Purely for fun speculation on future civ additions for AOE2 DE

Have civs stand in for other peoples they are ever so slightly related.

Yes but in cases where they did that at least there was some proximity between those civs. The Huns and Mongols are separated by around 700 years of history it would be absurd to merge those civs in the game.

1 Like

you forget about software developers xd
but in my opinion more new civs in game = better :wink:

1 Like

Well maybe if they have software developers they should make their own game and stop trying to shove themselves into this one! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Mongols represent scythians in the firt hun campaign.so why cant mongols represent huns,tatars,cumans,seljuk turks in game?
We had goths represent slavic people for decades before FE DLC became official.

1 Like
1 Like

I wouldn’t take the campaigns very seriously when it comes to civ design philosophies. I get the sense that in a lot of the campaigns they just replace civs they didnt have with whatever was at hand that they could pass off as that civ. This doesn’t mean that the devs intend for those civs to be associated with each other conceptually.

Yet it sets a prcedent. If Mongols can be Scythians, a group they were not even related to, then they could have covered the Huns too.

Well I disagree… but this all just comes down to how seriously you take the civ choices in the campaign design which inevitably would require civs not on the roster in certain scenarios.

By your comment Im assuming you have only played DE version of this game.
More and more civilizations are for single player use multiplayer can be just 10 civis and people would be totally fine with it.
Look at forgotten dlc 3 of the 5 civis were already rrepresented by others for a decade.slavic by goth italian by byzantines/spanish magyar by huns/teutons but wait it even flows over to other dlc’s as well.look at DE civis tatar cuman are just mongols and huns,bulgarians are huns/slavic lithuanians are slavic/magyar.


I really don’t get what your point is, if they lacked a civ in a campaign at the time of making it they would have to use another civ as a stand in for the missing civ. That to me always seemed like an imperfect solution. The fact that expansions then changed what civs became available doesn’t change anything, it just means that those campaign missions could now be corrected.

Its pretty simple really there were a lot of candidates for potential civis but devs decided to add civs that could be easily represented by others.This game was about representative civs from the beginning.

Yes it does,this whole topic is regarding that. Did anyone ask for the DE civis to be added?If anyone is looking at what the community is asking im pretty sure on one wanted cumans as a civi.

This is the main reason more and more civis are needed.


Bohemians: They have a huge gap between Dark and Castle Age. The economy bonus is broken because it affects farms. Their trash monks are completely broken because u pay 50 for each monk while they are armored and have free Block Printing. They shouldn’t have that good monk tech tree because of the Castle Age unique tech. TB overlaps 100% with the Teutons. With Balancing changes this civ would be fine.
Swiss: No early economy bonuses, no military bonuses, this civilization is very underpowered. Free Market techs and longer lasting Gold kicks a too late and I’d prefer gold instead of population. I have no problem civs with lategame strenghts but this civ is underwhelming all ages. Unique Units are fine. Castle Age UT is a paid Celt/Lithuaian bonus but Imperial Age UT could be good even Chieftains exist.
Fatamids: The problem is they don’t have a major eco bonus. In the land you can go Monks nothing else but on water they can be good. I’d prefer ship armor over pierce armor. Unique Unit and UTs are fine if this civ didn’t have shipwright
Poles: More wood would overlap the Japanese bonus. Their bonuses are fine if you make the Unique Unit incredibily strong (Leitis and Mangudai level) Unique Techs need a rework. Obviously faster attacking knights didn’t exist in november but Imperial Age UT is extremely useless as bad as Boiling Oil or Atheism

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth didn’t exist in the medieval age (if existed those were 2 different civs) and this Slav civilization can’t represent the Polish because of their religion, language, unique unit. Magyars and Poles are completely different.

Tarascans: Farmers +10 carrying capacity would be completely broken. Could work with other gatherers. Burmese already have spearman with extra attack and their last bonus would overlap the Celt/Lithuanian bonus but faster archers would be interesting. +1 attack and +1 armor (melee or pierce?) would be fine as a UT.

Tibetans: bad tech tree overall. Their bonus pierce armor bonus just compensate lacking Bloodlines and Husbandry (till unique tech) and no early bonuses (while Magyars have stronger Feudal Age) but decent monk rush with faster faith regeneration. Team Bonus and UT’s are fine
Tamils: No Elite BE and no capped ram are wtf but good tech tree overall. Good UU and Unique Techs. I guess Light Cav would have their own armor class, wouldn’t be that hard to develop. Their bonuses are very weak. faster researched upgrades wouldn’t change that much overall. Teuton bonus didn’t exist in that time. Cannon Galleon upgrade is very late and wouldn’t affect navy battles that much and koreans already have free bbt upgrade. Their TB makes them very good vs fires, I like it, but u can ignore it and go full galleys and destroy Tamils
Swahili: -50S towers would be insanely broken in trushes and market bonuses kick very late. UUs and UTs are fine but CA is close to useless. It should be very cheap

Croatians: their first bonus is the broken version of the hun and goth bonuses while their second bonus is the broken version of the slavic bonus. hill bonus is fine. Team Bonus is almost useless. Their Castle Age UT is the paid version of Berbers but their IMP UT can work. Their UU is a Light Cataphract and they are too op because of their pierce armor. Kondura is a fine unit.
Georgians: First bonus should be nerfed and advancing to the castle age should cost +50-70G. Their early game is fine with free BL but no eco bonuses. Nobody researches heresy, Atheism level unique tech. Imp tech and UUs are fine
Bengalis: Team Bonus is broken and monks should be more cheaper. Their first UT is fine but the second is Atheism lvl and very expensive. Unique Unit is fine maybe

Siamese: I think this is the best civ that I’ve read here but I’d remove free arbs
Bantu: You make really good ideas! I really like them! Imp UT is weird tho. But I think Bantus should be seperated.

Iroquois: Lumberjacks dont need lumber camp is op. cheaper houses are useless and they nothing in the Castle/Imperial age. UU and techs are fine
Mississippians: smaller farms shouldn’t have less food but they are a very interesting civ

For today…

Aren’t those a few concepts that I previously made?

Hey, thanks for engaging with my suggestions and the feedback. Yea I’m terrible when it comes to balancing, hoping with some tweaks these can become viable and interesting. :slight_smile:

We have Magyar Huszar with Tiger Skin and Wings, we have Lithuanians with strong Cavalry, we have the Slavs for the namesake. Tell me what niche is left out to be covered by Poles?

1 Like

Slavs have polish rulers among AI names, Lithuanians have paladins to represent the Polish heavy cavalry.

I agree that Polish are not a necessary civ to add to the game, but AI names is not a reason for that

For example, the huge Tamils/Dravidian civilization is represented by only one AI name (Rajendra Chola) in the whole game, in contrast, and the Tamil/Dravidians deserve to be in the game. They had >10x the population of the Celts, Huns, Goths or the Portugese and >20x the GDP in medieval times.
Even today the Dravidians number >500 million.

Similar case with the Afghans, who were a major civilization back then, and yet are represented by only one Persian AI name, Muhammad Ghouri, when they had hardly anything to do with Persians, and were their own Independent South Asian Ethnicity (the Pathans, today called Pashtuns).

1 Like

I’m Hungarian and I can confirm that Magyars DONT cover Poles, Romanians, Cumans, Khazars, Avars, Pechenegs etc. Magyar Huszár’s shield is from Árpád-dynasty. Teutons have strong cavalry and they lived next to Franks so Teutons should cover Franks. This Slav civilization CANT cover the Poles. Boyars didn’t exist in Poland and Bohemia. Slavs in the game speak Russian, not Polish. Poles would be a Cavalry and Defensive civilization with a really decent Archery Range while Slavs are a Infantry and Siege civilization with solid cavalry options. + devs added Bulgarians. Why don’t they add Poles? They are more different from Slavs than Bulgarians.

Yes, I like your ideas

I would like to see Tamils, Afghans and Bengalis in the game.

analysis part2

Georgians: The Stable discount should be 30% imo and Paladins with trample damage would be insanely broken in TGs. Lacking Capped Ram is weird but everything else is

Tibetans: Feudal Age monks would make too big difference because you can pick up relics. Animals instead of Farms would create chaos in the lategame. Can work but you should rework it. Overall they are the worse version of the Teutons lacking Ironclad, Paladins, Bombard Cannnon. Castle Age Unique Tech is fine with this system but Buddhism is almost Atheism LVL because nobody would go monks vs Tibetans because of the UU and it’s very expensive

Armenians : Civilization Bonuses are fine but the Team Bonus is too op and overlaps with the Tatar unique tech. Nakharar is just a Cataphract with less bonus damage and op pierce armor. Diaspora is ridiculously overpriced. It should be a free TB
Tibetans: very similar to the previous Tibetans but with more broken monastieries. Livestock system should be reworked here too. Unique Unit is a weak Rattan Archer. Imperial Age Unique Tech overlaps with Teutons
West Slavs: This change would make the regular Slavs useless. Everything else is good.