New DLC and no new civs is great!

RoR would have been better as an AoE1 DLC than DLC for AoE2.

1 Like

Hard disagree. People forget how bad AoE1DE was, with dreadful pathing and no QoL improvements, it was DoA. Nobody would have given it a second’s thought. Now at least it gets updated.

1 Like

Funny how they imported the dreadful Pathing as well. Pathing issues started exactly from the patch Return of Rome was released and kept getting worse and worse until unbearable.

Pathing problem is still not fixed. Villagers still get stuck, they are unable to find a path around hunted carcass felled in a corner.

Tell me you don’t remember how bad AoE1DE pathing is without telling me you don’t know how bad AoE1DE pathing is.

You couldn’t get two men through a gap in a wall the AoE1DE pathing was so bad. Some unit types barely functioned (as in, literally didn’t work. Not “Archers bad now because they micro 0.0001 seconds slower”). Yes AoE2DE’s has deteriorated recently, but it’s a far cry from the horror of AoE1DE’s.


Still waiting for an American and African DLC so no, it’s not great.


Yes, but it is what it is… I lost faith when they stopped updating 1 DE in 2020…

True, the pathfinding of AoE 1 is horrible, for some reason they left it abandoned after launching 1 DE…

True, since the pathfinding of 1 DE was horrible, by porting it to 2 DE, they ruined the pathfinding of the game too…

They will arrive, at some point…after the Nordic and Balkan DLCs xd…

Anything can be more worse than this?

I have programed for years*. Let me asure you. If you fix something bad, there’s always a non zero chance you’ll unleash something even worse.

*Please, Microsoft, hire me

Apply on the Forgotten Empires website instead of making a futile plea on the forums.

1 Like

It was a joke. I know just a little bit of C++ and Unity, but not enough to code for a big company

1 Like

You say this as a joke but it really isn’t funny to me.

Just because some want to have every opponent and constituent part of Eastern Europe, specifically in relation to Poland as some users do it, doesn’t mean that I’m going to support it. To be honest, right now, I’m burned out by the game. Haven’t touched in in a while since I find it really boring and unimmersive that there’s literally a third of the civs using 2 architecture sets just because on one hand the devs are unwilling to add new sets as well as some people being successful with their spamming of civ requests.

There are attempts by some people here doing the same for Romanians and ridiculous German/Viking split ideas which are luckily not getting traction as it would simply be a DLC I’d skip (like V&V).

Some may call me entitled but I would call it being fair. I don’t want them to remove the empires out of Age of Empires just for the sake of having 10 mini-variants of the same entity.


Yes, I know… I would also like American and African DLCs (they really need it), but Europe sells well and they are going to continue releasing European DLCs… in AoE 3 they are afraid that the same thing will happen and that they do not touch Asia at least until next year (in AoE 3 it is easier for them to move away from Europe, because they already have the great powers in the game and because there is more information about the American and African kingdoms)…

1 Like

Same. I would skip these. The blatant nationalist intentions behind the lobbying are as thin as wet tissue paper.

Does it? DLCs with extra civs sell well, Europe or otherwise.

The Conquerors and RoR prove that nationalism does not make extra content sell well.


True, VaV is not exactly a nationalist dlc… and Return of Rome was more of an AoE 1 port than an AoE 2 dlc…

I was more referring to the addition of the Lac Viet. It didn’t sell especially well in Vietnam, despite the inclusion.

Oh yes, it could be… I don’t have the sales data for RoR in Vietnam, but it’s logical, because they only play the original AoE 1, not even 1 DE…

How can splitting a nation into regions be nationalistic ahah it’s like the opposite. You guys are so funny, keep it up


It’s pretty obvious. Representing the same thing several because “it’s so important” and that “they deserve it” and they’re “important” and not some “stone age tribes” or “savages” which are anyway “all the same” with “no history”, don’t have some arbitrary technology and feature I’ve picked and are anyway “isolated” and “wouldn’t sell well” because “the Middle Ages are anyway European history” like if the rest of the world had suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

Usually, it’s just pop history understanding with a mix of nationalism which makes you thing that country x which all speak language y has to be represented by two dozen civs.

I’m not saying that I have no biases in terms of interest when it comes to civ suggestions (I’m mostly interested in non-European precolonial history as that is the thing I have not been teached at a lot at school leadinh me to tendentially suggest more of those civs), but I’m at least trying to see the bigger picture. I’ve also read tons of books about European history, but it’s not my main interest when it comes to history.


This is your opinion, not that of the entire community.

Most AoE players do not participate in the forum, so we do not know the preferences of the general community. Therefore, the creators are guided by DLC sales and which regions are generally the most popular among history enthusiasts.


So that’s it! When you want European DLC, you are a nationalist, but when you want non-European DLC, you are cool and loose.

The other side of the barricade shocks me more and more.

The nationalist of Hittians, Phoenicians and Minoans were successful in having their civs in the game!