New Expansion Speculation Thread

[PhilBowles]

Someone on reddit claiming to be a Hungarian translator is saying that the Vesuvius Leaders are as follows: Mansa Musa, Arpad, Simon Bolivar, Atahualpa, Tāwhiao, Roxelana, Arawrahta, Midgegooroo, Eleanor.

If true then the new Civilizations would breakdown like this:

Mali - Mansa Musa
Hungary - Arpad
Colombia - Simon Bolivar
Inca - Atahualpa
Maori - Tāwhiao
Ottomans -Roxelana
Burma - Anawrahta
Noongar - Midgegooroo
England or France - Eleanor

Do the Noongar have the typical Aboriginal taboo on images of dead people? If so I'm not sure how they'd have an Aboriginal civ; they've scrapped civs before due to objections from the culture being portrayed, and as they contact members of those communities for help with the music etc. I think the Noongar would have had an opportunity to object.

We've also been told that Firaxis pays attention to TSL maps in civ selection these days, and two Australasian civs on top of the one we have - one of which would be confined to a landmass without enough tiles for a single city - would be hard to work unless they produce a much larger TSL map option. Hungary of course also doesn't work well with TSL, but that would be an issue with any European civ and it didn't stop them adding Scotland, perhaps the worst-placed of any European civs.

Overall these are reasonable selections but I still have a hard time imagining that Civ VI will be 'complete' without Babylon, the last of the Big Twelve from Civ I - just as Civ V wasn't without the Zulu. That and Byzantium would seem to be the only glaring omissions from the roster, though - yes, the Maya and Ethiopia should be there, but I'm not sure either is quite a staple. The civs that don't belong in my view - an Aboriginal civ, the Maori, and a civ led by Bolivar - are popular fan requests, which renders them plausible.

 

[CivLuvah]

So there you go. There will be a new thread whenever the expansion is announced, so check back occasionally, but don't let the monumental thread that has accumulated here distract you from real life responsibilities.

This is why I love these forums. Really appreciate this

Overall these are reasonable selections but I still have a hard time imagining that Civ VI will be 'complete' without Babylon, the last of the Big Twelve from Civ I - just as Civ V wasn't without the Zulu. That and Byzantium would seem to be the only glaring omissions from the roster, though - yes, the Maya and Ethiopia should be there, but I'm not sure either is quite a staple.

It seems that we're all haggling civs for slots for the next expansion. Assuming that the next one is the last one - which I hope it won't be, because I would want Civ6 to break from that "tradition" of two expansions per game. Alternatively individual DLCs would be fine as well, so long as they don't come with new mechanics.

 

[Haig]

Here is what Anton Strenger, the designer of Rise and Fall expansion said about how they choose leaders (I took this from the R&F announcement https://civilization.com/news/entries/announcing-civilization-vi-rise-and-fall/ )

People often ask how we select new leaders and civilizations to include in expansions – and we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations which will be revealed over the coming weeks with Civilization: Rise and Fall. Well, it is a collaborative process that involves the whole team from art and design to production and even our legal department. We also ask ourselves some core questions as we select potential leaders:

• “Is this region of the world represented?”
• “Is this time in history represented?”
• “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”

We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems.

As for balancing and trying to minimize power creep among those new leaders, we take a holistic look at the state of the game and how our leaders, new and old, stack up in it. Our QA department regularly gives us their evaluations of who is on top and who is on bottom, in their estimations of strength. We look at fan evaluations and rankings in this process, as well. We are not afraid to go back to leaders we have already finalized and rework their bonus entirely – so keep telling us what you think about leaders. We are always listening.

 

[Zaarin]

I like Tomyris the most

I got biased against her because she appeared in I think it was my first six games, had the Ideologue agenda in all of them, and hated me in all of them. Also that annoying "hmph" that is her response to everything even if she likes you. She is probably the prettiest leader, though.

 

[acluewithout]

Here is what Anton Strenger, the designer of Rise and Fall expansion said about how they choose leaders (I took this from the R&F announcement https://civilization.com/news/entries/announcing-civilization-vi-rise-and-fall/ )

People often ask how we select new leaders and civilizations to include in expansions – and we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations which will be revealed over the coming weeks with Civilization: Rise and Fall. Well, it is a collaborative process that involves the whole team from art and design to production and even our legal department. We also ask ourselves some core questions as we select potential leaders:

• “Is this region of the world represented?”
• “Is this time in history represented?”
• “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”

We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems.

As for balancing and trying to minimize power creep among those new leaders, we take a holistic look at the state of the game and how our leaders, new and old, stack up in it. Our QA department regularly gives us their evaluations of who is on top and who is on bottom, in their estimations of strength. We look at fan evaluations and rankings in this process, as well. We are not afraid to go back to leaders we have already finalized and rework their bonus entirely – so keep telling us what you think about leaders. We are always listening.

For what it’s worth, I think the people at FXS do really love this game and the community and are trying really hard. And, gripes aside, I think they do make a lot of good calls and get a lot of things right.

 

[Zdarg]

I got biased against her because she appeared in I think it was my first six games, had the Ideologue agenda in all of them, and hated me in all of them. Also that annoying "hmph" that is her response to everything even if she likes you. She is probably the prettiest leader, though.

I'd say she is exactly like Baba Yaga in old Soviet childish filmes.
Expecially on lessened image.

 

[Xur]

For what it’s worth, I think the people at FXS do really love this game and the community and are trying are trying really hard. And, gripes aside, I think they do make a lot of good calls and get a lot of things right.

If civ6 was a car, then yes... it drives. It used to be a good fun ride with quality under the hood. Civ4 would be a VW Beetle, civ5 a Toyota Corolla and civ6 would be Fiat Multipla. There's no accounting for taste...

 

[Kimiimaro]

I'd say she is exactly like Baba Yaga in old Soviet childish filmes.
Expecially on lessened image.

You just reminded me Моpозко. I swear, this film is played every year around Christmas/New Year's Eve on TV here in the Czech Republic According to what I read, it's been so for more than 50 years.

 

[Gorbles]

If civ6 was a car, then yes... it drives. It used to be a good fun ride with quality under the hood. Civ4 would be a VW Beetle, civ5 a Toyota Corolla and civ6 would be Fiat Multipla. There's no accounting for taste...

Thankfully, Civilisation is a video game and not a car, which saves us all from tortured analogies

 

[Leathaface]

Thank God we can see the depots being updated, or else we wouldn't have a clue that there would be anything possibly coming out. Firaxis are totally silent.

 

[Potworny]

What do you guys think, how likely is it that they release more than two EPs this time around? I mean, I wouldn't mind the roster of civs expanding to more than seventy or the mechanics getting more complex than not ramming an airplane to the ground, but Firaxis seemed to refrain from this idea. Is there any unambiguous reason why are there always two major expansions to one Civ, and is there any reason for them to continue such a trend?

On a sidenote, I guess: LongBuffaloJump uses Spanish orthography when, well, laughing in private messages. Pretty peculiar for a Hungarian.

 

[PhilBowles]

It seems that we're all haggling civs for slots for the next expansion. Assuming that the next one is the last one - which I hope it won't be, because I would want Civ6 to break from that "tradition" of two expansions per game. Alternatively individual DLCs would be fine as well, so long as they don't come with new mechanics.

Expansions shouldn't exist mostly as a vehicle for new civs - DLCs are sufficient for that. The game's already hit the point where it's feature-bloated, and it certainly can't sustain a third expansion.

 

[bbbt]

Expansions shouldn't exist mostly as a vehicle for new civs - DLCs are sufficient for that. The game's already hit the point where it's feature-bloated, and it certainly can't sustain a third expansion.

I think they could sustain a third expansion if it was more a 'revamp mechanics' style (or even change mid-game) instead of yes here's some new features that are just bonuses to micromanage and don't amount to much change in the game (I'm not a big fan of the governors for example).

Let's say the second expansion comes out with the diplomatic victory/events/updated emergencies/etc.

For example a theoretical, third expansion could focus on industrialization/economy. Then instead of just 'here are corporations, another thing that gives bonuses and you micromanage' it could be things like: we've revamped production so it scales up more dramatically in the industrial era. In the industrial era (or across several techs) food moves from localized to a civ-wide pool and growth is based on economy. Make luxuries have to be 'distributed' by traders early game, and then mid game traders start to disappear as luxuries/fungible resources migrate to a commodities market that appears, etc. or something like. Make the game play change significantly come later eras instead of just the same thing the whole time.

Yes, that's probably a pipe dream - adding down a new 'feature layer' is probably easier than revamping your existing base mechanics, and for that matter Civ hasn't had much in the way of actual 'economics' in it's entire history.

 

[CivLuvah]

I think they could sustain a third expansion if it was more a 'revamp mechanics' style (or even change mid-game) instead of yes here's some new features that are just bonuses to micromanage and don't amount to much change in the game (I'm not a big fan of the governors for example).

Let's say the second expansion comes out with the diplomatic victory/events/updated emergencies/etc.

For example a theoretical, third expansion could focus on industrialization/economy. Then instead of just 'here are corporations, another thing that gives bonuses and you micromanage' it could be things like: we've revamped production so it scales up more dramatically in the industrial era. In the industrial era (or across several techs) food moves from localized to a civ-wide pool and growth is based on economy. Make luxuries have to be 'distributed' by traders early game, and then mid game traders start to disappear as luxuries/fungible resources migrate to a commodities market that appears, etc. or something like. Make the game play change significantly come later eras instead of just the same thing the whole time.

Yes, that's probably a pipe dream - adding down a new 'feature layer' is probably easier than revamping your existing base mechanics, and for that matter Civ hasn't had much in the way of actual 'economics' in it's entire history.

That's way better than introducing new features since it'll help with a new or returning player's learning curve *ahem*looking at you Paradox*ahem*

 

[returnofbabylon]

Overall these are reasonable selections but I still have a hard time imagining that Civ VI will be 'complete' without Babylon, the last of the Big Twelve from Civ I - just as Civ V wasn't without the Zulu. That and Byzantium would seem to be the only glaring omissions from the roster, though - yes, the Maya and Ethiopia should be there, but I'm not sure either is quite a staple.

From the standpoint of previous Civ games, Babylon is clearly the most glaring omission as one of the original civs (assuming the leaked list of civs is accurate). However, if Byzantium qualifies, several others would, too.

Carthage was introduced in Civ II and has been in every subsequent game prior to VI. The Celts also fulfill these criteria, though I think it's likely FXS has replaced them with Scotland in VI (which has happened to civs introduced in Civ II before, such as the Vikings and Sioux). North Africa remains wide open, by contrast.

Maya are just as much a staple as Byzantium, as both were introduced in III and haven't been omitted since. Portugal fits this description as well.

Collectively, the lack of these 5 civs (particularly one of the originals, a group they've never before left out or altered) makes me think that it's fairly likely that either the leak is fake, and the 2nd expansion will be more focused on classic civs than the list we've seen, or that there will be additional civs made available after the 2nd expansion in whatever form.

 

[acluewithout]

Expansions shouldn't exist mostly as a vehicle for new civs - DLCs are sufficient for that. The game's already hit the point where it's feature-bloated, and it certainly can't sustain a third expansion.

I think they could sustain a third expansion if it was more a 'revamp mechanics' style (or even change mid-game) instead of yes here's some new features that are just bonuses to micromanage and don't amount to much change in the game (I'm not a big fan of the governors for example).

Let's say the second expansion comes out with the diplomatic victory/events/updated emergencies/etc.

For example a theoretical, third expansion could focus on industrialization/economy. Then instead of just 'here are corporations, another thing that gives bonuses and you micromanage' it could be things like: we've revamped production so it scales up more dramatically in the industrial era. In the industrial era (or across several techs) food moves from localized to a civ-wide pool and growth is based on economy. Make luxuries have to be 'distributed' by traders early game, and then mid game traders start to disappear as luxuries/fungible resources migrate to a commodities market that appears, etc. or something like. Make the game play change significantly come later eras instead of just the same thing the whole time.

Yes, that's probably a pipe dream - adding down a new 'feature layer' is probably easier than revamping your existing base mechanics, and for that matter Civ hasn't had much in the way of actual 'economics' in it's entire history.

I’d very much like both a second and third expansion. But not because I want even more features. More, I’d like FXS to spend another 12+ months really getting the game right.

If they were going to give us two more expansions, or maybe one more expansion and some thematic dlc (Id prefer the later), I think that would only really work if we got less new stuff in the next expansion.

My dream would be to get another expansion which improves, expands and beds down Diplomacy, Ideologies, Governors, Government Plaza and GP buildings, Legacy Cards, Loyalty. Ideally, this would also revamp a few Civs (you all know who I’m going to say), and fixes some long standing issues (eg anti-cav). Even better, this would rework Religion and Tourism a little, but then replace Religious and Culture and Dom victories with a wider Diplomatic Victory, and then maybe keep the science victory but create a few different alternate one track / turtle victory conditions.

I’d then like some smaller thematic CV that expand very specific mechanics, introduce a plus sized scenario relating to those mechanics, and a few thematically appropriate Civs or leaders. Those would be: Colonialism / De-Colonialism, Industrial Revolution, War and Diplomacy, and Near Future Technilogy.

But yeah. Not going to happen. One more expansion and a map pack if we’re lucky...

From the standpoint of previous Civ games, Babylon is clearly the most glaring omission as one of the original civs (assuming the leaked list of civs is accurate). However, if Byzantium qualifies, several others would, too.

Carthage was introduced in Civ II and has been in every subsequent game prior to VI. The Celts also fulfill these criteria, though I think it's likely FXS has replaced them with Scotland in VI (which has happened to civs introduced in Civ II before, such as the Vikings and Sioux). North Africa remains wide open, by contrast.

Maya are just as much a staple as Byzantium, as both were introduced in III and haven't been omitted since. Portugal fits this description as well.

Collectively, the lack of these 5 civs (particularly one of the originals, a group they've never before left out or altered) makes me think that it's fairly likely that either the leak is fake, and the 2nd expansion will be more focused on classic civs than the list we've seen, or that there will be additional civs made available after the 2nd expansion in whatever form.

The game can’t have Spain without Portugal. I mean, at one point they divided the whole world between themselves!!

 

[Inhalaattori]

I agree that they should not add a lot of new features anymore. Instead they should enhance the systems that are already in the game. If they would actually make third expansion it could be more focused on scenarios, enhancing old systems and adding new content (Adding new civs, city states, governors, emergencies, great people, great works etc.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Collectively, the lack of these 5 civs (particularly one of the originals, a group they've never before left out or altered) makes me think that it's fairly likely that either the leak is fake, and the 2nd expansion will be more focused on classic civs than the list we've seen, or that there will be additional civs made available after the 2nd expansion in whatever form.

If we get those 5 you mentioned (Maya, Babylon, Byzantium, Portugal, Carthage) as well as Ethiopia, Italy and another NA Native Civ in a third expansion, I think a lot of people would be happy, if we go on the assumption that this leak is real as well.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I keep thinking of Ethiopia as a "recent" addition to the series, then I think about it a bit harder and realize what an old fart I am.

 

[Zaarin]

The Celts also fulfill these criteria, though I think it's likely FXS has replaced them with Scotland in VI

I'm not convinced of this. They could have emphasized (or more likely overemphasized) Scotland's Celtic heritage, but they didn't--Robert is dressed in typical Medieval clothing (as he should be), has absolutely zero blue paint on him (as he should), speaks (bad) Middle English (should be Norman, but it's still not Gaelic), and everything else is from post-Union Scotland. That doesn't mean they'll add Ireland or the Gauls or even Generic Tree-hugging Noble Savage Boudicca-led Celts, but I don't think they intended Scotland to be a Celt-replacement--or if they did, they did a horrible job of it.