What would you like to see in a 3rd expansion?

Free Cities that aren't under enough loyalty pressure to fall to another civ should build a "Nationalism" loyalty bar, where once it hits 100, the free city turns into a fully independent city state. The new CS would then pick its type based on the district it has in the city - the oldest district winning out, or is completely random if there are no corresponding districts. It can then pull one of the unused CS powers randomly.

Barbarians need an overhaul to be more than just nameless annoying ghouls.

Fixing those NPCs is the biggie that I would really want to flesh out the game world.

Idk how corporations could work but they could be hybrid player control/NPC and tie into an economic victory IF they can pull it off decently.

 

I would like the "big five" missing civs to return if possible (Babylon, Byzantines, Ethiopia, Maya, Portugal), but they aren't NECESSARY...my heart would absolutely hurt without them though.

Yes to all of what you say otherwise. I would love the return of disease/plague if the AI can handle it, Migration (and individual population culture identities), and improved economics/corporations.

 

If enough people are saddened by their absence, I would argue that they are necessary.

 

Fair - I mean necessary for a fully functional game standpoint.

But you're right. Necessary in our hearts and minds because of the prominence of those civilizations in history and place in the game. Geez, no Babylon is CRAZY when it has been in every version. Same for Portugal when you have BRAZIL in first (ugh), Ethiopia not being in is also ridiculous after they finally added it. Maya being one of the oldest and most well known pre-columbian civs, probably even more deserving than the Aztec who get in based on name recognition and being both conquered by the Spanish/kinda cool I guess. Byzantium is the least necessary, but we want them too.

These civs have definitely become expected staples so if they really do a 3rd xpack, we would be expecting them return in some form. I pray we get them.

 

Hmm if VI were haphazard in it's scope, I might agree. But since it appears to so far have a larger thesis in mind, I would not place public opinion on that level of importance. People en masse can be rather myopic, and I don't see many thinking about VI's goals so much as their own nostalgia when pushing for returning civs.

In fact, if I were to place those five civs based solely on what they would add to VI aesthetically and mechanically, they would fall on some sort of "remaining design space" spectrum like this:

* Ethiopia - the only civ with quite a bit of design space to work with. Unfortunately two prominent ancient periods are shoved right up against stupid Nubia so that design space has been artificially limited. But there is plenty to work with here.

* Maya - could easily be an Aztec clone with an eagle warrior reskin. Even still, it probably shouldn't be because there is still enough to work with to differentiate them, between observatories and saacbes.

* Byzantium - early Byzantium could easily be a Roman alternate leader. Late Byzantium could squeeze out some design space, although Georgia, Russia, and the Ottomans are trodding on its toes quite a bit.

* Portugal. The more I think about Portugal's mechanical potential, the less I care about it. I honestly think in retrospect it came *this close* to being a Spanish alternate leader in the base game, because literally everything about Spain would work equally well for Portugal. If VI introduces "clone" civs, I expect Portugal to be the headliner.

* Babylon. Sumeria is an Akkadia blob. It's already half Babylonian by design. There really isn't any reason culturally or mechanically to include a second Akkadian civ. At this end of the spectrum, a civ won't be included because it adds anything to VI, but solely because players demand it.

So looking at that spectrum, I can't be torn up about certain staples not returning. I can certainly expect a few of them being shoehorned in, and in fact four of the five would likely see some representation as clones or alternate leaders. But they don't add nearly as much to VI as a dozen as-yet-unrepresented regions of the world.

 

@PhoenicianGold- I think those are pretty fair points! I do think that it's certainly possible more design space could open up with expansion mechanics- for example, if more intricate politics and governance were introduced, Byzantium could have abilities blending that system and religion in some way! At least if I were designing it, heh. Portugal I could still possibly see as its own civilization, too, though I think I'm with you on Babylon at this point. Do you think a Babylonian leader leading Sumeria would work?

 

I think new mechanical design space has more potential for some civs than others. I would say that design and power creep is a major factor in determining whether a civ "fits" with expansion concepts.

When looking at the major ideas left to be introduced, I think Byzantium, for as unnecessary as I personally find it, could find things to work with. If we introduce more city state politics like vasselage, protectorates, or colonies, Byzantium is a solid candidate to illustrate those mechanics. You could argue that Rome would be equally deserving of these features, but on the whole the distinction stands up where Rome tended to claim and lose regions by force, whereas Byzantium's influence and legacy in surrounding regions was largely cultural.

But in that same vein, Portugal doesn't make sense as a beneficiary of these mechanics, because everything Portugal did regarding protectorates or colonies, Spain arguably did better. While we can understand why Phoenicia and the Ottomans are on a higher complexity level than the base game, making Portugal "complicated" just isn't a very resonant idea. Part of that is sharing quite a lot of historical parallels with Spain, and part of that is lacking anything particularly different or uniquely Portuguese to work with. See Scotland and the Netherlands for contrast.

When the thing you are most known for is colonizing the world with religion and trade, and then you were acquired and incorporated into the Spanish empire for some time, and *then* Firaxis chooses to make Spain fit precisely that mold, what else do you have, Portugal? And to bring things back around for emphasis, what about Portugal justifies it to be one of the most mechanically complicated civs in the game, above and beyond Spain?

So regarding a Babylonian leader for Sumeria, I've gone back and forth on the idea in the past. There was a time when I thought Hammurabi or Sargon or Shamamurat could slide into Sumeria. But unlike other blobby civs, I just don't think it could work. Because these leaders would be standing next to Gilgamesh, who is not only Mesopotamia incarnate but a total ubermensch. They all come close, but at the end of the day Gilgamesh is smarter and more poetic than Hammurabi, stronger and more manly than Sargon, and sexier and more sensitive than Shamamurat. By design Sumeria leaves no space for anyone else, Gilgabro is the only man you will ever need.

These examples are why I think the Kingmaker may be onto something with "renamed" "clone" civs. Because there exists this other spectrum of civs, ranging from the Mughals, (early) Byzantium to Kievan Rus' to Huns to Akkadia to Portugal, that players want on principle but don't seem to acknowledge or care how little potential they represent for gameplay. And I'm guilty of this to an extent as well, since I really want some Mughal/Kievan/Hun representation but acknowledge that they could and probably should just mechanically be slight variants on India/Russia/Scythia and could comfortably be alternate leaders. It would not surprise me if a lot of remaining "staples" are ultimately introduced as "clones" of base game civs. So that players have the leader animations, the city lists, the retermed "uniques," maybe new music -- but we don't need to suffer the awkwardness that would result from giving these "staples" weird, niche, nonresonant playstyles.

 

It certainly makes more sense to have a given leader assigned to his own Civ rather than pigeon-holed into something inaccurate.

 

New victory type.More maps.Add more fun after medieval era. If you want only the civs and leaders, they can be added via dlc scenarios , Im not against them , I actually would like expanssion to have 3-4 civs and 3-4 alt leaders , but expanssion should have more than civs.

 

natural disaster: meteor strike!

 

I'd like to see the return of specialist economy and corporations. Also...national institutions (similar to national wonders from V) as in gaining acces to special buildings in your city should you have certain combination of districts (or wonders), for example getting acces to a religious order if you have a holy city and an encampment. Philosophy schools with Campus and Theather. Entertainment and Government could give you acces to Hippodrome. I'm sure you can think of many other combos. Part of the fun early game is solving the adjacency puzzle, If certain combination and district layouts could give you more choices later in the game it would keep the mid-late game fresh. besides graphics wise, districts almost always end up looking quite empty compared to citiy centers, could help in filling them up.

-Also agree in free cities being able to grow a national identity and turn into CS's of their own.

-More diplomatic options, sometimes I don't want to completely conquer a civ, maybe I would prefer to vassalize it and use it as a buffer you know? same thing with CS. Could open a lot of oportunities if it's paired with the world congress and emergency system, say the Aztecs vassalized Japan, an emergency triggers where the goal is to liberate Japan. If ideologies were given more weight such a system could evolve into cold war blocks.

In that same idea, colonies, settling in a diferent continent should give you an option of what kind of setlement you want, a regular city, a military outpost (sometimes you only need a small patch to resupply) or a colony, wich could have very strong loyalty early on, but later as it grows it gets loyalty pressure and increasing maintenance costs. you could later on the game decide on using your government cards to tighten your control on the colonies, or maybe release them as vassals, or set a commonwealth or single market (if we get an economic victory)

-More biomes, we could use a few biomes and features to keep the world interesting to explore. savannas, mangroves, fjords, and waterfalls. savannas and mangroves both can be tied to natural disasters preventing droughts and flooding, cannyons can act as impassable terrain (we have a slight excess of mountains now) could make good national park targets. Fjords would only appear on tundra and snow coast and could provide extra production, sorely needed.

-Enlightment age..just add it, the jump from rennaissance to industrial is too big. call it Imperial age, or exploration age, whatever you like.

-Ethnic district graphics, they already went in the right direction with ethnic units, the cities certainly could use some love too, it's after all what we spend most of the time watching, the Mali unique district look is probably the way to go. Unique looking districts for all cultures, Asian, European, mediterranean, etc. an Aztec holy site shouldn't look the same as a Japanese one, keep the colors the same for clarity, we know by now campus blue, theather purple, commercial yellow.

and while we are at it, more unique city graphics from industrial onward. I mean even if modern architecture tends to look the same you can pick certain buidling styles to reflect cultural differences, you can certainly tell apart Taipei from London and Dubai, they are extreme cases, but they are also ver readable and culturally recognizable, civ could use some of that.

and civs same formula 8 civs +1alt leader. you take your pick, as long as Maya and Byzantium are in (even in alt form for Rome) I'd be happy.

 

GDR removed.

 

Personally, I would love to see another expansion! I am happy to pay for it. They make the game so much deeper. Quite frankly, as a long time player of the series, Civ 6 was the most disappointing base game I had tried up to that point (starting at Civ2).

Here are some of my ideas - many of which are similar to various others mentioned.

I would like a focus on Revolutions / Diplomacy / Ideologies, Which I think really all follow a common theme.


Ideologies

• Selecting a tier 3 government effects the options you can implement with policy cards.
• Certain cards become available depending on your choice.
• Citizens happiness and loyalty + or - is effected by implementing or removing certain cards. (Democracy etc)
• Civs with the same ideologies form more alliances, receive bonuses, for higher tiered alliances faster.
• Ideologies can be changed, but only during a revolution, which causes big hits to your loyalty, production etc. May create a civil war. (Could be influenced by both diplomacy, espionage and World Congress)
• World Wars can be triggered by opposing ideologies
• Cold Wars are the focus of diplomatic, espionage and secretly, indirectly supporting the ‘enemy of your enemy’ in another conflict. (Either by gifting money, units, or increasing espionage)

Espionage

• Influence how civs feel about one another. Poison their minds against an opponent. Drive them towards a certain ideology leading up to their selecting of one.

Trade

• You must have a trader sent to a Civ to trade with them.
• You must connect your cities for them to have access to your luxuries.
• Loyalty will be adversely effected by a lack of luxuries.
• Civil wars and city flipping can be caused by a loss of loyalty.
• Workers can build roads with charges after feudalism.

Disease

• Trading with a city with low health may cause disease to spread back to your city
• Disease is battled by food supply and diverse foods, location to fresh water, a new Health district or perhaps buildings in city center
• Prolonged war / scorched earth causes disease due to loss of farms etc or a siege. Units can become diseased? Medical units as support could reduce this.

Happiness / Loyalty

• Slows expansion as new cities need to be connected to existing network
• Type of government involves a risk / reward with happiness vs oppression. Cities may not flip easily with Despotic type ‘oppression’ government, and can function with less happiness, but must be subdued by a strong garrison, including an additional castle / fort. On the flip side, oppressed cities provide less of a production, science, culture and tax yield.

Diplomacy

• Support wars indirectly and secretly by funding someone else with gold or units, and or the increase in aggressive espionage. This could be discovered depending on other players espionage towards us, resulting in loss of international favor.
• Marriage alliances. Starting in the Classical era, or perhaps medieval and ending in the Modern era. These agreements tie two civs together in a Loose alliance that provides some sort of bonuses. But if diplomacy breaks down (if a request is not accepted or followed) can lead to a civil war or loss of loyalty in the ‘declining’ civilization. Could be used tactically the help overthrow a neighbour!

Vassalage / Colonization

• Conquered civs come under your control and support your actions in both war and world government.
• They can break away, both peacefully and with war.
• Cities on a far away continent (Not connected directly to your cultural borders) may request independence. If accepted, they may become a vassal or ally (depending on the era), if declined, war breaks out.

Sea Travel

• Ships can enter sea tiles earlier, but may sink at the end of their turn