New interview with Dennis Shirk

[Inawordyes]

First batch of DLC in the Digital Deluxe version was confirmed on Steam page since the game appeared on Steam

Of course, but the Steam page doesn't say that it was just the first batch, just "four post-launch DLC packs". This is the first time we're hearing that they have more DLC already in the planning stages beyond just those four packs that are included with the Deluxe Edition. Which is definitely a good thing as far as post-launch support and longevity are concerned.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

All we know it's going to give us maps, scenarios, civilizations and leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

Of course, but the Steam page doesn't say that it was just the first batch, just "four post-launch DLC packs". This is the first time we're hearing that they have more DLC already in the planning stages beyond just those four packs that are included with the Deluxe Edition. Which is definitely a good thing as far as post-launch support and longevity are concerned.

Was that there would be more than four DLC ever in doubt?

 

[Inawordyes]

Was that there would be more than four DLC ever in doubt?

Haha no, of course not, but we now have indirect-direct confirmation that they're already planning to continue to support this game for a long time after launch, and if "batches" of DLC are already in the planning stages, we may get more DLC over a shorter time period with fewer gaps in between releases than we did in CiV.

 

[Gali]

Well they stopped doing dlc for a long time in Civ 5. Of course thats because their dlc was concentrated in the beginning when civ 5 was a mess. And people were afraid the dlc would replace expansions. They released no civ dlc after korea which was part of an earlier leak. So it seems they hit the dlc they put in the plan then pretty much stopped. But GK and BNW showed they still do big expansions so I'm happy people are not reacting so negatively.

It seems there will be no release DlC this time though. No Babylon held hostage. if they are offering preorders they would mention that bonus to get people to order.

 

[dexters]

Oh God, again E3 and the same gameplay footage... I wanna something new. Not interview or previews, new footage, and gameplay.

Again some repeated vague stuff about MP, agendas, unstacking cities and stuff like that which was said 1000 times before.

There's a reason they didn't demo the game at E3. Controlled reveals. And as I've said before, they gain nothing by showing too much/doing an info dump at E3.

That said, I showed the E3 footage to a friend who is a casual fan and the game is now on his radar.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

There's a reason they didn't demo the game at E3. Controlled reveals. And as I've said before, they gain nothing by showing too much/doing an info dump at E3.

That said, I showed the E3 footage to a friend who is a casual fan and the game is now on his radar.

Same thing, showed him the E3 footage and also responded with "this game looks cool"

 

[Ll1442]

The untouchable 12?

Spoiler :

America *
Aztecs *
China *
Egypt *
England
France *
Germany
Greece
India *
Japan *
Rome
Russia

Those, plus Spain, leaves room for 5 more civs. Having recently gotten back from Machu Picchu, I hope the Inca make it into vanilla this time.

Seems right, those have been the biggest in history. But if we where to take one of the out, id say Germany.
don't wanna hit them, but I'd say there in for the wrong reasons. So they made great tanks, but historically it would make more sense to have like Prussia in. They actually won their wars and have a significant role in the European theatre.
I don't think you should combine a countrys perks with the worst part of their history.
Granted, now they are a economic good country, but historically, it seems they are just there cuz of WWII. And then Germany is compared to the others, quite a young country.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Seems right, those have been the biggest in history. But if we where to take one of the out, id say Germany.
don't wanna hit them, but I'd say there in for the wrong reasons. So they made great tanks, but historically it would make more sense to have like Prussia in. They actually won their wars and have a significant role in the European theatre.
I don't think you should combine a countrys perks with the worst part of their history.
Granted, now they are a economic good country, but historically, it seems they are just there cuz of WWII. And then Germany is compared to the others, quite a young country.

Germany is young country. Germans as a people have long history though. Frederick Barbarossa was German although he did not lead country called Germany. Arminius / Hermann defeated Romans. Again he lead a Germanic tribe called Cherusci, but he can still be considered German.

 

[Stilgar08]

Seems right, those have been the biggest in history. But if we where to take one of the out, id say Germany.
don't wanna hit them, but I'd say there in for the wrong reasons. So they made great tanks, but historically it would make more sense to have like Prussia in. They actually won their wars and have a significant role in the European theatre.
I don't think you should combine a countrys perks with the worst part of their history.
Granted, now they are a economic good country, but historically, it seems they are just there cuz of WWII. And then Germany is compared to the others, quite a young country.

Don't wanna start this here - but have to say if you looking for reasons to omit civs you'll find lots of them. Personally I think the only save ones here might be Egypt, Rome, Russia, China and Greece...

I'm fine if they would leave out Germany, but your argument just doesn't pass:
going that route means omitting a whole bunch of civs. (America? 1776 -240 years), Poland - a long history but concerning historical impact?
Aztecs existed mainly between the 14th and early 16th century (not even 200 years).
England - regular discussions about Scotland/Ireland/Welsh/UK civ
Russia argueably is like a melting pot concerning "tribes" and ethnicities (sorry, if that's not an english word)
Ottomans, Arabs... I could go on and on...

Reasons for including civs in game are not only their historical importance or longevity but many other factors, too:
- market importance (!)
- gamewise interesting and diverse (Polynesian, Venice)
- known to (almost) everybody
- charismatic leader available
- maybe TSL this time around (my guess is that's why brazil might made it again...)

 

[LDiCesare]

Poland have a big historical impact.They bet the Ottomans at the siege of Wien. They reaped no reward from it, but they actually prevented the Ottomans from conquering Austria. Europe in the middle ages/renaissance without Austria would have beenvery very different from what we know (the HRE title would have been more contested, France would have been mostly uncontested in the west...)
I think of all European countries, the most significant oneis actually Portugal, whose trade around Africa effectively shut down the economic power of arabian states, as suddenly the gold from southern Sahara/Africa and the riches from India no longer went through their countries but around them. Plus they founded Brasil.

 

[Stilgar08]

Poland have a big historical impact.....

as stated; don't wanna get into this "my civ is better than your civ" - thing.
My point was that you can find reasons to leave out almost every civ, if you so wish. I loved playing polynesia on an island map in CiV and I believe their cultural development is remarkable. People could argue nevertheless...