From Fixed Civilizations to Semi-Variant Civilizations: Preserving Identity While Expanding Strategy

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Introduction

Age of Empires II has always been built around fixed civilizations.

Each civilization has its own identity through:

  • Civilization Bonuses (including Team Bonuses where applicable)
  • Technology Tree
  • Unique Units
  • Unique Technologies

This system creates strong identities and makes civilizations memorable.
However, as the number of civilizations increases, several challenges appear:

  • Creating new civilizations becomes harder without overlapping existing designs.
  • Players want more strategic variety.
  • A completely free civilization creator may reduce balance and historical identity.

A possible future direction is a Semi-Variant Civilization System.

The goal isn’t to replace fixed civilizations, but to allow existing civilizations to evolve through controlled reforms.

The Core Principle: Reform, Not Replacement

The biggest risk of civilization customization is that players simply remove weaknesses and collect the strongest technologies.

For example:

A Frankish variant that removes:

  • Cavalry units +20% HP

and gains:

  • Bloodlines
  • Hussar

may become a generic complete cavalry civilization,
it gains more options, but loses the identity of the Franks.

Therefore:

Civilization Bonuses should mainly be exchanged for other Civilization Bonuses.

The purpose of reform is to change the direction of a civilization, not erase its identity.

Main Rule: Civilization Bonus ↔ Civilization Bonus

Civilization identity should usually be exchanged with another identity.

Example:

Frankish Military Reform

Original:

Civilization Bonus

  • Cavalry units +20% HP

Exchange:

Civilization Bonus

  • Infantry (except Spearmen) deal additional damage against Trash Units:

    • +3 in Feudal Age
    • +5 in Castle Age
    • +7 in Imperial Age

Result:

Original Franks:

A cavalry civilization based on powerful knights.

Reformed Franks:

An infantry-oriented civilization designed to defeat trash-unit compositions.

Both remain recognizable as Franks.

Team Bonus Reform

Team Bonuses represent a civilization’s influence on allies, so they should usually be exchanged with other Team Bonuses.

A Team Bonus should not simply become a personal Civilization Bonus.

Example:

Original:

Team Bonus

  • Knight line +2 Line of Sight

Possible Reform:

Replace with:

Team Bonus

  • Castle construction time -25%

Result:

The civilization changes its contribution to the team.
It does not simply gain additional personal strength.
This keeps multiplayer balance while allowing different team strategies.

Technology as Part of Major Reforms

Technologies should not simply replace Civilization Bonuses.
Instead, they should appear as rewards in larger reforms.

Possible structure:

Small Reform

Civilization Bonus ↔ Civilization Bonus

Medium Reform

Civilization Bonus ↔ Civilization Bonus + Technology

Major Reform

Civilization Bonus + Technology ↔ Civilization Bonus + Technology

Example:

Frankish Cavalry Reform

Lose:

  • Cavalry units +20% HP
  • Champion

Gain:

  • Knight line HP +12.5%
  • Bloodlines

The result is not simply a stronger Franks civilization,
it’s a different development path.

Original Franks:

Unique high-HP cavalry.

Reformed Franks:

More standardized and complete cavalry.

Showing the Price of Reforms

One important advantage of this system is transparency.

Currently, players often ask:

  • “Why does this civilization not have Bloodlines?”
  • “Why does this civilization not have Thumb Ring?”

A reform system can explain that these technologies are not simply missing.

They have a price.

The player can see:

If you want this ability, what civilization identity must you give up?

Example:

Bloodlines

Available through Reform

Gain:

  • Bloodlines

Price:

  • Replace Cavalry HP Bonus

Example:

Thumb Ring

Available through Reform

Gain:

  • Thumb Ring

Price:

  • Reduce Archer range advantage

This helps players understand the original design,
a missing technology is not always a weakness.

Sometimes it’s the price paid for another civilization advantage.

Two Ways to View Reforms

Reform Overview

Players see complete reform paths.

Example:

Frankish Cavalry Reform

Gain:

  • Bloodlines
  • Improved cavalry technology

Price:

  • Reduced unique cavalry bonus

This shows the overall direction.

Direct Technology View

Experienced players can select a technology and immediately see possible reforms.

Example:

Click:
Bloodlines

The game shows:

Available Reform:

Gain:

  • Bloodlines

Price:

  • Replace Cavalry HP Bonus

This is a quick way to understand trade-offs.

Variant Civilization Naming

Reformed civilizations should keep their original names.
Instead of creating completely new civilizations:

  • Franks #0
  • Franks #1
  • Franks #2

The number represents different development paths.

Example:

Franks #0

Traditional Franks

  • Cavalry units +20% HP

Franks #1

Cavalry Reform

  • More complete cavalry technology
  • Reduced original cavalry bonus

Franks #2

Military Reform

  • Infantry-focused bonus
  • Different battlefield role

Players immediately understand:

These are not unrelated civilizations,
they are different versions of the same civilization.

Conclusion

A Semi-Variant Civilization System should not be about creating the strongest possible civilization.

It should be about choosing different development paths.

The key principles:

  1. Preserve civilization identity.
  2. Make Civilization Bonus exchanges the main form of customization.
  3. Keep Team Bonus exchanges within the Team Bonus category.
  4. Use technologies as rewards for deeper reforms.
  5. Show the price of every reform clearly.
  6. Keep variants connected to their original civilization.

Instead of endlessly adding more civilizations,
Age of Empires could allow existing civilizations to evolve.

The civilization is not broken into pieces,
it develops along different historical paths.

The future of civilization design may not be about adding more civilizations,
but allowing existing civilizations to develop more historical paths.

2

Tell whichever chatbot you use not to write messages exceeding three paragraphs.

7 Likes
3

I used longer examples because the idea can easily be misunderstood as a free civilization builder.

The important part is the restriction: reforms should have a price, and civilization identity should be preserved.

4

the obvious solution is: stop adding civs.

aoe2DE has many issues, a lack of civs is not one of them.

PS: please write your own posts instead of this AI slop

1 Like
5

I actually agree that AoE2 DE already has a lot of civs, and simply adding more civs forever is not necessarily the solution.

The examples in my post are not meant to argue that AoE2 needs unlimited new civs. They are there to explain how a Semi-Variant Civilization system could work as an alternative approach.

Instead of creating more and more separate civs, existing civs could have limited reform paths while preserving their identity. The goal isn’t an unlimited customization system where players freely combine the strongest bonuses and technologies, but a system where every reform has a price and a trade-off.

This is a topic I have been thinking about for years, so I already have many examples and design notes. The length comes from explaining the restrictions and possible cases, because without examples the idea could easily be misunderstood as a free-form customization system.

6

Isnt this what chronicles civis are doing already with selectable Ut’s?

1 Like
7

yet none of this addresses the actual issues the game is facing:

  • aoe2DE still lacks core featuers present in aoe2HD/voobly
  • the game is still buggy as hell
  • every change (good and bad) is forced on everyone
  • lack of multiplayer options
  • broken communication by the dev team
2 Likes
8

Branching Unique Techs are definitely a similar idea, and I think they’re a good step in that direction.

In fact, quite a few community mods have already experimented with this kind of civilization progression or branching choices.

My proposal simply extends the same design philosophy beyond Unique Techs to Civilization Bonuses, Team Bonuses, and parts of the technology tree, while keeping meaningful trade-offs so each civilization still retains its identity.

For example:
Before the game starts, choose branching paths for the Franks.
Multiple choices together define the final Semi-Variant Civilization.
╔═════════════════=╗
║ The Option (A) is below↓↓↓↓║
║ All Mounted Units +20% HP║
║Starting in Feudal age ■■■■║
╚═════════════════=╝
╔═════════════════=╗
║ The Option (B) is below↓↓↓↓║
║ Infantry(No spear)v.s. Trash ║
║ +3/5/7 in Feu/Cast/Imp Age ║
╚═════════════════=╝
╔═════════════════=╗
║The Option (C) is below↓↓↓↓║
║Knight-line +12.5% HP Gain║
║Bloodlines Lost Champion║
╚═════════════════=╝

9

I am a fan of good civ design.
Misses and bonusses that compensate each other.

All these kind of adaptional bonus changes make this almost impossible. People will always chose the variant that doubles down on already existing strong features of the civ, leading to even hamstery/cheesy strategies and less interaction - less trying to find solutions for missings, less trying to find ways to beat a civ using their weaknesses against them. Just trying to cheese out the maximum of your civ.

Which would also lead to a few civs variants getting dominant super fast when their bonusses jsut fit a setting or map perfectly whilst struggling on a lot of other ones. Making playing random civ a really bad experience. Especially on Araibia, where currently the Hamster meta is so dominant, that with changes like this only a hand full of civs would remain competitive and nobody would want to play civs like slavs anymore, even if they had a variant for their cavalry, as it would just be too slow in comparison to civs like tupi/shu/romans/khitanskhmer/mongols who would all chose variants to double down on already strong hamstery bonusses.

1 Like
10

@cito you aren’t addressing the battle elephant in the room. I don’t know your angle since this is like the 3rd chatbot tirade you pontificated with but you want us to really consider human engagement with you then stop using the robot to slip for you

1 Like
11

@DynasticPlanet5 Since you mentioned me directly, I would like to clarify a few things.

Those boxes were not something created instantly. The AoE forum format is quite different, and designing a layout that clearly shows the structure I wanted took time. I use this style because of my years of experience with map editing and modding.

I actually spent a long time trying to become part of this official forum community, and only recently found the right way to join. My goal isn’t just to post ideas, but to have better discussions between players, creators, and developers.

If you read my posts carefully, the core idea has always been the same:

I hope the developers can provide long-time players with a stable and sustainable space for creativity.

Player freedom is important, but a realistic solution also needs to consider development costs and the developer’s goals. The answer is not simply removing all restrictions, but finding a balance between player creativity and a healthy game ecosystem.

I believe players, creators, and developers need better communication. Only by working together can the game continue moving in a direction that benefits everyone.

12

Buddy, the only thing I’m criticizing is the use of AI. And it still reads with a lot of telltale signs

I’d rather have a less curated but more direct less “looks ai” post

4 Likes
13

I understand your concern.

I have been creating AoE-related content for years, and I have accumulated many design notes and documents over time. However, most of my original writing is in Chinese, so my posts here require translation into English.

I would rather focus on discussing the actual design ideas and trade-offs behind the proposal. If you have different opinions about the concept itself, I would be happy to discuss them.

14

Maybe use a different translator? The current one distorts your text with typical AI mannerisms – it’s ok to read when it’s a paragraph or two, but becomes painful at these lengths.

I apologize if I sound harsh in some of my replies to your threads, but when a person posts a thread after a thread, each beginning with a long post that’s frustrating to read (not because of its content but because AI writes in a frustrating manner unless directly prompted not to), it’s easy to get tired.

4 Likes
15

@cito this forum has an integrated translatio system.

You can write posts that aren’t essential for you to be in the exact format you want in chinese and the other users can translate it. Ofc this is potentially not ideal for the longer stuff you write, but you can at least respond a bit more directly to other people here in the forum.

I’m actually glad to have a new voice from china here, because lately this was scarce. So, welcome to the forum from me.

3 Likes
16

Thank you for the suggestion. I have tried the built-in translation before, but for longer design discussions with many specific terms, it can sometimes lose the original meaning. I will try it if the time is right.

I also want to become part of this community and exchange ideas with other AoE players.

If my longer translated posts make it difficult for people to engage with the discussion, I will try to adjust my writing style.

1 Like
17

Thank you for the explanation. I understand your concern.

Most of my original writing is in Traditional Chinese, and my posts here require translation into English. I understand that long translated posts can sometimes become more formal or structured than normal forum discussions.

I have been creating AoE-related content and design notes for years, so many of these ideas already existed before I posted them here. However, I also want to become part of this community and make discussions easier for other players.

I will try to adjust my posting style and make future posts more direct while keeping the important design details.

1 Like
18

I understand this concern. Players will naturally choose the strongest option, but I actually think this can provide useful information.

If one variant becomes the dominant choice, it shows that the trade-off may not be strong enough, or that the balance needs adjustment. Player choices can become a form of long-term testing.

The key is that a Semi-Variant system should not become an unlimited customization system where players remove all weaknesses and stack the strongest bonuses. Every reform needs a “Price” — something meaningful that must be given up.

This is also why I suggested showing the “Price” of locked technologies in the tech tree. If a player wants a technology that is normally unavailable, the game should explain what civilization identity or existing advantage must be exchanged to gain it.

The goal isn’t to create perfect civilizations, but to let players explore different development paths and understand which trade-offs are meaningful.

19

I understand these concerns, and I agree that AoE2DE has many existing issues that also deserve attention.

My post wasn’t meant to suggest that a Semi-Variant Civilization system is the only problem the game needs to solve, or that it should replace improvements to existing features.

I focus on civilization design because I think long-term content development is also important. Simply adding more civilizations forever has limits, so I want to explore another approach that can expand strategic variety while preserving civilization identity.

Different problems require different solutions.

Improving multiplayer features, stability, communication, and supporting long-term customization are all important parts of keeping the game healthy.

20

I’d like to add that you can multiquote in the same post. No need to use one post per quote