So we have seen all 3 castles and 2 of the wonders. The church is for the Saxons.
Who do you think will have the big tree? Danes or varangians?
And do you think both of them will have the pagan monk as both later became Christian? Same question for the Vikings as their wonder is a church.
Something that really stood out to me from this DLC is that the developers don’t appear to be replacing the Vikings at all. Instead, they seem to be keeping them as one of the classic “legacy” civilizations while expanding the Scandinavian world with new, more historically focused civilizations.
If this reflects their long-term design philosophy, it opens up some interesting possibilities. Rather than reworking or splitting older civilizations like the Saracens, Slavs, Teutons, Britons, or Celts, they could simply leave those legacy civilizations intact while adding more specialized historical counterparts alongside them.
Personally, I think that’s a great compromise. It respects the original AoE2 roster that so many players have grown attached to, while still giving the developers room to explore more historically accurate civilizations and regional identities going forward.
Sorry, missed this one by you. It is just part of my own design if I had some kind of say in the whole affair - which I do not.
I fully agree with this.But it should not go down the three kingdoms route.
Doesn’t seem like it. It is probably a Fire Lancer mechanic.
It throws axe, right? So it should be like Mameluke, ranged melee mounted unit.
One of them will probably cavalry or infantry+cavalry.
aaaa dreaeaaem cooomeee truuueeeee, that is so amazing
clearly the devs watched the Vinlandsaga anime or manga xD
One thing I’m a little disappointed by is that it feels like they’re catering a bit too much to the pop culture image of the Vikings instead of historical reality.
Take the Jarl for example. A jarl wasn’t a military unit—it was a title, a rank. There wasn’t an army of “Jarls” running around the battlefield. Likewise with the Jomsvikings. Why not simply call them Hirdmen? The hird was an actual historical institution, the elite household warriors of Scandinavian rulers.
What surprises me is that the developers have been very careful with historical authenticity in many of their more recent DLCs, particularly with civilizations from outside Europe such as those in The Last Khans and The Three Kingdoms. They put a lot of effort into getting the names, identities, and historical flavor right. Yet here, it feels like they’ve leaned a little more toward what people recognize from TV shows and popular Viking media than toward the actual medieval Scandinavian world.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m still excited for the DLC. I just would’ve preferred slightly more grounded historical terminology. Age of Empires II has always done a good job balancing gameplay with history, and I hope it continues leaning toward the historical side whenever possible.
One thing I do see as a positive, though, is what this could mean going forward. With the addition of the Danes and Varangians, I think the chances of seeing historically focused Eastern Slavic civilizations—such as Muscovites, Novgorodians, and Ruthenians—have increased considerably, simply because they naturally belong to the same historical theater.
Likewise, with the introduction of the Saxons, perhaps the chances have also increased for a proper English, Gaels, Brythons, and Norman civilization, all of which fit naturally into the same historical setting and complement one another both historically and gameplay-wise.
Wait wait wait Saxons. Than this is also a northern germany representation, the teuton split that specifically i wanted xD this is amazing!!! now we get the inland dutch (saxons) too. Now we have more than the Burgundians. The Saxons represent eastern netherlands and northern germany, and southern denmark. Okay this is the mod i really really wanted. Basically this DLC is vikings split and teutons split in one!!
I wonder if those editor only Norse Warriors will show up. Theoretically they should, but who knows.
So many great looking units found in the editor, especially hero units.
In this DLC, how many unique units will we receive?
I wonder how much Vikings and even Byzantines will change.
That’s just a speculation.
Whoa! Can I see those new units plz? 
Yeah, this was the Euro DLC I was wanting over a Viking split. I really hope some day it happens.
I’d tend to agree, this and most of western and central Europe should get the mounted xbow unit
I mean yes, but that’s a pretty low bar to set tbh lol
This would make sense, but didn’t the steam page say shared among the 3 civs…?
I hope you’re right on this. I’m admittedly still nervous you aren’t, but I hope you are.
To be fair to the devs, the fact that the Scandi garrison flag was included in the Last Chieftains release shows this DLC was already in the production pipeline before they saw the reaction to Last Chieftains and the fact we wanted stuff outside of Europe more. if the next couple are outside of Europe i’d say they did get the message and just were far enough down the process with this DLC they couldn’t change.
In this political climate!!! lol tbh I don’t see anything other than a rename of Slavs and getting a new UU with Boyars becoming regional until after…certain IRL geopolitical events are resolved. Even after…i’ve kinda flip-flopped on adding Muscovy and Novgorod to the game; on one hand I see the merit, on the other hand I worry that’s getting more into specific polities than ethno-cultural groups, and i’d rather East Slavs just keep an umbrella with a new name (Ruthenians or Rus)
Given the wording of the announcement, I think The Viking Sagas is the only other content we get this year. The next Chronicles DLC will probably come Q1 of 2027 if I had to guess
I mean we also have Boyars as unique units already, so that isn’t exactly a new development
While i’m not opposed to this, and it has a place on my wishlist, that place is dead last; I want to see North America, Mesoamerica, the Balkans, Africa (probably 2 DLCs here) and Southeast Asia all get some more attention before they even think about messing with the British Isles.
I guess not. There is no mention of them.
I can’t remember them adding a regional unit to new civilisations that doesn’t fit at all.
Mounted Crossbow and Varangian Guard are two of the most requested regional/unique units so I’m not too surprised seeing them. Still kinda strange the Saxons have the Mounted Crossbow. If might be a Hand Cannon replacement because they seem to do bonus damage vs. Infantry. But since Hand Cannons and Crossbows are both Late Medieval units it wouldn’t really help much giving Early Medieval civilisations this unit.
I think a few different discussions are being mixed together here.
First regarding the Jarl argument: my point is not that AoE2 cannot use titles or social classes as units. We already have examples such as the Boyar. However, there is a difference between a military/social class and a title belonging to an individual.
A Jarl was primarily a rank/title, essentially one of the highest-ranking nobles or regional rulers in Scandinavian society. There were not armies of Jarls fighting on the battlefield. A Boyar, on the other hand, represented a much broader elite noble-warrior class that existed throughout the Rus’ world and could more naturally translate into a military unit.
That said, this is not really the main issue. The main question should always be: does this civilization provide a distinct historical identity, military system, and gameplay experience?
Modern politics, modern borders, and modern population sizes should not determine medieval representation in Age of Empires II. The medieval world should be judged by medieval relevance.
For example, with the Eastern Slavs, I do not see Muscovites, Novgorodians, and Ruthenians as simply different names for the same thing. They all share a wider Rus’ heritage, but they developed into very different political and military entities.
Muscovy became the center of a rising northeastern Rus’ state with its own political development and military traditions.
Novgorod was a wealthy merchant republic connected to Baltic trade networks and the wider Varangian world, with a very different economy and military situation.
Ruthenia/Galicia-Volhynia represented the western Rus’ sphere, heavily interacting with Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, and Central Europe.
These are not simply modern labels. They represent different medieval worlds, with different economies, enemies, political structures, and warfare. That is exactly the type of distinction that can create unique AoE2 civilizations.
The same logic applies elsewhere. The Scandinavians shared many similarities, but I think a Norse and Danish split can work because they represent different historical focuses. Norse can represent the Viking-era Scandinavian world, while Danes can represent the Danish kingdom, Baltic expansion, and later medieval Danish power.
The larger point is that civilization additions should not be decided by modern politics or by trying to create a perfect representation map of the modern world. The criteria should be historical impact, distinct identity, and gameplay potential.
At the same time, I do think every region deserves consideration. However, the standards need to remain consistent. If the criteria becomes simply “this people existed during the timeframe,” then the list becomes endless.
If we start adding every historically existing group, then we also have to discuss countless smaller European, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern political entities that existed during the same period. The Middle Ages contained thousands of identities, but not all of them translate into a full AoE2 civilization.
This is why I think the focus should remain on civilizations that had a distinct political structure, military tradition, historical narrative, and gameplay identity.
For example, adding civilizations such as the Mississippians or Iroquois could be interesting from a historical perspective, but the question is whether they fit the same civilization design standards as the existing AoE2 roster. Their societies developed in very different ways compared to the large state civilizations of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia, which had centuries of recorded warfare, competing kingdoms, professional armies, and evolving military systems.
That does not mean they are unimportant. It means the same criteria should apply to everyone.
Otherwise, we could justify adding every smaller political entity that existed in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere, many of which had far greater direct influence on medieval geopolitics and warfare.
AoE2 is not a census of every people who existed. It is a historical strategy game where civilizations need to provide interesting stories, unique gameplay, and meaningful differences from one another.
That should be the standard regardless of region.
Yes, I would have called them Swedes and that would have been that…
