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

Now you put the Europeans all in the same bag just as you don’t want it to happen with the people of east asia.

Are you foolish ? You must read more something . And why the European call China .

We don’t
Well, I certainly don’t
I might not know as much about east asian culture as you but I know since I am little that theres more to the east then china

Byzantine = Rome, and if they’d put the civs in you wrote. I wouldn’t buy the game lol

You and your balance ruin the whole game and the fun of it, 10 civs should be a minimum. Look at AOE1 and AOE2


May I ask why?

  1. What would you want to see?
  2. What’s wrong with my picks?

Well maybe a part of me just sticks with AOE1 and AOE2 and their civs. I just love the medieval era and personally I would love to see a comeback from the previous titles.
I liked AOE3 but I didn’t have the feeling that I was playing an AOE game, mostly because of the mechanics, freedom, and most importantly. they all had nations instead of kingdoms. So it felt much more like a revolution-ish RTS game (Based on the amount of cannons and gunfire)
I hope, they will follow up with IV based on part I and II. If they continue from III, then I think I’ll pass no matter the civs.

I think what most of us want, and now I’m speaking about the Veterans is Bringing back mostly all the civs that we know already and loved dearly.

For example AOE1 had:

1 Assyrians
2 Babylonian
3 Choson
4 Egyptians
5 Greeks
6 Hittites
7 Minoans
8 Persians
9 Phoenicians
10 Shang
11 Sumerians
12 Yamato
13 Carthaganian
14 Macedonian
15 Palmyran
16 Romans

I absolutely loved that, the amount of civs and the choice.

Now AOE2 had:

1 Britons
2 Byzantines
3 Celts
4 Chinese
5 Franks
6 Goths
7 Japanese
8 Mongols
9 Persians
10 Saracens
11 Teutons
12 Turks
13 Vikings
14 Aztecs
16 Koreans
17 Mayans
18 Spanish
19 Incas
20 Indians
21 Italians
22 Magyars
23 Slavs
24 Berbers
25 Ethiopians
26 Malians
27 Portuguese
28 Burmese
30 Malay
31 Vietnamese
32 Bulgarians
33 Cumans
34 Lithuanians
35 Tatars

Which again, I absolutely loved the huge amount of choice and variety, and they all just fit so incredibly well too.

I sincerely hope that AOE4 will mix these two games together (civ wise) Just so once again we can have an amazing game with a huge choice of civilizations. There would be no fun to have just 10 civs in a game so big, they had more then 13 years time to think about everything. I hope they won’t disappoint us.


All the aoe games accumulated there civs over expansions. We can’t expect a high two digit number in the initial release. It’s just too much to do in one time. They can still sddd more civs over time. I think a low two digit number is already a best case of they go for very assy metrical design.


For the american civilization I would like to see the most powerful civilization in the region: The Toltecs.

They had the largest empire in mesoamerica and even conquered several Mayan cities. Later the Aztecs would try to emulate them, like the Romans did with the Greek culture. The toltecs also invented the eagle and jaguar warriors.


35 civs?aoe2 is my favorite but aoe2 civs quite similar.also aoe2 launched with 13 civs.and read interviews

“Civilizations are playing very differently this time,” Adam Isgreen reveals. For now, Microsoft only shows British and Mongols, but of course there will be more to the release of Age of Empires 4. However, the developers would rather emphasize the differences than include a large number of factions in the game, which, like Age of Empires 2, only differ in certain special units. Therefore, according to Isgreen, Age of Empires 4 has fewer ethnic groups than Age of Empires 2 - at that time there were 13 playable races without addons.

"All civilizations use the four resources food, wood, stone and gold, but not all of them collect them in the same way, use them in the same way and need them in the same ratio.”

they are going to make less civs but with major gameplay changes.and they are saying “except less civ than 13 at launch” prob they would increase it with expansions.


Quite sad that they go with assymetrical design.gane will be nothing like age 2 I assume.

if you don’t like,play aoe2?

only one differnce and bad why they are making aoe4?also assymetrical design doesn’t mean bad is not aoe2,get it?it is a new game.also im pretty sure it will like to aoe2.for example they are returning to aoe2’s resource gathering system,they are abondoning aoe3 card shipments,and if trailer presents real gameplay we would be able to build great cities like to aoe2


Number of civs:

. 6 no plz
Most probably 8

I hope 10

  1. English/british (the most equilibrated, more similar aoe2, good boom eco, best archers ‘long bows’)

  2. Mongols (the most different civ, nomad ‘move bases’, not walls, raid style, no houses/free pop, good eco food hunting, cav civ, best heavy cavalry archers, like mangudais)

  3. French/Franks (the strongest heavy cavalry, good inf axemen, good eco in land, like paladins)

  4. Chinese ( boom eco civ, good walls, mass pop, first civ with gunpowder, combination of cheap mass army with some elite units, like chu ko nu)

  5. Arabs/Moors (Versatile civ, good sea eco, good light cav and archers, cheap inf, camels riders, like mamelucos)

  6. Byzantins (Defensive/mercenary civ, turtle style, better walls, greek fire ships, versatile troops, strong heavy cav cataphractas, better mercenaries like Varangian Guard ‘axemen’, Heietaroi ‘cav’, La Gran Compañia Catalana ‘light inf’…)

  7. Indian (Eco civ, cheap inf but expensive elite units, good gunpowder, like war elephants)

  8. Vikings (Sea civ, raid style, nice fast sea army, strong and fast inf, like rush, like berserkers)

  9. Japan (Eco civ, good eco sea, elite army, like samurais)

  10. Spanish (Gunpowder and priests civ, like “FF” UP ages, bad early game, strong sea army, gold plus commerce, strong gunpowder in late game, better priests, the worst euro-archers but the best pikes, tercios, like conquerors)


English [Versatile] is a Jack of all trades. Early game < Late game. Good eco, good sea, good walls, versatile army, the best european archers, good heavy cav and heavy inf. But not really strong in anything “except range archers”. 4 ages. TOP: Archers

Mongols [RUSH] early game >> late game, has only good eco hunting. Not walls. Fast army. Has the best raid cavalry and the better heavy archer cav. Win the map moving the base, raid eco enemy. The inf is ok. Make the siege by chinese mercenary/tecnologies. 3 ages. TOP: Cav archer

French [Versatile/RUSH] early =< late game, has a good eco in land, but a poor eco/army in sea. Good walls. Has the best european heavy cav, good inf and decent archers. Good siege. Best fast rush than english/spanish. 4 ages. TOP: Heavy Cav.

Chinese [BOOM/snowball] early =< late game, has a good eco with many vills, boom eco, the better mass army, more pop, nice walls, fast gunpowder, cheap but weak inf and light cav, but good archers, siege and elite heavy cav. 4 ages. TOP: Archers

Arabs [Versatile] early = late game, has versatile (similar to england) but better in early game, has good eco/army in sea, good walls, variety army. Like others asians civs, has better commerce, and more fast troops and better light cavarly, cav archers and archers, but worst infantry. Nice siege. 4 ages. TOP: Light Cav.

Byzantins [TURTLE/MID GAME RUSH] early < <>late game, has a good commerce eco, gold civ, the best walls, good sea army, versatile army, strong but slowly and expensive heavy cav and elite mercenaries. Nice siege. 3 ages. TOP: Heavy cav and mercenaries

Indians [BOOM/MID GAME RUSH] early < late game, has a good boom eco, good walls, big cheap mass but weak army with strongest elite elephants, good light cav and gunpowder. 4 ages. TOP: Heavy cav Elephants and gunpowder.

Vikings [RUSH] early >>> late game, its a rusher/raid civ, similar to mongols but with mass infantry. Inf can make buildings. Poor walls. Has good early eco but bad in late game. The infantry is nice, variety cheap mass and elite troops, archers are decent but the rest are mediocre. Good siege. Has the better army in sea in early game. 3 ages. TOP: Infantry.

Japanese [BOOM/TURTLE] early << late game, has a good eco in land in late game, top eco in sea, good walls, has a elite army, good archers and archer cav, elite units like fast light inf ninjas and strong heavy inf samurais. 4 ages. TOP: Infantry and cav archer.

Spanish [MID GAME RUSH] early << late game, gold civ, fight in early game and is powerfull in late, good walls, has the better commerce for european civ, but the worst economy in land, the better army in sea, but has not a great eco, the better pikes and the worst archers (supply bows and xbows by skirmishers and gunpowder conquerors), att difference at other european civs, has few better light inf and light cav, and the better gunpowder in late game with turks, good siege and the better european priests. 4 ages. TOP: Priests and Gunpowder


I hope they add Tibetans, Nubians, Siamese and Georgians. If yes, I might buy it.

Tibetans -> Religious centered civilization, with strong fortifications, mountain riders, armored units, but terrible navy, foot archers and of course no gunpowder.
Nubians -> Strongest foot archers, basically a very open tech tree with camels, very strong fortifications and a market bonus. Below average navy.
Siamese -> Almost unbreakable town, royal elephants, very strong lategame with gunpowder, cheap fast infantry, usable archery and navy.
Georgians -> Stronger on hills, top tier religious stuffs, armored, slow cataphracts and infantry, mediocre archers and gunpowder, F-tier navy.

1 Like

Why are you using ‘lower culture’ civilization to describe in this case Vikings? Norsmen have a very strong and special culture in fact and influenced other European countries greatly. Our culture lives on today and I am greatly offended by your statement. The culture is still strong today. Please…

1 Like

My 10 favourite ancient civilisations i would like to see in Age of empires 4.

1.Assyrians. ( Very unique architecture, would like to see those Lamassus & Ziggaruts togheter with their cool ishtar gate, blue walls that are detailed with beautiful paintings. Togheter with alot of nature, very much alike the wonder of babylon, the hanging gardens.

  1. Tatars, my favourite turkic civilisation, very unique architecture.

  2. Vikings Traditional scandinavian old norse architecture. This could be intressting to see some wood buildings and temples with dragon style(stave churches)… Temple at Uppsala was a center for all pagans at that time… ’

4.Greeks I love greek architecture and greek/spartan armour. Soldiers would be soo cool.

  1. Ancient China No age of empires 4 without China.

  2. Aztecs, a meso-american civilisation is a must. Unique and great civilisation of their time.

  3. Ancient India, a culture that influenced the whole world, very unique architecture and great civilisation.

  4. Nabataeans, my favourite arabic civilisation. They ruled togheter with Quedarite kingdom, very unique culture and impressive architecture.

  5. England

  6. Mongols

1 Like

I can see a lot of anti Vikings comments from you.
They were not over glorified pirates as you describe. This is complete nonsense.

Please read more about norsemen and their influence on Europe.

Well well well, I randomly came upon this post from March 17. That is precisely what I meant a weeks ago when I presented my ideas for the Nomadic Tribe faction.

I’m Argentine, so I can tell you that the Mapuche are still around. At least, there are land usurpers who claim to be of Mapuche descent. However, back in the Middle Ages, that tribe, and all the other tribes in this region, didn’t come close to founding a civilization like the Aztec or the Inca. So, including such a tribe in this game, would require a completely different gameplay.

My ideas for Nomadic Tribe are these: they don’t build anything; their units are invisible to the enemy unless they attack the enemy; they have a Totem unit which upon it’s destruction, the player loses. But no one liked these ideas.

1 Like