How many civ/leader DLC do we think we will get by the end of Civ 7?

[Xefjord]

I know before it was common to have like 2 expansions and couple Civs/leaders, but it seemed like Civ 6 was taking the first steps to changing that and having an almost more Paradox style model. Do you all expect Civ 7 will have a lot more leader and civ DLCs than Civ 6? Or do you think they will go for about the same? Would people here want 10+ civ DLCs by the end of it's run? Or would they prefer the older model of a couple big expansions then moving on?

 

[Xefjord]

I am a little wary of some expansions introducing feature bloat. I felt that was the biggest problem of Civ 6, but I also think that the devs are aware of how problematic that was which is why they have cut down on micromanagement so much. Actually my favorite DLCs were Civs and that's what I want the most in this game. So long as they are reasonably spaced out/priced, I would be happy to pay for 10+ Civ DLCs. Since I am very hungry for more civs in general.

 

[pokiehl]

I'm all for more content, but I think they're going to find themselves in a tough spot for the time being in regards to DLC reception (at least, among vocal online critics). There's a point to be made about the poor state of the UI and sorely needed QOL features or customization options. I think that can be tempered if the DLC releases are accompanied by free patches that address some of the bigger issues.

 

[Krikkit1]

I’m not sure how many “packages” they will be in, but I would say
50-80 more civs (after the current 39 planned)

(agreed it will work better with continued UI / balance updates)

Hopefully Mechanics changes* (aside from free bug/balance/UI updates) would only be in one or two major expansions

*4th Age, Great Works of Art, etc.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Yeah there will be a lot of patches I assume

 

[Ryansinbela]

I’m not sure how many “packages” they will be in, but I would say
50-80 more civs (after the current 39 planned)

I just hope this doesn’t make the file size too big

 

[UWHabs]

I'm all for more content, but I think they're going to find themselves in a tough spot for the time being in regards to DLC reception (at least, among vocal online critics). There's a point to be made about the poor state of the UI and sorely needed QOL features or customization options. I think that can be tempered if the DLC releases are accompanied by free patches that address some of the bigger issues.

The initial roadmap does seem to include an amount of free patches/content along with the paid DLC release timeline. So seems like they're already trying to get ahead of things.

But the question is more about what the plan will be in the 6-10 year lifespan of the game, I can't imagine they don't put out a major expansion that has some more major gameplay changes, something enough that they can charge 50-60 for, rather than the 20-30 that the smaller DLC packs sell for.

 

[Dreadnought]

We will have a better guess after this year or so to see if the reception to the game has improved enough for them to be making grandiose DLC plans

 

[RedCourtJester]

I suspect they are going to lump some DLC civs/leaders into proper "expansions," particularly those which add any rumored new eras. And those might get a few more civs than the standard four we seem to be seeing in DLC packs.

This would make sense both as a matter of breaking up monotony/disengagement with some "expansion hype," as well as a matter of not totally alienating traditional player sensibilities of fair content releases.

But I could be wrong. It might be 4-5 civ DLC packs all the way down. Regardless, as long as players are still playing the game, I think the devs could keep churning out a lot of civs.

 

[Pedro P]

If it doesn't sink, and exists for as much time as Civ 6 did?
100+ civs.

A lot of real newcomers, like we are already seeing (like Bulgaria, which was among the ones I was betting).
A lot of civs have been divided into multiple ones for the first time, I am sure we will see more additions to China and India, we will see three Japans, probably two or three Koreas, more than one Persia for sure, ancient and modern egypt, and a real boom of Arab civs. England was left out but will probably show up more than once. Italy only ever had Venice, now they will probably get Italy in Modern and more than one civ in Discovery.
A lot of civs that were previously never considered or cut out because of overlap now can be both added easily if they are in different periods of time.

In fact, there is kind of a pressure now to add civilizations of similar locations. In Civ 6 if Aksum got in you wouldn't expect Ethiopia, in Civ 7 you do expect it. Same as Inca players are expecting a modern and ancient andean civ.

So it would be really odd to me if they didn't easily beat Civ 6's number by a huge margin, they can get more civilizations and the compacted civilizations in previous Civs have been spread out.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Not sure about leaders but I feel like there could be a lot as well (not sure if it will beat 6 tho)

 

[Xandinho]

I think they are digging deep into the selection of civs, so I expect no fewer than 90 civs by the time this game is complete. If there is indeed an Atomic Age with new civs, I’d bet on a final list well over 100. We can expect more unexpected additions like Nepal, Bulgaria, and Iceland, along with the classic veterans, making the roster truly extensive.

 

[notNamed]

The rate of civ release in the expansion passes is set (2 civs + 1 leader/3 months), extrapolate by the number of years you expect the live service to be running in active development and you have a reliable lower bound. It is a lot.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think they are digging deep into the selection of civs, so I expect no fewer than 90 civs by the time this game is complete. If there is indeed an Atomic Age with new civs, I’d bet on a final list well over 100. We can expect more unexpected additions like Nepal, Bulgaria, and Iceland, along with the classic veterans, making the roster truly extensive.

I'm betting the Atomic age does not have new civs in the traditional sense, but something more like a build-your-own civ. But even still, I think between civs which are suggested/begged for, or likely to return, or otherwise would be solid connective tissue, the game will comfortably exceed 80 civs and likely approach or even exceed 100 civs. Just with the first two DLCs and the dataleaked civs, we will be at 43-44. And if we assume, at minimum, that every prior civ returns (I mean, why not? It has been saving them creative burden so far), then adding Franks/HRE, Austria-Hungary, Portugal, England, Scotland, Gaul, Denmark, Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Venice, Byzantium, Georgia, Morocco, Ethiopia, Nubia, Babylon, Zulu, Scythia, Australia, Canada, Cree/Metis, Mapuche/Guarani, Gran Colombia, Aztecs, Brazil brings us to 68-69 (I excluded Kongo for not linking well to other civs but they could come too). Add in a bunch of candidates which are suggested by what already exists in-game (Wagadu, Ashanti/Hausa, Swahili, Philippines, Edo/Kamakura Japan, Joseon, at least one more Japan/Korea civ, Taino/Arawak, Haiti/Cuba, Burma, Mamluks, Sasanids/Timurids/Seljuks, Halstatt/Gaul, Teutons, Kievan Rus'/Muscovy, maybe Nabataea or Greenland/Inuit or Gutes or Noongar, etc. etc. etc.)...the roster kind of has the potential to balloon. Especially if, as in previous Civ installments, they gradually add mechanics to increase the design space of new civs.