You will *never* see a civ expansion with plagues and/or civil wars. The reason being that Sid has already considered trying to do exactly that and realized that it was a bad idea because no one likes having their 300 turn game ended by their civilization cut in half due to some random number generator.
You might be interested in this proposal (LINK):
I tried to cover most of your requests:
- a (true) Economic Victory to work towards. Not from the beginning, but at least from the middle of the game, when the importance of religion fades away.
- stuff to do worry about.
- new possibilities to enhance your civ.
- well... CORPORATONS!
Even though plagues acted like that in real life, it doesn't have to work like that in the game. The plague's effect could simply be to inhibit growth until it passes or is eliminated.
Civil Wars and insurections don't happen by accident. It could always be designed that you get a warning such as "An angry faction within your empire wishes you to adopt (religion/social policy)or they will revolt in X turns." They might also want you to build a building in certain cities or something else. The penalty for not complying could be as simple as the "faction" allying themselves with a nearby city-state and having it declare war on you with the possibility that other AI civs may get drawn into the conflict.
Civil Wars and insurections don't happen by accident. It could always be designed that you get a warning such as "An angry faction within your empire wishes you to adopt (religion/social policy)or they will revolt in X turns." They might also want you to build a building in certain cities or something else. The penalty for not complying could be as simple as the "faction" allying themselves with a nearby city-state and having it declare war on you with the possibility that other AI civs may get drawn into the conflict.
Cities separating from your empire should always have some sort of warning and an ability to track and influence this likely hood. If you allow a city(s) to separate with out a war or some sort of conflict there should be some sort of reward.
You might be interested in this proposal (LINK):
I tried to cover most of your requests:
- a (true) Economic Victory to work towards. Not from the beginning, but at least from the middle of the game, when the importance of religion fades away.
- stuff to do worry about.
- new possibilities to enhance your civ.
- well... CORPORATONS!
This looks pretty interesting. I think you have a pretty good design for corporations in general. I'd be more than happy to play it. I like the fact that it improves Great Merchants. Surprised you didn't take the approach to have different corps from different great people, but admittedly GSes and GEs don't need to be any stronger.
One missing thing appears to be Landmarks. This change would make Landmarks weaker that they currently are (and I'm not terribly impressed with them as is). Perhaps all corporations could add their bonuses to any Landmarks as well?
Ok, now that the list of civs in G&K is confirmed, i'm almost sure that there will be a 2nd expansion. Because as it stands the game will be too pro-European and pro-conservative. I imagine 2nd xpack will be more oriented towards Industrial and Modern eras, and we will see leftist leaders at last.
if they do another expansion i'd like to see an expanded trade aspect. Something that fleshes out the mid-game. So far the excitement is al in the beginning (even more so with religion added). Maybe espionage will change that. But if they added a mid-game trade aspect that includes colonies, improved naval gameplay, and basically other ways to take on your opponents it would be cool.
other than that an XP that is just heavy in mod tools would be cool.
Ok, now that the list of civs in G&K is confirmed, i'm almost sure that there will be a 2nd expansion. Because as it stands the game will be too pro-European and pro-conservative. I imagine 2nd xpack will be more oriented towards Industrial and Modern eras, and we will see leftist leaders at last.
I don't think they will base whether or not to do another expansion pack because the leaders and civs Firaxis have chosen have supposedly showcased the company's conservatism. This is mere coincidence-ish. It will be down to whether or not they can come up with marketable ideas. I'm sure for the majority of players new civs are just icing, and new features are the true cake. By that reasoning, I think if there is to be a second expansion, there will need to be a completely new mechanic involved. Most of the ones suggested are fairly minor compared to Religion and Espionage from Gods and Kings, or serve to punish the player, rather than reward them - such as Civil Wars, Health and Revolutions, which, whilst flavoursome and potentially fun, aren't particularly enticing. However, I do think that they could do some sort of government system, on par with the new Religious system, which would enhance the Social Policies. They seem to already be stepping in this direction by having Freedom, Autocracy and Order affect diplomacy. But personally I can't imagine another expansion to be in the works. A couple more DLCs to give this iteration more civs than the previous, and they'll proably move on.
Note: I voted 'No', but I side with the 'Yes' camp now.
Civ 5 is consistently ranked as one of the most played games on Steam. I'd say it's doing fairly well and as long as the expansion doesn't bomb, and I don't see why it would, I'd say we will be seeing a second expansion eventually.
Ok, now that the list of civs in G&K is confirmed, i'm almost sure that there will be a 2nd expansion. Because as it stands the game will be too pro-European and pro-conservative. I imagine 2nd xpack will be more oriented towards Industrial and Modern eras, and we will see leftist leaders at last.
Umm... Civilization is hardly meant to be a game of leftist vs. rightist politics, and that's one of the silliest reasons I've heard for why they would release another expansion. It's too Eurocentric, true, but if they were that bothered by it, they could have released less European civs in the expansion pack. Also, if they want to make to make it more diverse, they don't need to release another expansion with diverse civs, they could simply release a few DLCs.
I don't think they will base whether or not to do another expansion pack because the leaders and civs Firaxis have chosen have supposedly showcased the company's conservatism. This is mere coincidence-ish. It will be down to whether or not they can come up with marketable ideas. I'm sure for the majority of players new civs are just icing, and new features are the true cake. By that reasoning, I think if there is to be a second expansion, there will need to be a completely new mechanic involved. Most of the ones suggested are fairly minor compared to Religion and Espionage from Gods and Kings, or serve to punish the player, rather than reward them - such as Civil Wars, Health and Revolutions, which, whilst flavoursome and potentially fun, aren't particularly enticing. However, I do think that they could do some sort of government system, on par with the new Religious system, which would enhance the Social Policies. They seem to already be stepping in this direction by having Freedom, Autocracy and Order affect diplomacy. But personally I can't imagine another expansion to be in the works. A couple more DLCs to give this iteration more civs than the previous, and they'll proably move on.
If they do release another expansion pack, I think it'd involve corporations and some form of colonialism. With the way social policies and religions work, it's possible to make corporations more interesting and provide more unique bonuses. The question is how much fun that will add to the game or if it'll just be another thing to manage in the late game that has little impact on the outcome. Also, establishing colonies is something I could see them adding to give more incentive to expand overseas.
Those would be the most likely focuses on an expansion pack, but I still doubt we'll see one.
I know a lot of people have shot down the idea of multiple leaders for the Civs, but I think the developers have at least left that as an option (and one I would LOVE to see). The reason I say this is because in the civilopedia the UA is attached to the leader, not the civ. To me at least, this seems like they at least left it open as a possibility.
I know a lot of people have shot down the idea of multiple leaders for the Civs, but I think the developers have at least left that as an option (and one I would LOVE to see). The reason I say this is because in the cyclopedia the UA is attached to the leader, not the civ. To me at least, this seems like they at least left it open as a possibility.
That is true, I forgot about that. Interesting and thanks for mentioning that and it does leave open the option. Still not sure about its viability though.
I know a lot of people have shot down the idea of multiple leaders for the Civs, but I think the developers have at least left that as an option (and one I would LOVE to see). The reason I say this is because in the civilopedia the UA is attached to the leader, not the civ. To me at least, this seems like they at least left it open as a possibility.
What's important to me is not what people think. What's important is what the devs think. The reason I would like more than one leader to choose from, is the simple fact that several civs had more than one decent leader, and lots of horrible ones. Those leaders had different personalities and came from obviously different time periods. I would love the idea of trying my luck against different leaders from the past and present to see how I would fare against them. Imagine facing the Russians led by Ivan the Terrible, or Peter the Great. How about an America led by Obama, god, try that on for size. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winner himself. Anyway, it does not have to be just one man and one woman as in Civ 2. It is about diversity and making things interesting. Who wouldn't want to destroy an Adolf Hotler, Hideki Tojo, or Benito Mussolini. Perhaps play as them and try to conquer the world. To me things like this make the game more interesting. The question is will the devs go for it. The only ones that knows are the devs themselves.
If the option has been left open perhaps to become a reality in the second expansion, I'm all for it.
Some people voted that there will not be a second expansion. I wonder what the devs think about that?
I know a lot of people have shot down the idea of multiple leaders for the Civs, but I think the developers have at least left that as an option (and one I would LOVE to see). The reason I say this is because in the civilopedia the UA is attached to the leader, not the civ. To me at least, this seems like they at least left it open as a possibility.
That's true (much to my discontent, but anyway). And not only the civilopedia, but the entire game gives emphasis to the leaders before their respective civilizations. For instance, the "Select Civilization" list is ordered from 'Alexander' to 'Wu Zetian', not from 'America' to 'Spain'.
I'm not sure we're going to get a 2nd expansion, and one of the reasons is the lack of civs that could be included without people getting real loud about it. If additional leaders for existing civs is more acceptable than all new but not so deserving civs (is there a poll about this?), that problem could be solved.
I know a lot of people have shot down the idea of multiple leaders for the Civs, but I think the developers have at least left that as an option (and one I would LOVE to see). The reason I say this is because in the civilopedia the UA is attached to the leader, not the civ. To me at least, this seems like they at least left it open as a possibility.
Something which I only just saw since having started playing the game again. Also, am I mistaken, or did the Future Tech technology on the Tech tree once say something along the lines of "more future content coming in a later expansion"?
I know a lot of people have shot down the idea of multiple leaders for the Civs, but I think the developers have at least left that as an option (and one I would LOVE to see). The reason I say this is because in the civilopedia the UA is attached to the leader, not the civ. To me at least, this seems like they at least left it open as a possibility.
Except things like Ancient Regime, which are virtually the exact opposite of being connected with the leader. The Civilopedia is calling back to CIv4, it isn't reflecting what's actually in the game.
Except things like Ancient Regime, which are virtually the exact opposite of being connected with the leader. The Civilopedia is calling back to CIv4, it isn't reflecting what's actually in the game.
This is true, but it would be easy enough to give this UA to another French leader, and something new for Nappy. The same could be done for USA, giving Manifest Destiny to Abe Lincoln and something new for Washington. Kind of like how they shuffled some of the traits in the Civ IV expansions.
I realize having the UA listed on the leaders page and not the civilization page is not representative of what is in the game, but it does seem to me that by doing it this way, the possibility is there to add multiple leaders.
Although, if they have to replace current leader abilities (fwiw, Washington, Elizabeth, Wu Zetian, Napoleon, Bismark, Suleiman, and Gustav all have to change), they could just have easily put the abilities under the civilization at first and then move it when they get around to adding new leaders. In other words, inertia seems a far more logical option given that, while supposedly planning ahead, they'd still have to change a significant amount.
A earth Map that gives the actual starting positions as historically on the map (yes I know Byz and Ottoman cant have that but that just means both cant be in the same game)
New civilizations - Portugal should be in - Poland or Lithuania in Eastern Europe, fans want Zulu and probably Mali or Kongo in Africa, The Confedaracy would be interesting in the Americas as would a native American tribe from the Plains of Nth America like the Apache, Australia fills a huge gap on the world map and there are a couple of Asian civs that would round that continent out.
Alternate Leaders - with alternate bonuses would bring new complexity. You could have civil wars with new civs suddenly appearing
More wonders - Hoover Dam, Magellans Voyage, Einsteins Theory of Relativity Empire state Building, Guggenheim Museum, The Sphynx - there are endless choices all of which could give interesting bonuses. To be honest I'd like it if every technology had a wonder attached to it.
More Tech - Entertainment is lacking - no sports, little in the way of art, literature, film etc. Surely those Cultural and Happiness favoring techs should be in. Imagine having to develop 10 sports before you can build the Olympics wonder which gives you a massive boost in happiness and relationship bonuses in dealing with other civs.
More resources - more varied resources that lead to a more advanced trading system.
More Natural wonders - Uluru, Niagra Falls, Angel Falls, Mt Everest every continent on earth has something
Something totally radical like an optional set of civilizations and related features that never existed - Elves, Dwarves, Amazons, Troy, Atlantis etc .... C'mon who doesn't want to see George Washington and his allies the Elves taking on an army of Germans and Orcs?
The format is golden and you really dont have to be limited. There is so much scope that they could easily do several expansions if they want
Theres lots of room to expand.
Something totally radical like an optional set of civilizations and related features that never existed - Elves, Dwarves, Amazons, Troy, Atlantis etc .... C'mon who doesn't want to see George Washington and his allies the Elves taking on an army of Germans and Orcs?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Anyway, it does not have to be just one man and one woman as in Civ 2. It is about diversity and making things interesting. Who wouldn't want to destroy an Adolf Hotler, Hideki Tojo, or Benito Mussolini. Perhaps play as them and try to conquer the world. To me things like this make the game more interesting. The question is will the devs go for it. The only ones that knows are the devs themselves. 
