New Expansion Speculation Thread

[ezzlar]

I think it´s a bit sad that so much focus is on what civs will be included and what leader will be chosen instead of focus on game mechanics and moddability.

Civs and leaders should be left to modders. Else we just get the inflated OP civs in the form of expansions or dlcs. Worse is if Firaxis gets the idea that we are happy as long as new civs are added, and thats it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

In a total vacuum, I'd like to see a "Greatest Hits" kind of leader list (and civ list for that matter). But they've been doing that for 25+ years . . . nothing wrong with mixing things up at this point. And given the total lack of gameplay difference in what the leader screen looks like, I just can't understand the amount of consternation about them. Maybe an arched eyebrow and offhand comment or two, but that should be about the extent of it.

 

[Stringer1313]

Hazards don't have to be a pure RNG. It can be based on certain things you do increasing the *risk* of a hazard. Like, the more int'l trade routes (or trade routes, period), the greater the likelihood of a plague. The more religions you have in your cities the greater likelihood of minor civil wars reducing population. These risks should increase based on successful things you do, so that the frontrunner faces a greater risk of these things happening. The more military units you have, the greater the risk of ... something. The more tourist points you have the greater the risk of works of art being stolen, or smtg

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Hazard you say.
Belgium Civilization confirmed

Spoiler :

 

[RagnorIronpants]

I think people keep missing the point with the female leaders. Firaxis are not being sloppy, lazy, or desperate to satisfying 'political correctness', but specifically including them because they held power without actually being formal leaders:

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.

The idea of having a representative of the Sultanate of Women is really cool, and in-keeping with these choices, which is why I think the list is either accurate or a hoax produced by someone who really thought it through.

Leaders who wielded power in unorthodox ways not only open up different mechanics and play styles but also prevent the boredom of just having a series of the usual 'Great' leaders. The leaderlists on Civ II or III may as well come from a Victorian history textbook. This franchise is a quarter of a century old, and although nostalgia is nice it obviously needs to keep refreshing its format. The valid criticism is not with this attempt to diversify the lists but that they're not implementing a significant number of alt-leaders that allow people to play nations with different playstyles or focused on different eras.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I think people keep missing the point with the female leaders. Firaxis are not being sloppy, lazy, or desperate to satisfying 'political correctness', but specifically including them because they held power without actually being formal leaders:



The idea of having a representative of the Sultanate of Women is really cool, and in-keeping with these choices, which is why I think the list is either accurate or a hoax produced by someone who really thought it through.

Leaders who wielded power in unorthodox ways not only open up different mechanics and play styles but also prevent the boredom of just having a series of the usual 'Great' leaders. The leaderlists on Civ II or III may as well come from a Victorian history textbook. This franchise is a quarter of a century old, and although nostalgia is nice it obviously needs to keep refreshing its format. The valid criticism is not with this attempt to diversify the lists but that they're not implementing a significant number of alt-leaders that allow people to play nations with different playstyles or focused on different eras.

Well said!

 

[AmazonQueen]

There is definitely a gender issue that males refuse to admit exists. Going away from video games for a moment: Hollywood has made hundreds of bad remakes, but the amount of hate for ones that feature an all-female cast (Ocean's, Ghostbusters) is on such another level that I frankly find it ridiculous that people are so quick to silence those who even allude to the term gender, as they argue it is solely about x, y or z and not gender.

It is the same here at CivFanatics. We complain about all sorts of leaders, males included, but not nearly to the level of when a female leader gets brought up. It's a video game for Christ's sake. Maybe if you were logging in 2,000 hours about research into the negative implications of historical representation in video games, then I might actually give two cents about how much you hate a leader for not being worthy

It isn't only males who are unhappy about some of the leader choices here.
Theres a difference between power and influence but there are plenty of good choices for female leaders who had power rather than picking women whose actual role is largely unknown (Gorgo) or those who may have had some influence on the person with the power (Eleanor, Roxelana).

 

[timmychompchomp]

I am happy with new civs in any form as long as they are well designed and offer intriguing play opportunities. The best practice when being creative for others is to give them something stimulating and enjoyable. I find fan service to be an easy trap to fall into. That does not mean you should go so far off the reservation as to alienate your fanbase.

In my experience, creative endeavors have played out best and led to greater success when we did not worry about what the fans thought and expected in terms of content but focused on why these people were fans in the first place. In Q and A or press events we would be continually asked questions about why this decision was made or what was the inspiration and when our goal was solely to please the devoted we fell flat and couldn’t answer those questions passionately which in turn caused greater fan consternation.

As fans we forget often to let the designers design and the players play. I think feedback is great once a product is released and listening to the fans and customers can make you a better creator.

The leaked list of leaders is intriguing to me and gets me excited because it feels more creative and therefore has a great potential for success.

I believe CIV 6 and its struggles winning over the fans completely has many reasons but the biggest is its similarities to CIV 5.

Even the presumed working title is striking and a departure from the more recent structure. Probably not its marketing title but it tells me they definitely have an idea as to what they are trying to achieve.

 

[Zaarin]

Looking forward to meltdowns of getting Roxelana from people who at the same time play happily with Theodora, Dido

Theodora was Empress of Byzantium, official co-ruler with Justinian. Dido, if she existed, was queen-regnant of Carthage. Roxelana was a foreign concubine.

I asked the leaking reddit user if Eleanor is an alt. leader for France or England. He replied saying it's France.

I'm now 200% this is fake then.

The funniest thing is definitely the posts quibbling over the choices of apparent female leaders, which pretty much zero (non-cultural) arguments over the validity of the dudes.

You mean aside from the numerous posts (rightfully) criticizing the choice of Atahualpa? Or perhaps the numerous posts in the past criticizing the selection of Gandhi, Gilgamesh, etc.? Criticisms of female rulers stand out because in Civ6 Firaxis seems to be making a habit of choosing token female leaders like Cleopatra, Victoria, and Catherine de Medici rather than legitimate female rulers like Hatshepsut or Elizabeth I or Isabella of Castile. (Not in all cases, of course: I'm a big fan of Seondeok and Tamar, for instance, even if I think their portrayals were somewhat disappointing.)

 

[bbbt]

Or "armchair general," perhaps.

That's true, that gets the sofa-esque aspect. Interesting - I've usually heard it as 'armchair quarterback' . I wonder how many Armchair XXXXXX there are out there.

 

[ferretbacon]

That's true, that gets the sofa-esque aspect. Interesting - I've usually heard it as 'armchair quarterback' . I wonder how many Armchair XXXXXX there are out there.

I've also heard "armchair philosopher." I think you can pretty much put anything you want to.

 

[DWilson]

I've heard couch warrior, usually in reference to people ranting at their TV's over some form of contest

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Pillow fight!

Maybe they'll battle the Ottomans.

 

[legalizefreedom]

Apologies if this has been discussed to death already (I am a bit late to the party) but I saw the leaked pics that the title for the new expansion is "Vesuvius". Does that imply that we will get natural disasters in civ6? I hope so. I think adding natural disasters to civ would be fantastic. But I want to see more diplomacy too in the next expansion.

It HAS been discussed to death. You ARE a bit late to the party. Vesuvius is just the codename, but yes it implies some form of natural disasters.

 

[JFD]

The Sofa Warrior the post refers to describes the sofa slave-soldier system that Mali employed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofa_(warrior)

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think the main thing that is needed is to make the late game relevant instead of being just a time where you wait to claim your victory. This in turn require the whole game be redesigned so that the game is not praticular over in the early or mid game. Furthermore it would be nice if the game actually rewarded long term buildup instead of just going all out on chopping while ignoring stuff such as farm or most buildings.

 

[anandus]

Isn't it a meme in English?
In modern Russian, sofa warrior (or divan warrior) means a person who fights for some idea in internet, but IRL just sits on his sofa and never does anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofa_(warrior):

Sofa is a Mandinka term for slave soldiers who served in the army of the Mali Empire.

Edit:
I see JFD had posted it as well.

 

[Guandao]

The more I think about it, the more worried I am that this leak is legit. If it is true, a third expansion seems likely.

Italy, Portugal, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Canada, Maya, Berbers/Morocco and another Native North American tribe would make a good list for expansion three to round off the title.

Take out Canada and I would be satisfied with the third expansion.

Well, we already have a civilization whose cities are called after very minor Russian villages.Not really cool.
I wonder what they can invent for Noongar cities...

Well, I'm sure Noongar placenames exist. If not, tribal names can be used. We have had the Huns with their city-name stealing, and the Shoshone/and Cree with tribal/reservation names.

Plenty of people complain about Gandhi and Gilgamesh, people complained about Barbarossa over Bismark too. This fixation based on gender alone does not exist, complains arise when female leaders are shoehorned like Catherine de Medici. No one complained about Tomyris, very few about Wilhelmina and pretty much no one about Victoria. People complain when obscure women get picked over more prominent and relevant men just to fill a quota.

I complained about Tomyris and her entire Civ......

 

[Gorbles]

You mean aside from the numerous posts (rightfully) criticizing the choice of Atahualpa? Or perhaps the numerous posts in the past criticizing the selection of Gandhi, Gilgamesh, etc.? Criticisms of female rulers stand out because in Civ6 Firaxis seems to be making a habit of choosing token female leaders like Cleopatra, Victoria, and Catherine de Medici rather than legitimate female rulers like Hatshepsut or Elizabeth I or Isabella of Castile. (Not in all cases, of course: I'm a big fan of Seondeok and Tamar, for instance, even if I think their portrayals were somewhat disappointing.)

I prefixed a lengthy previous post with the limits of the time I've read this place. Don't understand the need for an attempt at a gotcha. I'm commenting on what I've seen, primarily throughout the Civ 6 cycle (though there was an undertone in some of the BE discussions, though naturally less as they're completely fictional).

I'm not saying there isn't valid criticism to be made. I'm not saying in some weird objective way (which is kinda what I'm trying to illustrate the opposite of) the leaders are "perfect". I was commenting on something that amused me, and honestly, it still is. Here's some examples from your post:

1. Who decides what count as "token" female leaders? Are you absolutely sure that your reasoning is so ironclad that the subjective merits can't be argued by others?
2. What counts as "legitimate" in this context? As per my earlier, longer post, are you relying on the historical record of rulership? Does the idea of soft influence not have any merit, or do you simply not personally see the appeal?

 

[Kwami]

I don't understand all of the complaining about leaders, either. Focus more on the game play and less on the picture, I say.