Future DLC roadmap

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Now that the dust has settled on RoR (which has been magnificent and I hope they come back to it at some point, it’s time to focus back on AoE II. So here are some ideas I have for future DLC.

Mandate of Heaven
With last year’s roadmap all but complete barring the “so you liked Dynasties of India?” hint, a lot of people think this points towards a Chinese themed DLC, with the Chinese being split. So first up on the list is just that. The first DLC in a while to feature more than three new campaigns.

  • Civilisations
  1. Jurchens (East Asian)
  2. Tibetans (East Asian)
  • Campaigns
  1. Songsten Gampo (Tibetans) - Founder of the Tibetan Empire who went toe to toe with Tang China.
  2. Taizong (Chinese) - Tang emperor who oversaw arguably the greatest period in all of Chinese history, and extended the Tang empire to its greatest height.
  3. Wanyan Aguda (Jurchens) - Founder of the Jin dynasty who by the time of his death had conquered around half of China.

Glory of the Caucasus
Next up, the setting of this DLC is in West Asia. It will add two of the most in-demand civs in Armenians and Georgians. With them will come a new architecture set, which can be best described as Eastern Mediterranean, as the Byzantines and Bulgarians will share it with them. Plus the Persians have changed to the Central Asian architecture set.

  • Civilisations
  1. Armenians (Eastern Mediterranean)
  2. Georgians (Eastern Mediterranean)
  • Campaigns
  1. Ashot (Armenians) - Bagratid king who fought against Byzantines, Turks and Saracens.
  2. Ismail I (Persians) - Founder of the Safavid empire, who returned Persia to its former glory.
  3. Tamar (Georgians) - Queen who oversaw the golden age of Georgia.

Return to Africa
Another African DLC has been long in demand, so this is the focus of the next DLC. There are plenty to choose from but I thought I would pick the three that would be perfect for an AoE II campaign. The first of these DLCs to add more than two new civs. Also adding the Kanembu would lend its way to Chad jokes.

  • New Civilisations
  1. Kanembu (African)
  2. Somalians (Middle Eastern)
  3. Zimbabweans (African)
  • Campaigns
  1. Dunama Dabbalemi (Kanembu) - Founder of the Kanem-Boru Empire that expanded into Berber and Saracen territory.
  2. Mahfuz (Somalians) - Ruler of the Adal Sultanate and waged war against the Ethiopians.
  3. Matope (Zimbabweans) - Expanded the Mutapa Empire and came into contact with the Portuguese.
  4. Suleiman the Magnificent (Turks) - Expanded the Ottoman Empire to its greatest heights, and led campaigns in Africa.

Tales from the New World
Much like Africa, America is another region that hasn’t been touched upon all that much when there is room for a couple more to be added, so the focus of the DLC is just that, with, of course a Mayan campaign added. Missisippians are the first American civ to feature cavalry.

  • New Civilisations
  1. Mississipians (Mesoamerican)
  2. Zapotecs (Mesoamerican)
  • Campaigns
  1. Cosijoeza (Zapotecs) - Fought off Aztec expansion.
  2. Hunac Ceel (Mayans) - Conqueror of Chichen Itza and eventual founder of the Cocom Dynasty.
  3. Tuskaloosa (Mississippians) - Chief who fought against a Spanish invasion.

Pacific Frontiers
With a title that sounds more like a WWII game than a Medieval era game, but I digress. This DLC focuses on, as the title may suggest, Asian civilisations that are located in the Pacific region. The second of these DLCs to feature four campaigns.

  • New Civilisations
  1. Siamese (South East Asian)
  2. Tagalog (South East Asian)
  • Campaigns
  1. Choe Yeong (Koreans) - General who put down several rebellions in Korea before assisting the Ming dynasty against the Yuan dynasty in China.
  2. Hojo Clan (Japanese) - Clan that ruled over Japan during the Kamukara shogunate, that successfully repelled two Mongol invasions.
  3. Lapulapu (Tagalog) - Pirate who eventually repelled an invasion from the Spanish.
  4. Maha Chakkraphat (Siamese) - Defender of the Ayyuthayan kingdom against the Burmese.

Conflicts in the Balkans
As the title may suggest, this DLC focuses on the Balkan and South East Europe region. Three new civs, three campaigns.

  • New Civilisations
  1. Croatians (Eastern Mediterranean)
  2. Serbian (Eastern Mediterranean)
  3. Vlachs (Eastern European) (Replaces Turks, Magyars and Slavs in Vlad Dracula)
  • Campaigns
  1. Stefan Dusan (Serbians) - Founder of the Serbian Empire.
  2. Stephen I (Magyars) - Founder of the Kingdom of Hungary.
  3. Tomislav (Croatians) - King of Croatia who waged war against the Bulgarians.

The Final Kingdoms
All good things must come to an end and sadly, AoE II will eventually befell such a fate. At this point it begs the question of what else can the devs add to the game without contrivedly splitting civs? AoE2 will go out with a bang, adding three new civs and a whopping six campaigns. It is the first DLC since The Forgotten that is non-region specific and it also ties up the loose ends regarding campaigns.

  • Civilisations
  1. Afghans (Central Asian)
  2. Livonians (Eastern Europe)
  3. Tanguts (East Asian)
  • Campaigns
  1. Albert of Riga (Livonians) - Converted people in Estonia and Latvia by the sword to Catholicism.
  2. Canute (Vikings) - Danish king who waged wars in England.
  3. Jingzong (Tanguts) - Founder of the Western Xia Empire.
  4. Mahmud of Ghazni (Afghans) - Founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty
  5. Ruina Imperii (Romans) - A special campaign for a special civ. Ruina Imperii (‘Fall of the Empire’) documents the last days of the Western Roman Empire.
  6. Vladimir the Great (Ruthenians) - Prince of Novgorod, Prince of Kiev, and ruler of Kievan Rus all at once, who controversially Christianised the region.

And once that is done, the devs can fully concentrate on RoR :slight_smile: I may post more info about these new civs once I’ve pulled some ideas together.

11 Likes
2

You have the priorities clear in terms of what civ to add in each dlc and in what order dlcs should come out.

I’d just stop in the Africa DLC and would replace Zimbabweans with Vlachs (to be added in a different moment than the african civs) so the civ number would round up to a total of 50. I think that’s a good number so top adding civs.

1 Like
3

I’d prefer a Central Asian/Steppe and West African DLC over two more DLCs about Europe.
Although I like the idea of new American DLC, although I would personally pick different civs (Purepecha and Chimu, most likely)

4 Likes
5

Apart from the Vlachs, the game does not need any new Slavic civs like Croatians and Serbians and we have already too many of them in the game, like the Bohemians and Poles… They South slavs are well covered with the Bulgarians until now. The reasons for this are well known, they are very small and other parts of the world with more famous and also bigger civs, should now come into the game.

You dream a lot… Most of your suggestions will never came it into the game. The devs work and act according to their own principles like their economic earnings and act accordingly. Unfortunately that is the truth, I would like to give you an other answer…

You can conserve yourself such a work. But if you enjoy just to writing, then keep posting.

1 Like
6

Yeah, I wasn’t sure who to keep out of Zimbabweans and Kanembu so I thought I’d keep them both!

7

Apart from the Vlachs, the game does not need any new South slavic civs like Croatians and Serbians and we have already too many of them in the game, like the Bohemians and Poles… They South slavs are well covered with the Bulgarians until now. The reasons for this are well known, they are very small and other parts of the world with their civs, should now come into the game.

Saying that adding Serbians/Croatians is pointless as we already have the Bulgarians is like saying they shouldn’t have added the Italians as we already have the Spanisn and Byzantines. Serbia and Croatia are two countries with a proud rich history, unique from the Bulgarians who are largely also based on the steppe Bulgars. While I agree that the game is now oversaturated with European history and they should focus on other parts of the world, if there were just two more European civs I’d like to see added, it would be these two.

Plus if we’re wanting to change the Slavs to a “Russian” sounding named civ, Serbs and Croats are pretty much the only people left who the current Slavs still represent. So by doing all the above we will have fully split the Slavs, as people have been wanting to happen for years.

2 Likes
8

The difference is there to your just mentioned civs, that they were historically more involved in history than Croats and Serbs, during the Ancient times and the Middle ages. Therefore adding such tiny civs to the game is more foolish than anything else, that can be added.

1 Like
10

The Somali Mahfuz was insignificant compared to Ahmad Gragn. I’d rather suggest him. From America, the most significant kingdoms left are Chimus and Tarascans. I don’t understand the high priority of Tagalogs here because there are many more significant powers in Southeast Asia such as Chams and Javanese. I also don’t understand the hype over Croatians: It was a hugely insignificant kingdom, mostly under Hungary. Livonia wasn’t even a civilization, it was a crusader state. Other than that it is a great list, but I suggest:

Another African DLC. The region is severaly underrepresented. Kongolese, Swahili, Nubians, Songhai and Benin would be cool.
For America: Tarascans, Chimus and Waris. Andean region of South America was more developed than Mesoamerica. Tarascan Empire was the greatest Aztec rival
For Asia I suggest: Gokturks, Khitans, Nanzhao, Chazars, Kannadigas, Oriyas, Sinhalese, Javanese, Chams etc. Asia was the biggest continent with the most big cultures in the Middle Ages.

I disagree. The devs wasted many slots already, so we deserve more than 50.

8 Likes
12

The only ones I want from here are the African, the American (with a new arch set) and the two Asian ones (Mandate of Heaven and the Pacific one) with the Caucasian one only under the condition it comes with a new set.

Stopping at 50 civs when we’ve barely scratched Africa, America and Asia and wasting those on even more European ones would be ridiculous and honestly offensive. Imagine Europe being in the same state than Africa is right now and telling me that we’re going to get just 3 more. @Juggernaut8704 's Dharma mod convinced me we could get easily more unique Indian civs with their own unique architecture set.

I’m sorry but I’m not interested in more minor European kingdoms/principalities/duchies as long as we don’t get the big players from Africa and America we’re still missing.

9 Likes
13

Are you playing a different game then me? RoR is the worse DLC by far and not worth buying at all for me.

7 Likes
14

I rarely agree with you but this time I definitely do. Skipped this DLC which bloated the Mediterranean set with another Italian subciv which is also anachronistic.

3 Likes
15

I would add the the Tarascan (Purépecha), second largest empire in Mesoamerican (third in the Americas).
And I would not give the Mississipians the Mesoamerican architect set nor cavalry. However I think it is good that can research Redemption so they can convert stables and have their own unique Xolotl Warrior.

Beside that I would agree with your suggestions in broad strokes.

2 Likes
16

Yes, this is a real pitty. There are a lot of civs I’ve never had added. But the damage is already done.
That 50 total civs cap I’m bringing up is based on gameplay aspects.

2 Likes
17

If it was up to me I would stop at 45 and let the modders do the last 3 civis.

1 Like
18

maybe a free DLC that fixes all the bugs

2 Likes
19

A name apt for every historical game set after the arrival of the Slavs in Europe

The thing wih this campaign is that some people want it focused in many characters and some people want it focused in only one. Maybe we can compromise and get three campaigns, one for each character.

Note: that was a joke

20

The only ones I want from here are the African, the American (with a new arch set) and the two Asian ones (Mandate of Heaven and the Pacific one) with the Caucasian one only under the condition it comes with a new set.

Stopping at 50 civs when we’ve barely scratched Africa, America and Asia and wasting those on even more European ones would be ridiculous and honestly offensive. Imagine Europe being in the same state than Africa is right now and telling me that we’re going to get just 3 more. @Juggernaut8704 's Dharma mod convinced me we could get easily more unique Indian civs with their own unique architecture set.

I’m sorry but I’m not interested in more minor European kingdoms/principalities/duchies as long as we don’t get the big players from Africa and America we’re still missing.

I will admit that I am not as knowledgable about African/American civilisations of the period compared to European/Asian ones so perhaps that particular bias is coming through. However, this topic is simply an idea and I am very much open to others’ input. How would you go about an African/American DLC, or more than one?

I would disagree that Asia has merely been “barely scratched” in the game. Saracens, Turks, Persians, Mongols, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Hindustanis, Vietnamese, Malay, Khmer, Burmese, Tatars, Dravidians, Gurjaras and Bengals. I’d say Asia has been represented pretty well and pretty much most of the big name empires are included, plus some lesser known civs too. And if you’re talking about my ideas specifically, there’s Tibetans, Jurchens, Armenians, Georgians, Siamese, Tagalog, Afghans and Tanguts too.

2 Likes
21

If the devs actually allowed modders to add to the number of civs, maybe.

22

The difference is there to your just mentioned civs, that they were historically more involved in history than Croats and Serbs, during the Ancient times and the Middle ages. Therefore adding such tiny civs to the game is more foolish than anything else, that can be added.

Serbs and Croats were arguably more involved in history than the likes of the Bohemians, Burgundians and Sicilians.

But like I said, it’s either a choice of keeping the Slavs as they are, which a lot of people don’t seem to want, or splitting them into the last few civs that they still currently represent and renaming them to something that makes it clear they are the “Russian” civ.

1 Like
23

Well that you have confirmed this itself. The game does not need all of these mentioned tiny European civs, since they are unimportant in history. Thank you for the own goal, which you have now scored yourself and have destroyed your own argument. :smiley: