Assuming only 10 civs in aoe4, what should they be?


I studied your map a little more…

It would kinda make sense to differentiate German and Italian and not to make a faction called Holy Roman. They were different Kingdoms whatsoever just unified formally.

I am wondering if it´d make sense to consequently make a faction called Burgundy? They were splitted between HRE and France in the late middleages.

And how would you call people from the Caliphate of Cordoba?^^
They are basically Muslim people. We could make them Berbs…

The first AoE2 def map is historically inaccurate. It´s true Celts originally came from Ireland but they spread all over Middle-Europe from Spain to Greek. Spanish and Ports came much later. Teutons, as I already mentioned many times did not coexist with other Civs from that time. They also have no descandants that made it to the early middle-ages. Tatars are a Turk-civ. AoE2 just totally messed up the civs.

Btw, it´s nice to see, that the Byzantine Empire is quite still big here… :yum:

1 Like

Actually AoE is designed for “historical fun”. :smiley:

1 Like

Byzantine Empire

India (Gupta Empire, Gujala, Pala Empire, Chalukya dynasty, Yadava)
India Chola




American civs

African civs


And please leave out those African and South-East-Asian tribes… They existed far beyond the Medieval ages and there was no exchange at all with civilations like the Britons or Mongols.

Vietnamese and Malays were one of the few civilizations that successfully defended themselves from Mongols (Yuan Dynasty), and Burmese to a lesser extent. The Vietnamese repelled the Yuan army twice or thrice (not the last great power to be repelled by them). Khmer was shielded by those three so the Mongols never even got down there. Would be interesting if we see a Mongols campaign focused on their failed attempt to conquer SEA.

Southeast Asia interacted with india, China, and the middle east, so that should be enough since those are basically the big civilization centres aside from byzantine (brits didn’t even meet this requirement). I would add one of them before getting european civs count above 3 (for west, byzantine, and slavics).

Also, using tribes to describe the khmer or other southeast asian civs is just wrong. The title for the largest pre-industrial city is actually held by Angkor, and not by Constantinople or Baghdad or Paris. I would say during the middle ages (especially feudal), some europeans fit the tribes label more than southeast asians.


I think we as a society should stop treating tribal structures as inferior anyway.

It’s a different and useful way to lead small human groups in often subsidiary economical environments. It’s stupid trying to farm the land on soil which won’t allow it long-term or are just inappropriate for it.

Sorry for going off-topic, just wanted to add my two cents here.

1 Like

I think we need:

  1. France
  2. Moors
  3. Mongols
  4. China
  5. Russia
  6. Turks
  7. Byzantines
  8. Japan
  9. Ottoman
  10. Spain

I think that’s a good mix each civlisation is pritty unique its a good mix


The Mongol Empire disappeared until 1500 AD.
If we have 10 civs, at Aoe 4, they must be the Conquerrors of the Earth, until 1914 AD- Great Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Ottoman Empire and China.

If they are 12 civs, we may add- Netherlands and Austro- Hungarian empire.

You know that aoe4 timeline ends 1699

This 1699 year is stated somewhere or We know there is particular event that matches it. Just wondering as I thought the time frame is limited to 1500/ 1599 max?

Anyway about the civs. We know English and Mongols already. Having the English there we may suggest that the civs will be more specific compared to AoE2 where we have celts, slavs, vikings, brits etc. So I think we would see Russians rather slavs or Scottish rather than Celts. We could also see specific Chinise or Indian Kingdoms/ Empires rather than the umberela that is Indians or Chinese.

About the region where most civs are we could have predominantly European civs than have DLC expansions in different regions but they could also pick a bunch of civs spread across the World. This is possible as it feels like they would go for smaller list but more different civs compared to AoE2. Than having a bunch of Wetern European civs that share most of their unit compositions.

If I have to guess:
Saracen/ Arabs
Italians (could be specific like Genuese)
Chinese (could be specific)
Indians (could be specific)


Saracen/Arabs could also be more specific, with subcivs such as Egyptians, Levantine, Bedouin or Yemeni.


I assume there will be some generic civs with the possibility to narrow down their identity through the tech tree, mutually exclusive choices as you advance through the ages.

There will be also asymmetric balance design.

We also know that - tactically - there will be the possibility to hold chuck-points with few units (something from AoE1).

Some random ideas:
Mongols (being confirmed):

  • concept: mobile base + mobile units, can thrive with few resources available, adept of optimizations and versatility.
  • mobile civ, maybe can pack/unpack buildings (specific to Mongols / Genghis-Han).
  • economical upgrade will reduce the cost of units.
  • religion: aura-like boosts to military.
  • can quickly deploy forward military-focused bases (Ottomans) to support the troops.
  • good at raiding enemy territory to plunder resources and enslave troops as peasants.
  • weak spot: cannot hold on long face-to-face confrontations.

English/French/Spanish style:

  • concept: fortress base + variety of specialized units, no mega unit.
  • confirmed to play as AOE2 style (let’s accept there is only ONE civ in aoe2 with minor build order differences).
  • that is setting up a parameter around the town center, adept at protecting the area with walls and buildings (reinforced settlements).
  • economical upgrades will boost ability to collect resources and drain them faster.
  • relies a lot on infrastructure/buildings, losing them makes them weak. Cannot set a strong forward camp easily, but hard to to deal with if they manage to trench in. Can explode if they gain access to many resources.

Indians / China

  • concept: fortress + numerous troops + elite mega units.
  • it makes a lot of sense to have this civ as it’s visually and conceptually totally different.
  • adept of being able to recruit numerous infantry quickly and mega units such as elephants or on-wheels flame throwers.
  • religiously adept at boosting training and economy.
  • upgrades will boost economy productivity.
  • infrastructure wise, they still rely on fortress-style: needs a lot of building types for production and walls; cannot establish forward bases easily.
  • weak point: avoid losing expensive units unnecessarily (think Ultralisks in Starcraft).

Nordic / Slave type of civ:

  • concept: quick to settle weak strongholds all over the map to harvest resources, versatile infantry troops, prey on the weak, weak vs fortified or prepared armies.
  • cheaper town centers, can transform villagers into troops.
  • elite units that excels at briefly engaging enemy ranks for burst damage, then wear out for a while.
  • goal: control enemy economy with harassment while taking over the map.
  • weak point: will tear out in prolonged battles, weak on the defense side.

■■■■■■■ add one time the civilization that dominated in its defense !!

(North) CAUCASUS should be added (so big history has just the little CHECHNYA) than all those useless civilizations you add sometimes.

Mongols fuucked Asians, Arabs, Slaves, Europeans. They passed also through Caucausus and couldn’t get the submission of Chechens and just followed they way to the north. But as we know they put every others nations at the knees.
Also, Persian, Ottoman and Russian empires struggled with Caucasus (so many facts and histories to tell but what the hell you are not aware)

Hope that this civilization will be examined and added in the future !!!

1 Like

iv read some comments and its interesting how we already know that the game will include the mongols and the english and people dont put them in the lists :smiley:

Do we know whether the english in the trailer would really be called english in game, or would they be a generic west Europe civ?

If there’s just 10 civs, I hope it’s the latter

yeah it is called english to the interviews.
and other is mongols

there would be
Europe: English, Franks and Germans
Asia: Mongols, Chinese, Japanese
Middle East: Arabs
East Europe: Slavs or Russian
South Asia: Indians
Mediterranean Sea: Byzantines

but i think game should have 6 civ for balance. Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, English, Byzantines and Germans are enough

Noone love the Chinese nowaday , you know ? I think you can put Korean or Vietnamese to replace them .

China today and historical China in a historical game are still two different things

And without wanting to be offensive, I think China has a bigger historical footprint
(If you can prove me wrong I welcome you to do so)

China just is the word which European call all people living at the East of Asia in many years ago . In that land , many country and civil live on . I can say : Hán , Mongol , Tatar , Lạc Việt , Miêu , Phúc Kiến , Tứ Xuyên , …v…v… In many year past ago , they make war and war . Some of them get independent , some get nothing . Nowaday , If I must to choice one of them to put in game . I will choice Đường dynasty because in that empires , they 're themself . And I will put the name is Tang CIV , not China or Chinese .