Don't be afraid to make future civs more assymmetrical

Hi AOE team,

Please add more asymmetrical civs in future like how you guys did in AOE 3 and AOEO, both are vey fun games with insane personality. Every civ feels like a unique culture.

AOE 2 is just too boring and monotonous. It’s just knight spam with crossbow, and only can see some interesting micro in tournaments by others. The AOE 2 game is such a snooze fest where every game plays the same, despite having UU. Thus the game feels balanced, because every civ is same lol.

In AOEO each civ is very fun tomplay, with their own little mechanic, which makes them stand out very nicely. Like Celts sacrificing deer and their nature themed aspects, Romans with their officers and Engineering, Greeks your standard civ, Egyptians with their gods and offerings, Vikings with ability to build and raid as a military on the go, Babylonian with their gardens, mobility and technology, Persians with immortals, shock cavs, toggle techs. Everything in AEO 3 and AOEO is oozing with personality and creativity.

In AOE 3 the game is actually fun to play, it’s so much more smoother, less clunkier and has lot of unique additions to the game which makes it amazing. Every skirmish play in AOE 3 is more dynamic compared to AOE 2 and offers so many fun options to boost the economy and army.

Even AOM did so many hings very nicely, one of the best mythological games out there.

So in future please add more civs with very different mechanics, The current civs in AOE 4 are great they all have good unique mechanics, but let the game overflow with imagination and new ideas, but currently most civs end up with lancer/knight spam just like AOE2. Hope you guys think for more creative ways to play the game in future updates.

let AOE 4 be it’s own thing, throw away the baggage of AOE2 and let AOE 4 the game breath itself.



And don’t forget AOM…

Instead adding more to the future they can change or add things to current ones over time…
I only played with HRE in stress test after 10 games I was expecting more unique units…


agreed, AOM was a legendary game.


Same sentiments I’m hoping for more unique units from HRE like some sort of elite cavalry or the bohemian hussite wagons.


AOE3 civs are too different which makes it impossible to balance and learn matchups for new players.

i think aoe4 has found a sweet spot where civs are semi-asymmetrical, they still feel different but wont be too difficult to balance.

They should maybe add one more unique units to the civs.


Love that unit, they were very good vs cav:

I am not looking for 100% asymmetrical, but calling age iv semi-asymmetrical is not even close.

For me, AoE4’s civs are deal-breakingly boring. Adam has talked about using AoE4 as a platform on which to build all sorts of content, so I remain optimistic. But at the same time, they are describing the existing civs as asymmetric, so I’m worried they think they’ve actually achieved that already. I hope perhaps there will be a few Native American civs that open up the game and get me to buy in then.


they didnt want another aoe3 so they made it more like aoe2 its much safer

1 Like

I think best way is by Spellforce 3, the game started symmetrical as Age of Empires 2, meanwhile was with small patches and addition with new factions has 6 very well balanced asymmetrical factions like Warcraft 3. Can we have this “asymmetrical” concept please for Age of Mythology 2.


They did this with AoE3 Expansions so I do think they’ll be adding more unique features thru expansions for AoE4 as well .


I like the approach they took to the civs so far. They are different enough so you can tell them apart and invest some time in learning how they work, but they all have the same core gameplay and the same unit types and similar strategy options.
AoE3 balance is a train wreck right now, some civs don’t have access to certain units or have units that are way too strong, or they tend lean very heavily towards one single strategy. Then you have match ups where one player is pretty much on a clock as he has to kill the other civ early or else, like when you are playing against Japan for example


The English are the most generic, and I think that is something that needs to change first. I like their defensive network, that makes them unique and interesting to play, but “Town Centre or Fortress” age up options are just way too vanilla.
I want unique options, anyone can build a keep or a town centre.

People are saying these are too strong as well, maybe they are right, in which case they should be changed anyway. But my main issue with them is that they are too generic. So if you’re going to change those landmarks, then also take the opportunity to make them a lot less generic.

“But they’re meant to be generic, so that new players can learn to play the game”
No. Do that with the campaigns, don’t do that with an entire civ. Even without these landmarks, the civ is generic enough to jump right into. Teach people how to build keeps and town centres and to expand without sacrificing a civ.

And if you are going to nerf the longbow rush, and you should, then you’ll have to do it without nerfing longbows themselves, because if you harm their viability throughout the ages, then the English military will be completely generic.

Council Hall vs Abbey just seems like a no contest at this point as well. Too predictable, almost everyone goes Hall. Hall is amazing, Abbey seems underwhelming, but maybe that’s just compared to Hall?


The “against the clock” design is what many players love in AoE3, though. Having distinct strong and weak points in terms of game time is what makes matching up against different civs more dynamic. The same with not having access to certain unit types, and compensating with having other hybridized types.

The last few patches have been rough in terms of balance but calling it a train wreck is going a bit too far imo.


Thank you for these two statements! Couldn’t agree more.

It sure is good news seeing people asking for more uniqueness, more asymmetry, more distinct and interesting units, more personality. I too feel that these are the things that AoEIV lacks the most. Say a good word about the importance of artwork too. We already use all kinds of lusterless softwares in our works, we don’t need more of them.

I’ve been wondering what people’s take on the asymmetricality is actually.

Is this strictly a feeling borne from the lack of unique units?
(no one seems to be complaining about china in that department)

This is the number of unique units from the Stress test.

Or is it because the general playstyle isn’t unique enough?


I think all civs are fine except HRE, which is basically English with Relic mechanic, HRE is boring and way too vanilla.

1 Like

I kinda like their MAA techs.
Makes them extremely fast and gives them a really nice dmg buff. (as well as making them wield 2 handed weapons)
But currently the mace tech seems to be broken and actually nerfs your units lol.

In general I think it’d help the game massively if they just added like 1 unique castle unit to every civ.
Then at least you’d have the diversity of Aoe 2.

1 Like

Ppl kinda loved it until covs like japan and Sweden were introduced, not that I hate the civs, but this clearly caused a big divide on the community, and more now with the addition of new civs
The game is not bad though, the variety between civs is fun and it has amazing mechanics and it works for aoe3, but I think for aoe4 the current design is fine.

What’s the point of having unique units if they won’t be used? I played a lot of AOE III, but the asymmetry of the units is a strong cause of imbalance. Some units become useless as soon as players discover a goal.

I am in favor of the asymmetry of civilizations regarding their economic, defensive, technological, and so on. But the units need to look alike at some point.

Another thing, one of the reasons AOE II players don’t play AOE III is the difficulty. A greater variety of units makes it difficult for new players to learn their counters, formations, utilities and so on.