Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[ferretbacon]

I'd rather they keep adding to the roster and mechanics of Civ VI. I'm not in the mood to start over again.

As far as mechanics go, I'm pretty satisfied with how VI is turning out. A new entry would only have less depth.

As far as graphics go, I doubt they'd get much better objectively, and, subjectively, I'm fine with the aesthetic as it is.

A third expansion? I'll take a fourth while you're at it.

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't want a Civ without Babylon, Maya, Ethiopia, etc......

They could all appear in Civ VII.

I'm afraid that if they start over, the base game will be more Eurocentric than you would like to be honest.

True (we can always expect England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome and Greece to be in the base game, which is fully a third of the 18 base game civs, and not even counting Spain there), but we would see many new civs as well, along with better aesthetics (hopefully). I would like a fresh take on things, and that is served best by Civ VII rather than another Civ VI expansion.

 

[Cerilis]

Who is Assembling Typhoon, and what was his basis for predicting a third expansion?

A third expansion seems unlikely since with the 2nd we would be over 40 civs, and Ed Beach has repeatedly mentioned (including in the Gathering Storm stream) that differentiating the civs becomes more challenging once you hit 40.

Didnt he just say that differentiating the colours becomes more challenging (at least in the stream)?

 

[mitsho]

Give every civ two or three colours so that in every game, each civ can have a unique colour not clashing with any other. You can‘t play a game with 50 civs anyways (or? ))

 

[Morningcalm]

Didnt he just say that differentiating the colours becomes more challenging (at least in the stream)?

He has also mentioned Civ abilities become more difficult to distinguish and differentiate around the 40
Civ mark. Including in previous (textual) interviews.

 

[mitsho]

Which is true as they give them so many small littel boni. But I don‘t see the problem if some civs become similar. Having a choice besides Indonesia when you want to play a „small island empire“ game isn‘t bad per se. And I feel people just want civ x for the units and the athmosphere, not for the gameplay design. Maybe they go just for a classic leader pack, that would sell as well and not require big new ideas.

 

[Siptah]

We need some experience playing patched versions of GS to know if a third expansion would make any sense in my opinion. More civs are more easily added via single or paired civ DLCs. And mods cover most omissions anyway - and at some point probably all of them you wish for.

For me personally, I don‘t see any need for a third expansion. The game will have a ton of mechanics anyway, and if some more will make it much better is not guaranteed.

If they start with civ VII, I think it will not advance enough. I want a spin-off with fresh and more experimental ideas which will then lead to a inspired civ VII.

Edit: best thing is obviously if GS turns out great. Then I‘m happy for a few years. Just as it was with BNW for me, actually.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True (we can always expect England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome and Greece to be in the base game, which is fully a third of the 18 base game civs, and not even counting Spain there), but we would see many new civs as well, along with better aesthetics (hopefully). I would like a fresh take on things, and that is served best by Civ VII rather than another Civ VI expansion.

There is always America as well. As for the aesthetics, I think this is the most beautiful looking Civ game, but I know it's a difference of opinion. Civ 5 leader backgrounds were better though.

He has also mentioned Civ abilities become more difficult to distinguish and differentiate around the 40
Civ mark. Including in previous (textual) interviews.

Maybe they should look at all the posts in your Design your own Civ 6 Civs for ideas.
Or just ask me.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

We need some experience playing patched versions of GS to know if a third expansion would make any sense in my opinion. More civs are more easily added via single or paired civ DLCs. And mods cover most omissions anyway - and at some point probably all of them you wish for.

For me personally, I don‘t see any need for a third expansion. The game will have a ton of mechanics anyway, and if some more will make it much better is not guaranteed.

If they start with civ VII, I think it will not advance enough. I want a spin-off with fresh and more experimental ideas which will then lead to a inspired civ VII.

Edit: best thing is obviously if GS turns out great. Then I‘m happy for a few years. Just as it was with BNW for me, actually.

I want to like this post 3 times, but I'll settle for quoting it instead.

 

[WillowBrook]

Give every civ two or three colours so that in every game, each civ can have a unique colour not clashing with any other. You can‘t play a game with 50 civs anyways (or? ))

He has also mentioned Civ abilities become more difficult to distinguish and differentiate around the 40
Civ mark. Including in previous (textual) interviews.

They add a "jersey system" for civ colors with GS - each civ will have four possible colors, so you can minimize color overlap. (There's a thread in this forum about it somewhere.)

This points in the direction of more civs - yes, it's difficult to have different colors with this many civs when each has a fixed pair of colors, but with this new system, it will be easier to keep adding civs.

 

[ShahJahanII]

He has also mentioned Civ abilities become more difficult to distinguish and differentiate around the 40
Civ mark. Including in previous (textual) interviews.

This is definitely true but I never thought I'd see a dev admit this. It's the real downside to having so many uniques per civ.

 

[Morningcalm]

There is always America as well. As for the aesthetics, I think this is the most beautiful looking Civ game, but I know it's a difference of opinion. Civ 5 leader backgrounds were better though.

I like the terrain and some buildings graphics of Civ VI (I'm also fond of the day/night cycle), but agreed, the leader backgrounds of VI are not as good as those of V. To that I would add that the main menu, UI, unit icons, loading screens, and even wonder movies are not as great as those in V (I like the idea of in-game wonder movies but I dislike the weird rotation thing they do with VI Wonders).

Maybe they should look at all the posts in your Design your own Civ 6 Civs for ideas.
Or just ask me.

Can't think of a feasible theme for a third expansion for VI though. I still would prefer Civ VII. At some point expansions are providing diminishing returns.

This is definitely true but I never thought I'd see a dev admit this. It's the real downside to having so many uniques per civ.

Yeah, to be honest I cannot name most Civ/leader abilities and unique units/infrastructure off the top of my head. I blame the resource yield bonuses, which are hardest to remember.

 

[Jaybe]

Third expansion OR earlier release of the DLL (so mods can improve the AI), ...
which would I prefer?

 

[bonafide11]

Since GS goes so modern and future'ish, I'm skeptical we'll get a third expansion, but I would prefer to see one. I don't think I'm ready to start all over with a Civ VII yet. There's a lot more they can improve after GS and starting over with a vanilla'ish game doesn't excite me. Granted I haven't played it yet, but I am not sure that GS feels complete yet. But still, I don't think they're going to add stuff to the mid-game after already extending the game beyond the modern era.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Yeah, to be honest I cannot name most Civ/leader abilities and unique units/infrastructure off the top of my head. I blame the resource yield bonuses, which are hardest to remember.

Oh I meant more that some of the uniques almost have to be similar to each other with so many civs in the game.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I always thought the plan was for CiV to have a 3rd xpac (I don't remember what was the basis for that), but the issue was Ed's team had to do so much to get the game towards the vision he had for it that a new starting fresh was the better option at that point. Which makes sense than have a set number of xpac to start off with. You should push each game to its max potential and once you run out of room inside that foundation, or the additions you can add are so incremental then burn it to the groud and start fresh.

I think, with what was set up at launch, this game still has enough room for a 3rd xpac without feeling rushed or stretched too thin. (C'mon, economic VC!)

 

[Gedemon]

Third expansion OR earlier release of the DLL (so mods can improve the AI), ...
which would I prefer?

choose wisely

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Since GS goes so modern and future'ish, I'm skeptical we'll get a third expansion, but I would prefer to see one. I don't think I'm ready to start all over with a Civ VII yet. There's a lot more they can improve after GS and starting over with a vanilla'ish game doesn't excite me. Granted I haven't played it yet, but I am not sure that GS feels complete yet. But still, I don't think they're going to add stuff to the mid-game after already extending the game beyond the modern era.

I'm definitely in agreement with not being ready to see a Civ 7 yet. It feels too soon and there should be more to improve and add to 6 before 7 shows up. I personally wouldn't want Firaxis to start releasing new Civ games quite as quickly as iPhones.

If the Maya, Ethiopia, etc. really don't show up then I'm taking that as a fairly strong indication of a 3rd expansion or at the very least some DLC if they really don't want to add more mechanics (though I'd still say that colonies, vassals, and corporations would be welcome additions).

 

[Morningcalm]

Oh I meant more that some of the uniques almost have to be similar to each other with so many civs in the game.

I agree! And that's consistent with my prior post--the similarities are why I find the bonuses so hard to remember (aside from just how many there are).

 

[AntoineS]

They could all appear in Civ VII.


True (we can always expect England, France, Germany, Russia, Rome and Greece to be in the base game, which is fully a third of the 18 base game civs, and not even counting Spain there), but we would see many new civs as well, along with better aesthetics (hopefully). I would like a fresh take on things, and that is served best by Civ VII rather than another Civ VI expansion.

New civs can come with Civ VI expansions, that would be taken care of. I understand you as far as graphics are concerned, but is it worth losing all development potential, depth and a lot of features, over graphics preferences? Personnally I don´t think so. I was critical of the graphics at first, now I got used to them and I actually came to like them, it helps FIRAXIS make the map alive. I´d rather have a plague system, corporations, vassalage, Alt. Leaders (France, Egypt etc...), new civs, a new navigable river system for trade, invasions and plagues added to this current game than to start all over again and be unsatisfaied for at least thte next 4 years, until we have the same discussion about Civ VII and the potential creation of Civ VIII. It would be the same thing, same development cycle all over again, no thanks.

Once again, I do understand you regarding the graphics, if it´s not your thing then it´s not great for you, I get that, but at this point Civ VI really has the potential to become a great mainstay of the game.... let´s give it two more expansions as solid as what Gathering Storm looks to be and then, in two years, let´s see how it goes and maybe start talking about Civ VII, which will eventually be needed I guess.