AoE4 - what I infer

From the trailer, we know that AoE4 is going to be in the same era as AoE2 and will have a different gameplay from AoE3. I think that this is a reboot of AoE2.

Probably Microsoft was thinking about AoE4 but was not willing to take the risk, so it pushed for the DEs first since they will be less resource intensive. The success of the DEs determined if AoE4 would be made.

AoE2 was a huge success but now in 2021, the Advanced Genie Engine is almost 23 years old. So they will be recreating AoE2 from the complete scratch fixing all civ identities and focusing more on covering the world in 16 - 20 civs rather than covering Europe in 25 civs and rest of the world in 12 civs. Honestly it will be hard to select 20 civs from such a large pool.

So I have some suggestions for the game:

  1. Cover the entire world while selecting the civs. 1 from North america, 1 from South America, 1 from New Zealand/Australia, 2 from India (maybe Rajpoots and Tamils), 2 from South East Asia, 2 from East Asia (China and Japan sure), 2 from Central Asia (Mongols confirmed, +1 other), 1 from Africa, 3 from Middle-East to North Africa and 5 from Europe (British confirmed), 1 from North Asia.

Yeah, as of AoE2 we love Europe with the Teutons, Franks, Lithuanians, Britons, Celts, Vikings etc. But a decision has to be made.

  1. Being strict with time period and multiplayer will help. A fixed time period of defining the middle ages say 500 AD to 1350 AD can help in filtering out the civiliations. It will be better if civiliations were selected on their popularity to encourage players from different parts of the world rather than selecting good campaigns on strong leaders and forming a civilization around them. Different campaigns can have the same civilization, not affecting History too much. The tale of Fredrick Barbarossa could have been implemented as Franks too and historically justified.

  2. Delay AoE4 unless it is playable. We will enjoy AoE2 DE until then.

  3. Better unit classification. I see this is being implemented in AoE2 as well using the Genie Editor. But it can be incorporated at the release making things much easier. For context, like how foot archers, cavalry archers and hand cannons have all separate classes. Some bonuses in AoE2 do not make any sense, but have been made to affect the entire class of units or only a particular unit. Example - Suuplies affects the Sword line exclusively but should also affect similar units like Teutonic Knights and Berserks. Pavise used to grant +1/+1 armor to all foot archers. Unluckily this included skirmishers.

  4. Adding the concept of Civilizations and sub-civilizations (idea from a thread). This can help when expanding the game to 40 civilizations like AoE2. All sub-civilizations of a civilization have a common geographical location, architecture, military tech tree uptil castle age, 1 common unique unit. The 2nd unique unit be unlocked in imperial age when the sub-civilizations would differ militarily as well.

You forgot Central America.

Stone Age.

They had no Empire. BTW how would you represent East India?

Burma and Thai?


Won’t do justice to the huge continent. Need 3 minimum.

Persian, Turks, Arabs

English, Spanish, Russian, French, German?

But Why?

Maybe for Russia

From AoE2’s POV, Berbers are covered in my “Middle East and North Africa” section which shares a Muslim identity. AoE2 does not have any other African civs other than Malians.

Talking about the continents in present day geography, central america is a subset of North America.

Please explain.

Empire of Prithviraj Chauhan, Harshvardhan (slightly earlier than AoE2’s timeline).

Certainly popular but Burma (Myanmar) was a part of India till 1857. Will prefer Khmer/Thai and Malay though.

Can surely go. I am not sure about the Cumans/Polovtsians if they are more in Europe or Central Asia. Also Tatars are basically Mongols into Turks which are adequately represented. Timur also shared Bloodline with Genghis Khan. I would say Cumans will be the more unique pick here.

Almost always confirmed.

From AoE2’s POV, I see Spain as a gunpowder civilization and a late 1300s civ. Marking a strict bounday for middle ages is important for not overloading the game and worrying about balance. And yeah, from the geography of today, I see Russia as more Asian than European. The greater landmass is in Asia but the greater population is in Europe.

My picks for Europeans civs would be English (already confirmed), Vikings, French, Teutonic Order and Genoese. The HRE will be better represented by Franks imo. This also allows an Archer, an Infantry + Navy, a Heavy Cavalry, a monk + siege and a naval civ.

oh ok, so you consider russia as north asia. so that makes one more space in european, add italians.

i am not talking about berbers, i am talking about west africa (mali, ghana, shonghai etc), east africa (nubia, ethiopia etc) and south-central africa i.e. bantu tribes

generally north america is used to cover iroquois/lakota, central america for aztec/mayan/zapotec

australians were in their stone age when they were discovered by colonisers, they didn’t even use metal weaponry for hunting, they had no kingdom and king, they were hunter gatherers. even less developed than meso-americans. new zealand had no human beings on it.

he didn’t have an empire he was just an fracture from gurjara who took control over kannauj kingdom (delhi region). No big deal we can make Rajputs to represent North West India.

Yes it is from classical age ruler of Kannauj so it won’t fit.
anything from East India?

nope they are different people.

yes a good choice, maybe name them javanese instead.

cumans are from southern russia who were forced into europe and got extinct after mongol invasion.


nope russians are europeans. they colonized north asia. yes they colonized via land. native sibir tribes.

hmm maybe, but then viking is a profession. Norse is a better name.

Germans is a better name for the same thing.

Maybe rename them to Italians so that they can have units from all the numerous city states.

1 Like

Oh yeah, forgot Ethiopia. So the Australian slot can go to Africa.


Bengal is also quite popular. The Rajputs and Bengalis put together can show the change of armies from Persian to South East Asia.

Also mind if I ask-
What is the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians?

Bulgars were Turkic group in Caucasus Mountains. One group of them migrated into South Slavic region and adopted greek orthodox Christianity and they were called Bulgarians.


Nope. The game was announced back in Gamescom 2017. While it can be safely assumed that development started at least several months earlier.
The decision of whether the game would be made or not came of course even earlier.

Also, it is not an AoEII reboot. It is a completely new game being made from scratch.

1 Like

They said it will have less civilisations than AoE2 on release so it will have less than 13.

They already said that AoE4 will cover a bigger time frame than AoE2. Both more modern and more ancient. They want to cover the end of the Renaissance.

They are completely making it from scratch so it’s unlikely that we will see Camels being Ships again.

There wont be a unique unit system like in AoE2 because there is no generic tech tree. Every unit is unique.

1 Like

I guess it was from the late Renaissance to the First World War.

Where do you get the idea with WW1 from? Even AoE3 doesn’t go so far.

Old promotional pictures

I guess the Trailer from 2019 and the interviews form the same year are better sources than promo material from 2005.
Especially because Ensemble Studios closed after making Halo Wars (that is basically the AoE 5 on that image).
But where do you get WW1? The soldier on that image looks very much like Vietnam with his M16 and that uniform.

1 Like