Yes, since it’s the 30th anniversary of AoE 1, it should be in RoR (and while we’re at it, give 2 UUs to each civ) (Forts, I don’t know, maybe)…
That has always been both the strength and the curse of Europe: the constant internal competition and infighting. When you have a landmass consisting of many peninsulas, mountain ranges, rivers, and densely populated regions, many different regional identities naturally develop. Those identities compete with each other, which leads to conflict and warfare, but also to an incredible exchange of ideas, technology, culture, and innovation.
In many ways, the constant competition between neighboring states accelerated development because societies were continuously forced to adapt, improve, and innovate in order to survive and compete. Of course, this also resulted in immense warfare and destruction, which is the other side of that same dynamic.
This long history of fragmentation, rivalry, exchange, and competition became one of the defining characteristics of Europe’s historical development. When the industrial era began, many European states already possessed highly developed systems of administration, finance, science, military organization, and technological advancement. Combined with other historical factors, this gave Europe a significant advantage during the period of worldwide expansion and helped shape the international order that has largely continued into the modern era.
IMHO:
- Teutons/Thuringians: current Teutons but they need the Malbork castle skin that’s used by Slavs for some reason. They’d represent Central Germans and their eastward expansion (Ostsiedlung), including the Teutonic Order.
- Bavarians: Upper Germans from Bavaria and Austria who ruled the HRE. More heavy cavalry focused and they inherit Barbarossa campaign
- Swabians/Swiss: infantry and archers
Saxons would be in the north but so far they seem mostly Anglo-Saxon based 
2 Likes
I think there is a misunderstanding here. I was not suggesting that the Alemanni could represent all these peoples — quite the opposite. The Alemanni were one Germanic tribal group among many, just like the Danes, Jutes, Swedes, and Geats were only individual groups within the wider Scandinavian world.
The continental Germanic world consisted of many different peoples: Franks, Saxons, Alemanni, Bavarii, Thuringians, Frisians, Burgundians, and others. Each had their own identities, histories, territories, and military traditions.
The Alemanni are certainly important. They became the ancestors of the Swabians and heavily influenced what are today the Swiss Germans and Alsatians. The Bavarii formed the Duchy of Bavaria, from which the Eastern March (Marcha Orientalis) later developed into Austria, meaning Austria has strong Bavarian roots. In many ways, Bavaria and Austria share a very similar cultural heritage, traditions, historical clothing, dialect continuities, and regional identity because of this common Bavarian origin.
The Franks influenced Franconia, Lorraine/Lothringen, and even large parts of what is today the Netherlands. The Saxons shaped northern Germany and had influence far beyond that region. The Burgundians were another important Germanic people who established kingdoms in the Rhine region and later Gaul.
However, none of these groups alone represents the entire continental Germanic world.
This is also why modern names can be misleading. Different cultures named the Germanic world based on their own historical interactions:
- Germany in English comes from the Latin Germania, the Roman geographic term for the region and its peoples.
- Allemagne / Alemania / Alemanha comes from the Alemanni, because those Romance-speaking regions had strong historical contact with that particular group.
- Saksa in Finnish comes from the Saxons, reflecting their historical contact with the Saxon/German sphere.
- Niemcy / Nemtsy in Slavic languages comes from the Slavic word němьcь, meaning roughly “foreigner” or “someone who speaks unintelligibly,” referring broadly to Germanic-speaking neighbors.
- Deutsch comes from Old High German diutisc, meaning “of the people” or “the language of the people.” The same root also gave rise to Dutch, as Dutch and German come from the same Germanic linguistic origin. They were originally not separate concepts in the same way we understand them today; rather, they referred broadly to the language of the people as opposed to Latin. Over time, Dutch and German developed into separate languages and identities.
Interestingly, diutisc shares the same ancient Germanic root (þeudō, meaning “people/tribe”) as the name of the ancient Teutones, but the modern word did not directly evolve from the Teutones themselves.
The same applies to the term Teutons. The ancient Teutones were one specific Germanic tribe from antiquity, not a representation of all Germanic peoples. The term later became associated more broadly with Germans through medieval usage, especially with concepts such as the Teutonic Order, but historically it is still rooted in one specific group.
For AoE2, this is why I think the simplest and most accurate umbrella term is simply Germans. It avoids choosing one specific tribe and allows the civilization to represent the wider continental Germanic world: the various peoples that did not receive their own standalone civilization, the development of the medieval stem duchies, and eventually the broader Holy Roman Empire.
Then groups with sufficiently distinct identities and military systems can be represented separately. For example, Saxons have a strong enough identity to justify their own civilization, the Swiss developed a very distinct military tradition during the late medieval period, and a Teutonic Order based civilization (if ever added) would represent a unique crusading military state rather than all Germans.
A single tribal name cannot realistically carry the entire weight of the German-speaking world. A broad Germans umbrella, combined with specialized civilizations where historical and gameplay differences justify them, is the most logical approach.
For the Saxons campaign, it should be the case that you shift and play as Harold Godwinson, as Hardrada didn’t “lead” the Saxons and lost that war (and life) in the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
1 Like
Please lets not. I’d rather we get stuff outside of Europe over subdividing the crap out of Teutons, Italians, and Spanish. The only reason i’ve been supportive of subdividing Slavs is because of the fact that the Slavic area is so massive even it is subdivided generally into East, West, and South.
4 Likes
Who says we cannot get civs outside of Europe while having a solution as I am proposing?
Because it is still Euro-centric. South Asia has 4 civs, despite being nearly the same size and population as Europe. Adding the same amount to both does not alleviate issues, as adding a culture/ethnic group for India, whilst adding a city-state for Italy just means one is getting better treatment than the other. Where are all the Rajput city states then?
1 Like
“Euro-centric”? I think there is a misunderstanding here. Adding more European civilizations does not mean that civilizations from other parts of the world cannot also be added. I have repeatedly argued for more representation from the Indian subcontinent, the wider Indosphere, Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and other regions. This is not a choice between “Europe” or “the rest of the world.”
The idea that adding a European civilization automatically takes away a slot from another region is also a strange way to look at historical representation. AoE2 civilizations should not be determined simply by modern population numbers, modern borders, or the size of a continent today. Modern demographics do not reflect medieval demographics, political importance, military systems, technological development, or historical impact.
The medieval world was not divided into equal modern population blocks. Some regions had much more fragmented political landscapes, more competing states, more documented interactions, and more distinct military traditions that naturally translate into separate civilizations. Other regions may have had larger populations but fewer clearly differentiated political and military systems that fit the AoE2 civilization model.
A civilization in AoE2 should not simply represent “a place where people lived.” It should represent a distinct historical identity, with a recognizable military system, economy, historical narrative, and gameplay style.
That is why an Italian umbrella civilization makes sense. The Italian city-states shared many common features: merchant economies, banking, naval trade, fortified cities, communal governments, professional armies, and similar military traditions such as pavise-protected communal crossbowmen and later condottieri warfare. They were not simply random city-states grouped together; they represented a broader historical system.
At the same time, Venice can still justify its own civilization because Venice developed into something genuinely unique: a maritime empire built around naval dominance, overseas possessions, Mediterranean trade networks, and a distinct political and military identity.
Likewise, this same logic applies outside Europe. If there are Indian, African, Southeast Asian, or American civilizations with sufficiently distinct political, military, and cultural identities, they absolutely should be represented.
Regarding the comparison with Rajput city-states: the existence of many individual states does not automatically mean every single one should become a separate civilization. Medieval Europe also had hundreds of counties, duchies, kingdoms, republics, and city-states, but we do not create a civilization for every one of them. The question is not simply “did this political entity exist?” — almost every region had many political entities.
The question is whether that identity developed a sufficiently unique military system, economy, political structure, historical role, and gameplay potential to justify becoming its own AoE2 civilization.
The Italian communes are a good example of this. Their importance was not simply that they were small states; it was that they represented a wider and highly influential system of urban merchant republics, banking networks, naval powers, fortified cities, and professional military organizations that shaped medieval warfare.
The same standard should apply everywhere. It should not be based on modern population numbers or modern political relevance, but on medieval historical impact and whether a civilization adds something unique to the game.
For clarity, my proposals are not limited to Europe. I have also advocated for additional civilizations from the Indian subcontinent and wider Indosphere that are currently not represented.
Examples include:
- Afghans — representing the mountain societies, warrior traditions, and strategic importance of the Afghan region.
- Cholas — as a more historically focused rework of the current Dravidians, representing the powerful Tamil Chola Empire, their naval strength, overseas expeditions, and highly organized administration.
- Mallas (Nepalis) — representing the Newar Malla kingdoms of the Kathmandu Valley, with their own distinct political, cultural, architectural, and military identity.
- Rajputs — representing the various Rajput warrior dynasties and their long-standing martial traditions.
- Shahis (Hindu Shahis) — representing the Hindu Shahi kingdoms of the northwest frontier and their conflicts with expanding Islamic powers.
- Tamils — representing the broader Tamil cultural sphere beyond only the Chola imperial period.
Beyond the Indian subcontinent itself, the wider Indosphere also includes civilizations such as the Siamese/Thai, who developed their own powerful kingdoms and military traditions while being influenced by Indian cultural, religious, and political systems.
Alongside this, I have also advocated for additional civilizations from Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and other regions.
So the argument is not “add Europe instead of the rest of the world.” The argument is that AoE2 can and should continue expanding in all directions.
A larger roster can accommodate both European and non-European civilizations. The existence of one does not prevent the other from being added.
The goal should be creating a balanced historical ecosystem where civilizations are added because they bring something genuinely distinct: different armies, different economies, different historical stories, and different gameplay identities.
2 Likes
I think its in large part because of development time. AOE2 realistically isn’t going to continue to get updates and DLC until the end of time, and the time spent on Europe cuts down on the finite amount of time the Devs can be focusing outside of Europe.
There’s also the fact that there are a finite number of mechanics that can be used, and at some point there won’t be unique ways to make unique units and techs feel truly unique anymore.
8 Likes
I think you guys worry too much. It is not about infinite time or not being available. I believe the devs will continue to capitalize on the willingness of us fans of the franchise to cash out money for more content - it is a lucrative business model so why would they not? The one thing that might not happen however is getting new civs that are actually more “historically grounded” rather than inspired by pop culture - as we see now with the upcoming DLC which could have been - in my honest opinion - easily a much more impressive DLC with a more based roster of the civs along with them not being solely restricted to the viking era / theme.
2 Likes
We have been burned repeatedly as of late. Debacles like 3K are not forgotten lightly.
It means exactly that. Europe has already received special treatment. Not undoing that by adding lots more elsewhere is Eurocentrism.
4 Likes
If there’s one thing worse than just having a European DLC is splitting an AoK/AoC civ…Also this European DLC feels like scrapping the barrel when Vikings are fine after getting updated a few times. Balkans still feels like the better choice with giving Magyars and Turks campaigns instead of 3 Viking campaigns for 1 character.
3 Likes
You seem anti-European. The game developer is western, as in derived from European cultural sphere and traditions. A large percentage of player base is European or populations which have derived from Europe. What is the issue? I already dealt with you previously, letting you know that having more European civs in game does not mean that there cannot be more non-European civs in game.
2 Likes
I AM European.
The issue is a lot of the world gets overlooked. This is bad for visual and gameplay variety.
There is a finite number of civs. We don’t know what it is, but it exists. I would rather the rest of the world gets fleshed out to Europe’s level, than have even more granular splits of an area that is better represented than anywhere else.
I want to see what more can be done with Eagle Warriors, Elephant Archers. The design restrictions of South Asia. More architecture from Africa. What other North American civs would look like.
6 Likes
“Europe’s level”? Most of the European civs (especially original) are far less historically accurate in depiction than the civs from other parts of world. I have proposed various additions of civs from what is known as greater Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, the Americas etc. The devs will surely generate more non European civs. We just have to have patience. Personally what I would like to see in the nearest future regarding new civ content is a split of or addition to the Saracens - Mashriqis, Arabs/Arabians, Egyptians - also Andalusians, possibly reworked Berbers to Maghrebis, and Kurds. Furthermore a Balkan DLC with Serbs, Vlachs, Venetians , and the Slav split to Ruthenians, Muscovites, Novgorodians/Novgorod. I also would like to see 2 more DLCs for Indian subcontinent with the civs I have listed previously.. and many, many more. We just have to hope that the devs develop the game along these lines as evidently I am not the only fan of game who wishes such civs.
1 Like
Europe might not be most historically accurate but it is definitely most detailed when it comes to civ selection. Almost half of all the civ in the game is European.
3 Likes
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The discussion is not “European civilizations versus the rest of the world.” I have never argued that only European civilizations should be added, and I have already proposed numerous additions from other parts of the world as well.
The existence of more European civilization concepts does not prevent civilizations from India, Africa, Southeast Asia, East Asia, or anywhere else from being added. A larger roster can accommodate both.
I also think we need to be careful about applying modern population numbers to the medieval world. The population of a country or continent today does not automatically reflect medieval population density, political fragmentation, historical importance, or the number of distinct military systems that existed during the period AoE2 covers.
Medieval Europe was an exceptionally fragmented region. Within relatively small distances there were kingdoms, duchies, republics, military orders, bishoprics, and city-states competing with one another. This created a very high density of different political structures, economies, and military traditions.
That is why medieval Europe naturally produces many potential AoE2 civilizations: Italian communal warfare with pavise crossbowmen and condottieri, Swiss pike warfare, English longbow armies, Norman cavalry warfare, Byzantine combined-arms armies, Teutonic crusading warfare, Venetian naval power, Iberian frontier warfare, Scandinavian raiding traditions, and many others.
This does not mean other regions lacked innovation or important civilizations. They absolutely had them. It simply means the medieval world was not divided into equal modern population blocks, and AoE2 civilizations should not be created according to a population quota.
The criteria should be historical identity, military systems, political development, economy, and gameplay potential.
For example, the reason I support an Italian umbrella civilization is not because “Italy deserves more.” It is because the Italian city-states shared a recognizable historical system: merchant economies, banking, trade networks, fortified urban centers, communal governments, professional armies, pavise crossbow traditions, and later condottieri warfare.
Venice can still stand separately because Venice developed a completely different identity as a maritime empire with overseas possessions, naval dominance, and a unique political structure.
The same logic applies everywhere. The question is not simply “did many states exist?” Europe had hundreds of small states as well. The question is whether they developed a sufficiently distinct identity and military system to justify a civilization.
A larger AoE2 roster should not be about choosing one region over another. It should be about representing the historical societies that bring something unique to the game.
1 Like
I’ve said a few times that this is almost like chronicles, it has nearly the same amount of missions as Alexander so maybe it was meant to be that but they have dropped the chronicles wording?
I’d of like to of seen proper Ragnar campaigns rather than the odd battle in the historical battles.
Some also seem worried about new content when steamdb seems to suggest there is at least 2 more dlcs to come
I think the person most deserving a megacampaign treatment would be Genghis Khan (and perhaps his sons and grandsons)
12 Likes