Grand Poll: How many civilizations should AOE2DE have?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
61

I would be ok with a Saracen split as long as:

  1. it was done only after we got more civs from underrepresented regions (Central, South, East, and West Africa, American Woodlands, Aridoamerica & Oasisamerica, more South America)
  2. it was done along ethnic lines or umbrellas thereof, not states or dynasties (so yes to Egyptians, Moors, or Arabs, no to Fatimids, Umayyads, or Rashiduns)
  3. if Kurds are added, they get a campaign better representing Kurdish history, Saladin was a Kurd but his campaign should stay with whichever civ represents the Levant, none of his scenarios are about Kurds or Kurdistan
1 Like
62

More civs are only a MP problem.

I can see the MP problem, but we can add them to chronicles and that sounds strictly better than not adding any new civs for whatever reason

2 Likes
63
  1. There are definitely a lot of Civs in the game, but I don’t see that as detrimental. Take the worst case scenario: 100 Civs that play basically the same, the only thing that changes is the name and the looks. That’s not realistic but you would still get something. Given the symmetry of Civ design, having lots of them isn’t that much of an issue, they can be easily interpreted with adequate game experience.
  2. The 3K Civs, for sure. Kick them out and place them somewhere else, at least get them out of ranked and quick play, like for Chronicles Civs. Romans? I defend them, they’re in the context of Huns and Goths. Remove them quick play and ranked, if needed, that’s acceptable.
  3. Oh yes, there’s still plenty of interesting Civs that may be added, highly requested too. We get the Civs, Devs get to create and work, MS gets the money. Everybody’s happy!! But no crazy shenanigans just for the sake of differentiating. I poll I made a while ago showed that players don’t mind having repeated bonuses, rather than crazy gimmicky features.
  4. The only reworking I feel needed, and that I already advocated for, is splitting umbrella Civs, replicating the success of the Indian split. Celts, Italians, Saracens and Slavs come to mind, others are more debatable, like Aztecs, Teutons, Vikings.
  5. Eventually, yes. We must admit there will be a point where new additions would be just obscure and uninfluential polities. We already have the case of 3 Civs that only lasted a few decades in the context of a power struggle.
  6. This can only be estimated. My optimistic guess is up to 75 but that’s absolutely no cap.
1 Like
64

They dont regional units makes them different now best example is incas loosing the eagle and getting champi.

1 Like
65

Yes, I thought that after releasing Chronicles in 2023, they were going to stop releasing DLCs for the base game (or at least that there would be DLCs like VaV, officially making custom campaign packs)…

66

Bumping for more votes.

67

No more civs.

You do not need to represent everyone or add new civs just for the sake of adding new civs. Civ bonuses overlapping too much is a clear sign that the game cannot handle more civs without sacrificing quality or disrespecting other civs’ bonuses anymore.

Every good thing must come to an end.

1 Like
68

As per the poll thts not how majority people feel.

1 Like