[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

Maybe a poll on this site would be a good idea, free market research to gauge community interest in buying post-expansion DLC, while allowing discussion among us fans. Could have options like: not interested, would buy civs, would buy maps, would be civs and leaders, would buy leaders, would buy scenarios, would buy wonders, would buy any DLC, would buy if half current release price, would buy a third expansion, will likely buy gameplay content, will likely buy any content (including skins, soundtracks, etc.), other (comment).
 
Maybe a poll on this site would be a good idea, free market research to gauge community interest in buying post-expansion DLC, while allowing discussion among us fans. Could have options like: not interested, would buy civs, would buy maps, would be civs and leaders, would buy leaders, would buy scenarios, would buy wonders, would buy any DLC, would buy if half current release price, would buy a third expansion, will likely buy gameplay content, will likely buy any content (including skins, soundtracks, etc.), other (comment).

This site is small share of players and is very far from being representative. Such poll would have zero marketing value.
 
This site is small share of players and is very far from being representative. Such poll would have zero marketing value.
While definitely not reflective of the player base as a whole, I think you could probably extract useful numbers to project with, and we know they do look to our community. I'm sure they would be able to appropriately gauge roughly how we relate to potential customers as a whole.
 
We could create such a survey using SurveyMonkey and have the link shared to every Civ community, including this one.

The problem is - most players don't participate in any Civ communities. Just to be clear, I own dozens of games, played around 10-12 of them in the last year. The only game where I participate in any communities is Civ (although I've participated in a couple of others years ago).
I don't think you'll be able to reach more than 5-10% of civ players anyway, and not of them will participate in the poll. even worse - those who participate will be mostly "fans", spending a lot of time in the game, buying most of DLC, etc. We'll not represent the majority of the players.
 
The Civ fandom is a very vocal minority, but still a minority.

There's a reason why the main menu of Civ VI mentions Reddit and this website, along with posting teasers and new features on various other websites with much more mainstream (mainly general interest) attention.
 
As I said earlier, those who complain about R&F-exclusive DLCs are generally not the target market for DLCs in general. Those who purchase the R&F-exclusive DLCs are much more likely to purchase other DLCs for the base game.

I'm assuming the concern, frankly, would be less about just the garden variety Civ DLC complainers and more that it would turn into a PR firestorm beyond just the Civ community, ala a mini version of the EA Battlefront imbriglio.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but I'm under the impression that no other gaming company has done this (i.e. makes DLC that requires you have purchased previous DLC). It just seems like a PR minefield for Firaxis: best case scenario they just get the usual complainers and maybe some Xzibit memes revivals (yo dawg, I put some DLC in your DLC etc.). Worst case scenario it becomes the latest gamer-crusader cause celebre, with gamers convinced it's going to lead to "buy it all or nothing" DLC policies for all games.

I.e. I don't think there would be an issue if it was already an industry practice, but I'm not sure Firaxis would want to be known as the ones breaking ground in that regard.

From my point of view, the more DLC the merrier (I mean I literally own all Civ 5 DLC - including all the map packs. And that's not via the 'complete' edition or anything - I started with Vanilla when it came out). So my fingers are crossed they figure out something (I'd definitely prefer DLC to loot box style nickel and dimeing). They just seem damned if you do, damned if you don't (in regards to making the Civ R&F dependent), so in retrospect I'm not surprised they just stuck to map packs between God and Kings and BNW.
 
I'm assuming the concern, frankly, would be less about just the garden variety Civ DLC complainers and more that it would turn into a PR firestorm beyond just the Civ community, ala a mini version of the EA Battlefront imbriglio.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but I'm under the impression that no other gaming company has done this (i.e. makes DLC that requires you have purchased previous DLC). It just seems like a PR minefield for Firaxis: best case scenario they just get the usual complainers and maybe some Xzibit memes revivals (yo dawg, I put some DLC in your DLC etc.). Worst case scenario it becomes the latest gamer-crusader cause celebre, with gamers convinced it's going to lead to "buy it all or nothing" DLC policies for all games.

I.e. I don't think there would be an issue if it was already an industry practice, but I'm not sure Firaxis would want to be known as the ones breaking ground in that regard.

From my point of view, the more DLC the merrier (I mean I literally own all Civ 5 DLC - including all the map packs. And that's not via the 'complete' edition or anything - I started with Vanilla when it came out). So my fingers are crossed they figure out something (I'd definitely prefer DLC to loot box style nickel and dimeing). They just seem damned if you do, damned if you don't (in regards to making the Civ R&F dependent), so in retrospect I'm not surprised they just stuck to map packs between God and Kings and BNW.
Who knows what will the future bring with regards to DLC requiring other DLC?
 
If they do end up doing post-xpac DLC, I can see them sticking to a modest number like 4 or 5 of them. Some of them could easily already be base-game compatible, and the two or three that aren't could have slightly modified bonuses to make them compatible (ie: replacing a governor-related boost with a more generic flat one); from what we can see of the game's code, adding bonuses already similar to pre-existing ones is as trivial as changing a few values.

Alternatively they could bundle the DLC with RnF in a "deluxe version" and discount the bundle for those that already own RnF, but not sell it individually. Definitely messier, but it's not as readily blatant in being DLC-requiring-DLC and would prevent accidental purchase of the DLC without RnF.
 
I mean... there are enough major holes in their civ selection right now that they couldn't be satisfactorily covered by just one more expansion pack. (An admittedly subjective statement in all respects.)

So, you know. I'd definitely BUY the DLC if they end up making it.

But they wouldn't be able to incorporate R&F features! I just can't imagine them forming this whole new pricing model. And it would be weird putting resources into vanilla post-pack.

The whole thing would just be so unprecedented. I can't imagine them doing it. Maybe I'm still stuck in outmoded models of video game pricing, but the idea'd be bizarre to me no matter how R&F might be dealt with. It's weird that people think it's even a possibility!! Not bad weird-- again, a hypothetical scenario with more DLC is one I'm amenable to. Just extremely confusing to me personally :p
 
...This is what makes me think that there will either be a 3rd expansion or additional post-xpac DLC; there are simply too many civs that have yet to return; not even counting Sioux/Hittites/Mali, they would have to cut ~10 civs from V's roster with this rate of civ addition. It's a tall order (ie: cut Shoshone, Huns, Songhai, Siam, Assyria, Venice, Polynesia, ...Sweden? Morocco? Austria?) But I think it's far more likely they cut a few civs and sneak in the rest in other, DLC/xpac-related ways.

Sumer is very similar to Assyria, Khmer is very similar to Siam. I would argue that those two are 'in the game' at this point. I don't think anybody expects the Shoshone to make a return. Firaxis wasn't even intending them to appear the first time. I think they'd avoid Polynesia in favour of a specific polynesian group this time (Maori for example). I would be surprised if we ever see Morocco, Austria or Sweden again.

I think Firaxis is trying to avoid 'blanket civs' as much as possible now. Certainly with North American native tribes, their approach seems to be putting one tribe in each game as a representative of the group. The Native American civ in IV was distasteful and since then they've gone for Iroquois, Shoshone and now Cree. Sioux haven't appeared in some time. I have a feeling that with so many tribes available, they'll just keep exposing us to different ones as long as possible to represent the region.

I could see a similar approach with the Italian city states. Venice got in last time, maybe this time it's Genoa, or another smaller faction in Ren. Italy?

===========================================================================

We have 5 remaining civ slots. We have 3 men and 2 women so far (Cree are almost guaranteed a male leader). Assuming they keep things relatively even, I'd say the Ottomans will take the fourth male leader position. Inca will likely take the fifth male position. This means there are 2 women remaining.

There are probably no more warmongers on the roster. We have yet to see any cultural power from an R&F civ or even any R&F specific abilities (no loyalty, disasters, alliances, etc). There is also no representation from Africa (assuming Inca and Ottomans are in, Africa is the only neglected region). As Eagle Pursuit said, I assume Mali is out since the Netherlands has taken the 'economic powerhouse' spot on the roster.

There are tons of African ruling women to choose from. I made a post here many pages ago that listed a few options. Carthage can't have Hannibal, so that would mean a return of Dido. Tamar, Zenobia and Ranavalona are all good options. Aksum/Ethiopia with Sheba and Zulu with Nandi are worse, but still possible options.

In terms of Europeans, Portugal has strong female leaders to choose from; there's no way a Joao is making an appearance. Boudicca has been sighted as a Great General, so she won't be appearing either. I don't see an Italian [city state] civ appearing unless somebody can come up with a suitable female leader (Borgia or Medici family member, maybe?).

Of course Tamar is a very real option as well.

So 2 women, at least one of which must have a culture focus. One of the women is probably from Africa. With that in mind, any theories?
 
Last edited:
Sumer is very similar to Assyria, Khmer is very similar to Siam. I would argue that those two are 'in the game' at this point. I don't think anybody expects the Shoshone to make a return. Firaxis wasn't even intending them to appear the first time. I think they'd avoid Polynesia in favour of a specific polynesian group this time (Maori for example). I would be surprised if we ever see Morocco, Austria or Sweden again.

I think Firaxis is trying to avoid 'blanket civs' as much as possible now. Certainly with North American native tribes, their approach seems to be putting one tribe in each game as a representative of the group. The Native American civ in IV was distasteful and since then they've gone for Iroquois, Shoshone and now Cree. Sioux haven't appeared in some time. I have a feeling that with so many tribes available, they'll just keep exposing us to different ones as long as possible to represent the region.

I could see a similar approach with the Italian city states. Venice got in last time, maybe this time it's Genoa, or another smaller faction in Ren. Italy?

I agree with most of your points, but the numbers aren't just about replacing civs with similar ones, they're about removing civ niches, period. When I say "remove Venice", I mean "remove the Italian city state spot," or "remove the Polynesian civ spot," so no Italian civ and no Polynesian civ at all. One more xpac of similar size simply isn't enough to fill the niches introduced in V; even being very conservative and assuming that there will only be 1 more new civ and 13 returnees still yet to be revealed, that still means 10 civs that were in V have to be removed, with no replacements. I also agree that some civs are easier to remove than others, like Shoshone, Siam, Assyria, the Huns, etc, but at some point you'll get into more unique niches that have yet to be filled in VI. The "cut" quota is more of a way of looking at what is lost if there is indeed only 1 more xpac with civs coming; essentially, at most 14 civs would be able to return (if there are absolutely no new civs, which is unrealistic), so that means that 10 aren't. Replacing Venice with another Italian city state wouldn't help with this, only removing the Italian city-state civ spot as a whole would.

I personally disagree about Morocco and especially Austria, since the latter was intended to be in Civ III and was only left out due to memory constraints; then the HRE in IV very much stepped on Hapsburg Austria's toes, but I think Firaxis intends to include some form of the Hapsburgs in Civ. Morocco I'm a bit less confident about, but it was a long-lasting power in a region lacking in representation; plus, it doesn't face the issue of people complaining that "it was hardly a civilization by definition", so I think it's a solid, reliable choice.
 
Last edited:
I don't see difficulty in releasing DLC civs that can work for both Vanilla and R&F. They don't have to redo models or graphics... it's just a matter of doing 2 versions of the XML files. I think a modder could do the same.The DLC checks for which version of the game is operative and then uses appropriate XML...
 
I'm assuming the concern, frankly, would be less about just the garden variety Civ DLC complainers and more that it would turn into a PR firestorm beyond just the Civ community, ala a mini version of the EA Battlefront imbriglio.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but I'm under the impression that no other gaming company has done this (i.e. makes DLC that requires you have purchased previous DLC). It just seems like a PR minefield for Firaxis: best case scenario they just get the usual complainers and maybe some Xzibit memes revivals (yo dawg, I put some DLC in your DLC etc.). Worst case scenario it becomes the latest gamer-crusader cause celebre, with gamers convinced it's going to lead to "buy it all or nothing" DLC policies for all games.

I.e. I don't think there would be an issue if it was already an industry practice, but I'm not sure Firaxis would want to be known as the ones breaking ground in that regard.

From my point of view, the more DLC the merrier (I mean I literally own all Civ 5 DLC - including all the map packs. And that's not via the 'complete' edition or anything - I started with Vanilla when it came out). So my fingers are crossed they figure out something (I'd definitely prefer DLC to loot box style nickel and dimeing). They just seem damned if you do, damned if you don't (in regards to making the Civ R&F dependent), so in retrospect I'm not surprised they just stuck to map packs between God and Kings and BNW.

I do not believe there would be any kind of real outrage. As long as a civ in a DLC uses mechanics introduced in the expansion (important difference by the way, an expansion is NOT a simple DLC; it introduces new mechanics rather than just content) it simply needs that expansion to work, and that's obvious to anyone. The only people who might complain are those who don't want any expansions but really really want a certain civ because it's that civ, but then still holds that the civ has been designed to use expansion mechanics, so they're just gonna run into a brick wall if they complain about it anywhere, as other people will just be like "yeah, but hey, it uses expansion mechanics".

Of course, that should be a requirement. DLCs should only be R&F exclusive if they actually use R&F mechanics.
 
I don't think there developers target some specific quota of female leaders. If some interesting civs have only male leaders, we'll have males.

My predictions are:
1. Inca. South America needs more civs. Incas are very famous and have a lot of uniqueness.
2. Ottomans/Turks/Seljuks. Large empires at some period. Turks are large and important country now. A lot of historically interesting elements.
3. Georgia. It has really cool female leader, it wasn't represented in the game yet, the meme is quite popular in civ community.
4. Mali. From all African civs it has one of the best placements in terms . Interesting and historically important. Was in Civ4, but not Civ5, which generally increases odds of repeating appearance.

EDIT: I also think Seljuk representation of Turks could result in some cool scenario about crusades with Tamar, Barbarossa and Suleiman II.
 
I deeply think (and hope) that there will be a italian civ (taking the niche of Venice... I highly doubt that Venice will come back, even if it has a unique gameplay very funny). Probably a civ based on culture, trade or golden ages (Florence might be, or Genoa, but to close from Venice). Or Alliances.
It would be a real surprise if the renaissance italian civ will be the Papal States. But very unikely.

I don't see why Ottomans/Turks should be in this expansion. They're cool, right, but I don't see why they should be here specifically (but I hope they won't be solely a huge warmongering monster).

Georgia is, for me, a joke. All of that only because of a meme on the civfanatics forum, the same forum where we heard the most complaints about the presence of Gandhi only because he's a meme (don't you have any consistency, guys?)

Portugal would be great, Phoenicia/Carthage too, but unlikely because Netherlands are there to be the naval/maritime civ. But it's not impossible: we had Gengis Khan and Chandragupta Maurya as two warmongering leaders. Maybe they could do 2 naval civ, Netherlands and another. But not the two, and I will think about Carthage/Phoenicia upon Portugal to be a lot less euopeanocentric.

Also, I don't get it why people said Netherlands take the economic powerhouse spot on the expansion. They are mostly productive, cultural and loyal, but nothing to extend their commerce or gold income or nothing (even polders are more about food and production than gold). So, for me, Mali or Morocco would perfectly fit for an african civ not to obvious but not to obscure neither (unilke Kongo, which I have never heard upon this specific aspect of cultural, mercantile and pious figure).

So if I had to make a choice, vaguely based on my own wishes and a bit of reflexion (but not to much), I would say :

1. Renaissance Italian civ but not Venice (Florence or Milano, maybe Genoa) -> culture, golden ages, alliances
2. Carthage/Phoenicia (possibility of an african civ with a female leader : combo!) -> commerce, navigation and maybe elephants (because crossing mountains will allow Carthage to see a lot of sweets unaccessible spots trapped between mountains).
3. Mali (another african civ) -> gold, commerce, mine, gold, trade routes, gold, little science and faith. Did I say gold?
4. Incas/Mayas (the other american civ. The two are possible, and I can't choose between them. I would like the science bonuses coupled with religion and astronomy of the Maya, but the possible ability to cross mountains or having adjency bonuses from mountains, is very appealing for the Incas).
 
i think that there are going to be more than 50 civs at the end and probably we could even reach 60 but that's a bit too optimistic. it's a shame that a lot of people think that austria sweden and siam are out, they were big regional powers and could have the possibility to be incredibly unique, austria could have a unique diplomatic level by having royal marriages with other civilizations, sweden is a perfect choice for a tundra based civ, more than canada, and the thai are incredibly different from the khmer.
i wouldn't be surprised if in the end we're going to have siam,khmer and vietnam in SE asia.
i probably missed something, but i don't understand that everyone is thinking about carthage for the expansion, hasn't carthage been seen yet as a city state?
for the last four civs, my guesses are:
1)ottomans
2)inca
3)mali
4) someone in europe, could be portugal, could be italy/florence lead by lorenzo de medici: he's the only good choice imo for an alliance bonus to fit the expansion
i bet we're going to have three expansions and tons of DLCs so that firaxis can make the big money:gold::gold::gold:
 
4) someone in europe, could be portugal, could be italy/florence lead by lorenzo de medici: he's the only good choice imo for an alliance bonus to fit the expansion

It will be funny to have Catherine de Medici and Lorenzo de Medici in one game : the great-grandfather and the great-granddaughter, facing eachother. Hilarious :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom