Possible addtion new civs

I will say, now DotD released, what new civs do you want to the game?
Kongolese, polynesia, Wari, Moors, Aragonese, Chimú, Bengalis, Moors, Tamils, Rajputs or Tibetans, Serbs, Croatia, Swiss, Sweden, Vlachs, Serbs, Croatia, Huancas, Iroquis, Hausa, Sioux. (yeah these all are A LOT but… XD) :rofl: :rofl:


I definitely want Shona (Zimbabwe), Kongo and Kanem for Africa; and for Asia, Tibetans, Manchus and Georgians, in addition to dividing India into at least two more civs: Bengalis and Dravidians.
Indian and African civs would be umbrella civs.


ah, i forgot to add Armenians and Georgians


I want Vlachs for sure. We already have a Wallachian campaign and they could offer much more content.


Regardless of possible civ limits (engine & design), here’s my priority list

High priority (up to 50 civs)

  • Tamil
  • Bengal
  • Gurjara
  • Swahili
  • Kanembu
  • Kongolese (Central African architecture with Zimbabweans)
  • Zimbabweans
  • Mississippians
  • Haudenosaunee
  • Tongans

4 South Asian, 4 Sahel African, 2 Central African, 2 North American, 2 Polynesian civs
Middle priority (up to 62 civs)

  • Chimu (new South American set)
  • Tarascans
  • Muisca
  • Hitsatsonim/Pueblo/Anasazi
  • Hausa
  • Yoruba
  • Somalians (share with Swahili and Ethiopians a new Eastern African architecture set
  • Georgians (only if they’d get a new Caucasian arch set which they share with Armenians and Byzantines)
  • Armenians
  • Tufans (Himalaya set)
  • Nepalese (Himalaya set)
  • Afghans

4 South Asian, 4 Sahel African, 3 Central American, 3 South American, 2 Central African, 3 East African, 3 Central Asian, 3 Caucasian, 2 Himalayan, 2 North American, 2 Polynesian civs

Those are the ones I would love to see.


I would like to see:

  • Jurchen/Manchu
  • Tibetans
  • Thai
  • Bengalis
  • Tamils
  • Afghans
  • Khazars
  • Georgians
  • Nubians
  • Somalis
  • Zimbabweans
  • Swahili
  • Kanembu
  • Hausa
  • Songhai
  • Mossi
  • Beninese
  • Kongolese
  • Chimu/Wari

I could really go on with the African civs with the Yoruba, Ugandans, Zaghawa, Vandals when we have so low standards currently but I will control myself and leave it at how many are realistic and truely necessary (and even then you will probably need to scrap one or two, maybe Ugandans would be more possible to get added than Kanembu simply because of name recognition but who knows). Also while Mapuche, Tlaxcalans or Zapotecs seem like the obvious civ choices for an american DLC I couldnt bring myself to adding them.


I would like to see:

Minimum Total - 50 civs (+11 new civs)

  1. Serbo-Croatians
  2. Romanians
  3. Bavarians
  4. Saxons
  5. Georgians
  6. Armenians
  7. Mutapa
  8. Congolese
  9. Siamese
  10. Dravidians
  11. Tibetans

A lot in Total - 60 civs (+21 new civs)

  1. Serbs
  2. Croatians
  3. Romanians
  4. Swedes
  5. Bavarians
  6. Saxons
  7. Georgians
  8. Armenians
  9. Khazars
  10. Mutapa
  11. Congolese
  12. Kanembu
  13. Songhai
  14. Siamese
  15. Tibetans
  16. Afghans
  17. Dravidians
  18. Bengalis
  19. Muisca
  20. Tarascans
  21. Chimu

Extra Much Total - 75 civs (+36 new civs)

  1. Serbs
  2. Croatians
  3. Romanians
  4. Swedes
  5. Bavarians
  6. Westphalians
  7. Hansa
  8. Saxons
  9. Irish
  10. Danes
  11. Venetians
  12. Aragonese
  13. Mamluks
  14. Moors
  15. Georgians
  16. Armenians
  17. Khazars
  18. Kurds
  19. Mutapa
  20. Congolese
  21. Kanembu
  22. Songhai
  23. Swahili
  24. Ghanaians
  25. Nubians
  26. Somalis
  27. Jurchen
  28. Tibetans
  29. Siamese
  30. Afghans
  31. Dravidians
  32. Bengalis
  33. Punjabis
  34. Muisca
  35. Tarascans
  36. Chimu

“How many threads about new civs do you want?”
aoe forum: 1

Siam, Tibet, like I posted already today in the other currently locked thread


From your list:
-Tibetans (highest priority because it’s been requested since forever).
-Chimus (high priority for gameplay and to improve the inca campaign).
-Waris (high priority for gameplay and to improve the inca campaign).
-Tamils (high priority for gameplay and to improve many campaign scenarios).
-Bengalis (just for gameplay).
-Kongolese (just for gameplay).

In Africa, I’d include the kanembu. In Asia, siam ofc.


Good lord thats a lot of Europe.

1 Like

4 European civs out of 11 total

  • Serbo-Croatians so that the Slavs civ might finally be called Rus.
  • Romanians because they have their campaign.
  • Saxons and Bavarians to break the Teutons umbrella.

6 European civs out of 21 total

2 more European civs than above.

  • Croats and Serbs separately.
  • Swedes as second Scandinavian civ covering Finno-Ugric peoples.

12 European civs out of 36 total

  • 2 more Germanic civs - Westphalians and Hansa. Germany was and is very diverse.
  • The Irish as the second Celtic civ.
  • Danes civ as the third Scandinavian civ for the best representation of this region.
  • Venetians because they were always separated from the rest of Italy and they were a power.
  • Aragonese to break the Spanish umbrella.

It may seem like a lot.

But that is definitely not the case.

3 times less

Then in the game we would have:

  • 29 European Civs - 12 new
  • 28 (including 7 nomadic Asian civs & 2 Caucasian civs) Asian civs - 11 new
  • 12 African civs - 9 new
  • 6 American highly developed civs - 3 new

46 non-European civs in total

the problem is that Europe is already heavily involved in the game as is. if we go to 50 civs, you’d basically have 44% or more of civs being European if we go with what you want.

except if we cap at 50 it absolutely is a lot.

and notice how much of that only applies if we actually get 75 civs.
if we cap at 50, or less, you have a huge disparity between EU and non EU.


These 4-6 civs are necessary for the relative completion of Europe.

I meant that in the second proposal (60 civs) of 6 European civs, being part of the 21 civs, it doesn’t look that big anymore. It was a comparison to the first proposal (50 civs) with 4 European civs included in the 11 civs.

Having more German civs than Indian civs is just wrong honestly, thats without mentioning that you are making the math to add . It just feels like you are trying to fill holes on Europe while the rest of the world has to deal with an actual proper standard to be worth adding (not to mention you missed a lot of powerful Asian and African civs still).

If you go by the standards that you had for Europe, you left so much to add in Africa and Asia.

The relative completion of Europe doesnt matter as much as the superficial completion of the rest of the world. Europe already has a representation that would still be better than what Africa or even Asia could have if we used all 11 civs there.


Do you realize these civs have to sell? Most people would be interested in the most famous civs. Venetians, Bavarians and Aragonese will sell better than Jurchen, Mutap and Tarascans - not because I think so, they are just more popular.

People are more willing to buy overrated items than the less popular ones of equal quality - I do not offend any civ that way.

You just have to approach the matter of DLCs rationally and logically. There are only a handful of the entire AoE 2 player base in the forum here - those who may know a variety of civs from around the world. Most players would probably like to buy DLCs with civs that they associate most with the Middle Ages - the Old World.

I totally get if you want to do that move long term, but short term, doing more African and Asian civs wont hurt at all for the next 11 civs or even 21 civs. Theres a lot you can do before you run into the most obscure civs no one knows about.

And dont call them Jurchen or Mutapas, call them Manchu and Zimbabweans if recognazibility is the problem (also Westphalia or Hansa dont fit your idea of “civs for selling”)


I would love to see more focus on making the game playable again by fixing the current issues before thinking about new civs. That should be much, much lower on the priority list, if you would ask me. There are things broken since release and the devs dont really seem to care to fix those things at all. So currently i just dont want any new civs before the state of the game is much better.

Yes we know we know.