Purely for fun speculation on future civ additions for AOE2 DE

Every single pro who streams has said that this game is far more balanced than it ever was, and express surprise over how we ave acheived this even with double the number of civs at as many as 35

This is because we live in modern times with thousands of people like us giving inputs and doing a lot of balancing work and arguments in the background

Which was not there in 1997, or even in 2010, the scale of people who will do the brainstorming for this game today is impeccable

1 Like

And I want the venetians, and the mamelukes, and the crusader kingdoms, and so on

I mean, everyone would like to see more civs, but in this AoE, I don’t think we will see more.
Though, those could be good ideas for AoE4.

1 Like

I would be happy to see new civs. However, what I think it is really important is variety.

It is difficult or even impossible to have a real difference between civs if there are a lot of them. Clearly Tatars, Mongols, Huns, and Magyars are different civs. But I do not see a huge difference.

You can come up with some new ideas for a civ bonus, or an UT pretty cool. But I would rather see these new ideas applied to the existing civs.

There are usless UT (see huns) and underused units. See for instance steppe Lancers, samurais, condos, HCs, even champions. A big step forward would be to see these units gaining a role, currently they are too situational. And there are several other examples.

Finding 30 new UUs which are not a reskin of the existing standard units is clearly possible. However of you add 30 civs, several ones will be archer civs, and we already have a lot of them. Same thing for cavalry civs or other examples.

Overall I would like to see some other small balance change, since few modifications are possible to get a perfect balance (Turks for instance). Then we can focus on underused units and finding them a role.

AoE4 is Microsoft’s money programme. It won’t be as good as AoE2, obviously.

2 Likes

I like your ideas, but can you specify 30 eco bonuses? I could only 24.

1 Like

I think European and Asian civilizations are already well represented (I know there are still a lot out there, but we can’t really fit all civilizations in existence into AoE, imo).

The regions which seem to be still under-represented, in my opinion, are North America (0 civs?), Africa (only 2-3 civs?), and Oceania (0 civs?)

Some suggestions could be :

North America :
North American SIOUX (and/or other north american native tribes)
North American INUITS

Africa :
African MASSAI

Oceania :
Australian ABORIGINAL
Polynesian MAORI

1 Like

Plus 30 UUs, 60 UTs, 60 additional civ bonuses, 30 team bonuses. Avoiding overlap with the existing game style
 very difficult


1 Like

One of DE’s positive trait is that you can say this about almost each and every one of its balance patches. So unless there is another civ bonus bugged or some buff getting out of hand in the future this will keep being true. It’s a bit like saying “we have never been so close to Christmas this year”
What it does ignore is that some civs had no need to be touched (like the Celts) for years now, so it’s not like 35 civs are being actively balanced at once, but more that those that need balanced are changed while taking into account those who are fine.

I don’t know what’s your criterias, but yeah, besides ending up with crap like “free stone upgrade” we would indeed get new stuff but then people will complain that’s “too different” or “too hard to use” like I heard for the Cuman double TC, so I don’t think anyone will volunteer to work on that 11

3 Likes

Obviously techs like free Stone upgrades, Economic buildings support 5 population count as a half/second economy bonus.

1 Like

For me, it’s not that important to have a hundred unique economy bonuses. Most of the time, it’s not really what gives the civ its style and uniqueness, although it does happen for some civs. I agree that eco bonuses do play a part in making a civ top tier or not, though.

On the other hand, the tech tree, Unique units and unique techs are more interesting in terms of giving the civ its unique style.

Take for example Ethiopians. Does the +100 food and +100 gold at the start of each Age really matter in the civ’s style and uniqueness? Or is it the faster Firing rate of Archers, the Shotel warriors, and the large area of effect post-imp siege weapons.

4 Likes

Exactly! That is how we can have 65 civs and have them all be unique, it’s not difficult.
Balancing them is quite a task, but it is one definetly worth doing.

We will never get 65 civs, don’t even think about it.

4 Likes

64 civs happening at they very least, if microsoft knows and acts on what’s best for sales, pro scene and the game

You will never get even 36 civs, which is one more than now. Get over it, they alredy stated that they won’t add any more civ in AoE2DE.

2 Likes

Can someone answer the question: Why do we need more civs? I dont know any reason at all. Adding more civs just to add more civs is no reasaon at all to me. Just a list of name of civs means really nothing to me.

What will the new civ add to the game? What kind of special ability has the civ to offer? I miss the background of every civ you wanna add. Just adding another archer civ add nothing to the game. I do wanna know what kind of civs strategy wise are missing to the game. Then we can have a thought about what kind of civs can be put into the game to full the gap. Just adding 30 civs with no real favor ‘Another archer civ like we already have into the game’ is useless to me. I am not looking for just the same civ (game play wise) with just another label (name of a new civs). For me that adds nothing to the game.

So before you talk about adding new civs, let’s talk about what kind of strategies are missing to the game. For each kind of strategy we can then find a civ and add it to the game.

4 Likes

More fun, more campaigns, more maps, more units, more architecture styles
 more AoE2.

3 Likes

Everyone would like to have more civ, maybe because it would represent their culture, or for more diversity, or simply for more historical accuracy. I would love more so see some civ that I personally prefer, but I also know that balance and gameplay should come first.

1 Like

So that we have 64 UUs that will be underplayed and better of replaced with a nuclear version according to some. Sure.

1 Like

Why is a civ like thirteen in a dozen more fun to play? It add really nothing to the game. Therefore my point: First have a look at the strategies you miss, so can build a civ around that idea. I am not against new civs, but i am against adding thirteen in a dozen civs. So just first think about what kind of flavor you miss, than think about which civ fits that flavor.

I also dont really know why we need more campaigns. There are already lots of campaigns. And if you just finished all campaigns from the base game, there are already many campaigns to download. Also campaigns dont really seems that popular if you have a look at the steam achievements. Many players dont have this achievements.

I really dont know how new civs is connected with more maps. You really need to explain this to me. I dont see the connection between the two.

In the end, more civs dont really mean more AoE2 to me.

More architecture styles? That is also currently possible. Give every civs his own style. Dont share it with other civs. That would be a great idea: every civ has his own style. Not only buildings, but also units.

1 Like

It does, it just depends on what civ you put into the game.
For my part, I have put quite a few mock Tech Trees up in these forums, of civs taht do things differently.