Relic need to up their game

for real this game is super stale, like im trying new civs but i soon realised that its all exactly the same. the game is really boring, really cheesy. for a medieval RTS game, its really below average, relic really made some bad design choices, this game isn’t even fun anymore i find it really hard to even enjoy the game on a daily basis, the most fun civ to play is Rus, every other civs is just super basic and boring, the game itself is super basic and boring and personally I’m just fed up of even trying to find something fun about this game.


they missed the chance to add the danes civ in there. vikings were a HUGE part of european conquest. idk how they missed that and got china in there and not japan too. I hope future patches adds a ton more civs cuz these are getting a little stale aoe iii had the right idea on civs.

1 Like

too late to say that. design errors are just hard to fix because they require a rework but aoe 4 have so many of those that is safe to say that it needs a hard relaunch.

1 Like

It’s been one month since i have stopped playing and despite wanting changes too, now i am not anymore concerned so much about when but how much. I think independently on how many people are playing the game now or tomorrow, once relic launches the “big” update numbers will rise , and if it comes along with a dlc the impact will be even greater because it would get exposure from steam page and numbers could rise fast , an example is crusader kings 3. My point is even though the numbers may rise if people are going to stay around it will depend on how good the update will be, if relic fails to deliver we already know that the playerbase can easily drop in a month or two. In my opinion I think they will succeed to deliver some multiplayer requested features from previous games such as better hotkeys, guard mode, random colors ,mod tools and possible a new civ with campaign, anything less than this I would see as a failure. I would be positively surprised if they make changes to the game visually or mechanically or add content for the civilizations to improve diversity.


Aoe4 is a game describing the middle ages. At that time, the era of Vikings had passed. Japan was far less powerful than China and Mongols in East Asia. You can’t add Vikings to aoe4 because you like the heroic description of Vikings in film and television dramas. You can’t add Japanese to aoe4 because you like Japanese pop culture and Japanese comics. In modern times, Japan has deified warriors, and China also has Kung Fu. In fact, Japanese samurai are of little use in the battlefield. They can only be deified and become idols in film and television dramas or comics. If you like Hollywood or Samba girls, you can also ask aoe4 to add America or Brazil. xd


I agree that China being in the game ahead of Vikings or Japan is probably more historically relavant. That being said, I would like to also see those two added. Why can’t vikings and Japan also be in aoe4, assuming the devs can design and balance them properly

Yes, Japanese or Vikings are more likely to appear in the future DLC.

vikings were only a small part, im talking about the danes expansion into europe just because they were danes doesn’t make them vikings. Japan conquered most of china after this era they were highly superior than the chinese at that point and not with just “samurais” they definitely had gun powder and cannons in this age. and flintlock pistols.

You mean like a total lack of deep mechanics ? Like previus game have… Yes

Also not sure of other factions but for HRE if you chose a different landmark, you already lost the game, boring yes.

This game is about like 10th ~ 16th century, Japan is definitely fitting into it.


Pay attention to your words. I think your words are discriminatory. Japan has never conquered China. During the Second World War, China also resisted aggression. You can defeat China, but you can never conquer China.

@Flux8o8 is wrong in that Japan never conquered China, and certainly were weaker than China in the game’s time period. That being said, China has been conquered before - by the Mongols and the Manchus, and while both set up Chinese-style dynasties they were still foreign conquests.

That’s Chinese history seen by foreigners. Historically, both Mongols and Manchus lived in areas under the influence of the Central Plains Dynasty, although the Central Plains Dynasty could not fully control these areas. Both Mongols and Manchus were subject to the Central Plains Dynasty and served the Central Plains Dynasty when they were weak, so the emperor would regard them as subjects. They were only two nationalities in China, not foreigners. Therefore, the Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty were more two dynasties established by Chinese ethnic minorities than foreign conquerors. If foreigners can deeply read and understand the historical materials about the Chinese nation, they will find out the relationship between the Han, Mongolian and Manchu.

Relic’s level of making RTS games is far worse than blizzard.

1 Like

That’s funny, because 我是华裔美国人 and have studied Chinese history from both Chinese and non-Chinese sources. And from my point of view, while today Mongols and Manchus are both undeniably part of the 中华民族, that can’t necessarily be said at the time of their conquests of China.

Yes, the proto-Mongol/proto-Turkic northern steppe peoples had paid tribute to the Chinese emperor at various points in their history, but that is the behavior of a vassal/client state, not that of a subject population. Besides extraordinary apexes of Chinese power like under 唐太宗, Chinese law and political structure did not apply to the steppe peoples. That is why I believe it is more accurate to consider the pre-Yuan khaganates as client states, not subjects. And a client state is not a direct subject; its people are not the hegemon’s citizens. Korea was a Chinese client state for much of its history, and yet no one would claim that Koreans are not foreigners to Chinese. It was the Yuan that made the Mongols Chinese, not their pre-Yuan status as Chinese vassals.

It is also important to note that the Mongols did more than just conquer China. They conquered an empire all the way to Eastern Europe. And yet nobody claims that those were Chinese conquests - because at the time of those conquests, Mongols were not Chinese. It is only during and after the Yuan Dynasty that I believe it becomes accurate to call Mongols Chinese.

I am not as aware of Manchu history as I am of Chinese and Mongol history, so perhaps there is a detail to Han-Manchu relations that would make them Chinese before the Qing. But I believe the same general arguments apply.

Finally, it actually matters little whether Mongols/Manchus are foreigners. The person I responded to claimed that “you can never conquer China”. Whether they were foreign invaders or Chinese minorities, it is pretty obvious that yes, China has been conquered, by the Mongols and Manchus


No, before Genghis Khan unified the Mongolian tribe, the Mongols always existed as nomads rather than a country. Manchu has always existed as a fishing and hunting nation in Northeast China, and it is not a country. Moreover, the Mongolian Plateau was once China’s territory and scope of strength in the Han Dynasty, and Northeast China was China’s territory in the Tang Dynasty.

The claim that before Genghis Khan the proto-Mongol steppe peoples never had a country is incorrect. Just because a people do not build cities or palaces does not mean they don’t have a country. The first emperor of the Han Dynasty paid tribute to the Chanyu of the Xiongnu Confederacy - a confederated state of northern steppe peoples. While yes, later on the Han would exert control over the Xiongnu in the Mongolian steppes, that was by using the Xiongnu as a vassal state.
Later, the Rouran Khaganate menaced the Northern Wei Dynasty, and their successor the Gokturk Khaganate treated as equals with the Sui Dynasty and then the Eastern Gokturks even made the Tang Dynasty its nominal vassal when the dynasty was founded (only to be later defeated by Taizong). These are all clearly separate political entities from the Chinese Dynasties, all founded by proto-Mongol/turkic steppe peoples. Sometimes they would be Chinese vassals, sometimes they would be completely independant. They were never considered full subjects or citizens of China. The Mongol empire of Genghis Khan would also emerge from these peoples, and only after would they be considered “Chinese”.


Im so sorry to see how we waited so long and all these years to find out a basic game. A fake version age of empires… All horses look the same all soldiers look the same cannon’s moving without engineers moving and operating them. All have springalds all have same type of soldiers. All have their same boring castles nothing special nothing unique in depth percentage no home center to bring goods from home no cards like the old one . Its just aoe3 for example you can get contract with mercenaries you get tons of unique units but in this game there’s nothing unique… Why they don’t do something in the multiplayer section different than the story game? Did anyone thought about this important aspect of the strategy games? I don’t see benefits of Englands farms bonuses i really don’t feel anything special? Mongols are somehow unique the rus are are best in term of innovative way of play and stuff in it imo. But come on look at the game its empty… Im a big fan of this game i played them all since their time of release… The game looks like ( iron harvest 1920) cartoonish and boring. Thats my honest opinion. You can burn castles that made out of ston with a fire torch! Guy’s we’re in 2022 do you understand? Im very disappointed :disappointed_relieved:


And Delhi is no different? And Chinese? This game has a mix of AoE3 asymmetry in some civs with AoE2 symmetry. It’s pretty clear that big changes and innovation doesn’t make the game popular, it already happened with AoE3.

ik and the worst part is that 73k fall into this shovelware trap (aka 60 bucks per person). It could go fine if the game have 1 year to develep and not being a buggy mess.

1 Like