Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Morningcalm]

How well do expansions sell? What percentage of base game owners buy the expansions?

Typically, a great deal fewer, but I'm not sure what Civ's stats are on that. With more bundle deals (and especially with some bundles, like Civ V with all expansions for slightly over one US dollar on Steam seasonal sales), you may see higher rates of ownership the older a game is.

 

[sonicmyst]

If there will be a third expansion I wish they implement:
1. Better economic sabotage
2. Stock market events (gains, crashes, recessions)
3. Corporations
4. Cyber espionage, police, interpol, terrorism
5. Economic victory?

 

[returnofbabylon]

the sad thing I see in a third expansion though is that they have a pattern:
they'll put
2 european civs
2 asian civs
2 american civs
1 african civ
1 wildcard
by this logic the 2 europeans i'll presume would be byzantium and portugal, the 2 asians babylon and vietnam, 2 americans maya and a NNA, and the african would be ethiopia. then there's the wildcard.
i believe it will still leave out some really nice additions they had in civ 5: i mean i liked morocco, the iroquois, siam, austria, assyria, as civs since they represented some interesting cultures in the world, not to mention pretty influential cultures.
it's also sad that there was so much potential for newcomers like the swahili, benin, burma, or even the such likeable colonial civs like colombia, argentina, or even italy (patriotism alert).
even after a third expansion i wouldn't be satisfied, because firaxis isn't following a priority agenda that i like, and it's a shame.
i believe most of you would agree that priorities are flawed if more immportant than the civs i mentioned above there are both canada (leaked but not confirmed yet) and australia.
sorry for the rant, is frustrating to see that my country, such a pillar of european culture (even excluding the roman empire) is considered less important than a counrty that was basically the punching bag of expanding empires (cough cough hungary).
no offence intended, neither discrimination towards hungarians, but basically in the last 400 years of hungary's history, hungary has been just the battleground between poland, the ottomans, austria, and later russia aswell.

If we do see a 3rd expansion, I think it's extremely likely it includes Italy or an Italian city-state civ like Venice in CiV. In fact, I think the 7 civs you list along with Italy is the most likely roster for a 3rd expansion (Babylon/Byzantium/Maya/Portugal/Ethiopia/NA Native civ/Vietnam/Italy). That would be 5 returning/3 new though, so maybe we'll get the Akkadians instead of the Babylonians to follow the R&F/GS pattern.

Overall, I'm not thrilled with additions like Canada and Australia, but don't mind that much if they're simply additional modern civs. If FXS is reducing the total number of civs *and* adding Canada and Australia, yeah that's pretty annoying.

 

[Morningcalm]

Not to stir the waters further, but I think Hungary is more interesting than a Renaissance Italy civ, and it's fairer to get it in as Italy's history already represented by Rome. I don't in theory mind getting Italy back, as it might be fun to see Genoa one time. But this Civ already has plenty of Western/European options, and while adding Canada and Australia were big mistakes in my view (as opposed to say Assyria or other civs which luigilime mentioned), I would still consider Italy as taking a slot from say Ethiopia, Hittites, Maya, Burma, etc.

 

[Metecury]

Not to stir the waters further, but I think Hungary is more interesting than a Renaissance Italy civ, and it's fairer to get it in as Italy's history already represented by Rome. I don't in theory mind getting Italy back, as it might be fun to see Genoa one time. But this Civ already has plenty of Western/European options, and while adding Canada and Australia were big mistakes in my view (as opposed to say Assyria or other civs which luigilime mentioned), I would still consider Italy as taking a slot from say Ethiopia, Hittites, Maya, Burma, etc.

If Italy's history is represented by Rome so is that of France, Spain, and every civ within the Empire's border. It's just a silly argument, ancient Rome has little to do with renaissance Italy culturally. The whole of Europe can claim influences from Roman times this does not mean they are the same as ancient Rome surely.






In a game like civilisation it is kinda strange not to have the cradle of the renaissance included, from golden ages to great people to warfare renaissance Italy pretty much embodies all aspects of the game and named the whole era really.



Besides, what's wrong with having European civs? I agree with you on Canada and Australia, I would have preferred Italy or some more ancient/middle eastern and North African civs but that is what we got. That said I do not think their inclusion should preclude extremely important and influential civs like Portugal or Italy just because of ethnic and geographical similarities.


Italy is quite a big omission, and long overdue besides it lends itself perfectly for multiple leaders.

 

[acluewithout]

If Italy's history is represented by Rome so is that of France, Spain, and every civ within the Empire's border. It's just a silly argument, ancient Rome has little to do with renaissance Italy culturally. The whole of Europe can claim influences from Roman times this does not mean they are the same as ancient Rome surely.






In a game like civilisation it is kinda strange not to have the cradle of the renaissance included, from golden ages to great people to warfare renaissance Italy pretty much embodies all aspects of the game and named the whole era really.



Besides, what's wrong with having European civs? I agree with you on Canada and Australia, I would have preferred Italy or some more ancient/middle eastern and North African civs but that is what we got. That said I do not think their inclusion should preclude extremely important and influential civs like Portugal or Italy just because of ethnic and geographical similarities.


Italy is quite a big omission, and long overdue besides it lends itself perfectly for multiple leaders.

You’ve convinced me.

Maybe via Alt leaders we could get Venice - because one city / city state Civ just seems fun - and maybe something else not so restricted?

 

[Metecury]

If they handle it like Greece we would have multiple leaders to represent different citystates. So we could have different play styles for say a Venetian and Florence leaders for instance, or Genovese and Milanese leaders. It's entirely possible and enables firaxis to focus on any aspect they want may it be military, cultural or trade related.

 

[sonicmyst]

I would rather have Italian DLC if that is the case than have them included in an expansion.

Unless the expansion focuses on gold/trade/economic theme in my wishlist, then Italy is very much welcome.

 

[Morningcalm]

If Italy's history is represented by Rome so is that of France, Spain, and every civ within the Empire's border. It's just a silly argument, ancient Rome has little to do with renaissance Italy culturally. The whole of Europe can claim influences from Roman times this does not mean they are the same as ancient Rome surely.

In a game like civilisation it is kinda strange not to have the cradle of the renaissance included, from golden ages to great people to warfare renaissance Italy pretty much embodies all aspects of the game and named the whole era really.

Besides, what's wrong with having European civs? I agree with you on Canada and Australia, I would have preferred Italy or some more ancient/middle eastern and North African civs but that is what we got. That said I do not think their inclusion should preclude extremely important and influential civs like Portugal or Italy just because of ethnic and geographical similarities.

Italy is quite a big omission, and long overdue besides it lends itself perfectly for multiple leaders.

Nowhere in my post did I say Renaissance Italy and Rome were culturally similar. So when you say that is "just a silly argument", it's certainly not one I made in my post.

I said we already have Rome as a representative of Italy's history, which is true. I strongly disagree with your implication that Romans somehow represent French history in the same way they represent Italy's. It's very clear Rome has stronger ties to Italy than France--Italy was Rome's base of power (shows in the civ name, taken after a certain city in Italy), and the heart of their empire's origins. Same is true of Mongolians for Mongolia, which is why they don't represent a historical dynasty as such in Korean history for example, even though their conquests took them there.

I don't mind in principle mind a Renaissance Italy instead of Rome. But by your logic we should get multiple Chinese dynasties, Indian dynasties, Korean dynasties, etc. That would overcrowd the game and add confusion rather than true regional diversity.

The problem with European civs isn't that they are innately bad, but rather that their presence means the exclusion of more diverse civs, from areas with history lesser known to us, that could greatly enhance our interest in the history of the world outside Europe. Having over a third of the base game civs being European has gone on for several Civ entries, and frankly it is old hat now. One would think that with Civ VI's knack for dark horse civs we would have seen more African representation in particular.

Italy is also not "long overdue". We had Venice in Civ V. You know what's long overdue? The Hittites.

 

[Metecury]

Nowhere in my post did I say Renaissance Italy and Rome were culturally similar. So when you say that is "just a silly argument", it's certainly not one I made in my post.

I said we already have Rome as a representative of Italy's history, which is true. I strongly disagree with your implication that Romans somehow represent French history in the same way they represent Italy's. It's very clear Rome has stronger ties to Italy than France--Italy was Rome's base of power (shows in the civ name, taken after a certain city in Italy), and the heart of their empire's origins. Same is true of Mongolians for Mongolia, which is why they don't represent a historical dynasty as such in Korean history for example, even though their conquests took them there.

I don't mind in principle mind a Renaissance Italy instead of Rome. But by your logic we should get multiple Chinese dynasties, Indian dynasties, Korean dynasties, etc. That would overcrowd the game and add confusion rather than true regional diversity.

The problem with European civs isn't that they are innately bad, but rather that their presence means the exclusion of more diverse civs, from areas with history lesser known to us, that could greatly enhance our interest in the history of the world outside Europe. Having over a third of the base game civs being European has gone on for several Civ entries, and frankly it is old hat now. One would think that with Civ VI's knack for dark horse civs we would have seen more African representation in particular.

Italy is also not "long overdue". We had Venice in Civ V. You know what's long overdue? The Hittites.

Rome is representative of the history of all of western Europe, Italy is no way a direct continuation of Rome nor its spiritual successor, other than the geographical location and genetics it shares roman influence as much as Spain and France. The first Italian king was an Ostrogoth ruling over a barbaric kingdom occupying former roman territory. There is no parallel in between Rome-Italy and Chinese dynasties. The Italian peoples did't even get proper citizenship for the whole existence of the republic and the social wars were a result of it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point, for me Italy is not the continuation of Rome. Also I'm not suggesting it should replace Rome in any way.


To me a proper representation of Italian city state and the renaissance, a turning point in European history of great significance overshadows the need for diversity as I find it a glaring omission. Besides, in a hypothetical expansion nothing prevents you from adding Ethiopia, Morocco, Songhai or whatever else you might want to see, it is a given one or two of them would make it regardless and for the record I want them too, I just find the absence of Renaissance Italy a void to fill first but that is a personal opinion.

I agree on the Hittites, as I said I'd rather have ancient civs than Canada and Australia.

 

[Elhoim]

An Italian civ with several "city-states" leaders would be a great fit for a DLC pack, as said above. One civ, 3-4 leaders, it offers great value, IMO.

 

[Morningcalm]

Rome is representative of the history of all of western Europe, Italy is no way a direct continuation of Rome nor its spiritual successor, other than the geographical location and genetics it shares roman influence as much as Spain and France. The first Italian king was an Ostrogoth ruling over a barbaric kingdom occupying former roman territory. There is no parallel in between Rome-Italy and Chinese dynasties. The Italian peoples did't even get proper citizenship for the whole existence of the republic and the social wars were a result of it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point, for me Italy is not the continuation of Rome. Also I'm not suggesting it should replace Rome in any way.


To me a proper representation of Italian city state and the renaissance, a turning point in European history of great significance overshadows the need for diversity as I find it a glaring omission. Besides, in a hypothetical expansion nothing prevents you from adding Ethiopia, Morocco, Songhai or whatever else you might want to see, it is a given one or two of them would make it regardless and for the record I want them too, I just find the absence of Renaissance Italy a void to fill first but that is a personal opinion.

I agree on the Hittites, as I said I'd rather have ancient civs than Canada and Australia.

My point is that regardless of whether you think Renaissance or modern Italy is at all culturally similar to Rome, Rome is Italy--at least in the ancient days, just as Seondeok of Silla was Korea, in the ancient days. So Rome represents Italy in as much Persia does Iran, etc. This is how Civ works (however unfair you may think that, it is how it has been), and few exceptions are granted. One of the few exceptions was Italy in Civ V getting both Rome and Venice (both Italian cities representing different periods of Italian history).

Therefore it makes no sense to allow Italy *another* double bite of the apple, particularly when other regions, far vaster and with more people (particularly Asia), aren't represented at all (Vietnam for example).

China has the longest continuous history of any civilization but it has only ever had one representative civ per Civ game. The Italian region in Civ V got both Rome, and Venice. It does not do (regardless of your love for Italy) to suggest one country should get its medieval history period represented in a new Civ as well as its ancient history (already present), when others have yet to see any (Ethiopia for example), and others only ever see ancient representation too (Persia, Egypt, Greece, China).

And that is why another Italian civ in Civ VI would necessarily take away a slot from a worthy civ, whether the Maya, Iroquois, Ethiopia, Hittites, Assyrians, Burma, the people of Judah, or others.

 

[Metecury]

My point is that regardless of whether you think Renaissance or modern Italy is at all culturally similar to Rome, Rome is Italy--at least in the ancient days, just as Seondeok of Silla was Korea, in the ancient days. So Rome represents Italy in as much Persia does Iran, etc. This is how Civ works (however unfair you may think that, it is how it has been), and few exceptions are granted. One of the few exceptions was Italy in Civ V getting both Rome and Venice (both Italian cities representing different periods of Italian history).

Therefore it makes no sense to allow Italy *another* double bite of the apple, particularly when other regions, far vaster and with more people (particularly Asia), aren't represented at all (Vietnam for example).

China has the longest continuous history of any civilization but it has only ever had one representative civ per Civ game. The Italian region in Civ V got both Rome, and Venice. It does not do (regardless of your love for Italy) to suggest one country should get its medieval history period represented in a new Civ as well as its ancient history (already present), when others have yet to see any (Ethiopia for example), and others only ever see ancient representation too (Persia, Egypt, Greece, China).

And that is why another Italian civ in Civ VI would necessarily take away a slot from a worthy civ, whether the Maya, Iroquois, Ethiopia, Hittites, Assyrians, Burma, the people of Judah, or others.

I am sorry but you lost me, Rome is not Italy in ancient days any more than it is France in ancient days. To say that it is it's like saying that if we had the Hittites there would be no need for the ottomans because Hittites share the same geographical location and centuries later Turkey/the ottoman empire covered the same spot.


Venice being a representation of Italy and the renaissance? Sure, Rome having anything to do with Italy besides sharing geographical location? Makes no sense, if Rome already covers italy then it covers every nation that is on the territory of the former empire.


To add Italy would give no double bite, again it is contradictory, you want the ottomans and the Hittites in the same game? How is that different from Rome and Italian city states? Would the addition of Mexico give the Aztecs two bites of the apple?

 

[Morningcalm]

I am sorry but you lost me, Rome is not Italy in ancient days any more than it is France in ancient days. To say that it is it's like saying that if we had the Hittites there would be no need for the ottomans because Hittites share the same geographical location and centuries later Turkey/the ottoman empire covered the same spot.

Venice being a representation of Italy and the renaissance? Sure, Rome having anything to do with Italy besides sharing geographical location? Makes no sense, if Rome already covers italy then it covers every nation that is on the territory of the former empire.

To add Italy would give no double bite, again it is contradictory, you want the ottomans and the Hittites in the same game? How is that different from Rome and Italian city states? Would the addition of Mexico give the Aztecs two bites of the apple?

Basically your argument is that Rome and Italy aren't related more than France and Rome. You are sidestepping the importance of the Roman civilization originating in Italy, basing its power there, and having much in common besides genetics (for example, cultural identification with Ancient Rome, ongoing cultural norms). Many Italians are proud of their ancient Roman heritage and identify with it. I know of few French persons that are anywhere near as proud of having ancient Roman origins or culturally identifying with the same. There wasn't any "Paris" civilization originating in France that later conquered Italy. But there's Ancient Rome, based in Italy, and conquering what is now France.

I agree that Hittites and Ottoman Turkey cover the same area, but unlike the ancient Romans and Renaissance Italians for example, there is no shared religious or cultural link there that I know of (whereas Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy have in common an interest in classical art and Christianity, though Romans only adopted it as its official religion near the end). Though to be frank I'm fine with Hittites replacing Ottomans as the Turkish region's representative for the future.

Yes, Mexico and Aztecs would be giving Mexico two bites of the apple, in much the same way that having Silla dynasty Korea and modern Korea in Civ would be giving them two bites of the same apple, or Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy would be giving Italy two bites of the same apple.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Firaxis doing a 3rd expansion would break the trend of past civ games. I think it really just depends on economics and what game ideas Firaxis is interested in. If a 3rd expansion makes financial sense and Firaxis has a bunch of cool ideas for a 3rd expansion, then yes, a 3rd expansion for civ6 is likely. If a 3rd expansion does not make financial sense and/or Firaxis has ideas for a spin off they really want to do like they had with Beyond Earth, then I don't see a 3rd expansion happening.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

In a game like civilisation it is kinda strange not to have the cradle of the renaissance included, from golden ages to great people to warfare renaissance Italy pretty much embodies all aspects of the game and named the whole era really.

But is it more or less strange than there being one Indian civ?

 

[Metecury]

Basically your argument is that Rome and Italy aren't related more than France and Rome. You are sidestepping the importance of the Roman civilization originating in Italy, basing its power there, and having much in common besides genetics (for example, cultural identification with Ancient Rome, ongoing cultural norms). Many Italians are proud of their ancient Roman heritage and identify with it. I know of few French persons that are anywhere near as proud of having ancient Roman origins or culturally identifying with the same. There wasn't any "Paris" civilization originating in France that later conquered Italy. But there's Ancient Rome, based in Italy, and conquering what is now France.

I agree that Hittites and Ottoman Turkey cover the same area, but unlike the ancient Romans and Renaissance Italians for example, there is no shared religious or cultural link there that I know of (whereas Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy have in common an interest in classical art and Christianity, though Romans only adopted it as its official religion near the end). Though to be frank I'm fine with Hittites replacing Ottomans as the Turkish region's representative for the future.

Yes, Mexico and Aztecs would be giving Mexico two bites of the apple, in much the same way that having Silla dynasty Korea and modern Korea in Civ would be giving them two bites of the same apple, or Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy would be giving Italy two bites of the same apple.

Ok for the record I am Italian, did Rome influence Italian culture? Yes as it did with much of Europe from religion to law to architecture. Is it more visible in Italy? Yes it was the center of the empire for most of it's existence. Does it mean Italy is the successor of Rome? No it does not. The renaissance saw the rediscovery of classical art, the impact Roman history had on Italy it had on other former provinces too.

Practically Ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy surely share a link but no direct succession. History is not that linear, just because it shares the same space it does not mean it is the same entity in a different format. To me Mexico and the Aztecs have little in common, as much as Canada and the Cree for that matter.


You are ignoring centuries of non roman rule, from the Gothic people to the Longobards to Charlemagne to the Italian communes to the italian city states. After the fall of the Empire the Italian peninsula was something completely different both culturally, politically and ethnically.

The reason why you do not see the french or the Spaniards bringing up Rome so often is because they had a unified country with successful empires long before Italy became united in the Risorgimento. While the concept of a united Italy was present even in Dante Alighieri's time it did not happen to become a reality until much later. It's a bit of a side note and perhaps off topic but seeing as Italy is a very young nation it is only natural it looks far in the past to create a national identity just as Germany did when finally uniting and erecting statues to Arminius for instance. Also, the renaissance is way more important for Italian identity than say ancient Rome which I would argue was a multicultural empire which shaped a continent and whose impact falls on the whole region.

 

[Metecury]

But is it more or less strange than there being one Indian civ?

I would love to see the Mughal empire or other Indian civs. I'd argue that having only one India is a more serious omission than no Renaissance Italy but then again, why not have both?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

If they handle it like Greece we would have multiple leaders to represent different citystates. So we could have different play styles for say a Venetian and Florence leaders for instance, or Genovese and Milanese leaders. It's entirely possible and enables firaxis to focus on any aspect they want may it be military, cultural or trade related.

Maybe the spin off this cycle will be Civ: Italy. Ed Beach appears to love the European Renaissance period. The civ engine would be a natural fit for a game of competing city states vying for pre-eminance on the road to Italian unification.

 

[DWilson]

I just wanted to say that India isn't only 1 civ this time- it's at least 1.25 civs! (Of course, Greece is between 2.25 and 3.25 depending on who you are asking; even before a hypothetical Byzantium, so...)