Please keep the name Jeanne d’Arc

Yes, this is the whole point. A single character who died at age 19 in the 15th century 3 years after rising to prominence is not a good focus for a civ in a game where the established timeline for the existing civs is ~800-1650.

1 Like

I really think that arguing for a change that significant is a waste of time. It’s far too late in the development cycle to make this kind of change, and putting the place of audience feedback aside for a moment, personal outrage and indifference to significance are kind of more about your feelings than a reason to alter content.

This image showcases the typical development cycle. If they have reached the point of showing the features of the faction on a tailored web page you’re going to see it implemented in that fashion. Simply put: none of us are in a position to alter design, at best we can make suggestions (we are in the maintenance section). Understanding that is as simple as understanding your role as a consumer. It would be prudent to at least expect Jeanne d’Arc to be the center of the faction identity.

Probably so, but the whole idea has been so incoherent and poorly thought out that I’m not sure. Erm no lmao, my role as a consumer isn’t “maintenance” it is to decide whether I want to buy their product or not. Since this product is garbage, my answer is no. I’m just being kind enough to provide feedback (in a not so kind way) on what would make me spend my money.

1 Like

15 dollars isn’t exactly a powerful incentive if you really think about it. Power to you for recognizing the full impact one person can have as a customer.

Duh, Idc about 15 dollars. However, if most of the playerbase feels the same then they will lose money a lot of money if they don’t address the concerns of their customers. Right now it isn’t looking so good for them from a sales perspective. The majority of the fanbase is unhappy with what they have come up with. Changing the Sultan’s army name was both an admission that they didn’t actually think anything through and proof that they will listen to the players.

1 Like

The primary difference between us is that my emotions aren’t tied to the success or failure of the game as a result of the DLC. I’m happy to play it because I look forward to it, and if that means spending less time with negative personas then that’s even better for me. I’ve seen this sentiment enough over 25 years of playing games online to recognize the cope when I see it.

1 Like

No, the primary difference between us is you can’t disagree with someone without attacking them personally. Glad you are looking forward to it, feel free to stop responding.


I doubt most of the player base feels so offended or displeased to not buy the expansion. Usually, there’s a very vocal minority and silent majority. Anyway I wouldn’t bet this goes bad for the Devs because future content would resent, even the good one.

1 Like

The majority wasn’t even unhappy with the original names if we go by people on youtuber polls. The current dissatisfaction is limited primarily from the very small and generally negative AOE4 forums. The larger reddit, you hardly see any negativity and mostly excitement. Streams and youtube comments are generally positively receiving the DLC.

I would be shocked if there was a meaningfully large amount of people that didn’t by the DLC because of Jeanne.


Would like to see you run a game studio, you’d probably be the kind of person that hire people when you need them and then layoff right after the release.

Its not about money it’s about the number of employees they have and resources they have. They can’t constantly change their working capacity because you want new civs. That’s the amount of content they could create in 1-2 years otherwise would take longer or be less content.

Personally i love the idea of variant civ because they can release more gameplay each year.

Instead of just 2 civs we get 6 which is amazing.

Its a game it doesn’t need to be hyper realistic and jeanne darc has always been a warrior in games since aoe2. There’s tons of things in the game that doesn’t fit timeline (because it’s a game) but you focus only on the small amount you know.


I would love for it to take longer and actually have them do a good job. Laying most of the staff off only works if you release a completed game, these people sold a beta that didn’t even resemble a finished product until a year after it released, which costed them a massive amount of players and revenue. So now the remaining players are paying the price with the recycled crap they are releasing because the game got bad reviews and didn’t sell nearly as well as it should have.

It isn’t about hyper-realism but they already established a timeline for the civs in the game of ~800-1650 and they are releasing these weird variant civs that they can’t even come up with names for because they want to save money. Originally, they said their vision for AOE4 was far fewer civs than AOE2 except they would all feel unique and individual as opposed to AOE2 where there are like 80 civs that are 95% similar.

I would have been thrilled with just Byzantines and ####nese, and if there were more civs in a year then that would be great too but I would prefer no new civs then them watering down the civ pool with recycled junk.


I was trying to find the source for this and found an interview from 2019 with creative director Adam Isgreen:

“While we’ve kept specific structures similar in shape language because we want them to be understood across any civilisation that has them, every civilisation in Age IV has its own unique visuals for every unit and structure in the game.”

This, Isgreen says, is “from basic troops all the way up to… whatever may be near the apex of impressive structures.”

It seems like these statements were made to reference the reduced number of civilizations on launch, 8 compared to 13 in AoE 2, and that the reduced number of civs was to match the enormous amount of effort that needs to go into their vision of an AoE 4 civ. We’re talking about uniquely designed models for every unit, all with relevant armor and weapons to the period they reference, as well as evolving dialects in unit speech.

If anything this is why we are seeing a maximum of two unique civilizations, and the attempt to add more than that in the form of variants is an attempt to add more variety to gameplay. Personally, this is actually why I find the variants extremely exciting, it mixes up gameplay and we can look forward to the addition of variations on civs that will let us see them played in a way that wouldn’t be possible in their “vanilla” configuration. I would really like to try them myself to be honest, it would be much easier to determine if they are truly “watered down” or “recycled junk”.

1 Like

Look, I hope you are right and this has been the plan all along and not just something they are throwing together because they have run out of money. The fact that they are struggling to even come up with names that make sense makes it seem like the later though. I’m still not a big fan the variant idea either way but I would love nothing more than to be wrong. I don’t have a good feeling about it though

1 Like

Yes, or maybe add them as variants within the base civs…for example, reach imperial with French, Abbasids, HRE and Chinese and if you want you can become those variants through a landmark, but staying within what the main is. civ or but directly add the unique units to the base civs (the 4 UU of the French, plus Joan who would be like a Khan and his 2 UU; there you would have 7 UU for the French), then you add the 6 UU to the Abbasids from the Ayyubids (that would be 9 UUs for the Abbasids), to the HRE (which what they need most are UUs, add the 6 UUs of the Order of the Dragon and there it would be 8 UUs for the HRE) and to the Chinese add the 6 UUs of Zhu Xi and that the Chinese would have 12 UU and so on…

That’s true…

There are not exactly 6 civs… it would be 2 civs and 4 pseudo-civs…

Well in defense of them, in AoE 3 FE made Malta using the assets from the Blood campaign…

Of course AoE 3 also came out with 8 civs and 2 years later it had 14 civs, AoE 4 would now have 12 civs (plus the 4 variants, which I don’t consider new civs per se)…

This game was developped to be the most historical accurate AoE
I am not against new mechanics or anything new developpers could bring into the game
But we are forced to recognize that :

  • Jeanne didin’t live during 4 ages
  • She actually never wielded a cannon
  • A whole empire (because it is the name of the franchise) never held the name of a single person

Tbh, I appreciate this hero mechanic, but transforming a hero into a empire and make him live during a thousand year isn’t what I call “historical accuracy”

1 Like

Agree, i would definitly appreciate more a new civ more instead of variants. Or just 2civ and maybe new campaign plus new buildings or units for the existing factions… or something new

How do you downvote posts?

1 Like

You debate them. Or you just don’t contribute and like the posts that state the opposite. Whatever is more to your liking.

Yes, I feel like they wanted to go for an easier and faster solution to give variety to the game and now they pay “just for sinners”…

I ask again, it is so difficult to create a new civ ? In one year for example… it can be even ok the variants buy why not to focus more on new civ First.