STOP adding new civs at Aoe 2 DE

Hi. Aoe 2 Definiteve Edition has 42 civs now. Please STOP adding new civs at that game… If Microsoft want to MAKE money, they may add new civs to Aoe 1 Definitive Edition. Aoe 1 has ONLY 16 civs.
Aoe 2 was much more popular from the it start at 1999 AD, because it has MANY European civs- Byzantines, Goth, Teutons, Vikings, Frank, Britons, Celts.
While Aoe 1 DE has only 3 European civs, and the Greek and Macedonians were just Greeks. So it show only 2 European civs- Greeks and Romans.

If Microsoft want to make new MONEY, they may add most of the European civs at Aoe 1 DE- USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Vikings ( Sweded, Norway), Russia.
It will be a game, how these countries use Aoe 1 weapons.


If Microsoft want to make new MONEY, they may add most of the European civs at Aoe 1 DE- USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Vikings ( Sweded, Norway), Russia.
It will be a game, how these countries use Aoe 1 weapons.

Uh what?

Go play AoE3 if you want most of the listed civs.


while I understand what you are trying to do there is a major thing you aren’t really factoring in - aoe1 has practically no player base.
if I’m going to support a game with more content do I want to go with the game that has 700 online yesterday or over 20 times that number?

I don’t think that is the reason aoe2 was more popular then aoe1. smoother gameplay, higher population limits, better story telling, etc.

most those civs would be out of time frame.


Never will happen, Microsoft don’t want to make mone, they wantto make the world a better place…


most those civs would be out of time frame.
Yes, but until now at Aoe 2, Microsoft make fictional Meso-american and African civs who NEVER used gunpowder weapons and Trebuchets at their REAL history… Also the Persians disappeared at 650 AD and they did not used gunpowder weapons.

should stick with voobly or HD if dont want new civs


Ok, I can see AoE1 adding some ancient civilizations, and it could be argued that “barbarian” cultures like the Celts, Scythians, Thracians, etc. deserve representation. I might even buy AoE1 DE if they had a Barbarians DLC.

Plenty left in the era of AoE2 to explore, between the Armenians, Georgians, Tanguts, Sogdians, Jurchens, Swahili, etc. I eagerly await what comes next for AoE2 and 3!


It’s called “Balance”. the civs existed. did they use such stuff? no. but they have to have certain tools for balance.

huge difference between giving certain civs the tool to actually be balanced, and adding civs that just didn’t exist.


That’s just not true. There are plenty of historical records of Somalians and Kanem Bornu learning of and reforming with Gunpowder in I believe 1500s. Them having gunpowder is far from An exaggeration and far from fantasy and even if they DONT get gunpowder, peoples like the Mossi and Songhay were known for armored cavalry on par with any Frank Paladin.


after DE’s release all new civs came as paid DLC. if you don’t want any new civs, don’t buy the DLCs. why ruin this for others who want more civs?

I think the aoe1 scene hasnt migrated to DE, the majority still play the old game. your argument is still valid, why add content to a game nobody is buying

meso american civs don’t use gunpowder in aoe2. Some civs were designed with their successor civs in mind. eg Goths didn’t use gunpowder, but their successors in Italy and Spain did.


Microsoft always make money from the game even with no new contents. As long as people play the game, download it, play online, single or whatever they wil get benefit. This is regardless the tournaments and social media earnings and twitch stuff.

On the other hand they can bring new content with no new civs, like new skin for the civs, new campaigns for existing civs, new UTs or UUs for every civ, etc.

I will be always in any class that doesn’t support adding new civs, because you are totally right, 42 civs is more than enough.


we should try to hit 60 civs, its the only way for them to keep game alive and fresh just like dota, league, fortnite.

thats the direction game is going man, its only a matter of time.


That is a wild argument to make, and completely incorrect from the getgo.

Quite literally, what to every part from these sentences. You want to see modern countries use AoE1-era weaponry? What’s USA meant to do there? What?

Doesn’t AoE1 have the largest playerbase out of all Age games because of Microsoft’s deal with Vietnam or something where each PC came with Age 1? Supposedly it has millions watching in Facebook or something like that. Either way, according to OP that should mean we should get Asian civs only for AoE1.

Or the fictional USA that totally existed before way before 1776 AD, right? Besides, where are you getting your history from? You should file a complaint about misinformation being taught, if you paid for it.

AoE2DE should get more civs. Especially from Africa and Asia, and some from Americas too!!


This should be called aoe1 fantasy mod.

I for one can’t wait for the uranium mining tech that will improve the pierce armor of all cavalry and unlock the unique nuclear chariot upgrade.


Coincidentally, I’m not bothered about getting new AoE2 civs either. But I’m also not interested in trying to persuade people who do want new civs that they shouldn’t – and if I was, I don’t think I’d go about it like this.

Sad to say, I think there might be some truth in this. I never really got my head around why some people are so specifically obsessed with European civs. But AoE2 had many other benefits over AoE1 was well.

4; you’ve missed Minoans. 4 out of 16 actually seems a pretty sensible balance to me, especially given that Europe wasn’t especially dominant during the time period, aside from the Macedonians and Roman Empire, which are already included.

This was a contentious issue even during the AoE1 time period, and still is to a certain extent today – but the two civ designs make a reasonable amount of sense and are sufficiently different that it doesn’t really matter.

I don’t think Microsoft is having problems making money.

I’m all for adding new civs to AoE1, but clearly not civs based on modern countries that didn’t exist at the time. It doesn’t make any sense, and there’s nothing sensible to base civ designs on.

The Lost Vikings? Have they travelled back in time?

The American civs don’t get gunpowder (except Petards, which everyone gets – I’ve never understood that). But in any case, there’s a big difference between a time-period-appropriate civ using time-period-appropriate weaponry that they didn’t actually use, versus introducing a civ that didn’t exist until 1000 years after the game’s time period ended.

No they didn’t. Presumably you’re thinking of the Sasanian Empire, but that’s not the same as Persians in general – it’s just a single Persian state.

Yes they did. But obviously not before AD 650.


Lets be honest, you could remove petards from every civ, and 99% of players wouldn’t notice until someone pointed it out, or if it was in the patch notes.


Unlocks Photon Man.

20 characters


are you crazy? adding new civs and other new content (campaings, etc.) is the best way of aoe2 development


A DLC for AOE1, with Germans, Gauls and Celts could work.
I’m tired of people always crying for representation though.
The game isn’t isn’t about representing your current day country in medieval/ancient times. It mostly covers the peoples with the most written down history, as well as covering the civilizations that made the most impact on world history and interacted with different empires.
Yes you could add some subsaharan or north american medieval people, but they were irrelevant to the mayor goings on in the world, were technologicly inferior on a level that makes making them a balanced civ become comical and never interacted with the rest of the world really.