DLC Idea: Bane of Byzantium

This DLC would take a different approach than the others so far. It would only be made after more African, American, or Asian civs were added. This time, it would focus on a specific era rather than a region: the early Middle Ages. All civilizations added would be either allies or enemies of the Byzantine Empire during that time period.

New Civilizations:

  • Avars: A cavalry and siege civilization focused on repairing buildings and extra-beefy siege weapons mid-combat.

  • Khazars: A cavalry archer and siege civilization focused on cheaper unit upgrades and faster-working Siege Workshops and Archery Ranges.

  • Lombards: An infantry civilization focused on tanky infantry and extra-cheap knights.

  • Vandals: An infantry and naval civilization that has military units that cost less population space and a debuff to enemy TC work speed, as well as cheaper Dromons available in Castle Age.


The current DLC hasn’t even launched yet. Why does everyone have to be so busy trying to propose new things?

You have said the magic incantation; your post will be spared the ridicule that otherwise would be the bane of such a thread.

Although none of these concepts really excite me. Apart from the interest in AAA civs for other reasons, I think they lend themselves more easily to novel gameplay and/or the exploration of unit lines that are less saturated than those presented here (cav, cav archers, infantry).

Apart from the repairing aspect, echoes of Slavs, Bulgarians, Sicilians and Teutons.

Sounds like Poles. “Tanky infantry” is also a rather picked-over concept between Vikings, Teutons, Sicilians, Goths and Malians (for PA) and now Armenians.

Goths +

the Viking bonus.

And I have to say this is one of the least exciting concepts for a civ I’ve seen in a long time. Garrisoning cav in rams is situational at best, and siege towers are mostly meme units held back by their high cost and lack of general utility rather than their production speed.

Not to say that viable concepts couldn’t be developed on these bases, but going from the descriptions, there’s nothing to kindle a burning interest in any of these. Vandals as water-goths are semi-interesting, but even that niche is partially explored by the Vikings and even Koreans.

In principle, I agree, but given that civ concepts are kind of @Apocalypso4826’s main shtick, I don’t particularly mind, or expect it to be otherwise.


Perhaps taking a look at the concept itself will lend a better picture. Note: I’m pretty sure it’s outdated, but you still get the idea.

Ah. I have seen and commented on that. Still not crazy about the cav-in-siege or siege tower stuff, but I think almost any of the other attributes would make for a more interesting civ summary. For example, “siege and cav civ with cheaper unit upgrades and fast-working ranges,” (kind of bland, but not overly niche like the current description) or “siege/cav civ with unique mounted archer that is more lethal when wounded.”

If it helps, the only reason that the Lombards sound so uninteresting is because I don’t have a particular identity worked out for them yet. My concept for them has TCs that can pack and unpack, which is pretty neat, but not all that fitting for a civ based on a people group that ended up settling down in one place.

As for the Avars, their focus on repairing is their main identity, as their UU can do it in the field, and is mobile as a cavalry unit. Repairers (including their UU) also work 50% faster, and their siege weapons have more HP, making treb wars particularly ineffective against the Avars. As for some of the other stuff, I still have to work out the details more.

I did a Lombard concept time ago, I’m not very good at balance and theorycraft but maybe it can help with giving them an historical identity…

I think their identity should revolve around infantry and siege, having a permanent army of sorts since that’s what an arimannus was, always ready to fight (they were in war with byzantines all the time in Italy) and a mention to their law system (rothari edict) separated from the one of Romans, specially the weregild Germanic law. Finally the gastald who was a landlord controlling Lombard duchies and a mention to their anarchy period (TCs built faster team bonus and military buildings easy to spam).


Start with +150 food and +100 wood

Villagers cost 60 food but are created 10% in dark, 15% in feudal, 20% in castle and 25% faster in imperial age and they attack using bows (ranged attack)

Rams can garrison double units and get more bonus against buildings

Military buildings cost 50% less wood and are built faster

Unique units:

Arimanni (weak infantry that can be converted into villagers for 10 gold with a bonus attack Vs siege weapons and buildings, available in feudal age in town centers)

Gastald (fast infantry with bonus attack Vs cavalry, enemy monks convert slower when in his presence, available at the castle in castle age)

Unique techs:

Permanent army (available in castle age in the castle, arimanni take half population space)

Weregild (available at the castle in imperial age, for every villager of yours killed by an enemy you get 10 gold)

Team bonus: town center built at double speed

Missing techs:

Archery range: arbalester, parthian tactics, heavy cavalry archer, hand cannoneer, elephant archer

Barracks: eagle warrior

Stable: paladin, battle elephant, camel rider, steppe lancer, bloodlines

Dock: fast fire ship, heavy demolition ship, cannon galleon, shipwright (they get dromons)

Blacksmith: bracer, ring archer armour

Siege workshop: bombard cannon, armoured elephant


University: heated shot, treadmill crane, arrowslits, keep, bombard tower

Monastery: ?

Economy: stone shaft mining, crop rotation

Architecture: central European in dark and feudal age to represent their migration and Mediterranean in castle and imperial age once settled in Italy, with the castle resembling rocca dei rettori in Benevento or the palace of Autari II

Wonder: San Salvatore basilica in Spoleto

Language: Lombard, maybe not enough info since it’s dead like gothic

Campaign: probably Alboin

The BoB dlc.

What does bane mean?google isnt helping.

Historically it has moreso meant ‘deadly poison’, so in an archaic setting it can also mean ‘something that is the cause of harm, ruin, or death’. So the name here refers to ‘the cause for Byzantine’s ruin’, more or less.

1 Like

Here I was thinking its a term like lord duke etc.

I’m a bit skeptical of civs that typically only cover the Dark Ages. While Lombards and Vandals would be good choices for civs, the problem is that they are currently at the bottom of the hierarchy of needs - it would be better to add them to RoR.

When it comes to AoE2, the top priority is currently adding civs from poorly represented continents, i.e. Africa and America - Africa in particular. Then the focus should be on sharing the umbrella civs - the old Indians civ were the first. So adding civs that were important between Late Antiquity and the Very Early Middle Ages have the least priority.

Early medieval Germanic nations can be represented by Goths civ (after the rework I once wrote about) and the same can be done with other early medieval nations.

To sum up. I’m not against such a DLC, but I think that Allemanians (they had their kingdom in the years 213–911), Bavarians (they had a over a thousand year old principality in the AoE 2 time frame), Franconians (it would be an umbrella for many West German nations, e.g. the Westphalians and the Dutch) and Saxons (probably the most famous of the German groups of nations - the creators of strong Saxony and the progenitors of the English (Anglo-Saxon) nation) would be more useful, necessary and fun in AoE 2.

Me likes this DLC idea a lot.