the latest dlcs have been OVERPRICED?!? you must be crazy to think that 
to elaborate:
age 2 DE civ DLC is completely new while the base game is a simple overhaul. Therefore the base game is not very expensive, but new civs which are a lot of work do cost something, which in relation may seem a lot. But that s NEW.
WHich is why new civs in age 4 will also be expensive, and I think thats fine. If there even WILL be DLC.
AoE2DE added 4 new civilisations plus 4 new campaigns.
While also redoing all graphics and adding a lot of new features.
Also you got a discount for owning AoE2HD.
Lords of the West added 2 new civilisations and 3 new campaigns.
Not even a new architecture set.
So AoE2DE added twice as much content without costing twice as much for most people. So you could say AoE2DE is kinda “underpriced”. It’s definitely a lot for your money, and that also applies to AoE3DE.
AoE4 will likely cost 60€ while the DLCs might cost 5-20€ depending on how big they are.
The old AoE1/2/3 Expansions did cost more while a single civilisations DLC like the USA for AoE3DE only costed 5€.
Also you have to add a lot of inflation since the release of AoE1-3.
yes, but that doesnt make the dlc (age 2DE at least) overpriced. Because rather age 2 DE itself is underpriced 
If you use a different metric- age 2 DE added 4/4 for 20€ (why count the HD discount here?)
And the DLC added 2/3 (MORE than half) for half the price, I think. Or for 15€ which would still be quite OK.
Either way I think the DLC price is totally fine, from where I stand.
If you don’t count the HD discount than you would have to count all the civilisations that were added to the HD version too.
If you only count the civilisations that were added after the HD you need to count the discount.
That was my logic.
I agree with you though.
A cheap game doesn’t mean we have a right to get even cheaper DLCs.
Expansions always were a fraction effort to make then the base game while giving a decent income.
Expansions were often made by the “B team” while the “A team” already worked on the squeal.
I admit that your thinking there is quite fitting, From a contextual sense, which i didnt see at that point
But even with that, I think the DLC is fair priced, as there is a lot of work going into it still. I guess it depends on how you evaluate the worth of the base game. But I would never call 10€ overpriced
I think it’s fair to say the devs are playing it too safe with the release civs. The civs are described as being asymmetric yet they share many of the same units? I know we haven’t seen very much gameplay yet but so far only have evidence that one civ, the Mongols, plays differently in any measurable way.
If the DLCs cost 50% of base game in the US, but 80% in other countries, where people have worse salaries, is it still fair or is it overpriced? That’s what happened with Lord of the West, for example. They also overpriced AOE 3 DE in 5 Latin America countries, before our complaining here at the forum made them correct the price to something fair.
Then why claim to have asymmetric civs if they aren’t?
I have the impression they’ll play it too safe with AOE4 and it will end up as dissapointment.
Having a Precolumbian civ at launch would have affirmed that the civs are clearly distinct.
I didnt know about any of that, I assume prices for games are always “simply” the same, as it is with USD and € most of the times.
No, 80% of the base game would be overpriced indeed. Again sorry, I expected the pricing to be on similar levels.
they are asymmetric in gameplay, not mainly in units.(ans also not in representation of real life nations)
We already have the chinese which have their dynasty system and collect gold from buildings.
We have mongols which focus on mobility and stone.
We have the sultanate with their researchers (although we do not yet officially know how they works, its safe to assume their research will be different than others)
We have the English with their defense boost(which is most special as of now), defense buildings and longbowmen.
Now we see frankish paladins which will probably be the boosted ones here.
Then we have 2 other civs of which I dont think we see anything specific.
So the overall gameplay style will differ, even thugh not as greatly as with mongols. They did say the english would be most similar to age 2 gameplay. The mongols clearly are on the opposite part of the scale and therefore probably much harder to play.
That’s what they say but I think that’s mend compared to AoE2.
AoE3 is more asymmetric. Unless there are some big things we don’t know yet.
AoE4 is symmetric with giving everyone the same base units (some unique units are improved version of those and replace them but none get removed) and likely a very similar economy.
I guess Mongols using sheep instead of farms will be practically the same as using farms just more portable.
Mongols using stone to train units faster or for researching technologies is unique but I don’t think it’s something that is hard to balance.
No civilisations where villagers cost Gold (Dutch), Wood (Indians) or are even free (Ottomans). Those things are hard to balance. They also have to be considered when changing other things like map balance.
I think it both economy and unit availability is similar it’s much easier to balance. Other unique features don’t impact the balance that much.
Being able to move buildings doesn’t make your army hard to counter or your economy superior.
The American would have to replace a lot of the base units with very different units.
You can’t give them an infantry that is as fast as a knight with the same attack, hitpoint and charging ability.
They would have to have a very unique set of units and I think it’s better when they focus on making the American civilisations good, authentic and unique instead of forcing one of them into the base game.
Asymmetric civ design has been a fundamental expectation in the Age series since Age of Mythology. The current limited asymmetric gameplay elements in Age of Empires IV, with exception to the Mongols, give the impression that they are gimmicks, different ways to do the exact same thing. They give a surface level impression of asymmetric civ design without actually making the game more interesting to play, like unique units and technologies would. Perhaps there is more to these asymmetric gameplay elements than I can perceive at this time. We shall see.
The omission of civs in the base game outside of what is considered traditional from Age of Empires II combined with surface level asymmetric civ design both highlight an incredible lack of diversity and knowledge of history.
I think the idea of AoE4 is to give civilisations unique units that actually feel unique like Magudais being the only unit that can shoot while moving but on the other side giving every civilisation the default counter units.
This makes sure that every unit can be countered reliably. And unique units can be balanced against the generic units instead of having to be balanced against a lot of different unique unit sets.
But AoE has a tradition of adding more exotic civilisations in expansions. They also have been making a lot of themed expansions.
I think we can expect an American Expansion with multiple civilisations that share a common set of new generic units plus some unique units.
That’s what they did in AoE3 TWC. They didn’t have the concept of reskinning generic units yet though so they had to give all Natives a completely unique set of units.
A pikeman with slightly different stats doesn’t make the game feel different to play but can cause a balance issue.
A unique unit that plays very different like an Elephant or Cavalry Archer is more interesting than just a knight with a bit more hitpoints. I hope that’s not what the French end up getting.
well. I am of the opposite opinion. Asymmetric civs mean different gameplay, and we see much more of that in age 4 than 2.
I am sure its done well enough and implemented enough. I dont know about ppl wanting asymmetric civ design since AoM, but I can surely tell you in an established series its hard to simplay chnage up the main gameplay formula, as many players would not easily get into the new game
tbh it would be nice to have frankish paladins as special unit imo. Fighting against only knights or the next upgrade, but only civ with paladins sounds also interesting
Or maybe it highlights that most of the player base (of European descent (otherwise known as the target demographic)) would be more interested in European Medieval History.
And please, how do you define ‘diverse’? It seems around here that people think ‘diversity’ is anything that isn’t Europe (which is very wrong).
And as Microsoft prioritizes monitory gain over popularity, they will launch with as little as possible and make everything else ‘pay-to-play’.
Diversity means to not have one half or more of the civs from one region, no matter which one it is.
The Age community is not an exclusive European one.
Heck, if we go by the numbers of the people on the AOE2 ladder, we would need much more Chinese and South American ones
I prefer that diversity is difference in culture, architecture, language, values.
All Medieval countries are hereby diverse as they meet my objective criteria.
I’m not saying other countries aren’t diverse, I’m just refuting the ‘4 Europeans isn’t diverse’ theory (maybe RadiatingBlade could do some more reading on the different histories of Europe 
)
100 person ladder?
Either way MS knows how many purchases are made in each country.
Also this to consider:
I don’t think Inca/Aztec left much of an imprint on the Modern world after being conquered in the Renaissance
Not, but 1492 was the year that connected both worlds.
Eurasians civs were connected thanks to Silk road without counting other things like crusades.
We shouldnt expect 40 civs like aoe2 and DLC must add other civs arpund the world. I only expect 2 more euro civs
I’m a white guy with an English last name. I actively don’t want my people in this game because they don’t deserve to be at a table with just 8 chairs.
I think some people here are defining diversity so broadly it means simply to them that any civ is diverse. So any list of 8 civs would by definition be equally as diverse as any other.
