Knights Templar is NOT a new civilization

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

I see a lot of players, particularly professional or ladder sweats constantly asserting that this is a new civilization (Beasty, Corvinus) DESPITE the developers themselves being transparent.

Stop trying to gaslight the community.

I understand these people would keep playing if houses were blocks and units were triangles, with no music and only base colour with no gradient for visuals. But, the vast majority of people that buy into Age of Empire games want to experience fun interpretation of cultures and peoples.

Despite the amount of effort seemingly put into Knights Templar, the overwhelming majority of units so far depict reused already existing assets with very few exceptions. Despite putting brownish Ottoman/Abbasid textures on buildings, they are STILL French buildings. It will very likely feature the same music too.

These things MATTER. I know these players don’t care, but that doesn’t justify a campaign to lie to new players or those who care about what they’re being sold. Yes, it doesn’t play like French, but frankly that is the easy part.

It is most unfortunate that they couldn’t at least hire two 3D artists to flesh it out properly, as one unique building just isn’t enough. In the end, this makes it a VARIANT regardless of how much these people are trying to change the narrative.

It would be awful if AoE4’s future was simply variants, with everyone cheering on and pretending they are getting full civilizations. Let’s not turn AoE4 into another AoE2 in terms of content.

9 Likes
2

I agree with this statement completely.

In defense of the people who have been saying it is a new civilization: they have not actually said that it is a new civilization.

It is equivalent to one mechanically, and they have been saying that because of the negative wave of feedback about this expansion being “only 2 variants”.

It is a response to the disgust some have had to the expansion details that have been released. A disgust that, as usual, neglects a majority of the content and remains fixed on specific issues.

It’s worth noting that the negative opinions are coming from people who have predicted that they were going to be disappointed in whatever came out. What’s happening, in regards to negative feedback (ie variants), is a self fulfilled prophecy.

4 Likes
3

This is effectively whataboutism then. A lie does not make things any better, and if they really want to highlight the goods of the civilization or content, they can do so without misrepresenting it or attacking those that does care about that difference.

This is just wrong. I was at the very helm of this, as it was extremely obvious. You should be able to attest to the fact that I called out that this would be a split DLC, and that you, and many others, only had the respone of “wait for more before being making these claims!”. Well, they’ve revealed exactly what was expected.

People were not being disappointed in “whatever came out”. I called out that they had split the DLC and raged against that idea. That idea has now been confirmed, so why would I change my stance? If the reveal instead feature 3 new full on civilizations, I would not be complaining–but that isn’t what we got. We got the thing that I suspected which sucked, and the suspected sucky fact got confirmed.

It isn’t complaining for the sake of complaining. It is complaining about specific decisionmaking, which was incredibly obvious a mile away, despite community members closing their eyes and insisting we wait for confirmations.

Now that it has been confirmed, are we not even allowed to complain about it? Because the issue back then was that it wasn’t “confirmed” so according to you, we shouldn’t even say anything about them. I understand that this is a game that we are very fond of, but being this defensive of the developers is entirely counterproductive.

3 Likes
4

Well Devs are clear about the fact that these are not new civs
 so Im fine with it

New civ should have new architecture, new voice line, new generic units
 basically should have new feel to it

4 Likes
5

The thing is that they haven’t revealed information that discloses that this DLC is half of what they had been developing, that there was a larger DLC and this is only half or some portion of that being released now as opposed to earlier or later.

That’s what I mean by self-fulfilling prophecy: (placed in the order of the events as they occured)

  • An expectation was formed for DLC to exist in the fourth quarter of 2024

  • There was no DLC at that time

  • They dropped hints that something was in development, and would be given more detail early in the next year

  • An assumption was made by some that this was the DLC that had been expected in Q4 2024

  • Expectations were formed/maintained that it would have a content value similar to The Sultans Ascend DLC

  • They revealed that the DLC would contain 2 armies and would have some singleplayer content, also showing that there would in fact be 2 DLC releases this year

  • An assumption was made based off of a previously held expectation that there would be a large DLC releasing, leading to the belief that the large DLC expected had been split into two smaller DLCs

What irks me the most about this situation is that failing to have had expectations met (which were formed off of assumptions rather than guarantees from the devs) is leading to new expectations being formed.

If we didn’t get the civs that some people were hoping for, surely we will get that later this year. Queue the disappointment and next phase of planned disappointment, when the features that have never been detailed by developers inevitably never happen.

This entire discussion is predicated off of suspicions built off of expectations that were made based off of an observation of a pattern.

I’m most frustrated by the fact that this is going to happen again, and that we are going to have the same tired discussion over upset expectations. Expectations which were based off of hope/fear of what may (and more than likely may not) happen.

Note: I am not saying that you do not have the right to be upset or to demand better things. It’s just bothersome to see the same pattern of behavior every time they show new information. Especially when you make the claim that others in the community are lying to you, suppressing you, or refusing to accept your ‘correctness’ (even asking people to apologize for sharing a differing opinion!).

2 Likes
6

I’ll also say that a lot of the feedback has been given in response to “it will only be 2 variants” or “it is one DLC split into two” are not offered in defense of the developers or the game.

From what I’ve seen it has been people attempting to give the situation more nuance.

It’s pretty distressing to see the game that I care about get slandered and called trash on a near daily basis by some of the more dedicated fans, and that goes a lot further than this forum. A lot of the issues you have with the game, including how you feel about what a variant is, are not shared by all people across the community.

Other people are sharing their opinion and maintaining optimism or appreciation where you may not. It is not intended as commentary on the validity of your opinion, and is not meant to be an attack on your person.

I’d like to cap this off by responding to an assertion that you made in the first post:

People are sharing their opinion because they do care.

At the end of the day it’s just a matter of opinion.

7

The devs never said they were. Its just mechanically closer to one compared to Sultans

8

This is called moving the goalpost.

This is the context in which you’re claiming some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. The developers hinted that this DLC was effectively half of what it ought have been, and we have that confirmation now. We didn’t like to hear the hints for what they suggested and do not like to hear the confirmation for what it is. There is nothing self-fulfilling about this.

What you’ve gone on to discuss in your recent reply is something entirely different, which spans a whole year before any of the initial criticisms of their recent suggestions that there’d only be 2 civilizations. That is moving the goalpost and I won’t be entertaining that.

1 Like
9

You seem to be under the wrong mindset if you think I dislike the game and slander it because of that. If I were you, I would take a break from these forums if you genuinely feel distressed from casual criticism over valid problems caused by both developers and community members. And I don’t take any of this as an attack on me as a person, but I do find your constant attempts to undermine my criticisms to be annoying, despite how valid they are and even after they become validated such as now.

What a meaningless inclusion. Is the point of this statement to say that I am in the minority? Or what exactly is this saying? Because unless you want to imply we are all some kind of amorphous hivemind for whatever reason, of course my opinion will be my own. Are you trying to say I think otherwise? Meaningless statement.

1 Like
10

Typically when ‘moving the goalposts’ fallacies are occurring it’s with a request for greater levels of evidence.

The goalpost being the amount or kind of proof required to effectively prove a claim.

What you’re pointing to is when I first said that the response was directed at the black/white nature of the discussion, that it was intended to add depth and nuance to the discussion: it is not simply “only 2 variants”

The second quote was when I was saying you have a history of having high expectations for the game’s future. You also tend to mention your lack of faith in their ability to impress you or carry out your preferred vision. Both of these leading to the inevitability of being disappointed.

Those are two separate points of discussion.

You clearly see me as an enemy. You’ve identified that you feel attacked by others in your first post, so I understand the defensive posture.

I just want you to understand I’m sharing my perspective. This is not an attempt to invalidate you.

1 Like
11

Are to expect 3 new Civs later in the year ?

12

Knights Templar is a new civilization.

It will be a variant, but it is new, and as the developers said, they are considering our feedback to make it as historically well represented as possible.

The problem with previous variants was not that they were not civilizations, but their poor representation:

  • Joan with a hand cannon while riding in LV4 mode.
  • ZhuXi’s original name as Jade Empire,
  • Order of the Dragon (OotD) being a variant of the HRE instead of Hungary,
  • OotD not having “any” element of the kingdoms that formed that organization.
  • Ayyubid (1171-1341) having the same Wonder as the Abbasids (Built in 670 AD) instead of a new one, even though it belongs to another period is also a problem, etc.

With Templars I don’t see the problem with anything mentioned or theorized in the teaser:

  • They were originally French knights and monks who founded a military order in several Christian kingdoms. They have a Landmark-Keep to represent the large number of forts they built and unique units allied to the kingdoms in which they had headquarters.

They had to have an architecture and a language, unless you want them to be mute, I don’t see the problem with it being French because of that. And if that’s why they are variants of French, BETTER, because that’s how the concept of variants was supposed to work, not as an excuse to make cheap civs, but because they were historically derived from another civ.

The number of differences with their parent civ, which depends precisely on the historical differences of the variant; if there are too many, better, because that justifies them being separated from it. If there are few, then it’s better to just add them to the original.

And well, that’s all.

3 Likes
13

No idea, but maybe the post to discuss that shoudl be this:

1 Like
14

This idea falls pretty hard on its face when you consider why make a civilization at all. Like you said, if the strategy is to simply reuse asset anyway, why stop at random orders that no one knows about? Why not just straight up do what AoE2 does, which at least brings in more nationalities and ethnicities into the mix for people to explore?

The answer is pretty clear, because this is all about money and it would feel disingenuous to do so. Even AoE2 has been moving away from this method of developing civilizations. The issue remains however, what new player will look at AoE4 and go “Ah, I would love to play as Lancasters!!”. Actual development time is being spent here for these civilizations for a reaction that likely will amount to just “Who??”. That goes for almost every variant pick so far. Zhu Xi’s Legacy??? Sultan’s Army??? Order of the Dragon??

I’ve stated in another comment that I think at least the Templars have identity. But, I still feel it fails at the most fundamental level. This is Age of Empires. Where is the Empire? Where is the nation?

Should AoE4 just been called Age of Orders? Because at some point half of our civilizations will just be variants that don’t represent real empires, kingdoms or nations.

2 Likes
15

I dont like the direction where AOE4 is going, the charm the game when I bought it was about history and the uniqueness of each faction. Now both of these areas have been changed and I no longer enjoy the immersion AOE4 once had.

I will now retire from AOE4 :frowning:

2 Likes
16

The variants are a small number of good choices buried under more dubious ones.

And let’s not forget about the Warhammer-like civ roster now with small groups next to individual persons next to families next to peoples next to political entities.

In an era where all online discussion of games eventually converge to metas, pvps, speedruns, tryhards, etc., people tend to forget that the foremost and most important reason players are attracted by a game is its charm. And history already offers such charm. Many people’s first runs of Age of Empires, or Civilization, or Paradox games, are either their home countries, or the most famous ones of the timeframe. Whatever ways anyone tries to deny that, or accuses others for doing so, or gaslights with “you only speak for yourself”, it’s plain fact.

Don’t teach me on who Zhu Xi is. I know a little about the history of Chinese philosophy. But “Zhu Xi’s Legacy” by no means sounds like an interesting choice in a historical war game.

2 Likes
17

People who aren’t you?

You’re pushing some very heavy-handed language to make it seem like your opinion is statistically-significant. You aren’t. I’m not. Learn to separate personal disappointment from any kind of objective framing.

I’d have preferred the House of York personally. But that’s my personal bias :wink:

1 Like
18

Pickrate in ranked (Source):

All Ranks, Feb 13 2025

  1. English's Flag 15.9%

  2. French's Flag 12.9%

  3. Japanese's Flag 8.0%

  4. Order of the dragon's Flag 7.9%

  5. Holy roman empire's Flag 7.9%

  6. Rus's Flag 6.8%

  7. Mongols's Flag 6.1%

  8. Byzantines's Flag 5.7%

  9. Zhu xis legacy's Flag 5.4%

  10. Chinese's Flag 4.4%

  11. Ottomans's Flag 4.1%

  12. Delhi sultanate's Flag 3.6%

  13. Abbasid dynasty's Flag 3.2%

  14. Malians's Flag 3.0%

  15. Jeanne darc's Flag 2.8%

  16. Ayyubids's Flag 2.3%

Some take-aways from that information:

  • English and French are the most popular civs by far, any variant that they have will more than likely be popular as well

  • Zhu Xi and Order of the Dragon have roughly the same or a higher pick rate than their original counterparts

In summary: Many people will enjoy playing as these variants.

2 Likes
19

As a player who values historical authenticity, I really dislike playing as individuals or small groups instead of full empires. Many knightly orders could simply be added as unique units for the Holy Roman Empire to improve its strategic options, rather than being split into separate variants. The HRE already lacks special units enough!

The “Zhu Xi” (Zhu Xi) civilization is especially baffling. Zhu Xi was a Song Dynasty scholar whose philosophy blended Confucianism with Buddhist and Daoist ideas. While his teachings later became core content for imperial exams during the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, they weren’t significant in his own time. How does this justify being a standalone “civilization”? The original name “Jade Empire” isn’t even recognized by most Chinese players.

Naming choices also confuse me. Why use “Knights Templar” instead of a broader “Crusaders” label? Are we getting separate Teutonic Knights and Hospitallers next? Where does this stop? If the Lancasters get their own faction, will Yorks follow? Should every notable count, pirate group, assassin guild, or religious sect like Ming Cult or Sufism become a variant civilization? This stops feeling like Age of Empires.

What made Age of Empires IV great was each civilization offering multiple strategic paths, not endless splits into minor sub-factions with single playstyles. The current direction worries me - not to mention the slow balance adjustments and infrequent updates.

7 Likes
20

They’re afraid to harm the authenticity behind the original civilizations like the HRE, French, Delhi which are well rounded abstractions–but they also want more money. How does one make content without introducing factions like in AoE2?

The answer is variants. And it simply isn’t a good concept. While factions make the most amount of sense when you are reusing assets for the purpose of creating cheap DLCs (as you’d imagine a faction would be represented by the same architecture), it just begs the question; why? Is AoE4 doing that badly that this is the only way to monetize the game?

The vast majority of people who do not mind, only care for gameplay mechanics it seems. I have Sultans Ascend, and I occasionally play the likes of ZXL. But, not because I LIKE it. ZXL as an idea makes zero sense to me in a game like this. The civilization is simply a better China. Some players may suggest that variants introduce new gameplay styles, but I reject this notion too.

The truth is, they could have added this content to existing civilizations and opened new ways to play them. WHY did they not do this? Because people have ALREADY bought the game and already own China, France, Abbasids and HRE–simply updating these civilizations wouldn’t yield any revenue.

So that is effectively what this is. They’re essentially reselling the same content with some very underwhelming and completely unnecessary changes. Double dipping into existing content, and watering down the uniqueness of the original civilizations, while also watering down the whole fantasy behind Age of Empires.

It is overall simply a bad decision.

I’m hoping that the upcoming DLC with 2 variants is simply a test. If Sultans Ascend was such a success, you’d think they’d do the same thing again. Yet, I hope that this is an attempt to properly gauge whether people were buying Sultans Ascend for the variants, or the new civilizations. If this is the case, and Knights of Cross and Roses does badly, it may signal to them that they should ONLY go forward with new civilizations. That is my genuine hope, because I don’t care for them to pump out this sort of content.

5 Likes