[Poll] Post-Porto Civ DLC by Region

I completely agree with you here. Though Africa would be nice next <3

I still want to see one day a 4th Eagle Warrior civ.

Assuming they change the recipy to 3 civs per DLC, my guess is that the next DLCs will be:

1st Next DLC: In Africa. There are 6 significant civs I can think of:

  • Zimbabwe
  • Ghana
  • Swahili
  • Somalia
  • Namibians
  • Kanem

Out of which I would say Zimbabwe & Ghana are a must due to being more significant. Other than that, my personal choice and guess would be the Namibians due to being more different than the rest.

2nd Next DLC: The Americas.

There is already a great civ design here:

Which sadly, I don’t think will be added because the devs want to be original.

The big 3 are already in the game: Aztect, Maya and Inca. These 3 aside, there are: Olmec, Teotihuacan, Mixtec, Huastec, Purepecha and Toltec. I have no idea which civs they will pick.

3rd Next DLC: Caucas/Europe

Something like: Vlachs, Georgians, Armenians. Centered around the Black Sea.

Again, some great civ designs here, but unlikely to see them in the game due to devs wanting to be original. At least it serves as a good history lesson:

4th Next DLC: Asia.

There are a few issues here - anything inside China will be a no no for political reasons. So no Tibet because REDACTED.

Unless we go for minor nations left like Nepal, Cambodia, Laos.

I don’t see how Asia will work. We’ve already covered all major countries in AoE2 and only have a few small ones left. One could argue for splitting China based on ethnic lines, but the PR of Microsoft would strongly insist that this is not a good idea. With China intact, that’s pretty much it.

Unless you want to make a North Korea civ with nukes in castle age and get +1000 social points.

Khmers are Cambodia and Laos.only one missing is Thailand but that area too falls under Burmese and Khmer.


Africa, then Asia, add an Oceanian civ and 2-3 American civs then Africa and Asia again until we have 60-70 civs. Europe never.

(voted for Oceania, because I was too lazy to read the post)

1 Like

Average ‘no more Europe’ user


Who are in your more than average category?

Am I in that list? :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

You dont want to know what I could quote for the average “Europe only” user


I voted for Africa, there is a lot of potential there. But also still think about Caucasus. It would be cool to get Georgians, Tibetans and Chimu and call this DLC “Dome of the World”.


@Julix3748 sorry buddy, I don’t understand. Are you suggesting a civ called SerboCroats?

@Zero17893 Nubians are African, mate. And Mamluks and Abbasids are two Turkish and Arab dynasties respectively.

I don’t know if I agree with that. Could you give more details? And a China DLC without the Tibetans would be lame

@Player870583437 you mean Nubians again, right? XD
For me, there are no most significant civ. In fact, there is a lot you can do for each region of Africa:
→ western: Songhai or Benin
→ central: Kanem-Bornu
→ west-central: Kongo
→ southeastern: Zimbabwe
→ eastern: Swahili
→ northeastern: Nubia


Nope, I meant the Namibians, the Nubians are fine too I guess.

What do you mean by the Namibians though? As far as Im aware they didnt do much in the AoE2 timrline

I’d want Africa first then South America next, after that idk


so long is no north america with oceania i would buy this

1 Like

I keep thinking Tlaxcalans could be their own civ

I’ve talked about this before so I’m going to be doing some copy-pasting.
I hope it doesn’t come off like I’m trying to spam.

I think with the DLCs, they tend to focus on one or more big historical moments that are recognisable enough to capture the attention of cursory history fans.
People who aren’t as invested in history as many of the posters here.
With LotW is was killing Joan of Arc and William Wallace.
With DotD it was the Battle of Grunwald and (perhaps?) less famously the Hussite wars.
With DiI I’m not 100% on the contexts of the Begali and Dravidian campaigns (which I hope will change after I play the campaigns), but I know Babur and rise of the Mughals is a big deal.
It’s such a big deal that me, someone with only a cursory knowledge of Indian history, knows about it, which I think supports my original framework.

I’m not against more Euro civs, but if take off my history fan hat and put my game marketing hat on, then I think you need to focus on a huge historical event (something like the Fall of Constantinople) and/or create something that will appeal to the absolute biggest possible audience (like breaking up China).

Basically, have a good hard objective look at what’s going to make the most cash and that’s where the next DLCs will be.
I don’t mean that in a cynical way and I think it’s a fairly logical way to think about where they’ll go next for content.

I don’t think that’s really a matter of consideration considering we’ve gotten civs in DLCs who aren’t covered in most of European / US history classes (which is apparently the only audience for the game, if the average ‘Europe-only’ posters are to believe).

I’m sure I’m also not alone in being exposed to great storylines through AoE2, I mean even as a kid before history classes, AoE2 gave me interest in some cultures (which I wouldn’t even learn about in classes), and I would equally - if not more - love campaigns about less known moments or battles. I’d even say it’s moreso just about the campaign designs rather than moments that matter. We all know of Joan of Arc, but honestly? The campaign is a mess.

A question you should also ask is what constitutes a huge historical event for you - is it something taught to you in your probably eurocentric education (which is understandable, as if you’re European, that’s the history most relevant to you), or could it be that other regions also had huge historical events you’re just not aware of, because of several reasons? Consider also how a lot of history has gone missing or has been downplayed throughout time for reputation sake.


What you say makes complete sense and from an economic point of view, playing it safe to attract as many potential clients as possible is a great strategy (MCU for example), but I’m not sure if the devs use this reasoning (that’s why I asked for some examples).

For example, I had no idea who the Cumans and Khmer were. Tatars in my language (tártaros in Portuguese) refers more to Greek hell than an Asian steppe people. Some others I only knew by the name of the current country (Ethiopia, Bulgaria, Lithuania etc).
That is, this reasoning seems to apply more to old aoe2, with Ensemble. Forgotten devs seem more to insert unknown civs and use the game to “educate” us in history than to play it safe by adding only the famous civs (not least because all the best known ones already seem to be in the game).

But of course, I could be wrong. For example this expansion of India, I can’t say if devs did it because of community demands or because they intended from the beginning to split the FE umbrellas.

1 Like

I should have stated that I mean DE DLCs, not pre-DE DLCs.
How the HD DLCs and DE DLCs have been designed is very different.
That’s something I forgot to copy over.

What constitutes as a huge historical event for me are huge historical events.

I’m not European or American.
99% of my historical knowledge comes from my own interest and investigation.


Yeah and I can say that hey, w/e Hussite wars were weren’t huge historical events for me, so they weren’t huge historical events right. You’re not presenting any metric to rank them.

Ok, to generalise further then - the history you’re taught is not full world history, and there will be huge historical moments not taught because they’re not relevant to your country’s education. I wouldn’t be surprised if Asians would at most give a cursory look at Hussite wars, or whatever campaigns LotW were about.


Again, I should have said DE DLCs.
Forgot to copy that over.

Khmer are like a really big deal.
The Angkor Wat (Khmer wonder) is literally on the flag of Cambodia.
And if you’re into any Eastern Europe history, you might have a vague idea of who the blonde headed, Turkic mercenary guys were.
Tatars are associated with Timur, who is one of the most famous conquerers in history.
Not trying to shame you or something for not knowing those peoples pre-AoE2, just trying to reinforce that they’re not that obscure.
That’s why I said cursory knowledge, not no knowledge.

I say neither and think the primary motivation was that making a South Asia DLC was very logical business choice.
The people who come to the forums to talk about random stuff (including me) would be such a small fraction of the people who actually buy the DLCs.
With DoI 2+ billion people who are going to be curious about these civs, which means a lot of potential customers.
There is zero risk on Microsoft and FE for making DoI.

If 1999 Ensemble was making DLCs, they probably would have added something like the Vandals with a Shaolin Warrior as their UU. Random mismatched stuff with no care.