Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Siptah]

This is only true if the playerbase shrinks due to lhack of interest or something better in the genre/industry coming along to steal attention.

Civ is pretty much the only surviving 4X series, and the VI playerbase is still *growing* due to (a) finally surpassing VI mechanically, (b) appealing to a wider variety of cultures and general globalist, and (c) having a very accessible Disney aesthetic.

Basically, the expansions will continue to sell well, especially since they are often bundled with the base game to increase interest in the most recent addition. And the only major outside threat to the series is Blizzard, if they ever decide to make StarCraft 3.

Why would StarCraft be a threat to civ? There are quite some 4x games around, some of them older series as well, while other series are rather new. Just not based on the same long historic thematic as civ, but neither is StarCraft. I‘m not sure there is real outside threat at all at the moment though. People in these forums seem to play other 4x games alongside civ, not instead of it. Similarly, the somewhat related grand strategy genre is potentially interesting for civ players, but seems to be complementary. And speaking of these, I would like a civ game that evolves over 10+ expansions, like CK2 or EU4, but I don‘t trust the current developers and publisher that they could even do 3 big ones. Marketing-wise PDX gave away CK2 for free on some occasions, since people would end up buying 5+ expansions in no time if they like the game.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Why would StarCraft be a threat to civ? There are quite some 4x games around, some of them older series as well, while other series are rather new. Just not based on the same long historic thematic as civ, but neither is StarCraft. I‘m not sure there is real outside threat at all at the moment though. People in these forums seem to play other 4x games alongside civ, not instead of it. Similarly, the somewhat related grand strategy genre is potentially interesting for civ players, but seems to be complementary. And speaking of these, I would like a civ game that evolves over 10+ expansions, like CK2 or EU4, but I don‘t trust the current developers and publisher that they could even do 3 big ones. Marketing-wise PDX gave away CK2 for free on some occasions, since people would end up buying 5+ expansions in no time if they like the game.

Even that is a fairly generous assertion, because historical fantasy vs. space sci fi tend to appeal to substantially different demographics, and as a general rule anything that is even remotely rooted in Euro/Anglo-centrism sells better than totally fantastic settings. But I do think that it would take something on the level of StarCraft to steal sales away from Civ, because it is certainly the biggest, most prestigious, and most profitable 4X game by a wide margin, in no small part because it is a lot more accessible than other games in the genre.

If a 4X game ever had 10 plus expansions, it wouldn't be Civ. Civ is too mechanically limited by historical realism, and even though VI feels the most mechanically diverse in the series, civs still don't vary much between each other. A 4X game that could support wildly different playstyles to fuel expansions would necessarily have to be based in fantasy or sci-fi. And as I stated, those tend not to sell as well because of the higher barrier of comprehension entry. So it's kind of a self-defeating premise: games that have the potential to expand that far are also too esoteric to gain enough of a playerbase to reach those expansions.

Don't get me wrong, I think Civ *should* keep releasing expansions, but there is only so much room they have to add mechanics. Even if they have a dozen good civ ideas left, at some point they would have to change direction away from new mechanics are toward scenarios to flesh out the expansions.

 

[God of Kings]

This is only true if the playerbase shrinks due to lack of interest or something better in the genre/industry coming along to steal attention.

Civ is pretty much the only surviving 4X series, and the VI playerbase is still *growing* due to (a) finally surpassing VI mechanically, (b) appealing to a wider variety of cultures and general globalist, and (c) having a very accessible Disney aesthetic.

Basically, the expansions will continue to sell well, especially since they are often bundled with the base game to increase interest in the most recent addition. And the only major outside threat to the series is Blizzard, if they ever decide to make StarCraft 3.

You forgot (d) Civ VI is available on iOS devices and the Nintendo Switch.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

You forgot (d) Civ VI is available on iOS devices and the Nintendo Switch.

Yes, the multi-platform support will also increase sales in the long-term. I just don't see this ending with a third expack, and that's not because there are civs I want included. There's just nothing about their current business model that suggests that they want to, or even are able to, stop supporting VI that soon.

I don't think they ever expected V's mod community to blow up like it did. There is clearly room to add to the game, and clearly a community that will continue to consuming it for years. So of course Firaxis would want in on that incremental income.

 

[fail-deadly-]

If they do go for a third (or even fourth) expansion, I could see them making the base game either free or steeply discounted permanently. The big problem with expansions to my understanding is that the potential buyer market become smaller and smaller for each subsequent expansion (people move on, or where never that hooked on the base game to want to buy an expansion).

Right now Civ VI gold edition is about $100 on Steam. If next year they had a diamond edition with the base game, all DLCs and both expansions for $130, and it was 75-80% off on a steam sale right before a third $40 expansion came out, new players could get everything for between 65-75 dollars. A $150 dollar platinum edition with the base game, all DLCs, and three expansions for 80-90% off on sale in 2021 or 2022, would be an incredible value.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

How many people would want to buy the next installment not knowing if their favorites or reoccurring ones might not make it is what I am wondering?

That depends on how many people play Civ for the civilizations, rather than the gameplay.

I don't know the answer, but I'd wager a guess that there's relatively few people, in aggregate, who will refuse to buy Civ 7 because the Maya, Byzantium and Babylonia weren't in Civ 6.

 

[returnofbabylon]

Your indication of Georgia replacing Babylon doesn't make sense from a like-for-like replacement point of view. Georgia is not exactly in Mesopotamia, or even close (it would be different if instead of Georgia we had Hittites perhaps).

I agree. That's why I listed Babylon as one of the 7 missing civs in VI. Georgia is what I took to the *closest* Babylon replacement available, which I stand by, given the alternatives. But realistically speaking, Babylon hasn't been replaced, unless they're choosing to do a 2-for-1 thing with Sumeria replacing both Assyria and Babylon, which would be a break with how they've done it in the past.

Civ V also added far more new civs from diverse new non-European regions than Civ VI has by comparison, though Civ VI only had an extra Civ slot so this is understandable to some extent, though it become bad in light of the missing Native American civ.

V added far more new civs from diverse regions because V added to the total number of civs; V added more Western/European civs than VI, too. VI also doesn't have an extra civ slot, it has one fewer (assuming no DLC/3rd expansion). If we get a 3rd expansion, I have no doubt that VI will end up adding to the total number of Western/European civs, and the total number of non-Western/European civs.

So in sum, my point remains that Civ VI is more Eurocentric/West-centric than Civ V, that there isn't a full like-for-like replacement, but rather deletion of a few civs from less represented areas and an addition of mostly European secondary leaders (though they are female, which I like from a representation point of view).

But your point (or at least part of it) is incorrect. They haven't deleted a few civs from less-represented areas without replacing them; they've reduced representation from one area by one civ, which mathematically had to happen if they were going to have one fewer civ in total. That one reduction did occur outside of the Western/European civs, yes, but VI looks just like V overall in terms of civ distribution if you take a broad view.

The secondary leaders provide an interesting wrinkle, though I suspect that if you do a full comparison to IV those selections won't look out of place either; the extra leaders in IV were pretty Western/Euro-centric, from what I recall. But leader selection has never really mattered to me all that much (unlike civ selection), so someone else will have to do that work

This also does not mean that there will be a third expansion, particularly as the leaker didn't indicate any actual evidentiary basis for his/her hope for a third expansion.

I certainly agree with you there, but the leaker also didn't provide any evidence that Matthias Corvinus would lead Hungary in Gathering Storm, and we've just seen how that turned out. Who knows who AssemblingTyphoon is and what agenda s/he had, but I think we can safely conclude that whoever they were, they weren't operating based off their hopes. Which doesn't preclude the possibility they leaked the entire 2nd expansion and then mentioned a 3rd just to troll the fanatics.

Sumeria is, whether intentionally or inadvertently, representing Assyria and Babylon. Gilgamesh may have Assyrian cities, but he speaks Babylonian Akkadian. So he's really functioning as a sort of proto-Akkadia and repping the entire region (both Assyria and Babylon self-identified as extensions of Akkadia). I personally would have preferred he actually be a true Sumerian civ so we could have a proper Akkadian blob represent Assyria/Babylon ala Greece, but I get the impression that, by design, Sumeria is replacing both Babylon and Akkadia. And from an aesthetic, mechanical, and cultural perspective, I'm fine with this.

So, you could very well be right, but I'd lead toward "inadvertently." On balance, the lack of 2-for-1 substitution in the past makes me think Sumer is functioning as a pure Assyria replacement, and that you've put more thought into the language Gilgamesh is speaking than FXS has...

If there's a 3rd expansion/DLC, I think it's extremely likely that we get Babylon or Akkadia. And I'd be fine with either, despite my username; I want one of them though - the ancient era is too thin as is. Even Assyria would be fine, though I think it's a long shot.

The way Greece, India, Phoenicia, and Angevin have been represented strongly suggests that they are consolidating civs under a common cultural throughline to open up design space for other cultures. In that respect, I do not believe Byzantium will be a separate civ, but rather a navel/religious alt leader for Rome (emphasizing, much like India, its long and varied history). And as a consequence of decentralizing the Rome civ, I think Venice is more likely to be incorporated into a proper Italy civ finally. Note that the main theme of VI is in Italian. This is speculation, but I think it's extremely likely.

Hmm. The treatment of Greece in VI looks like the opposite of consolidation to me - they created Macedon so they could functionally have two Greek civilizations. India has always been one civ, Angevin had never been in the game at all, and subbing Phoenicia for Carthage looks like a very typical FXS move to me - not sure I view their treatment in VI as indicative of anything in particular.

If we're getting more content, I think there's a very high probability it includes both Italy (or Venice or another Italian city-state civ) and Byzantium.

I only agree with this as geographically reshuffling. But culturally speaking Morocco, Maya, and Italy are all unique enough to fit under the VI paradigm of top-down diversity design.

I agree. I think the most reasonable interpretation is that we're missing 7 civs from V, and that all 7 (or replacements) will be included in a 3rd EP. Something like Maya, Byzantium, Portugal, Akkadia, Italy, NA Native civ, Berbers, Wild Card (Vietnam? Ethiopia?) seems almost too obvious. We'll see.

So I think a third expack is quite likely, maybe a fourth or smaller DLC packs afterward. And always the option of alt leaders and scenarios.

I think a 3rd expansion/some post-GS DLC is pretty likely, but I'd be surprised if we get more than that. I'd love to be wrong though - they can add as many mechanics as they want, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DWilson]

I want to say that I recall when G&K revealed Carthage, there was a relatively decently supported claim we should have had Phoenicia instead, and that since then I've seen numerous requests for Phoenicia over Carthage.

Only since this leak has been getting fair evidence have I seen many claims arguing Carthage was a better choice. (Perhaps before this, no one thought it really needed saying).

 

[WillowBrook]

I want to say that I recall when G&K revealed Carthage, there was a relatively decently supported claim we should have had Phoenicis instead, and that since then I've seen numerous requests for Phoenicia over Carthage.

Only since this leak has been getting fair evidence have I seen many claims arguing Carthage was a better choice. (Perhaps before this, no one thought it really needed saying).

People tend to be more vocal about things they are unhappy with....

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree. That's why I listed Babylon as one of the 7 missing civs in VI. Georgia is what I took to the *closest* Babylon replacement available, which I stand by, given the alternatives. But realistically speaking, Babylon hasn't been replaced, unless they're choosing to do a 2-for-1 thing with Sumeria replacing both Assyria and Babylon, which would be a break with how they've done it in the past.

If anything the closest replacement that Georgia would probably have is the Byzantines as a medieval religious Orthodox Civ led by an independent female ruler, as of right now. However I don't believe this to be the case and expect them in the future somehow.
If anything there is a possibility that Babylon has been "replaced" by both Sumeria and being represented by as a city-state introduced in R&F. In that instance if we do get another Mesopotamia Civ Assyria could make it in.

I want to say that I recall when G&K revealed Carthage, there was a relatively decently supported claim we should have had Phoenicia instead, and that since then I've seen numerous requests for Phoenicia over Carthage.

Only since this leak has been getting fair evidence have I seen many claims arguing Carthage was a better choice. (Perhaps before this, no one thought it really needed saying).

I believe the same thing was said that Alexander shouldn't lead Greece because he was originally from Macedon. Now look what happened.

 

[Morningcalm]

I agree. That's why I listed Babylon as one of the 7 missing civs in VI. Georgia is what I took to the *closest* Babylon replacement available, which I stand by, given the alternatives. But realistically speaking, Babylon hasn't been replaced, unless they're choosing to do a 2-for-1 thing with Sumeria replacing both Assyria and Babylon, which would be a break with how they've done it in the past.

V added far more new civs from diverse regions because V added to the total number of civs; V added more Western/European civs than VI, too. VI also doesn't have an extra civ slot, it has one fewer (assuming no DLC/3rd expansion). If we get a 3rd expansion, I have no doubt that VI will end up adding to the total number of Western/European civs, and the total number of non-Western/European civs.

But your point (or at least part of it) is incorrect. They haven't deleted a few civs from less-represented areas without replacing them; they've reduced representation from one area by one civ, which mathematically had to happen if they were going to have one fewer civ in total. That one reduction did occur outside of the Western/European civs, yes, but VI looks just like V overall in terms of civ distribution if you take a broad view.

The secondary leaders provide an interesting wrinkle, though I suspect that if you do a full comparison to IV those selections won't look out of place either; the extra leaders in IV were pretty Western/Euro-centric, from what I recall. But leader selection has never really mattered to me all that much (unlike civ selection), so someone else will have to do that work

No, my point wasn't incorrect as such--we are missing one Native American civ (as you say, Civ V had one more NA civ than Civ VI, and the fan-favorite Maya are missing from the Central American zone) and one Mesopotamian/Near East civ (in this case exemplified by Babylon, also a fan favorite).

Having one fewer civ doesn't mean Civ VI gets off the hook, nor does Georgia being somewhat close to the eastern edge of Europe make it somehow a replacement for Babylon as such. Having one fewer civ in Civ VI also would ordinarily excuse (slightly) the absence of more non-European civs had that extra civ not been taken from a non-European/Western area, but here we are.

At every opportunity to give non-European/Western representation in Civ VI, the record is mixed. Hence the early DLC was Poland, Australia, Macedon/Persia, and this was followed by an extraordinary announcement where the next DLC were announced as coming specifically from Africa and East Asia (ordinarily, the regions where DLC civs come from are not announced, but there had been some annoyance with how much representation Europeans had by the end of the initial round of DLC, so maybe that was to stave off some of the upset.

As far as secondary leaders go, I count it being closer to 40% representation from non-European/Western leaders in Civ IV. Specifically, we had China, Mongolia, India, Ottomans (debatable as to how European they are), Persia and Egypt getting secondary leaders leaders, while America, Celts, England, France, Germany, Greece, Rome, and Russia also got secondary leaders. It is true that America, England, France, and Russia got three leaders, but I care less about absolute numbers in Civ IV than representation vis-a-vis Civ VI since no civs get three leaders in Civ VI. Even if we count Ottomans as European, non-European/Western civs got higher representation in secondary leaders in Civ IV than in Civ VI.

I certainly agree with you there, but the leaker also didn't provide any evidence that Matthias Corvinus would lead Hungary in Gathering Storm, and we've just seen how that turned out. Who knows who AssemblingTyphoon is and what agenda s/he had, but I think we can safely conclude that whoever they were, they weren't operating based off their hopes. Which doesn't preclude the possibility they leaked the entire 2nd expansion and then mentioned a 3rd just to troll the fanatics.

The difference was that Hungary, etc were declared to actually be the civs in the expansion, whereas there was a lot less certainty about a third expansion. It would help for reference purposes if someone had made available the original "leak" of the "third expansion" possibility from the leaker, but everything said so far in that regard has had less certainty around it (from the leaker) than the civ choices in Gathering Storm.

 

[Leyrann]

Civ is pretty much the only surviving 4X series,

Age of Wonders?

And the only major outside threat to the series is Blizzard, if they ever decide to make StarCraft 3.

Again, Age of Wonders? (also, I don't really see why a real-time strategy game would be a threat to a turn-based strategy, they're very different apart from both being strategy. Grand strategy like CK2 would be a bigger threat, and as argued before they're not mutually exclusive)

 

[Morningcalm]

Age of Wonders is a great series. Since Heroes of Might and Magic has somewhat fallen into mediocrity, Age of Wonders continues to be a staunch (and wonderful) rival of Civ's in the turn-based game genre.

Really looking forward to the next Age of Wonders sci fi spinoff. In my view the gameplay in recent Age of Wonders installments is more engaging than that of Civ, but Civ's historical flavor is a more appealing theme to me (even if Firaxis doesn't always translate that theme as well as it could, they still did some great translations of historical theme, as with Saladin or Catherine de' Medici for example).

 

[Siptah]

If a 4X game ever had 10 plus expansions, it wouldn't be Civ. Civ is too mechanically limited by historical realism

I don't agree to both assertions here.

Frist, civ isn't limit by historical realism. While it does create a lot of immersion (especially once you are used and accept the long standing immersion killers), most mechanics are very abstract and are only loosely built on history and far away from realism. If you want a game that cares about historical realism, Egypt: Old Kingdom is a good example.

Second, a civ game could easily have 10 expansions. For this to make sense, however, you need to stop thinking of expansions as 90s and 00s add-ons. Sadly, Firaxis has not made the step away from them either, so you are not to blame. What Firaxis does is add a wild mix of unrelated mechanics to the game in its expansions. These mechanics rarely tie to existent ones and are mostly superimpositions, creating more and more rather independent layers. I agree that having 10 expansions like R&F and GS doesn't make much sense. However, if Firaxis would focus its expansions on a certain aspect/mechanic and refining/redoing of current mechanics, it could be quite different (again, looking at the grand strategy games with 10+ expansions out there, this is what they are doing). Concentrating on a small number of highly related new aspects could also guarantee that they tie in neatly with existent mechanics and lead to more interesting decisions. The mechanics themselves need to be more complex or very handy if they are the focus of an expansion, they cannot hide any more behind others and a lot of new civs. This would, of course, mean somewhat smaller expansions, and even fans might skip one if they don't like the focus.

For civ VI, it could have been something like this: (note that I don't want to go into discussing the ideas per se, but just show what expansions could be)
1. Loyalty & Governors
2. World Congress, Favors, Emergencies & Grievances
3. Golden Ages, Timeline & Hall of Fame
4. Natural Disasters & [Random Events]
5. Future Era and Global Warming.
-------------------
6. Adding a first era before 4000BC that goes more or less Nomadic Mesolithic -> Shepherd Neolithic -> PPN -> current game start. Good candidate for an expansion some might want to skip.
7. Redoing Trade, Corporations, manufacture goods from bonus and trade goods. New Great Traders.
8. New systems for tribal civs.
9. Redoing the tech tree: you research core technologies/sciences that lead to different sets applications, a bit like in BE, just that the applications are not unlocked with amassing science, but by pop. No more/much less science from pop. Alternate set of buildings for the campus district. New Great Scientists.
10. Redoing CulV: new buildings for the Theater Square, reintroducing hotels, advertising campaigns, ideological works of art. New Great WAM.
11. Reformation mechanics for religion, new religious interactions (using inquisitors in your cities creates grievances and gives CB to civs with this religion for example). Possibility to become a secular civ in the later game stages.
12. Vassal states, Tributaries, betraying alliances, agenda rework, new policies.
13. Redoing the unit lines for ships and aircraft. Military buildings for the harbor, new buildings for the Aerodrome. New Great Admirals and Generals.
14. Introducing the Enlightenment Era.
15. Redoing fighting: units can stack up to 6 on a tile and fighting is tactically like in endless legend. Again something that quite a few people might not buy or disable after a few games.
15. Something I haven't thought of yet

Of course, none of these would have 8 new civs, but maybe 3 or 4 and an alternate leader. They could also include a wonder. The civs would not always need to fit the theme (looking at #6). Naturally, they would not be $40, but between $10 for smaller ones and $20 for the normal ones. Additionally, there could be Content packs: new maps (real and randomly generated), new city states, new resources, new wonders, new natural wonders.

So I don't think that a civ game with 10+ expansions is impossible or would change the game to be not civ anymore. It would have been quite easy to do if they planned it from the beginning and it would have led to a long life span with two expansions a year, creating a lot of constant and loyal customers - even if the high price tag for a complete edition might scare some. If they start to do small expansions after doing two big ones with R&F and GS, it would just create bad community feedback. And as civ history goes, an expansion that's adding to the late game (which GS is) has a high chance to be the last one anyway. Maybe we'll get a more contemporary DLC/expansion model for civvii or the potential civ vi engine offspring.

Age of Wonders is a great series. Since Heroes of Might and Magic has somewhat fallen into mediocrity, Age of Wonders continues to be a staunch (and wonderful) rival of Civ's in the turn-based game genre.

Really looking forward to the next Age of Wonders sci fi spinoff. In my view the gameplay in recent Age of Wonders installments is more engaging than that of Civ, but Civ's historical flavor is a more appealing theme to me (even if Firaxis doesn't always translate that theme as well as it could, they still did some great translations of historical theme, as with Saladin or Catherine de' Medici for example).

I believe that some people at Firaxis exhaled deep and relaxed after the announcement that the next AoW will be Sci-Fi. If AoW would turn into a history based game for one installment, it would be a serious competitor.

 

[Ryansinbela]

I would like to see a Civ Ultimate akin to Smash Bros. Ultimate.

What would the number order be

 

[ZimZum514]

To echo some others, I don't think we will have a 3rd expansion (new mechanics, etc.), but will have new DLCs with Civs, leaders, scenarios, and maps. That would scratch the itch for the missing fan favorites without making the game feel more bloated.

 

[God of Kings]

What would the number order be

Numerically, it would be the seventh, but it would be branded as Civilization: Ultimate Edition.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Numerically, it would be the seventh, but it would be branded as Civilization: Ultimate Edition.

I thought he was asking what would be the chronological number order of the Civ's appearance?

 

[Arwon]

If there's a third expansion it's high time they actually split the Indian blob, that part of the world is pretty shortchanged compared to Western Europe and the Mediterranean.

Also it's probably time for Simon Bolivar, given the proliferation of colonial civs the lack of an hispanophone one is starting to become a notable omission, and Bolivar is probably like Charlamagne in that the leader is well worth including even though the civ or nation for them to lead is less notable or less clear.

 

[Leyrann]

Also it's probably time for Simon Bolivar, given the proliferation of colonial civs the lack of an hispanophone one is starting to become a notable omission,

"We already have a lot of colonial civs so we need more"?

I disagree.