Will there be a second expansion?

[True_Candyman]

The major system i could imagine them bringing in to any future expansion is politics.

Depending on how much thought they put into it, it could be a completely new system basis or an identical replica of culture. Either way i don't mind, but it could introduce some interesting new dimensions to gameplay.

I also hope they add (improve?) unrest, civil war and all that jazz. They could tie this in with the politics. Each civ could have a certain number of randomly generated minor leaders who's names come from a list similar to a city list of other famous leaders. These leaders would obviously be vying for power too, and politics trees determine how and how you can defend your position in addition to other bonuses to your civ. Spy's and religion could also have heavy influences on this.

What i'd really like to see though is anything as long as it brings some unpredictability and instability. I never get any kind of historical feeling about this game when it all goes according to plan 99% of the time. And it is important to remember that most empires weren't brought down from the outside.

 

[SpyGuy77]

they should add sdi (anti nuclear weapon) a space laser, great spy, cyborgs (i know crazy) mecha g, gernaider, so on

 

[anandus]

So, now Sweden has been announced as the last civ for G&K, we can be relatively sure that there will be a second expansion or at least a bunch of DLC's as many (non-European) civs are still missing (Zulu, Majapahit, Portugal, Poland-Lithuania, Sumeria, Assyria, etc.)
They've obviously kept a lot of room open

 

[floppymoose]

We'll see a second expansion. There is no reason not to try new things and see how they work and how people react to them before putting them as base mechanics in Civ VI, and risk us hating them.

Conversely, you might say there is no reason to buy Civ6 if everything in it is already in a Civ5 expansion.

Civ5 had majorly new ideas, which some people *did* hate. So history is arguing against you here.

 

[Stefanskantine]

Conversely, you might say there is no reason to buy Civ6 if everything in it is already in a Civ5 expansion.

Civ5 had majorly new ideas, which some people *did* hate. So history is arguing against you here.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Most fans of a game series are completionists, even if Civ6 is a radical depature they will at least buy it and try it out. The bluster of the crowd who continually insisted on the forums that they would stick with BTS and never buy V until its "fixed" greatly belies their actual numbers. There is very little to lose by making a 2nd expansion, people will buy that and then 2 years later they'll buy Civ 6 also.

 

[floppymoose]

You seem to be arguing my point for me. Namely, that Civ6 will be bought by civ'ers even if it is controversial, just like Civ5 was. So there is no reason to try every new Civ6 idea in a Civ5 expansion. It's better to have something new and risk controversy, than to not have anything new and risk tepid sales.

 

[Civciv5]

Yes it will call
"Politics and non-European things"
or
"Everything but European things"

 

[mitsho]

It depends on the business strategy and how well G&K will do / how much civ5 is still played. With steam, they have the statistics to make grounded decisions. I don't think civ6 is already needed, as if they do a new civ game, they'd need to know what market to target (the masses or the fanatics). I'd guess they have several options to go forward:

• Release several DLC's, mainly civilzation packs
• Create a thematic "Mini"-expansion (f.e. Future Era or "additional uniques")
• Create a full-fledged expansion

I could imagine a coupling of several "exotic civs" in a "mini"-expansion as I doubt f.e. Indonesia will sell well alone, but a pack with Zulu, Brazil, Sioux/Apache, Sumeria and Australia thrown in for local buzz could be viable. I guess it depends on how much it costs to create the artwork and record the speeches.

The content that could be added often clashes however with reworks of basic systems they'd probably rather hold back for civ 6. I'd tried to collect the ideas in this thread:

• More basic content (new buildings, units, techs, wonders, social policies)
• Additional unique content (Leaders, or more for each civ)
• Future Era Expansion (Sea or Space colonization, etc. ) or thematic subset (f.e. Fantasy)
• Health system (food ressource, cities not dependent on their own terrain)
• International Trade (normal routes, auctions instead of bilateral selling of ressources, corporations)*
• International Diplomacy (United Nations, multilateral negotiations/treaties)*
• New Victory Conditions (Economic f.e.)
• Random Events
• Internal Politics (Stability, Collapse and Civil War, Demands of Citizens or Economy, i.e. "unfun" features)
• (more civilizations)
• (scenarios)
• Multiplayer Support (but I guess they went away from that with the revamp of Diplomatic modifiers in g&K)
• Modding Support (if it's the last expansion, they will enhance it to generate buzz I'd guess)

*These two interact a lot with the city state system and probably function differently with G&K, so it's hard to make a prediction at this point in time)

Looking at that list, there would be enough content that they could add, the question is if they think it's worth it. And for that they/we need to wait for G&K's first. My personal prediction is that we will get a few DLC's, not only civilizations though. The additional content systems just don't seem juicy enough for me to market them (the way they can market religion and espionage).

And btw. we didn't have a WW2 scenario in Civ5, right? That normally is very popular as well...

 

[Germnoble]

I think we'll see one more. Just have a feeling.

 

[stfoskey12]

What would be brilliant would be the occasional civil war which split civs in two

(with the quote)

You would have to decide what would cause the country to split.

 

[MARDUK80]

@ mitsho, a nice list.

I'd add new social policies (like environmentalism) to it.

 

[mitsho]

@ mitsho, a nice list.

I'd add new social policies (like environmentalism) to it.

I've added it ;-)

 

[Saxony]

Civil wars would be fun if the mechanic would be like ETW where you can either join the rebels or stay as the current government. It would be cool if the polisis change if the rebels won.

 

[KokeenoPokameso]

(with the quote)

You would have to decide what would cause the country to split.

Well Social policies are supposed to represent the priorities of your citizens. If you act in a way that is not consistent with your civ it should cause a fracture with in your empire. It would be interesting if you could loose your capital this way. The question to be answered is how do you determine which cities would say or go.

 

[CYZ]

I'm fairly sure there will be a second.

Most likely: Health based on bonus resources
Secret hope: 1 more UU/UI/UB per civ, one that doesn't replace anything and makes the civs stand out more.

 

[bonafide11]

I'm fairly sure there will be a second.

Most likely: Health based on bonus resources
Secret hope: 1 more UU/UI/UB per civ, one that doesn't replace anything and makes the civs stand out more.

I don't see how they would market a new expansion pack based on health. What would be the draw of that for the average consumer? What would it be called, "Health & Happiness"? "Beyond Happiness"? It just wouldn't be a very exciting theme to base an expansion pack around for most people. Religion and espionage is much more appealing.

This isn't to pick on your idea, I think the same thing can be said for nearly every example people have provided here. None seem that appealing to market a historically based game.

 

[CYZ]

I don't see how they would market a new expansion pack based on health. What would be the draw of that for the average consumer? What would it be called, "Health & Happiness"? "Beyond Happiness"? It just wouldn't be a very exciting theme to base an expansion pack around for most people. Religion and espionage is much more appealing.

This isn't to pick on your idea, I think the same thing can be said for nearly every example people have provided here. None seem that appealing to market a historically based game.

Well, gods and kings isn't about kings at all, nor is it really about gods actually.

The health mechanic could be a big thing but not be marketed as such. I suspect it will pair well with new trade mechanics and/or something else that is more ''fancy''.


I've had a suggestion where by lacking health diseases could break out, spread across different cities and empires (even those with moderate health). That's fairly appealing I think. It could represent the plague, but the modern era could be hit by a ''superdisease'' as well. Seems marketable to me

 

[Villager720]

The lack of any Civs that interacted with Europeans during colonial times in G&Ks (North and South American cultures, African, SE Asia) leads me to believe that IF a second expansion is made, the new system implemented would revolve around colonies/puppet states/revolutions. Not health.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think it's going to revolve around health because health isn't a "fun" mechanic. It's something designed to limit gameplay. No one can put on the box - New Addition - Health, so you can have sick cities that struggle to grow above size six and will occasionally have their population wiped out by plague!

If they were to add health, it would not be the featured addition.

 

[stfoskey12]

I've had a suggestion where by lacking health diseases could break out, spread across different cities and empires (even those with moderate health). That's fairly appealing I think. It could represent the plague, but the modern era could be hit by a ''superdisease'' as well. Seems marketable to me

Good idea. Maybe it would be easier to spread but also easier to cure in the modern era.