Below is an exhaustive poll of all civs in Age II that would belong in Age IV (Goths and Huns are excluded for anachronism, Burgundians because of overlap with French; if you really want them, specify in comments). Age II’s list is pretty exhaustive, and has established fan recognition, so it’s the best source for an unbiased poll of civs. For the few prominent cultures it missed, there’s a poll option for interest in non-Age II civs.
Age IV will have fewer civs than Age II, with necessarily more variety between them; moreover, we don’t want a poll with >30 choices. I’ve merged some Age II civs into the same option, where I believe it unlikely that more than one of them would be added to the game. This includes some of my favorites like Sicilians and Portuguese. It’s not done out of bias.
You are limited to 5 choices. Choose only those civs which you want to see the most.
[Note to the mods]: The current pinned poll is woefully inadequate, missing many of the most popular civs from past Age games such as Turks, Spanish, or Mayans, and including non-starters like Anasazi. Please replace the current pinned thread with one that will be more useful to the developers, even if it’s not this one.
Aztecs
Berbers
Bulgarians
Burmese
Byzantines
Celts
Ethiopians
Incas
Indians (besides Delhi)
Italians (or Sicilians; specify if so comments)
Japanese
Khmer
Koreans
Lithuanians
Magyars
Malay
Mali
Mayans
Persians
Spanish (or Portugal; specify if so comments)
Turks
Vietnamese
Vikings/Norse
Western Slavic civ (Poles or Bohemians; specify in comments)
Other steppe civ (Cumans or Tatars; specify in comments)
Non-Age II civ (e.g. Aragon, Thais, Tibetans; specify in comments)
I’ll say it over and over again hoping the devs think about it : TIMURIDS !
One thing that bothers me is if they absolutely have to make a campaign for new civs. If they do, it has to be similar to the 4 campaigns we currently have right? Will they have the means and time to do that? What about the difficulty traveling to certain countries due to political reasons?
We already have a poll with a wide variety of civs and more than 700 distinct voters.
You want us to throw everything away, start from scratch and perhaps end up with not even half of the sample size that we have now? Come on…
Besides, you can always supplement the other poll with your comment or build a poll as a comment. Finally, I don’t like the idea of using AoEII’s civs as a benchmark at all. Let alone with their exact AoEII names. We can do better than that.
Tbh for the first DLC, I imagine Relic already had civs in mind. The poll is cool to see what community wants and I hope they notice it, but I wouldn’t expect that to be followed.
Yes. That poll is worse than useless, because it can only misrepresent the wishes of the playerbase. Furthermore, with polls like this you usually end up with a representative result even after just a couple hundred responses - or even just 100. The chance that the next 500 people will have a fundamentally different opinion is very slim.
And you know this how? Right you dont.
If you want to make a poll make a proper one.
This is yet another turks/ottoman bias poll, you “forgot” the japanese that is in first on the other poll.
Give it a rest…
Have you seen the bizarre poll pinned to the top? It doesn’t even have Spanish or Portuguese but has Mississippi, Zimbabwe, Anasazi. It’s misleading, misrepresenting, worse than no poll at all.
No poll is perfect, but this one is immensely better. Japan is included yes.
Btw Portugal is together with Spain which means it will be at the very top for sure.
Tatars are basically the Mongols. (More specifically, Golden Horde).
“Tatars” was commonly used in European civs to describe the Mongols due to religion meaning “devil’s horsemen”.
Cumans are always very fun with their amazing armour (face mask armour) and unique cavalry. But we have the Rus and the Mongols just like this civ.
So something else would be much better.
Meso civs are incompetent in AOE4 since they don’t have cavalry or siege weapons etc.
It would be a fantasy civ and they are no match against African and Eurasian civs due to that.
I already commented on how the other poll is ridiculous.
This one is not much better.
He should add Turks and Persians in the same vote, if it’s all the same to him.
Bro, look at my name. You think I left Japan out on purpose?
See reality. If we are going to have half the civs of AoEII, how will two Iberians fit in? If Abbasids can represent Iraqis and Egyptians, surely Spain can do double duty for all Christian Iberians (also, “Spain” is accurate for all Iberians in this period; it didn’t exclude Portugal until the 1500s).
If you’ve seen another thread I posted, you know I support cosmetic reskins to cover civs that are too similar to others for full inclusion. If you want to see Portugal, support that idea. Iberians in this period are so similar that sharing mechanics would be appropriate. If we do get Castile/Spain, a Portugal palette swap would be an easy and natural addition.
Even Mongols use more infantry than cavalry, and “captured” cannons or special mechanics can make up for lack of siege. Mesoamericans would fit just fine, and add a lot of variety. They fit better than in AoE2, in fact, because of the asymmetrical design of AoE4.
Naval also isn’t a problem, as Rus already use a fundamentally different system to the others, without any heavy cannon ships.
Mongols an infantry civ, horseman and entire Delhi civ nerfed to utter oblivion… good job Relic! Sorry but they don’t even read playerbase’s massive feedback.
And who is the genius who pinned that other “Anasazi, Mississippi civ” poll to the top of the forum?? Unbelievable what’s going on in here.
To not have Poland from the beginning being one of the strongest empires in the middle ages, but have the Rus is appalling. Byzantines and italian city states? Cmon man, only incredibly generic and boring civilizations from the beginning, we better get a big dlc but I dont think so.