Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Xmonger]

The evidence cited for why there might be a 3rd expansion is thin, I don't think it's any basis to believe there will be one, but read on.

This is fundamentally a business decision, which means many things go into it. Ultimately it's a 'gut feel' kind of decision by the business team and Sid. The evidence is they've been pouring more and more into the Civ franchise, and specifically VI. iPad, Switch and now a $40 2nd expansion. So far it looks like Anton is noticeably quiet, may not mean anything, or it may mean that he is already working on VII, or on VI expansion 3. So I'd say it looks possible they'd do a third expansion given how much they've already invested in the VI platform. Separately I saw a year ago that the VI uptake was fairly low - lots of people are still playing V and see no reason to go to VI. So maybe they've decided that enhancing the base version with ports and expansions is a better revenue stream. Supporting that, certainly VI is a more complete, robust and thought out base game compared to the mess that the V rollout was.

 

[acluewithout]

So, maybe they need to improve Civ VI with a third expansion so it can compete with CivV?

 

[krokobone]

So, maybe they need to improve Civ VI with a third expansion so it can compete with CivV?

I think the vanilla version of Civ VI was already just as complete or even more so as Civ V with both its expansions. What makes Civ V more or less superior over Civ VI is the Vox Populi mod.

 

[Rup]

I think the vanilla version of Civ VI was already just as complete or even more so as Civ V with both its expansions. What makes Civ V more or less superior over Civ VI is the Vox Populi mod.

Agreed, For me it's CIV IV vs VI. V is lackluster even with complete edition. Only way it is even remotely close to CIV VI is with Vox Populi.Now it just about polishing.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Agreed, For me it's CIV IV vs VI. V is lackluster even with complete edition. Only way it is even remotely close to CIV VI is with Vox Populi.Now it just about polishing.

I liked five. You just have to go in with the mindset that you have to play a little differently than other civ games (with the last patch that sends you down Four Cities route).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I liked five. You just have to go in with the mindset that you have to play a little differently than other civ games (with the last patch that sends you down Four Cities route).

I wasn't a fan of the last patch changes, but I am a fan of Civ 5 despite that. You're right, it does play differently than earlier iterations of Civ. I played all of them, from Civ 1 on. I'm glad Civ 5 is different from Civ 4. I can also understand why it's not to everyone's tastes.

 

[BTSeven7]

I am sure the third expansion is entirely a business decision. The powers that be probably care little for quitting while they are ahead. The idea of two expansions probably comes from how long they can generate revenue vs development cost without increasing the Roman numeral. I am sure the decision makers simply say revenue drops off after expansion 2 and so they allocate resources to the next revenue generator which at some point is a new base game.

However, We live in a different gaming age where people play for longer cycles bc the engine and graphics don’t improve as much. Content is more accessible with DLC and the dreaded micro transactions and thus revenue can be generated for longer periods.

They have an idea right now and my guess is that the game is doing really well and a third expansion is probably worth the development assuming the second expansion sells well. If it flops for some reason or under performs they will determine at that point if it’s best to continue developing a third expansion or allocate their resources somewhere else then make a decision later about Civ VII.

Feels pretty simple. I doubt they care too much about bloating the game with 80 civs if it makes them enough money vs doing something else.

 

[Leyrann]

Well, they can count on my money. I don't mind bloating; I like it when a game has so much stuff I can't keep track of everything that's happening.

 

[Morningcalm]

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.

I said "slightly more than 40 civs in recent times". I was directly alluding to Civ V and VI, not Civ IV and much older Civ iterations. Also, while we are at it, what are the numbers for Western/European nations in Civ V and Civ VI? I ask for comparative purposes and science, of course.

Regardless of the comparative numbers of Western/European nations in V and VI, Firaxis could always choose to cut down the number of Western/European nations in future Civ iterations. I would argue that Canada, Australia and others are likely reasons we don't have Ethiopia and so on....had Firaxis been less tempted to add these postcolonial Western dark horse civs in, they might have instead chosen fan favorite civs, like the Maya, like Ethiopia, etc, or dark horse civs that are not European/Western, like Benin, Burma, etc.

To the extent there is a quota of Western/European nations, I would cite your post to point out that civ numbers change with each iteration and that Firaxis has tweaked their representation of different regions in the past. It's not unfair to expect better representation from non Western/European regions in Civ in this day and age.

Elsewhere in these forums, I have pointed out that having 6 or more European civs in every Civ base game is rather old hat, and that it ought to change.

 

[Leyrann]

I said "slightly more than 40 civs in recent times". I was directly alluding to Civ V and VI, not Civ IV.

Can't very well use the game you're arguing about as proof lol.

 

[Morningcalm]

Can't very well use the game you're arguing about as proof lol.

Strange. As I was able to do just that. And so was returnofbabylon (you'll notice the 42 (?) number for Civ VI civs in his list). We can do this with confidence since we know Gathering Storm will come with 8 civs (it's right there in the announcement).

 

[Leyrann]

Strange. As I was able to do just that. And so was returnofbabylon (you'll notice the 42 (?) number for Civ VI civs in his list).

With a question mark, implying "this could still change". In fact I believe his argument is that he thinks it will change, though I will admit I skimmed most of your discussion.

 

[Morningcalm]

With a question mark, implying "this could still change". In fact I believe his argument is that he thinks it will change, though I will admit I skimmed most of your discussion.

That's a separate matter for discussion I think--no one really knows (we think) whether there will be DLC or a third expansion after Gathering Storm, despite people who desperately want a third expansion to get more fan-favorites in, including fan favorite non-Western civs like Ethiopia and the Maya.

 

[Siptah]

That's a separate matter for discussion I think--no one really knows (we think) whether there will be DLC or a third expansion after Gathering Storm, despite people who desperately want a third expansion to get more fan-favorites in, including fan favorite non-Western civs like Ethiopia and the Maya.

And European fan-favorites like Portugal, Austria, and Italy

 

[Morningcalm]

And European fan-favorites like Portugal, Austria, and Italy

Austria I haven't seen mentioned as much as the other two this time around. But yes. Regrettably. But I can understand people want civs in which they know and love. I want civs I don't know and come to love, which aren't Canada, Australia or other such Western postcolonial civs.

 

[WillowBrook]

Ed Beach appears to love the European Renaissance period.

A third expansion could possibly add an enlightenment era between the renaissance and industrial eras...

 

[ehecatzin]

A third expansion could possibly add an enlightenment era between the renaissance and industrial eras...

THIS so much this, I like what they are adding in GS, future era included, but it does look weird how they would focus on those aspects without even trying to fill that huge gap in the timeline. My gut feeling is also that they already mapped what each expansion was going to tackle. Corporations, colonization and vassals would be a great fit for an enlightenment era, even more with the new resource system. Not to mention fan favorites that wouldn't make it (if the leaks are true).

 

[Krajzen]

Corporations, colonization, vassals, migration, minorities, ideologies, social classes, civil wars, revolutions, world wars, not mentally handicapped AI...

 

[fabituz]

Corporations, colonization, vassals, migration, minorities, ideologies, social classes, civil wars, revolutions, world wars, not mentally handicapped AI...

Avoid the snowballing is always good for the gameplay, so I can see some space for alliances like NATO at endgame. It´s also possible to have different forms to rule a civ like federations, confederations or even autocracies with puppet states. And there´s room for improving religious and cultural game, even add corps and an economic victory...

 

[Xandinho]

Corporations, colonization, vassals, migration, minorities, ideologies, social classes, civil wars, revolutions, world wars, not mentally handicapped AI...

Complementing your post: Economic victory, improved barbarians, nationality, health and diseases/plagues, improved religion, more types of great people (great diplomats, great philosophers ...), crimes...