Agree this was supposed to encourage feedback both here and in the civ designs…
What about everybody just telling here why he voted for the civs and/or what he liked/disliked the most on certain civ designs?
Serbs are in top 5 wow. But there is only 33 voters 
(lets see)
Agree
Same. There’s no feedback of voters out there.
Yeah, I’ll do that when I get around to voting (soon). Although I wish giving solid critiques was a bigger part of the culture here in general. I don’t even necessarily mind if someone has a lot of things they don’t like about my designs, as long as they bring up good points that may help me refine the concept.
Even in dedicated single-civ design threads, there are very few people that I consistently get useful feedback from. Basically @TheConqueror753, @TungstenBoar, and sometimes @CactusSteak2171 and @DynasticPlanet5
Its possible that some of this can be chalked up to burnout considering how many civ concepts have been created, but in general there seems to be a ton of apathy. Versus a lot of threads that I consider to be too argumentative or clickbaity but don’t seem to lead to any kind of useful discussion or good end product seem to get lots of engagement.
On an unrelated note, I notice that none of the designs people chose represent African civs. I don’t see that as a problem per se, given the relatively small sample size, it’s just perhaps a little peculiar given the generally high demand for the next DLC to cover Africa.
None of the african civi concepts meet the poll criteria.
Alright, finally got around to voting. I can only mention 10 users in a post, but here are my critiques of some of the civs I didn’t end up voting for. A later post will be reviews of those I voted for:
@Zero17893’s Helvetians design:
Helvetians
If I had a 6th vote, it would have probably gone to this civ. A lot of things I liked about it, although one of my biggest hangups was their pikeline having 0.5 range (fine) but also a mechanic that slows enemy units, which is too strong of an ability for a trash unit IMO, and should be reserved for a gold unit (and probably a UU). Speaking of UUs, the Handschütze is a cool idea, but my other hangup is how powerful it is. Unless I’m misunderstanding something, it fires way too fast (every 1 sec) for a unit with 16 attack, a spreadshot mechanic, and an anti-UU bonus (given the Samurai is terrible vs. ranged units, I think it’s okay to give a ranged unit the Samurai gimmick). I like the Tavern idea as well, but giving all allies access to this OP unit is overkill. Even if it’s nerfed to just become a somewhat better handcannoneer, that’s a major buff to the whole team (much more useful than Condos or Imp Skirmishers in TGs), and has a lot of potential to stack with civs that already have strong gunpowder bonuses or techs (Portos, Hindus, Spanish, Burgundians) to become extremely powerful.
@UnpricedCar9’s Serbs design:
Serbs
The civ seems okay balance wise, but doesn’t feel that unique in a lategame situation since it will only have extra spearline armor and faster training monks at that point. That’s not necessarily bad (sort of like Cumans’ lategame), but I don’t find it very exciting. The UTs are okay, but the Imp one seems a bit weak since it’s only +2 armor on 1 unit (also not sure if its melee, pierce, or both. If both then it’s fairly strong). Also, the I think a cavalry UU that ignores all bonus damage is just too much, I would make it a percentage. Free Cav Armor is a strong bonus, but I think it’s okay given the civ doesn’t have a very strong eco.
@CruelDegree2949’s Serbs design:
Serbs2
Hmm. To start off, this thread was kind of hard to read due to syntax and formatting issues, and not having all the bonuses in one post really detracted from the overall presentation. I think there’s some room for aura bonuses, but I’m pretty conservative about how they should be implemented. Don’t really care for the idea of monasteries increasing villager work rates but I do like the idea of fortified monasteries that shoot arrows. I also think a cavalry unit that is fully immune to bonus damage is just too strong, (although now that the Sicilian bonus will be nerfed it could have 50% or something).
@SHABOOM8608’s Tai design:
Tai
A lot of ideas that I liked in this civ, but I’m conflicted on the implementation of most of them. I find the lumberjack bonus a little wonky and kind of functioning similarly to a more niche Khmer housing bonus, and it has some odd implications (like wounded villagers losing the excess HP and possibly dying as they are pursued and leave the lumbercamp’s aura). There also remains some (niche) potential for abuse in vill fights or tower rushes, by having your vills carry a token amount of wood and building a forward lumbercamp. Overall it’s a semi-complex mechanic for what seems to be a pretty small and niche upside, but I like the creativity. I also like the idea behind the conversion bonus, but I think it’s too easily overcome, especially for civs that get Sanctity, and usually will just result in a short window in early Castle where your units can’t be converted. Cheaper elite battle ele is good, and I like that there’s a bonus granted by conversions, but even with less final HP the effect is far too similar to the Aztecs IMO. The monk bonus is also the only one that has the potential to matter much in a long game, so overall the civ seems to have a lot of niche bonuses that don’t make it feel like it has lasting strengths outside of the brief moments where those bonuses may matter. The UTs are a high point as far as usefulness, both of them look strong and useful. I think the TB is a little overdone, as giving Genoese, Mamelukes, Cataphracts, etc +25% bonus seems like a huge advantage for the team. I would tone it down to 10-15% max. Overall I think this was one of the most creative designs, I’m just not wild about a lot of how the bonuses are implemented.
@IBMichele117’s Venetians design:
Venetians
Eco bonus is a little generic, but solid, and I’m half surprised there isn’t a civ with it already. Faster wood/gold gen + faster archers (not to mention the damage UT) seems very strong and probably overdone given how fine-tuned the archer line has to be, but the concept of strong midgame and weak Imp is decent. Although seeing that they miss Cavalier is pretty rough, and IMO they’re a bit too heavy on the all-in Castle identity and will be quite weak in TGs, and the Imp UT seems too weak.
@KarstHillFort77’s Chams design:
Chams
This civ has some interesting aspects and I like that it’s a naval-focused civ that also gets a boost on land maps via free fish. The water bonuses are okay, but free Shipwright comes in too late to be very strong. I would prefer that it be available in Castle Age, probably not free, but heavily discounted, and fast researching. I do think the Battle Elephant ability to cut trees steps on the Khmer’s toes too much, and despite lacking range, requires much less investment to pull off. The Castle Age UT is cool and novel, but I think the Imp one is underwhelming. It seems to me that multiple villagers per farm is much more useful early game, when it can be used to gain food quickly with little wood investment, but I don’t see it being super impactful by Imp. I would consider making this a civ bonus. The Pirate UU seems situational, but I like the idea of the Dragon Ship and its unit transport feature. Anyway, cool design overall, and one of the civs that I was closer to voting for.
@Burgundian2000’s Wallachians thread:
Wallachians
Um, so the only actual design in this thread was from someone other than the OP. The OP’s post was a “civ concept” in the most general possible sense, i.e. a desire for Wallachians to be added at some point, but I didn’t actually see any aspects of civ design from him, so…was I supposed to for the other person’s design, or the general idea of adding the civ? Either way, I couldn’t vote for this one, and unless the featured concept is the one by the other person, I don’t see why this should be in the poll.
@JCC3001’s Chimu design:
Chimu
My biggest hangup here was not committing to some hard numbers for the bonuses.
What X turns out to be matters a great deal as to how strong the bonus is. The principle is fine, but lacking a solid metric makes it difficult to be enthusiastic about.
I also think Skirmishers ignoring armor is too strong (gold unit ability, IMO), and I already voiced my distaste for tech names along the lines of “Bronze Armor,” although this is kind of nitpicky.
The strongest point of the thread was the impressive research done, the well-presented information and visuals and citations. While I’m normally very little influenced by images and presentation over the technical aspects of design, @JCC3001 's thread makes a very strong case for why a Chimu civ would be an excellent addition to the game.
@Player870583437’s Romanians design:
Romanians
Overall the civ’s bonus erred on the side of being too weak, but some were OP in certain contexts (e.g. + 2/2 villager armor as a civ bonus, or cheaper farms as a team bonus). The thread was also confusing because it had other peoples’ designs written in by the OP, and the thread went annoyingly off topic very early on and devolved into the usual arguments about civ viability, umbrella civs, whether or not other civs should be added/split, etc. That’s not the OP’s fault, but it makes the thread much less accessible when you’re looking for changes made by the OP.
@Seicing’s Sogdians design:
Sogdians
Obviously this civ impressed a lot of people. It features a unit that already exists in the Editor/campaigns, and is a civ with a strong cavalry and trade identity. The custom unit graphics also do a lot to bring the civ to life. That said, I tend to suspect the cavalry bonuses + knight replacement, may be too strong, and that the two UUs may cover each others weaknesses a little too well. I think the ideas have a lot of potential, and I like the concept of a unique trade unit generally, but the explanation of how the unit works was confusing, and the Town Center gold generation was not well defined enough for me to be able to enthusiastically support the concept as a whole. I don’t really have any good metric for how the civ plays out economically, or how the Sogdian Merchant compares with standard trade units.
General Takeaways:
I think organization should be a criteria for inclusion in the next poll. Some threads are just not well formatted or are very long and have various design changes scattered throughout them and just don’t have all the info in one place. For quite I few of these I had to skim through long threads to find all the changes. I am guessing the majority of people who voted did not bother to do this, and if not I can’t blame them.
Also, I don’t want to fault people who don’t speak English as a first language, but a couple of these posts are loaded with so many spelling/grammar/punctuation/syntax issues that it becomes very distracting and even a little hard to understand.
3 Likes
And here are my reviews for the rest of the civs I didn’t vote for:
@WedInk504838973’s Sioux design:
Sioux
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:
Visayans
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:
Hephthalites:
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).
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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
6 Likes
@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!
Congratulations to the winners.
1st place Sogdians
2nd place Venice
3rd place Swiss
4 Likes
Sorry if I’m late, I’m on vacation with bad cellphone reception 
Thanks to everyone who voted for my design 
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 
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.
2 Likes
Some of us may have neared that mark, whether or not the world was ready for it yet 
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:
Tarascans
Because I’m biased, of course. But mostly because it’s awesome.
@DoctBaghi’s Venetians design:
Venetians
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:
Tibetans
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:
Tamils
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:
Mississippians
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.
4 Likes
看起來很酷
請問還會辦下一次嗎？
我想參加 