Bold civ concepts - i like them - who else does?

Most threads in this forum are agout suggestions or wishes for balance changes. This one is not.

Point of this thread is the fact, that new civs since DE tend to have many new interesting concepts and mechanics.

The lithuanien relic bonsu, the earlier available buildings and techs of Cumans, Burgundians and Bohemians, one time bonus things in unique upgrades and even new unit mechanic like coustillier charge or the new hussite waggons protection against projectiles.

Theese mechanics might take a while to balance and are often criticiesed in their current state, at least in my opinion, make the game far more interesting and prevent civs to be all roughly the same. Therefore, I like it pretty much, that the devs try out such new things in the old game an hope it continues this way.

Anyway, I´m a bit curious, if the majority thinks the same or if i´m rather alone with that. Thats why I opened this thread.

HAve fun discussing.


This gimmick of the new civs has nothing to do with the game and are clearly a sign that we have more then enough civs. New civs are played like an existing civ (so they dont add anything to the game) or use gimmicks (which dont add something good to the game). Kind of all the latest new civs with DE fall under the category gimmicks. It is terrible design. The issue with gimmicks is that they end up OP and useless in most of cases. They are hard to balance and not fun to play with.

1 Like

Stop spamming the same comment EVERY TIME someone mentions new civs. Its annoying AF.

And no, just because some of the new civs are lazy it doesnt mean theres not place to design new civs. Look at Poles, Bulgarians, Liths and Burgundians for example: they are mostly pretty fun civs with unique stuff.


I think it’s a quite big group to say either yes to all or no to all. I don’t like flemish Revolution, i don’t think it can be balanced. The new Sicilian bonus sucks. But other stuff is interesting

I like flemish revolution and find it a cool ability though the first time i used it i was surprised to be found with zero peasants for work, i thought they would be buffed up peasants that could fight a little better but still work lol


Lords of the West felt a bit experimental and while I don’t think that the civs are horribly designed or something, I do think that tweaking is still in order for them.
A lot of the one time bonus effects like First Crusade are just not that useful, and Flemish Revolution is either very strong or utterly useless depending on enemy composition.
Interesting ideas but hard to balance and ultimately make their civs weaker.
Scutage was removed this patch, which was a net positive.
Now Sicilians essentially have paladin, a low damage paladin with high armour.
It fits the theme of the civ to have low damage but tanky units and gives them more options.
I was a fan of Sicilians pre-DotD and I’m definitely more of one now.

The Dawn of the Duke civs, from my experience so far, I think are much better designed.
Cysion mentioned that he was influenced by Incas and other meso civs when working through their design.
Civs that have a very different playstyle compared to standard civs.
And so far, I am finding them very unorthodox but also really interesting to play.
Unit rosters that encourange completely new kinds of strategies and compositions.
Still probably too early to judge the new civs but I’m really liking what I’ve been playing so far.

1 Like

I definitely agree. I like that the DE team is getting a bit bolder with drawing out unique playstyles and traits for the civs. It’s particularly cool when it ties in so well to history, as (to give one example), many of the Bohemian traits reflect the Hussite wars and beliefs. Similarly, I also like that they are advancing forward with regional units like the Winged Hussar for Poland and Lithuania, and I’m in favor of more of this kind of thing in the game.
Certainly, there is such a thing as too much. Part of the beauty of the game is the degree of similarity between civs, and the differences and unique playstyles that can be achieved through subtle, minor bonuses. But I think there is plenty of room to explore bolder unique and regional bonuses and units for civs both new and old, while maintaining the spirit and fun of AoE2. I’m loving the latest DLC and looking forward to what the devs do next.

1 Like

some bold decisions can be good (i actually in some ways like the lithuanian relic bonus, and I like the whole Polish mining stone for gold idea), but on the other hand we have stuff like Burgundians and Sicilians unique techs - which just meh.


Tbh Burgundian Vineyards is a pretty okay UT


that one i’m okay with. meme revolution, first crusade not so much.
also not a fan of paper money or cuman mercenaries.

1 Like

I still kinda dislike atheism but the relic part is good

Totally useless.
In my opinion, the dev should adjust this first rather than make the stable and the range cheaper.

1 Like

Just hope they’re not done yet :smiley:

What we need is a forage bush that looks like actual vineyards.

There would be no point to add new civs if they couldn’t do something that existing civs can’t. So it makes sense for the devs to add something that can change the meta a bit – and for those who say no more new civs are needed, well yes, but at the same time the sales of DLC helps to keep the game alive and vibrant, so that’s a good trade-off.

Imo new mechanics keep freshed the game and while the balance updates keep coming it will be fine

1 Like

Lord DaUT is pleased with you

1 Like