[Poll] Best Civilisation Concept

And here are my reviews for the rest of the civs I didn’t vote for:

@WedInk504838973’s Sioux design:


I’ll be frank and say that my judgment of this civ is strongly affected by my opinion that it does not belong in the AoE2 time window, at least as a cavalry civ (or any American civ that gets strong cavalry before Imperial Age). I’m very sympathetic to new American civs in general, but that must be accompanied with knowing where to draw the line as far as chronology and other factors. That said, I like the bison bonus a lot (although at more than 1 TC is probably too strong). The bow rider seems to resemble the Mangudai a little too much, and giving it an anti-cav bonus on top of that seems excessive. Overall, the necessarily anachronistic cavalry from Feudal Age is a bridge too far for me.

@StereoQuasar163’s Visayans design:


The civ seems decent on water, but has almost nothing going for it on land. Don’t really know what else to say about this, other than that “water civ” isn’t really viable as a complete identity.

@WateryCanoe400’s Hephthalites design:


Interesting. The wood bonus is very strong, but I think is viable depending on how much the base rate would be nerfed. The archer gold bonus is interesting, but may be too strong. And the Imp UT is something that I think would be good as a bonus, but I don’t see being used much by the time you research the tech (probably less than the infantry shooting arrows aspect of Teutons’ Imp UT).


Thanks to @casusincorrabil for creating the poll!
So far, I couldn’t find time yet to read all the nice designs and vote.
Could you prolong the deadline, so that more people can participate? I think it actually needs no deadline at all, could be a running tally.

Sorry, but if I increase the deadline the whole poll will be lost.
You still have more than a week to vote though.

May I suggest that instead of the complicated trade mechanic proposed, that the Sogdian Merchant be simplified to accrue Food and Wood in addition to Gold, at a flat fraction of the gold accumulated on a trade run?

That’s a possibility for sure, but it’s Seicing’s call, and he may have something different in mind. Also I would recommend that specific civ commentaries that are not reviews for this poll be put in their respective threads.

Here’s my feedback on the civs I did vote for.

@SirWiedreich Tarascans/Purépecha: This was my favourite civ in the poll. I like the idea of a civ with Eagles and cavalry, and the fact that there’s a sensible historical justification for it. I also like the idea of an American civ with a strong late game (unlike the existing ones) – I assume that’s the intention of Castilian Pact. Finally, I think this is a civ I would really enjoy playing as, being a defensive ranged unit civilisation (my favourite civ is Koreans).

I’m a bit unsure about a couple of things, though. I’m not sure how larger defensive buildings would be a bonus: I assume this means 2-by-2 towers, which would be easier to surround with units and therefore to destroy. Also, I wonder whether Castilian Pact would be too little too late given that it mostly unlocks units that a lot of other civs can get normally. In particular, you wouldn’t be able to train Xolotl Warriors until quite late in the game.

@Szaladon Mississippians: I voted for this mostly for the bonus 30% of the stone cost of castles and towers is converted to wood, which is something I’ve wanted to see a civ with for a while now. I don’t suppose it will ever actually happen now that Detinets exists. I like the combination of that bonus with the smaller farms, which should make for an easily defendable food economy. However, it looks like the civ drops off in the late game, so you would still want to play proactively and not just boom away to post-Imperial Age.

I’m not convinced about the team bonus Eagle Warrior line has +2 range of sight, since most allies won’t get any benefit from it (although I know a few other team bonuses aren’t always useable). I wonder whether the Mongols’ team bonus should do this anyway (I don’t think it does currently).

@SHABOOM8608 Tai: I was actually in two minds about whether to vote for this one. I think the bonuses are pretty bold without being gimmicky, and I particularly like the idea of a team bonus that improves unique units, since I think unique units almost universally don’t see enough use.

However, I also think this one might be a balance nightmare. I’m not convinced that the conversion requirement would really help much, and the Monk hit point bonus is like a version of the Aztec bonus that you really have to work hard for. On the other hand, the unique unit bonus is probably too strong when allied with, say, Mongols, Spanish or Koreans. As for the Imperial Battle Elephant, Battle Elephants are already strong in the very late game, so this would probably be overpowered in niche closed map team game situations while being unused most of the time.

Also, some feedback on the current leader, @Seicing Sogdians. I actually almost voted for this, but the main reason I didn’t is the Sogdian Merchant. The mechanic just seems too convoluted to me – I think it would be extremely difficult to use in a beneficial way, and could work against you in some situations. I also don’t like the free Sogdian Merchants on aging up, since (if I understand the unit correctly) they’re useless in most 1v1s, but since some 1v1 games have trade you couldn’t limit this bonus to team games only. The result is that in most 1v1s you’d end up having to delete them every time you age up, which I think would be really annoying.

I might write some feedback on the others I didn’t vote for later. But generally I think the reason that most voters aren’t giving feedback is that it’s time-consuming! Even reading all the civ designs and voting took me a while, and once I’d voted I didn’t really have the time to devote to writing feedback on top of that.


Ok, time is running up, so I’ll give some feedback:

The labor of love award goes to @JCC3001 for the wonderfully illustrated Chimu design. Loads of material, pictures, someone posted a song even, and everyone is gathering stuff about Chimus in this thread. Could hardly get better. Some great civ bonuses as well which fit to the infantry + naval focus.

For the best interaction of two units, I like the Chams design by @KarstHillFort77. The original idea of Champa Pirates as raiders who can be boarded (and only those) on special warships (Mong Dongs) creates an immersive feeling of an amphibious raider civ a bit similar to Sicilians and also in the line of Vikings.

Most out-of-the-box eco bonus goes to Venetians by @DoctBaghi with “Receive +50 gold after researching any technology (including age ups).” Very innovative and unusual. Also interesting other bonuses and UUs.

New architecture set award to @Szaladon for Mississipians. Stunning drawings for Woodland American architecture! I also like the Eagle bonuses (free upgrades and TB +2 LOS).

Biggest game-changer UT goes to Tarascans by @SirWiedreich. The imperial UT enabling gunpowder and mounted units could change the whole match and brings new spice to Native American civs.

Great to see so many innovative designs! Thx


@culgil1014 Thanks for the appreciation of my Champa civ design. In fact looking back at it I think the name of the unique unit should be changed from Champa Pirate to Rhade Warrior (the Rhade or Ede people were a subgroup of Chamic people living in the highlands of Central Vietnam and they were often hired by the Champa kingdoms as soldiers and raiders), cause the name Pirate conveys negative connotation in certain cultures and I understand that the devs want to remain as neutral as possible, hence the name change.

BTW there is only one day left to vote!

Its DONE! Thanks For the support and congrats to @Seicing

1 Like

Congratulations to the winners.
1st place Sogdians
2nd place Venice
3rd place Swiss


Sorry if I’m late, I’m on vacation with bad cellphone reception :sweat_smile:

Thanks to everyone who voted for my design :2nd_place_medal: I’m incredibly happy to have appreciated my fan design.

Congratulations to @Seicing and @Zero17893 too for the gold and bronze medals, very good designs. Keep up the good work :+1:

To everyone else who participated I say don’t give up and keep improving your designs, I’m sure that you’ll get to the perfect civ design sooner or later (I mean, my venetian design is like the 10th attempt…).

Thank you very much. The idea hit mean some months ago, probably influenced by the new aoe3 italians (although the idea is older than the DLC) and the book that I used as historical material for the design (History of Venice, by Frederic C. Lane) where he perfectly explained Venice economy.


Some of us may have neared that mark, whether or not the world was ready for it yet :wink: Then again, I’m biased. Perfect presentation is another matter, of course.
In any case, the top 3 all deserved their place.

Anyway, before this thread sinks into the depths of Tartarus, guess I’ll review the final 5 that I voted for as well as the other reviews I left.

SirWiedreich’s Tarascans design:


Because I’m biased, of course. But mostly because it’s awesome.

@DoctBaghi’s Venetians design:


I’ll admit at first I didn’t like the eco bonus - it seemed unanchored and gimmicky, but thinking about it more I realized it was actually a great fit for a Venetian civ given their mercantile culture, Golden Bulls, and patronage of the arts and sciences. While I have slight misgivings about some things, such as whether a stun mechanic would be overpowered, overall the UUs are interesting concepts, and I like the idea of the original scrapped mechanic of ships that can convert other ships being revisited. Overall the concept makes a compelling case for Venetians to be added eventually.

@Apocalypso4826’s Tibetan design:


The Tibetans design is well thought out and seems like one of the best balanced civs in this competition, and seems like a good standard concept that would be one of the safer choices for addition to the game in terms of its technical design. The biggest criticism that I can make is that no single aspect of the design strikes me as being remarkably innovative, but that’s okay given that not every civ in a DLC needs to have any kind of special gimmick. But it does get points for using some obvious bonuses that have nonetheless never been implemented (cheaper monks, trainable herdables).

@culgil1014’s Tamils design:


Whether or not I agree with everyone else’s criteria, I can more less understand the relative position that most civs had in the final ranking. This civ is the main exception, as I’m quite surprised more people didn’t vote for it, notwithstanding some one-issue voters and people with regional preferences. Not only did this civ anticipate many of the current units and bonuses of both Dravidians and Bengalis, it also avoided the pitfall that the actual devs’ Dravidians design made of making them prohibitively weak on land maps. Frankly, I think this design is superior to that of the current Dravidians. I particularly like this civ’s design of the Urumi Warrior, which has splash damage but is largely effective vs. low-armored units. This design makes a lot of sense given the historical Urumi’s strengths, versus the currently implemented Urumi Swordsman, which is basically a Jedi Master that cuts through armor with its magic sword. If anything I think this civ is slightly overtuned, with both free infantry armor and some extra attack, and both the current Bengali’s villager bonus and a wood and fish bonus. But overall the design is well though out and interesting.

And last but not least, @Szaladon’s Mississippians design:


A simple but effective design for an American civ that replaces the currently ubiquitous “Super Eagle Imp UT” with free upgrades and a UU that performs as a strong melee Eagle. The included building drawings also do a lot to bring the possibilities of this civ to life. The idea of wood-only towers is interesting as well, and on another civ might be too strong, but the lack of Guard Tower and Arrowslits makes this a non-issue. My one concern is with the Mounds UT, as I think the ability to train standard infantry in Castles has a little situational utility, but overall it doesn’t seem to be much of a buff to train barracks units at a far more expensive building where UU or treb production will almost always be prioritized. The ability to garrison siege there is interesting, however. Overall a simple but strong and intuitive design.


我想參加 :yum:

Well, perfection is something unachievable, we can just struggle to get as close as possible to it.

Designing a fan civ (but a real one too) takes a lot of trials and errors and to make it again and again… then of course not everyone can recognize the effort behind it…

I have been civ designing longer than most personally and I gotta say the ride to the top of the civ crafting charts.

I’ll say never to give up but maybe I’m a harsher judge than most and can be a little crass but my heart means well.

I’ve come up with simpler alternative for the wood bonus, villager carry 100% more wood (or 80%). As for imp UT, units heal 4X faster when garrisoned and monk conversion ignore Heresy and Faith.


First I need to update the [HUB]
BTW everybody can update it when I don’t get to do it-

Then we can have a new poll at some time, but I wouldn’t do it during a major tournament.


I need to work on a new concept to participate… Very pleased to see here my swiss concept!