New Expansion Speculation Thread

[Guandao]

Honestly I don't think we'll ever convince the game industry that teenage boys are not their primary target market.


Cleopatra. Civ5 Catherine. Civ5 Theodora. Civ5 Dido. Civ5 Boudicca in her barely-concealing pseudokilt. And I wouldn't say she was sexualized, but Civ5's Maria Theresa could also come across as flirty. Oh, and how about barely-clothed Cleopatra from CivRev? But speaking specifically of Civ6, aside from overplaying Cleopatra, they have done a better job of not oversexualizing the female leaders.

Wu Zetian originally had her cleavage exposed.

 

[johnlynch13957]

But speaking specifically of Civ6, aside from overplaying Cleopatra, they have done a better job of not oversexualizing the female leaders.

Does it really matter? So what if a female is portrayed the way they were in Civ V. If it is alright to make really masculine male leaders with ripped muscles in VI, why is it wrong to make the female leaders more feminine looking? It is a huge double standard.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Does it really matter? So what if a female is portrayed the way they were in Civ V. If it is alright to make really masculine male leaders with ripped muscles in VI, why is it wrong to make the female leaders more feminine looking? It is a huge double standard.

Not sure who the shirtless men are for. I've got better things to ogle.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Now that type of prediction won't get you a good reputation at all. "He said there was only a 33% chance of it happening, but it happened! He's clearly not very good at predictions."

I'm going to channel one of my idols Nate Silver for a moment.

33% doesn't mean that it won't happen. It could still happen. It's just as likely to happen that way as the other two possibilities.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm going to channel one of my idols Nate Silver for a moment.

33% doesn't mean that it won't happen. It could still happen. It's just as likely to happen that way as the other two possibilities.

Yeah, even my Pittsburgh Pirates have a shot next year.

 

[Stomper66]

why is it wrong to make the female leaders more feminine looking? It is a huge double standard.

Whoa did you just say that female leaders in Civ6 are not feminine looking!?

Cleopatra. Civ5 Catherine. Civ5 Theodora. Civ5 Dido. Civ5 Boudicca in her barely-concealing pseudokilt. And I wouldn't say she was sexualized, but Civ5's Maria Theresa could also come across as flirty. Oh, and how about barely-clothed Cleopatra from CivRev? But speaking specifically of Civ6, aside from overplaying Cleopatra, they have done a better job of not oversexualizing the female leaders.

I would agree that these leaders were sexualised but not Dido and to me Maria Theresa just acts like a 18th century socialite so I don't have an issue there. But I think that the female sexuality comes across in Civ5 more with how the leaders act and what they say rather than what they wear. But if the culture and fashion called for future Civ6 female leaders to wear less clothing (not too crazy) like a few of the male leaders do now do would you take offence to that? If people did then I can see it being a bit of a double standard. Just because women have been over sexualised in the past it does not make it right to then over sexualise men in games.

 

[Ma2ge]

And meanwhile ltest has been updated again.

 

[AmazonQueen]

View attachment 509041

Whoa did you just say that female leaders in Civ6 are not feminine looking!?



I would agree that these leaders were sexualised but not Dido and to me Maria Theresa just acts like a 18th century socialite so I don't have an issue there. But I think that the female sexuality comes across in Civ5 more with how the leaders act and what they say rather than what they wear. But if the culture and fashion called for future Civ6 female leaders to wear less clothing (not too crazy) like a few of the male leaders do now do would you take offence to that? If people did then I can see it being a bit of a double standard. Just because women have been over sexualised in the past it does not make it right to then over sexualise men in games.

Is making some male leaders shirtless oversexualising them? I don't swoon on seeing Gandhi or Mvemba.
The leaders in Civ VI are caricatures so they tend to exaggerate defining characteristics. In some cases they overdid it, in others it may not be a particularly accurate portrayal, but I don't think any of them could be considered sexually provocative.

 

[HoorayForSiam]

How did this become about sex appeal? Y’all must be thirsty. Anyways, concerning the new leaders, I’m more concerned with ability then clothing. Hopefully, they’ll integrate the new mechanics well. We need more distinct playstyles - I can’t tell them apart! That’s one thing I miss about V is the more radically different approaches to civ design rather than a few bonuses cobbled together…

 

[Zaarin]

Does it really matter? So what if a female is portrayed the way they were in Civ V. If it is alright to make really masculine male leaders with ripped muscles in VI, why is it wrong to make the female leaders more feminine looking? It is a huge double standard.

I don't recall saying objectifying the men was an improvement. Though really that's just Chanragupta. I don't think anyone's enamored with Gandhi's Gollum look.

That’s one thing I miss about V is the more radically different approaches to civ design rather than a few bonuses cobbled together…

Really? I feel like that's one thing that Civ6 has done much better than previous incarnations is making civs feel distinct. Unless you play as Venice (which I never did), Civ5's civs feel pretty much identical.

 

[Siptah]

Really? I feel like that's one thing that Civ6 has done much better than previous incarnations is making civs feel distinct. Unless you play as Venice (which I never did), Civ5's civs feel pretty much identical.

Really? I also feel that civ V's civs are more unique, and I like that. It's also why Arabia is my favorite civ design in civ VI, as it is rather special to play. I understand that making civs more open to different play styles is much easier to balance for multiplayer than the more unique designs of V. I don't think that's a reason for Firaxis though ;-).

 

[Morningcalm]

While many of Civ V's civs are one-trick ponies, I have to agree that too many Civ VI civs have bonuses that blend into each other. I do miss unique civs like Venice or Austria that had powerful game-changing abilities under certain circumstances. While Civ VI has deeper civ design than Civ V, Civ VI features too many +X, +Y for A type resource bonuses, or various war bonuses for declaring war in certain circumstances (Cyrus, Robert, Chandragupta)...

I think one possibility for a Civ game in the future is to have fewer civs but radically different playstyles for each, while still retaining flexibility to pursue multiple victory types. So maybe a base game that only came with 10 civs for example, but each playing very differently (ala Starcraft having 3 races vs. Age of Empires II's 13 or so--both games were great, but Starcraft was better at differentiating civs, which is why Age of Mythology essentially featured 3 major different civs with subcivs/leader types in a Starcraft-esque fashion as well, perhaps).

 

[Stomper66]

We need more distinct playstyles - I can’t tell them apart! That’s one thing I miss about V is the more radically different approaches to civ design rather than a few bonuses cobbled together…

Really? I feel like that's one thing that Civ6 has done much better than previous incarnations is making civs feel distinct. Unless you play as Venice (which I never did), Civ5's civs feel pretty much identical.

I recently had a winge on another thread that Civ5 was better than Civ6 at making Civs unique and started playing Civ5 a lot in a kind of protest. In retrospect I found Civ5 civs to be quite generic compared to civ6. In civ5 each civ has 1 or two units, 2 individual themes (not 10-20 like in Civ6) no unique city design and hardly any civs have a unique tile improvement. I found that the only 2 reasons why I had thought the Civ5 civs to be more unique was because I used the ethnic units mod (an awesome mod that re skins almost every unit for each civ) and because the civ5 leader screens do a better job in locating where the leaders are from. In Civ5 you would meet Ramesses II sat on a beautiful Egyptian design throne. In Civ6 every leader is infront of a black screen with a still image in the background thats kind of hard to make out.

 

[bbbt]

I recently had a winge on another thread that Civ5 was better than Civ6 at making Civs unique and started playing Civ5 a lot in a kind of protest. In retrospect I found Civ5 civs to be quite generic compared to civ6. In civ5 each civ has 1 or two units, 2 individual themes (not 10-20 like in Civ6) no unique city design and hardly any civs have a unique tile improvement. I found that the only 2 reasons why I had thought the Civ5 civs to be more unique was because I used the ethnic units mod (an awesome mod that re skins almost every unit for each civ) and because the civ5 leader screens do a better job in locating where the leaders are from. In Civ5 you would meet Ramesses II sat on a beautiful Egyptian design throne. In Civ6 every leader is infront of a black screen with a still image in the background thats kind of hard to make out.

I'd agree the Civs feel more unique to play AS in 6, courtesy of the increased number of uniques (i.e. leader and UA). Civ 5 has more outliers but if go back through look at them the majority of them are pretty much just generic stat bonuses or the like - everyone remembers Venice, not the Ottomans. Even comparing bland to bland - I find Rome in Civ 6 more 'engaging' with it's roads appearing and free monuments from the LUA than the generic +25% if already in the capital.

However, as you've noted, the different Civs felt a lot more unique to play AGAINST in 5 - both in terms of leader screen design, and also, in terms of the actually AI, which feels more samey (despite their 'agendas') in 6.

 

[Siptah]

I think one possibility for a Civ game in the future is to have fewer civs but radically different playstyles for each, while still retaining flexibility to pursue multiple victory types. So maybe a base game that only came with 10 civs for example, but each playing very differently (ala Starcraft having 3 races vs. Age of Empires II's 13 or so--both games were great, but Starcraft was better at differentiating civs, which is why Age of Mythology essentially featured 3 major different civs with subcivs/leader types in a Starcraft-esque fashion as well, perhaps).

Amen. I doubt that the main game will go into this direction. Hopefully, civ VI gets some kind of offspring like SMAC, BE or Col and Firaxis takes this approach for that game.

 

[Kimiimaro]

However, as you've noted, the different Civs felt a lot more unique to play AGAINST in 5 - both in terms of leader screen design, and also, in terms of the actually AI, which feels more samey (despite their 'agendas) in 6.

Amen to that.

 

[Matt Locke]

On a somewhat related topic (hopefully), anyone have any clue what the recent patch was for on Civ 6? All this speculation about an expansion and we got an unannounced patch about 4 hours ago. Whenever I see activity from Firaxis I get all excited something else might be coming down the pipeline soon!

 

[AvianBritish]

On a somewhat related topic (hopefully), anyone have any clue what the recent patch was for on Civ 6? All this speculation about an expansion and we got an unannounced patch about 4 hours ago. Whenever I see activity from Firaxis I get all excited something else might be coming down the pipeline soon!

What do you mean by an unannounced patch 4hrs ago? I don't see anything on my steam or on the SteamDB for "Public"

 

[Matt Locke]

Hmm. Just showed up in auto-updates. Under "downloads." Wasn't a community thing either. Only 43 MB. Prolly just me being an idiot.

 

[Hawke9]

I also have a 43 MB update, but mine is stated as steam workshop content.
I think it's an updated mod