(poll) What civs would you like to see in a hypothetical third expansion?

[awesome]

I mean, there have been talks of "what could have been" since at least civ4. I don't think we'll get 2 more expansion packs, and I'm almost positive that we won't get 30 more civs.
There's obviously the possibility and even the feeling that we will get more than what we have now, and it isn't just a random, "we wish we could've made another expansion to 5, but now we're making 6," even of that's because this game was purposely released on a big anniversary year.
But I'm kind of rambling now. Either way, I think they'll make it to 50 civs and release the next game.

 

[Zaarin]

But, in all honesty, her legacy is mostly as a baby making machine and strategic pageant mom. So I would never miss her.

I have the utmost respect for a 19th century woman who told her husband to leave the room whenever he disagreed with her and he said, "Yes, dear."

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I mean, there have been talks of "what could have been" since at least civ4. I don't think we'll get 2 more expansion packs, and I'm almost positive that we won't get 30 more civs.
There's obviously the possibility and even the feeling that we will get more than what we have now, and it isn't just a random, "we wish we could've made another expansion to 5, but now we're making 6," even of that's because this game was purposely released on a big anniversary year.
But I'm kind of rambling now. Either way, I think they'll make it to 50 civs and release the next game.

I'm still dubious, for two major reasons. And this is on top of my observation elsewhere that the industry standard is creating tentpoles with annual expansions and support to create consistent, incremental income for studios.

1. We only JUST got VI base game a couple years ago. Given the choice between developing the same 16 or so base game civs again, versus developing 8 new civs, I think the devs will pick the latter for as long as they have ideas. Even moreso at a point in the franchise where we have interesting soundtracks and character animations, it would just be very boring to be developing England, France, Germany, China every three years over and over and over again. I think that is partly why VI is so stylized and has such deep art design; so that the devs don't need to go back and do it all over again so soon.

2. VI is gaining a much larger casual player base on iPad and Switch. Casual players want a stable community to interact with more than anything. A good sized player base to compete against, regular content to talk about. All of these new Civ players would be extremely confused and in fact put off if they were duped into buying into a community that immediately jumps ship for VII. Players are much more sensitive to exploitation, and releasing VII so soon after VI went wide release would be taken as a sort of betrayal.

VI is a lot more robust for long term support than V, and there is a lot more effort being put into making it the Uber civ. Unless the devs have somehow solved the universe and everything and think they can release a game with fifty plus civs that blows VI out of the water, there just isn't a good reason to try making it. I would submit that VI is in fact that game that was intended to "solve" everything in a manner that they could keep adding civs indefinitely, treading water until a great VII concept manifested.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Yeah, abandoning VI for VII doesn’t make sense to me at this point.

Why not continue to milk a very zealous, engaged community? The demand is clearly there.

 

[awesome]

Well, let's look at history:
Civ1 came out in 1991, with colonization in 1994 and civnet in 1995
Civ2 came out in 1996 (5 years after civ1), with alpha centauri coming out in 1999
Civ3 came out in 2001 (5 years after civ2) with no spinoffs, but the play the world (2002) and conquests (2003) expansions
Civ4 came out in 2005 (5 years after civ3), with civcity: rome in 2006 and civrev coming out in 08, and the warlords in 2006 and beyond the sword in 2007
Civ5 came out in 2010 (5 years after civ4), with beyond earth and civrev2 both coming out in 2014, and gods and kings in 2012 and brave new world in 2013
Civ6 came out in 2016 (25th anniversary, 6 years after civ5), with no spinoffs yet, but with rise and fall in 2018 and gathering storm earlier this month in 2019
Civworld came out in 2011/2012, but that's free to play

So, there's a history of 5-6 years between main games, with usually 1 or 2 spinoffs before the next game is released. It's currently the third year (about 2.5 years, but I'll round up), so they very well could just release 2 spinoffs over the next couple years and call it a day. However, since they did purposely release this game in the 25th anniversary year, and we have 1 less civilization than the last game (civ5 had 43, 9 more than civ4; civ4 had 34, 3 more than civ3; civ3 had 31, 10 more than civ2; civ2 had 21, 7 more than civ1; civ1 had 14), and there are still plenty of staples not in the game yet (I went go ver this list, because that's been done multiple times in this thread), I can definitely see them releasing one more expansion pack with 8 civs, bringing the total of 50. I said that in my last post, it that's my reasoning. The next expansion would probably be released in 2020, maybe in February, since that's when they released both of the other expansions for this game.
We would then probably get a spinoff later in 2020 and another one in 2021 (either of which could be civrev3)
Civ7 could then be released either late in 2021 for the 30th anniversary (honestly, the worst of these three options) or in 2022 or 2023, if they don't feel like marketing it that way.
This would all be completely in line with what they've done in the past, and the game would still have a third expansion.

 

[Zatsukino]

Babylon & Byzantium

Would be thrilled to have Palmyra with Zenobia and Wallachia with Vlad Tepes and a native pre-Islamic berber civ, Kahina or Massinissa ?

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Well, let's look at history:
Civ1 came out in 1991, with colonization in 1994 and civnet in 1995
Civ2 came out in 1996 (5 years after civ1), with alpha centauri coming out in 1999
Civ3 came out in 2001 (5 years after civ2) with no spinoffs, but the play the world (2002) and conquests (2003) expansions
Civ4 came out in 2005 (5 years after civ3), with civcity: rome in 2006 and civrev coming out in 08, and the warlords in 2006 and beyond the sword in 2007
Civ5 came out in 2010 (5 years after civ4), with beyond earth and civrev2 both coming out in 2014, and gods and kings in 2012 and brave new world in 2013
Civ6 came out in 2016 (25th anniversary, 6 years after civ5), with no spinoffs yet, but with rise and fall in 2018 and gathering storm earlier this month in 2019
Civworld came out in 2011/2012, but that's free to play

So, there's a history of 5-6 years between main games, with usually 1 or 2 spinoffs before the next game is released. It's currently the third year (about 2.5 years, but I'll round up), so they very well could just release 2 spinoffs over the next couple years and call it a day. However, since they did purposely release this game in the 25th anniversary year, and we have 1 less civilization than the last game (civ5 had 43, 9 more than civ4; civ4 had 34, 3 more than civ3; civ3 had 31, 10 more than civ2; civ2 had 21, 7 more than civ1; civ1 had 14), and there are still plenty of staples not in the game yet (I went go ver this list, because that's been done multiple times in this thread), I can definitely see them releasing one more expansion pack with 8 civs, bringing the total of 50. I said that in my last post, it that's my reasoning. The next expansion would probably be released in 2020, maybe in February, since that's when they released both of the other expansions for this game.
We would then probably get a spinoff later in 2020 and another one in 2021 (either of which could be civrev3)
Civ7 could then be released either late in 2021 for the 30th anniversary (honestly, the worst of these three options) or in 2022 or 2023, if they don't feel like marketing it that way.
This would all be completely in line with what they've done in the past, and the game would still have a third expansion.

This is a fallacious line of reasoning.

1. It completely ignores the content of each game and presumes that the effort and care put into VI is equal to that of previous games. This is not the case.

2. It presumes that the industry and Firaxis'a goals are the same now as they have been for the past 25 years. Both the presumption that the industry is stagnating and that Firaxis wants to be stagnant are probably wrong. What worked for prior installments is not guaranteed to work for the current installment, and in fact I would argue it simply cannot. Civ can't afford to be "an option" anymore if 2K wants to show profits and grow; it has to become one of *the* options, and you can't do that by starting over ever few years.

 

[awesome]

This is a fallacious line of reasoning.

1. It completely ignores the content of each game and presumes that the effort and care put into VI is equal to that of previous games. This is not the case.

2. It presumes that the industry and Firaxis'a goals are the same now as they have been for the past 25 years. Both the presumption that the industry is stagnating and that Firaxis wants to be stagnant are probably wrong. What worked for prior installments is not guaranteed to work for the current installment, and in fact I would argue it simply cannot. Civ can't afford to be "an option" anymore if 2K wants to show profits and grow; it has to become one of *the* options, and you can't do that by starting over ever few years.

Not only have they done this with the civilization series, but most companies do it.
Mortal Kombat, for example, released 10 in 2011 and has a scheduled release date for 11 later this year. That's 8 years.
I'm proposing up to 7 years between civ6 and 7, which allows for another expansion to come out next year, and then a good 2-3 years after that until the next game.
That has nothing to do with stagnation and everything to do with progress.
Your argument, on the other hand, is that they should keep going far beyond the industry standard and probably end up doing what most people would see as excessive nickle and diming. That would be much more likely to result in stagnation and unhappy customers than my proposal would.

 

[Xandinho]

I think a total of 50 civs to close civ6 seems to be what we're going to get, this assumes a third expansion and then end. I do not rule out the possibility of them launching some DLCs with alternate leaders when everything is ready, but I do not think we'll have two more expansions, that would mean inflating the game with so many more mechanisms than necessary.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I don’t there will be a CivRev3, considering Civ6 itself has been ported to Nintendo and iOS.

I think they may continue to release content to incentivize players on alternate platforms, who may just be getting the game now.

 

[Phrozen]

I personally think Austria has nothing interesting to add to the game, but if we got another 24, 30 civs who knows?

Mechanics around Great Musicians. Mechanics around palaces. Hell, a lot of the stuff we think of as French high culture and sophistication actually came from Austria including the pastries.

 

[Zaarin]

Mechanics around Great Musicians. Mechanics around palaces. Hell, a lot of the stuff we think of as French high culture and sophistication actually came from Austria including the pastries.

I think Austria just begs for an Opera House UB that replaces the Broadcast Tower, comes in the Renaissance, and holds a Great Work of Writing as well as a Great Work of Music (like the Bolshoi Ballet).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think Austria just begs for an Opera House UB that replaces the Broadcast Tower, comes in the Renaissance, and holds a Great Work of Writing as well as a Great Work of Music (like the Bolshoi Ballet).

Or Italy, the home of opera.
Either way an opera house is needed in my opinion whether it be a unique building or general mutual exclusive building.
Though I think it would make more sense coming in at the Opera and Ballet civic.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I would give Italy the Piazza as a unique district. And Condottieri as a UU, and maybe a Galleass too.

What should Austria have as a UU now that both Poland AND Hungary have Hussars?

Pandurs or some other kind of Croatian merc, perhaps?

 

[Krajzen]

Would be thrilled to have Palmyra with Zenobia and Wallachia with Vlad Tepes and a native pre-Islamic berber civ, Kahina or Massinissa ?

I'd love to see Romania, civ from Maghreb and new Middle Eastern at some point. However I have huge problem with Zenobia's three year old reign which ended in complete fall as soon as Rome send first decent expeditionary force and moped the floor with Palmyran forces Palmyra and Arameans themselves also are really unimpressive as major civ, Palmyra would perfectly fit role of city state.

I also really dislike pagan Berbers instead of Islamic Maghreb, because I generally think pre-Islamic Maghreb was utterly boring and insignificant (other than belonging to Carthago and Rome) while Islamic Maghreb is first tier area IMO and should be always recurring in some form. It may be Morocco again, or Algeria, Tunis, Andalusia, Almoravids (id we can have Ottomans), Berbers etc. Just please not "Moors" which is stupid Christian exonym, it's like naming civ "Saracens" or "Cathay" ("Persia" actually has some native ground).

I am really afraid we won't get Maghrebi civ this time for sake of Babylon (utterly redundant with Sumer imo) and/or some Native American tribe (I half heartedlyhearted them unless they replace actual major civilizations).

Regarding Vlad Tepes and Wallachia, I'd simply name such civ Romania and I'd to see it. However I have to admit it really annoys me how Westerners are obsessed with overhyped Impaler as the only thing they know about Romania (other than goddamn vampires). Part of me would really enjoy to see Mircea the Great or Stephen the Great instead, who were both incredible military and state geniuses, and enlighten the world how Romania has more than Dracula. On the other hand, Vlad is so memetic even I reluctantly agree it'd be badass to see him. On the third (!) hand Scotland got actually accomplished Robert the Bruce instead of very memetic William "Mel Gibson" Wallace so maybe there is hope...

 

[Zaarin]

Though I think it would make more sense coming in at the Opera and Ballet civic.

It comes too late, though.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What should Austria have as a UU now that both Poland AND Hungary have Hussars?

Pandurs or some other kind of Croatian merc, perhaps?

I'd go with the Grenzers who are the successors of the pandurs and lasted longer, and would have been my first pick even if there wasn't Hungary and the hussars already.

It comes too late, though.

Still earlier than Broadcast Centers.

 

[The Kingmaker]

We definitely need to see earlier places for great works of music such as this:

 

[Zatsukino]

I'd love to see Romania, civ from Maghreb and new Middle Eastern at some point. However I have huge problem with Zenobia's three year old reign which ended in complete fall as soon as Rome send first decent expeditionary force and moped the floor with Palmyran forces Palmyra and Arameans themselves also are really unimpressive as major civ, Palmyra would perfectly fit role of city state.

I also really dislike pagan Berbers instead of Islamic Maghreb, because I generally think pre-Islamic Maghreb was utterly boring and insignificant (other than belonging to Carthago and Rome) while Islamic Maghreb is first tier area IMO and should be always recurring in some form. It may be Morocco again, or Algeria, Tunis, Andalusia, Almoravids (id we can have Ottomans), Berbers etc. Just please not "Moors" which is stupid Christian exonym, it's like naming civ "Saracens" or "Cathay" ("Persia" actually has some native ground).

I am really afraid we won't get Maghrebi civ this time for sake of Babylon (utterly redundant with Sumer imo) and/or some Native American tribe (I half heartedlyhearted them unless they replace actual major civilizations).

I think the lack of middle-eastern female leaders as a whole makes me need another feminine representation besides Cleopatra & now Dido (I don't count Tamar as middle-eastern).
It would be utterly wrong to put insignificant female leaders in the game just for the sake of having more women of course, but Zenobia as a leader was totally ahead of her time and is even today remembered by Syrian people as a great leader. Even for her short period of time as a ruler, she was able to stand up and make herself a place in History. If she would ever show up, she would be just like Gilgamesh, a kind of legendary figure.

But I still can see Hatschepsut or Nefertiti show up as alternate leaders for Cleo tho.

As for North-Africa (I prefer this term) I think I can't dismiss the cultural and religious improvement that the islamic caliphates brought to the region during the middle-ages, but pagan berbers was more of a personal choice, since I tend to always prefer civilizations in their original states, I consider Morocco and islamic kingdoms in this regions as the same as other colonial civs such as Canada, Brazil or Australia, they just don't appeal to me, just as modern civs.
It is wrong to say that berbers belonged to Carthago and Rome historically, but they played a major role during the punic wars plot, I could see Numidia with Massinissa or Kahina leading the amazighs like Boudicca ruled the celts back in Civ V for a change, but it would be really nice to see Andalusia actually.

Don't get me wrong about Vlad Tepes, I'm not some kind of "westerner" to be be totally ignorant regarding his accomplishments and ignore the fact that he was indeed a great leader who saved his country from the Ottomans and probably the whole region and even Europe.

 

[awesome]

I think the lack of middle-eastern female leaders as a whole makes me need another feminine representation besides Cleopatra & now Dido (I don't count Tamar as middle-eastern).
It would be utterly wrong to put insignificant female leaders in the game just for the sake of having more women of course, but Zenobia as a leader was totally ahead of her time and is even today remembered by Syrian people as a great leader. Even for her short period of time as a ruler, she was able to stand up and make herself a place in History. If she would ever show up, she would be just like Gilgamesh, a kind of legendary figure.

But I still can see Hatschepsut or Nefertiti show up as alternate leaders for Cleo tho.

I'd prefer Puduhepa of the Hittites, personally. Much more important empire overall.

As for North-Africa (I prefer this term) I think I can't dismiss the cultural and religious improvement that the islamic caliphates brought to the region during the middle-ages, but pagan berbers was more of a personal choice, since I tend to always prefer civilizations in their original states, I consider Morocco and islamic kingdoms in this regions as the same as other colonial civs such as Canada, Brazil or Australia, they just don't appeal to me, just as modern civs.
It is wrong to say that berbers belonged to Carthago and Rome historically, but they played a major role during the punic wars plot, I could see Numidia with Massinissa or Kahina leading the amazighs like Boudicca ruled the celts back in Civ V for a change, but it would be really nice to see Andalusia actually.

Yeah. I'm personally okay with colonial civs and have expressed many times that Anerica itself is pretty much required in the game if you want it to have any focus at all on the new world, but it's weird that the same people who argue against colonial civs in the new world also seem to support colonial civs in the old world, as long as it isn't subsaharan Africa.