How long should we wait until we get the next DLC?

Because it is a period that touches AoE 3 at the end with the imperial age, also the weapons would be different… in the imperial age of AoE 3 the machine guns would just appear, while in AoE 5 it would already be more standardized… I say that anything post 1870 go for AoE 5…Spanish-American War and Balkan War included…

Starting in 1914 skips a lot of very pivotal history and has the issue of how to contend with all the empires that existed in 1914 but we’re dissolved by 1918.

If there was going to be a chronological successor to AoE3 it should be ~1820s (after the Napoleonic Wars and Latin American revolutions are wrapped up) to ~1920s (aftermath of WW1 such as Russian Civil War and Greco-Turkish War have concluded). WW2 and the Cold War is on such a larger scale that it doesn’t really fit with WW1.

1 Like

imo early WWII up to like the late 30s might work as a final imperial age. That’s still before rockets and nuclear bombs and transistors and jets and aircraft carriers and main battle tanks. You could have your final super upgrades for your WWI era landship tanks and biplanes without doing full paradigm shifts

I always feel like the imperial age is meant to be like a sort of golden age though for your civilisation, at the height of their power and prosperity, and 30s tech might not feel right for that. The interwar roaring 20s would suit that golden age imperial age vibe though for sure!

a WW1 tank was still vulnerable to small arms fire, and could in say an AOE3 mechanic design just be given like 90% range resist. by WW2 tanks became pretty resistant to infantry, and required special equipment to take on, usually in the form of other tanks or artillery.

also cramming WW2 into a single age is pretty hard, say you design Germany, what tank are they going to have? a tiger, panther or panzer 4? even within infantry weapons there were clear revolutionary development during the war.

what id do would be:

industrial: 1820-1847

national: 1848-1872

Trade: 1872-1900

defence: 1901-1916

offence: 1917-1925ish

the 2 last names are maybe a bit vague but they note the relatively defensive nature of WW1 in the start and the breaking of the stalemate towards the end.

1 Like

These threads can’t escape being sucked into the black hole of “AOE vs history”, can they?

First of all, from the game devs’ perspective, they are making the games to capture the general themes and tropes of the time periods, and avoiding anachronism is never a priority. That’s why instead of ascribing a firm timeline, I like to sort how the games handle their historical materials into tiers of importance.

= Some period materials are primary: the devs consider their representation to be essential selling points, and put in some efforts in approximating them systematically. For AoE3, this primary range pretty much ends at Napoleonic warfare.

= Some are only secondary: the games very heavily pick and choose materials from them, and do not remotely try to replicate them in full.

= And some are tertiary - only namechecked (or visually depicted) for their iconic status, but exist so far outside the primary timeframe that they can’t be mechanically reflected in any way.

The commercial cultivation of cocoa in the region (modern Ghana) begun when a local farmer traveled back home with cocoa seeds in 1876. You can say this one skirts the timeline like Porfiriato.

The Sudanese Dervish is described in his History entry as Mahdist, and depicted with their emblematic patched jibba shirt. There’s no ambiguity here, he’s a soldier of the Mahdist uprising.

The Egypt revolution was also contemporary with the Mahdist War’s beginning.

Weapons and tactics aside, my personal feeling is that if you want a post-1876 endpoint for AoE3 that’s rich in dramatic resonance, the Mahdist War’s culminating 1885 Siege of Khartoum is as good as any. The siege briefly secured the Mahdi State; Mahdi himself died months later; a notable witness of the whole time period, Charles George Gordon, died in the siege as his opponent.

The latter half of the 1880s was when technology thoroughly left AoE3 behind, as the War of Electricity started, and ironclads were replaced by steel hull warships.

Also because “boxer” sounds unique and cool, same reason why BHG picked the names of many Chinese cards, despite their effects being unrelated to history.

On Age placements: Home City cards are always “gameplay first”, and have never respected the timeline since the very beginning. They only show a semblance of a chronological order because they have to adhere to each civ’s history-inspired tech tree.

(My favorite is the Japanese Age 1 card Kwankoba Bazaar, which: a) is useless; b) references Meiji-era Western-style concrete buildings; c) could have been replaced by any reference to Edo-era commerce.)

On Taiping: it’s so massive in scope there’s enough materials for a whole Revolution-style sub-civ. On the other hand, if you look at the Chinese civ, you can see BHG visibly tiptoeing around Taiping. Not focusing on it for inspiration is one thing; what TAD managed was to reference events before and after, without mentioning Taiping once, that has to be deliberate. Perhaps their Microsoft-side geopolitics consultant warned them it was an off-limit subject for some reason.

On renaming “Boxer Rebellion”: there are many ways to fit the TC and militia effect.

  • The Qing militia of Brave Camps and Tuanlian.
  • The specific “militia” armies raised to quell Taiping that led to the coining of the word “warlord” by foreign observers.
  • If sticking closer to the theme, the numerous religious uprisings of early-to-middle Qing, which tended to be swept together under the “White Lotus Sect” label. And so on.

Yes, it could be an AoE 5… or perhaps, just maybe, they could do something “basado” and create an AoE 4ever that serves as a chronological successor to AoE 3 :rofl:. Another possibility could be to explore the idea of making a standalone DLC in AoE 3 that covers a later time period (similar to AoE 2’s Return of Rome but in the future)… well, I’m just exploring ideas :smile:

*Reference image, I usually play the current AoE IV, but every AoE player must acknowledge that it was expected for AoE 4 to at least cover World War I.

All of these are interesting ideas. Personally, I would like to see a chronological successor to AoE 3 that covers the period from the Second Industrial Revolution until at least 1948, which is when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. I understand that it would be complex to encompass such intricate topics (anything related to “worldwide” is always complex), but from my perspective, it would provide a “positive closure” to much of world history. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as the foundation for the current “civilization,” criminalizing racism and eugenics. Personally, I would enjoy a game that explores the Cold War, although I understand there would be significant limitations. It would be interesting to have gameplay similar to Empire Earth, where you can play a complete game in any era (from the earliest to the most advanced) and have the added feature of advancing through the ages within a single game (remember, this is my personal opinion). The distribution of ages could be as follows:

  1. Second Industrial Revolution (1870-1914): This era would address major geopolitical movements in Europe, the partition of Africa, Europe’s “influence” in Asia, and more.
  2. World War I (1914-1929): I know the First World War officially ended in 1918, but it would be interesting to cover a portion of the interwar period, including the Russian Revolution, the rise of totalitarianism, the Great Depression, and more.
  3. World War II (1930-1942): Many consider World War II to be the continuation of the Great War. Significant innovations took place from the 1930s onwards (even one of Italy’s biggest mistakes was “modernizing too early,” as their weaponry became obsolete for much of the conflict). This period could cover topics such as the Spanish Civil War and the Axis powers’ advances worldwide (the Second Sino-Japanese War, Operation Barbarossa, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Greek Campaign, etc.).
  4. Cold War (1943-1961?): While World War II officially ended in 1945, there were significant technological advancements during this period, warranting a division into two ages. This period would encompass the Allied counteroffensive (Battle of Stalingrad, U.S. entry into the war, the Chinese counteroffensive, etc.). Diplomatic tensions among the Allied powers existed even before the end of World War II. Winston Churchill, for political reasons, intervened to delay direct U.S. involvement in the war for several years. Additionally, plans for a massive assault against the USSR were prepared for July 1, 1945 (although it was not executed). This period would lay the foundations for the “current Western society” with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, marking the beginning of conflicts worldwide due to the Cold War and the decolonization of Africa (which would compensate for the earlier partition of Africa). I suggest ending this period in 1961, the year the Berlin Wall was constructed. It was also during this period that the first assault rifles such as the StG 44, AK-47, and M14 emerged. I also considered 1969 as a possible end year, as it marks the establishment of the first computer connection (the internet).

First of all, thank you for your message. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it :smile:

I agree with this nomenclature of historical elements in AoE 3, as I said before, the initial concept of AoE 3 was the wars that used the musket as the main weapon, its greatest exponent being the Napoleonic wars (like the Risk board game), but, in my opinion it was a mistake to try to force the inclusion of USA history in AoE 3 being added “wild west history” having outlaws like “renegades” that bear no relation to the Napoleonic type lore where AoE tried to build 3.

It is understandable, although although cocoa takes between 5 to 6 years to mature, it must be recognized that they were not “cocoa export power” until a few decades later, but hey, my point was that it could be controversial to take an episode of slavery in africa.

I didn’t know about the patched, I admit I’m not an expert on the subject of African colonization and initially I thought the Dervish were being referenced more for their spiritual role than their military role (like the Rattan Shield). But hey, from this perspective then it is understandable that the less Sudanese civilization is focused from the British vision on the Nile Expedition.

I don’t want to be controversial, but as the story goes the term “dervishes” is often used in a pejorative way by Europeans, even Muḥammad Aḥmad al-Mahdī forbade the use of the term “dervishes” to describe his followers, so it could be said that this unit is a negative stereotype…

Various western historical writers have sometimes used the term dervish rather loosely, linking it to, among other things, the Mahdist War in Sudan and other conflicts by Islamic military leaders. In such cases, the term “dervishes” may have been used as a generic (and often pejorative) term for the opposing Islamic entity and all members of its military, political and religious institutions, including persons who would not be considered “dervishes” in the strict sense.

During the Mahdist War, Muḥammad Aḥmad al-Mahdī decreed that all those who came to join him should be called anṣār, after the Prophet’s earliest followers. He forbade the use of the term ‘dervish’ to describe his followers. Despite this, British soldiers and colonial officials continued to use the term in relation to the anṣār. While some Britons used the term to denigrate the followers of the Mahdī, it was also used with a sense of admiration in accounts by British soldiers which describe the fearlessness and bravery of the lightly armed ‘dervishes’. Thus, the word has become closely associated with the anṣār and is often used inaccurately in relation to the Mahdi’s followers, even today.

For example, a contemporary British drawing of the fighting in Sudan was entitled “The defeat of the dervishes at Toski”

I agree, it could even be said that AoE 3 has some elements that could be considered anachronistic but that could easily be corrected with the change of some name and even the modification of some skin because it does not alter the gameplay or the lore of AoE 3 :smile:

Hey Devs!

See what’s happening here? Give us a little tease of DLC before the topic turns entirely to AoE5 and how it will be WWI!


haha, yeah sorry.

WW1 AOE has to go into offtopic now :slight_smile:


Hehe, duly noted :laughing:

I will never recognize the AOE4 we have right now as the 4th game. It will always be AOE 2.5 in my eyes. KEKs


I made a thread in the off topics forum here with an outline I came up with for a chronological sequel to AoE3 →


Hello everyone, I hope I don’t break any regulations in this post but I feel the need to make this survey related to a possible DLC of AoE 3 DE.

Based on the AoE 2 DE “Return of Rome” DLC, will it be possible to make an AoE 3 DE DLC in a future timeframe of the current game?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Maybe

0 voters

For my part I think it would be difficult to insert dogfights, so I don’t consider it prudent… but the concept intrigues me.

You can always play Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator or Il-2 1946. I’ll recommend the later for the ridiculous amount of mods.

1 Like

Balancince wise… probably yeah.
Being able to do it ? Farley easy

You could just base the fighters out of an airbase and just have them run limited sorties and patrol missions from there. That way you wouldn’t have to deal with trying to zoom out and select loitering aircraft. The only issue is how to deal with aircraft that are on a mission while their airbase is destroyed.

Why does everyone want to shoehorn 20th warfare into the age of empires gameplay style? There’s plenty of rts games that cover that sector well.

Compared to previous AoE games, AOE3 is a lot closer to modernity and because of that and how we have more accurate historical records on tactics, clothing, weapons, etc it’s already very hard to please everyone with historically accuracy at moment - especially with the whole trademark aging up to new eras mechanic.

Imagine a 20th+ game where we are closer and have lots of reference. People will be a million times more eagle eyed on correct uniform for the Ages, the weaponry used, etc.


The natural evolution of the franchise was always intended to go forwards. People want what was promised.

1 Like

It was never promised. Also AoE4 is not going forwards in time.

The loosest, most tenous link was this image:

Before the the current devs, Ensemble Studios employee Sandy Petersen commented on the subject a long time ago.

Q: “the collectors edition on the #### #### of the Art Work book there was a picture of a World War I or II solider (actualy looks like a later one a M16 is in his hands) for AOE IV how will that work”

A: “it was total speculation on our part.


I’m not a fan of this idea. The core gameplay couldn’t be reproduced in a contemporary or futuristic setting. This would result in a “AOE-in-name-only” game. Aoe4 is a good example, even though it is set in medieval times.


You mean “aging up”? I have mixed feelings about this, on the one hand it’s true but on the other - I’d really wish to explore the 19th and 20th century in an age game, and those are prime candidates for “empires”.

The german empire.
The british empire.
The french empire.
The russian empire.
The austrian empire.
The ottoman empire.

What other time in history is marked with so many empires? Now the question should be - how aging up should work for the modern age?