What do you expect for a possibly upcoming expansion?

[Spatzimaus]

I would love to see a future age game. Beyond 2050 to perhaps 2300 or there abouts, another 250 turns.

You know, it's too bad that no one has created mods that do exactly this. I mean, it'd be nice to have something that adds three or four new eras full of content, designed to add another ~250 turns to the game, and that add new types of victory and some unusual game systems to keep things interesting.

Oh wait, we did. There are several mods that do exactly what you're asking for, including my own (link below), for people who are willing to go all the way over into the Modpacks forum on this site. The only thing the modders lack, really, are the ability to add custom sounds and 3D artwork, because Firaxis broke the art importer mechanism a few patches back and never fixed it.

 

[BranjoHello]

You either have DLC OR Expansions, not both. There will not be an expansion.

There were DLC for Oblivion and later they become one expansion. So it is possible.

I expect more leaders, tech and most of all espionage.

 

[Maktaka]

I expect more leaders, tech and most of all espionage.

I'm actually rather surprised espionage isn't higher on the list. It's one of the things in CIV not in CiV that would really work well, especially given CiV's higher importance on positioning in combat, a spy unit would work wonders in improving gameplay by providing vision over that line of tree/ridge of hills (especially in multiplayer). How many times have you ganked a lone archer with a knight on a hilltop only to find that on the other side of that hill were two pikemen and two crossbowmen that you couldn't see before? And there you are, stuck on top of the hill with a unit that gets no defensive terrain modifiers and no moves left. And with 1UPT, you end up with a TF2 spy style of play and all the headgames that come with it, where you try to stay close enough to your targets to do your work, but far enough away they don't bump into you and reveal your presence.

Infiltrating a city to gain it's vision, the old improvement sabotage, city poisoning, current production spying, current production sabotaging, stealing research data, fomenting riots, there was a lot to like about espionage in CIV and most of it could be dropped wholesale into CiV without issue (other than the slider based funding, but sliders are gone, so yay!).

One thing that CIV didn't have that I always thought would be well worth having is a spy-resistant mode (comparable to a high distrust of outsiders) that would dramatically decrease an enemy's spy effectiveness and increase their chances of detection in your territory, but would put a massive penalty on cultural growth.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if more civs didn't show up in an expansion. Firaxis has put out six through DLC already, and they work quite well for DLC there. DLC tends to work better when doing a "more of X" addition rather than an expansion's "new functionality Y".

 

[spider1]

I can't believe that number one on the poll for expansion expectations is civs/leaders. That's what DLCs are for, and we'll probably have several of them before an actual expansion is put out.

Next up in favorites is more techs, more wonders, and foreign trade routes. All three of those would fit in well with an expansion. Although I don't see why we need more techs when it's getting hard enough to research them all now anyway. More wonders would be nice I suppose, but foreign trades routes IMO would help out the most.

 

[Sonereal]

I can't believe that number one on the poll for expansion expectations is civs/leaders. That's what DLCs are for, and we'll probably have several of them before an actual expansion is put out.

Next up in favorites is more techs, more wonders, and foreign trade routes. All three of those would fit in well with an expansion. Although I don't see why we need more techs when it's getting hard enough to research them all now anyway. More wonders would be nice I suppose, but foreign trades routes IMO would help out the most.

Because people might actually want their expansion packs to come with the DLC civilizations?

 

[starrywisdom]

Because people might actually want their expansion packs to come with the DLC civilizations?

To be honest, it's why I'm not buying the DLC(at least until we have official word). I think it's pretty obvious they are going to have at least one expansion - as the patches haven't really offered 'gameplay changes/improvements' it's just been fixing the current mechanics in the game. I think it's a pretty large chance that the expansion will contain all the current DLC with no reduction in price for people who've purchased it - and seeing as how none of the current DLC offers much to me, personally, I just prefer to wait

 

[anandus]

Because people might actually want their expansion packs to come with the DLC civilizations?

I doubt it.

Although I do think there'll be a DLC collection pack (there already is something like that, the Civ5 GOTY), I think it would be unwise if they'd bundle already released DLC in an expansion (if there ever will be one) as it will undercut the sales of any future DLC (who'd want to buy DLC if you know you'll be paying for them in a future expansion?) and the expansion itself (who'd want to buy the expansion if it contains a lot of content you'd already have?).
From a business perspective it'd be unwise to try to sell the same stuff twice.

And I really hope they'll keep the content seperate from an eventual expansion. Personally I think that expansions are to add game features (that won't 'fit' in normal patches) and DLC's are for content expansion.

 

[Horizons]

One thing that seems really lacking to me in Civ5 is some kind of simple espionage system. Not a hideous abomination like Civ4: BTS, even just the ability to move a spy unit in enemy territory without an open borders would suffice.

 

[apocalypse105]

Diplomacy that makes sence i hope

 

[Wyte_Majik]

Alright then.

1. City-states built out more. They're a cool concept but the implementation isn't deep enough to go anywhere near tapping their potential. In particular, I'd like to see quests and diplomacy become primary in becoming friends with them, and I'd like to see a continuing relationship matter (instead of just buying them up the turn before a UN vote). I'd also like them to be a lot more dynamic militarily; I want to fight wars by proxy when it's appropriate, and I want to end up in a situation where I have to choose whether or not to honor my commitments to some minor civ when it risks war with a great power. There's no real way to do this right now, and it's rarely if ever a real choice.
EDIT for clarity: I'm NOT talking about more variety here. I'm playing a game with the Not Another City-States Mod active and frankly it very quickly dissolves into cacaphony; city-state type has lost all meaning to me in this game. I'm talking about more gameplay around your relationship to the city-states around you, regardless of what type they are.

2. Specific eras in the game built out more. In particular, I want:
a) A deeper Classical era. Right now the Classical era is just something you jump through in a race to the Medieval. I want depth in this part of the game.
b) A deeper Age of Sail/Renaissance. I hate the Musketmen -> Riflemen jump; Musketmen seem to be 16th century gunpowder, and Riflemen seem to be 19th century infantry. There's a huge gap between these two eras; the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars were fought entirely by gunpowder-equipped troops and with lots of field artillery/cannons, but they were fought entirely differently from the American Civil War (I'm a yank and I refuse to be politically correct, so if you want that written out as war between the states, too bad), with technology which was far inferior. Basically, I want the Age of Discovery/Age of Sail/Napoleonic Wars to be differentiated from both the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.

3. Colonies. I want to want to impose my will on all those random city-states and weak empires on the other continent, random island chains, etc., and I want to go settle all that beautiful unclaimed land, regardless of what kind of victory condition I am aiming for. This is one of the biggest things that distinguish the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries from the previous millennia, and I want it in Civ.

4. International Trade. In the real world, Constantinople was one of the absolute most important cities in the entire world until only a few hundred years ago because of its location; all trade from the East flowed through it. I want this kind of geopolitical concern to matter. It should of course be simplified down into easily managed game concepts, but it should exist in the game.

5. Victory rework - this one's almost certainly off the table for actual game development, but the concept that Civilization should end with a single, discrete event is patently silly. Give me a set of goals in each era (and rotate them era by era!), give me a huge points bonus for accomplishing them, and then give me points era by era, with each era being weighted equally. Dominate the early game and then fall off to obscurity? You're Rome or Greece. This is, by the way, a huge reason why there's tension between the AI playing to win vs playing realistically. With a game with discrete win conditions, if you're 50 turns from a probable UN vote, doing ANYTHING that gives your strongest rival more gold is a bad idea, even if it's what's best for your empire, because the game is going to just end in 50 turns if you don't stop them. A different approach to what it means to win a game of Civ would eliminate that tension, because in almost all cases doing what is best for your empire could be made synonymous with trying to win the game. It's really not impossible to do.

By the way, I'm firmly convinced there will be an expansion pack. I don't have evidence for it, but I do think it will happen.

I agree with all five points. That is why i only play Domination Victory as I do not want to rush, but rather have a calm realistic game. When i get bored of it, I finish (or try to) up my opponents and finito. I do not want that ~Congratz u have won via Space Victory~ and then "Wait, ust one more turn ....." and play on as that kinda kills my motivation. Whats the point of playing on if u already won/lost?

And just to add up I would love to see extra features like espionage, religion,etc. Especially Rebellion. Instead of having ur city produce - for ur whole empire rather remove empire wide happyness and make it city based happyness. When a city goes below say -10 happiness then it starts a rebellion and the population is converted into rebel barbarian units (on the same tech era as u, so if ur on mechs and modern armour then they too convert to them). Use a city population tier like if population is 30 divide it by 5 (random number) =6 so the city population is converted into 6 modern era barbarian units. That way they can invade ur other cities from within ur culture zones (spread of rebellion) and u can diminish the rebellion by recapturing city and building (or if u already had, then re-building) a court house and/or prison.

Also i would like it to be less of a "I have money therefore i won" kinda game. In a recent game i had around 37 thousand gp, a steady 638 a turn, was ranked 1st in #of Soldiers demographics (i was around 1.2 million soldiers and the average was 230 000 so im guessin they were far behind) and shizz loads of strategical resources. I knew I wouldnt lose as i could build (or Buy ) enough nukes to set everyone to 0 Soldiers.

Excuse my horrible spelling. Its 4am right now. And im Russian. (dont know how that relates but just wanted to get it off my chets. )

 

[civ7]

The expansion should include all the previously released DLC as well as new content.

 

[MARDUK80]

Diplomacy that makes sence i hope

Yes, that is something essential that was missing from the poll. Like way more better AI (than at the present) and more social policies (Environmentalism and others).

The expansion should include all the previously released DLC as well as new content.

Agreed.

 

[TywinLannister]

Alright then.
3. Colonies. I want to want to impose my will on all those random city-states and weak empires on the other continent, random island chains, etc., and I want to go settle all that beautiful unclaimed land, regardless of what kind of victory condition I am aiming for. This is one of the biggest things that distinguish the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries from the previous millennia, and I want it in Civ.

This.

I like finding small islands full of resources in the late game, but usually settling them directly affects my victory conditions, I'd like to be able to send off a settler, plonk him near the oil/uranium/natural wonder and have a Create Colony option which creates a Puppet city in its place, it would make my late game at least a lot more appealing.

Espionage and Religion too (though I don't think see we'll see Religion in CiV)

 

[kaltorak]

A cool diplomacy system.

Not only as good as civ4, but with much more options, like planning where to attack togeather and such.
Maybe also the return of vassals and even colonies would be cool, if they could make them more valued than in civ4

 

[fat_tonle]

You know, it's too bad that no one has created mods that do exactly this. I mean, it'd be nice to have something that adds three or four new eras full of content, designed to add another ~250 turns to the game, and that add new types of victory and some unusual game systems to keep things interesting.

I always lol at the fact that space race victory has someone building an interstellar ship at around 2000 AD. It should be like a Mission to Mars or something. But if you extend the game to about 2500 AD, it would be a little more plausible. Not sure if we can predict techs and such that far down the line though. Nanotechs, cloning, AI, should all be readily available by the end of the century. Building bonuses should be like +50 food at that point so that we can have mega cities that go into the adjacent tiles. Maybe go up to 2150, with space race being establishing a colony on Mars. You'd need future wonder projects as well to keep a cultural victory in tact.

On colonization, I am not sure how to do that. You would have city states to some degree on the new world continent, but would their tech be equivalent to yours? At the same token, I don't want isolated continents to have just some random patches of barbarian brutes. I want someone you can trade and negotiate with. To do this, I think there should be Native American/African/Australian city states that do not necessarily match your tech, but they at least can trade and negotiate. Such city states would not conflict or overlap with the current native American civs, as those were meant to be major civs in the game. But it would be confusing nonetheless.

 

[logintime]

To be honest, I don't think there will be an expansion. They seem set on rolling out DLC consistently instead, and occasionally selling them in packs. While a couple months ago I would have been insistent that they were still planning an expansion, at the point in the cycle we likely would have at least heard about it. I mean, the Civ games aren't like WoW where they take two years to release expansions. Civ4 was released in October 2005, Warlords in July 2006, and BtS in July 2007. If they were following the same pattern, an expansion would already be out right now. If they were taking a full year, one would have at least been announced. Atm, there's no news other than another patch on the way and more DLC.

Which is a shame. An expansion could bring some needed things like a revamped diplomacy system, religion, and espionage. And more civs, naturally. They could even add things like international trade and instability. Things that might actually renew my interest in Civ5.

 

[JWAT44]

Alright then.

1. City-states built out more. They're a cool concept but the implementation isn't deep enough to go anywhere near tapping their potential. In particular, I'd like to see quests and diplomacy become primary in becoming friends with them, and I'd like to see a continuing relationship matter (instead of just buying them up the turn before a UN vote). I'd also like them to be a lot more dynamic militarily; I want to fight wars by proxy when it's appropriate, and I want to end up in a situation where I have to choose whether or not to honor my commitments to some minor civ when it risks war with a great power. There's no real way to do this right now, and it's rarely if ever a real choice.
EDIT for clarity: I'm NOT talking about more variety here. I'm playing a game with the Not Another City-States Mod active and frankly it very quickly dissolves into cacaphony; city-state type has lost all meaning to me in this game. I'm talking about more gameplay around your relationship to the city-states around you, regardless of what type they are.

2. Specific eras in the game built out more. In particular, I want:
a) A deeper Classical era. Right now the Classical era is just something you jump through in a race to the Medieval. I want depth in this part of the game.
b) A deeper Age of Sail/Renaissance. I hate the Musketmen -> Riflemen jump; Musketmen seem to be 16th century gunpowder, and Riflemen seem to be 19th century infantry. There's a huge gap between these two eras; the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars were fought entirely by gunpowder-equipped troops and with lots of field artillery/cannons, but they were fought entirely differently from the American Civil War (I'm a yank and I refuse to be politically correct, so if you want that written out as war between the states, too bad), with technology which was far inferior. Basically, I want the Age of Discovery/Age of Sail/Napoleonic Wars to be differentiated from both the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.

3. Colonies. I want to want to impose my will on all those random city-states and weak empires on the other continent, random island chains, etc., and I want to go settle all that beautiful unclaimed land, regardless of what kind of victory condition I am aiming for. This is one of the biggest things that distinguish the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries from the previous millennia, and I want it in Civ.

4. International Trade. In the real world, Constantinople was one of the absolute most important cities in the entire world until only a few hundred years ago because of its location; all trade from the East flowed through it. I want this kind of geopolitical concern to matter. It should of course be simplified down into easily managed game concepts, but it should exist in the game.

5. Victory rework - this one's almost certainly off the table for actual game development, but the concept that Civilization should end with a single, discrete event is patently silly. Give me a set of goals in each era (and rotate them era by era!), give me a huge points bonus for accomplishing them, and then give me points era by era, with each era being weighted equally. Dominate the early game and then fall off to obscurity? You're Rome or Greece. This is, by the way, a huge reason why there's tension between the AI playing to win vs playing realistically. With a game with discrete win conditions, if you're 50 turns from a probable UN vote, doing ANYTHING that gives your strongest rival more gold is a bad idea, even if it's what's best for your empire, because the game is going to just end in 50 turns if you don't stop them. A different approach to what it means to win a game of Civ would eliminate that tension, because in almost all cases doing what is best for your empire could be made synonymous with trying to win the game. It's really not impossible to do.

i agree with all of that except i think the colonies part needs to be explained a little more because you can just settle land on another continent. i think that creating something like protectorates (if they are outside your base continent) that command their own production, train their own troops to defend themselves, (you can help them with defense and have the ability to pass through their lands all you want) choose their own social policies, (maybe even their own foreign policies) and they only use the resources and gold they need to operate and the rest goes to you because you are the motherland (by resources they need i mean strategic for their militaries not luxuries (im thinking their happiness could be intertwined with yours somehow which would make luxuries useless to them because they wouldn't need the gold) would be a good idea.. maybe a few changes but my basic idea would be good.

 

[Zenstrive]

city on the sea and city terraforming. Heck, make it a real expansion: make it that we are able to play on TWO maps now: Earth and Alpha Centaury

 

[cuchulain]

I also like all of the ideas that Drawmeus posted, especially the victory conditions. As an alternative to (or in addition to) having specific victory conditions per era, I would like to see something like Rhye's Mod where each civ has specific goals. Completing these goals would give a massive point bonus. The only problem with Rhye's victory conditions was that sometimes it was literally impossible to achieve a civ-specific victory due to circumstances beyond your control. I'm not sure how this could be avoided unless the victory conditions were a lot more vague (which may defeat the purpose of doing it in the first place).

 

[fat_tonle]

I think it is more important to have a mechanic that allows CS's to ally and form into major civs, and certain cities in your empire should have the right to secede from your empire if it is really unhappy and so forth. CS's also need more categories and evolution. I think CS should all start off as primitive, minor civilizations, similar to how how cities were in the Civ IV Rise of Man Mods, meaning you shouldn't be able to negotiate with them until you get writing. CS should advance in technology depending on how many civilizations they are in contact with, so that a city state in contact with most of the civs on an old world continent would be more prone to develop into technological/modern CS's and possibly new civs entirely, while new world CS's remain primitive until they are discovered. It should technically be possible for a super power to arise in the middle of the game just like America has come about.