Post GS DLC?

[Hawke9]

Would you like to see firaxis publish any DLC after gathering storm? Or do you think the game has reached it's final form and the devs should focus on Civilization VII? Of you do want to see more DLC, what civs would you like to see added?

I'd love to see a new world type Dlc pack with the Maya's and an alternate leader for Spain.

 

[LoganInCamo]

Would you like to see firaxis publish any DLC after gathering storm? Or do you think the game has reached it's final form and the devs should focus on Civilization VII? Of you do want to see more DLC, what civs would you like to see added?

I'd love to see a new world type Dlc pack with the Maya's and an alternate leader for Spain.

I would definitely like to see Austria, Byzantine Empire, and Venice back in. They are glaring omissions.

 

[_hero_]

I want either a full fledged expansion, or Civ 7. If we're getting a smallish DLC, I'd prefer if it added 2nd leaders for a ton of civs, rather than 1 or 2 brand new civs.

 

[jddods]

More content, yes please. Particularly any Ancient or classical civ, and oh I'm fine with Medieval. Well, to be honest anything is good.

 

[criZp]

I think a more fleshed out trade route mechanic would be cool.

 

[Morningcalm]

Civ VI is nice, but a bit exhausted in terms of civs. We are already at the point where it’s very hard to remember every civ’s abilities (except Greece, which has the simplest civ design in the game).

I would like to see Civ VII with the Cherokee/Haudenosaunee, Mayans, Ethiopia, and Byzantium in the base game.

And better leader screens that don’t have cutscenes, but real interaction. And less smudged painting in the background. And a Civilopedia that can be accessed from the main menu. And dynamic war music like in Civ V (though having maybe three different peace era variations would be nice too).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If they aren't doing a 3rd expansion, then I would like to see Byzantium, Portugal, the Maya, and perhaps Ethiopia offered as DLC.

 

[Dragabond]

I'd like more DLC, and be happy with whatever civs they choose to add, as long as they also come with scenarios to play.

 

[LoganInCamo]

If they aren't doing a 3rd expansion, then I would like to see Byzantium, Portugal, the Maya, and perhaps Ethiopia offered as DLC.

I mentioned three big missing civs earlier, but I shouldn’t have forgotten Portugal. They are the fourth that should be added for sure.

 

[Arent11]

Would you like to see firaxis publish any DLC after gathering storm? Or do you think the game has reached it's final form and the devs should focus on Civilization VII? Of you do want to see more DLC, what civs would you like to see added?

I'd love to see a new world type Dlc pack with the Maya's and an alternate leader for Spain.

To be honest, i would prefer civ vii. They had some nice ideas in civ vi, but ultimately, many of them didn't work out.

 

[acluewithout]

Really, I’d really like some more content regardless of how it’s delivered. But that said, I’d prefer a few dlc over 12 - 24 months focused on specific themes / mechanics instead of one big bang expansion. That would mean new mechanics would be introduced more slowly, but that would let them be done with better balancing given the slower (even more) incremental pace.

And yeah, would love Portugal etc and alt leaders. Particularly Lizzie and Napoleon and another for China and Spain.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't particularly care about 'new' Civilizations, but there are a lot of good ideas in Civ VI now that were bungled in execution, so I'd like to see a "Corrections DLC" that fixes the most glaring of them:
1. Get the Tech Advance/Production in balance so that gamers can actually afford to build all them new units and stuff in the late game.
2. We got what appears to be a half-done World Congress/Diplomatic Victory game: finish it. Make it possible to get a Diplomatic Victory without dragging the game out tediously, make the World Congress something other than a random crap-shoot, and tweak the AI's response to diplomatic and trade initiatives, (the 'trade bug', among others, needs immediate fixing)
3. Fix the Units. The game started with roughly, an Upgrade every other Era, then they started adding more units and now the Units are a collection of incoherent rapid and slow upgrades, gaps, ephemeral units that go obsolete faster than political promises, and Resource requirements for building and maintaining units that make no sense at all.

There's a bunch of other stuff related to individual units, Civs, Trade, and City States that need fixing, but those three are the big ones for me.

If we need new Civs, the Mod Community already has versions of the Mayans, Portugal. Rumania, Armenia, Tibet, and alternate leaders several states. Dunno about anybody else, but they will keep me playing for a while without any new Firaxian Civiliations.

 

[Rhyno100]

Personally, I’d be happy to pay for another full expansion - focused on diplomacy.

I feel that would add a tremendous amount to the replay-ability of the game.

Include: Marriage Alliances - unites two civs prior to regular alliances being available, providing bonuses to trade and culture as well as warfare. But make them fragile, where things can collapse into a civil war if you reject one of your ally’s requests.

Improving WC - by requiring a physical wonder be built by one player after they have met all the other players. Give that player one Diplo VP and first leadership of congress and +2 DF points per turn.
Allow a trade phase during voting, so you can ‘buy’ votes from you allies or neutral players - requiring the formation of coalitions, and requiring a player to have SOME form of diplomatic standing with the world, in order to progress.
As era progress, allow construction of the United Nations, where people join based on an ideology. This could potentially trigger World Wars. Changing Ideologies would be possible, but could trigger a civil war. Larger more powerful civs would compete diplomatically over the allegiance of developing civs towards their ideologies.

Clandestine Operations - The ability to secretly fund a war against another Civ, via funneling a third party both troops, funds and Increasing espionage activity.


Just a few ideas I had rattling around in my mind...

 

[Foulweather]

DLC. I still need to see the Byzantines, Swahili, and Assyria and hopefully another OCC like Venice or the Vatican.

 

[Morningcalm]

I would like to see new civs in Civ VII instead of another round of DLC/a third expansion. How cool would it be to get the Hittites, Maya, Ethiopia, Iroquois, and Byzantium in the base game instead of the usual dull European base game civs? I would be far more excited by Rome, France, Germany, America, etc. if they came out as expansion civs to be honest (partly because they would probably get OP abilities in an expansion).

 

[Connor_CivFan]

Yes. I need my Albania (SKANDERBEG!!!)

 

[Deliverator]

I don't think we'll see more DLC now. Would it support base game mechanics, Rise & Fall mechanics or Gathering Storm mechanics? If it requires Gathering Storm it's not really DLC. This is why we don't see DLC Civs after the first expansion. A third expansion is much more likely. We may see map pack DLC like we did with the Civ 5 Scrambled Map Packs which came out post-Brave New World.

 

[Civilowealth]

The studio is likely focused on hammering out and polishing the modding tools, especially world builder due to its ease of use - anyone can use it regardless of prior programming or modelling experience. And greatly expanding and polishing the more advanced modding tools; SDK, Asset Editor, etc. in an attempt to greater support and kick-start the modding community.

They're also almost certainly focusing on bug fixing, rebalancing and polishing over the next few months. I think everything has been pointing towards Civilization VI breaking the mould and going towards a 3rd Expansion, so preparing the base for even more gameplay systems will be vital to making a 3rd Expansion work properly.

I think DLC will become harder to justify for the development team, with the release of a fully in-game based world builder I believe they will stay away from releasing map packs. Additional civilization packs are also unlikely, I think the 3rd expansion will round off the rest of the civilizations that will be in the game. Ed Beach himself has said it's getting harder to create uniquely distinct civilizations and it seems some of the UI has been designed with only a few more additional civilizations in mind.

I don't think we will see any additional DLC until after a 3rd Expansion and its subsequent updates, so around Q3/4 2020. Even then I highly doubt they will introduce new civilizations, maps or gameplay features, more likely they'll be scenario or wonder based.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The studio is likely focused on hammering out and polishing the modding tools, especially world builder due to its ease of use - anyone can use it regardless of prior programming or modelling experience. And greatly expanding and polishing the more advanced modding tools; SDK, Asset Editor, etc. in an attempt to greater support and kick-start the modding community.

They're also almost certainly focusing on bug fixing, rebalancing and polishing over the next few months. I think everything has been pointing towards Civilization VI breaking the mould and going towards a 3rd Expansion, so preparing the base for even more gameplay systems will be vital to making a 3rd Expansion work properly.

I think DLC will become harder to justify for the development team, with the release of a fully in-game based world builder I believe they will stay away from releasing map packs. Additional civilization packs are also unlikely, I think the 3rd expansion will round off the rest of the civilizations that will be in the game. Ed Beach himself has said it's getting harder to create uniquely distinct civilizations and it seems some of the UI has been designed with only a few more additional civilizations in mind.

I don't think we will see any additional DLC until after a 3rd Expansion and its subsequent updates, so around Q3/4 2020. Even then I highly doubt they will introduce new civilizations, maps or gameplay features, more likely they'll be scenario or wonder based.

I think there is in fact potential for smaller DLC packs after a third expansion.

For one, alternate leaders would be extremely easy to implement in packs of any size. It just depends on how many personalities they are still wanting to include (and I would say at the very least we can/should expect another six-ish, given how Germany, Arabia, Russia, Egypt, and China are designed, as well as the Rome/Byzantium problem).

For two, "semi-clone" civs (like a Spain civ renamed "Portugal" or a Scythia civ named "Huns") would also require absolutely no mechanical innovation or reconciling. It would just be giving players more content with primarily only aesthetic changes.

For two.five, "hybrid clone" civs (like a "Mughals/Gurkhani" combining Persian and Indian uniques or a "Byzantines" combining Roman and Russian uniques, or an "Austria" combining German and Hungarian uniques) would be similarly easy to implement. Just a thought.

For three, there is still some small design space for "alternative game modes" that could facilitate smaller DLC packs. Imagine a cooperative game mode with two civs with "group hug" abilities. Or a game mode that limits itself to a particular era, like the prehistoric era, with two civs with specifically hunter-gatherer abilities.

I'm not saying any of this is guaranteed to happen, but I do think that it would make sense both under Civ VI's design philosophy, as well as its marketing philosophy. Because ultimately what VI wants and what the players want are two different things. VI wants its roster and playstyles to be as diverse as possible. Players just want Portugal, Byzantium, Babylon, and Austria again, all of which would be mechanically and aesthetically quite boring compared to the design potential of Bulgaria, Swahili, Burma/Vietnam, Ireland, Italy/Vatican, Colombia/Taino, Hawaii, Inuit, etc. etc. etc. A model where the devs can release great game design in the main expansion packs and less innovative fanservice in the DLC packs seems to hit the happiest balance for everyone. Players still get quite a bit of what they think they want--they still get Portugal and Byzantium eventually--but they are also encouraged to live through the growing pains of accepting a broader idea of what makes a civ game good that includes things like Australia, Georgia, and Phoenicia.

 

[Civilowealth]

I think there is in fact potential for smaller DLC packs after a third expansion.

For one, alternate leaders would be extremely easy to implement in packs of any size. It just depends on how many personalities they are still wanting to include (and I would say at the very least we can/should expect another six-ish, given how Germany, Arabia, Russia, Egypt, and China are designed, as well as the Rome/Byzantium problem).

For two, "semi-clone" civs (like a Spain civ renamed "Portugal" or a Scythia civ named "Huns") would also require absolutely no mechanical innovation or reconciling. It would just be giving players more content with primarily only aesthetic changes.

For two.five, "hybrid clone" civs (like a "Mughals/Gurkhani" combining Persian and Indian uniques or a "Byzantines" combining Roman and Russian uniques, or an "Austria" combining German and Hungarian uniques) would be similarly easy to implement. Just a thought.

For three, there is still some small design space for "alternative game modes" that could facilitate smaller DLC packs. Imagine a cooperative game mode with two civs with "group hug" abilities. Or a game mode that limits itself to a particular era, like the prehistoric era, with two civs with specifically hunter-gatherer abilities.

I'm not saying any of this is guaranteed to happen, but I do think that it would make sense both under Civ VI's design philosophy, as well as its marketing philosophy. Because ultimately what VI wants and what the players want are two different things. VI wants its roster and playstyles to be as diverse as possible. Players just want Portugal, Byzantium, Babylon, and Austria again, all of which would be mechanically and aesthetically quite boring compared to the design potential of Bulgaria, Swahili, Burma/Vietnam, Ireland, Italy/Vatican, Colombia/Taino, Hawaii, Inuit, etc. etc. etc. A model where the devs can release great game design in the main expansion packs and less innovative fanservice in the DLC packs seems to hit the happiest balance for everyone. Players still get quite a bit of what they think they want--they still get Portugal and Byzantium eventually--but they are also encouraged to live through the growing pains of accepting a broader idea of what makes a civ game good that includes things like Australia, Georgia, and Phoenicia.

Something you've got to keep in mind is that the resources required to model and animate a leader are probably one of the most resource intensive aspects of implementing new content in-fact when it comes to creating a new civilization I would say it is the most resource intensive aspect. Also theres no such thing as "primarily only aesthetic changes" each leader comes with their own unique abilties, buildings, units, districts or improvements - It is these that define how the civilization plays in the game, what its strengths and weaknesses are, something I would say defines each civilization far more. Essentially each new leader or civilization will have the same level of resources put into it, from scratch.

It's also important to note what Deliverator said; these new civilizations would have to be designed purely on the base game, without the modified or newly introduced gameplay systems we've had with the expansion packs thus far. That makes new civilization or leader packs from this point onwards far more difficult - I just don't think its likely.

Your description of "alternative game modes" are exactly what scenarios are, which are something I do think is a possibility but as I said above not until late 2020. But I do believe the introduction of any new gameplay features or systems like a new era as you suggest with such a scenario pack would be very unlikely - at least not without the intent of bringing such a feature into the main game in some sort of future expansion.

I agree that Firaxis are certainly holding the tourch for lesser-known or explored civilizations, but they're equally bringing back saples as well, they've famously said they work by the rule of 3's - 3 new, 3 old, 3 modified - and if you look at the civilizations introduced with the previous expansion packs they seem to go along that design philosophy. We will most certainly see the return of the likes of Byzantium and the Mayan's with a 3rd expansion, which is where I think Firaxis are focused right now.