What will the next DLC have?

[WeneedmoreCivs]

I'am greedy. I'd like to see from Europe:
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
Ferdinand II (House of Habsburg)
The Republic of the Seven United Netherlands

All are good suggestions, especially Poland-Lithuania

From ancient times:
Minoans
Celts

I keep forgetting the Celts aren't in this game already, seems almost like an oversight on their part.

From North-America:
Navajo/Apache (Inuit sounds interessting, too)
I don't know wether it's political correct: Confederate States of America

They have Japan and Germany and they were responsible for millions of deaths in WWII, so I think that the Confederates who killed just ~350,000 (only ~150,000 if you count only those KIA) people could be included. The problem with the Confederacy being included though is the fact that we already have America and there would be many duplicate cities. A Civil War scenario would be sweet though. I'd love the chance to do a Civ version of the Civil war on a HUGE map.

Middle/South-America:
I would prefer "modern" states, like Brazil or Mexico. Cuba could be funny, too.

Cuba would be cool...not sure why it would be funny though.
Mexico and Brazil both deserve a spot.

Asia:
Korea, of course, think it will be the next DLC
Perhaps a modern state like Indonesia
form ancient time: Scythians
Tibet?

Indonesia should be in there for sure.

Middle-east:
The whole bunch of ancient cultures like Assyria, Sumer, Israel and of course Byzantine and Phoenicia.

All of those totally belong.

Africa:
Zulu
Khoisan
Ethiopia
Perhaps a modern state like Nigeria or South-Africa

Good point about South Africa, that would be cool too.

Lots of good suggestions. Hope we get a lot of these on July 4th weekend.

 

[awesome]

i'm not expecting vietnam, at least not with siam in the game. maybe next time. you can always make the argument that the turks and greeks are in the game at the same time and that the byzantines were in at least once before too, but yeah. maybe next time.
as for indigenous cultures "dying out", they're not. they're evolving, just like the rest of society. there's a reason why salvage anthropology isn't very popular anymore.

and...

Link to video.

 

[Kimuyama]

Huron Natives: Skræling, as called by the norse who they fought with, they had many wars with the iriqois, mohawk, and french.

Hurons wasn't synonymous with skrälingar, it was just what the vikings called north american natives in general (especially inuits).

 

[SHaW1986]

i'm not expecting vietnam, at least not with siam in the game. maybe next time. you can always make the argument that the turks and greeks are in the game at the same time and that the byzantines were in at least once before too, but yeah. maybe next time.
as for indigenous cultures "dying out", they're not. they're evolving, just like the rest of society. there's a reason why salvage anthropology isn't very popular anymore.

and...

Link to video.

wait, what?, subway?... lol anyway, i really hope korea isnt the next dlc, ill wind up buying it eventually but not excitedly at all. hopefully something more, well, better, more interesting, sorry just not to interested in asian history

 

[awesome]

Plus, $5 doesn't even buy you a sandwich anymore

it does at subway.



and i don't want korea, either, but i've already talked that to death like a whole month or so ago in this thread. if i had to guess who's next, it would probably be carthage, but that's not much more than a random guess.

 

[Kimuyama]

Goths:
Leader: Theodric the Great
UA: ??
UU: Gadrauhts (replaces swordsman)(I'ts hard to find Gothic soldiers on the webs, i found this on wikipedia)
UU2/UB/UI: ?? I'm hesistant to include Huscarls, though being Gothic units in Age of Empires II, they are in reality Scandinavian.
Cities:?? What cities were controlled by goths? And how much would they overlap with the Roman Empire?

Now that i think of it, Goths might not be included because they are so hard to "grasp". Though they would be interesting to include, there isn't very much to go on when trying to make a unique civilization.

Lets go on to the next civ:
Swedes:
Leader: Gustav II Adolf
UA: Dunno, maybe something related to the Swedish allotment system or the Scandinavian Economic Model.
UU1: Carolinean (replaces musketman or rifleman)
UU2: Hakkapeliitta (lesser movement cost on forested tiles) (replaces what ever cavalry unit happens to be in the appropriate era (around 1600-1700))
(I mostly base this civ of the Swedish Empire)
Example of City List:
*Stockholm
Gothenburg
Malmö
Uppsala
Helsinki
Turku (Åbo)
etc.
I don't really expect swedes to appear in the game.

Civ no. 3:
Sioux:
Leader: Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse or Red Cloud
UA: Faster movement on Plains-tiles within empire, faster movement on plains-tiles everywhere for Cavalry-units.
UU: Tashunke (replaces Cavalry) (I don't include dog soldiers, as they are, according to wikipedia, of Cheyenne origin)
UI: Teepee Camp, provides and a defense bonus to occupying units, though not as much as a fort, units get fighting bonuses if being in a tile next to it. Gives a horse resource if built on horses.

cIV:
Mapuche:
Leader: Lautaro or Colocolo
UA: .....
UU: Malón, cavalry unit, designed for raids (replace Cavalry)
UB: .....

 

[_hero_]

I demand all currently existing DLC civ's be bundled together at a REASONABLE PRICE and not at the overvalued rates they currently have. Also, DLC in this way seperates players into haves and have nots. If i start a game without DLC because i only have mongol, i alienate people who have the right to use a product they paid for and should expect to be allowed to use.

but if i don't, it alienates me, losing to overpowered DLC cives in MP games. there is no win. they need to stabilize the DLC, and instead of copying everyone elses DLC scam, they need to think about how DLC can be applied in a positive way to provide MORE and not as a way to provide LESS, while disguising it as "more". more what, more money i have to pay to not feel ripped off? that itself makes me feel ripped off.

First of all, Civ V came with 18 civs and you got a free one in the Mongols making it 19 civs. That's more civs to start with than either Civ IV or Civ III, so you got a "complete" game from that standpoint for the same price as the previous vanilla models. Now, what we don't know is if there will be expansions, and if they will include DLC. I'd imagine there will be expansions, they will include DLC OR they will bundle all the vanilla DLC into a cheap package to try and get more sales once everyone who is going to buy it at the regular price has already done so.

Here's what the devs are doing. They are trying to keep a flow of income in between expansions. This is a great business model and frankly it's the only thing that keeping expansions coming because operating costs keep going up. If you don't want to pay for DLC, then good, be patient and you'll get it cheap eventually. History shows that gaming companies typically make their extra content cheap as time goes on. As for the business model, if they want to make money off of some of us who aren't as patient as you and who are willing to spend $5 every 2 months for 1 extra civs they should. Those of us who buy DLC actually WANT it. Those of you who don't, don't have to pay. You have the same game you'd have if DLC didn't exist. But those of us willing to pay shouldn't be punished because some people are on tight budgets or are taking a stand on a matter of principle.

Finally, I'd just like to add the the DLC isn't really overpowered IMO. Are they all strong in their own ways? Yes, but so are most of the original civs. Yes, a few of the originals need serious help, but most of them are every bit as strong as the DLCs in the hands of a pro.

 

[Agent Cooper]

I don't really expect swedes to appear in the game.

Nope, we Danes beat you to it. Perhaps with Civilifacebookzation you will get your wish..

But you know... be happy that you don't live in a nation ruled by such a ******** political climate as the one Denmark have endured for a decade and counting. I would trade the Danish pm for any of the other Scandinavian leaders any day.

First of all, Civ V came with 18 civs and you got a free one in the Mongols making it 19 civs.

To be fair, Civ IV came with different leaders to chose from for most civs in the game with different traits. Some overlapped while some felt like playing 2 different civs depending on what leader you chose.

Why this feature wasn't kept for CiV I'll never know...

 

[awesome]

because they went with unique abilities this game, instead of a bunch of traits that just get mixed and matched. a few of the abilities even match the civilizations more than they match the leaders themselves.
for example, george washington died before the united states really started expanding. askia was more of an alliance type of guy, his ability fits more with sonni ali. the list goes on, really.

 

[Agent Cooper]

because they went with unique abilities this game, instead of a bunch of traits that just get mixed and matched. a few of the abilities even match the civilizations more than they match the leaders themselves.
for example, george washington died before the united states really started expanding. askia was more of an alliance type of guy, his ability fits more with sonni ali. the list goes on, really.

What would stop the CiV developers in equipping a civilization with two different leaders and give them different abilities or different UUs/UBs depending on the timeperiod of the chosen leaders?

As an example, England could have naval superiority/ship of the lines under Elizabeth/Victoria and defensive abilities + spitfire fighters under Churchill?

I can't see any problem with such a feature, only benefits...

 

[awesome]

because then you might as well just make a whole new civilization

 

[Agent Cooper]

because then you might as well just make a whole new civilization

A lot of players like to play a civ they are somehow connected to in their real lives. As an example, if an American would like to play as the US, why should he be satisfied with the rather crappy abilities and features of the US in CiV?

There's nothing in the games representation of the US that remotely signals the nations vast production capabilities or the huge cultural impact it has had on the world for an entire century. Different leaders with different abilities etc. could fix that and expand the game with more flavors.

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this...

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

it does at subway.



and i don't want korea, either, but i've already talked that to death like a whole month or so ago in this thread. if i had to guess who's next, it would probably be carthage, but that's not much more than a random guess.

I said a sandwich, not a $5 piece of cardboard with some wilted "veggies" and cheap luncheon meat.

I'm with all of you on the lack of excitement over Korea...

 

[awesome]

A lot of players like to play a civ they are somehow connected to in their real lives. As an example, if an American would like to play as the US, why should he be satisfied with the rather crappy abilities and features of the US in CiV?

There's nothing in the games representation of the US that remotely signals the nations vast production capabilities or the huge cultural impact it has had on the world for an entire century. Different leaders with different abilities etc. could fix that and expand the game with more flavors.

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this...

there are a lot of things that they didn't include with the united states. i'm sure the same thing can be said about denmark. i'd just prefer having more civilizations than more leaders for the same ones. i'm not saying i should have the last say or anything, it's just a matter of preference.

 

[_hero_]

I'm with all of you on the lack of excitement over Korea...

As for me, I'll let my excitement be determined by the actual UA and UUs/UBs of whatever the next civ is. I didn't even want a scandinavian civ, then when I saw Denmarks stuff I was pumped.

Korea could be interesting if they make it so. Or they could be a joke.

But then, I've never been the type to role play with my civs.

 

[thadian]

Not too long ago the DLC's were 40% off. (so it was $13,48 for al DLC-civs, $2,70 per civ)
Probably soon, when the summer sales are on, they'll be on sale again

I hope so, and they should be at that price normally - that would be fair to pay about 13.50 for the civ's.

having dlcs doesn't mean there won't be any expansion packs. it just means there are more options earlier.

Spoken like a paid firaxis employee, both of your posts. It gives less options, not more. more means they were in the game.

Moderator Action: Accusing someone of being a 'paid firaxis employee' is trolling. It's bringing into question their motives, which isn't acceptable.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Also, "choosing" what Civ's could be a satisfying way under a slightly different business model. If they made 30 Civ's and when you buy the game and connect to steam, you choose 20 to DLC (and thus you choose your starting civ's) and then you can buy the others later. THAT would be a good DLC model to implement.

Im only bitter because DLC deprives under currrent context. If all those civ's were in the game, and DLC were made to give each CIV one extra leader - i would feel they gave many many options. I would never comlplain about it, and i would be excited to purchase them. But instead they MIGHT release one extra leader for 5 of the civ's in an expansion then release each one seperately thereafter which is a straightjacket.

They already kinda have this with the New World, but I'd like to see far more Civs in general, and maybe including a bunch of Tribes would be a good way to do it.

Im saying i want civ to be about the roots of humanity and not just empires. A scenario is a little different than 3-4 indigenous or lost civilizations.

It would be nice to have these lesser cultures availible. After reading Jared Diamond's Collapse, i can only wish for more of the lesser civ's. it would be a nice way to satisfy the need of what civ hasn't done (or at least done much of).

 

[awesome]

Spoken like a paid firaxis employee, both of your posts. It gives less options, not more. more means they were in the game.

Also, "choosing" what Civ's could be a satisfying way under a slightly different business model. If they made 30 Civ's and when you buy the game and connect to steam, you choose 20 to DLC (and thus you choose your starting civ's) and then you can buy the others later. THAT would be a good DLC model to implement.

Im only bitter because DLC deprives under currrent context. If all those civ's were in the game, and DLC were made to give each CIV one extra leader - i would feel they gave many many options. I would never comlplain about it, and i would be excited to purchase them. But instead they MIGHT release one extra leader for 5 of the civ's in an expansion then release each one seperately thereafter which is a straightjacket.

the point, you missed it.
you're paying more money for the convenience of not having to wait long periods of time for new stuff so it's more expensive. if you're willing to pay the amount, go for it. if not, don't. it's that simple. it's just like how it costs more money to have dominos deliver a pizza to your house than it does to make it yourself. and saying that you don't like dominos is just missing the point again.
you know what? i'm going to use that pizza metaphor some more. let's say you want extra toppings on that bad boy. that stuff doesn't come standard, so you'll be paying more than the guy who just wanted cheese. maybe he got pepperoni on it, too. but you wanted the danish meatballs and whatever babylonians ate. so you're paying extra.
this isn't all a conspiracy theory against you and i'm not a secret agent working for firaxis.

 

[thadian]

let's say you want extra toppings on that bad boy. that stuff doesn't come standard, so you'll be paying more than the guy who just wanted cheese. maybe he got pepperoni on it, too. but you wanted the danish meatballs and whatever babylonians ate. so you're paying extra.
this isn't all a conspiracy theory against you and i'm not a secret agent working for firaxis.

wrong example. a better example is if i want a pizza, i shouldn't pay seperate for dough, sauce, and cheese before toppings is discussed.

Pizza is a bad example because there are thousands of options - i don't have to pay for danish meatballs to be on the menu before paying for danish meatballs to be on my pizza which is what it feels like - how about responding to the more important part though? I don't oppose DLC, i oppose DLC SCAM where you overpay for menial, minimal content. if i buy a pizza with danish meatballs i will be pissed if they are actually canned chef boyardee meatballs, brand-named "Danish Meatballs". i would also be mad if they only put 2 meatballs on my pizza when the picture shows 8 meatballs. i would feel ripped off.

"choosing" what Civ's could be a satisfying way under a slightly different business model. If they made 30 Civ's and when you buy the game and connect to steam, you choose 20 to DLC (and thus you choose your starting civ's) and then you can buy the others later. THAT would be a good DLC model to implement.

Im only bitter because DLC deprives under currrent context. If all those civ's were in the game, and DLC were made to give each CIV one extra leader - i would feel they gave many many options. I would never comlplain about it, and i would be excited to purchase them.

This would be a non-ripoff DLC model because it provides MORE and not LESS. I would also be less inclined to complain but i would still be a little irritated if they reduced the prices and stopped overvaluing their content.

I didn't complain about wonder packs - i complain about removing civ's to re-sell them. i don't complain about map packs - i complain that to get the "discount" i have to buy one of each, meaning i cant choose 2 civ's and get a discount which makes it more expensive to get the civs no matter how the "pie" is cut.

If they used something closer to what i said - i would be very happy with DLC and i wouldn't mind paying 10 Dollars for 5 Civ's or paying 10 dollars for 10 extra leaders for existing civ's. it's not just the "Offer" but its also the "Deal".

And as i said - if they released 30 Civ's and let you DLC 20 civ's when you install the game (so that you have 20 civ's of choice) i would probably buy the other 10 without complaint as long as they werent 3.00 a piece.

Edit: It would be perfectly viable to do so because of all the costs they forego when using DLC compared to an expansion. for example, shipping costs, renting space on a store shelf, and other things. they wouldn't "Lose" anything to do it thay way and they wouldn't be "giving it away" either. they would make quite a bit of money.

 

[awesome]

no, it was a perfect example. you're just stubborn and want to keep making tons of demands. they included the same amount of civilizations at launch as they did last time. and then they started releasing even more stuff sooner. and i already explained why it costs more than if you bought it in bulk later, you're paying for the convenience. actually, i addressed all of your points, you just don't like the answers. you'd rather complain for the sake of complaining. they could do your dlc idea, but they're not.

Moderator Action: 'You're just stubborn' and 'you'd rather complain for the sake of complaining' are trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[thadian]

and the reason i don't like your answer is because i don't like the system and you agree with the system. you don't think people should get their monies worth and would prefer to stick everyone with bones while firaxis gets all the meat.

i want DLC to contain v-a-l-u-e. Also, you didn't address anything at all - you accused me of making demands, which very unhappy customers tend to do.