Poll on civs and mechanics you want

  • Japanese
  • Vikings/ Danes
  • Novgorod/ rus
  • Poles
  • Austria
  • French
  • Byzantine
  • Khmer
  • Saracens
  • Turk
  • Malians
  • Ethiopians
  • Aztec
  • Chola (South Indian)
  • Timurid/ Persian
  • Inca

0 voters

I added what seem like the most realistic options, if there is anything you think I missed feel free to comment.

Next up is, pace of the game

  • Fast paced like aoe3
  • In between aoe2 and aoe3
  • More like aoe2 style pace

0 voters

Next up, do you want to see an option to remove formation?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

How asymmetric do you want the civs [poll name=poll4 type=multiple results=always min=1 max=2 chartType=bar]

  • Same as aoe3
  • Less than aoe3
  • Starcraft level
  • More than aoe3, not quite Starcraft
  • I don’t like asymmetric civs
    [/poll]

Snaring [poll name=poll5 type=regular results=always chartType=bar]

  • Yes, snaring is a good mechanic
  • No, snaring is a bad mechanic
    [/poll]
4 Likes

Let me try the last 2 again.

How asymmetric do you want the civs?

  • Same as aoe3
  • Less than aoe3
  • I don’t like asymmetric civs
  • Starcraft level
  • More than aoe3, not quite startcraft

0 voters

Snaring?

  • Yes, it’s a good mechanic
  • No, it’s a bad mechanic
  • I’ve never played aoe3, what is snaring?

0 voters

Added this one also

  • Prolonged age 1 meta
  • Race to age 2 meta
  • in between

0 voters

4 Likes

I don’t know what you mean with the last question. There are prolonged Feudal fights in AOE2 and I have no idea about AOE1 Meta.

2 Likes

So like in aoe3, you rush to hit the second age as fast as possible, and in aoe2 it’s a bit more of a semi longer dark age where your goal isn’t to be in the second age ASAP, your goal is to hit the second age with enough villagers to afford everything you’ll need

So aoe3 your dark age is super short compared to aoe2, and in aoe3 it’s worth it to idle your town center to age a faster age up, in aoe2 it’s not worth it

1 Like

On a competitive level, it isn’t unusual to see very fast builds into Rushes which are at the limit of what your economy can handle.

Has more something to do with the overall pace of the game I think.

Yeah what I mean for example, it depends on what you want to do, for example if you want to fast castle that requires you have enough villagers to support affording to hit castle age, whereas if you go scout rush you want to age as soon as you afford it, and for an archer rush you want to get a few more villagers than with a scout rush because you need to gather gold, and that means another 100 wood you must spend on a mining camp

In aoe3 however, it’s almost unthinkable to age with more than 16 villagers even for a fast age 4

2 Likes

Why do you add then Austrians and Bohemians when you have the Holy Roman Empire, ot Slavs when there is already Rus.
‘Sarracens’ is a generic way in medieval times to say ‘Arabs’ or ‘Muslims’, so it’s also duplicated in the poll.
Also, you dindn’t add any East Asia factions.
I would add to the poll incas, spanish, italians, norse, japanese, maybe coreans (if it helps to sell the game in that country), an hindu indian faction (Delhi Sultanate are muslims).

I don’t care if you are refering to the time for completing games.
But if would like a less boring and more dynamic Dark Ages (it seems that is what we will have).

Yes, a button to remove the formation. It would be useful when I want to flee, and my troops start making formations and going back and forth, and putting themselves at the enemy range. Just go as fast as you can, stop making formations!

More assymetric than aoe3 europeans, but not as assymetric than aoe3 asians and american natives. It seems that the factions that have been confirmed are as assymetric as aoe3 europeans, but at least we have different skins for units and buildings.

No, if we can’t allow troops to advance withouth formation.

1 Like

You forgot about vikings and japanese for the civs.

1 Like

Bit of an odd civ list. Austrians and Bohemians shouldnt even be on the list compared to so many other civs.

Also Turks and Arabs are basically Saracens if you look at the medieval definition.

1 Like

Because I wanted to give people the choice, for example people might want hre to be represented by Austria, while some just want the HRE, baisically I let people pick what name they want for the civ same with bohemians, also I did add Ethiopians for east Africa

2 Likes

Alright I had to redo the civ poll, snow I added a bunch of other options
The votes got deleted sadly so now people have to vote again

3 Likes

Guy…where are Spain? U put Aztecs and Incas but not spanish? Italians, portuguese, “celts” irish/scottish, indians not muslims and…of course…koreans for make money

I hope play with vikings, celts and spanish.

1 Like

The general opinion is that Spain and Portugal would make more sense as an expansion because until the latest parts of the aoe4 timeframe, they were minor powers, the first expansion I would add from a dev point of view would be Spain, Portugal, Aztec, Inca, call it the new world dlc

2 Likes

Prees the translation button plz

La encuesta del post que has hecho no especifica que civs esperamos en el juego inicial… es sobre que civilizaciones y mecanicas queremos.

Si pones civilizaciones americanas en la encuesta, estas dando paso directamente a incluir perfectamente a españoles y portugueses.

1 Like

I put 4 as the limit of votes to imply for the final 4 civs as there are supposed to be 8 civs and 4 are already confirmed, I also personally think Aztec and Inca don’t belong but lots of people on Reddit disagree so I decided to put them as an option just in case

1 Like

Yes, im agree with this.

But can include a campaign of the Reconquest for Spain/Portugal

1 Like

Which civilization do you think is the most popular regarding marketing?

which do you think will lead the sales of each DLC

I think we will get at least 4 DLC’s, because they will surely take advantage of the most popular factions that are missing by selling them separately

Vikings> Japanese> Aztecs> Byzantins

European knights > arabs/camels/indians/elephants > Vikings > Samurais/ninjas > aztecs > mongols > byzantins/romans

I should start doing surveys

I think marketing wise, the civs the game wants to include are, byzantine, HRE, French, Japanese, and Vikings, mongols of course but mongols are confirmed already, I think any of these civs would work as the best last 4 civs to add marketing wise

2 Likes

Interesting line of thinking @Abrahamburger2 . I’ve heard the reason the Koreans were included in Age 2 was for marketing. I wonder how much that is factoring into the developer’s decisions. Delhi seems like a weird inclusion from a marketing perspective since relatively few people have heard of them. From a marketing perspecitve it seems like they would have been called “India” instead

I think Iberian Kingdoms more suitable than just simplifying by Spain/Portuguese/Castile/Aragon. Overall they had similar culture.

1 Like