Future DLCs and the argument for/against NEW Civs

Greetings fellow Empire-builders.

The recent installment of the Lords of the West, introducing 2 new civs and 3 new campaigns have certainly heightened debate and apprehension among many AoE2 gamers on the future of this beloved game that we all love.

Discussion ranges from “It is good to add new civs?” to “No more civs!” to “We need new content! It keeps the game going!”…you get the idea.

This Post will be outlining my idea on how Age of Empires 2: DE should proceed in my humble opinion. I encourage all to add your thoughts and comments below (please be civil about it!) as, as always, I am curious to know what my fellow gamers think.

The Question of New Civs

Looking back at the 22 years of AoE2 history, it is quite extraordinary to notice how much this game has grown in number of civs: originally 13 civs were in the game…now there are 37. The excitement for new civs have certainly have encouraged many players to scream and beg the AoE2 developers to bring more into the game…


…this game may sooner or later reach it’s saturation point.

In other words, it gets so big, that it gets over-ly complicated, with too much content for players to memorize, too many bugs/glitches springing up, overburdening the devs and annoying the gamers, and constant frustrating in all the balancing required in managing all the civs. Do not get me wrong: I for one enjoy the new DLC Lords of the West and the two new civs, Burgundians and Sicilians albeit more tweaking and balancing needs to be administered. But my fear is that new civs will just keep coming and coming…leading to the issues that I have outlined above.

Of course, many players who advocate for the inclusion of more civs into AoE2 claim that there are other civilizations that are not represented, and ought to be added into AoE2.
I am a historian, and am very passionate about history. In fact, Age of Empires partly led me into loving history and making me desire to pursue it as a hobby and as a career. (I never heard about Joan of Arc or Saladin before playing AoE2)
The historian in me feels curious to see what new civs can be added into AoE2. But the gamer in me is worried about new civs detracting rather than adding, to the gaming experience of AoE2.

If new civs are to be added into AoE2, I strongly believe that certain requirements must be met:

  1. The Civ needs to fit well into the medieval-theme that AoE2 permeates. You cannot throw in a Ancient civilization into AoE2 much like how you cannot throw in a Medieval civ into AoE1. That is why AoE1 covers ancient history, AoE2 covers medieval history (and some elements of early Imperial history, going into the Early Modern Era), and AoE3 covers Early Modern Era.

  2. The Civ needs to have an adequate and historically real architecture style that can include big structures such as Castle, Market, Town Center, and Wonder. Example: peoples that have remained in hunter-gatherer societies and have lacked any significant building construction in their time will not work.

  3. The Civ must have a reasonably balanced tech tree and military unit composition that makes historical sense. (The Civ must have enough historical evidence to grant them a proper Navy tech tree. A hunter-gatherer peoples who did nothing more than build fishing boats will not cut it)

  4. The Civ must be unique enough from all the other civs linguistically to warrent their own civ creation Example: while Mongols as a civ technically represents the Tartars…adding a Tartars as their own civ in the Khans’ Expansion was totally fine, because the Tartars were more Turkic than Mongolic in blood and in speech.

  5. The Civ must have an “empire-like” history period (This point is debatable…and I personally think that fulfilling the requirements of the 4 points are enough qualification for a “new civ”. However, it is argued by some AoE2 gamers, that civs need to have been in a position in history to have been an “empire” in some form or another. So I thought to put this point down to mention that)

Civs that could work:

  • The Mississippian peoples of North America (Illinois basin located in modern day U.S.A.) This civilization can work, as I have seen from a few other AoE2 gamers who have posted some sketches of Mississippian earth mound “buildings” that can work in creating a Norther American native “Castle”, “Market”, “Town Center” and “Wonder”. Plus, I for one can easily see a Mississippian civ being like the Meso-American civs, in having Eagle Warriors and also including the Iroquois Warrior as a trainable unit (either from the Barracks or the Castle)

  • Sudanese of East Africa These peoples were in contact with the medieval Arabs (Saracens) and the Ethiopians (1 of 3 African civs already in AoE2), and there is evidence that they did have building construction of their own. They can certainly be added as a new civ bec

  • Mughals (or “Moguls”) of India This civ, while yes being related to the Turkic-Mongol peoples of Afghanistan (Turks and Mongols already are included in AoE2), there might be some merit to add them into the game. They were a significant civilization of northern India, with a ruling class that originated from foreign lands outside of India. While the argument could be made that the Indians civ already represents the Mughals, the Mughals could certainly be added as the 2nd ever civ that shares the South Asian (Indian) architecture style, thereby not having Indians be the only civ with that particular architectural style. Also: adding the Mughals can give the devs the excuse for another elephant unit.

Civs that cannot work:

  • Scots, Irish, and Welsh (as separate civs). The Celts already adequately represents the Scots and Irish and Welsh nicely. And the “Britons” also represents the medieval Welsh somewhat (though that is very debatable. Some Welshmen might take offense at being associated with the English. :laughing: )

  • Poles (or the Polish The Poles are already represented by the Slavs civ. Plus, the “cousins” of the Poles, the Lithuanians, are in the game as their own civ. It would also be hard to justify adding another Paladin civ in the game, as we just got the Burgundians, and there are a LOT of Paladin civs that are already good. (not including Paladin in the roster of a Polish tech tree would be an insult to the Polish national identity of their having powerful heavy cavalry)

  • Finns (or Finnish) Despite being Finnish myself…the Finns were not very “civilized” during the medieval age, largely remaining a small, isolated communities until coming into contact with the Slavs in the south and east (Russian principalities) and the Swedish to the west. Technically, the Finns are already “represented” by the Vikings civ, as they were in close proximity with their Scandinavian neighbors, the Slavs civ (an even closer neighbor) and the Magyars civ (the Hungarian and the Finnish peoples share a similar Uralic language group).

  • Flemish/Frisian/Medieval Dutch I did advocate for the inclusion of a Flemish civ to represent the medieval Dutch…but the Burgundians civ now represents them via their Flemish Pikeman unit.

  • Many other South American, North American peoples, other African peoples, the Australian/Polynesian peoples and the Siberian peoples Many peoples of North/South America, many African peoples (with a few exceptions) and the Siberian peoples (except those who were part of the Mongol Empire) were largely simple hunter-gather societies. And why you could argue the case for the Pueblo, Anasazi peoples of Southwest America (in North America) that they did build castle-like structures (I know because I have see the structures with my own eyes during a vacation), it would be difficult to create a civ for themselves, as we really do not know much about those civilizations other than they were simple craftsmen, farmers, and herders that lived in small, tight-knit communities.
    The Australian peoples and Polynesians peoples also were underdeveloped civilizations, living in simple communities. Though the Polynesians were impressive ship and boat builders, their ships were largely for travel of people, goods, and domesticated animals, and paled in comparison in size to the Galleons of the Europeans and Asian peoples.

Future DLCs?

The debate of new civs aside, I am in favor of the devs adding new DLCs in the future, even if they are only just new campaigns instead of adding new campaigns AND new civs. One of the things I think this videogame should never tire over is adding new campaigns representing real historical events, because it helps inspire gamers who know nothing–or little–of history to feel more interested in learning history themselves, and that is why this game is so cool and amazing: you learn about history that you may have never heard of before, and you can also reenact the history for yourself!

The only thing that I would ask the AoE2 devs is to keep DLCs reasonably affordable for the value that each DLC has in its package contents. As much as I love this game, I would hate to see it devolve into a pay-to-win horror fest. I have played other videogames that have been ruined by the developers’ greed for more and more money, so I am acutely aware of the dangers.
With that said, I understand the need for more funds for a game that continues to grow and develop and fine-tune itself (bug fixes and balance changes will always be an ongoing affair).


Except that Indians in game already represent the Mughals (with gunpowder focus), Mughals were mostly from the Early Modern times up to the 18th century, and you can see them very well represented in aoe3.
In aoe2 I think you can left the Indian civ with their name, but now with LOTW I see Chola and Bengali civs reality (with BEs)


Those would have to be way cheaper than the one we’re getting right now.

Pretty much agree with your other points though. I personally could see the Kongolese too but the reasonings you give are all good IMO.

Polynesians are a hot topic in regards to being worthy of inclusion considering that there was an empire within the time frame there but I could also understand why we wouldn’t get it.

Please no Savoyards or Bavarians. I’d rather not see new civs than those which would feel weird and unfitting.

1 Like

I want a civ with a corpse trebuchet or catapult. Many civs used that warfare tactic. Long range, huge area of damage, very low damage but ignores armor.

Poles I think they were relevant and they should be represented.

And more elephants. Yes. Because… Elephants.


As much as I think it could be possible, how they can be different and fill an unused niche that their neighbours don’t?

1 Like

No idea. Maybe big focus in monks. Big, big focus.

I think we have gone through this discussion many times but one more point I like to add for selecting a civi is they should have interact with two or more ingame civis and not be some isolated civilization.

On a side note most of your points are not represented in all the civi choices so far.Huns being the best example not a medieval civi no actual architecture not sure what language they spoke.

If huns are there finns should also be included :grinning:

Don’t the Burgundians now cover the Flemish/Dutch?

Anyhow, six civs that satisfy imho all the criteria you place are:

  • Tibetan Empire - infantry+priest+siege
  • Pala Empire - elephants+infantry
  • Chola Empire - navy+infantry
  • Kanem Empire - camel + archer civ
  • Ghorid Empire - steppe lancer + cav archer
  • Jurchen Empire - gunpowder + heavy cavarly

All of them were major empires.

That would bring the total to 43 civs.

From then on, with a limit of 50 civs I would add the following
Wends (Bohemians+Poles)
Georgians (+Armenians)
Iroquois or any other American civ
Serbs or Aragonese → this is a tough choice as Serbs had a small empire and the Aragonese a very important kingdom larger than the Serbian empire which ruled over southern Italy too.


They do, probably because the devs wanted to just get it done with, and give the Low Countries a civ, while still keeping it Medieval.

Vlad Tepes is already the Slavs campaign.

Too wide a net, it would be like Western Europeans, or Eastern Asians as a single civ.

Magyar Huzsar were already Serbs conscripted by Martinus Corvinus, and Aragon is already covered by Spanish.
There would be no difference between the Spanish military composition, and the Aragonese, for the period. They were exactly the same.
As an Iberian, we also do not need more Iberians, unless it is in AoE1, with a Heavy/Elite Slinger.

1 Like

Pretty much how I see it too.

Yes, much like the Burgundians who eventually got a civ.

Perhaps the Kingdom of Congo which had contact with the Portuguese and warred with them and which the original AOE2 devs planned to add or the Swahili.

We all thought that the Sicilians were covered by the Italians, the Burgundians by the Franks, the Bulgarians by the Slavs etc.

My thought was that a Serbian UU would be the Gussar that could have a toggleable ranged and melee attack.

Would a Heavy/Elite Slinger be an appropriate unit for the Aragonese?

1 Like

No, it is completely different, since the Burgundians never had one of their characters being the campaign for another civ.
The Slav campaign is already the Romanian campaign, like the Saracen campaign is already the Kurd campaign.

Romanians and Kurds would make no sense in AoE2 at this point.

No, I always said this games needed Normans, one of the most Medieval of peoples, and one that basically shaped the Middle Ages globally.

We already have a Hussar UU. That is the issue with moreEast Europe civs, no one can make them original, and everyone wants their own brand of special Hussars added in.

OP and without counter. a unit that can switch between Ranged and Melee, would have no counters in AoE2.

No, it would only fit in AoE1, where Balearic Slingers were considered better than any Archers around the world. We do not want any more Iberian civs.

1 Like

I disagree. The point about campaigns is largely irrelevant. The devs add civs based on whether they can make them unique enough, whether they are relevant for the period and whether they are marketable. So imagine a civ like the Romanians being based on the stories of Vlad the Impaler. Very marketable.

If I remember correctly, the civ description for the Italians included references for the entire peninsula but anyhow. The other two civs I mentioned were covered under umbrella civs.

I already said how they would be unique and your comment was:

It depends on the balance of course. The Byzantine Cataphract negates all bonus damage against it from all usual cavalry counters. Does that mean that it is unbalanced? No. Why? It has a comparatively low base attack, low pierce armor and a high upgrade cost. A similar approach can be taken for a potential UU with melee and ranged attack.

I see, thanks.

1 Like

Reading this instantly made be think of LOTR. :laughing:

Exactly. While I myself would love to see a proper Polish civ added, at the same time, the “Slavs civ” already represents the Medieval Poles. And the Lithuanians, though they are linguistically and ethnically somewhat distinct from the Poles, were married politically (and literally) together in the 1400s with the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the Kingdom of Poland, and thus one can make the argument that the Poles are represented enough.

The Lithuanians relic bonus for me at any rate, feels like it is more of a “Polish” bonus than a “Lithuanian” bonus, because the former were Catholic (and quite pious about it) long before the latter converted.

Correct. The Burgundians were a Germanic tribe that moved into lands that today lies across the territory of southeastern France, and Switzerland (the ancient Germanic Burgundians may have been cousins to the Frankish Germans that moved into Roman Gaul). Later the Burgundians were nominally merged into the Kingdom of France, but with clever diplomatic marriages, the Dukes of Burgundy inherited the County of Flanders by the 15th century, and thus were the rulers of the medieval Dutch people. Hence why they can train Flemish Pikemen in AoE2.

I forgot the Georgians! They can very well be their own civ in AoE2. Though…the “Byzantines civ” technically represent not only the medieval Greeks, but the medieval Armenians too since several Byzantine Emperors were Armenian by birth. The Georgians were somewhat related to the Byzantines at least politically (the Byzantines forced Georgia to be a vassal state a few times) so it might be somewhat difficult to justify their own civ, as Byzantines might be considered to cover Georgia in representation.

Honestly…a lot of civs already overlap each other. Even in Age of Kings original 13 civs:

–Britons and Celts overlap in representing the Welsh.

–Franks and Teutons represent the medieval Swiss and the medieval Dutch (Burgundians, recently added now more directly represents the Swiss and the Dutch)

–Teutons and Goths are both representing Germans.

–Mongols and Turks represent many of the Turkic Central Asian tribes and peoples.

So yeah…lots of overlapping between many civs. Would not be surprised that both the Italians and the Sicilians both doubly represent at least Southern Italy.

The Huns were much more prominent in history (at least for late Ancient era–early Medieval era history) than the Finns were. The Finns were largely unknown for much of the Medieval Ages: they were simple farmers, herders, and fishermen living in the swamps and forests of northeastern Europe until they were contacted by the Rus operating out of Novgorod (as traders) and by the Swedish Vikings (as traders and as invaders). The Swedes in particular, helped encourage the Finns to catch up in culture and in society with the rest of the developments of the medieval world…and long into the Early Modern Era, the Finnish people remained Swedish subjects, until the Russians under Czar Peter I forced the Swedes to hand over Finland to him, and even then…the Finns would not emerge as an their own independent nation until the early 20th century. I am of Finnish blood, so I know.

The Finns just simply do not have enough “historical activity during the medieval age” to justify them having their own civ. If AoE2 was a game centered around the Second World War? Then of course! Finns should added.

As for Huns, they are an odd-duck of a civ to be included in a medieval game, but they nonetheless have enough historical justification to be added. If Goths were added, then why not Huns?

1 Like

Because Goths actually existed during most of the Middle Ages, while Huns did not, and in fact disappeared before the period even actually started.

It was the Goths that fell Rome and started the Middle Ages, and set up 3 giant kingdoms in the Medieval world (Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals). Goths even existed until after the period, in Crimea.

Huns disappeared with Atilla. They literally vanished in successive waves of infighting for scraps of land they had already burned to the point it could not ven feed their numbers, and went extinct.


The Georgians had a major kingdom that fought the Byzantines and the Turks. Eventually they went through their own Reconquista establishing the Georgian Golden Age of the 11-13th centuries. Since the Burgundians include a reference to the Flemish/Dutch (UT - Flemish Revolution), I thought that they could include something similar for the Armenians too. The historic grounds for this is that the Armenians largely welcomed the Georgians are liberators from their Muslims conquerors and Armenian generals and troops participated in the Georgian campaigns. Anyhow, this is just an idea.

I do not know whether people would like Armenians as a separate civ. I wouldn’t mind it. I suggested such a civ in the past. I just lumped them with the Georgians in a hypothetical limit to 50 civs.



You are correct, that the Goths did exist throughout much of the medieval ages (500 AD–1500 AD) via the Crimean Goths, who remarkably kept their own kingdom for many centuries intact, before becoming overwhelmed by the giant Ottoman Empire and the rising Russian Empire.

But…there is ongoing debate whether or not the Huns did indeed exist in some form, throughout the medieval era…

One such argument is that Avars, who came into the Carpathian Basin, and may have obsorbed whatever Hunnic communities still lingered their. In turn, the Avars themselves were too conquered by the invading Magyars (some speculate that is why the descendants of the Magyars, the Hungarians, have “Hun” in their name).

While the historical record does go mute after the death of Atilla, besides some scribbles about how his sons fought over the remains of Atilla’s empire…that does not necessarily prove that the Huns “disappeared”. The best record keepers at the time were the Romans themselves, and after Atilla’s death, they were busy being distracted by other problems, such as the mighty Gothic, Vandal, and Frankish invasions, as well as that of the Sassanid Persians. Why would any Roman be bothered to keep track of a disintegrating Hunnic Empire, when there were other active barbarians offering serious threat to the Roman Empire?

It could very well be that the Huns simply “went under the radar”.

Scots/Welsh/Irish, I wouldnt say they were covered already, since “Celts” represent a pre Medieval culture, where 1 unique unit is way too wide for 3 possibles civs with one each. That said I dont think they will expand on that, would like to see it but I dont think they will.

Also have to comment that with such new civs they could expand on existing buildings sets, in this case the british Isles sets.

I would like to see more Northern European cultures/campaigns, like Norway/Sweeden/Finish/Danelaw, etc. Although as with celts is “compiled” within a single civ, but in this way it could have its own Building set.

Would also like to see more japanese pre “bushido” samurai, more like heian- pre sengoku, could be clan-like, like some with gunpowders, warrior monks, etc.

I’d love to see the DLC sales numbers a few months from now, after the Summer Steam sale. That’ll probably be the best indication as to how much more support the game will get in the short run, in terms of additional content; in the long run, it’ll probably heavily depend what percent of the player base will migrate to AoE4.

I do think the game can use additional content, and there are multiple civs in Africa and Asia and that played an important role in the Middle Ages and interacted with many more civs than regional European powers;

That being said, I do think that the devs need to iron out the bugs and get a better grip on the game’s ancient code base before introducing additional civs- especially if they’re going to be using new mechanics.

The game should have more content, but not any time soon, imho. Ideally next time we get an expansion it’ll be more in-line with HD expansions, not a “bite-sized” one we got this time.

1 Like

dident the king of norway try to conquer england with poland ?

i think gnut the great