What’s next? More DLCs or first expansion

[gfeier]

I'd be very happy with almost any expansion that includes the World Congress or equivalent and a proper Hall of Fame.

 

[Olleus]

All Firaxis really needs to do is accelerate the time period that passes between one turn and the next and most people wouldn't even notice the anachronisms that emerge between tech level and date. There's no need to slow everything down in terms of actual turn numbers to make the date and tech level match up, standard-speed Civ games already take multiple hours to complete, and if what you are actually looking for is a longer game, then use epic or marathon settings.

The problem aren't just the dates though, it is that the game (and especially the late game) goes far too quickly. Essentially, research costs are too low compared to production costs. Slowing research down is the easiest way of fixing that.

 

[DWilson]

I worry that if we get more new leaders we will get less new civs. This is particularly less bang for buck given that more goes into a leader's graphics relative to their abilities than a civ as a a whole's graphics to abilities.

 

[sonicmyst]

There is a nice suggestion in Reddit about Diplo Victory here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/7258tq/reintroducing_diplomatic_victory_to_civ_6/

 

[leandrombraz]

Did anyone check the audio files to see if there's an unannounced leader introduction there?

But you can't really add second leaders for DLC-civs, no? I mean I'm sure Firaxis will find a way if they really want to do another Persian leader, but it seems strange.

It can work in the same way the Civ V expansions work. BNW come with all G&K mechanics if you don't own G&K, you only miss the civilizations, wonders, scenarios, all that stuff. If they add a Persian leader in the expansion, it can come with the Persian Civ for anyone who doesn't own the DLC, the only thing it won't have is Cyrus, the scenario, Macedonia and whatever else that DLC add, which obviously require you to buy the DLC.

 

[Leyrann]

They got a small dilemma with an expansion. Having introduced the multiple-leaders-mechanic, it makes sense for them to add more leaders. As single leaders are however not really enough for a buyable DLC, they should get grouped into an expansion. 'Leaders for existing civs' + new mechanics looks like a good formula for an expansion, you can also add a few new civs, scenarios and map scripts in there if you want to.

But you can't really add second leaders for DLC-civs, no? I mean I'm sure Firaxis will find a way if they really want to do another Persian leader, but it seems strange.

Also, these new leaders, say Napoleon, Ramses or Washington seem like they would be interesting and recognizable to a lot of players. They would be a good sales argument in a way that Nubia or Indonesia aren't. So, from a marketing perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to have new civs in the expansion and alternative leaders in DLC's? Now I'm interested in what direction they'll chose to go

If they were to add, say, a second Persian leader, they might just make the Persia&Macedon DLC part of the expansion, and then make the expansion a bit cheaper if you already have that DLC.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The problem aren't just the dates though, it is that the game (and especially the late game) goes far too quickly. Essentially, research costs are too low compared to production costs. Slowing research down is the easiest way of fixing that.

I agree, its almost like they didn't account for Eurekas & Inspirations when determining how quickly the tech/civic trees should move. A 20% increase would probably make it right.

 

[Leyrann]

I agree, its almost like they didn't account for Eurekas & Inspirations when determining how quickly the tech/civic trees should move. A 20% increase would probably make it right.

Having played quite a bit with Olleus' 8 Ages of Pace, I can say confidently that 20% is only good in the first two eras. For the late game, you should think along the lines of 200%, or even more.

 

[Deluxe]

Is there any information about the modding tools somewhere ? (twitter or else)

 

[Katakanja]

The problem aren't just the dates though, it is that the game (and especially the late game) goes far too quickly. Essentially, research costs are too low compared to production costs. Slowing research down is the easiest way of fixing that.

Oh I agree with you about the actual costs - it's just that when this topic comes up in a thread there are inevitably a few people who combine re-balancing tech costs and keeping turn date/tech level roughly synchronised into a single issue, when the former is a mechanical problem, and the latter is an immersion problem.

In fact, I would even say that date/tech synchronisation is impossible as it goes against one of the core aspects of good Civ strategy - the goal of the player, particularly at higher difficulties, is to maximise science and gain a tech advantage. So long as this is the case, and you the player are playing well, the game is always going to involve wacky things like gunpowder in 300 AD or whatever.

I agree, its almost like they didn't account for Eurekas & Inspirations when determining how quickly the tech/civic trees should move. A 20% increase would probably make it right.

Kind of continuing on from the above point, I think eurekas and inspirations were designed with the "non-optimal" player in mind. All of us on this forum, regardless of the difficulty that we actually play at, are probably more aware of the inner mechanical workings if the game - we go out of our way to make sure we trigger as many Eurekas/inspirations as possible, hence why we burn through the tech tree so quickly.

Honestly I think the mistake with the boosts isn't that they are too high, it's that they are too straightforward. Its easy to get practically every boost on both tech trees in any game, without having to excessively gimp your strategy. I would prefer if Firaxis did a thorough rebalance of all the triggers for the boosts and made them harder to get rather than nerfing the boost itself - IMO it should be impossible to get every boost in every game in a timely manner. The boosts should have been designed to reward specialisation to a greater degree, so that you can move through the parts of the tree that are most important to your civ/deisred victory rapidly, but are then forced to take longer on the research areas in which you are less focused.

Having played quite a bit with Olleus' 8 Ages of Pace, I can say confidently that 20% is only good in the first two eras. For the late game, you should think along the lines of 200%, or even more.

But why?

See, I understand that by the time you get to modern/atomic the eras are going by so fast and your victory is so imminent that you don't get to play with aircraft, nukes and all the other lategame toys in any kind of significant way. But when the solution is to purposefully make everything take longer so that the player is stuck pressing end turn an extra 80-100 times is like Ed Beach coming to your house, forcing you to sit at your computer and shouting at you something like "You WILL play with these units, and you WILL ENJOY YOURSELF"

I actually think they should have taken the chance with Civ VI to do a full rebalance to the game and make it a 400 turn experience at standard speed. I know the controversy this would provoke from certain corners of the fanbase would probably have been apocalyptic to the level of 1 upt, but seriously, turns 400 to 500 may as well not be in the game at the moment. The only times I've had a 400+ game in Civ VI was when it first came out and I was learning the game.

IMO the only reason its still 500 at standard is out of tradition, and a fear to go against that tradition. Balancing the game around a shorter turn number forces you to do more in less time, would improve the pacing if correctly done, makes every decision a more meaningful question of "Is this the right choice to make right now?" and would cut down on the ultimate bane to this game series as a whole, the dreaded "I'm just clicking next turn until I win" effect. If you want a longer game, epic and marathon would still be there for you, and they would probably benefit from any pacing improvements a tighter turn limit on standard would bring to the game.

TL; DR: This post is more or less going entirely offtopic and if you're not interested in reading it, just don't

 

[Leyrann]

For me, the game balance is correct if tech and culture research times are more or less stable the whole game through for an average game. You should balance that first, and then after that you can look toward "how many turns is the game with this speed" (just put the turn time about 30-50% above what you need to complete the tech tree, so that even in slow games you can reach the end of the tech tree if no one gets a victory of any kind) and then things like "how many turns should production in an average city take" and the like. What I'm arguing is the first - tech and culture research times in number of turns feels too fast for me in the base game, while 8 Ages of Pace got it about right. I realize, though, that in a world where everything is balanced correctly, that means I am playing on epic speed. Right now, again when looking at the base game, production costs are keeping me from doing so, though. (which is why I halved all production costs, but there's another thread for that)

 

[Zuizgond]

What about more patches until AI combat and diplomacy are in a decent state?

 

[Olleus]

See, I understand that by the time you get to modern/atomic the eras are going by so fast and your victory is so imminent that you don't get to play with aircraft, nukes and all the other lategame toys in any kind of significant way. But when the solution is to purposefully make everything take longer so that the player is stuck pressing end turn an extra 80-100 times is like Ed Beach coming to your house, forcing you to sit at your computer and shouting at you something like "You WILL play with these units, and you WILL ENJOY YOURSELF"

I think you're being circular here. In vanilla, the late game doesn't matter because it goes too fast, so planes don't stick around for long enough to actually matter. But in 8 Ages of Pace, they are around for a very long time. So using them actually becomes important. The logic is that I want to play the late game, but only if it's interesting. The way to make it interesting is to make it matter, 8AoP goes some way towards doing that. I think actually a bigger problem is the AI doesn't keep growing/invading neighbours in the late game. If in every game 1/3 of the AIs became a runaway then the player wouldn't be able to sit on his horseman rush laurels and would have to keep pushing their advantage (militarily or otherwise). From what I've heard, this happens more with this path.

 

[Katakanja]

I think you're being circular here. In vanilla, the late game doesn't matter because it goes too fast, so planes don't stick around for long enough to actually matter. But in 8 Ages of Pace, they are around for a very long time. So using them actually becomes important. The logic is that I want to play the late game, but only if it's interesting. The way to make it interesting is to make it matter, 8AoP goes some way towards doing that. I think actually a bigger problem is the AI doesn't keep growing/invading neighbours in the late game. If in every game 1/3 of the AIs became a runaway then the player wouldn't be able to sit on his horseman rush laurels and would have to keep pushing their advantage (militarily or otherwise). From what I've heard, this happens more with this path.

I think the issue is that we fundamentally want opposite things to happen to the game

Your mod is designed to make everything fit better within the time frame that presently exists within the game, which I can respect. Instead, I'm just proposing that they chop 100 turns off the game and then redo all the numbers to fit within that, hopefully resulting an a tighter experience overall, which honestly would probably make standard speed feel even less like the game you are trying to help it become.

IMO I think we're getting close to what I think is the problem at the heart of the civ series at the moment. It feels increasingly like it can't decide whether it wants to be turn-based strategy game or a grand strategy game, is trying to find a sweet spot in the middle, and is failing at both. Obviously it tries to portray itself as this grand, sweeping historical epic that takes us from the dawn of civilization to the present day, but at the same time its trying to be... the most boardgamey videogame it can be, that you could play IRL but for that fact that there would be too many pieces and rules for a person to keep track of in any reasonable manner (which makes sense given the series' origins).

This means it can't have the same kind of depth, immersion and emergent gameplay a game like, say, Crusader Kings II can on the grand-strategy side of things, but at the same time it also holds itself back from being a highly focused, tactical experience where everything is sharply balanced and the statistics experts among us could numbercrunch their way out of any situation.

Ultimately I think we both want the game to move more in the direction of one or the other, and I think the same could be said of most of the core fanbase, given that a lot of the most heated debates here tend to revolve around features of the game that when emphasized or reduced would push it in one direction or another. The real question is whether Firaxis can find a happy middle ground to satisfy everyone

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Having played quite a bit with Olleus' 8 Ages of Pace, I can say confidently that 20% is only good in the first two eras. For the late game, you should think along the lines of 200%, or even more.

But that would make spaceship victory an unbearable chore.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

Honestly if there was the be any DLCs, before an expansion like some of the others said it would need to be in the Americas. If there ever a possibility that there are two DLCs coming before the expansion there could be a possibility of either of one DLC in North America (Native American tribes and/or Canada) and one on South America (Inca with civs like Maya or Olmec or some other civ). Another possibility is we could see a DLC with an alternative leader and another DLC featured in the Americas regions. I remembered a year ago the leaders portraits were leaked and it included two leaders that weren't in the base game one of them was Jagdwiga and the other was Isabella. It is possible that Isabella could be saved up for a double leader DLC where Isabella could alternatively lead Spain and include an North American or south American civ with her or she could be saved up for an expansion.

 

[Vahnstad]

The only thing that actually does surprise me, is why they would wait to release the Inca's + Isabella only now? It's maybe because they think the Inca's would be more popular (and that it wouldn't be worth to put in the digital deluxe edition), or because of the extra leader. The good thing about this is that both Inca's and Isabella will be quite strong. Isabella will be stronger than Philip II (and could be even seen as a bump of Spain. His UA is weak. Inca's will be very powerful, and probably even be the best builder civ, because of it's guaranteed bias to mountains, which are good in particular for science and faith, and nearby hills for the production, and they will most likely have a unique improvement (terrace farm) that will increase food on hill tiles. You hear it, they will be good. And since we heard from the interview that the developers rather want to bump civs instead of nerf them, new civs will be extremely powerful. They will be GOD tier, especially for certain playstyles. Also, i'm not sure if we will see a DLC from North-America, but if it did, i think they will release a very powerful native American civ, Sioux or Canada.

The expansion pack will probably be something like this. It's clear they will focus on the late game with economy / diplomacy, and maybe focus on trade / colonization. That's why i expect the Netherlands to be in it. Also, they're well known. For the same reasons, i expect Mali (and Mansa Musa) to be in it, especially since they didn't appear in civ 5. I just can't imagine that they won't be included in the next DLC. They're certainly going to be in it.

Korea is a well known civ that is most likely reserved for the first expansion as well. It is also a "known" East-Asian representative, and since they visited southeastern asia recently in the latest DLC, the Asian representatives from this part of the world would be Korea or Mongolia or both. I'm not sure about Mongolia, but they have a very known and iconic leader Genghis Khan, and it would be great to see them included in the series. I don't expect a lot of warmongers to be included in the next DLC, so they could be easily included, and it would be weird to have 30+ civs in the game, and not to have the second largest land empire ever seen in it. It's just too well known and great / iconic to be overseen. Last but not least, if there was a Oceania representative, it would be Polynesia, but i'm not sure if they will be included. If we would see Hawaii, they will name it Polynesia. If we would see Maori, it could be named Maori.

We will probably see a civilization from the cradle of Civilization as well. We already have Sumer, and still lack Babylon (that is a must-have for the series) and Assyria. The Hittites are also a possibility, but I doubt they would opt for them. I'm also not sure if Babylon would be science-focused. Alternatively, we could see other civs as well, like Carthage / Phoenicia. Since this expansion wouldn't be focused that much on old empires, i only expect one or two of them max. Carthage is a decent possibility, but there is a great likelihood we will already have a lot of maritime-focused civs in this expansion (Netherlands, Polynesia, ... ) . The Celts are also a possibility. They're also well known, but the EU is already well populated, and we will almost definitely see the Netherlands. There is also still Portugal, Sweden or Austria/Hungary. I doubt any of them will be included, but Hungary could be a dark horse. Genoa or an Italy city state civ could be reserved for the expansion as well, but would also be a maritime civ. If Genoa would be in, i doubt they would included Carthage. We also have Ottomans, also a maritime civ, and a must-have for the civ series. They would fit in the economic theme. The problem is that Genoa, Carthage and Ottomans are just way too much the same, and even Ottomans and Genoa would be much like each other (however they could even have a scenario), and Genoa would probably fit in a diplomatic theme a lot. And now that i think off, the inclusion of Hungary could make much more sense, and a scenario with the Ottomans is possible as well.

In Africa, there is still demand for a lot of civs, and like i said Mali will definitely be in. We will probably have one or two African civs. The other one will most likely be in the south, and could be traditional Zulu or Ethiopia. I think the inclusion of Zulu could depend on whether Genghis Khan would be included or not. If he's not, we will see Shaka. If Genghis is in, the likelihood of Shaka being in, is much lower, but still not of the cards. Carthage could be considered African as well, so maybe we will see more African civs than we would think.

We will most likely already had the DLC in the America's (one or two), and if not, Inca's are guaranteed. A famous civ to be included in the series could be Maya's. I'm not sure if they will be in, but I'd rather want them to be in the game. The other civ could be a (new) Native American civ, and since I still don't have a possible civ debut, we could see Pueblo, Apache, Creek or Cherokee. I however expect Pueblo to be too similar to the Maya's, and that they will opt for the Cherokee, since they had encounters with the English people. Pueblo could be reserved for another expansion pack. Inuit could be a good dark civ as well.

The lack of new original civs, could be good news for the people who don't like blob civs, since that does mean, they will be more likely to be more creative around Celts or Polynesia, if they included them.

Civs that could lead to interesting opportunities if they focused on a second leader (like Ed Beach stated), are Russia (Soviet Time Age), Egypt (Old Egypt not yet included), India, China (because -> rich history), Rome (but already well represented) and to a lesser extent also England, France, Germany (although i wouldn't expect them to represent a German Empire), Japan (but Meiji seems a bit unlikely). Since France is not popular and also could use a buff, an alternate leader is more likely there. England seems also much more likely than Germany and Japan.

I think Egypt will definitely have an alternative leader. I'm not sure whether it would be Hatsheput (female, economy & trade/wonder-building, Ramesses II (warmonger, wonder-building) or Akhenaten (religious). Ramesses II chances of being in the expansion are reduced if Shaka and/or Genghis Khan are already in. Akhenaten is more likely when we don't have a lot of religious civs yet (and it seems not). I don't think they will treat India in this expansion, but that it would have a large overhaul in a second expansion (a la Greece), however they could include a second leader now (Ashoka), and a Mughal civ later. Still, i don't think it will happen. France is however more likely, since it has three different options, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc and Napoleon. Napoleon again depends on whether how many other warmongers are included, and maybe a second French leader could also be reserved for the next expansion. Same does apply for England, since we already have Victoria and there are lots of different options like Richard Lionheart, Alfred The Great, Elizabeth II but i'm not seeing who they would have to take. Russia could be in (but Peter is well-done already). The Soviet Union could be represented through better science output (leading science and culture output), a strong diplomatic game and very opportunistic/influencing/dominating gameplay. Strong military, and very agressive when provoked (-> non-stop denouncing / very defensive). They actually can also be a new civ, but that would maybe be a bit weird. They could especially be in the game, if the game will introduce sphering, a new diplomatic concept (or a unique soviet leader ability concept).

New civs:
Netherlands
Mali (Mansa Musa)
Zulu (Shaka)
Ottomans
Cherokee
Mongolia (Genghis Khan)
Korea (Seondeok)
Genoa ( or Italy multi-leader pack -> takes spot of Carthage)
Hungary

Second leaders:
Egypt (Akhenaten, Ramesses II or Hatshepsut)
Russia (Vladimir Lenin)
France, China or England takes the spot here, i guess England (Elizabeth I), but i'm really not sure.


Second exp: Portugal, Babylon, Mughals, Maya, Ethiopia, Sweden, Carthage, Celts, Colombia and Maori. Second leaders for India (Ashoka), France (Napoleon) and China (Wu Zetian)

So, i've tried to use the mindset of Firaxis, now i'm curious

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Part of me feels like Elizabeth I and Napoleon won't make it into the game because of the unique units. We have the Sea Dog and Garde Imperial that would have gone easily as one of their UU but instead are presented as the Civs UU. Personally I would like The Sun King, Louis XIV for France, and Winston Churchill for England.
If we did see another DLC I could see it being Inca or Maya +Isabella and a scenario focusing on Spanish exploration of the new world.
Alternatively they could do Iroquois and Canada with a scenario maybe on the French and Indian War. I would prefer the first option though.

 

[Olleus]

Louis XIV is so obviously the natural choice for a French leader that it's shocking he hasn't been in a civ game for over a decade.

 

[w3rallmachines]

It'd be cool to see England get a medieval leader (since at least in the Anglo world their medieval history is fairly popular). Give them William the Conquerer/Edward I or for a bit later in time Henry VIII/Elizabeth I.