[Poll] Where Should the Next DLC Focus?

That’s not why we have an Indians split.

Civs are based on cultural and ethnic groups. India has tons of very different groups with completely different languages, cultures and militaries that are separated by thousands of miles and years.

Various Italian city states do not qualiy for that. Hell, we already have 3 Italian civs anyway, we don’t need any more of them.


Of course someone is asking for ANOTHER split on the already overcived Euro region. How unexpected

1 Like

Death of the west DLC:

Roman campaign: Julian the apostate (“I’m working on it” with Ornlu voice), there’s already plenty of 5th century Roman custom campaigns and when you play one their story is basically the same for the rest of them (try to save the wre, barbarians or some Roman aristocrat betrays you, “but Rome will live on forever (it won’t)”), with Julian at least it could still be an offensive (kinda, probably the last real effort for Romans) campaign and there’s a lot more to unwrap plot wise.

Adding Alemans would be cool as natural antagonists of Julian but unlikely otherwise, their campaign could be something in the vein of the Burgundian dukes since imo they don’t have a clear historical figure that stands over the others.

The only true must addition imo would be Vandals with an obvious Gaiseric / trip from Germany to Africa campaign.

And scrap Bari for a more representative byzantine campaign: either Justinian/Belisarius or Heraclius.

Other possibilities include: Saxons (Alfred the great? Not very in theme however), Lombards (Alboin or Liutprand), Avars (Bayan is the only possible) or Suebians/Swabians (could be merged with Alemans).

New historical battles: Adrianople (goths), Avarayr (Armenians), Erac (Huns), Fiesole (Romans), war of Cabaon against the vandals or a battle from the moorish-byzantine wars (Berbers), Wogastisburg (Slavs), Yarmuk (Saracens), what’s left out from the campaign (byzantines), Deorham (Saxons), Soissons or ####### or Autun or Vouille (Franks, Clovis could have his own campaign)

You could add many other civs from the dark ages like Nubians, Gokturks, Hepthalites, Tibetans, Guptas, Ghanians, Himyarites, Axumites (Ethiopian split) but they don’t fit thematically in this DLC.

I think Lombards would better cover the early Germanic people (what goths are to Spanish) but eventually proper Italians could be split. I think Venetians are the first to consider, then you could have the rest if you want to.

I feel that Julian is too early for the timeline, as InGame Romans represent the Western Empire.

Anyways, I’m kind of tired of Eurocontent, even though I have played Attila and Alaric plenty of times, and I’m porting Lepanto to Age III

Is the water in AoE3 any fun? I have used it a bit, but I never got to play a full water map

Mmmm the first western Roman emperor is considered to be Maximian back when Diocletian split it officially for the first time (although it was occasionally split before).

Don’t know it that works, anyway the 395 AD is another of those debatable dates since the empire was split for most of the 4th century already (only exceptions are Constantine, Theodosius, Jovian and Julian himself, all very briefly except for Constantine).

On a more practical note I don’t think Julian in Ror would look very accurate, specially for the types of units used there (aoe2 units work better for late antiquity). The empire was Christian already and in Ror there is not the Jesus religion, censorship can fuck itself).No Germans or steppe civs either.
Everything from Constantine on at least is aoe2 territory, specially with Roman added.
I agree though that there’s a lack of scenario editor objects concerning the period like for example they could make a less ruined pagan temple for this DLC but it’s really not that different than what you’d see in the 5th century since abandonment of old structures and barbarian raids already began in the 3rd century.

I’d love a DLC adding something like Himyarites, Vandals and Nubians or gokturks, Guptas and hepthalites. You would take two birds with one stone: going out of Europe and representing the most poorly depicted era in game which is the dark age.

I don’t want to deviate from the topic too far but nothing suggests that the original Vietnamese came from Central China.

The Kinh Vietnamese, Tai-Kradai minorities in South China, and some South Chinese (particularly the Cantonese) can all trace their origin back to the Luoyue (Lac Viet) and Xi Ou peoples who inhabited the Pearl River valley in South China and the Red River valley in North Vietnam around 2,000 years ago.

The Chams (as well as other related ethnic groups such as Jarai, Ede, etc.) on the other hand can trace their origin back to the Sa Huynh culture, which existed in Central and South Vietnam around 2,000 years ago as well and is thought to have been established by the Austronesians.

1 Like

When you choose Aetius as the Romans campaign, their campaign and Attila can be similar to Joan of Arc and Burgundy, without a new civ.

When RoR can get new contents.

1 Like

It’s too early for this direction at the moment, but I think that in the distant past, Aragonese and Venetians could have become civs. I think the Genoans could stay in the Italians civ due to the fact that many of the features of Genoa are included in the Italians civ - even the coat of arms of Genoa.

Currently, there are regions that are underrepresented (Africa and America in particular) as well as huge umbrella civs (Saracens, Vikings, Teutons, Slavs and Chinese) and these are the priorities.

Content for RoR could be a bonus for future DLCs, e.g.:

  • German DLC + Germanic civs for RoR
  • North Sea DLC + Celtic civs for RoR
  • African DLC + African civs for RoR
  • Split of Saracens DLC + Western Asian civs for RoR
  • Spilit of Chinese DLC + Nomadic (Steppe) civs for RoR
  • South Asian DLC + South Asian civs for RoR

The Mountain Royals DLC had the potential to add some Central Asian like Armenians, Georgians and Albanians civs to RoR - too bad it didn’t.

Those ship destruction animations are super cool

I still have a hard time using trebuchets to raid Roman cities

Honestly, we should wait a bit longer for more balance changes before we start thinking about new civs.


Yes, I don’t think they will divide the Italians again since we have the Romans in the center and the Sicilians in the south…I don’t see that they are going to touch Italy again, Spain could be…create Aragon and give them the El Cid campaign and you rename Spain in Castilla and you give them a Hernan Cortes campaign…

Yes, Julian the Apostate is from the middle of the 4th century, that is RoR…AoE 2 DE starts after the division of the Roman Empire in 395 CE (Alaric’s campaign), if you want after the battle of Adrianople in 378 CE (mentioned in the intro of Alaric’s first mission), but before that not…

Yes, I agree…there are good ideas for civs and campaigns to come from…the period from 500 to 750 CE has hardly been touched on in the game, they should focus there more than the centuries before 500 CE…

Na, it would be too much division of the Italians…the Lombards are fine because they are a Germanic people…let them stay in Romans (395-476), Goths (476-553), Byzantines (584-751), Lombards (568-774), Franks (774-962) and finally Italians (962-1494) and there you connect with the Italians of AoE 3 (1494-1870)…

How cool, I’m porting the historical battles of the 16th century from AoE 3 to AoE 2… which AoE 3 civ will you use for the Greek allies?..

It’s usually interesting…imagine something like the Battle of Trafalgar with frigates and Ship of the Line firing cannons at each other…plus the ships in AoE 3 can carry a lot of troops (around 50 or 60 troops I think) and in the In the case of frigates, they are naval barracks and stables and serve to carry out very strong naval landings…an interesting naval battle in the game is Raid on the Caribbean (sequel to Drake’s battle in AoE 2 VaV playing with Drake himself as Explorer)…


The red are Spanish bases and the gray are neutral bases that Drake can capture to create troops and repair ships…

Yes, it’s a never-ending debate…the Byzantines were born from the Constantine dynasty, but technically they were still part of the Roman Empire until the final division in 395 CE, so the devs decided to bring in the Western Romans from there …I consider that the separation between AoE 1/RoR and AoE 2 is between 378 and 395 CE…the last Roman campaign of AoE 1 ends in 373 CE, so I consider that AoE 2 starts after that…the same thing I say about AoE 2, which does not end beyond 1600 (since the Thirty Years’ War had a more acceptable combat for the early modern times of AoE 3) nor that AoE 3 starts before 1400 (since it is before the Renaissance and the beginning of overseas exploration and colonization)…

Yes, I understand that the Vietnamese were from Central China and that the Chams were Malays or thereabouts but there are not that many written records about it…

Yes, for me they will give Aetius as a campaign to the Romans and it will be like a power struggle campaign between him and the Theodorics and then ally with them against Attila…

Yes, we have RoR in the game (which will have a tournament in the RBW), even if it is, give the poor mode more love…

Yes, for now let them focus on that…

Of course, it’s great to see the destruction of the ships and the masts falling and the pieces of ships flying here and there…

It would make me crazy to see medieval trebuchets destroying Roman cities, but in AoEO you have the palintonon (which is the same thing although it looks more like a ballista), so it could be…

The Allemanians are a group of nations such as the Swiss, Swabians and Alsatians. Frederick Barbarossa was a Swabian - so missions 1-4 in the Barbarossa Campaign could be scenarios in which we play Allemanians civ.

I think that Otto the Great or Albert the Bear is best suited to the Saxon campaign.

They would fit both AoE 2 and RoR.

I would prefer Venetians civ than Romans civ, but that’s what happened. Both the Venetians and the Aragonese are great and strong candidates for potential civs, but it is definitely too early for that.

Genetics don’t support such assertions.

Genetically, the Kinh Vietnamese (as well as some Cantonese and the Tai-Kradai peoples of South China) can be considered the natives of the Pearl River and the Red River valleys. On the other hand the ancient Sinitic people from North and Central China were much more northern-shifted and were plotted close to Koreans on PCA charts.

The Chams weren’t Malays although they shared a common origin with the Malays being both Austronesian they diverged from them a few thousand years ago and subsequently mixed with other mainland SE Asian groups after settling in Central and South Vietnam.