and Guandao like this.
  20. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,082
    I’m happy to pre-order.
     

Share This Page