Relic bonuses for all civs: too much?

I’ve been thinking around that for a couple of years, and as a (mostly) TG 1200~1300 player, i see more often than not relics being ignored, except of course lithuanian games.

With that in mind, i was wondering if all civs could have either a new bonus or one of their current ones converted to relic-dependent (e.g. teuton melee armor – every relic gives +0.5 – or franks +5% cavalry HP for each relic captured) as an encouragement for capturing relics on TG especially.

Is it gamebreaking? Or maybe a way to help balance? If so, any thoughts and maybe suggestions?

I think it’s better off just left to the Lithuanians. It could cause wild balance issues with this sort of thing.

Imagine Persians getting armour upgrades for the elephants for each relic captured, in addition to becoming 5% cheaper per relic?


Uhm I guess I was misunderstood, sorry. I meant if every civ have one of their own civ bonus swapped to relic-dependent, or a new one to be suggested. The armor would be only applicabe to teutons and the bonus for cav HP only to franks, etc.

This idea is quite fun. I quite like it. Say Britons can have +0.5 range per relic. Frank have 5% HP buff per relic. Ofc they will have their original bonus nerf like Lithuanians don’t have Blast Furnace and max +4 relic effect

I think it takes away from what makes Lithuanians unique, and would result in buffing civs that don’t really need buffs. Furthermore there is only so many relics in a map, which means either the bonuses need to be rebalanced to either the point where the civ doesn’t really need them without it, or you get some seriously lopsided civ design.

which just makes civs more bland and homogenized without it. better off leaving it alone imo.

Yes I agree. It can only be used in some relic theme civ which would not be too OP with its bonus like

Aztecs +0.5 attack and Garland Wars +3
Burgundians +5% damage on Gunpowder units with team bonus 15%
Burmese: Infantry +0.5 attack and civ bonus +2
Huns: more Cavalry Archers discount

but it is pretty much not very helpful so i prefer leave it

I guess you’re right. Although it increases importance for the relics and makes games more strategic imho, usually if 5 relics are divided into the two players, the bonuses may not thrive.

A pity that relics are ignored in TG though.

1 Like

yes but let’s take your example of franks.
right now do they need nerfs? many would say yes.
but imagine if their entire HP bonus was dependent on getting relics.
now their feudal is completely generic (which imo is fair) but until they get a monastery up, monks out, and actually pick up relics? they have viking level knights. you call it strategic? I call it crippling?

would it be okay to add another civ or two with a relic oriented bonus? yeah, it would. but adding the bonus to every civ would just be bleh.


I don’t think Relics are so central to AoE2 gameplay that every civ MUST have a related bonus - in most games Relics are simply a way to secure late game anyway.

There are many more pressing issues than making Relics more interesting, for example, Skirmishers are a very bad unit in Imperial Age and not a viable counter to mass CA.

There is no need to be exactly this bonus, it could be another issue, and I agree that in some cases itn might be unbalanced but for some civs it could be a way to make an OP bonus balanced maybe? I take back the “all civs” to some civs. I guess it could be some sort of flavour to the game.

Also, I agree it is crippling, but i said as an e.g.

I think this is a great idea, as long as the relic bonus is that by garrisoning the relic, the civ receives a gold trickle (for all civs). The best part is, by adding more relics, you get more gold! Infinite gold, in fact!

With all due respect, this is just profoundly uncreative. Take any other uniquely designed civ bonus, and try to apply a variation of it to all civs, and you’ll see why this is not a great idea.
Should all civs get some unique benefit from researching Monastery technologies? Monk HP for Aztecs, apply to villagers for Bohemians, makes ships faster for Berbers, makes Chu Ko Nus fire more arrows? At most I would be okay with 1 or 2 future civs that make use of some kind of relic bonus, but 42 is just ridiculous.

Coming up with “relic bonuses” for 41 other civs would lock many iconic strengths behind a relic wall and/or involve the addition of a lot of silly new bonuses that would have to be borderline useless. It also becomes thematically confusing, in addition to nudging the power spike of most civs from wherever they are now closer to early-mid Castle age, when you can get the relics that now provide you with what used to be your main civ bonus.

Relics are very useful - I always go after them in 1v1, and often in TGs, as soon as I can when I can do so without hurting my military or boom much. In general, I wish fewer changes would be proposed in order to accommodate whims or “problems” as perceived by people in the lower Elo brackets. To be a little blunt, sometimes “git gud” is the answer rather than change the fundamental nature of the game.


Well, I really like the game as it is, and it is fine for me if there is no great change to the main mechanics. The “git gud” is actually my main objective (when I have time to play again 11). My exercise was more of a “What if?” than a “must”, get it? I am willing to see thoughts on that, and I am convinced it’s not healthy to the game as “all civs”.

1 Like

Excellent, I like that you have some humility with regard to feedback on your ideas, whereas a few people out there seem immune to counter-reasoning.

I agree that the idea of brainstorming more relic-related bonuses is fun, but IMO should be used with a light and sparing touch (or in a scenario/mod if you want to go all-out).

Regarding TGs, while it’s true that relics are a lesser priority, they still have value, and I often go for them when my teammates don’t (large area controlled by you/your allies means you have access to more relics than in a 1v1, and it can still be a good investment in terms of pop-free res generation). I also think the slack that is dropped by relics in TGs is picked up by Team bonuses, where your civ has the opportunity to benefit from small bonuses (or units) that would otherwise be unavailable. If anything I would focus on making some of the more bland TBs more interesting.

1 Like

Totally agree with you on that. I think, though, that relics should receive more love on TG.

For a moment I thought you were suggesting a civ bonus (or team bonus) along the lines of:
“Garrisoned relics generate gold for all team mates.”

That would be interesting (and probably not op?).

1 Like

Some of the early documentation says each civi was originally supposed to have unique relic related bonuses.

That’s a possibility, or just a moderate increase to the relic gold generation rate for TGs.

Sandy talks about something related to that - as well as why they didn’t go with it - here:

Although that’s more or less the route they went with AoM - not making the civ bonuses unique, but making each relic unique.

1 Like

Another possibility could be, that relics have random bonusses, like they Work in age of mythology.
Say one relics gives 5%hp to buildings, another one gives archers +1LoS , another one barracks Work 5% faster, etc.
(should not be strong bonusses)
Or have different relics, some with Gold trickle, some with bonusses and a toggle, If they should Spawn on a map or not


I like the idea of each civ have an unique effect from relics, but being realistic it would be hardly implemented by now.
But I like this different approach. Relics having different effects could be really interesting and make matchs richer.

You forget Aztec and Burgundian relic bonuses.