Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[johnlynch13957]

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

I disagree.

I feel the same. I'n not against colonial civs entirely, but there are so many better civs to choose from.

 

[acluewithout]

...I keep checking this thread. But I fear it is never going to give me any further insight on whether we are or aren’t going to get another expansion or dlc or whatever.

Sigh.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

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.

They shouldn't split the Indian blob, because there is a cultural throughline between the two civs. It's an incredibly efficient way to conserve development resources while illustrating how long standing some cultures are. Also, between Tibet, Siam, and the Tamil, there is still plenty they could do with the region.

As for a Spanish colonial civ, Mexico is the only option for several reasons. Plus, the Taino/Arawak are a much more efficient way of representing the Colombian, Amazonian, and Caribbean region as a whole.

 

[Siptah]

As for a Spanish colonial civ, Mexico is the only option for several reasons.

Argentina is actually a pretty good option for a former Spanish colony, it has an interesting history and was economically super successful between 1850 and 1929. I don't see a reason why it should not be good enough for civ inclusion. It's also pretty distinct culturally. Sure, Mexico is as a good option as well, but I think Aztec and Maya are enough for the region. With Argentina, Mapuche, Inca and Brazil, we would only need a very one more civ from the historical New Castile region, either post-colonial and native and we would have a pretty good South America for once. 3 natives and 2 post-colonial nations would also be a pretty nice distribution imho.

 

[Prima Italia]

I hope there is a new expansion or DLC for Civ 6 because some of the civs in Gathering Storm are just awful choices in my opinion, just like with Rise and Fall. Leaving out Babylon, Byzantium, Maya, Celts, Ethiopia, Portugal etc etc is just inexcusable. Civ 5 was much better in this regard, since nearly all the mainstay Civs were included by Gods and Kings. I probably will not buy Gathering Storm just for this reason.

 

[Siptah]

I hope there is a new expansion or DLC for Civ 6 because some of the civs in Gathering Storm are just awful choices in my opinion, just like with Rise and Fall. Leaving out Babylon, Byzantium, Maya, Celts, Ethiopia, Portugal etc etc is just inexcusable. Civ 5 was much better in this regard, since nearly all the mainstay Civs were included by Gods and Kings. I probably will not buy Gathering Storm just for this reason.

I actually like most choices, the problem is just that there are too many regulars, so that if you want all of them in, you cannot have new ones (which would be a shame).
Also: I doubt we'll see the Celts even in a third expansion. Civ VI has somewhat unblobbed the civs and I think Scotland is this iterations Celts variants. And I hope to never see the Celts again (sorry to say), but rather the Gauls in VII.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

So oou 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...

I still think it was intentional for several reasons, but I will add that neither Babylon nor Assyria were particularly creative options in V. And Sumeria seems to be mechanically lumping the two together as a beginner/all-rounder civ, with both a strong military unit and a strong science improvement (both of which I believe we're pretty universal among Akkadian civ's as well). I think it's likely they decided combining the two made for a stronger civ than attempting to differentiate them.

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.

I think it's unlikely, as stated previously, given that Sumeria takes the best of both mechanically, and personality wise neither Sargon or Shammamurat or Hammurabi would stand up well as a leader against Gilgabro. It's a very archetypally designed civ and I just don't think they can equal it. More to the point, I don't think players would mind Babylon missing much if, say, Italy were a playable civ. Give them something else they really want, and it makes moving on from tradition much easier.

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.

Macedon is the only exception so far, and I do concede that it somewhat breaks with the trend. I can come up with excuses, but really I think they split Greece up so they could properly rep the Delian/Peloppenesian Leagues as well as have an iconic leader like Alexander in the game. I guess Macedonia is a separate country, and Macedon extended far beyond Greece and was really more of a cult of personality for Alexander than a true empire. He's a stretch under my theory however you slice it.

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.

On that we must disagree I'm afraid. I don't think Byzantium is likely, now that we have the Angevin and Mauryan empires under different names. Nor have I ever wanted it in, truth be told, because not only does it make the game even more euro centric, but draws an arbitrary distinction between Rome and Byzantium just because Christian zealots want their version of an empire in the game. It's always felt like exceptionalism at its worst, and here in VI it would completely go against their philosophy of diversity.

What about Byzantium would be so mechanically different from the other religious Eastern European civs? Poland? Russia? Georgia? It's probably one of the most vapid, least distinct options at this point. But giving it some inherently Roman mechanics like the trade routes would help distinguish it.

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.

I don't think we will get Berbers over MMorocco. And obviously I don't think Akkadia and Babylon are likely. I still think Tibet and/or Sakha stand a good chance of inclusion. I think they're more deserving than Vietnam for several reasons.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Argentina is actually a pretty good option for a former Spanish colony, it has an interesting history and was economically super successful between 1850 and 1929. I don't see a reason why it should not be good enough for civ inclusion. It's also pretty distinct culturally. Sure, Mexico is as a good option as well, but I think Aztec and Maya are enough for the region. With Argentina, Mapuche, Inca and Brazil, we would only need a very one more civ from the historical New Castile region, either post-colonial and native and we would have a pretty good South America for once. 3 natives and 2 post-colonial nations would also be a pretty nice distribution imho.

Except we don't really need Argentina because the Mapuche represent the northern half of both Chile and Argentina.

Additionally, Mexico is indpustably the success story of the Spanish colonies. It urbanized the fastest, it had an empire at one point, and it has a cultural impact on surrounding nations. It also has I believe the largest population of the Latino sphere, and--this is by far the most important--brought the most immigrants to the US. As Canada has shown, if a large portion of the playerbase self identifies with that culture, it should be included purely to pander to that demographic.

Like I said, I don't even think Mexico is necessary, when we still don't have a Caribbean civ. And the Arawak/Taino are perfect to fill that, because they also cover large swathes of Gran Colombia and the inner Amazon.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Except we don't really need Argentina because the Mapuche represent the northern half of both Chile and Argentina.

Additionally, Mexico is indpustably the success story of the Spanish colonies. It urbanized the fastest, it had an empire at one point, and it has a cultural impact on surrounding nations. It also has I believe the largest population of the Latino sphere, and--this is by far the most important--brought the most immigrants to the US. As Canada has shown, if a large portion of the playerbase self identifies with that culture, it should be included purely to pander to that demographic.

Like I said, I don't even think Mexico is necessary, when we still don't have a Caribbean civ. And the Arawak/Taino are perfect to fill that, because they also cover large swathes of Gran Colombia and the inner Amazon.

I think Cuba could be an interesting but very controversial pick as well.

 

[Prima Italia]

I actually like most choices, the problem is just that there are too many regulars, so that if you want all of them in, you cannot have new ones (which would be a shame).
Also: I doubt we'll see the Celts even in a third expansion. Civ VI has somewhat unblobbed the civs and I think Scotland is this iterations Celts variants. And I hope to never see the Celts again (sorry to say), but rather the Gauls in VII.

You most certainly can have them all. If Civ 5 with Gods and Kings could do it then there is no reason why it is not possible. I would rather not have new civs if it means getting the regular civs. I think most of the new civs are unneccesary. I have no desire even playing against the likes of Brazil, Poland, Australia, Canada, Mapuche, Cree and Hungary, never mind playing as them. I would rather see them added later after the regular civs have been added or not at all.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

You most certainly can have them all. If Civ 5 with Gods and Kings could do it then there is no reason why it is not possible. I would rather not have new civs if it means getting the regular civs. I think most of the new civs are unneccesary. I have no desire even playing against the likes of Brazil, Poland, Australia, Canada, Mapuche, Cree and Hungary, never mind playing as them. I would rather see them added later after the regular civs have been added or not at all.

They're all unnecessary. And the "Regular" original civs had no abilities whatsoever. They just had a different color. Try one of these "new" civs--I bet you'll have fun if you let yourself.

 

[Futumch]

Maybe a third expansion could just concentrate on adding alternate leaders. The would not necessarily have to include every Civ, just a good selection of the main ones. I'd love to play England as Churchill or Henry V, Rome as Claudius, Russia as Gorbachev, Egypt as Nasser. There's plenty of scope for interesting leaders.
Of course the elephant in the room would be having Hitler as a leader for Germany, but I don't see that happening ever, despite having Stalin in the original Civ. Being able to defeat him on Deity would be satisfying.

 

[Prima Italia]

They're all unnecessary. And the "Regular" original civs had no abilities whatsoever. They just had a different color. Try one of these "new" civs--I bet you'll have fun if you let yourself.

How presumptuous. What makes you think I do not have fun playing the way I do now? It is absurd to think that I would buy a game not to have fun. I play the way I want because that is what I like and I think it is fun.

So no, I will not try them out and nor will I want them in any of my games. I have been playing Civ for plenty of hours and it is fun the way I play. It would be even better if they added the regular civs, I would have even more fun. I do not want to try them because I do not like and in my opinion they are unneccessary. I would feel like I am wasting my time.

Civ gives the options to play how a player wants including the civs in the game and I exercise them.

 

[Xandinho]

Except we don't really need Argentina because the Mapuche represent the northern half of both Chile and Argentina.

Additionally, Mexico is indpustably the success story of the Spanish colonies. It urbanized the fastest, it had an empire at one point, and it has a cultural impact on surrounding nations. It also has I believe the largest population of the Latino sphere, and--this is by far the most important--brought the most immigrants to the US. As Canada has shown, if a large portion of the playerbase self identifies with that culture, it should be included purely to pander to that demographic.

Like I said, I don't even think Mexico is necessary, when we still don't have a Caribbean civ. And the Arawak/Taino are perfect to fill that, because they also cover large swathes of Gran Colombia and the inner Amazon.

I would say that the Aztecs and then the Mayans represent Mexico more than the Mapuche represents Argentina. In addition, the majority of the Mapuche population is in Chile and not in Argentina.

Just my opinion, Mexico would be nice, but I think Argentina is the most solid option to represent Spanish America, and I would add here all that @Siptah said. About Gran Colombia, it lasted very little time to make it a solid option.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

How presumptuous. What makes you think I do not have fun playing the way I do now? It is absurd to think that I would buy a game not to have fun. I play the way I want because that is what I like and I think it is fun.

So no, I will not try them out and nor will I want them in any of my games. I have been playing Civ for plenty of hours and it is fun the way I play. It would be even better if they added the regular civs, I would have even more fun. I do not want to try them because I do not like and in my opinion they are unneccessary. I would feel like I am wasting my time.

Civ gives the options to play how a player wants including the civs in the game and I exercise them.

I agree with you, but just because a civ doesn't have a name that you like doesn't mean it won't be fun too. I appreciate that people want certain civs to be in but it's just a name after all.

 

[Xandinho]

How presumptuous. What makes you think I do not have fun playing the way I do now? It is absurd to think that I would buy a game not to have fun. I play the way I want because that is what I like and I think it is fun.

So no, I will not try them out and nor will I want them in any of my games. I have been playing Civ for plenty of hours and it is fun the way I play. It would be even better if they added the regular civs, I would have even more fun. I do not want to try them because I do not like and in my opinion they are unneccessary. I would feel like I am wasting my time.

Civ gives the options to play how a player wants including the civs in the game and I exercise them.

I also want the regulars back, but I think it would be just boring that civs games would always add the same civilizations. New names can give us the opportunity to learn about new cultures and history.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

How presumptuous. What makes you think I do not have fun playing the way I do now? It is absurd to think that I would buy a game not to have fun. I play the way I want because that is what I like and I think it is fun.

So no, I will not try them out and nor will I want them in any of my games. I have been playing Civ for plenty of hours and it is fun the way I play. It would be even better if they added the regular civs, I would have even more fun. I do not want to try them because I do not like and in my opinion they are unneccessary. I would feel like I am wasting my time.

Civ gives the options to play how a player wants including the civs in the game and I exercise them.

Tbh you don't sound like a very fun or imaginative person. If you want a game full of the same, myopic cults of personality, you have V right over there. Quit shitting on VI for innovating just because you are too lazy to keep up.

 

[Martinus]

I would really be interested to see some stats on what Civ players actually play on average, in terms of difficulty, map size and type, and civilization preference.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people actually played on middle difficulties (Prince or King), random maps (small or medium), quick games and European civs.

This would make a lot of concerns often expressed on this forum (AI, geographical location on the Earth map, Eurocentrism) rather irrelevant for most of the player base.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I am kind of uncreative in the game setup options. Medium size, medium speed, Continents or fractal. Blah blah blah. Different civs though.

 

[Prima Italia]

I agree with you, but just because a civ doesn't have a name that you like doesn't mean it won't be fun too. I appreciate that people want certain civs to be in but it's just a name after all.

Role-play. To me it is more than a name.

I also want the regulars back, but I think it would be just boring that civs games would always add the same civilizations. New names can give us the opportunity to learn about new cultures and history.

They do but I have no interest in anthropology.