How many civs total and which? 😱

Assuming the hard-cap for civs was at 48 or the point at which the devs decide an over-saturation of civs is reached was 50 -
with Africa in the lead, followed by Asia, the Caucasus, Europe and South America.
[Poll] Post-Porto Civ DLC by Region - Age of Empires II: DE / II - Discussion - Age of Empires Forum

How many civs should each region get? We are now at 42, meaning if they went with DLCs of 2 civs again there would be space for 4 expansions to reach a total of 50.

Would Central or South Africa or both be getting civs? Which would make the most sense?

I assume for East Asia we’d get Tibetans and Jurchens with a rework of the Chinese umbrella.
Would this be the chance to give East Asian and Steppe civs more fitting architecture sets?

If they managed to combine Georgians and Armenians into one civ - we could get Wallachians & maybe Serbs alongside a Slavs re-work and call it a Europe-Caucasus DLC? (e.g. “Gatekeepers of Europe”)

(This would also free a slot for another North/Central/South African civ)
Would the Vikings and Slavs then receive a wooden architecture set?

What two South American civs should be added, possibly alongside an Andean Architecture set?

Should they not be able or willing to include more than 48 civs - which 2 would not make it?

Should an in-game poll be made to ask every single player with what final number of civs they’d be satisfied?

How many civs? One hundred.

Next two DLC-s should be in Africa and Asia, featuring 3 civs each.

3 Likes

I agree with you here but in my opinion for straightforwardness, uniqueness and balance reasons the amount of civs should have a limit.

1 Like

3 Africa, 3 Asia, 2 North America would be a nice way to close things out at 50. If 48 is the hard cap then maybe 2 Africa, 3 Asia, 1 North America. That would be my preference.

I would honestly say, lets just see how the next DLCs go

11 Likes

3 from Africa next would be nice. I’d like to see some more American civs as well, but I’m open to negotiations.

I’m pretty happy with Asia at the moment. It’s not nearly as fleshed out in detail as Europe, but as long as they can find good civs outside of either of those places I wouldn’t mind not getting more Asian civs, although I certainly wouldn’t be mad if East Asia or the Middle East was revisited for one or more new school civs. I wouldn’t even really mind if say Georgia or another sort-of-euro-civ was included in a Middle East or Asia revisit.

With so little civs slot left we shouldn’t care about representation anymore. Only two civs for subsaharan Africa is too little, yes. The area is indeed underrepresented.
But if 48 or 50 is the final amount of civs (it should be, imo), then we should care to include those civs who really should be in the game, no matter where they’re from.

My list:
If 48:Jurchens, Tanguts/Tibetans, Somalis, Georgians, Thais and Mississipians.

If 50: add Vlachs an either Kanem or some southamerican civ.

Edit: With “should be in the game” I don’t only refer to historical achievments, but player preferences as well.

2 Likes

I agree with everything you wrote except that I’d swap out Mississipians for a Central/South American or African civ.

2 Likes

As a history and geography nerd I am, I’d love to see every cultural group have its representation in the game. But let’s be real, there’s no way to make it past the 50 civs without turning the game into a complet chaos full of alien mechanics and weird civ designs. It wouldn’t be AoE anymore.

3 Likes

Any american civ would work for me.
I actually don’t want any other american civ in the game. But that’s my oppinion, and I know it’s unpopular. People want more America, so I included in the list the one I’ve read being requested the most.

2 Likes

We already have way to many civs. The new civs dont really add much to the game. Almost all new civs from DE have to juse gimmicks to make them somehow unique.

I wish that the devs much more focus on getting rid of all the issues and fixing all the bugs in the game. But in reality they just dont care at all about all the bugs and issue. Only thing they seem to care at is grapping some money using terrible designed civs. That is for me the reason to no buy the DLCs.

If they will focus much more on fixing all the issues and bugs, then i would know they really care about the game and i will happily support them with buying the DLCs. So i will give this as challenge to the devs: Please add more focus on fixing your game. As result i will buy the DLCs. And i am pretty sure there are many more players like me as well.

But currently i would have stopped adding new civs at something like 37? What was the number of civs at the release of DE? I might be off by a few civs.

2 Likes

35 (20 characters…)

I disagree. You could totally add like 60 or even 70 civs

Not that you should, but you can do that and make proper civ designs

personally i’d like african civs next, then split italians and slavs umbrellas in europe, then maybe american civs

in addition, i would love a purely cosmetic DLC with new regional skins for villagers

4 to 6 civs would be a reasonable number of civs for each region (with Europe being the obvious exception of course).

After the Indian DLC I would like to see a diversification of the civs in East and SE Asia, and after that Africa, and then the Americas.

That depends on how tolerant you are with gimmicks and overlapping bonuses. I already feel we’re running into those problems with the amount of civs we have right now. Not after the 50 civs, I mean now with 42. Still the pros of more civs are more than the cons, so I can welcome some more.

2 Likes

No, I mean with minor overlaps and barely any gimmicks (at least nothing bigger than what we have rn in terms of overlaps of bonuses)

I think the claim to fame for AOE2 has always been the absence of gimmicks. But care to explain what “minor overlaps” mean?
Would outright copying of existing, unique mechanics be still considered as “minor”? Not saying this never happened here before but the more of it the worse.

Bonus overlaps.
For me I don’t really know why everyone is against reusing bonuses. If you take one bonus from 4 civs, for one civ, its still a unique civ right?

I’d say it depends. I wouldn’t like it if they started “reusing” bonuses of UUs like Samurai, Obuch or Konnik which in a way define civs. In the case of Leitis, they already did it.

To me it shows they really couldn’t come up with something new or different.