Feedback on Rus Civilization Timeline and Historical Representation

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

Hello Age of Empires IV team,

I recently started playing Age of Empires IV and I genuinely enjoy the game.
The gameplay, atmosphere, and overall attention to history are impressive, and I truly appreciate the work your team has put into it.

After watching the presentation video for the Rus civilization, I wanted to share some additional feedback.

While the civilization timeframe is listed as 882–1547, the presentation video places a strong visual and narrative focus on the history and rise of Moscow. The story shown is clearly Muscovy-centered, even if presented in an inspired and simplified form.

However, the early part of this timeframe — particularly the period from 882 to 1147 — predates Moscow entirely and represents a much broader historical reality, most notably Kyivan Rus, with Kyiv as its political and cultural center. This part of Rus’ history is largely absent from the presentation.

Because of this, the video creates the impression that the history of Rus from 882 onward is primarily the story of Moscow’s formation. If the timeframe did not include the early pre-Moscow period, this issue would likely not exist. As it stands, the chosen dates combined with the Muscovy-focused narrative result in a historical inaccuracy.

As a Ukrainian, I find this especially painful. Kyivan Rus is a foundational part of Ukraine’s history, and its omission or marginalization feels like a devaluation of my country’s historical legacy. In the context of the ongoing war that Russia is waging against Ukraine, such misrepresentation of history is particularly sensitive and troubling.

I understand the need for simplification in game design, but I believe this is an important issue of historical representation and player perception. A clearer distinction in timeframes or a broader visual representation of the early Rus period could help avoid confusion and better reflect the diversity of Rus’ history.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this feedback, and for continuing to develop a game that so many players care about.

2 Likes
2

You clearly haven’t read the official description of the Rus civilization in the game, where in earlier ages it represents a Norman-Slavic state of the pre-Mongol period, including Kievan Rus. Moscow is essentially reflected only in the Fourth Age, where attributes of the Moscow Principality are explicitly used, such as the Spasskaya Tower and the Streltsy.

3 Likes
3

The issue we are pointing out is not with the campaign itself.

The campaign is clearly and correctly anchored to a specific historical moment: 1238 – Moscow, which is accurate and appropriate.

The problem arises from the civilization UI, where the Rus civilization is presented with the timeframe 882–1547.

The year 882 specifically marks the capture of Kyiv by Oleg, which is traditionally considered the beginning of Kyivan Rus. At that time:

  • the political center was Kyiv,

  • the cultural, religious, and economic center was Kyiv,

  • Moscow did not exist (it is first mentioned around 1147),

  • the identity was that of a Kyivan, East Slavic–Varangian state, not a Muscovite one.

Because the campaign narrative focuses on Moscow, while the civilization UI starts at 882 without visual or structural distinction between the Kyivan and later Muscovite periods, this creates a misleading sense of continuity.

For this reason, we believe that 882 is a problematic starting date in the civilization UI.

If the playable and narrative focus is Muscovy, a later starting point (for example 1147) would be more consistent. Alternatively, the earlier Kyivan period would need to be clearly and explicitly distinguished in the UI.

In short:

The campaign year is clear and correct. The issue lies in how the civilization timeframe is presented, not in the gameplay itself.

2 Likes
4

Your position is clear, Kievan Rus (circa 882-1045) may be an interesting variant of the Rus civilization.

5

Maybe it’s time we had a “Kievan Rus” variant civ. That could be cool.

After all, the “Rus” civ in the game is a blend of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, that’s the Rus’ people.

It makes me wonder. For Ukrainians, does this kind of design that combines the Rus’ peoples feel like a connection or more like an offense?

6

Unfortunately, the current government of Ukraine is pursuing a very aggressive policy, including one aimed at denying the historical existence of other parts of Rus other than Kievan Rus, which is why Ukrainians are often very subjective in this matter.

But objectively, in the current Rus civilization, the period of Kievan Rus is not very widely represented and can be described in more detail as a variant of civilization.

7

It’s too politically sensitive to release Kievan Rus as a variant of Rus, so they’ll probably wait it out.

8

Yes, I think the first Russian variant will be Novgorod Republic, nothing related to Ukraine or Moscow until the 15th century (as is seen in the Rus campaign)…

image
image1000×563 481 KB

1 Like
9

I think bringing modern politics into this discussion is a mistake.

This should be about historical accuracy and UI clarity, not present-day political positions.

Creating an entirely new civilization or variant is a long-term and complex solution. In contrast, a much simpler and more practical fix would be to adjust the starting date shown in the Rus civilization UI.

The year 882 refers very specifically to the beginning of Kyivan Rus, with Kyiv as the political and cultural center. Meanwhile, the campaign narrative clearly focuses on Moscow starting in 1238.

Because of this, the current UI date creates unnecessary confusion. Simply revising the starting year in the civilization UI would already resolve most of the issue, without changing gameplay or adding new civilizations.

2 Likes