After some hours into this game i believe lot of people felt that
diversity is not so much in this game. (Unit variety , civ variety ).
I believe we definetly need more civs so i would like to know ppl opion on which civ should come at first
I didnt add Koreans because i really dont want tower rush anymore.
0 voters
There is literally a pinned thread about this. It doesn’t even require you to search, why spam the board with the same things over and over
also, the game does not need more civs, not before inner balance in the current civs is done. So many civs have useless landmarks and units (almost half the landmarks never appear, units such as camel archers are never seen). If devs make a DLC before fixing balance i’ll quit this game for good.
yes a thread with missisipians etc. but no ottomans… I just want to make one for myself idk why you got angry.
Ofc first thing they needed to do is fixing bugs and balancing current civs(abbasi’s are pretty weak and mongols are better than everyone almost at ever occasion …) but eventualy we will need more civs 8 is just too insufficient and me and my friends already tired playing with same insufficient units over and over again. DLC or not after fixing bugs and balacing civs they need to bring more civs.
Come on Castilla!!!
Pinned thread with very little sophisticated peoples and where “other” is in the top 5?
This is definitely not the time for new civs.
Devs need to focus on balancing the current ones first and bring the features that are missing on the game such as modding, scenarios, etc.
Right now it simply feels like half of the game is missing. Bringing new civs too soon will not help at all, it could just make things worse as the current civs are not even balanced yet and it could mean more players leaving the game, specially top players.
La Ăşnica ventaja de añadir una nueva civ es atraer a los jugadores de PvE, especialmente si tambiĂ©n hay nuevas maestrĂas disponibles.
Hay otras maneras de hacer eso, como incluir nuevos modos de juego, nuevas campañas, etc.
La mitad de las civs ni siquiera tienen su campaña!
SĂ, tienes razĂłn, hay otras formas de hacerlo, especialmente nuevas campañas y maestrĂas. Es horrible lanzar un juego con civs que no tienen sus propias campañas.
Pero quiero que añadan España como Civ en este juego antes de que pase mucho tiempo. 
La añadirán pero a saber cuanto tiempo pasa hasta que lo hagan. No nos queda otra que insistir y ser pesados 
I agree, balance the existing civs first. Starcraft only has three factions and they’re so well balanced they dont need more. Thats better then 10 wildly unbalanced civs
terrible comparison
SC has 3 almost completely different civs
aoe4, has 7 of the same civ with minor variations, and 1 with slightly bigger variations.
if all 8 civs were as unique as mongols are to the rest, then yes you would be right, but they arent, so you arent
i think ive seen this type of post numerous times for like literally every single game ive played, do devs ever care? no
why? because DLCs make money
also as far as we all know, its 2 different teams working on new content, and fixing the current content.
tons of stuff needs fixing, but again, DLCs make money
You could also add to the list the Italian states such as the Republic of Venice
I think they need to balance the civs and units that are already in the game first. I would like to see a stronger counter system as well . Before adding any new civs
Civs will never be well balanced and it will never be time, so they can start showing us new civs now
Well that’s not very optimistic!
Why would you want more broken civs? Keep piling â– â– â– â– on top of â– â– â– â– and you just get a bigger pile of â– â– â– â– .
Let’s focus on the current game and making it the best age game we can, I feel like the devs are onboard with this mindset and can see that without a proper foundation nothing can be built on top of it.
Ultimately this will affect their DLC profit, so as much as I like to believe the community backlash and or support is a driving factor for them to improve, I know that the ability to monetize and release DLC is an incentive for them to listen to us and fix the game. They know they’ve slacked in some areas, even if they won’t admit it blatantly, they admit it passively by implementing these fixes and patches that they should never have had to do in the first place.
I have confidence that they will sort this out and we will have a very fun, viable, new iteration to the age series.
I can get over the things they can’t fix now, like the graphics I’m not a huge fan of. Everything else is realistically very fixable. I’ve made countless posts of how upset I am about being forced into this situation and basically forced into the development of a released game, but that isn’t this post. The devs have in my opinion been receptive to our input, while I would like to see quicker hotfixes for certain bugs and exploits and other more serious things, I feel like they have still been responsive and supportive. I also feel that there is a very good incentive, and also tighter competition than they thought in the genre, to inspire them to step up their game.
Why would you think Koreans means tower rush?
Civs in AoE4 don’t play the same as those in AoE2.
Why would they implement more civs if the civs in place rn are already all over the place and they just start to make up their mind about siege, ships/fishing and connected to that map design right now.
Feels like you’d build on sand.
They are interested in selling DLC, in the end it is the most important thing
It won’t sell as much because a lot of people wouldn’t buy them rn because it would be clearly seen as a cash grab by a lot of players.
Also imagine how bad for the game reputation if the new civ gets banned from the tournaments which is something that happened to aoe3 DE twice.