Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??
- Thread starter SxSnts9
- Start date
returnofbabylon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
- Messages
- 51
So I have a mixed reaction to this. Is it fair to expect better representation from non-Western/European regions in this day and age? As a general rule, I think absolutely yes. Does FXS tweak their representation of different regions from game to game? The best answer I can give is "sort of, but not really." FXS tends to increase the total number of civs from game to game, and this inherently results in *all* regions getting increased representation over the course of the series. But is it the case that FXS re-shuffles the civ set from game to game, such that one region gains representation at the expense of another? Basically, no, they've never done that. If you told me ahead of time that VI was going to have the same number of civs as V, I'd have predicted that regional representation in VI would be exactly the same as V; and that is, indeed, what we observe...with some caveats. But VI is also pretty drastically different from the previous games in this respect. As I've already wasted far too much of my own life studying this, I may as well put all my cards on the table - here's everything I can tell about how FXS picks civs.
Civ II-V: (Almost) Everything Neat and Tidy
Below I've included all the civs for II-V, broken up into returning civs, replacement civs, new civs, and missing civs. Returning civs are from the previous iteration, not earlier in the series. If I say one civ replaces another that doesn't mean that I personally think they're historically equivalent/viable replacements/whatever else; it's my inference about how FXS has selected the civ, and it could be incorrect, though for II-V I think it's fairly straightforward. Missing civs are civs that appeared in the previous iteration and haven't been replaced - you'll notice a pattern there pretty quickly.
Civ II
Returning: America, Aztec, Babylon, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Mongolia, Rome, Russia, Zulu
Replacement: N/A
New: Carthage, Celt, Japan, Persia, Spain, Sioux, Viking
Missing: N/A
Civ III
Returning: America, Aztec, Babylon, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Mongolia, Rome, Russia, Zulu, Carthage, Celt, Japan, Persia, Spain, Viking
Replacement: Iroquois (Sioux)
New: Arabia, Korea, Ottoman, Austria, Byzantium, Netherlands, Hittite, Inca, Maya, Portugal, Sumer
Missing: N/A
Civ IV
Returning: America, Aztec, Babylon, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Mongolia, Rome, Russia, Zulu, Carthage, Celt, Japan, Persia, Spain, Viking, Arabia, Korea, Ottoman, Byzantium, Netherlands, Inca, Maya, Portugal, Sumer
Replacement: Native American (Iroquois), Holy Roman Empire (Austria)
New: Ethiopia, Khmer, Mali
Missing: Hittite
Civ V
Returning: America, Aztec, Babylon, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Mongolia, Rome, Russia, Zulu, Carthage, Celt, Japan, Persia, Spain, Arabia, Korea, Ottoman, Byzantium, Netherlands, Inca, Maya, Portugal, Ethiopia
Replacement: Iroquois (Native American), Denmark (Viking), Austria (Holy Roman Empire), Assyria (Sumer), Siam (Khmer), Songhai (Mali)
New: Brazil, Indonesia, Poland, Polynesia, Morocco, Huns, Venice, Shoshone, Sweden
Missing: N/A
The biggest takeaway here? FXS hasn't taken civs out without a like-for-like replacement, with the lone exception (that proves the rule) of the Hittites who disappeared after III.
Civ VI: A Break with Tradition, One Way or Another
Doing this exercise with VI leads you inescapably to one of the three conclusions. Note that I am assuming the leaked list of civs is accurate. Either:
1. FXS has decided to remove a bunch of civs from the game without really replacing them with similar civs, including a few longstanding staple/fan favorite civs, despite having never done this before outside of a single instance; or
2. FXS has taken a far broader view of what constitutes a like-for-like replacement for a civ than they have in any previous iteration; or
3. There are more civs coming to VI after GS, either through DLC or a 3rd expansion.
Civ VI, traditional replacement rules
Returning: America, Aztec, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Mongolia, Rome, Russia, Zulu, Japan, Persia, Spain, Arabia, Korea, Ottoman, Netherlands, Inca, Brazil, Indonesia, Poland, Sweden
Replacement: Phoenicia (Carthage), Scotland (Celt), Cree (Iroquois), Norway (Denmark), Hungary (Austria), Sumer (Assyria), Nubia (Ethiopia), Khmer (Siam), Mali (Songhai), Maori (Polynesia), Scythia (Huns)
New: Canada, Georgia, Australia, Kongo, Macedonia, Mapuche
Missing: Babylon, Byzantium, Maya, Portugal, Morocco, Venice, Shoshone
If you argue for option 2, the best fits would be Mapuche replacing Maya, Kongo replacing Morocco, Macedonia replacing Byzantium, Georgia replacing Babylon, and Canada/Australia replacing Venice/Portugal. Under this assumption, regional representation in VI is exactly the same as in V, with the exception of native civilizations of the Americas - V had 5 (Iroquois, Shoshone, Maya, Aztec, Inca), and VI would have 4 (Cree, Aztec, Inca, Mapuche).
Incidentally, I view that as one of the more convincing circumstantial pieces of evidence for option 3; if FXS had to reduce representation somewhere, I would find it surprising if they elected to do so with native civilizations of the Americas as opposed to somewhere else, while not including a native civilization from the country where the company is based in the process.
I'm on the record saying I think option 3 is the most likely, though I wouldn't put money on it. If instead FXS has decided to cap the number of civs in the low 40s, I don't think we should expect Civ VII to have more non-Western/European representation; it will probably look more or less exactly like VI, which looks more or less exactly like V.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Option 3, definitely.
Byzantium, Maya, Babylon, Portugal and Ethiopia will all come in the 3rd expansion.
Honestly I was doubtful of the third expansion and the leaker, but I'm now more or less assuming they'll be a third expansion the more it looks like the leaker was spot on about evweveryth else.
Also there was the whole bit about the 2k CEO saying all their games will have "recurrent customer spending" - it may be DLC.
Also there was the whole bit about the 2k CEO saying all their games will have "recurrent customer spending" - it may be DLC.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Thanks. I think your post was thorough and supports several of my previous points.
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).
And yes, the reduced number of Native American civs in Civ VI from Civ V is bad, as the Maya are a fan favorite and arguably contributed more to civilization than the Aztecs.
Also consider that Civ VI has more leaders from Europe than Civ V did. We have Gorgo and Eleanor as extra leaders, and only one secondary leader from another region (Chandragupta Maurya). Things would have looked better had one secondary leader been African or Native American.
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.
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).
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.
Last edited:
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
This is a great analysis and quite persuasive: either they are radically changing how they are selecting Civs in Civ VI (deciding to omit Civs that have been in every iteration since Civ II or III), or further DLC of some form is coming.
For me, the most striking omissions are Babylon, Portugal, Byzantium and the Maya, all of which have been around in some form since at least Civ III. In my opinion, the fact that they haven't included these Civs so far suggests that at least at one point they expected to produce a third expansion or further DLC and so needed to "hold back" a few big names.
And yes, the leaker may not have provided any evidence but they have been right about everything else so far...
I would prefer 4 or 5 individual civ DLCs after GS to a third expansion. An expansion might mean too many unnecessary mechanics, and in worst case just one or two more patches. The chance is high that a lot of the stuff will feel immature in that case. 4 or 5 DLCs without new mechanics means more patches, balances, tweaks and probably bringing the mechanics that are already there to fruition.
That said, I still don‘t get the fuss. I‘d like to have a lot more civs, but if we don‘t get them, no one is dying. Adding two civs does not significantly enhance the game experience . And as said earlier, there are enough mods to float your boat. Native mod civs probably exceed 30 meanwhile, I haven‘t checked in a long while. And as soon as it is confirmed that there won‘t be Maya and Portugal, there will be high quality mods for these civs for sure.
That said, I still don‘t get the fuss. I‘d like to have a lot more civs, but if we don‘t get them, no one is dying. Adding two civs does not significantly enhance the game experience . And as said earlier, there are enough mods to float your boat. Native mod civs probably exceed 30 meanwhile, I haven‘t checked in a long while. And as soon as it is confirmed that there won‘t be Maya and Portugal, there will be high quality mods for these civs for sure.
Last edited:
ChocolateShake
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 525
I expect that we'll get more civ DLCs as @Siptah mentioned, but not more expansions, though I'd definitely like to see what they could do with a third one.
There are definitely civs I'd like to see added, I think this version has become unpredictable with Persia excluded and added as a DLC, then the Ottomans/Turks coming in this expansion (probably).
Though I do think people will always prefer official civs to modded. There are still a lot of players who don't enjoy using mods and prefer only to experience the developer version of the game. I use a lot of mods now, but that takes time to adjust to. I would like to see the Iroquois in the game for sure.
There are definitely civs I'd like to see added, I think this version has become unpredictable with Persia excluded and added as a DLC, then the Ottomans/Turks coming in this expansion (probably).
Though I do think people will always prefer official civs to modded. There are still a lot of players who don't enjoy using mods and prefer only to experience the developer version of the game. I use a lot of mods now, but that takes time to adjust to. I would like to see the Iroquois in the game for sure.
Xmonger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2016
- Messages
- 88
Given the slow uptake of players into new base games (e.g. the lower numbers of V players moving to VI), and after sleeping on it, I think it's more likely they'll see more civ packs DLC as the best revenue stream. Like I said they already are demonstrating big investment in VI base game - iPad and Switch ($). They'll probably roll out all the DLC and expansions to those platforms ($$), and post GS more civs and other DLC ($$$) like map packs. For relatively smaller investment that will result in a good revenue stream from the three platforms.
The only reason they wouldn't is resources. They have limited engineering (you can't just add engineering, especially these days when talent is hard to find). If they are significantly investing in VII already (likely) they simply won't have the headcount to work on any other DLC. Note that the iPad & Switch ports were done by partners which adds revenue with a minimal impact on your team. This is the safe, and probably correct answer admittedly.
The only reason they wouldn't is resources. They have limited engineering (you can't just add engineering, especially these days when talent is hard to find). If they are significantly investing in VII already (likely) they simply won't have the headcount to work on any other DLC. Note that the iPad & Switch ports were done by partners which adds revenue with a minimal impact on your team. This is the safe, and probably correct answer admittedly.
Guandao
Rajah of Minyue, Hlai and Langkasuka
If the Maya don't appear in Civ6, I will not buy Civ7 until they finally show up. 
I expect Civ7 to come out in 2022 at the earliest. Can't wait for the Eurocentric bias to continue.....
I expect Civ7 to come out in 2022 at the earliest. Can't wait for the Eurocentric bias to continue.....
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,459
If the Maya don't appear in Civ6, I will not buy Civ7 until they finally show up.
I expect Civ7 to come out in 2022 at the earliest. Can't wait for the Eurocentric bias to continue.....
If the Maya are never included in Civ 6, I wouldn't be surprised if they make the base game of Civ 7. Changing things up is always part of the equation in getting people to buy the next instalment.
thecrazyscot
Spiffy
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,110
Personally I hope Firaxis provides several more years worth of content for VI. I'm not holding out too much hope for VII since the odd-numbered games are the worst in the series and the even-numbered ones are the best.
Maybe I'll catch VIII?
Maybe I'll catch VIII?
PhoenicianGold
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,828
I generally agree with your analysis, but for a couple clarifications:
1. 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.
2. 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.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 could see them not including a US native civ, but I also think there's nothing stopping them. On balance I think there is one civ that stands out based on the choices of the Cree and Mapuche, both of which are extremely large native populations in the modern era. The two largest tribes in the US are the Cherokee and the Navajo. Both could work mechanically, but the Cherokee kind of have the whole past genocide complication. The Navajo have a very strong identity along several axes though, and even better are highly distinct from both the Cree and Mapuche (and Quechua and Mayan). This opposed to how similarly the Souix or Iroquois would function to the Cree or Mapuche.
So I think there is actually a very strong probability of a Navajo civ. Second largest population, largest reservation, Western location, desert bias, unique and stories language, unique spy units, much more progressive and integrated than the Pueblo tribes. It seems to be the front runner given the philosophy which chose the other Amerindian tribes this time around.
As you said, it really depends on how many civs they want to add. I am of the opinion that VI will have longer term support than V. They now know how long standing the community is with V steam mods. Everyone is under pressure to maintain regular income with a tentpole DLC product. And people forget that the more mechanics you add, the more design space you have to differentiate civs, which means the more civs you can add before their uniques become too samey and stale.
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.
Ivan Hunger
King
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 637
Throwing my 2¢ into this thread:
Digital distribution has changed the way computer games are made and sold. "Fewer games with longer tails" is becoming increasingly viable as a business model. Expensive assets like art, graphics, and animation can be used for longer, lessening the need for replacements.
So it's entirely possible that Firaxis will just keep making Civ 6 expansions until they come up with an idea for a new feature that simply can't be implemented in Civ 6's engine. After all, that's how Civ 6 itself came to exist. Getting districts and unstacked cities to work in Civ 5 proved to be prohibitive, so a new game was necessary. But how long will it be before Firaxis comes up with another mechanic that technically demanding? Years? Decades? Until that time, it's more viable to add and rework existing mechanics in Civ 6 through expansions.
Don't reinvent the wheel. Just realign it.
Digital distribution has changed the way computer games are made and sold. "Fewer games with longer tails" is becoming increasingly viable as a business model. Expensive assets like art, graphics, and animation can be used for longer, lessening the need for replacements.
So it's entirely possible that Firaxis will just keep making Civ 6 expansions until they come up with an idea for a new feature that simply can't be implemented in Civ 6's engine. After all, that's how Civ 6 itself came to exist. Getting districts and unstacked cities to work in Civ 5 proved to be prohibitive, so a new game was necessary. But how long will it be before Firaxis comes up with another mechanic that technically demanding? Years? Decades? Until that time, it's more viable to add and rework existing mechanics in Civ 6 through expansions.
Don't reinvent the wheel. Just realign it.
Myomoto
King
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 610
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).
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?
PhoenicianGold
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,828
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.
Pistol90
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Messages
- 444
When it comes to game-mechanich , they can literaly make 4 more expansions and there would be content. They put climate changes in this expansion, which were never part of game - and probably even for fans of series nobody would thought about that. So they certanly have enought content to put in 3rd expansions, and they certanly have enough Civs ... Its only question will they, and I hope they will. At launch Civ6 wasnt really that good, now after 2 expansions and all patches and DLCs i would rather stay with it more than move to next Civ game which you first need to wait 5 years , and then two more for patches, DLCs, expansions so everything work fine.
WillowBrook
Lurker
Just a minute quibble: a version of climate change was in either II or III (I forget which). If there was too much pollution (from factories and such), grassland tiles could turn into plains and plains tiles could turn into desert. It wasn't anything as complex as the system being added in GS, but it was there.
But I do agree that there is enough material for at least two more expansions after GS.
Similar threads
