Possible civilizations to add by number of campaign appearences


Wow. What a list of historical campaign interactions. Great work.

IDK if devs decide based on that, but I like how much work and association capacity you put in this. Respect.


I would like any of this civs in the game



Nice to see my idea was expanded upon.You can add Bavaria and Saxony to the list as well.I think venice was in one of the teuton campaigns and possibly lepanto battle.

I would say Venice and Romanians have the best chance of getting added.



I was considering adding Saxons, but forgot about it. Will add them now

Im ashamed to admit but forgot to revisit Barbarossa. Will look at it now

1 Like

I dont see it honestly unless a coop scenario

I disagree (and I hope its not but thats beyond the point), I think an Spain DLC is more probable since Romanians and Venetians are fairly close to the other civs we have gotten lately while Moors and Aragon are a bit less close.

Tbh I think its probably something else, but an Spain DLC seems like a big possibility with a lot of marketability.

I’d honestly change the Huns as they are now to be more Asiatic so they “be” the Avars, Xiongu, White Huns and other steppe folks. They should add the Tercio to the Spanish then turn the conquistador into an Iberian regional unit. I’d love for the Thais or Tai to be included cus I’m Tai haha.

But ingame spain covers all the spanish kingdoms already,moors are just arab and berbers combined.


Venetians are just Italians and Byzantines combined

If you can add Portugal, you can add Aragon

Not saying they are good but your arguments for not adding them are kind of bad


Huns are huns not avars or tatars.

How would Mamelukes as a civ be different to Saracens’ UU?

My priority:
Slavs renamed to Rus’

EDIT: I know this is very Europe-centric, but I’m not that well versed in other regions’ medieval history unfortunately…

I would like to see more African & Asian civs (including more Indian ones, the Thai, sub-Saharan ones). Maybe some more Mesoamerican civs & some Pacific ones too.


Are you comparing a very historically inaccurate unit with a civ?

Tbh not sure how I would design them but if you can add 99 diferent Eastern European cav and infantry civs you can easily make Mamelukes work when compared to Saracnes

This post isnt really about that…

I guess a second spanish civi would be more medieval with knights and less guns like the current one?

In the lepanto scenario spanish represent the venice fleet.its funny how spains and portuguese are a better fit for venice than byzantines or italians.


Ah Aragon would be more like the water generalist with bad gunpowder

1 Like

Prithiviraj last scenario has tamils as chola,that scenario has sri lanka bengal and other indian factions too.


Good point, will add that

Malay last one also has tamils as indian traders.

Burmese first scenario has an Indian city but im not sure what its supposed to represent.

1 Like

I know but they can be a trans early steppe civ or umbrella civ for those early groyps in scenarios since they lack steppe lancers.

These are all civs that represent a European niche and we have enough of them aldready

These will definitely make the campaigns more interesting .
Imo the Yodit campaign has too many Ethiopian mirrors

I am not very sold on the Vlachs tho , the entire ‘3 civs’ thing is what that makes Dracula campaign unique .

They belong to the head start of the AoE2 timeline kinda like the Huns and Goths .
I am curious how they be distinguished from other Cav Archer-steppe civs’ namely Cumans , Tatars , Turks , Magyars , Mongols and Huns Gameplay wise .

Then it should be called ‘Dravidians’ but that would be another ‘Slav’ type umbrella . Atleast it would better represent the Zamorin in Almeida campaign than ‘Indians’ .


Darvidians is a better term than tamils to incorporate all the south indian cultural groups.less conflicts between naming too.

Looks like darvidians/chola/tamil are on top and they check all the boxes too.

1 Like

Besides the Scythians in the Attila campaign, the Tocharians and Sogdians also play a good role as a medieval eastern Iranic city-states (while the Persians was western Iranic people) int the Western Regions of China in the central and eastern Asian history. If you recognize the White Hun was also a part of Iranic people, it may be covered by this civ too. The name could be changed if “Scythians” is not suitable.

For the Gokturks, its timeline may be similar to the Visigoths if we don’t consider about the Khazars and Uyghurs. But it is an important part if we gonna reproduce the early medieval history of the inner Asia before the rise of Mongols. It had the deep relations with Sassanid Empire of Persia, Tang Dynasty of China and the Sogdian city-states.

It sounds like an Asian student who cannot figure out those European knight civs, unknowing how to make them different. 11

Sogdians may be a trading civ, which the markets supply 10 pops, free market techs, the scout cavalry line and villagers cost 0.5 pop but -20% of the max pop cap.
In the other hand, it may have a bow rider UU called " Hephthalite", which have same HP, attack, attack bonus, range and armor with skirmishers and same speed, rate of fire, attack delay, accuracy, LoS with regular cavalry archers. One UU called “Grazing”, every allies’ TC receive 5 sheep. The other one called “Tocharians”, every melee units +3 melee armor.

Gokturks may perhaps be an aggressive civ with free ballistic and heavy cavalry archer upgrade, hunters add foods directly to the stockpile, huntable animals decay -50% or +50% meat. The UU would be called “Bori”, means “wolves”, who was the royal bodyguard and could be a cavalry UU that able to keep active after dying for 1.5 sec.

Anyway, those above is just my imagination, what the dev should do is just studying them and getting creative.