Parallel development of Civ6 and Civ7?

[Boris Gudenuf]

There was quite a bit of paranoia going around not helped by the Abwehr, not sure all the underlining was by gentlemen.
Messages with lots of caps are a hotbed of double meanings as I understand it. Fascinated by the work you are doing, have you considered the duality of these messages? I know Kluge was very loyal but not fanatical. You must have some good insights into his personality.

My writing partner and I have gotten access to the German records down to division level, including copies of von Kluge's messages and orders in draft form, drafted in his own hand, so the format (and capitalization) are straight from him, not some intermediate staff officer.
Our contention in writing yet another book about the Battle of Moscow is that October 1941 was the last chance Germany had of winning the war, in that it was the last realistic chance they had of taking Moscow. Taking Moscow would not have knocked the Soviet Union out of the war, but there's no way they could have defeated the Soviet Union without taking Moscow, and as long as the Soviets remained actively in the war, Germany was losing it: the Nazi State did not have the resources in raw materials, industrial capacity or manpower to survive against both the USSR and the British Empire, let alone against the Industrial Colossus across the Atlantic.
Von Kluge has been the 'scapegoat' for the failure to take Moscow in the last German offensive that started in mid-November. We have copious evidence from both German and Soviet archive documents that the November Offensive didn't have a prayer of taking Moscow despite all the popular accounts after the war (many by German officers who, frankly, were making Excuses for their own failures as tacticians and strategists). Among other things, the German infantry divisions were already missing over 2/3 of their infantrymen to casualties and the Red Army had already massed 8 Reserve Armies east, northeast, and southeast of Moscow. As the Panzer Groups attempted to advance from the southwest and northwest (with very mixed results and some complete tactical failures) Von Kluge's 4th Army in the center failed to attack and 'hold' the Soviet Reserves. This was presented after the war as the reason for the failure of the entire offensive.
Except that we've discovered the Soviet reserves weren't at the front to be held (we have the actual Soviet orders and reports from their archive files), they were already massed in separate armies behind the front, and Von Kluge's army at the end of October had not only stopped attacking, it was being attacked across most of its front: and those attacks, at Dorokhovo on the Moscow Highway, Naro-Fominsk, and Panino on the Podolsk/Warsaw Highway, were inflicting serious casualties: the lead battalions of three infantry divisions had been virtually annihilated at Dorokhovo and Panino, and at Naro-Fominsk the 258th Infantry Division was suffering up to 120 casualties a day - the equivalent of one of their 27 rifle companies every 24 hours. It doesn't take a mathematical genius among the German infantrymen for them to know exactly when their time is up and they become, as Bill Mauldin so neatly put it, "A fugitive from the Law of Averages."
Von Kluge knew all this, and was accordingly reluctant to stick his neck out or the collective necks of his army. In fact, he did make one attack, on 1 December just as the rest of the offensive was falling apart, and we have already written a 100 page account of that action, which may have been the most quickly crushed German attack of the entire war: within 48 hours the entire attacking force was retreating back to its start line having had a panzer regiment shot to pieces (4 company or battalion commanders killed in a single 2 hour period) and 3 infantry regiments mauled - one of them fleeing in panic from a Soviet counterattack, which is never a good sign.

We may end up rehabilitating von Kluge, which wasn't our original intention at all - the man was, in the end, utterly and notoriously selfish when it came to condemning other officers to divert attention away from his own failings throughout the war. But he seems to have seen the real situation in late October - November 1941 far more clearly than anyone else in the German command, from Hitler down to his fellow army commanders.

My apologies to all for the Complete Digression, but this has filled most of my time for the past 4 years, obtaining and translating several thousand pages of German and Russian archive documents.

Back to Civ 6.5

 

[Victoria]

My apologies to all for the Complete Digression, but this has filled most of my time for the past 4 years, obtaining and translating several thousand pages of German and Russian archive documents.

Well I for one appreciated it, that blame was never very solid anyway but did not know he was actively being held to some degree.

 

[bbbt]

This brought me to this thought:
Is it imaginable that we get Civ7 at some point and Civ6 continues to be developed?

Studios like Paradox (Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Imperator: Rome) and Creative Assembly (Total War) already have this kind of parallel development (admittedly, their games only cover a part of history and a part of the world).

They do parallel development of their different games, yes, but do they of the same game? I.e. I don't recall Europa Universalis 3 getting expansions after the release of EU4, though I could be wrong. I mean X-Com 2 certainly got expansions after Civ 6 was out. Beyond Earth may have if it was more successful, not sure.

So I'd say it's unlikely. They could potentially have a longer tail on 6 - releasing things like individual Civ DLC (which requires mostly art development hours and not engineering) closer to the debut of Civ 7. I'd doubt they would overlap 7 itself.

They could potentially also stretch the Civ engine into more spin-offs (Ie Beyond Earth 2 and some sort of Fantasy or Mythology or Poat-apoc 4x). That's a possibility. But we'll see if they are even willing to overlap those.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

They do parallel development of their different games, yes, but do they of the same game? I.e. I don't recall Europa Universalis 3 getting expansions after the release of EU4, though I could be wrong. I mean X-Com 2 certainly got expansions after Civ 6 was out. Beyond Earth may have if it was more successful, not sure.

To take an example which may turn out to be of Great Interest to us 4X 'Historical' game players, Amplitude, who are working on Humankind (aka, the 'Alternative Civ VII') have been continuing development of both their earlier Endless Legend and their latest Endless Space 2 games. In fact, they just released an Update of Endless Legend that included a new minor faction - rather like a Civ VI release including a new City State or two. That means that that company, at least, pursues multiple development paths for different games at once.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It seems likely that Firaxis has several parallel projects in development at this time. The production leads usually stay on their dedicated projects throughout while art, coding, and qa seem to float. So the Civ production team has said "there's more to come" (Dennis Shirk, this summer). They would appear to be doing something additional for Civ VI. The XCOM team appears to still be intact. Presumably, they are working on an XCOM sequel. Sarah is no longer on the Civ team, but is still at Firaxis working on something. And Beyond Earth's Will Miller is still at Firaxis working on something. So Firaxis seems to have somewhere between 2 and 4 things being worked on in secret.

 

[bbbt]

To take an example which may turn out to be of Great Interest to us 4X 'Historical' game players, Amplitude, who are working on Humankind (aka, the 'Alternative Civ VII') have been continuing development of both their earlier Endless Legend and their latest Endless Space 2 games. In fact, they just released an Update of Endless Legend that included a new minor faction - rather like a Civ VI release including a new City State or two. That means that that company, at least, pursues multiple development paths for different games at once.

Yes but those are different games - Firaxis worked on both X-Com and Civ in parallel. Amplitude did not - as far as I'm aware - continue to release dlc for the first Endless Space after Endless Space 2 was released. That's the direct parallel to the OP's question (content for Civ 6 after Civ 7 is out).

There are plenty of examples of studios working on different games in parallel. And examples of studios providing minor patches/updates to earlier versions of games. I'm struggling to think of an example where a studio provided additional content/dlc/expansions to an earlier version of the same game after releasing a new version of that specific game.

 

[Disgustipated]

Civ6 seems to have solid foundations to accommodate another expansion or two

I feel the game may become too bloated. One expansion maybe, but not sure the engine can handle another. While it does run decent with this monster computer I built earlier this year, it certainly did not run well on my previous computer. Too much bloat could really drag the engine down. I wouldn't mind seeing one more small expansion. I don't think there's enough ideas or material to warrant any more.

 

[Snarf054]

Another Pretty Durned Certain Prediction: Whatever else Humankind does, it has focused attention on Graphic Possibilities. Even if as a playable game it does a spectacular Face Plant (which I devoutly hope does not happen) the mass of commentary on the simply fantastic graphics of the game will force the Civ Franchise to do some serious re-thinking of their graphics. I haven't been able to play a game of Civ VI for almost two months now, because it just looks mediocre and downright bland in comparison to what I now know can be done. I don't think I will be alone in that attitude.

Can we please not? I'm all for shiny pretty looking things but since the last update I have been getting graphics errors and am now having to resort to playing on a standard map at most to avoid a late game crash. Granted my computer is getting long in the tooth (A 5 year old Ailenware 17 with a GeForce 790M) but I really can not afford to blow 2 grand on a replacement right now. I don't think I am alone in wishing for more substance and less glitz.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Can we please not? I'm all for shiny pretty looking things but since the last update I have been getting graphics errors and am now having to resort to playing on a standard map at most to avoid a late game crash. Granted my computer is getting long in the tooth (A 5 year old Ailenware 17 with a GeForce 790M) but I really can not afford to blow 2 grand on a replacement right now. I don't think I am alone in wishing for more substance and less glitz.

I hear you. I play on an older iMac and have never been able to play Civ VI on the largest map sizes (let alone the Colossal sizes available from Mods) cause the game slows to a crawl by the Industrial Era - the one time I tried playing such a game I ended up reading a book while waiting for the computer!

But that doesn't mean that the graphics cannot be better: Endless Legend, even allowing for its fantasy setting, has far better looking terrain than any of the Civ games, and does not tax my computer anywhere near as much as Civ VI does. Settlers 6 had stunningly beautiful landscapes, and I played that on not-top-of-the-line machines over 10 years ago - good graphics do not mean maxing out the hardware, they mean good art, good artistic design, and attention to where detail is needed and where it is not. I have every hope that the same people that did Endless Legend will be able to do the same with Humankind.

But, for me at least there's another side to "good Graphics" - it not only has to look good, but the graphics should mean something, they should be an integral part of the GUI of the game. That's why I have persisted in questioning whether the Humankind cliffs and waterfalls, dramatic and lovely as they look, have any Meaning in the game. If they are just eye candy, then the designers of the game have missed the main point of graphics: not to look good (although that certainly helps to sell games) but to display information the gamer needs to play the game. If the graphics fail to do that - and Civ VI has its own failures in that regard which were discussed at length in these Threads when the game first came out - then no amount of in-tile animations or pretty colors will save the game.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

All sequel games have some form of parallel development where the "wrap-up" work is being done a small team gets the ball rolling on the next iteration and slowly the team switches over as the final release nears, so to that extent, yes there will be parallel development. And if Civ VII were to go back to some things like removing 1UPT, they certainly could. But to be actively producing a game that directly competes with their other title is not something that makes any sense. You do not intentionally split your own playerbase that doesn't work.

 

[Patine]

In the "winter update" speculation thread, many forumites mentioned how the games industry shifted towards ongoing long-term game development ("games as a service"). It is believed that civ6 might have a third expansion for the first time due to this.

This brought me to this thought:
Is it imaginable that we get Civ7 at some point and Civ6 continues to be developed?

Studios like Paradox (Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Imperator: Rome) and Creative Assembly (Total War) already have this kind of parallel development (admittedly, their games only cover a part of history and a part of the world).

Is it possible that Civ7 won't be an evolution of Civ6, but makes some radical design changes (e.g. returning to stacked armies in the tradition of Civ4)? And that Civ6 continues to be developed to please the 1UPT crowd?
I could imagine a large interest in a "Remaster" of Civ4, taking some of the best aspects of Civ5/6 (hexes!) but otherwise representing a fundamentally different playstyle than Civ6.

I think computer games of the last decade or so are far too quick to want to move on to the next iteration of the title, instead of trying to create more modular and expandable games with more longevity for an individual game, itself. I find the phenomenon quite irritating, and even dubious in of a marketing scheme in my opinion.

 

[Loerwyn]

All sequel games have some form of parallel development where the "wrap-up" work is being done a small team gets the ball rolling on the next iteration and slowly the team switches over as the final release nears, so to that extent, yes there will be parallel development. And if Civ VII were to go back to some things like removing 1UPT, they certainly could. But to be actively producing a game that directly competes with their other title is not something that makes any sense. You do not intentionally split your own playerbase that doesn't work.

Pretty much this. I would pretty confidently bet money on Civ VII being in development as we speak. Maybe not at the point of it being a functional, playable product, but I believe that they will be working on the groundwork for it. Building the engine (whether it's Civ VI's or a new one), researching the leaders, debating and discussing gameplay changes, even working out the art style. Will we go back to the realism of V, will we have the modified realism of BE, or will it be the stylised, almost cartoony look of VI? That's what I believe will be being done at Firaxis now.

I think Civ VI isn't dead or close to dying. I don't know if we'll get another expansion, but I can see us getting another decently sized patch and potentially some new DLC. But I agree with the sentiments of some people here in that I think VI is just about at its limit for content. At most I see one more expansion coming.

As for Humankind, which is obviously big news for us - I'm not sure. I think it does look like Civ, but if Amplitude's other titles are anything to go by, I think it'll be a more complicated game to play. I find ES2 a little overwhelming and the UI isn't as intuitive as Civ VI's, and I'm never entirely sure what I'm doing. Humankind is a game I will be purchasing and playing, and I love the idea of mixing cultures and developing them, but I think it's more Civ-adjacent than a direct competitor. It'll be a similar kind of game, but its use of history will be more fluid. From what I can tell, you won't be playing, say, Egypt as you would in VI.

 

[sdtum21]

Is it possible that Civ7 won't be an evolution of Civ6, but makes some radical design changes (e.g. returning to stacked armies in the tradition of Civ4)? And that Civ6 continues to be developed to please the 1UPT crowd?
I could imagine a large interest in a "Remaster" of Civ4, taking some of the best aspects of Civ5/6 (hexes!) but otherwise representing a fundamentally different playstyle than Civ6.

You're assuming that the next Civ game will be Civ VII. I strongly suspect that Firaxis will pull another Beyond Earth on us and release some other style of Civ game (not necessarily set in space again, but probably at least using the same game engine as Civ VI) before they begin full development of VII. It'd be the more efficient use of their time and resources after all.

My tinfoil hat theory is that Red Death is intended to be a prototype for said game and that it could perhaps be a post-apocalyptic take on Civ.

 

[Loerwyn]

My tinfoil hat theory is that Red Death is intended to be a prototype for said game and that it could perhaps be a post-apocalyptic take on Civ.

I think the history of Red Death is pretty well-known now thanks to an official dev stream, but I can certainly see them standing back from it and going "Hey, this could be a good spin-off for VI". Instead of settling another planet, we have to deal with a world torn asunder by nuclear and even conventional war, or climate change.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

My guess is VII is already conceptuallyunderway but perhaps is now in suspension to a degree awaiting how Humankind is welcomed in the marketplace. Personally I would be trying to polish VI up to see how it goes competitively vs Humankind at release before dedicating too much energy to a design that may in some way not be advantageous to pursue.

Humankind has stroked my interest enough that I will most likely purchase it upon release. That won't preclude me from purchasing a Civ VII game or any expansion in the near future. The only thing that would prevent me from deciding to give my money to Firaxis for a Civ product is if they ruin the gameplay to such a point that it is intolerably annoying. Or go back to stacks of doom and squares.

 

[Disgustipated]

post-apocalyptic take on Civ.

Apocalypse and civilization don't go together.

I kid. As games like Fallout New Vegas show us, it is possible to have civilization start to arise again from the ashes. I'm not sure what such a game would look like. Perhaps you would have no major technologies, but you could still have some advanced units like infantry (but they couldn't be healed). Everything would have to be relearned.

 

[acluewithout]

I think it all hinges a bit on what “parallel” and “development” means.

I’m sure FXS have given some thought to version 7. They probably did from day one of version 6, even if it was just notes about what they wouldn’t try to tackle for 6 but might try with 7. I think that’s how it worked with districts in version 5 - they wanted to do them, experimented with it a little in Civ 5, but decided it was too hard to code into 5 given all the other things going on.

But I’m not sure FXS are actively developing 7 beyond that to any great extent. The way the game industry is going, and just given how Civ has developed as a franchise, I think the risk of cannibalising sales is too great. I think FXS’s development dollars would be better spent continuing to develop and extend Civ 6, particularly as the better Civ 6 is the more competitive it is versus other 4X games etc.

I could also see development of spin-off games using the same engine. Beyond that, they’d probably be better focusing on another franchise again maybe in the turn—based market. Indeed, I think the smart move would be to make these spin-offs actually require the Civ 6 base game (or maybe they come with the base game), to further drive Civ 6 sales and make Civ more like a platform.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Apocalypse and civilization don't go together.

I kid. As games like Fallout New Vegas show us, it is possible to have civilization start to arise again from the ashes. I'm not sure what such a game would look like. Perhaps you would have no major technologies, but you could still have some advanced units like infantry (but they couldn't be healed). Everything would have to be relearned.

Sorry, NO. The Post-Apocalyptic Novel has been done so often it is almost a cliche, ever since people started worrying abut Nuclear Doomsday back in the 1950s - which was about when I started reading Science Fiction as a child, so I've been exposed to far, far more than my fair share of these stories.
It is easy to forget that compared to previous "Dark Ages" (which for the most part, Weren't when it comes to technology) the sheer ubiquity of many types of knowledge is much greater now. Furthermore, a large percentage of the human population also knows the difference between life with and life without technology, and anybody who tries to tell them that life without technology is better will get no positive response.
What will happen is that technology that requires massive capital projects to implement will simply be impossible to maintain. No tanks or automobiles, because you can't dig oil wells and refine and transport the fuel, or forge the metals in the tonnage required. No solid-state or, probably, even vacuum tube electronic devices.

But it's not going to be 'back to the stone age', it's more likely to be 'back to the steam engine' - Steam engines are not that hard to figure out: everything's visible, can be hammered together with hand tools, and can be fueled by wood. Sails as motive power aren't that hard to figure out, either. Agriculture will not disappear, although advanced pesticides and fertilizers will. Modern automatic rifles will not stick around: the smokeless powder ammunition is hard to manufacture by hand, but gunpowder can be ground out (carefully!) by hand and a careful machinist/blacksmith can even cobble together a repeating rifle - but more likely it will be back to the Pennsylvania rifle or smoothbore single-shot and probably the highest technology will be a telegraph - if enough of the wire can be salvaged to string a line between settlements.

For a good view of the probable course of technology recovery, find Eliot Pattison's Ashes of the Earth, a novel set in just such a postulated world.

 

[acluewithout]

Sorry, NO. The Post-Apocalyptic Novel has been done so often it is almost a cliche, ever since people started worrying abut Nuclear Doomsday back in the 1950s - which was about when I started reading Science Fiction as a child, so I've been exposed to far, far more than my fair share of these stories.
It is easy to forget that compared to previous "Dark Ages" (which for the most part, Weren't when it comes to technology) the sheer ubiquity of many types of knowledge is much greater now. Furthermore, a large percentage of the human population also knows the difference between life with and life without technology, and anybody who tries to tell them that life without technology is better will get no positive response.
What will happen is that technology that requires massive capital projects to implement will simply be impossible to maintain. No tanks or automobiles, because you can't dig oil wells and refine and transport the fuel, or forge the metals in the tonnage required. No solid-state or, probably, even vacuum tube electronic devices.

But it's not going to be 'back to the stone age', it's more likely to be 'back to the steam engine' - Steam engines are not that hard to figure out: everything's visible, can be hammered together with hand tools, and can be fueled by wood. Sails as motive power aren't that hard to figure out, either. Agriculture will not disappear, although advanced pesticides and fertilizers will. Modern automatic rifles will not stick around: the smokeless powder ammunition is hard to manufacture by hand, but gunpowder can be ground out (carefully!) by hand and a careful machinist/blacksmith can even cobble together a repeating rifle - but more likely it will be back to the Pennsylvania rifle or smoothbore single-shot and probably the highest technology will be a telegraph - if enough of the wire can be salvaged to string a line between settlements.

For a good view of the probable course of technology recovery, find Eliot Pattison's Ashes of the Earth, a novel set in just such a postulated world.

I generally agree the post-apocalypse is over done.

I think a more interesting direction would be something like the end of Seven Eves by Neil Stephenson. Basically, the Earth has been scorched following an unexplained destruction of the Moon, resulting in devastating hail of debris over hundreds of earth. What’s left of Mankind (not much) escaped and survived in orbit, and is now returning to earth to recolonise.

I think that’s a more interesting direction, because you basically carve out most of the cliche sci fi stuff - FTL, Aliens, multiple human supporting planets - and you can also start from basically current human technology levels and can more directly connect to existing nations and cultures (which is where FXS / Civ is naturally stronger). Instead of Beyond Earth, you’re playing Return to Earth.

But hey, I like my Sci-Fi the way I like my drinking - hard.

 

[Patine]

Apocalypse and civilization don't go together.

I kid. As games like Fallout New Vegas show us, it is possible to have civilization start to arise again from the ashes. I'm not sure what such a game would look like. Perhaps you would have no major technologies, but you could still have some advanced units like infantry (but they couldn't be healed). Everything would have to be relearned.

There was a Civ2 scenario from the first expansion to that game - Conflicts in Civilization that dealt with that concept, though the approach was pretty rudimentary and non-innovative, as I recall. I felt disappointed in that particular scenario and how it was done, let's say. It lacked vision.