New DLC next year?

I know that but ES was still involved. You can’t say AoE IV is developed by Relic Entertainment and not by FE itself.

Again, don’t compare civ numbers for 2 completely differently designed game.

Not really. AoE3 didn’t get a single DLC before DE after ES collapsed.

Can you read my statements first? I definatly stated primarily by Big Huge Games. I didnt say only.

I can and I will, you compare dlc numbers between the two, so I can now say you cant do that either?

Seeing the differences in civ design and the popularity of AoE II > AoE III its logical that AoE II has mre civs.

Notice the following that I’m quoting from you -

This is what I disagree. Primarily by BHG, yes. Not by ES itself, not really.

You can but that won’t be the most appropriate comparison. Because

Yes, this one. AoE3 and now AoE4 can never ever fit as many civs as AoE2 regardless of popularity. (You can prove me wrong after AoE3 and AoE4 managed to get 39 civs.)
1 DLC with 1 civ for AoE3 = 1 DLC with 2-3 civ or maybe even 4-5 for AoE2. (Campaign and other features excluded).

I don’t think “we” is the right word. Some of us like me want more civs and more campaigns while some of you like you want no more civs. Any new content for the game is good as long as it doesn’t break the game.


With “itself” in this context it means that Ensable Studios wasnt the only one working on it.

You yourself are comparing the civs now. You say 1 AoE III civ = 2-3 AoE II civs. So why can you do it, but I for some reason cannot? DLC isnt purely civs. you should look at all content added. AoE III can add 10 new civs the next update, but if all they change between the 10 is one unit, it is barely any content.

AoE II had 18 civs with all dlc before hd, AoE III 14. The Euro civs in AoE III are very similar, its really only the Warchiefs and Asian dynasties which add more assymetrical gameplay (the Euro civs still have it, but less so than the warchiefs and Asian Dynasties).

You can still compare the civs and content of the dlc and state if one has more than the other.

The Conquerers dlc has more content than the US dlc content in AoE III. I assume you agree with this.

Unless my knowledge on English horribly bad, that’s not the meaning of the word “Itself”. Anyway I think we have some sort of misunderstanding between us.

If you meant 18-19 civs of AoE3 is equivalent of 39 civs of AoE2, I may agree. (Must admit not enough knowledge on AoE3 to put the comparison side by side). But from your previous comments it feels like you want more civs and expansions for AoE3 than AoE2 as it has less civs.
I suggested to compare DLC numbers rather than civ numbers. AoE2 still wins from 2013 (Already mentioned 2000-2007, AoE3 got 2, while AoE2 got only 1. So it was a win for AoE3 back then) not only because of popularity but also the viability to add upto 4-5 civs in a single DLC. Even your comment agrees with this case.

Which is what I tried to say. AoE3 can’t have as many civ (and therefore expansions) as AoE2.

next DLC should be based on Scandinavia, featuring some changes to vikings and new campaigns in which at least 1/3 is a viking campaign.

their specialty (Infantry and naval civ) fits, yes, but they don’t really excel at either of them, whereas civs like Britons, Teutons and Franks actually live up to their civ’s specialties.

buffing vikings late game is something i personally think is sorely needed. if you don’t finish the game in castle age you’re pretty much gonna lose.

So you pay for a Viking rework?

And the Viking navy is pretty excelent, even though their barracks units could be buffed a bit

No thanks on Scandinavia. We literally had 6 of the last 8 civs in Europe. I’m all for vikings getting a campaign but the next dlc should be outside of Europe.


a viking rework is obviously not all that the DLC would bring. 2 new civs featuring new techs, UU’s and another 2 campaigns as per the standard of AoE2DE DLCs would come along with it.

you could make a subfaction of Vikings (Varangians for example) and make a campaign based on their famed achievements in regions like Byzantium.

what bothers me most about the vikings as a civ is the fact that tech-wise they are very much stuck in the dark ages with no access to gunpowder units, no halbards, no paladins (not even plate barding for cavaliers) and recently they lost thumb ring so now their arbalests are nerfed as well. its like, ok, you can produce berserks and longboats which both become weaker the longer the game goes on, better finish up in castle age or you’re screwed.

1 Like

Yeah but due to their insane economy they will still be an absolutely solid civ.


We dont need Viking subfactions. I really like Vikings, but theres other civs that arent actually represented like Tais, Somalis or others that are more worth a dding

1 Like

i’d rather have the few units and techs that i have at my disposal be viable throughout the game in exchange for a nerfed economy.

speaking of economy, there’s a distinct lack of a gold income mechanic.
everyone knows that what vikings loved most was raiding, plundering and looting along with an abundance of trading, so for the life of me i don’t understand why they don’t have any sort of gold generating mechanic, like producing gold when attacking buildings or increased income from relics or trade carts. instead these kind of perks are given to civs like spanish and aztecs but neglected for vikings.

In the current game, only keshiks feature looting in the game.
On the other hand, it seems a misunderstanding and a myth that the Norse were pirate groups and living with raiding mostly. As far as I know, the agriculture and the husbandry are algso important, maybe more important, to their economy than the looting.

In my opinion, perhaps let Vikings gain the halberdiers and maybe little buff the longboats like making them able to train the berserks by the coast.

6 and a half if you consider Cumans half European.

Game is boring again, new campaigns would be welcomed.

1 Like

So it will be boring again after you finish the new campaigns?


There could be a format of 2 new civs & eponymous campaigns + a campaign for a civ that doesn’t have one yet:

Chinese, Japanese & Koreans (no new civs but 3 new full campaigns)
Magyars (+ Vlachs, Serbs & Croats)

  • = (+ Armenians & Georgians)
1 Like

Most likely. The devs ruined TG queue and 1v1 is full of lamers.