Idea of new civs DLC

Many people expect a new DLC for AoE2:DE to be released this year. I have thought long and hard about which new countries could be added. I had to reject new Amerindian, African or Polynesian civs as they didn’t have the necessary technologies for the game (castles, trebuchets, knights, crossbows, cannons, etc.). In my opinion the following would make the most sense (choosing two out of three of them):

  1. The Swiss (defence and infantry civ)
  • Special units: Landsknechts with halberds and Zweihänder swords.
  • Special buildings: banks to generate gold like for the Dutch in AoE3.
  • Civ bonus 1 : Towers have +2 ranges (better home base protection).
  • Civ bonus 2 : All buildings are 10% stronger.
  • Civ bonus 3 : Free upgrade from spearman to pikeman to halberdier
  • Tech (from Castle Age) : Gold miners work faster.
  • Tech (Imperial Age) : Infantry has improved armour-piercing ability.
  • Team Bonus: Mining camps cost half the price.
  1. The Austrians (siege weapon and defence civ)
  • Special units: Pavisier crossbowmen (although maybe too similar to the Genoan crossbowmen) and Pumhart von Steyr (large-calibre bombard from the early 1400s Austria).
  • Civ bonus 1 : More resistant walls and/or castles (Medieval Austrians had well-fortified cities).
  • Civ bonus 2 : Faster construction rate.
  • Civ bonus 3 : Start with more wood, but no gold.
  • Tech (from Castle Age) : Faster battering rams.
  • Tech (Imperial Age) : Pumhart von Steyr get +1 shooting range and +1 attack.
  • Team Bonus : Archery units have +2 range of sight (not shooting range).
  1. The Papal States (monks and knights civ)
  • Special units: Hospitalier knights (super knight, maybe with healing abilities like monks) and Vicars (super monks that convert faster).
  • Civ bonus 1 : All monk units walk faster.
  • Civ bonus 2 : Knights and monks cost less gold.
  • Civ bonus 3 : No tax on tributes to allies.
  • Tech (from Castle Age) : Each relic captured generates 5 Hospitalier knights.
  • Tech (Imperial Age) : Trading carts move faster.
  • Team Bonus: Relics generate more gold.

There could be new campaigns with the Austrians and Hungarians, as the latter are already in the game, but don’t have campaigns yet.

EDIT: Considering some of the replies below I would like to clarify a few things. I never said that civs from America, Africa or Polynesia shouldn’t be in the game. My point is that all the civs in these continents that are advanced enough and long-lasting enough to be in the game already are in the game. It would be pointless to add tribes of hunter-gatherers or Neolithic farmers from the Amazon or the modern USA and Canada in a game about what is the transition between the Iron Age and the Gunpowder Age.


Is this one unit or 2?

That would be two separate units.

Swiss didn’t field landsknechts. The landsknechts were a a construct inspired by the power of the swiss “gewalthaufen” and often trained by swiss veterans.

Both of these units are German and should not be given to Swiss.Landsknechts were created to counter the swiss pike formations. These units would better fit austria.

These are not unique to papacy Hospitallars were mainly french. If anything Swiss guards would be the UU for them.

You completely forgot the Asian continent which had all of these techs.

Also Im pretty sure most of the stuff you want as bonuses are already taken by other civis.


Neither did Aztecs or Mayans (afaik), and from a cursory Google search apparently the conquistadors only managed to build one Trebuchet that threw the shot upward and came crashing down on itself.

Those techs aren’t necessarily required to have a civ, so new America, African, Polynesian civs etc can still fit into the game while possibly missing those ‘techs’ in history.

You could even get interesting by designing a civ that’s missing those - see Eagle Warriors, Indians!


A lot of African civs would fit into the game just fine since they had pretty much European level tecnology and even those who didnt still fit into this game in which Huns have bonuses for trebuchets and were more or less equal in tech to Mali. Even who I imagine the “least advanced” from your point of view (Bantus) were great metallurgists and masons that managed to thrive in an extremely hostile enviroment.

American civs got added despite theirlack of crossbow, siege engines and iron and they still also were more advanced than Europe in some regards. Theres also civs that had European tdcnology like Tlaxcala and the Mapuche.

Meanwhile you just picked to add more pointless European civs to divide already the most overrepresented continents. The Papal states dobt even fit the game while the Swiss and particularly the Austrians are the Teutons again with both having overlspping bonuses


The Swiss had long pikemen. But it’s fine if the Landsknechts are with Austria. I don’t care either way. Anyway many units can be found in several neighbouring countries, especially within Europe. For example Serjeants are the special units of Sicilian Normans, but could just as well be English. The Byzantines have cataphracts, which were originally Persians or Parthans, and were also found among the Scyhians, Alans and even Mongols and Chinese. The Spanish conquistadors are a type of mounted arquebusiers which was found in most of Europe in the Renaissance. Huskarls are not specific to Goths, but also Norsemen, Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic tribes. Elephant Archers are not unique to India. And so on.

Same reply as above. Units don’t have to be unique to a country to be representative. Crusaders wouldn’t exist without the Papacy. Teutonic knights are already in the game. I hesitated between the Templars and Hospitaliers, but the Templars were especially strong in France, while the Hospitaliers were based in Cyprus, Rhodes and Malta and seem to be more appropriate.

On the contrary, I did not reject them because they are suitable for AoE2 and indeed almost every Asian country is already in the game. They could add the Seljuks, but they are a Turkic tribe and the Turks are already in the game…

So the first one has huge tower rushing implications.
The second one overlaps with byzantins.
The third overlaps with Ethiopians.

This overlaps with Indians.

So basically leitis?


Furthermore this is 3 European civs. Rather be outside Europe.

Could say the same about meso civs but I don’t see you asking for those to be removed.

So you add yet another civ to Italy, and the Swiss, buy you say we can’t add more to Asia because each country is already covered? You’re totally not biased or anything. And even worse almost all your bonuses are stolen from existing civs. You’re not even being original.


Lmao you think almost every Asian country is in the game with 14 civs while Europe should be getting more when they already have19?

Do I need to show you a map to show yiu how silly that is?

You are already dividing Euro civs, how is this any diferent?


I see. So you are the kind of person who likes to criticise but doesn’t propose any alternative?

At this point practically every bonus has already been used by one civ or another. I don’t see the problem with re-using existing bonuses but with new combinations. Why do you care about everything being unique? Ideas and technologies spread quickly between countries. Different cultures share similar traits. The world isn’t made of a patchwork of uniqueness.

Oh my alternatives are already out there. India requires another couple civs, as does Africa, and I wouldn’t mind Georgians or Armenians.

Funny because I see people come up with new stuff all the time.

Because the units are already pretty similar across the board. The only thing making civs different is having different bonuses and techs.


There is a reason for that. Medieval Europe was a patchwork of small countries, while Asia had a lot of big empires like the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the Persians, the Mongols, China, the Khmer… or countries with relatively homogenous ethnicities and culture like Korea, Japan, Thailand, Burma… What other countries would you propose in Asia? I am completely open to new Asian countries, but I don’t see what country isn’t already included, except relatively insignificant ones like the Tibetans (who never left their mountains) or minor ethnic groups in Afghanistan or Central Asia.

China literally had multiple different dynasties and could easily be split.

Georgians, Armenians, a multitude of candidates in India and surrounding area, the Middle East could support a couple more, need I go on?
I mean you’re literally proposing the papal states, Austria and the Swiss but you’re gonna try saying


almost every Asian country is already in the game.

There are loads of Asian empires left to add, for example:

  • Tais
  • Jurchen
  • Khitans
  • TIbetans
  • Tanguts (Western Xia Empire)
  • Bais (Nanzhao/Dali)
  • Chams
  • Javanese
  • Bengalis
  • Tamils
  • Kannads
  • Sinhalese
  • Odias
  • Khazars
  • Georgians
  • Armenians

Maybe if we had all them then you could argue Asia was full, but not until then. At the end of the day, Asia’s culture and history is just waayyyyy more varied than Europe’s, because it’s much older bigger and much, much bigger, and I say that as a European.


You’re literally naming another country that could be added in your answer! Thailand!!!


The problem with adding civs in India is that there is already an all-encompassing civ called ‘Indians’. I agree that they should have divided at least North and South India (for example Delhi Sultanate in the North and Vijayanagara in the South). But unless they rename the current civ it won’t be possible.

Armenia was not independent during the historical period covered by Age of Empire 2. It was under Byzantine, Arabic (654-884), Iranian (919-1062), Seljuk (1064-1194) Ottoman, then Persian (1502–1828) rule.

In contrast the Swiss remained independent from 1291 to 1798 and the Papal States from 756 to 1870. The Papal States were politically the most important state in Europe as the Pope influenced all (Catholic) Christian rulers and was responsible for all the crusades.

The Austrians grew into the largest empire in Europe, taking over most of Central Europe, Germany, parts of northern Italy, the Kingdom of Naples, Spain, Burgundy and the Low Countries. Their maximum expand was under Charles V of Habsburg in the early 1500s, which corresponds to the Imperial Age in AoE2. It’s ironic that they aren’t there yet.

While theres some truth behind this argument in there being massive empires through Asia, its still wrong. Asia still had a variety that dwarfed Europe and you could easily add 20 Asian civs abd still have better options than Europe honestly. Major empires missing are:

  • Tibetans (yes, Tibetans were an important empire)
  • Gokturks
  • Jurchen
  • Javanese
  • Khitan
  • Ghurids
  • Tamils
  • Kannadigas
  • Guptas
  • Khazars
  • Rajputs

And we also have civs with pretty decent kingdoms like:

  • Mon
  • Chams
  • Philippines
  • Thais
  • Tanguts
  • Armenians
  • Himyarites
  • Sogdians
  • Kalinga
  • Assamese

And Tibet was a superpower from the 7th to 9th century.

1 Like

England and Germany had plenty of dynasties too, but you don’t see anybody proposing to have different civs for the Plantagenets, Wessex, Tudors, etc. Dynasties are just ruling families in a same country. It would be ridiculous to have civs called Chinese Song, Chinese Yuan and Chinese Ming in the same game as they are not contemporary with each others. They succeeded each others.

I don’t think that’s what he means. Existing in what is now China were many distinct kingdoms during the Middle Ages. For example, alongside the Song Dynasty existed the Jin (Jurchen) and Western Xia (Tangut) Dynasties, and they warred with each other.

Likewise, the Gokturks, Khitans and Tibetans existed alongside the Tang Dynasty, which was the precurssor to the Song Dynasty. (Both the Tang and the Song are represented by the Chinese civ in-game).

1 Like