“Evolution”? 
1 Like
Yeah, let’s return back on-topic.
1 Like
Flagging my post really when I was the one being hated on that’s embarrassing to you
That is a good question, I was greatly perturbed to be reminded about it, I didn’t expect that that would happen on this forum on this thread no less. I’ll be honest I tried to play it, I really did because I’m a huge fan of the AOE series however once I realized it was just who has the bigger army for the initial engagement and you have to avoid combat in order to fill every crevice of your pop cap I did a double take. Blinked and said no more!
1 Like
I for one would welcome a paid or otherwise dlc to this game!
2 Likes
Hoping it will be worth the money.
Optimally, they proceed with what they did in the past.
On the other hand, they were suggesting that they were going to add “more content, campaigns, new game modes”.
What do you think are they suggesting with new game modes exactly?
1 Like
It’s also the opinion of the majority of gamers in general.
aoe2 sold over 2 million copies in the first 3 months, and spent 2 and a half years straight on the top 20 in sales lists, at a time when pc gaming was incredibly niche.
aoe3 didn’t reach the 2 million mark until may of 2008, 2.5 years after release.
2 Likes
Do you have a source for this claim? I have heard this before and they linked to some article, but i couldnt find this statement.
As an answer to following question:
How did you decide on the new civs, and how far do you think Age II in particular can spread in terms of bringing new civs in?
AI: These civs were arrived at because we were wondering ‘what’s left?’. We were trying to find a period in history which still fit the general time scope that Age II occupies. We’ve covered so much of the world now in terms of that period that, after a lot of discussions, we finally fell on to telling the stories of the fallout of the Mongol empire, which is what The Last Khans is all about.
At this point, I think we’re done adding civilisations to Age II. I do not foresee us adding any more civs to the game. I think we’ll add more content, campaigns, new game modes – all those kinds of things we’ll explore, but even our pro players are kind of saying ‘we’re done, we have enough civs at this point to last us forever’.
It’s a lot to hold in your head, and I think that they would love to get comfortable with the game rather than trying to push into even more civs. There comes a saturation point, and I think we’re there.
I hope they changed their mind.
2 Likes
Thanks for clarifying! I really think we need to be done with new civs too. I already feel like i have no time to explore all civs. On the other side, i dont have much with campaigns and that kind of thing, so i dont know if i would buy the DLC if it only contains such things. I also dont know what new game modes they want to introduce. Most players just play RM anyways. So i have no idea how popular new game modes will be.
1 Like
It always depends on which level you want to understand a civ. Saracen Monk Rush are civ specific strats which were discovered after time.
I think a middle on the road approach (adding civs with a significant time gap) is the best approach to please both parts of the community.
3 Likes
You know we already have 1225 different 1v1 civ match up? I cant play them all in a short time. There are some civs that arent picked frequently nowadays. This issue will only be bigger if we add even more civs. Like your quote says: I think we are done with new civs.
2 Likes
This was already an issue in the base game with 78 match-ups.
1 Like
The number only increases. Even more civs wont be used at all in competitive, which (for me) is bad. More civs wont add much to the game strategy wise. I have to admit that something like the Cumans 2TC and siege workshop is great design. But most civs will play out like another civ. They wont really add depth to the game in my opinion.
Feel free to disagree. I know there are also users that like more civs for historical / geografical reasons. Reason like ‘that area of the earth has less civs, so lets add civs from that area’. I dont really have much with that reasoning (it is not important enough for me to justify more civs), but i can understand why others (i think mostly single player users) think otherwise.
2 Likes
Meh, Singleplayer is better anyway, and more civs will provide for couter-picks to Meta civs, if done well.
1 Like
To be honest I belong to this part of the community. With 35 civs it gets increasingly harder to make them unique I admit but some great AOE2 mods still prove the game has still potential in this regard (Realms Burgundians, Realms Muisca, Realms Turcomans, Civ Concept LLC Caribs,…)
2 Likes
I would like to see more Historical Battles, ideally they would also split them out over the four continents as they do with the campaigns.
I also wouldn’t mind more campaigns. Why don’t we have a Chinese campaign? Chinese military history is so amazing yet the only thing we get is the Langshan Jiang scenario, which is fine, but come on, we could have dozens of great Chinese campaigns, at least we should have ONE.
I would also like to see a “Challenges” game mode similar to the Mongol Raiders scenario. You could also compete with friends “Who can score most points on this scenario”, etc. Could also be “Who can fast imp the quickest” et cetera.
New units and technologies are always welcome. I always wanted to see a Monastery technology like Sacrifice in AOE1. If you delete a Monk while he is converting a unit, the unit will convert instantly.
New civs… I’m not sure. For sure, new civs are exciting. On the other hand, I only know half of the civs well. If my opponent chooses Malay, or Incas, or Berbers, I honestly don’t really have an idea what they’ll be doing next. I had an Arena game playing against Khmer, I saw him massing up scorpions and thought he was a noob thinking they are Helepolis as in AOE1. Then it turns out they killed all my units and it was GG. 35 civs is just a lot to master, especially for new players, so going further might make things worse. I would say 40 would really be the maximum.
Also, I didn’t like the HD system where people who don’t have all the DLCs could only play certain civs. Civs should all be in the base game in my opinion. So I would prefer DLCs for campaigns and scenarios only.
5 Likes
I know I might be repeating myself but considering that even the official devs are releasing their campaigns for free on the workshop, I seriously doubt that they’ll try to sell us campaigns/scenarios as DLC.
Civs were the main selling points for DLCs in the past and still are in my opinion. Architecture sets and regional unit skins might work too considering that with those, the civs we already have feel as new civs e.g. Redkirby’s Viking architecture or my Independent Architecture Collection 
HD’s civ system was not ideal considering that it didn’t give you access to all civs you own if you did not own any single DLC, but it still allowed you to try out Premium content for free which not every game does. It’s not something unfixable though considering that Total War has a better system on this regard if I’m not wrong.
I won’t buy a “Challenge” DLC either to be honest.
2 Likes
Come on, devs! I want my Iroquois!
I have said it…
(only true men of culture and History will understand the reference)
2 Likes
There is a new test branch called ‘ca_test’ so it’s very likely that the new DLC is CaptureAge.
2 Likes