AoE4 Civ Design

In my opinion,this civs must be in game for different gameplays
Archer Civ:Englishs
Horde Civ:Mongols
Cav Civ:Frenchs
Infantry Civ:Germans
Gunpowder Civ:Turks
Colonialism Civ:Spainish
Raid Civ:Vikings
Sea Civ:Japanese
Pop Advantage Civ:Chinese(weak&cheap units,crowded armies)
Siege Civ:Saracens

Defensive civ: Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines

1 Like

I just hope there are significant differences between the civs, with plenty of unique units. I don’t want the Mongols to just be “England without houses” or “England but without fully upgraded swordsmen”. Yes they said they would play differently, but they didn’t say how.

1 Like

Look at trailer carefully,you can see mongol pikes,mongol horse archer and mongol archers

1 Like

Elephant Civ: Indians

Give us the Byzantine empire (Greek/Roman).

Turks shouldnt be a gunpowder civ. Only Chinese should be so.

1- Ottomans do not lap with the medieval period much. Your logic of representing them in two ages isnt logical. If anything I would say Gokturks+Seljuks. Because Seljuks themselves were high medieval period. Or simply a synthetic Tengrist Turkic culture(Bulgars,Avars,Gokturks,Cumans) for first ages and Seljuks-Turkmen beyligs for the last ages. Do not forget conversion of Turks to islam happened very late in medieval(11th to 14th centuries gradually)Ottomans were an early modern period empire. If we take medieval period as 476-1453.
They were founded in 1300 but until 1396 call it 1400 they werent anything significant in Turkic world. What is more, until 1444 they werent any different than other Turkmen states, in 1444 battle of Varna they first owned their victory to janissaries. Still janissaries were just archers at that period, they didnt adapt muskets much.
If Ottomans are going to be used, wait for a game that is based on renaissence era.

2- They are very distinct from other Turkic empires. They do not rely on cavalry that much after their foundation period(their foundation period culture isnt much different from other Turkmen states anyway). They are unique on their own and that uniqueness comes after medieval period. They were a gunpowder empire.
Western world focuses on it too much because Ottomans were partially in Europe but compared to the the medieval period of Ottomans Timurid was for example far more significant.

3- They are overpresented/overportrayed. I am personally sick of seeing “janissary” as Turkish unique unit. They werent even Turkish by origin. Thats not the case however, when all medieval Turkish empires, conquerors etc are considered they are just so away from Turkic warfare culture.
One would expect a horse archer or light cav unit for instance.
One might say there will be more than one unique units however I think it is too specific/distinct/far from the core even for being one of the Turk unique units.

we need Aztecs or Mayans.

> Mongols are considered a cav archer civ in AoE2 while Britons are a foot archer civ and mongols have full infantry upgrades except for halbs

thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small thinking bat small

Ok, but that’s the point. The differences between the civilizations are minor compared with AoE3, especially in the early stages.

Meanwhile I never liked AoE3 all that much.

But i gotta say, the good thing about making civs have a similar base makes it so it’s much easier to choose different civs when you wanna accomplish different things, if civs end up having completely different mechanics it becomes harder for people to change between them. (It becomes very clear when you’re someone that only plays Ottomans and then chooses another civ to try it out, and suddenly u’re having to do everything differently, same for the opposite, if u never played Ottomans and then decided to give it a go)