What do you want in the First Civ5 expansion

[Kevik]

Pretty simple just select everything you want in the first civ5 expansion.
If you picked other please explain and understand that I could not get everything into 10 options.

Other could include: Corperations, Colonies, and what ever you can think of

I must say based on expansion for civ4 its almost garrunteed that we will get more techs/ units/ Buildings/ Civs but maybe not I don't know

There might be one coming (well noboby has said anything and it might take years before we see it) and I am asking what do you guys want in it. Also what do you guys think it will focus on future era or more ancient, and what would be a good name for it depending on what way it goes. and yes Beyond the Sorwd has already been taken.

Oh if you want to help me creaete new units please go here http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...for-the-Empire

[Sunrunner]

Poll fetish much? lol

[brxbrx]

I think new civs are better left to dlc.
let the next expansion include rich diplomacy with plenty of depth, as well as a cunning artificial intelligence that knows how to wield such diplomacy (and doesn't send its settlers as its front line of assault)

[jacypr]

You could at least include a "I just want a game that works" option. That's why I've marked, along with almost everything, the "other" option.

[brxbrx]

maybe some options should be exclusive to others. but that's just the way the forum software works, it isn't Kevik's fault.

Actually, what i think would be good is if people post their suggestions, and people vote on each post, with a like/dislike kind of thing.

Then you could sort between the newest posts, the posts that have been overlooked the most, the highest rated posts, etc.


But I'm really doubting that Firaxis devs pay the slightest bit of attention to these polls, or even our suggestions.

I suspect they're mostly interested in doing their own thing.

[MegaBearsFan]

I don't necessarily know that an expansion will be coming. Assuming that 2K is even going to continue to support Civ V (which does seem likely considering its sales numbers and critical praise), they might just stick with the model of DLC and "micro-transactions". So we'll get a new Civ and some new maps every once in a while, but might not ever see a full blown expansion with whole new game mechanics and features.

Personally, I'd like to see Firaxis fix the problems that exist in the current version of the game - like the stupid tactical AI, the overwhelming benefits of ICS, buggy pathfinding, the crappy tile-annex logic that does a good job on the first 3 or 4 tiles but then just spirals outward from the center afterwards, resource balancing, multiplayer fixes, and so on - before they even THINK about a full expansion.

However, since we are on the topic of what we'd like to see in an expansion, I voted for "Other" in the poll because I didn't realize it was a multi-selection poll (I just picked one without reading the instructions :P), but I would have also voted for "Improved Diplomacy" and "Smarter AIs". The things I wouls most like to see added to the game are International trade routes and some kind of espionage mechanic. Even if all we get is a Spy unit that is just a Scout with hidden nationality that can enter rival terrain without an Open Borders, SOME kind of ability to scout out an enemy prior to going to war is a very important element of warfare and is sadly neglected in this game.

[Davor]

I voted, I other and I don't want an expansion. I don't want an expansion because I don't want to give 2K anymore of my money. I don't think I should have to buy the game in peace meal. Yes they are a company and do what they can get the most money out of.

I am free not to support this. Everything you put in the game, I believe should have been in the vanillia game to begin with. Spies, Religion, Vassals. You telling me that 2K is not smart enough is that is all the can think of for an expansion? What new units or buildings will they put in the game? They wouldn't be stuff that was in Civ IV per chance would they?

So where is the orginality? 2K CAN'T THINK of anything new? So they cut parts out on purpose just to sell it to us later? Talk about buying a car, and getting the Power Steering and Power Breaks at a later date.

As for Smarter AI and better diplomacy, we should have that NOW, not have to pay extra for it. That is just adding more insult to injury that we need to buy an expansion pack for better diplomacy and smarter AI.

Why do I see the 2K sharholders seeing anyone who buys an expansion pack, as a sucker? Why sell people a full game when we can break it up, and sell it peace meal, with no resources ever going into a real expansion pack at all.

Well, I may have "Loser" on my forehead, but at least I don't have "sucker" on it.

Ok, now that I have my Rant over, I would love to see more tech. With more tech leads to more buildings. Of course I would like to build more units as well. I dont' just want to be building a horse unit or archery unit or sword unit in one era. I want to have different units of the same kind to build in the same area. Have like some sword units that could be stronger to attack but weaker and or slower to defend. Or Faster to attack but weaker to defend.

I would want the economy changed as well. I want tech to take longer to research, and I don't want to take forever to build something. If something takes a long time to build, it better be a Wonder of the World, not a barracks or Library or something else like that. I want more Wonders of the World to build. I would like to see more be Obsolete but give great benifits to the builder.

I am tired of seeing 1 food, 1 shield/hammer 1 gold for almost ever tile. I am also tired of seeing resource just giving an increase of +1 so the economy has to change as well. I would also like to see something happen the Happiness economy as well. It seems too much like an economy than people actually being happy.

I don't think we really need any more new civs. This is what DLC is suppose to take care of. So we need about 12 or 20 new units, about 20 new buildings, and 10 or more new Wonders of the World. How much more tech we need? I say about 25 to flesh out everything, that seems to be missing in Vanallia Civ V.

If I do buy the expansions, it will be the collecors edtion, or the "complete edtion" like Civ IV got. Again, I refuse to buy anything peace meal now, so I guess I will be missing out. All I can do is look forward to patches to FIX Civ V, I can't even really think of future DLC or expansion anymore.

[Hamhawk]

I will not even entertain the idea of an expansion until 2k/Firaxis makes good on it's promise to release additional multiplayer modes.

2k has failed to support multiplayer. 2k has failed to listen and respond to multiplayer issues. 2k has failed with releasing information regarding multiplayer. 2k has broken the law in the advertisement of it's DLC content packs as they do not work in multiplayer. 2k does not deserve any more money, they deserve a boycott.

[Kevik]

Lets leave fixing the game to patches, and adding expansions to the game is not adding in peice meals ( well a little) I am not saying there will be an expansion ( okay so I did but I'll go change that) but what would you want in it if they did. And yes this could take several years before we see an expansion. ( Sins of a solar empire for example)

[Valkrionn]

Davor, by your logic any expansion ever for any game is a bad thing.

[Kevik]

Davor based on your logic like Valkrionn says every expansion is bad, Stardock has expansions out for Sins of a solar Empire and Galactic civs 2 ( and probebly more) other popular games like Age of Empires 1,2 and 3, Sims 2 and 3, and much much more. Yes we shouldn't have to pay for a smooth running game but we still have years before an expansion comes out for civ5 plenty of time for firaxis to finnally fix this stupid game.

[Valkrionn]

Just to clarify my point a bit... Take religion for an example. Yes, there was religion in Civ4, but it was removed in Civ5. If it was readded, do you really think it would be added in the same exact form when it was that implementation that they cited as the reason for it's removal? I don't. If religion was added in an expansion, I would expect it to be an entirely different mechanic from that of Civ4... Which renders the "It was in Civ4 so it should be in Civ5" argument moot; The two mechanics are not comparable aside from name. If your argument is instead "It should have been in even though completely redesigned from the ground up", well then, just look at the state of Civ5 on release. Do you really expect that adding an additional large mechanic on top of that would have improved the state of the rest of the game? I sure don't.

[Kevik]

Just to clarify my point a bit... Take religion for an example. Yes, there was religion in Civ4, but it was removed in Civ5. If it was readded, do you really think it would be added in the same exact form when it was that implementation that they cited as the reason for it's removal? I don't. If religion was added in an expansion, I would expect it to be an entirely different mechanic from that of Civ4... Which renders the "It was in Civ4 so it should be in Civ5" argument moot; The two mechanics are not comparable aside from name. If your argument is instead "It should have been in even though completely redesigned from the ground up", well then, just look at the state of Civ5 on release. Do you really expect that adding an additional large mechanic on top of that would have improved the state of the rest of the game? I sure don't.

yeah alot of the stuff removed from civ4 to civ5 would have to be built from the ground up but that can be left to another thread cause this on is for concepts that could be reinterduced, which reminds me I forgot corporations dang ( that would have been better then smarter AI which should be fixed in some patch)

[Floating Pants]

Not vassals. That would only make the game focus more on war, with only the most powerful adopting them and receiving the benefits. But more civs would be my favorite, and religion.

[the man of doom]

civs, smarter AIs

[Taciturn Scot]

I voted, I other and I don't want an expansion. I don't want an expansion because I don't want to give 2K anymore of my money. I don't think I should have to buy the game in peace meal. Yes they are a company and do what they can get the most money out of.

I am free not to support this. Everything you put in the game, I believe should have been in the vanillia game to begin with. Spies, Religion, Vassals. You telling me that 2K is not smart enough is that is all the can think of for an expansion? What new units or buildings will they put in the game? They wouldn't be stuff that was in Civ IV per chance would they?

So where is the orginality? 2K CAN'T THINK of anything new? So they cut parts out on purpose just to sell it to us later? Talk about buying a car, and getting the Power Steering and Power Breaks at a later date.
As for Smarter AI and better diplomacy, we should have that NOW, not have to pay extra for it. That is just adding more insult to injury that we need to buy an expansion pack for better diplomacy and smarter AI.

Voted for Religion, more Techs/buildings, Diplomacy and smarter AI

BTW, I voted for Religion, more Techs/buildings, Diplomacy and smarter AI. I think Religion will make a comeback and be better than ever.

Why do I see the 2K sharholders seeing anyone who buys an expansion pack, as a sucker? Why sell people a full game when we can break it up, and sell it peace meal, with no resources ever going into a real expansion pack at all.

Well, I may have "Loser" on my forehead, but at least I don't have "sucker" on it.

Ok, now that I have my Rant over, I would love to see more tech. With more tech leads to more buildings......

.....If I do buy the expansions, it will be the collecors edtion, or the "complete edtion" like Civ IV got. Again, I refuse to buy anything peace meal now, so I guess I will be missing out. All I can do is look forward to patches to FIX Civ V, I can't even really think of future DLC or expansion anymore.

Sorry mate but you're expecting way too much here. There were no Spies or Vassals in Civ IV vanilla. They came in the expansions. More tech and buildings too came in both expansions. Even the AI got improved in the expansions. But you don't know this because you only got into it at the end of its development cycle. This is not new.

Their business model is not unimaginative. It is a good one and it's widely used. Besides, it takes a long, long time to add features to a game as complex* as this. You already now this as I've brought this up with you before. It makes very good sense to release a basic game for players who want to play the thing to play it and earn revenue while coding/testing the added features in. What's wrong with that? If you want to play games with great complexity*, this is usually what you get. (*Complex/ity with respect to coding only)

I will definitely buy an expansion like I did with Civ 3 and Civ 4 before it. I like Civ V and haven't been disappointed by it in the same way that some of you have. Had I been disappointed, I'd have moved on and forgotten about this game already as there are plenty of other fantastic games to play.

[HoGs]

One thing that drives me crazy is that Civs in an Earth map are randomly located. Proportions & shapes of countries are whacked. Also, resources don't reflect reality whatsoever. This was not an issue in Civ 4, so why is it so ludicrous now? One more thing, England connected to France?

[NitroPhantasm]

Something we have never seen before. Something surprisingly refreshing. Spies and religion were surprises which, in part, is why I loved them. Add them back, but I would go for something innovative leaving everyone to ask "Why didn't they do this with any CIV we have seen before". Something that makes the game more stimulating and exciting and multi-dimensional. Something no one would want to do without ever again. An unforeseen must-have.

[SamBC]

Not vassals. That would only make the game focus more on war, with only the most powerful adopting them and receiving the benefits. But more civs would be my favorite, and religion.

I was rarely warlike in CivIV:BTS, but often ended up with vassals. Okay, I was usually one of the more powerful civs, but it was also because I kept friendly with the little guys. Assuming the diplomacy is actually sanely functioning, vassals don't have to be a military thing. To me, it would mean having AIs that had the idea that they didn't have to go for the win - being subservient to the winner as a 'second best'. If they can handle it as vassals, maybe they can handle it in some other way (alliances of some sort, perhaps).

[SamBC]

It would be a diplomacy enhancement, but I'd love to see "Treaty Organisations" (real life examples: NATO, Warsaw Pact; informal examples from history being the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente). Formally establishing blocs, and then having some diplomacy at bloc-level. Could integrate with city-states, by them having relationships with blocs as well, and blocs could even develop ideologies (automatically, based on social policies of initial members, reviewed every so often with new members) which influence the chances of membership (and the attractiveness to AIs).

[brxbrx]

It would be a diplomacy enhancement, but I'd love to see "Treaty Organisations" (real life examples: NATO, Warsaw Pact; informal examples from history being the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente). Formally establishing blocs, and then having some diplomacy at bloc-level. Could integrate with city-states, by them having relationships with blocs as well, and blocs could even develop ideologies (automatically, based on social policies of initial members, reviewed every so often with new members) which influence the chances of membership (and the attractiveness to AIs).

charlimits
second

[foxdie]

I just want a way to repair bad relationships with other leaders, either through gift requests or missions (similiar to city state requests) But maybe more advanced i.e. gift me a great engineer, destroy city of Newcastle, GPT etc etc)

[Kevik]

It would be a diplomacy enhancement, but I'd love to see "Treaty Organisations" (real life examples: NATO, Warsaw Pact; informal examples from history being the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente). Formally establishing blocs, and then having some diplomacy at bloc-level. Could integrate with city-states, by them having relationships with blocs as well, and blocs could even develop ideologies (automatically, based on social policies of initial members, reviewed every so often with new members) which influence the chances of membership (and the attractiveness to AIs).

I know I sorta formed pacts in civ4 with many many other civs. In most games it was a very clean split between my friends and my enemies with both sides friends with each other and disliking everyone from the other side. Of course most of my side included vassals ( they choose to be and were not forced) and maybe one ore two powerful civs that didn't require protection but I had defensive pacts with them. Oh and that reminds me of another thing I forgot from bts colonies spliting off, which more or less was not very useful execpt in the fact it would help limit ICS of other continents.

[lschnarch]

Everything except new civs.

Basically, a different game. A game that is working, with plausible rules and an AI which follows the same rules as the human.
And stacks. If I want to play a hex-based 1upt wargame, I am playing Panzer General.
So, give me stacks. Staying with this insane 1upt rule will not let my buy an expansion.

[Valkrionn]

Everything except new civs.

Basically, a different game. A game that is working, with plausible rules and an AI which follows the same rules as the human.
And stacks. If I want to play a hex-based 1upt wargame, I am playing Panzer General.
So, give me stacks. Staying with this insane 1upt rule will not let my buy an expansion.

Then you will most likely not be buying an expansion.

For clarification's sake, I say "most likely" in case you change your mind, not in case the devs change theirs. 1upt is here to stay, as far as Civ5 is concerned.

[SamBC]

Then you will most likely not be buying an expansion.

For clarification's sake, I say "most likely" in case you change your mind, not in case the devs change theirs. 1upt is here to stay, as far as Civ5 is concerned.

And a good thing too, says I...

[Hardly]

I voted other. I want a variant to 1UPT that isn't stacks of doom.

I also want the game to be fun. By that I mean I dont want to be penalised for good play. Oh and I want the AI to stop spamming cities. Oh and I want the game to be stable.

[Hardly]

Everything except new civs.

Basically, a different game. A game that is working, with plausible rules and an AI which follows the same rules as the human.
And stacks. If I want to play a hex-based 1upt wargame, I am playing Panzer General.
So, give me stacks. Staying with this insane 1upt rule will not let my buy an expansion.

Oh yeah and I want smart AI, not cheating AI.

[seanrk924]

I really like the cultural points and purchasing of social policies but perhaps one way to improve the diplomacy is to have CIVs w/ the same social policies be friendlier to eachother and also make certain policies diametrically opposed to others (like the freedom track v. autocracy track or piety v. rationalism)

[Kevik]

I really like the cultural points and purchasing of social policies but perhaps one way to improve the diplomacy is to have CIVs w/ the same social policies be friendlier to eachother and also make certain policies diametrically opposed to others (like the freedom track v. autocracy track or piety v. rationalism)

Have more things that would improve relations would lead to better diplomacy

increased relations by
open borders
trades
pacts of friendship
connecting trade routes
liberating cities
helping out in war
doing favors
research agreements
ect...

[Davor]

Davor, by your logic any expansion ever for any game is a bad thing.

Well by 2K's logic if you go buy a car in todays world, you have no power steering, you have no power brakes, you will have to buy the air bags seperately. Everything here is standard now.

Just like when 2K made Beyond the Sword. That should be standard now. In almost any 4X game, Espionage for example is standard in a Civ game. (I am only using espionage as an example here). Civ V has no Espionage at all. So that could be like buying a car with no power breaks and then having to wait 6 months to a year to get them. Alot of the "basics" that was a Civ game is missing or done very poorly in Civ V.

So why would I buy a car with no power brakes or a TV with no remote and I have to wait 6 months to year later for my power brakes or remote for my TV?

Thing is, to take out "standard" stuff out of the game just to put it into an expansion is inexcusable. That to me at least, means, that 2K has no new inovation or immagination to make expansions now.

Please just explain to me why you will buy a car with no power breaks or steering or anything that is not considered "standard" now. It is the exact same thing that 2K has done with Civ V.

To me I would love to have espionage in an expansion because it's not in it now. I would love to have better AI and stuff like that. Thing is, I beleive it should have been in the game from the begining and not added in later. This also shows me, that Civ series is dead now. 2K can't make a game and then expansions for it. All it can do IS make a game and take away, so they can add it in later and call it expansions.

Pretty sad, 2K or Firaxis has no more innovation, and Sid Mier can't do anything innovative unless it's on Facebook now. So sad indeed. At least the Facebook Civ will be free and Steam free.

[brxbrx]

Well by 2K's logic if you go buy a car in todays world, you have no power steering, you have no power brakes, you will have to buy the air bags seperately. Everything here is standard now.

Just like when 2K made Beyond the Sword. That should be standard now. In almost any 4X game, Espionage for example is standard in a Civ game. (I am only using espionage as an example here). Civ V has no Espionage at all. So that could be like buying a car with no power breaks and then having to wait 6 months to a year to get them. Alot of the "basics" that was a Civ game is missing or done very poorly in Civ V.

So why would I buy a car with no power brakes or a TV with no remote and I have to wait 6 months to year later for my power brakes or remote for my TV?

Thing is, to take out "standard" stuff out of the game just to put it into an expansion is inexcusable. That to me at least, means, that 2K has no new inovation or immagination to make expansions now.

Please just explain to me why you will buy a car with no power breaks or steering or anything that is not considered "standard" now. It is the exact same thing that 2K has done with Civ V.

To me I would love to have espionage in an expansion because it's not in it now. I would love to have better AI and stuff like that. Thing is, I beleive it should have been in the game from the begining and not added in later. This also shows me, that Civ series is dead now. 2K can't make a game and then expansions for it. All it can do IS make a game and take away, so they can add it in later and call it expansions.

Pretty sad, 2K or Firaxis has no more innovation, and Sid Mier can't do anything innovative unless it's on Facebook now. So sad indeed. At least the Facebook Civ will be free and Steam free.

I think, that, to make Civ 5 with all the bells and whistles you're talking about, would take five times forever. This is why we have expansions.

Your house comes (ideally) stable with four walls, and later you bring in improvements and new rooms and such.

Not a perfect analogy, though, since we're talking about how each version of a game should include everything in the original.

Are we talking about the same thing? Or have I completely sailed by your post in terms of relevance?

Oh, and civ for facebook makes me rage. Work on a real game!!! The game we paid for!!!
It's just like they did with spore. One lame spinoff after another, instead of improving the still lacking original.

[Valkrionn]

The core thing you seem to be overlooking is Civ5 is a reboot of the franchise; Why should it include old mechanics when so much else is changed? It is not "standard" if it may as well be an entirely new game; You're comparing apples and oranges now.

Should we have religion? Yes, but not anything like in Civ4 (was crap, no real point to it). Should we have espionage, corporations, vassals? Again, yes, with the same qualifications. That said, it takes time to create entirely new mechanics, and simply porting them from civ4 would not work given the rest of the changes. To include those mechanics would have necessitated delaying release... Which is up to 2K.