What will the next DLC have?

[Agent Cooper]

To be honest, isn't it pretty subjective whether you feel a Civ game with 18/19 civs included at release is good enough or a rip off (with the DLC model attached)?

Personally, I'm ok with the number of civs, but I'm not ok with the 'quality/features' of a substantial number of the civs included. Some are very bland to play, to put it gently. In Civ IV most civs were interesting to play and you could play them for various win strategies and map designs with succes.

DLC's work for me - I like to pick and pay for the content I want and forget the rest. But to me it's a no-brainer that a bundle pack or various bundle packs should be available at discount prices from the day the content is ready. Everything else could feel like a rip off.

 

[awesome]

look back through the thread. look back through every thread about dlc. count how many people have said that the dlc is enjoyable and at a good price. they're getting their money's worth.

but okay, check list of things i addressed:
"dlc is more expensive" check.
"you sound like a paid employee" check.
"dlc gives you less options" check.
"they're supplying less" check.
"my idea is the best" check.
seems like everything to me.

but let me address one more thing. let's say they do decide to release a couple new leaders as the next dlc. some people, like you, would think it's great. i'd think it was a waste of money. that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. it just means i probably wouldn't pay for it. with dlc, i'm able to make that decision.

 

[Ankh]

I love DLC because it lets me decide if I want the content in question or not, in an expansion pack there is almost something I really never care about (like corps in civ4) that I have to pay for not that it matters enough to rant about for me.

And 4euros I make more money then that when I'm opening the door to my office in the morning. I really can't understand the complain about the cost. If I get a bad burger for 5euro I don't cry about not getting my money worth. Heck that was some %¤E food I just had and then I just move on.

 

[thadian]

and if your right, then what about the 20 civ's that come with the game that i have no choice in? I would like to trade askia for babylon please. the idea i suggested would let me customize my Civ V by getting UP FRONT the civ's i want, and by starting the conversation with DLC in such a model would introduce it a little bit differently, and make it a more integeral part of the game.

You would think "a couple new leaders" as the DLC would be a waste but i think map pack/scenarios are a waste. Map Pack/Scenarios would be perfect for DLC if the quality was on spot.

If each civ came with a free map/scenario/wonder pack without a price increase then i wouldn't complain because it would feel like each DLC was a mini-expansion. or if i could get a bundle of civs without way overpaying.

 

[Agent Cooper]

but let me address one more thing. let's say they do decide to release a couple new leaders as the next dlc. some people, like you, would think it's great. i'd think it was a waste of money. that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. it just means i probably wouldn't pay for it. with dlc, i'm able to make that decision.

If that's addressed to me, I think you misunderstood the context of the post I made. I made no comment on multiple leaders concerning the business model of buying extra content via DLCs.

My comment concerns the gameplay/design only and questions why the developers decided that this feature was not to be included in CiV from release, since everybody favored it in Civ IV and there's no technical reason whatsoever they couldn't include it with the new game.

It sort of leads to the whole discussion of why so many features from IV (religion, espionage, corporations etc.) where completely discarded from V instead of improved upon, but that's a different discussion altogether.

 

[awesome]

and if your right, then what about the 20 civ's that come with the game that i have no choice in? I would like to trade askia for babylon please. the idea i suggested would let me customize my Civ V by getting UP FRONT the civ's i want, and by starting the conversation with DLC in such a model would introduce it a little bit differently, and make it a more integeral part of the game.

because they didn't do it that way.

If that's addressed to me

it wasn't.

 

[Agent Cooper]

it wasn't.

Fair enough

 

[thadian]

because they didn't do it that way.

which is why i am complaining.

i have no choice what civ's i get up front then i can "choose" to buy the civ's i actually want, without any way to swap/change/customize my civ v experience.

 

[Agent Cooper]

and if your right, then what about the 20 civ's that come with the game that i have no choice in? I would like to trade askia for babylon please. the idea i suggested would let me customize my Civ V by getting UP FRONT the civ's i want, and by starting the conversation with DLC in such a model would introduce it a little bit differently, and make it a more integeral part of the game.

I think the problem with this approach is multiplayer gaming. How are you going to find a group of players with the same civs that can play a mp game together, if all content is based on personal preferences for each individual player?

Don't get me wrong - I totally agree with more flexibility and pretty much everything you say in that regard, but with the current game design it's just not doable. The developers would have to make all civs available for all players in mp play for free, but only when playing mp and that's not going to happen.

 

[CYZ]

I hope the Dutch, with the ability to make Polders.

This.

Terraforming for the win!


If not Dutch then something early. Sumer with a scout UU would be great. Celts or Maya would be nice too!

 

[awesome]

Fair enough

i was going to reply to you and say that i think some of the civilizations in 4 are kind of bland, though, at least compared to some of the others. for example, research institutes are just laboratories that give you a couple scientists. it's useful, but not really all that unique compared to the sacrificial altar, which gets an ability that no other buildings have. camel archers are just knights that can withdraw. again useful, but not all that unique compared to the ballista elephant, even if most people don't really care about elephants, myself included.
and then civ 5, same thing, but i obviously don't need to go over that.

 

[Agent Cooper]

Terraforming for the win!

Terraforming could be a very interesting and completely fresh ability to include for a new civ.

I would also like a new civ with some sort of diplomatic abilities not available to any of the other civs. Imagine going warmonger for the early game and yet somehow manage to become neutral or friendly with most civs by mid game or perhaps being able to block denouncements.

 

[anandus]

So now the patch-notes are available, can anyone distill from it what might be the next DLC?
(for instance, last patch was heavy on amphibious and naval for the Denmark civ).

 

[Montov]

I would say happiness or production bonuses for the next civ.
And an early unit for offense.
The civ would also love Stone.

So my guess: Zulu.
Ikhanda (replaces Barracks) provides +10% production with Stone & 2 happiness
Impi (replaces Spearman) provides happiness towards golden age for every kill.

 

[Agent Cooper]

I would say happiness or production bonuses for the next civ.

With the pretty big nerfs towards happiness and production in the coming patch, civs with such bonusses would be a very welcome addition.

 

[aatami]

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.

Are you trying to insult Finns on purpose?

Moderator Action: Making such accusations is trolling. If you have a problem with a post, report it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[thadian]

Never, never no.

I say we need civilization to incorporate the elements of civilization that caused Civilization to develop as is. So far, its a turn-based age of empires. If they really want to DLC in civ's or elements that are worth it, that don't rip people off there needs to be substance of some form.

Hero Unit (FFH), Spies/Corporations, things like that are what i really want.

Civilizations such as the Inuet, Cherokee, or other indiginous or prehistorical era's (even if there was recorded history in other regions) would contribute a sense not only of the begining, but would show that empires such as Summeria and Persia and Greece were not at all the first civilizations.

The dawn of humanity produced conquerors, languages, art, music, ceremonial burial as far back as history can tell and many of these people had tools, stones, soil, or something from about 200-300 miles away, demonstrating trade and economy in some form, possibly through food or tools.

Gobekli Tepe is just one good example, Minoans, and Etrusians among others. I would be much more happy if DLC were directed to giving us something Civ doesn't have rather than giving us what most of us expect.

Edit: While im aware there are mods to cover this, it would sit better in the stomache if the offical game had it. pre-history eras could be interesting and thinking about the future, there are many possibilities to explore as well. If each civ had a second leader, then mid-game events or quests could cause one leader to civil war in a large empire, siezing half the cities - or have city states and liberation or elections to allow the player to change to second leader.

I just wish civ could be so much more, and the reason im less than pleased is because it has the potential to be one of the best games of all time in the genre of historical or educational (partially).

 

[BluebeardRex]

I wonder (not looking at the notes or such) if the next DLC might be a similar double pack with, instead of a Map Pack, there be a Scenario Pack? Some of them are quite fun, though you would want quite a few to justify it on its own.

And as for a Civ, give me the Neutral Empire:
Leader: Jane / John Doe
Capital: Neutropolis
UA: None
UU: None
UB: None
Motto: All I know is my gut says 'Maybe'

I like the idea of trying to play without any bias. Better than this would be one where your Us A, B and U develop over the course of the game, based on your SPs chosen, tech research bias, geographical location of first two or three cities, etc. Unfortunately, I think it may be a bit more difficult than it sounds, so why not a generic?

 

[thadian]

This would be pretty difficult, but could be a slight model of a pre-history era or scenario. you develop your civ through your actions, and at different intervals you would "Choose a Nation" then "Elect a Leader" which would determine everything else. it would let you see the map before you chose who to try, and if as a scenario, could use culture groups to determine selectable civ by location.

 

[TimeWeaver]

I'm just guessing, but the rumours on "The Wonders of the World Pack" seems a bit in demand now, with all the happiness nerfing and the complex production matrix. I reckon they will help a bit with two things: added happiness and culture boosts. I would love to see some new early wonder helping out in warfare too.

As for the new DLC civ(s), I do not think it will be a big naval power, but perhaps a great trading fleet kind of civ - so Dutch. And perhaps Zulu for fun early warfare fest!