Plans for new XP or Civ5?

[Lambiorix_be]

Does anyone know if there are concrete plans to make another expansion pack or even Civ5?

[Solver]

There's a second XP in the making .

[Diadem]

Civilization III is from november 2001
Civilization IV is from november 2005

So I expect to see Civilization V released in november 2009. It'll be a while.

I've heard rumors that a 2nd expansion is being worked upon. But they are no more then rumors so far.

Edit: ^^^ Ah, more than rumors, it seems

[Solver]

Actually, they've been confirmed by a whole host of people, including several Firaxians .

[Diadem]

Allright

So will there be more patches for warlords or is support ended now that a 2nd expansion is beind worked upon?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Solver
Actually, they've been confirmed by a whole host of people, including several Firaxians .

Has there been any mention of a tentative release date yet? I'm guessing in the spring, judging by how long it took them to release Warlords.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Willem


Has there been any mention of a tentative release date yet? I'm guessing in the spring, judging by how long it took them to release Warlords.

Not yet. XP2 could be announced at Christmas, or tomorrow at lunchtime, or even as far away as the former E3 date in May. But don't take my word for it. My info is second-hand.

[DrSpike]

Not so sure it's a good thing that another x-pack is on the way. It's so hard to add good material without changing the underlying game too much too soon.

Expect to pay £20 for new civs, new scenarios that no one plays, and a further fragmentation of the community.

Still, better that than they break the game and never fix it, a la C3C.

[Krill]

I hope it isn't a rush job...

[Solver]

Spikey, just because you can't imagine good ways to improve the game, doesn't mean there are none . Of course, any improvement means change, but change isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warlords added, say, unique buildings, which was also a change - and not a bad one. And you'd be surprised how many people do play scenarios...

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Solver
Spikey, just because you can't imagine good ways to improve the game, doesn't mean there are none .

I always have an open mind on this, but the fact of the matter is there has never been a really good civ x-pack. Warlords is fine, but (and this accords with your own views in your earlier review) nothing special. So you can either be (a) me, open minded but sceptical based on empirical data or (b) you, bloody minded even though you secretly agree with me.

Originally posted by Solver
Of course, any improvement means change, but change isn't necessarily a bad thing. Warlords added, say, unique buildings, which was also a change - and not a bad one.

That's not really a change that alters core gameplay - more building on it, and a decent thing to do in my view. Subject to diminishing returns though, which is relevant for the second x-pack debate.

Originally posted by Solver
And you'd be surprised how many people do play scenarios...

No I wouldn't. We went through this when I tested the ground with my last scenarios thread. Some people play them on release out of curiosity but they never get interest proportional to how much of pre-release hype they get. This is for the simple reason that they sound cool but rarely deliver, if ever. Perfect for a line or two on the front of the box.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Civ4 fan. I just don't see anything really good coming out of the fact that there will be another x-pack, and I do see scope for bad things to happen. There are precedents of course.

[dacole]

I hope they improve diplomacy make it so you can say do more complicated treaties (I won't settle past this rock that is currently outside my cultural boundries if you don't either) and add a more robust spying mechanism. Maybe add a great diplomat that can put embassies in a civ and then continue to provide you with info like in civ II...

What do you think about the addition of vassallage I think it greatly improves the game personally..

[Solver]

Okay, there has never been a great Civ x-pack. Warlords is fine but nothing special, agreed. The Civ3 expansions weren't good because some of Civ3's concepts were flawed at the core, impossible to fix in an expansion anyway. So I'll stand by being me, having access to more empirical data than you .

What would you define as altering core gameplay? I feel that this is an important point, but hard to define. I think it is in any case obvious that an expansion wouldn't change the entire gameplay or 50% of it. That's what sequels are for. Soren described Civ4 as 1/3 old, 1/3 improved and 1/3 new. And that's a sequel. Diminishing returns? For stuff such as new civs, maybe. But anything that a second XP would do that Warlords didn't wouldn't be subject to diminishing returns.

About those scenarios... you know, Apolyton is not representative of the global player community. Not in the slightest. It is, in fact, completely misrepresentative, and to make conclusions about people who buy Civ4 based on Apolytoners would be a huge mistake. Hardcore Civ players are, at most, a few percent of the game's buyers, but these hardcore players represent the vast majority of forumers here. Well, guess what. Hardcore players want a better AI and are drooling in excitement at Blake's AI mod. The majority of buyers (call them casuals) play at difficulties below Noble, Warlord probably being the most common one. The AI is plenty good enough for them even at levels below he 'fair' one.

Likewise, a majority of players here or on CFC will indicate that new leaders/civs in an expansion are nice things to have, but not really important. The casual players feel it's very important, that's what they want. On the contrary, they don't care much about Cossacks being reduced to strength 15, changes like which make the hardcore players excited.

Or take that Civ4 eye candy. I've watched a few casual players install & play their first games of Civ4. Guess what, they loved the little touches like pigs moving around in pastures, or those great person animations when they use their powers.

And yes, the same stands true for scenarios. They're not too popular with the majority of hardcore players, I'll give you that, although the portion of hardcore civvers who enjoy scenarios is significant. However, most casual players do try and play these scenarios. In fact, a segment of the casual player population will play the scenarios more than the epic game. Play through all the scenarios once or twice, try an epic game once, be done with the game.

Of course, that's not only true of Civ. Same holds for, for example, RTS games. A RTS game that sells a million copies will have an active multiplayer community ten thousand people - which is 1% of copies sold. A higher number for some games, but not exceeding 5%. These few percent are the ones that do 98% of the posting on the Internet, but the other 95% of purchasers will play through the game's campaign, try a skirmish or two and be done with it .

[Alexander I]

I for one consider myself a "hardcore" civver, and I am excited for new scenarios. I agree that certain civ expansions were junk, namely Civ3's expansions, and that Warlords, though it provides fun additions, was lackluster. To me, the winning expansions were Civ2's, oddly enough. I had a great deal of fun playing all their diverse and innovative scenarios. Unfortunately, I haven't enjoyed Civ4's as much, but I'm excited for some new and fun things in XP2. So what if expansions are lackluster? As long as they don't break the game, I'd love new additions. Besides, I think Warlords was rushed out. I think they're taking their time with XP2 and putting in some things that we'll really appreciate. I agree with Solver.

The reason I have hope for the future is because this game is Civ4. Does anybody who was disappointed with Civ3 remember how they felt when they played their first game of Civ4? The improvement, the contrast was so marked to me -- I was expecting another disappointment like Civ3; instead, I got a lasting favorite. Yin even ate the box because the gameplay was so much better than he expected. Give Firaxis a little credit. Sure, they disappointed us with C3C, but XP2 won't be like that. They've learned from their mistakes.

[Solver]

I haven't admittedly played Conquests, but my impression is that it wasn't actually bad as an expansion. I understand that it added some nice things and stuff, but the main problem was that the core game, Civ3, was broken. Which was impossible to fix in an expansion. It's impossible to create a good expansion if the base game is broken in several core aspects.

Civ4 isn't broken. However, it can definitely be improved, just like any game. And the great advantage that Firaxis has this time around is that they can indeed dedicate themselves fully to improving the game, without having to worry about working with a broken foundation. And I have confidence in their testers who wouldn't allow XP2 to break Civ4 in any way .