Balance of Asymmetry in Age 4

While we may think we know what the remaining civs may or may not be, what we don’t really have an idea of is the extent of asymmetrical civs in Age 4.

At the moment, we have 3 defensive civs and 1 aggro civ. When talking about the other 4 unknown civs, everything bar Norse or Seljuks sound more like booming civs… Byzantines certainly aren’t nomadic, HRE wouldn’t logically focus on early pressure, and Abbasids, Franks or Kievan Rus? None of them fit the bill of promoting early pressure.

It would be really questionable if we have 7 booming/defensive civs and truly 1 aggro civ. It’s not unlikely that Mongols are the most aggro of the civs (with perhaps English or Delhi as the most defensive), and that the balance of aymmetrical civilizations sits on a sort of spectrum. Chinese for example may play very boomy if you’re picking certain dynasties, but very aggro if you’re choosing others.

Known Civs
Obviously the only true aggro civ that we’re aware of.

Potential for aggro gameplay? Dynasty system likely allows for great flexibility, but certainly not as focused on rushing as Mongols. People have commented that Yuan dynasty doesn’t make sense because it was made by Kublai Khan - but perhaps Kublai’s inflluence is represented in gameplay by letting Chinese be aggressive early on.

Popular Guessed Civs
Norse or Seljuks
Of course we don’t really know what the other civs are, but it’d make sense for either one given the current known campaigns. Norse are known for raiding and also trading, so they could start with early pressure and turn into more settled. The Seljuks based their governance off the Turkic and Mongol nomads, so they could also logically serve as a semi-nomadic civ that starts with aggression but has to transition into a boom.

Byzantines could function as a sort of aggro civ because they’re effectively already powerful at the beginning of Age 4’s time range. I mean, the Roman imperial age started back in the BCE and then just kinda had highs and lows. While it’d be a stupid design decision to just have Byzantines start in the imperial age, it would make sense to make them start powerful and with the ability to take the offensive early.

Perhaps, however, it’s not about “Boom” vs “Aggro,” and there’s more axes for the asymmetry of AOE4 civs. I could see something like HRE having some sort of mercenary system where they can purchase expensive units at any time, or that England’s “defensive” nature doesn’t mean that they’re not able to attack early.

Regardless, I think the potential asymmetry of gameplay is easily the most interesting aspect of Age 4. I always was annoyed by how similar Age 2’s civs are and how few SC2’s races are. What sort of mechanics or asymmetries do yous think we’ll see? Will we see games even get to imperial age if we have civs that are more aggressive?


Yes, so far 3 nations that will have walls and one nomadic nation.

They will probably have to add 1 to 2 more nations that will have similar mechanics or completely new mechanics,

I say this for a long time among the 8 nations will definitely be Indians (Aztec, Inkas)
Or they will use completely different apaches, for example. they were nomadic. they pitched tents around the totem pole. and at any time they could pack up and march.

I would personally love to see Aztec or Incas, but their inclusion would require the inclusion of the Spanish (since otherwise they have nobody to fight with in a historical sense). Nothing wrong with the Spanish, but it seems like a departure from what we know about English and Mongol campaigns - every civ I feel will have some sort of inclusion in the campaign but Aztec/Inca would require their own campaigns.

1 Like

I think that this civs can be good for rush:

  • Mongols (nice cav for raids, elite cav with high siege dmg, the better cav archers like mangudais)

  • Vikings/nordics (fast infantry for raids, good inf siege dmg and strong elite infantry like berserkers, fast strong sea army)

  • Rus (mass cheap infantry but some elite strong inf, the inf can make buildings)

  • Aztecs (only inf, but nice variety of units and strong elites supported by nice priests)

  • Turks/ottomans (nice light cav and cav archer for raids, strong gunpowder in lategame and janissarys)

  • Persians (nice early heavy cav: cataphracts, good light cav, archers and elephants)

  • Celts/scottish/irish (fast mass of light infantry with high velocity and siege dmg, strong elite inf Highlanders with greatswords Claymore’s with high dmg)

And this not bad:

  • French (Can go rush focused in heavy cav. Or early axemen)

  • Abbasids (Versatile civ like english. But more focused for early game, good sea, commerce, camels, light cav and archers)

  • Chinese (Versatile options, early gunpowder and strong crossbowmen like chu ko nus)

  • Byzantins (Turtle/deffensive civ, but has great early army options, versatile army and strong mercenaries)

  • Incas (Good eco/defensive civ, but can make early mass army with nice archers and fast units)

1 Like