Can we not engage the ai post?
3 Likes
This would be the ultimate edition with 120 civis.
1 Like
Forget about the “remaster” title. I am not looking to remaster the entire game. It is meant for OG civs, I cannot alter the title it seems.
i however would like the complete game to be remastered. Still in isometric view, still the same basis-engine, but improved. Better animations, especially buildings, or interactions, e.g. interactions between buildings and people.
Archers should not just vanish in buildings and produce arrows. They should climb on top and fire from there, with higher range and armor of course
Yes, of course these kind of changes would make sense. I came across a video on youtube before ridiculing all these aspects of game, how enemy archers can shoot through walls and castles to target your units hiding behind, how a transport ship can either carry 20 villagers or 20 elephants despite size differences, how nothing is accurately scaled etc… it is a game at the end of the day so will not be 200% accurate or realistic, it has a good balance between game play and historical authenticity. However, your proposals - even though very nice - start appearing like a brand new game, inspired by aoe2 and various others. All cool.
Agree, that some would see it as a new game. However, if you compare DE to Aoe2 HD, it might also same like a new game for most. The aforementioned step from DE to Ultimate Edition would not be significantly larger, but necessary, to keep the game alive.
We see the game stagnating at 25k players since DE came out. There is no upward tendency whatsoever. Even Aoe4 is performing better (trendwise, for the math experts: the first and second derivation are higher)
1 Like
Hell no – and besides, you’re making a ridiculous mix. You solve some problems and create others.
At least read it through again before posting
1 Like
Yes, read it through yourself before commenting.
Do you mean Britons into Anglo-Saxon English and Sicilians into Norman English?
Not exactly. What I’m suggesting is a proper Norman civilization, not a “Norman English” one. The Normans were one of the defining military and political powers of the High Middle Ages, with major influence in Normandy, England after 1066, southern Italy, Sicily, and the Crusader states. Their impact extended far beyond England, so I think they merit their own civ. The English civ, meanwhile, would represent medieval England more directly—from roughly the Magna Carta/Plantagenet era through the Hundred Years’ War and the Lancastrian period—rather than trying to cover both the Anglo-Norman and later medieval English kingdoms under one umbrella.
That keeps the distinction clear:
- Normans = the trans-European Norman culture and conquests (11th–12th centuries).
- English = the later medieval Kingdom of England (primarily 13th–15th centuries), the period associated with longbowmen, Edward I/III, Henry V, and the Wars of the Roses.
That’s a historically coherent split and is similar in spirit to my other proposals of replacing broad umbrella civilizations with more specific medieval identities.
I’ll also be posting more civilization ideas that I’ve had up my sleeve and have been brainstorming over the past months. I just haven’t been very active on this forum for a while, but I have quite a few more concepts to share.
1 Like
Yes, like in AoE 4 where you have the Normans in the campaign and then the English civilization in multiplayer… the Normans in Age of Empires 4 are “English” but they actually speak French like the French…
Concerning the proposed second English unique unit (implemented as a unique upgrade to the Spearman line), I suggest replacing Pikeman and Halberdier with Billman and Heavy Billman. The Heavy Pikeman, currently only available in the scenario editor and certain campaigns, already closely resembles a historical English billman rather than a true pikeman, making it an ideal fit for the English-exclusive Billman / Heavy Billman with only minor stat adjustments instead of requiring an entirely new visual design.
Historically, the English bill was the signature infantry polearm of late medieval England, becoming the standard weapon of English infantry during the 15th century and throughout the Wars of the Roses. While pikes came to dominate the battlefields of Switzerland and much of continental Europe, English armies relied heavily on billmen fighting alongside longbowmen, making the bill nearly as iconic to medieval England as the longbow itself. In-game, the Billman line could be slightly stronger in melee while having slightly reduced anti-cavalry bonuses than the standard Pikeman/Halberdier line, reflecting its historical role as a versatile infantry weapon rather than a specialized pike.
See link : https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Heavy_Pikeman_(Age_of_Empires_II)
You’re not using any consistent method; that’s the problem. Even in the specific case you replied to.
Renaming the Britons as ‘English’ makes sense because all their characteristics (the UU, the UTs and the Coat of arms) point in that direction. Although I’d say the 12th to 15th centuries, to be more precise.
But you’ve just done the opposite! You’ve just taken an extremely specific and clear civ, the Sicilians, and broadcast it to the four winds.
Also, on the subject of the Normans:
- modern historiography has challenged the idea whether a unified Norman cultural identity ever actually existed across such a diverse territory;
- they contributed to just one Crusader state, and Norman rule over it barely outlasted one generation.
But I’ll play along, so let’s assume we need to add the Normans.
- Language: Old Norman? Latin? Greek? Sicilian? Every choice is wrong.
- Coat of Arms: Two lions? The Hauteville coat of arms? Something even more generic and ancient?
- Architecture set? 11, good luck with that.
I think we’re looking at civilizations from two different perspectives.
AoE2 civilizations have never represented a single kingdom, language, or coat of arms—they’re abstractions built around peoples with shared military and cultural traditions. The Franks represent far more than the Kingdom of France, the Teutons are not literally the Teutonic Order, the Spanish represent several Iberian kingdoms, and the Indians were eventually split because they covered too much historical diversity.
My suggestion follows that same philosophy. The current Sicilians are already overwhelmingly based on the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Roger I, Roger II, the Hautevilles, Norman architecture, Norman cavalry—even if there is no proper Norman cavalry unique unit outside of hero unit, etc.). Rather than keeping that Norman identity confined to Sicily alone, I’d broaden it into a Norman civilization representing the wider Norman military tradition and political influence across Normandy, England after 1066, southern Italy, Sicily, and the Crusader states. The English civ would then focus on the later medieval Kingdom of England (roughly the Plantagenet and Lancastrian eras), which is the period most associated with longbowmen and the English identity portrayed in AoE2.
As for language, heraldry, and architecture, those are game design choices rather than blockers. AoE2 already makes compromises in all of those areas for many civilizations. My proposal is simply to improve historical representation while creating more distinct civilizations and gameplay, not to claim that every civ must correspond to a single medieval state or perfectly uniform culture. In fact, no civilization in AoE2 is represented with complete historical precision—the developers regularly take creative liberties with names, units, technologies, timelines, and cultural representation in order to create balanced, fun, and distinct civilizations.
If they are your ideas without LLM interference I promise you I’m willing to listen, and feedback but if they do, then it’s hard to want to engage on a human level. You assume this is my saying I want to tear you down, but it’s me saying your GPT is filling out
Even your replies read like it with emdashes aplenty and oddly perfect boldings
So yea LLMs don’t do that.
Just to clarify: the concepts themselves are my own. The civ splits, historical reasoning, unit ideas, regional concepts, and gameplay directions are things I have been brainstorming based on my own interest and knowledge of medieval history.
I do use ChatGPT occasionally (my “friend” Gepeto as I call “it”) as a discussion partner and editing tool — mainly to help organize large walls of text, improve wording, and make my posts easier to read. This is especially because my initial post was criticized by you for being very long and difficult to follow. The actual ideas, research direction, and arguments are mine; the AI is simply helping me polish the presentation.
I understand why perfectly formatted text can sometimes give that impression, but I prefer to focus on the content and whether the historical arguments and gameplay ideas themselves are worth discussing. If there are disagreements with the proposals, I am happy to discuss those on their merits.
Okay then fine. Without Emdashes, without “it’s not this it’s this” type of speak, without following the rules of 3 or fanciful holdings that you are probably lying about being well formatted… just explain the logic behind the civ you posted, explain its game strategy in PvP just a little bit so we know how it plays out as well.
I’m curious after all. And your gpt buddy isn’t gonna help because it will try to make things up to fill out and make you happy
Fair enough. I don’t have every civ completely fleshed out yet, but I do have a general direction for most of them.
For me it always starts with the history. I look at what made that civilization distinct militarily and economically, then try to turn that into gameplay while keeping it balanced.
For example, with the Normans I’d lean into elite heavy cavalry, disciplined infantry, and a strong Castle Age, reflecting the Norman conquests and military tradition. They probably wouldn’t have the strongest late-game economy or gunpowder, so they’d still have clear weaknesses. I also think the current in-game hero Robert Guiscard is a perfect visual basis for a Norman Knight unique unit. My initial idea is for it to be a stable-trained elite version of the Knight line, although that could change. It could just as well work the other way around, with the Norman Knight trained at the Castle while the current Serjeant becomes a Barracks/Donjon unit.
The English are another good example. Rather than just “Britons renamed,” I’d like them to feel more like late medieval England with the longbow, billmen replacing the standard pike line, and bonuses that encourage the combined use of infantry and archers instead of just massing one unit.
The civs I’ve developed the most so far are Wallachians/Vlachs, Serbs, Venetians, English, Muscovites, Ruthenians, Novgorodians, Gaels, and the Saracen split into four separate civilizations. I also have solid concepts for Danes, Norse, Germans, and the Teutonic Order (working title: Orden). Most already have draft ideas for unique units, regional units, civ bonuses, technologies, and overall play styles. I’m happy to post them one by one if people are interested, since it’s probably easier to discuss individual civs than a huge list.
https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Robert_Guiscard?file=Robertguiscard_view_aoe2de.png for reference of Norman Knight UU.
https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Roger_Bosso?file=Rogerbosso_view_aoe2de.png : this one would also work great.
Let me give an example.
Toltecs: A civ to round out Mexican area and fill out the Eagle roster. A civ to exist before the arrival of European settlers.
A defensive and counter units civ
- Skirmishers +2/3/4 damage vs archers (except Skirmishers) in Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
This bonus is here because of the constant aggression of Mayapans and their archers although most Mayans weren’t archer masters the game decided they were some counter them as such. This admittedly could be a tad strong especially if this civ then gets Elite access but well you’re gonna see.
- Town Center Techs except Age up 80% less cost and research time.
Still not as good as free wheelbarrow but wasting only 5 seconds and 10 gold on loom is technically putting you 4/5 of a villager ahead of your enemies. The historical basis is that this civ needs an early power bonus.
- Stone walls available in Dark Age . Fortified Walls Free in Feudal!
Tula was a hard to breach city. Maybe this is too good?
- Start +50w/s
Yes this is trying to push a more aggressive defensive style for Sure. Is it too much? Tower rushes with fortified block offs? Probably!
Team Bonus: Skirmishers and spearman train 10% faster (25% starting Castle Age)
not that you expect these dudes to have halberds for the horses they never met, you will be glad from a gameplay perspective however!
UT1: Tortilla - has the same effect as qa Grand Trunk except its 15% for all food (except relic team bonus). For market exchange it will reduce it to 15% for food and with Guilds will be reduced FOR FOOD ONLY to 2% exchange rate
You may laugh but the developement of flour and/or corn tortilla made the carriage of rations for long runs and marches much more tolerable! Men could essentially eat their food containers preventing more food waste… I’m not just being lazy it was a real development in the area!
UT2: Obsidian Edge - Essentially a second research of Bracer tech. Pricy! Works on all except Skirmishers.
This is expensive but powerful. Maybe too good putting Bogsveigar out of business? But let’s see the tech tree. If a regional unit goes unmentioned you can ignore it so don’t wonder why I don’t mention elephants of any sort. Their only regional is the Eagle Warrior and catapult galleon…. For now!
Missing Techs:
Barracks: Elite Eagle Warrior, Squires
Archery Range: Cav archer, Parthian Tactics, Cannon
Stable: YES
Dock: Galleon, cannon galley
University: Bombard Tower, Dry Docks
Blacksmith: Cav armor
Siege Workshop: Cannon
Economy: Gold Shaft Mining
Castle: Sappers
the tech tree sends a rather grim message. It says you can’t really counter enemy fast units or catch siege super well. You got the fast training spears but they are so slow without cheap squires which you could easily fund with Tortillas and then… you don’t get to enjoy Elite Eagle Warriors!!! This is painful for sure. Even with better archers a siege onager or Scorpion is gonna go squish!
So let’s shore things up a little!
UU: Xochitlite - A half pop archer. Unlike the Blackwood, these ladies practically deal no damage even though they are very fast. They mostly exist to do good bonus damage vs siege and shock units with a smidge of a cavalry bonus. But vs almost anything else they can fold even taking +2 extra from anti-archer attacks which bodes poorly for a low hp pool.
At the downfall of the Toltecs, Queen Xochitl trained an emergency army of women to be her rapid army of some mighty women. It failed spectacularly. Ergo these units are more of a button to patch up weaknesses instead of taking the fight. Against siege they are super pop and damage efficient as well as vs shock units to keep enemy eagles from running you down. Not that champions can’t do that as is.
So how the heck do you Toltec? A slow defensive push! Wall off or walk your enemy in as you tower and get a slightly better economic edge at the TC then run on food. All of this to compensate the fact they don’t have a mobile raiding unit and it’s cemented with a lack of Squires! Is it balanced? Probably not. Can you deflect and say “Toltecs aren’t relevant?” You could. But can you honestly say the concept doesn’t take an interesting spin on Eagle civ? I’m afraid you cannot say that with a straight face!
1 Like