New Expansion Speculation Thread

[Inhalaattori]

If that list actually would be true we would still have a huge list of Civs we had in previous Civs that are not in Civ VI. As far as Civs go we still have a ton of potential Civs.

Ethiopia
Byzantium
Portugal
Mayans
Sweden
Carthage
Babylon
Celts
Austria
Assyria
Morocco
Siam
Songhai
Iroquois
Denmark
Huns
Shoshone
Venice
Hittites

Very unlikely to return for various reasons:
Polynesia (with Maori in game would be very unlikely)
Holy Roman Empire (we already have Barbarossa as German leader)
Native Americans (We already have separate Native American Civ Cree in the game)

 

[returnofbabylon]

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.

I had almost the same list for a possible 3rd expansion the other day, though I think I had a new African civ for Ethiopia and Berbers for Carthage just because that seems a little *too* heavy on the classics. But if they're trying to make the most money the best idea would probably be to do a 2nd expansion, then a classic civs pack (for people that have played previous versions of civ) and something like a modern nations pack (for people that want to play as their country). I'm still thinking the most likely scenario is the leak is fake, and the actual 2nd expansion includes more old favorites.

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.

All fair points. I can only guess at their intentions, but based on some of the past patters (e.g. going Sioux-Iroquois-Native Americans in 2-4, the way they seemingly alternated between Austria and Holy Roman Empire in 3-5), I would bet that Scotland is getting the Celts' "slot" in VI, and then future versions of Civ will go with Ireland/Gaul/etc and rotate around. They're obviously a terrible replacement from a historical perspective, but I doubt FXS is thinking about it like that. I could be wrong though.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If that list actually would be true we would still have a huge list of Civs we had in previous Civs that are not in Civ VI. As far as Civs go we still have a ton of potential Civs.

Ethiopia
Byzantium
Portugal
Mayans
Sweden
Carthage
Babylon
Celts
Austria
Assyria
Morocco
Siam
Songhai
Iroquois
Denmark
Huns
Shoshone
Venice
Hittites

Very unlikely to return for various reasons:
Polynesia (with Maori in game would be very unlikely)
Holy Roman Empire (we already have Barbarossa as German leader)
Native Americans (We already have separate Native American Civ Cree in the game)

Some of them I don't see happening, though I could be wrong:
Celts replaced by Scotland (that is what I think but there are valid arguments against it)
Songhai replaced by Mali (I definitely wouldn't mind personally)
Denmark replaced by Norway (due to Viking similarities)
Huns replaced by Scythia (thank goodness)
Siam replaced by Khmer and or Burma (another SEA civ would mean Siam might not return)
Hittites have been overlooked and Ottomans/Byzantium or Babylon/Sumeria/Assyria would cover those locations already.
Shoshone (they were a last minute replacement so I don't expect them back, but there are plenty of good options for more Native American civs)
Venice replaced by Italy (I can dream)

 

[CivLuvah]

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.

You forgot the Ottomans.

Also has anyone have a picture of that blond queen?

 

[WillowBrook]

You forgot the Ottomans.

Also has anyone have a picture of that blond queen?

Ottomans are in second expansion if leak is correct.

For the queen:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-expansion-speculation-thread.637912/page-4#post-15255321

There's also a pic somewhere where she has a background that might be Poitiers, which would fit if she's supposed to be Eleanor of Aquitaine.

 

[PhilBowles]

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).

They produce expansions that revamp the mechanics after every second expansion. They stick a number on them and call them sequels.

When you're getting to the point where you've added all the extra features you want and revisit the core game you may as well just call it Civillization 7. Adding something like a focus on industrialism and internal economy isn't a world away from 'adding a district system to Civ V' - which is pretty much the base Civ VI started from.

 

[CivLuvah]

Ottomans are in second expansion if leak is correct.

For the queen:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-expansion-speculation-thread.637912/page-4#post-15255321

There's also a pic somewhere where she has a background that might be Poitiers, which would fit if she's supposed to be Eleanor of Aquitaine.

I am trying so hard to pretend that it's Lucrezia Borgia... but it's not

 

[PhilBowles]

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.

I'm not going by history in the game for those civs, but by regional importance in reality. Ethiopia is the oldest nation in Africa, and was a major ancient-world power (Axum) - I've always considered it should have precedence over any other African civ (Zulu get an exception for being in the first game). Ditto the Maya, the longest-lasting and arguably most influential of the Mesoamerican civs. The Inca and Aztecs were both short-lived (the Aztecs particularly) and mostly derivative of directly preceding cultures as a result. Byzantium, similarly, was a longstanding and significant part of European history.

Portugal and Carthage, indeed, both qualify and Portugal in particular would be a strange omission - but Europe is not precisely underrepresented in Civ,

I've never liked the Celts, and since Firaxis has moved away from conglomerate civs or civs defined by artifact cultures for the most part (other than the Scythians) in favour of individual nations we may have seen the last of them. No, as others like to point out, Scotland is deliberately non-Celtic in its Civ VI portrayal - but my sense is that the Celts lasted in the series as long as they did out of a desire to provide geographical representation for British 'Celtic' audiences and the portion of America that identifies with Scotland and Ireland. They weren't there to represent the significance of the Celtic artifact culture. Since Scotland is now covered geographically, there's no need for an artificial Celtic civ.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

They produce expansions that revamp the mechanics after every second expansion. They stick a number on them and call them sequels.

When you're getting to the point where you've added all the extra features you want and revisit the core game you may as well just call it Civillization 7. Adding something like a focus on industrialism and internal economy isn't a world away from 'adding a district system to Civ V' - which is pretty much the base Civ VI started from.

Yeah, that's what it really boils down to.

Districts and policy cards are the two major innovations of Civ 6. Everything else works basically the same way it did in Civ 5, with a few minor adjustments.

If Firaxis has more ideas that would change the game on that kind of fundamental level, then they'll probably begin work on a full sequel.

But if their ideas are instead mechanics that could just as easily be implemented in the existing game, then they may break with tradition and produce additional expansion sets instead.

 

[Giskler]

Yeah, that's what it really boils down to.

Districts and policy cards are the two major innovations of Civ 6. Everything else works basically the same way it did in Civ 5, with a few minor adjustments.

If Firaxis has more ideas that would change the game on that kind of fundamental level, then they'll probably begin work on a full sequel.

But if their ideas are instead mechanics that could just as easily be implemented in the existing game, then they may break with tradition and produce additional expansion sets instead.

Don't forget eurekas and inspirations, not to mention separating the cultural advancements into their own tech tree.

 

[JFD]

Also Theological Combat. The Great Person system as well somewhat - unit abilities per Great Person (not a radical step from V's Great People abilities I suppose), but more so that its an international-competitive system (about which I'm split between liking and disliking ). Let's not forget Suzerain bonuses also - though therein distinct bonuses for each City-States is also not a radical step from what already existed.

I think Civ VI had a lot of creative new ideas - more than Districts and Policy Cards. Too many, in fact, imo - at least, with the development time it seems to have gotten. Too many of the ideas aren't fleshed out, or are poorly explained in-game, or lack refinement to make them immersive and cohesive with the game as a whole. It's made me appreciate Civ V starting out with less features - at least such a state allowed what features Civ V expansions added to slot into the cohesive whole more smoothly. Taking a step back, and Civ VI is a mess of disparate mechanics that, for me at least, cycle between board-gamey and world-building, that clash with other mechanics or that don't explain themselves well enough to feel like they fit in with a coherent base. There are some neat ideas but they just don't blend together for me, and I fear that new expansions are only going to exacerbate this - no developer is going to be able to sell a cohesive re-think of what's existing over shiny new mechanics

Fortunately, as a modder, I can work to alleviate this, so it's not something I have a problem with per se - it's just something I observe as a difference between the innovations of V and VI (and what leads me to still prefer V).

 

[mitsho]

Yeah, for the next game I hope that they start development in the renaissance or even better industrial era and only then go back to the ancient one. That way we might not see a sudden drop of complexity whenever their development time runs out...

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Just a kindly reminder Firaxis on Civ VI development.
We felt that the three years of post-launch support we provided after Civilization V launched were very successful. So we definitely are looking at that time period as our model for how to continue to improve, expand, and refine Civilization VI. With that in mind, a number of things that we were able to add to Civilization V will be strongly considered for inclusion again this time.
Source: https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-vi/civ-6-expansion-ed-beach-interview
PS. Fun fact. Ed Beach hinted Rise and Fall expansion theme in this interview.

 

[Giskler]

Btw, I just found out that if you go dig out artifacts in the lands of someone you are allied with, they don't get angry with you. Took me 2 years to figure that out...

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Don't forget eurekas and inspirations, not to mention separating the cultural advancements into their own tech tree.

Also Theological Combat. The Great Person system as well somewhat - unit abilities per Great Person (not a radical step from V's Great People abilities I suppose), but more so that its an international-competitive system (about which I'm split between liking and disliking ). Let's not forget Suzerain bonuses also - though therein distinct bonuses for each City-States is also not a radical step from what already existed.

I don't mean to say that Civ 5 didn't have other fun gameplay innovations outside of districts and policy cards. I was just pointing out that those two mechanics are the only two that couldn't have just as easily been implemented in a Civ 5 expansion set.

While all the mechanics you mentioned have a big effect on gameplay, they aren't hugely different from Civ 5 in terms of programming. They're all systems that already existed, but with a little extra flourish to increase the ways players can interact with them.

I know that the distinction is ambiguous and probably just comes down to perception, but that's how I see it.

 

[Proclo]

Also Theological Combat. The Great Person system as well somewhat - unit abilities per Great Person (not a radical step from V's Great People abilities I suppose), but more so that its an international-competitive system (about which I'm split between liking and disliking ). Let's not forget Suzerain bonuses also - though therein distinct bonuses for each City-States is also not a radical step from what already existed.

I think Civ VI had a lot of creative new ideas - more than Districts and Policy Cards. Too many, in fact, imo - at least, with the development time it seems to have gotten. Too many of the ideas aren't fleshed out, or are poorly explained in-game, or lack refinement to make them immersive and cohesive with the game as a whole. It's made me appreciate Civ V starting out with less features - at least such a state allowed what features Civ V expansions added to slot into the cohesive whole more smoothly. Taking a step back, and Civ VI is a mess of disparate mechanics that, for me at least, cycle between board-gamey and world-building, that clash with other mechanics or that don't explain themselves well enough to feel like they fit in with a coherent base. There are some neat ideas but they just don't blend together for me, and I fear that new expansions are only going to exacerbate this - no developer is going to be able to sell a cohesive re-think of what's existing over shiny new mechanics

Fortunately, as a modder, I can work to alleviate this, so it's not something I have a problem with per se - it's just something I observe as a difference between the innovations of V and VI (and what leads me to still prefer V).

Any clue on when should we expect your next RwF's type of alleviation?

 

[blackcatatonic]

Just a kindly reminder Firaxis on Civ VI development.
We felt that the three years of post-launch support we provided after Civilization V launched were very successful. So we definitely are looking at that time period as our model for how to continue to improve, expand, and refine Civilization VI. With that in mind, a number of things that we were able to add to Civilization V will be strongly considered for inclusion again this time.
Source: https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-vi/civ-6-expansion-ed-beach-interview
PS. Fun fact. Ed Beach hinted Rise and Fall expansion theme in this interview.

Which would appear to suggest we won't be getting a third expansion, unless they have changed their minds since then.

I can't say I would mind a third expansion (particularly if the leaked Civ list is accurate, as there would be so many of what I consider to be unacceptable omissions). Coming up with Civs with which to populate expansions is the easy part, however. Unless Expansion 2 is quite feature-light, it's really difficult to think of what else they could add in Expansion 3 from a gameplay perspective without creating a really unwieldy and feature-bloated game.

Of course they could always just release more Civs as DLC packs, as many of us were expecting they might after R&F, but considering they didn't, that doesn't seem too likely now as they would have to figure out how to make any new Civs work with all the different versions of the game that would be in existence after the release of Expansion 2.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Another question worth considering, if there isn't a third expansion, then will there be another Beyond Earth-style spin-off game in the gap before Civ 7? Beyond Earth 2? Civ High Fantasy? Civ Post-Apocalypse?

 

[Naktis]

Another question worth considering, if there isn't a third expansion, then will there be another Beyond Earth-style spin-off game in the gap before Civ 7? Beyond Earth 2? Civ High Fantasy? Civ Post-Apocalypse?

I doubt we get beyond earth 2 , considering first one wasnt that popular , BUT "Civ high Fantasy" type with elves , gnomes , dark elves, demons , undead and so many more , could be very interesting idea , it could be simmilar to endless legend , but that game is old too , and a bit different.
And for Civ 7 I would bet is 2021-22 gap should since 5-6 years gap most of the time between civ games. 2021 I would say earliest , so still 3 years and in that gap I think 2 expanssions are must. Unless they are very unhappy with Civ6 and sales are bad , then thats another topic.

 

[legalizefreedom]

Another question worth considering, if there isn't a third expansion, then will there be another Beyond Earth-style spin-off game in the gap before Civ 7? Beyond Earth 2? Civ High Fantasy? Civ Post-Apocalypse?

I believe so and I believe it will be fantasy themed. They were too scared to even finish BE. Rather than fixing what is broken, it's usually the case they just release something new.

I wish for BE2, but I would much rather they finish the one I already like. Sadly doubtful at this point.