[POLL updated on request] About Civ6 finishing and Civ7 initiation

[AsH2]

Poll Notes: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Four years on, Sid Meier’s Civilization VI is still going strong. Since its release in 2016, gaming’s perennial strategy experience has seen a glut of new content, including two full-blown expansions, a sea of new leaders and civilizations ripped straight from history, standalone scenarios and game modes, and a countless number of smaller updates aimed at refining what is already considered the market’s premier grand strategy title.

..

Looking forward, while there are no plans for any more full-fledged expansions like Gathering Storm or Rise and Fall, Bonacorso said that Firaxis has no plans to stop supporting Civilization. Weather that means more leaders and civs or an entirely new numbered sequel she wouldn’t say. All we know for certain is that beyond the New Frontier pass, there is more Civilization on the horizon.

“We're committed to supporting Civilization VI through the next year, and we've shared our plan with our audience,” Bonacorso said. “As we have always told our fans, as long as there is interest in Civilization as a game, we hope to be making more Civilization for them to play.”

Excerpts from GameDaily.biz Firaxis Games on Civilization VI's New Frontier pass, and keeping the game fresh four years on

 

[leandrombraz]

I'm not looking forward to play another vanilla Civ game, to be honest. Civ VI is in a good place now, I would rather stick with it for a few more years. If they can have two separate teams working on Civ VI and Civ VII, it would be nice to keep getting Civ VI stuff while Civ VII gets more time to be released in better conditions than its predecessors.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Whatever the scenario is I don't think Civ VII should be rushed at all. I wouldn't expect it at all next year to be honest even if they did stop making content for Civ 6.
A rushed game wouldn't necessarily be complete.

 

[tsf4]

I feel like the game is still new, in a way. It was not enjoyable to me early on, and I feel like there is a ton of content and civs/leaders they could add periodically, and hopefully for not too much money.

NFP was great, and I am glad I purchased it, but with that purchase I assumed 6 would still be around in development for quite awhile before even thinking of 7.

Modding is needed, its what made 5 so great and mods offer a different way to enjoy it, because vanilla can get a tad "same-ness" sometimes.

 

[AsH2]

For me, "Modability - release Civ6 DLL-files" feel important, as I think that way Civ 7 could rely on three (3) separate play modes - scenario, classic and epic.

What I suggest (in https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805 - though still in progress) would be epic, while what's already in Civ6 would be somewhat cut up into game modes (GM) and put in classic.
I think they could tie specific victory conditions (VC) to specific GM - eg Immortal leaders GM and Diplomatic VC, Missionary GM and Religious VC - to let those optional GM be some fantastic additions to a realistic base game.
Also, those new mods on Civ6 would be inspiring for Civ7 devs and then (thanks to the Civ6/Civ7-similarity) there would probably be more mods to Civ7.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This pandemic poses an interesting dilemma, because while Firaxis probably doesn't want to take on any big projects due to everyone working from home, they also can't travel outside the U.S. to do cultural consultation and music recording for even small civ packs.

So while it mostly makes sense why they would consider taking all the preproduction stuff they already have and cobbling/refining that into Civ VII, I suspect the most sustainable avenue is to just keep extending content for VI, even if that means cutting it back to just game modes and maybe alternate leaders if they can swing recording sessions or otherwise have some leaders pre-recorded. I definitely am worried that a second season pass will not have any civs.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

This pandemic poses an interesting dilemma, because while Firaxis probably doesn't want to take on any big projects due to everyone working from home, they also can't travel outside the U.S. to do cultural consultation and music recording for even small civ packs.

So while it mostly makes sense why they would consider taking all the preproduction stuff they already have and cobbling/refining that into Civ VII, I suspect the most sustainable avenue is to just keep extending content for VI, even if that means cutting it back to just game modes and maybe alternate leaders if they can swing recording sessions or otherwise have some leaders pre-recorded. I definitely am worried that a second season pass will not have any civs.

They don't have to travel necessarily to investigate other cultures. They can take consultations on Zoom. And music can be recorded separately and unified with modern production equipment.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm torn on this. I feel like there's still design space for new, interesting civs and still a lot of life left in Civ6, but I'd also like to see Civ7 make some bolder design choices and better integrate its systems--Civ6 feels like it has a lot of great ideas that unfortunately don't interact with each other. I'd also like to see fewer market pandering civs like Canada and more important older civs, but I probably shouldn't hold my breath on that one...I guess my position at this point would be more Civ6 content now and Civ7 later. However, I'd rather they wait until they can put a little more polish on their work: the corners they're cutting on NFP haven't impressed me.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

They don't have to travel necessarily to investigate other cultures. They can take consultations on Zoom. And music can be recorded separately and unified with modern production equipment.

I don't know how they go about doing cultural research but I do imagine Zoom would somewhat limit accessibility, particularly for certain Native American and African civs.

As for music, sure they could do that for the ancient and medieval eras, but it's the ability to replicate a philharmonic orchestra without compromising the sound balance or resort to sampling that I'm dubious of.

 

[AriochIV]

As I've said in previous threads on this issue, I don't see a strong case at the moment for starting over with a new version at the moment. Judging by Firaxis' current release strategy with the New Frontier patches, it would seem they have a similar point of view.

I wish that they would do more to fix the existing problems with persistent bugs and poor AI performance, but knowing Firaxis' history, I don't expect that they will.

 

[Piranga]

I feel like any new content we get in Civ 6 from here on out is pointless. The AI is just so poor the gameplay gets boring no matter. A new district, don't care. I'm tired of watching inept AI, incapable of attacking after walls are built.

7 really needs to make the ai the core focus.

 

[enKage]

What I do NOT expect is another FP. IMO ther are too many civs now and it is hard to introduce a new balanced civ while not copying bonuses of others. The effect all NFP civs are highly unbalanced - either very weak like Maya or OP like GC and Ethiopia. There is too big difference now between good civs and bad civs and with new "rebalance" wanting to strengthen weak civs creates new OP civs (making religion stronger because Geargia and Khmer were weak cause that overpowered Russia became even more OP). With every civ added this would be more difficult.
Also most players didn't even know or played already introduced civs, what is clearly visible fe. in elimination threads. I have over 2k hours and when I look at my HoF, I see my second most popular leader I played is Teddy with a total of 5 games. Is it enough to get very deep into the game?

What I do expect though is adding alternative leaders (why are they leaders trais if there are 5 civs having a choice here?)
And the best thing to do is just to improve AI skills, so it can be used in Civ7. Otherwise we would get another vanilla Civ with AI taken from PacMan.



I voted of course for Mods

 

[AriochIV]

I have over 2k hours and when I look at my HoF, I see my second most popular leader I played is Teddy with a total of 5 games. Is it enough to get very deep into the game?

The Hall of Fame doesn't include games played before Gathering Storm.

 

[enKage]

The Hall of Fame doesn't include games played before Gathering Storm.

I bought civ6 after GS. So in my case for sure includes all the games

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What I do NOT expect is another FP. IMO ther are too many civs now and it is hard to introduce a new balanced civ while not copying bonuses of others. The effect all NFP civs are highly unbalanced - either very weak like Maya or OP like GC and Ethiopia. There is too big difference now between good civs and bad civs and with new "rebalance" wanting to strengthen weak civs creates new OP civs (making religion stronger because Geargia and Khmer were weak cause that overpowered Russia became even more OP). With every civ added this would be more difficult.
Also most players didn't even know or played already introduced civs, what is clearly visible fe. in elimination threads. I have over 2k hours and when I look at my HoF, I see my second most popular leader I played is Teddy with a total of 5 games. Is it enough to get very deep into the game?

What I do expect though is adding alternative leaders (why are they leaders trais if there are 5 civs having a choice here?)
And the best thing to do is just to improve AI skills, so it can be used in Civ7. Otherwise we would get another vanilla Civ with AI taken from PacMan.

I don't think there are enough civs. We still haven't gotten a as weird as Venice or the Huns. We don't have any civs with non-combat UUs besides Gran Colombia, which also has a combat UU. We don't have any civs with group hug/collaborative abilities outside of kinda Sweden. There is still some design space to be ploughed.

I don't mind the power creep that gave us GC and Ethiopia; that happens with every expansion model game. I also don't mind that we might be getting a few "challenge" civs like the Maya. Balance really doesn't matter as much as people think it does when most people play the game single player and the AI is terrible at playing any civ optimally.

 

[acluewithout]

Civ 7? No thanks. I’m doing all this again. And I can’t see what another iteration would bring to the game.

Keep developing Civ 6? Yes please.

Season Pass, Third Expansion, More Civs? Er, all of it, please?

Civ VI is a great game. If they stopped work now, I’d be sad. But it’s “fine” as is. That said, there’s lots that I think Civ VI is still missing. And beyond that, it’s a very modular game, so there’s lots of optional stuff that could be done too. And all of it ends up making a better game in my view. So, yeah, keep developing Civ VI instead of moving to Civ VII.

On new Civs specifically, I’m always happy to get more Civs, but it might be better to slowly focus more on alt leaders. I don’t much care either way really, but that would be my preference.

On the .dll, I’m not in the “outraged FXS won’t release the .dll” at the moment, but yeah I’d like to see the code released eventually. It doesn’t massively impact me either way, but the lack of the .dll seems to be hampering modding, albeit Civ seems otherwise pretty good for modding otherwise. I don’t think we’ll ever see something like Vox P or significant AI improvements without the .dll.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ 7? No thanks. I’m doing all this again. And I can’t see what another iteration would bring to the game.

A more integrated and coherent design? That's the number one thing I want out of Civ7. Civ6 has great ideas, but none of them works together.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I see one more wrap up mini-expansion after this pass is completed.

 

[acluewithout]

A more integrated and coherent design? That's the number one thing I want out of Civ7. Civ6 has great ideas, but none of them works together.

I hear you, but I think would be better done but refining what they have in Civ VI.

I see one more wrap up mini-expansion after this pass is completed.

Yeah, I could see this too, but don’t want to get my hopes up. Indeed, I could see a mini-expansion, and then they might keep releasing standalone game modes and or do additional season passes, perhaps focusing more on alt leaders and persona modes rather than new Civs.

I think it’ll just hinge on how successful NFP is, the feedback they get, and whatever else they are working on.

Ed’s been pretty quiet since GS. Is he just taking a break / working on some board games? Is he doing management stuff? Or is he working on Civ expansion and or new IP? Who knows, right?

 

[Xandinho]

I also prefer that they keep working with Civ6 than having to start all over again with 18 civs in Civ7. I can wait Civ7 in 2023 or later while they continue to release new content and leaders for Civ6. I'm open to the idea of a second round of passes that add new leaders and tie contents that don't interact with each other.

When Civ7 comes out, I'd like to see 24 civs and 30 leaders in its base game, but maybe that will be demanding . Although I'm always excited about a new Civ release, I'm a little sad to have to start the whole cycle from scratch again.