Civilization variants diluted the game and are inconsistent with its original design

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

Hello,
I wanted to share my thoughts in hindsight on the civilization variants that were introduced in the DLC, which sparked a lot of controversy during their release.

To start, I’d like to say that I’m not a fan of adding too many civilizations to the game. I believe that the primary focus should be on deepening the mechanics of the existing civilizations, making the game more profound, rather than adding more civilizations without distinct character, which makes the game broader but ultimately shallower.

The first problem with the variants is the recycling of assets.

A perfect example to begin with is OOTD. This civilization has the same building and landmark models, the same sounds, and the only difference is in the mathematics and reskins of the units. In my opinion, a much better solution would have been to add the technologies from the Meinwerk Palace and some other unique techs, which OOTD has, to the HRE and maybe some to others, because that is essentially the only thing that distinguishes this civilization from the original, apart from mathematics. Who knows, maybe someone would finally use the Meinwerk Palace for something other than a joke?

Wouldn’t we prefer if the most interesting options for progressing to the next era from the Ayyubids were selected and added as choices for the Abbasids? For example, different wing choices could unlock different camel units and that fire mangonel.
Joan of Arc falls into the same category. The same buildings, the same sounds, the same units. The Maid of Orléans introduced even more problems into the game, but I will address those in another part of this topic, which focuses on inconsistencies in game design and civilization naming.

There is a reason why every original civilization has its own unique landmark models and character. If this didn’t matter, we would be playing with blue, red, and yellow civilizations with the same models and sounds, and the differences would exist only in gameplay bonuses – personally, I doubt that such a game would achieve much success.

The second problem introduced by the variants is inconsistent design.

Abbasid Dynasty
Ayyubids
Byzantines
Chinese
Delhi Sultanate
English
French
Holy Roman Empire
Joan of Arc
Japanese
Mongols
Malians
Order of the Dragon
Ottomans
Rus
Zhu Shi Legacy

Looking at the list of civilizations, you can almost play a mini-game: which one doesn’t belong? Joan of Arc, Order of the Dragon, and Zhu Shi Legacy immediately stand out. In other cases, we are simply dealing with civilizations in the broader sense of the term. Each of the three mentioned is a completely different entity, highlighting a significant lack of consistency. Chivarlic Order? Historical Figure? And Zhu Shi something?

There is also a reason why in the game, the Khan is not originally named Genghis Khan, Batu Khan, or anything else. This reason was explained by Adam Isgreen in an interview before the release of Age of Empires 4.

obraz

In the same category falls the King from the Abbey of Kings.
And then suddenly, as if out of nowhere, Joan of Arc appears, who lived an astonishing 19 years…

I will skip the whole historical accuracy debate because I don’t find it that crucial, and I’m sure it has been brought up many times by others. I’ll just mention that Zhu Shi Legacy is pure fantasy, and I don’t understand the point of adding something that feels so out of place in a game set in historical times.

Or should I perhaps say Empire of Jade? Or call the Ayyubids Army of the Sultan?
These last-minute name changes only reinforce my belief that the variants were introduced without deep thought or coherent design.

Personally, I would much rather have received 1 true civilization instead of 4 different variants. In fact, I’d prefer to get just 2 civilizations, but with a patch that adds mechanics for the existing ones.

Even after the latest patch, you can clearly see how a small change, like adding Khan Hunters to Deer Stones, has had a very positive impact on the quality of the game.

I value the addition of the Ottomans and Malians much more. I even think I appreciate the patch that introduced the Ghazi, Ghulam, or modified the Sipahi much more than the DLC because those changes deepened the game rather than just expanding it in a shallow way.

To sum up the discussion. What are your thoughts on the civilization variants from a long-term perspective?

8 Likes
4

I think the devs looked at how much more preferred AoE2 is and wanted to bring the civ design over. I’m joking ofc, and teasing some lurkers here that will most probably get triggered, but I’ll go ahead and give you my honest opinion on it.

The civs in AoE4 are much more unique and harder to switch between. Having variants for every civ allows people to switch civs more easily, but most importantly have less mirrors in the game. Because if OotD was within HRE, there would still be a chance that the 2 players would employ the same strategy during a mirror match.

One other thing that variants allow is for more out there designs to come to the game, because they’re just a variant and people won’t be judging them as harshly as a base civ.

With regards to the names, they’re just variants of the existing civs. They’re not supposed to represent something special historically, so just imagine they’re called Chinese 2, or French 2 if you prefer.

You mentioned that OotD is just math and unit skins. I’d argue every civ is just math and unit/building skins.

5

Joan Arc, Ootd, Zhi xi are just horrible variants.
It just proves that Sweet Baby Inc is auditing the AOEIV for DEI and ruining whole franchise.

2 Likes
6

Thank you for making this thread and for adding your insight. It is the perfect time to have a discussion about this, we are likely to see an expansion announcement in the next 3 months, which makes a review of previous design decisions and their effect on the game very important.

On the addition of variant civilizations, I think they have actually created a greater sense of identity for their associated civilizations. I do not understand how it could have diluted the game, as this is only adding features to the game. Dilution suggests that the subject is ‘weaker or less effective’. On the contrary, the variants represent a similar set of mechanics of their parent civilizations while creating a different flow in gameplay. They do this while maintaining the flexibility all civilizations have.

I think this would be an appropriate time to refer to the blog post they made prior to releasing the expansion, where they went into detail with the meaning and purpose of the variant civilizations.

What is a Variant Civilization?

What is a Variant Civilization?

A Variant Civilization is a modified version of a classic civilization that you already know and love from the core game. They offer new gameplay elements and strategies, while keeping the familiarity and identity of the classic civilization intact. Variant civilizations are not designed to replace the classic civ they are derived from but instead provide an alternative way to play.

We start with historical inspiration from some element in the history of the classic civilization and then build gameplay from that theme. These elements can be a single individual (like Jeanne d’Arc), a philosophy (like the neo-Confucianism of Zhu Xi), or a particular historical group within the broader culture (like the Order of the Dragon). Although these seeds are often small moments, we explore the ‘what if’ of keeping that focus throughout the journey through the four Ages. Historically, Jeanne d’Arc lived at what would be the early part of the Imperial Age (just as France was adopting firearms at large scale), but we feature her across all four Ages in the variant that bears her name.

This builds on some of the “historical extensions” of the classic civilizations, such as the Abbasid Dynasty and Delhi Sultanate having full gunpowder units even through those particular groups never adopted gunpowder en masse (or were succeeded by those who did, such as the Ottomans).

Not everything changes between classic and variant. Many basic units and buildings remain the same, as do music and historical speech. Each variant has its own list of changes, which might be a new set of landmarks, new units, revised or wholly new technologies or civilization mechanics, and more. The changes are always significant, however, and remake how the civilization plays. Players of a parent and variant civilization will be making very different choices and pursuing different strategies throughout a match.

Something in particular about Variant civilizations is that they give a very unique identity to AoE IV. It maintains the standard that we expect from the other games, civilization choices that represent an empire from a specific region of the world, while adding a focus on a particular person, faction, or ideology.

The important thing with a Variant’s identity is that it is an individual concept. By keeping things diverse in selection, ie not maintaining a strict standard on what becomes a Variant, it allows the developer to explore a large number of options. This is important for asymmetrical game design, and will allow them to give players a wide array of choices that are truly different from each other. Jeanne d’Arc makes changes to the French parent civ that Ayyubids does not make to Abbasid.

Also, when they added variants to the civ pool they increased the number of playable factions from 12 to 16. This means that the total number of matchups in a 1v1 pool increases from 78 to 136. This diversity in matchup deepens with the number of players, 4v4 goes from 75,582 to 490,314 potential matchups. Yes, some of the features are the same (sound design, unit/building appearance, UU)… but they are definitively not the same as their parent civilization.

Peculiarly, its difference from what Age series fans are used to is what I see the most criticism of. It can be very confusing… a lot of critique that this game gets tends to be contradictory. This is something that makes it wholly unique and only serves to add to the game, and yet it makes it diluted. That the game should simultaneously be less like other age titles and also the exact same as other age titles. I’m therefore glad that those other games exist for people to play if they dislike this one.

I think it is one of the most inspired decisions they could have made for the game. It sets it apart from every other Age game, and makes it one of the best competitive asymmetrical RTS games. I think variants are an avenue that they can continue to create interesting gameplay from, introducing features that would not otherwise be reasonable to see in an Age game.

It grants them license to stretch beyond the limitations that are set by past design philosophy and exercise a greater level of creative freedom.

7

AoE4 is like a reboot of AoE2… thinking about it, the game is not a remake or a remaster, so it needs to “innovate” so it doesn’t become a copy and paste.

In my opinion, the variants would be a way of “innovating” compared to AoE2. However, in this case, the developers chose to add variants.

However, I understand that the variants can scare off the more “conservative” players. In my case… I didn’t like it, but I’m getting used to the idea of ​​"innovation" and that each AoE should have something new of its own. So, for now I’m just trying it out, and I’ll need to see more variants to see how the game view will be with a wider range of variants.

Now, regarding another subject:
Regarding the fact of repeating buildings and sounds and so on… well, I don’t mind that… Because in the history of RTS games, there have been many such things as having “variants” or “subclasses” in other RTS games, like the “Command & Conquer” series, and it was very common and fun there.
In AoE there has always been the idea of ​​repetition with some differences, so this shouldn’t be a problem for those who have played other games in the AoE series.
And let’s face it, we’re talking about historical periods spanning several centuries, with several civilizations, many of which were dominated or incorporated by other cultures… so it’s normal to have a certain degree of visual repetition and it’s even more normal to have a wide range of civilizations to choose from, due to the several centuries that the games represent “all over the world”. It would be wrong to portray only a small corner of the world with few civilizations and leave several blank spaces.

8

I like all the variants, each of them is unique enough that the playstyles are significantly different from the original civ.

9

I’m not a fan of JD, but other than that, I like all of them.

10

The designs are all okay but the names are very bad except Ayyubids. I’m also counting the scrapped “Sultan’s Army” and “Empire of Jade”.

Many people’s first reaction was those were probably codenames. That tells a lot.

1 Like
11

Tbh it’s kinda hard to find good names for variant civs, but they still wanted to give them some flavor. They’re basically reworked base civs. What other name can you give them?

12

It also tells a lot that they acknowledged the feedback and adjusted their naming convention in response to it!

1 Like
13

Pure name changes
“Ayyubids” is already a good one so that could be used as a reference.
Order of the Dragon is somewhat a faction so it is fine.

Jeanne d’Arc can be easily called Orleans or Armagnacs.

Zhu Xi’s Legacy (hell the name cringes so much every time I type it) can be called “Neo-Confucianists” which is what it is supposed to be about.

These are all pure name changes without changing anything else. It at least makes the “variant civs” looks like factions to play in a historical strategy game. Some certain AOE-game-that-should-never-be-spoken-postive-of-here had such “political factions” as civilization names like “Revolutionary French” and “Bonapartists”. These are not difficult if one is willing to look up a few historical materials (or Wikipedia).

Some unit names that could be changed
Again, not touching the civ design at all. Just names.

“Gilded everything” and “Jeanne’s everything” are plainly lazy. There could be a lot of better names for them. I don’t think these are difficult. The simplest alternative I could accept for “guided” is simply “order”. At least it does not sound fictional of fantastical.

“Jeanne d’Arc” (the unit) like said in OP can be simply renamed to something generic like “Maiden of Orleans” so that it is in-line with Kings and Khans.

More radical: adjust some civ designs
This is mainly about “Zhu Xi’s Legacy”. Ironically it seems to me the civ with the most actual work put into it (the most new concepts, units, models and techs), while also having the least mental efforts in concept designs and consistency.

It is basically “Chinese civ v2” or “what we have not included into the base Chinese civ” which is why names remain bad before and after the change. There is little theme. The one and only proper name for it is “Chinese”.

Even if you call it “Neo-Confucianists” (if that is the concept) to sound like a faction, many elements are still not consistent, because the design is not consistent.
(1) Tang dynasty existed well before Zhu Xi and the Neo-Confucianism movement, let alone “Legacy”.
(2) Shaolin Monk has nothing to do with either. It is just a popular thing they feel obliged to force in.
(3) Neither does “Yuan raider”. This unit just feels random and generic and can be safely inserted into the base Chinese civ with no problem. And why do you phase in and out of the Yuan Dynasty but maintain “Yuan Raider” all along?

If one wants to go a bit more radical, these should be remodeled into something functionally similar.

Even more radical
I believe if you want to add these following designs into the game, there are a LOT of other candidate concepts that you don’t face any naming problem.
(1) Civs with high pop elite units: that could basically be any civ. You can always find evidences in history that “the civ relied (once) on (relatively) elite units” to justify that design.
(2) Civs with a hero centric gameplay: Teutonic/Templar Order with a grand master, Mongol Golden Family with a super buffed Khan, etc.

I appreciate the effort and “Ayyubids” is a good change.
But “Zhu Xi’s Legacy” is an even worse one and “Jeanne d’Arc” remains.

16

Jeanne d’Arc isn’t actually the name that she would have used during her life, and has only ever been recorded with that moniker 24 years after her death. She went by Jeanne la Pucelle (Joan the Maid) to declare her chastity and signify the piety of her mission. Source

I still think Jeanne d’Arc is appropriate for a modern representation for 2 reasons:

  • This faction is based around her legend more than her personhood, this is justified with the ‘Journey of a Hero’ leveling system and associated abilites.

  • We all know who ‘Maiden of Orleans’ is referencing anyways. Unlike King and Khan, which are nondescript and have no attachment to a specific person, Jeanne d’Arc is the only person who has her story. It would be confusing to simplify her to a title because of this.

Also, on being called simply ‘Orleans’ or ‘Armagnacs’, her excommunication and summary execution for heresy, witchcraft, and violating divine law by dressing like a man in 1431 means that she had no associations with any kind of house or royalty. They used her as a symbol to rally forces, get Charles VII into the throne, and then did nothing when she was captured (during an assault on the orders of that same king). It took 24 years for her contributions to have recognition and to not be regarded as a heretic. That retribution is what named her Jeanne d’Arc.

Knowing that, why should they have credit for her in the modern era? Her entire story is about being a peasant girl (who couldn’t read or write) that made a tremendous contribution during one of the longest, bloodiest conflicts between the French and English. Having her be the sole representation of a faction designed entirely around her is just common sense.

17

The civilization design of AOE has never been around legends or individuals. That’s what campaigns are for. If you want to force it as something “new” (I wouldn’t consider it as anything really new or innovative, because it feels more like the kind of concept that many people could come up with during brainstorming for such games but neglected because it does not fit), then it is natural people may see it inconsistent.

Even Malta (and for some people US and Mexico) in AOE3, despite being actual “civilizations” or factions and with proper names, were considered inconsistent by many.

AOE4 didn’t start with re-defining “civs” either. If the game is released with myriad of civs with different concepts, such as individuals and abstract thoughts and ideas, then introduction of some the variants would not look abrupt. But it didn’t because this current concept of “civilizations” is very well-defined and natural. You don’t need 5 proceeding AOE games to establish it. If anyone were to design a historical game like this without any knowledge to other similar games, they’d still go with this very natural concept instead of stuffing “individuals” into it. People making AOE1 did not start with Greeks, Egyptians and Julius Caesar. It’s not that “oh you have to do it because it is AOE” but because it is already very natural and logical. That’s why you have naming problems with it because it is by no means a good concept for a “civilization”.

“Jeanne d’Arc deserves a full civ representation” is a retrospect. It’s not wrong, but the problem is why you have to avoid a long list of natural candidates for “hero-centric gameplay” and pick the very inconsistent one first. The variant civ has great potentials – you can choose a more specific time point, a political faction, a subgroup of peoples, that the base civ didn’t cover. It will give many short-lived or small but unique factions and dynasties (e.g. Ayyubids) a chance of appearance while they would be considered too minor for a regular civ design.

If you really want a good representation of her, make a good campaign (not two scenarios with her not speaking) or add an Age 2 landmark for French unlocking her as a unit.

Finally if you still have to keep Jeanne d’Arc as a full civ at least make it sound like a faction such as “Jeanne d’Arc’s Followers”. That’s how Warhammer Total War treated the characters that belonged to one bigger faction but separated out as their own factions.

1 Like
18

Is that why you come to aoe4 forums? To call people names and suggest terrible civ names? That’s so typical of a Neo-Confucianist main. :joy:

19

But it doesn’t revolve around her followers, it revolves around her. Specifically, as a kind of literal hero unit.

I like that kind of design, but evidently it’s not for everyone. Nor should it be. Civs are options, and Variants are just more options on top of that.

1 Like
20

It’s simple. This is Age of Empires. I want to play that. Not a person. Not an idea. A stately entity. Ayyubids works. ZXL should’ve been called the Jin Dynasty, who already exist in the campaign, and who are very relevant to this time period (and who will never get their own civilization). OTD should’ve been named after Bohemia (who also will not get a civilization), as its creator was their king before becoming a Holy Roman Emperor. As for JDA, in all honesty, she shouldn’t even be a civilization. Not because of immersion, but it’s literally one unit. You could argue Landmarks were made to serve this purpose, and she could’ve simply been a unit that was spawned from on of the under-utilized Landmarks. The actual faction does not play significantly different to warrant being its own thing unlike the others (though some struggle with this too).

Their failure was first and foremost not appealing to the fantasy of this game. The whole point of a new civilization is to add to that, even AoE2 with its few resources and recycled assets knew as much. AoE4 took the gameplay oriented thought process too far and barely gave an effort in the immersive element of these factions. I mean, Jade Empire, seriously? Seriously?

Ultimately I think it is just the consequence of bad design. Landmarks were inspired by Minor Gods in AOM, who gave a significant amount of changes through multiple technologies, a god power and some units, to create a very different path in which one faction could go in.

Landmarks on the other hand mostly fail to deliver a similar experience. The choice between two usually does not change the gameplay much, and instead, simply amplifies whatever that faction was already doing. There are few landmark choices that has a faction going from a archer-based civilization to an infantry one, for instance. Some landmark choices make no difference at all (like Byzantine’s imperial ones).

This is what variant civilizations were made to do. Basically to patch up bad designwork. And I don’t mind this in of itself, my issue comes from the idea of wrapping this all up into a product and trying to sell it as content, to make the DLC appear like a greater thing than it was.

I don’t necessarily subscribe to the notion of this post, suggesting that it dilutes the game. However, when I consider that one has to pay to experience these civilizations slightly differently, in ways that are sometimes better, I do feel it hasn’t added much to the game.

My ideal situation would have been reworks of civilizations who were lacking, or further reworked the broad usage of landmarks. Hell, maybe even introducing additional bonuses to them to make the decision that more interesting. Anything to enrich the game itself rather than simply enrich the company. It can’t be just me that thinks factions like HRE could need some spice rather than make a fake civilization who gets all the content instead.

Then again, I would’ve liked them to have done more for the DLC than civilizations. Make the graphics better. Make a real in-game editor. Change the main menu. Make the UI more fun. Change. Things. Make DLCs where the game itself gets better in addition to adding new content.

1 Like
21

Ironically, my most played civilization right now is ZXL. But, I can’t help but feel that it is far lamer than it would’ve been if I could’ve pretended this was say, the Jin.

Because at least the battles would’ve been Jin v Mongol, Jin v HRE. You know, the fun little fantasy that is the whole point for much of the casual audience? Variants straight up reject that.

But, more importantly, ZXL is designed in a way that just feels like a better China. Not mechanically, but playstyle wise. They’re able to boom, to be aggressive or to tech quickly more successfully than China, feeling like they have more paths to go in. China on the other hand feels more locked into late playstyle. I have the same criticism for Abbasids, who feel like they are locked into mostly booming gameplay, whereas Ayyubids have a much more open way to play. Maybe they were created in this manner to make them feel distinct from other civilizations, but I can’t help but feel that if some small features from ZXL or Ayyubids were added to their original civilizations, we wouldn’t need variants.

Like a Feudal Palace Guard. A Zhuge Nu and Grenadier that isn’t locked behind some ridiculous Landmark thing. Like Ayyubid’s House of Wisdom, that grants you immediate bonuses instead of simply unlocking more techs to invest more resources into and to research. And all of those unique units they get.

You can’t convince me that these civilizations wouldn’t simply feel better with these additions. It really begs the question, of what is the purpose behind variants to begin with?

And in my book, it looks like it was simply to sell a better product. Because they simply do not need to exist, and they simply do not need to exist in a DLC.

22

I think the problem with this is that it’s a singular view. There may be people who prefer base China, or base Abbasids. And this would continue to be the case if we ever got more Variants.

And this isn’t to say that China or the Abbasids should remain as they are, either. They should be able to achieve things just as Zhu Xi or the Ayyubids can, in different ways. I think the Variants benefited from the developers having experience building the original civs. But that doesn’t mean the original civs should stay the same.

Nor have they - the English have changed a fair bit even from the small changes to things like Campfires, the King, and some Landmark balancing (AoK was a joke for a while, and the benefit of Longbow spam on release made Council Hall mandatory anyway).

23

And I’m not arguing towards fundamentally changing them away from what they are as a baseline. But, to instead open up more pathways within existing civilization so that they may be played like they were said variants.

This is the whole purpose of Landmarks. I noted in one of my criticisms that they aren’t designed with enough variety in mind. AoM, which features Minor Gods, shows how powerful this style of design can be–it simply is the case that AoE4 failed to capture it, perhaps intentionally so for balance and simplicity.

Yet, variants were added nevertherless so it begs the question of how much they’re adding to the game rather than dragging it sideways. Here are some simple examples of how their designs could’ve been additive to the existing baseline experiences, while opening them for more options, rather than having what we got (variants).

Holy Roman Empire

Meinwerk Palace now has an influence that unlocks Gilded units in nearby production buildings. This would allow an HRE player to focus even more on all-inning strategies, by combining it with Burgrave Palace for a real punch. HRE has always gone for the economy side of things just from how powerful that option is, and this is where OTD stood out–simply add it to HRE as the set of Landmarks that are underutilized.

France

Chamber of Commerce is now the Chamber of Resistance. It now reduces the cost of Infantry and Siege units in buildings within its influence, and produces a Heroine (This Jeanne lacks the Knight options). This gives French the ability to play like JDA while also focusing more on infantry based gameplay rather than the current Knight based one.

Abbasid

Wings now give direct bonuses in addition to unlocking technologies to research. Culture Wing unlocks the Dervish and Proselytization. Military Wing unlocks new Siege (Fire Mangos, Sultan Tower) and the Camel Lancer. Trade Wing unlocks the casino. Economic Wing ??? it’s already pretty loaded.

China

China could just get access to Early Palace Guards and access to ZGN, Grenadier and Fire Lancer without the obstruction of Dynasties. This in of itself would make ZXL redundant. Add the monk, and its other new units to the bonuses of underutilized Chinese Landmarks.

Does it all have to be tuned and changed a bit for balance? Sure.

But, the point here is to introduce new ways to play a civilization. This doesn’t take away from the original ones. Variants on the other hand, kind of do–as now designers are going to be more stingy about adding options to existing civilizations with variants. Because “oh no, OTD is all about big and strong units, can’t have that for HRE anymore” for instance.

2 Likes
25

I completely get where you’re coming from, and from a design perspective I think it’s perfectly valid.

I think personally I come down on the side of having this focus, vs. adding more and more to existing civilisations. I do think my preference is based on an ideal end-state for the game where the base civs have more options (that suit their initial design and don’t intrude on Variants). I can see how at the moment (especially pre-Siege rework) it looks like Variants are cannabalising what can be done with the base civs (and limiting them at the same time).

3 Likes