Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[Alexadamz]

But to me it seems obvious that if you're going to have victory conditions in Civ VI, they should reward diversification, not beelining and hype-specialization. No point in having all these districts and constraining them by population if ultimately a victory condition means just ICS'ing and spamming one district over and over. As for dom, capturing all the capitals is kind of tedious on the big maps I like to play. I'll never do it, and the AI simply cannot even take a stab at it.

For me that is the biggest flaw with the districts' concept. There should also be a cap for district ammount on your civ as a whole and not only per city. Maybe somewhat in the lines of the city cap for districts: you could have 2 districts of each kind for 1-3 cities, then you would need 4 cities to have a third of the same. And goint one more up every 3 cities more on your empire. But maybe that could be another drawback for wide play and could be balanced in someway with empire population numbers.

Cities far from your capital should suffer negative loyalty to make it harder for warmongers to just keep conquering a very wide empire.

I would like to change my capital building a new palace in some other city. We have different icons for original unconquered capital, for new capital and for conquered original capital. The new capital icon could be a feature for peaceful capital changes, like we had in history (in Brazil, for example, we had 3 capitals, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro and now Brasília). If you have your original capital untouched, you would have the original unconquered capital icon and the new capital icon. That could be a way to deal with loyalty issues from distance to capital. I feel the loyalty mechanic is only good considering the Golden and Dark Ages mechanic. There should be more to that.

 

[steveg700]

For me that is the biggest flaw with the districts' concept. There should also be a cap for district ammount on your civ as a whole and not only per city. Maybe somewhat in the lines of the city cap for districts: you could have 2 districts of each kind for 1-3 cities, then you would need 4 cities to have a third of the same. And goint one more up every 3 cities more on your empire. But maybe that could be another drawback for wide play and could be balanced in someway with empire population numbers.

The problem is that there was such rancor about how V at some point (not in the beginning and not in the end versions) was so punitive towards ICS that the current design is to let players drink from the hose. This is why the penalty for happiness is so marginal that amenities don't merit much attention.

 

[Alexadamz]

The problem is that there was such rancor about how V at some point (not in the beginning and not in the end versions) was so punitive towards ICS that the current design is to let players drink from the hose. This is why the penalty for happiness is so marginal that luxuries don't merit much attention.

Yes, i remember sometimes in Civ V where i couldn't get more happiness and that was terrible. I really didn't like the happiness system from Civ 5, that was a major drawback for me after playing Civ IV for a longe time. But in the end I guess the system worked, after BNW. Now, for Civ 6, the Ammenities system is a weird mechanic and its management is even crapier. The balance between Wide and Tall is one of the things I feel should be dealt the most. But I am not sure if they will make something that works for gameplay.

 

[steveg700]

Yes, i remember sometimes in Civ V where i couldn't get more happiness and that was terrible. I really didn't like the happiness system from Civ 5, that was a major drawback for me after playing Civ IV for a longe time. But in the end I guess the system worked, after BNW. Now, for Civ 6, the Ammenities system is a weird mechanic and its management is even crapier. The balance between Wide and Tall is one of the things I feel should be dealt the most. But I am not sure if they will make something that works for gameplay.

With the introduction of so many ways to generate amenities (including an entire district for it), it seems the penalties for unhappiness could generally amount to more than just a 5% penalty.

 

[Leathaface]

Yes, i remember sometimes in Civ V where i couldn't get more happiness and that was terrible. I really didn't like the happiness system from Civ 5, that was a major drawback for me after playing Civ IV for a longe time. But in the end I guess the system worked, after BNW. Now, for Civ 6, the Ammenities system is a weird mechanic and its management is even crapier. The balance between Wide and Tall is one of the things I feel should be dealt the most. But I am not sure if they will make something that works for gameplay.

I hope Ed Beach keeps things the way there are, at least for the duration of Civ VI. In Civ V tall was so incredibly powerful why bother going wide? You only get unhappier and increased tech costs.

I like how in Civ VI the wider you go the stronger you get. (unless you're Scotland) Going wide has its dangers, but you should be rewarded if you are able to build an empire with 10+ cities and keep them.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I like how in Civ VI the wider you go the stronger you get. (unless you're Scotland) Going wide has its dangers, but you should be rewarded if you are able to build an empire with 10+ cities and keep them.

I am a Wide play player. I hate playing Tall. So I love that civ6 rewards Wide play. But I disagree with you that going wide has its dangers in civ6. Right now, I really don't see what dangers the game has for going wide. A lack of amenities could be one but the danger is minimal since it is so easy to get amenities. I've had games where I have gone wide and half my cities were "displeased". You would think that when half your empire is unhappy that would feel some hurt but no, my cities just suffer a mild penalty to growth and yields, barely noticeable. So there really is no danger from going to wide at all as far as I can tell.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Managing Amenities isn't that hard if you plan your Entertainment Complexes. I use pins to determine where I place them down and build my cities around them (Usually you'll want 1 EC for every 3-4 cities you have) Once you unlock Water Parks, Amenities are not a problem, at all, in any situation.

 

[Leathaface]

I am a Wide play player. I hate playing Tall. So I love that civ6 rewards Wide play. But I disagree with you that going wide has its dangers in civ6. Right now, I really don't see what dangers the game has for going wide. A lack of amenities could be one but the danger is minimal since it is so easy to get amenities. I've had games where I have gone wide and half my cities were "displeased". You would think that when half your empire is unhappy that would feel some hurt but no, my cities just suffer a mild penalty to growth and yields, barely noticeable. So there really is no danger from going to wide at all as far as I can tell.

I play on Immortal and it can be dangerous expanding much in regards to getting invaded. New cities can be vulnerable.

 

[Alexadamz]

Besides the housing mechanic, that is mostly not revelant and

I hope Ed Beach keeps things the way there are, at least for the duration of Civ VI. In Civ V tall was so incredibly powerful why bother going wide? You only get unhappier and increased tech costs.

I like how in Civ VI the wider you go the stronger you get. (unless you're Scotland) Going wide has its dangers, but you should be rewarded if you are able to build an empire with 10+ cities and keep them.

I guess Civ V tried to balance the wide play differently than Civ IV had done, but the result was worse. More cities meaning more unhappiness does not feel right, but more citizens meaning more unhappiness was good. But more cities needing more gold for maintenance was something good. So, maybe the balance could be in the between: wide play would be more expensive than tall play, but easier to manage happiness issues - as you could have more ECs or WPs for Ammenities after the Luxuries wasn't enough anymore. Tall play would be cheaper, but more difficult to manage Ammenities, as fewer cities would mean less Luxuries available and less spots for ECs and WPs; but Tall play would mean more citizens as specialists, and those yields needed to be higher to compesate less places do Campuses and other districts. But I think the devs don't want to go that way and just make wide play the pattern for Civ VI.

Besides, I think Loyalty mechanic could be changed in someway. The farther a city is from your capital the less loyalty it should get. I think loyalty only linked to citizen numbers isn't how things work in real life or throughout history. Cities closer to the capital should get more loyalty, even if citizen's numbers still influenced loyaty in game.

 

[Leathaface]

I feel like tall being very powerful in Civ V definitely made Ed Beach nerf it a lot and made him encourage wide play.

 

[steveg700]

I hope Ed Beach keeps things the way there are, at least for the duration of Civ VI. In Civ V tall was so incredibly powerful why bother going wide? You only get unhappier and increased tech costs.

It sound like your reaction is similar to that of Firaxis: an anathema based on overreaction.

I like how in Civ VI the wider you go the stronger you get. (unless you're Scotland) Going wide has its dangers, but you should be rewarded if you are able to build an empire with 10+ cities and keep them.

Civ is supposed to be a game. Game's have meaningful choices, not just a script of things to iterate upon until you win. Going wide has no dangers, no trade-offs, nothing to make you think twice.

It's not a matter of whether or not you should be able to have 10+ cities. It's a matter of making some kind of calculated choice as to when and where is a good time to expand. Right now, any time is a good time.

 

[steveg700]

I am a Wide play player. I hate playing Tall. So I love that civ6 rewards Wide play. But I disagree with you that going wide has its dangers in civ6. Right now, I really don't see what dangers the game has for going wide. A lack of amenities could be one but the danger is minimal since it is so easy to get amenities. I've had games where I have gone wide and half my cities were "displeased". You would think that when half your empire is unhappy that would feel some hurt but no, my cities just suffer a mild penalty to growth and yields, barely noticeable. So there really is no danger from going to wide at all as far as I can tell.

Seems to me that an unhappy city should be more vulnerable in every way. More vulnerable to loyalty pressure, more vulnerable to attack, more vulnerable to espionage.

Also, some effects should be tied to city size, such as how far regional effects spread from IZ's and EC's. Maybe even some kind of cap on building wonders.

 

[AtlantisAuthor]

I personally would welcome more expansions (and even standalone Civ packs, though the former tends to offer much more value per $). I've come to accept the fact that Firaxis seems determined to explore new and different leaders (even though some appear to be reaches intended to satisfy a particular leader agenda, theme, or even gender quota as some fans have suggested) as opposed to the iconic familiar faces of Civs past (examples: Napoleon, Bismarck, Nobunaga), but I hold out hope that we may yet see some/all of those added to Civ VI at some point. Somehow France just doesn't seem the same without Napoleon, and the same can be said for how other factions in Civ VI feel.

Indeed, when you look at exactly who was omitted/changed from previous iterations for Civilization VI thus far, it suggests a possible future expansion with a heavy militaristic theme: Napoleon, Julius/Augustus Caesar, Nebuchadnezzar, Bismarck, Nobunaga, Attila, Washington/Lincoln, Boudicca, Wu Zetian, Harald Bluetooth, and Elizabeth, for starters. Others who would bring added personality and play styles to the table would be Hiawatha, Sejong, Pacal, Kamehameha, Ramkhamhaeng, Askia, Pocatello, and Enrico Dandolo.

Some may claim there would be too much "overlap" in bringing some of these back, but where I'm concerned, the more the merrier. A lot of Civs have/did change drastically and had very different leaders with wildly varying priorities and agendas over the course of their existence, and these would also offer the chance to add additional unique zones, buildings, military units, and so on. Just my personal thoughts, anyway, but we'll see what the future holds.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Civ is supposed to be a game. Game's have meaningful choices, not just a script of things to iterate upon until you win. Going wide has no dangers, no trade-offs, nothing to make you think twice.

It's not a matter of whether or not you should be able to have 10+ cities. It's a matter of making some kind of calculated choice as to when and where is a good time to expand. Right now, any time is a good time.

Not really, it all depends on available space, available troops to defend your city, loyalty, population and whether or not you should spend your production on something else. Expanding has a cost, and if you just spam settler after settler you'll just end up funding your neighbours' expansion instead.

 

[nicki_boy777]

I am convinced they are at least planning another expansion following this week's livestream.

Ed said on a number of occasions while discussing World Congress that in this iteration of the system they would like to keep it clean with little rule sets so people can see how this plays. However, they will likely change or add things such as diplo attitude changes depending on your votes and resolutions in WC later on.

They hinted few times already saying "not yet" for this or that. Surely they must at least be planning there will be further changes down the line?

 

[WillowBrook]

They hinted few times already saying "not yet" for this or that. Surely they must at least be planning there will be further changes down the line?

Further changes, yes. But whether in the form of a patch or an expansion we can't say. There certainly have been hints of a third expansion, but it's possible that would only get the green light if GS sells well (or other unknown market factors).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, I took it to mean that they wanted to see how the mechanic shook out "out in the wild" before making it more complicated. Not that this rules out an expansion but I took it to mean the big balance/change patch that always comes out a few months after a release.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Managing Amenities isn't that hard if you plan your Entertainment Complexes. I use pins to determine where I place them down and build my cities around them (Usually you'll want 1 EC for every 3-4 cities you have) Once you unlock Water Parks, Amenities are not a problem, at all, in any situation.

Agreed. I think a lot of players few the entertainment complexes as a waste though. I certainly used to.

 

[Ondolindë]

I think the defining variable that will solidify the chance of a 3rd expansion is how well Gathering Storm does financially, to be honest, and if they think they have enough content and Civs worth putting in it. 2K, especially, will not do it out of the goodness of its heart. That much we know. Firaxis and 2K have never done a third expansion to any of the previous Civ games. I ask myself why would they start now? New strategy or trend, probably. Who knows. But I believe they are committed to releasing patches after the February 14th, just as they did for Rise and Fall. But this is to correct, tweak and add some needed changes that they will see after fans comment on how GS performs. So changes to the World Congress and others might come in those patches and not necessarily in a third expansion. But if for some new marketing and sales strategy or trend, they are waiting for numbers on how well GS is doing, then work on a third expansion, in the best of cases, won't start until March or April with its release a year later.

Also even after GS is released, it is customary for Firaxis and 2K to not comment on such things as expansions in my experience, especially a third one. We all know they are pretty secretive and even if they have thought about a third expansion, they would be extra careful because it would be a huge welcomed surprise on the majority of the fanbase, I would think. So it should be a pretty tight ship, unless leaks happen again.

Now, if they for some reason planned a third expansion ahead, I don't know, because they did their numbers with vanilla and R&F, and that warrants it trusting GS will do well or regardless even, then they are already working on it, which is exciting to think about. But given the franchise history, the odds are against it, I am sad to say.

Finally, it seems to me, now, that Civ VI has been successful enough or maybe more than enough to warrant Civ VII, which should be in the works, I would think, which again is exciting to think about, but we would not know or see that until around 2022. For now, let's just concentrate on Gathering Storm, something we do know about coming February 14th, 2019, in 27 days, but who is counting?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Maybe the way to an "expansion" is a set of (really big and different) scenarios with some updates/changes that also apply to the base game. I'm still not seeing an expansion-full of new features I'd want over GS