There must be a time when devs stop adding new civs and rework existed ones, but the problem is when is that time. After added too many European civs, people start to see the hope of their favorite civs of other continents being added, and if they stopped the process at that time, people will feel unfair and angry.
Devs cant please everyone or add every civi a few people like.we already have 45 civis and with the next one adding multiple civis it will be close to 50.Adding civis needs to stop at least around 55.
1 Like
So it’s the last opportunity to complete Asia/Africa/America with seriously selected major civs, no more room for minor ones.
1 Like
When adding Civs stops, financial support for the game stops. People won’t pay for updates and V&V shows people don’t like campaigns without meaningful gameplay additions.
Maybe they can think of other dlcs, but when the money stops, support stops.
2 Likes
So you want to keep adding civis for the sake of support?
Yeah, but I always like it when they add new Civs.
This is probably my favourite game, If I can keep playing it for forever and have new things to discover and play with, that would be fantastic for me
Obviously that’s not everyone’s perspective, But I will be sad when this game goes the way of AGE3
2 Likes
There is always chronicles which can easily have 30 civs.
1 Like
If that is the compromise, single payer/custom game only civs are fine by me, Chronicles was great
It’s a tough balance. When there is single player only dlc some multiplayer people complain, but some multiplayer people don’t want more civs. Though I feel that might be a minority.
Why not selling skin pack? Real campaign pack? Chronicle pack?
I also believe there need more rework of old civs, and such rework could be released along with a campaign pack or chronicle pack including them.
2 Likes
They’re all good ideas, the next chronicles dlc is the thing I’m looking forward to most.
They have a template they have stuck to so far - maybe they will experiment more in the future.
I would love regional skins dlc, but there’s no indication that it is on the cards unfortunately
I prefer more architecture art, as historical as possible.
2 Likes
Although I am also not a big proponent of more and more civs while forsaking more drastic and substantive changes, making the game better at its core by way of simply pathing and balance tweaks is too little of change, imo. The latter occurs all the time as it is. The former is just something I think they keep trying to fix/address but it isn’t an easy fix, unfortunately.
The types of changes I’m looking for are:
- More buildings, more unique buildings per civ, too
- More techs, wider variety of unique techs per civ, and more tech tree roots and branches.
- Combined with more civ-unique buildings can help make each civ feel more unique and not near carbon copies of each other with different skins
- Another age added, or sub-ages
- Basically, more opportunities to succeed or fail per match, depending on which pathways you prioritize and choose. But also, deeper gameplay and more things you can do, especially in longer matches that reach Age IV and you’ve researched everything under the sun that you can… where everything under the sun is nearly the same for every civ
I’ve long felt we have all become such masters of AoE by now that many of us would be able to handle the addition of new stuff such as this.
Let’s face it, each match we play is pretty much just muscle memory by now, using the same core recipe mechanics we all learned ages ago and tweaked a tiny amount recently as new metas are found or new civs added. Pretty robotic by now, which is great for feeding my need to master the rigid execution of streamlined patterns and routines… but I have enough capacity to do more after years and years of doing this
Then there are other things, like environmental improvements and embellishments they could do, too
PS: Why do so many forum threads say stuff like this lately:
Please wait an hour between posts in this topic
1 Like
Slowdown (20 characters)
Problem is no one has the authority to decide which one is minor and which one is not.
By Comparing them to vanilla civs, we can find a vague standard.
1 Like
I wish we wouldn’t get anymore Romans like civ because of Huns.
1 Like
Why?
I don’t know. Maybe they think we’re fighting too much.
Also how did you manage to write a post with so few characters?
e.g. compared to Vikings, Armenians could be seen as a minor civ.
Considering a subciv under the umbrella of Armenians, it will be a rather minor one.
We could set a range that the new civ should varies from as big as Vikings, to as small as Armenians. Lesser ones like Genoa or Venice shouldn’t be added.
As long as we haven’t gotten at least 1 American and 1 African DLC, I want more civs. And even afterwards I’m in favour of more of it. The only DLC I liked so far post-DE (apart The Last Khans with its great Central Asian flavour), is Dynasties of India. Just because some people have gotten the civs they wanted doesn’t mean that other people shouldn’t get the civs they want just because they have a feeling that “Now it’s enough because I got my insert fav civ from a DE DLC. I don’t want this other culture I didn’t bother to read more about”.
4 Likes