If we have only 48 cap for the civs in this game, then these civs are a priority

Hello everyone!

I heared that the game’s engine can handle 48 civs? I am not that sure tho, but if this the case, then this means we have only 6 civs left.

IMO if there will be 2 DLCs each one have 3 then it should be these ones:


Top recommendations imo: (Pick 3 I have 4 suggestions here)

1-Somalians (Adal sultanate).

2-Songhai empire

3-Kingdom of Zimbabwe

4- Kanem–Bornu Empire or known as Kanem Empire


Top recommendations imo (pick 3 I have 6 suggestions):

1-Khazar Khaganate

2-Tibetans Empire


4-Umayyad Empire (they were Saracens tbf but current Saracens in game are Abbasids, Umayyad empire was way bigger and they fought Khazars for years and was the biggest empire at that time, they conquered lands from Spain in the west to China and India in the East, but I don’t know if they can add them)

5-Uighur Empire

6-Ghazanavids or could be Ghurids

If there will be 3 DLCs each one have 2 civs, then additional to the previous two, I suggest:

Iberians expansion

Top recommendations imo:

1-Emirate of Cordoba

2-Kingdom of Leon

Or Caucasus expansion which will include:

1-Khazars. Again they took over that area for a long time and they fought Gergians and Umayyads.

2-Kingdom of Georgia

Some of you may say what about more Mesos/American civs, well they are not priority imo.

My personal opinion is that it should be only 2 DLCs 3 civs each and they should be African and East/Central-Asian.

What about you guys?

Many greetings

1 Like

Surprised you don’t have Armenia. Also wouldn’t include Cordoba or Leon personally, at that point, I probably would prefer more American civs, especially South America, which has at least another few good civs for the game.


The civ limit is probably about as real as Bigfoot.

And yes, let’s not forget those American civs.

Many greetings returned


I mentioned that my personal opinion is only African and East/Central-Asian.

Many greetings

But with this limit, Caucasus, Africans and East/Central-Asian are the priority. The problem with the Americans is that most of them don’t fit aoe2 times or have not that much history or battles or other empires to fight.

Many greetings

That’s a matter of preference, but certainly there are strong cases for civs in all of those regions.

11 have had this discussion plenty of times in other threads, so I’ll sit this one out. We all have our preferences anyway.

Many farewells

1 Like

Highly subjective suggestions. I don’t see any need for an Iberian addition and many proposed civs are already in the game somehow (Ghaznavids, Khazars, Umayyad, …).
On the other hand, East Asia is missing completely with e.g. Jurchens, Chams and in particular Tai / Thai / Siamese. Many African civs are also missing, plus of course the Americas (although I’d say that not many civs from there should be added)


Somalis, Nubians and Kanembu from Africa. Tibetans, Jurchen and Khitans from Asia.


Only tibet is missing from the list.everybody else is already kinda covered.

I know I’m probably a minority, but the Crusades were such a part of medieval history and the Middle East feels somewhat underrepresented to me—I’d like to see that explored. Personally, I’d love to see the Turks divided into Seljuks and Ottomans, the Saracens divided into Fatimids and Abbasids and Arabs, and add the Outremers to represent the Crusader States. I know the Sicilians represent a Crusader civ of sorts, but they had their own kingdom and don’t cover the Kingdom of Jerusalem, County of Edessa, etc.

African civs would be cool. Caucasus civs like Georgians and Armenians and Khazars would be cool. If you split the Turks like I described above, then other Euro civs that fought the Ottomans would have a window. And China should be split (for God’s sake, who cares what the Chinese Communist Party thinks, give us the Tibetans!) to cover the richness of Chinese history.

Tbh I have zero cares about WHO goes in the game its about WHAT goes in the game.

Some of the recent mechanics (Flemish revolution, charge attacks, dodge meters, armor removal, armor ignoring, dual resource gathering, and many others) have been pretty poorly handled imo. They cause a lot of problems especially in the hands of the top players.

The next civs could all be micro states like free cities or counties that were independent with zero real history other than “Nobody wanted to start a potential war with another major power just to take them over, they were very poor and not worth it. So they and their 35,000 citizens were the smallest independent kingdom in the world at that time. Their king also made shoes. The end,” but if they have good mechanics, solid balance and fun unique units, i’ll be very happy.

1 Like

Don’t forget about the Kurds as well because there should be another civ using the Middle Eastern building set so there’s once again 5 Middle Eastern civs (if Kurds are the only Middle Eastern civ to be added in a future DLC).

Now honestly. I think there’s only 3 more slots left for new civs and I have some ideas for the last three and those are Kurds, Pashtons, and Siamese.

1 Like

Siamese or Thais or Tais must be in some sort of Asian DLC. It is the archenemy to Khmer and has lots of history behind that civilization.


Chimu - and a new Andean buildset
Tibetans - and a new Mongol-Tibetan buildset plus a proper Chinese buildset
Thais - same SE Asian buildset
Georgians and Armenians - new Byzantine buildset for the Byzantines, Georgians, Armenians and Bulgarians
Nubians and Songhai - new buildset for Nubians and Ethiopians and Songhai (use current African set)

Regional monks and queens.

The problem with suggesting crusades states is that aoe2 approaches civs as ethnic groups/peoples and not states/dynasties in the political sense, precisely because a single people can represent several different dynasties. So kind of the civs you suggested are already covered. But I agree that some umbrellas like Saracens and Chinese could be split (although which civs is still debatable).

While I agree as a general matter, there are some civs that are more an amalgamation lumped into one. The Sicilians, for example, were really Normans and even Arabic cultures that came together for the Kingdom of Sicily when the Normans conquered the territory. The Teutons are meant to represent the Holy Roman Empire, not necessarily the Germanic people. The Burgundians weren’t really a “civ” in that manner. The Crusader states existed as a powerful influence in the world for almost 200 years during the heart of the game. There is so much cool flavor that could go into an Outremer civ too (I have lots of ideas). You’re right in that it’s not an ethnic group, but it was a geopolitical group much the same as other “civs” in the game. I recognize I’m problably in the minority though.

For sure, for me, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia are ripe for more.

1 Like

Even longer if you consider places like malta and cyprus.Malta is even in aoe3 now.

1 Like

Strongly agreed.

Many greetings

The major problem is that the devs covered more than 50 empires in middle-east with 3 empires LOL. Kurds under Saracens umbrella, same for many other under Turks and Persians. Saracens should maybe renamed as Abbasids then they can add later Umayyads or other civs under Saracens umbrella.