What’s next? More DLCs or first expansion

[Katakanja]

Wasn't there an update on the DB 2 days ago?

Yes, they are working on something, but that seems to be the extent of what we can learn from watching SteamDB at the moment, particularly since they have decided to stop helpfully naming (DLC05, DLC06, etc) the things they are testing.

 

[Vahnstad]

I still think it is ridiculous to have an age of exploration themed game and not have two thirds of the most important civs for that theme. I guess we‘ll see both Portugal and the Netherlands soon. Maybe even in one explorers DLC. Otherwise in the first expansion. And no, they are very different nations and civs, I don‘t think they are mutually exclusive.

Problem is we don't have that many European slots anymore. It wouldn't leave much room for other civs. Also an exploration-themed expansion would be too Eurocentric. Okay, Mali, Polynesia, Ottomans would also fit in, especially since Mali and Ottomans were also economic civs. An Italian city-state civ (Florence, Venice, Genoa) would fit in as well, but I think you can't leave out the Mongols and Korea or ignore older civs like Babylon and Carthage.

And would we see so many DLC's after all? (Italian city state DLC, NA DLC (maybe even Canada), SA DLC, Explorer's DLC, a Cold War DLC and I also started to think off a Celts DLC to solve the Celtish problem with Julius Caesar as an alternate leader of Rome or a Punic War DLC).

 

[Siptah]

We don‘t know how many slots there are, and how many DLCs there will be. But I think 20 more civs are not unrealistic, which has enough room for some more European civs. I‘ve always been against the celts and Carthage in civ. They are always pictured so wrong. I could easily do without them.
Also, I‘m not talking about an exploration themed expansion. The base game is exploration themed graphically (and in the words of the devs).

 

[Vahnstad]

One expansion is going to contain 8, 9 or 10 civs, with the possibility of 1, 2 or 3 alternate leaders at most. I think 3 of those civs are going to be European slots (and even then there will most likely be a lot of complain). And France or Spain are also likely to have an alternate leader. Maybe Russia, England and Rome as well. Outside of Europe, India, China and Egypt. A slight chanche for alternate leaders for Japan, America, Persia, Germany and Arabia, but most likely not.

When you include Netherlands AND Portugal, you're not going to have much room left for another civ, and maybe you don't like how Carthage and the Celts are implemented in the game, but Firaxis is definitely considering them, and they're right to do so. You can consider Ottomans also slightly European, and they should be in by then. Sweden and Austria/Hungary/Bohemia or an Italian city state civ are also in the race to be included.

 

[Olleus]

I don't want to get too political here but I think this the case where just like Mao Zedong for China, any close to modern day leader might face some controversy due to the fact there might be players who live or have lived in those countries. Any form of them being portrayed either positively or negatively might have bad results. Ronald Reagan would definitely be too modern for me as well. Anybody ruling past the sixties I would personally leave out. I'll leave it at that.

Mao was also portrayed in Civ4. I don't buy this whole "it's all to sensitive@ argument. It's essentially a self fulfilling prophecy, it's only controversial because we say it's controversial.

 

[leandrombraz]

Yes, they are working on something, but that seems to be the extent of what we can learn from watching SteamDB at the moment, particularly since they have decided to stop helpfully naming (DLC05, DLC06, etc) the things they are testing.

That GH thing came out with the last patch, right? Maybe this is like GH and signal the release of a Winter patch instead of paid content. Maybe it will come with something similar to the religions overhaul and do some drastic changes to another system.

 

[Morningcalm]

Mao was also portrayed in Civ4. I don't buy this whole "it's all to sensitive@ argument. It's essentially a self fulfilling prophecy, it's only controversial because we say it's controversial.

Nope. China didn't appreciate that players could fight Mao in a regular Civ IV game, so in the Chinese release Mao was replaced with someone else. There was actual controversy there.

There's also actual controversy with him since he was a horrible human rights abuser and womanizer whose numerous industrial pushes (producing iron for example) backfired horribly.

There are many better less modern examples that would generate less controversy. Even Qin Shi Huangdi (cruel as he was) generates less controversy.

 

[Vahnstad]

To put it in other words, the chances of Mao Zedong ever making an appearance in the game again are basically zero. Too controversial for the western world and too heroic for the Chinese world.

 

[God of Kings]

To put it in other words, the chances of Mao Zedong ever making an appearance in the game again are basically zero. Too controversial for the western world and too heroic for the Chinese world.

In other words, Mao is banned from future Civ appearances for completely opposite reasons (depending on perspective) outside of user-generated mods.

Taizong was used in the Chinese version of Civ IV.

 

[Aurelesk]

I'm pretty sure they will add civilisations/leaders not for their relevance in History, but for the gameplay they can add in the game. I think that's why we have Catherine de Medici: for the Spy and Diplomatic Visibility features. I think if they add other leaders and other civilizasions, that will be for the same reason.
If they add a new leader for France, let's say Napoleon, he must be more than just an other warmonger. They will make some research and try to explore new concept, like the dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, and we will have that kind of things:

Napoléon:
Cannot create a religion. Can purchase religionless religious units with Gold to reduce religious pressure in his cities and engage religious combat. Holy Site adjacency give Production instead of Faith, Shrine and Temple give Science instead of Faith and Great Prophet Points is converted in Great General Points. +7 Combat Strength against religious civilisation.

You have it: an anti-religion warmonger civilization. That also work to create civilisation efficient where all other can't, like settling in toundra or desert tiles, using Relics effectively or make tall cities.

I think the good question isn't: What civilisation in History deserve to be in the game?, but more: What civilisation is unique that can be translated into new mechanics in the game?

 

[God of Kings]

I'm pretty sure they will add civilisations/leaders not for their relevance in History, but for the gameplay they can add in the game. I think that's why we have Catherine de Medici: for the Spy and Diplomatic Visibility features. I think if they add other leaders and other civilizasions, that will be for the same reason.
If they add a new leader for France, let's say Napoleon, he must be more than just an other warmonger. They will make some research and try to explore new concept, like the dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, and we will have that kind of things:

Napoléon:
Cannot create a religion. Can purchase religionless religious units with Gold to reduce religious pressure in his cities and engage religious combat. Holy Site adjacency give Production instead of Faith, Shrine and Temple give Science instead of Faith and Great Prophet Points is converted in Great General Points. +7 Combat Strength against religious civilisation.

You have it: an anti-religion warmonger civilization. That also work to create civilisation efficient where all other can't, like settling in toundra or desert tiles, using Relics effectively or make tall cities.

I think the good question isn't: What civilisation in History deserve to be in the game?, but more: What civilisation is unique that can be translated into new mechanics in the game?

This mechanic can also be used for a Soviet leader (the Lavra would still be useful, albeit for secular purposes), but with +10 combat strength against religious civs while fighting within Russian territory.

 

[Katakanja]

I think the good question isn't: What civilisation in History deserve to be in the game?, but more: What civilisation is unique that can be translated into new mechanics in the game?

I agree with you 100%

However we are unfortunately in the minority as most folks on the forum prefer to speculate based on the perceived historical relevance of a civ/leader, rather than in gameplay terms

 

[Aurelesk]

This mechanic can also be used for a Soviet leader (the Lavra would still be useful, albeit for secular purposes), but with +10 combat strength against religious civs while fighting within Russian territory.

Of course, the leaders/civilisations don't matter, as long a new mechanic/gameplay is born and playable. My point is just to say that leaders/civilisation < mechanics.

We can't resume all Russia history to a Toundra civilisation that love Eastern Orthodoxy, Cavalry, Great Writers and in love with the Western World, as well France isn't a River civilisation that love Château, Great General, Wonders and in love with Spying countries.

If they want to add a secular gameplay, they will add it no matter if the potentiel civ that can have it wasn't relevant or have already a leader. That's why I'm pretty sure that Inca will show up sooner or later: we don't have many mountain civilisation around (well, Tibet is one of them) and they have a notorious Wonder: the Machu Pichu (well Taj Mahal didn't make it...).

However we are unfortunately in the minority as most folks on the forum prefer to speculate based on the perceived historical relevance of a civ/leader, rather than in gameplay terms

The trick is to combine both (*cough*Medici*cough*)

The question is: what mechanics the game have to explore that we don't have yet? Draining (steal Faith, Culture, Gold, Science...), city flipping (a cultural thing), buying city-state à la Austria in Civ5, building city/district in the sea (Venise?) or mountain (Inca?)... Well we have some times.

 

[Vahnstad]

The Dutch obviously have an advantage because of their trade monopoly, and if i'm not wrong, there are few civs centered around trade. The Inca's have the advantage of the mountains. The Mayans have their calendar (and because of their isolation, it wouldn't be that hard to find something unique). I'm sure they will find something for almost every civ, but I really hope that this wouldn't be a reason to leave civs like the Mongols out of the game, because than including Scythia would be a stupid move.

 

[Vahnstad]

Taj Mahal could be included later with a Mughal civ What could be the unique agenda of the Mughals actually? It could however ensure that a second Egyptian leader would be more difficult to include, like Ramesses II (since he would be too much like Qin Shi Huang) or Akhenaten (there are obviously going to be too much religious civs). But that maybe opens te door for a new leader like Hatsheput.

 

[Siptah]

Egypt offers enough diplomatic leaders as well, so if an expansion brings some mechanics in that direction, I can see Egypt getting a leader with an ability in that field.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Dutch obviously have an advantage because of their trade monopoly, and if i'm not wrong, there are few civs centered around trade. The Inca's have the advantage of the mountains. The Mayans have their calendar (and because of their isolation, it wouldn't be that hard to find something unique). I'm sure they will find something for almost every civ, but I really hope that this wouldn't be a reason to leave civs like the Mongols out of the game, because than including Scythia would be a stupid move.

In my mind I created a Mongolia centered around Kublai Khan capturing cities with trading posts and therefore gaining more gold and Great Merchant Points. I also gave cavalry units faster movement and more range for Great Generals with a Keshik ( heavy cavalry replacement for Knight) which makes them a better nomadic horse civ from mid to later game, unlike Scythia which is early game where they hit their peak. If they could have the Huns and Mongolia, they can have Scythia and Mongolia.

 

[clapyourhands]

Egypt offers enough diplomatic leaders as well, so if an expansion brings some mechanics in that direction, I can see Egypt getting a leader with an ability in that field.

I feel like Cleo in theory is supposed to be a leader with a diplomatic leaning, at least as an AI. Her bonus encourages trade with Egypt so that other civs can develop better relations with her, and her agenda according to her First Look's explanation was to ally strong civs to defend herself and fight weaker ones.

 

[Vahnstad]

Maybe Ramesses II would like civilizations that actually have builded a lot of wonders and hate civilizations that have less wonders than him, as opposed to Qin Shi Huang disliking civilizations that compete for the same wonders, and liking the civilizations who don't compete for these wonders, but I can imagine that 1) he will be a douchebag throughout most of the game (for most of us, except the newbies that play the game for the first time, because they're all like, wonders yeah cool.) It wouldn't change the game that much, since Ramesses II from CIV V and Cleopatra are already douchebags, at least to my experience. I've never managed to befriend them and they were also always far away, however i've encountered them more when the AI was designed to be more reluctant to alliances and defensive pacts.

edit: and i forgot what the 2 was.

 

[Haig]

Before a new Expansion is released, does the steam database get a mystery file that can be seen updated, or is it only for DLC like new civs?