What will the next DLC have?

[Johan de Witt]

well, did the explorer's scenario use the berserker unit for denmark? it makes the most sense if the scenario uses at least one of the new civilization's units, even if the others get different ones.

It does. It even made a new unit for the English (the Huscarl) and a new fort for the Normans (Motte and Baily).

 

[anandus]

About possible release dates for DLC.

I was just rummaging around in MainMenu.Lua in Steam\steamapps\common\sid meier's civilization v\assets\UI\FrontEnd to remove the ugly "Play CivWorld!"-button from the main menu.
And then I saw it's time-limited.

The ad-button is there from the 12th of july until the 10th of august.

Can we defer anything from that?
Possibly not, because like we've seen before it's possible to have multiple ad-buttons in the main menu and secondly the date of the 10th of august could be an arbitrariliy picked date or just have nothing to do with Civ5 only CivWorld (eg the end of the open beta for instance).

But on the other hand, maybe it could mean something, like DLC being released around that time or a new patch coming out?
I don't know and that's probably just wishful thinking, but just wanted to mention it here.

 

[sithofheaven]

The Vatican should be a city state. Seriously.

As for whole Civs, I personally don't want obscure nations. While I'm not trying to diminish the impact that they've had on history, how can be really justify a civ like the Minoans (for example)? What would their UU be, a Minotaur? Civs that only exist through ancient archaeology and didn't rule more than the single island of Crete don't justify spots along side such history-spanning entities like the Ottomans, the Roman Empire, or China. Isn't Crete a possible Greek city name anyhow? If an ancient Civ was somewhat of a "forerunner" to a major Civ, they deserve a city name and a mention in the Civilopedia.

The major Civs that deserve spots (imo) are Celts, Zulu, Mayans, Italy, Israel, Korea, and maybe Vietnam (I could see it working if they used one of the ancient kings ruling an up-to-date Vietnam, kind of like China).

 

[CYZ]

The major Civs that deserve spots (imo) are Celts, Zulu, Mayans, Italy, Israel, Korea, and maybe Vietnam (I could see it working if they used one of the ancient kings ruling an up-to-date Vietnam, kind of like China).

I don't see Italy or Vietnam qualifying to be honest. I'd also add the Dutch to that list.

Don't think the Vatican should be added as a CS, both because of their location and religious background they would be standing out too much.

 

[sithofheaven]

I don't see Italy or Vietnam qualifying to be honest. I'd also add the Dutch to that list.

Don't think the Vatican should be added as a CS, both because of their location and religious background they would be standing out too much.

Ah yes, Dutch. But why not Italy? Not even taking into account the amount of culture they've contributed to the world, they were a huge part of WWII and are one of the major modern countries. They also sprung from the Roman Empire, which could be said of a few in-game Civs actually. I can kind of see why no Vietnam, though. And Vatican City wouldn't have to be made a big deal of, I'm just saying it's feasible that the center a billion-member world religion could by a friendly cultured City State. It's just a little historical thing to throw in the game.

 

[CYZ]

Ah yes, Dutch. But why not Italy? Not even taking into account the amount of culture they've contributed to the world, they were a huge part of WWII and are one of the major modern countries. They also sprung from the Roman Empire, which could be said of a few in-game Civs actually. I can kind of see why no Vietnam, though. And Vatican City wouldn't have to be made a big deal of, I'm just saying it's feasible that the center a billion-member world religion could by a friendly cultured City State. It's just a little historical thing to throw in the game.

I'm not excluding Italy because civs like Polynesia are in. And Italy has certainly contributed through culture, religion and warfare.

However, the romans are already in so this makes both geographicly (capital for example) and historicly a bit weird. And I think there are more unique and important civs on the waiting list.

That's why I think Italy is very unlikely to be included.

 

[anandus]

I'm not excluding Italy because civs like Polynesia are in. And Italy has certainly contributed through culture, religion and warfare.

Has it?
Apart from the little fascism-adventure in the beginning of the last century Italy hasn't contributed that much, I think.
Not to downplay the history of the Italian peninsula, which is very rich, but Italy itself is quite a young country, formed in the late 19th century.

 

[CYZ]

Has it?
Apart from the little fascism-adventure in the beginning of the last century Italy hasn't contributed that much, I think.
Not to downplay the history of the Italian peninsula, which is very rich, but Italy itself is quite a young country, formed in the late 19th century.

Certainly true.

I'm counting from the Roman era so then it's okay. But they're already in. If you only count the Italian nation as we know it there is no reason at all to include them.

 

[Morningcalm]

It really does seem Firaxis is purposefully staggering the Korea DLC release and Wonders DLC release....been waiting for news for ages. Any word? No.

 

[killmeplease]

italy is the country where renaissanse had started

 

[anandus]

italy is the country where renaissanse had started

The 'countries' were the renaissance started where Florence, Genoa, Pisa, Siena, etc. It were autonomous city-states, each like a country of it's own.

 

[killmeplease]

'country' is not an equivalent word for a 'state', afaik
we have polynesia already in the game
so wats wrong with including italy

 

[Sonereal]

'country' is not an equivalent word for a 'state', afaik
we have polynesia already in the game
so wats wrong with including italy

Because "Italy" didn't exist as a state until the mid-1800s and let's just say that they weren't what you would call the best at what they did.


HOWEVER

An Italian-City-States DLC would be interesting.

 

[mbkkbm]

I think they wouldn't add Vietnam, for its too close to Siam.

Shaka Zulu would be fun.

I think the Maya are also a good option, and so are Apache. They could have an updated New-World Scenario and just have you colonize there or take control of the US or something.

 

[Sonereal]

I think they wouldn't add Vietnam, for its too close to Siam.

Shaka Zulu would be fun.

I think the Maya are also a good option, and so are Apache. They could have an updated New-World Scenario and just have you colonize there or take control of the US or something.

Why would they pick the Apache over the Sioux? Besides the fact Geronimo was pretty awesome.

 

[Khavikanum]

We have the Iroquois for forests.
We have the Incans for hills.
We have the Spanish for natural wonders (mountains, usually).

The suggestion has been made for the Inuit for ice or tundra.
The Pueblo were suggested for desert.

I'd like to see some of the new DLCs focusing on these remaining land types within the game. Rather than terraforming plains to grassland or planting trees as we did in some of the older Civilization games, with the plethora of civilizations at our disposal in Civ5, t'would be nice to see some that make use of the most useless terrain of all: ice and desert. I can usually make tundra somewhat useful with a trading post, or desert if I'm lucky enough to be able to irrigate it, but ice? Blech. Useless. I'd be happy with a civ that could cross ice in ships without needing a modern era submarine to get around the tips of the world.

Then again, I'm suddenly reminded of the Fall From Heaven 2 mod for Civ IV; there were peoples for every terrain.

 

[Becomedeath]

The Capital of Rome is, Rome

The capital of Italy would be...

Suggest ditching the Romans from a game called Civilisation, I dare you!

 

[Dragonflow]

The Capital of Rome is, Rome

The capital of Italy would be...

Suggest ditching the Romans from a game called Civilisation, I dare you!

That's pretty easy actually: the Italian capital would be Turin or Florence, as both of them were capitals before the annexation of the Papal State. But I agree with the posters above that we already have Rome and don't need Italy. If they add Italy it will be the same awkward situation as in Civ4 where we had Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. On the other hand we might as well have Italy in the game it would definitely be an awesome Renaissance civ with culture and naval focus.

 

[seasnake]

Or Roma. Just call it Roma, that's what I did in an Italy I made for Civ IV.

 

[Sonereal]

Or Roma. Just call it Roma, that's what I did in an Italy I made for Civ IV.

But would be the point of adding Italy when there's already Rome?