Suggestions for new stuff and fixes for a future update

Naval changes:

Change the Monitor vessel’s name to ‘Bomb Ketch’ or ‘Bomb Vessel’. Monitor is such an odd name for it as it’s not a ‘Monitor class’ ship (which is incidently closer to the existing Ironclad vessel). Bomb Vessel/Ketch was the historically-accurate name.

Sailors are Shock Infantry (occupying the same role as the Pirate and its new tag, albeit as a non-outlaw, slightly weaker unit). Available to all Euro/NA civs, as well as all other civs when they have access to Royal Embassy (i.e on Euro maps) and trainable via the Docks (so water maps only), the Sailor gives Euros a cheap shock infantry unit armed solely with a cutlass. When garrisoned in warships, they boost HP as well as very slightly up the Rate of Fire. The downside is that whilst your warship(s) may be stronger, you’re using up precious population space.

Tag/Class system for ships
A big one, but ships should have tags in the style of land units, with a better counter system. I’d just like to see naval warfare fleshed-out so that all ship types have a more clearly-defined role.

This should be a part of just about every civ’s naval roster of units. Setting fire to a wooden ship/boat and sending it on to an enemy vessel was a fairly universal tactic. As a proper line of unit, it should be countered by Light Warships (a tag from the suggestion above this one, which covers the light, exploration, first tier military ships). Native American civs would get a lighter version in the form of fire canoes.

Rocket Ship
British Unique unit - a Rocket-launching ship. Fires a broadside of 32dpr rockets but has a long cool down. Bombardment class ship, so vulnerable to light ships (again, using the tags, so that first tier ships have a bonus against all these utility ships). Does far less damage to buildings however makes and enemy units less resistant to your other units damage (the fear and panic rockets cause).

Turtle - submersible
US unique unit. If Italians can get a slightly fictionally tank, why not allow the US to get an actual, one-off submersible naval unit? Available with a shipment, the Turtle can be used to scout thanks to a Stealth ability (on a timer). It can also attach explosives via a ‘melee’ attack though cannot Stealth during the attack.

1 Like

I think the reason is because he knows the history of Europe very well.

Natives and cattle should be the next thing to be improved. Considering the novelties they have given to the revolutions, the next thing should be those aspects.

There are a lot of useless cards from before the definitive edition came out, so fixing this would feel like new content.


It’s just that I know the history of my region / continent better. Everyone has the right to be interested in a slightly more different part of the world. I am in favor of adding non-European civs, but I believe other people are better at presenting proposals for other parts of the world - I don’t have much time during the week to write long propositions on the forum, so I focus on my niche.

But note that before the Definitive Edition, the European civs were boring and not very asymmetrical to any other civs. Well, it was Europe that had by far the most modest content. After adding some very interesting African civs and postcolonial American civs, I had the feeling that the old European civs were almost a demo of the game. I’m not saying that every European civ will have a brand new unique unit (because that would be overkill), but I think they deserve a bit of a refresh (some, such as the Ottomans civ, have only now become truly Ottoman) to keep them attractive when there are brand new civs with HUGE interesting content alongside.


obraz obraz

Potential look for “Prince Electors” Big Button available in Town Center for Germans civ in Age 2 and Age 3


Potential Prince-Elector mini selection menu from “Prince Electors” Big Button (DRAFT VERSION)


I respect your knowledge of Europe, but leaving aside your request for more German civilizations in aoe2, what I’m questioning here is whether the game is capable and suitable to afford such a large number of new content, especially in regions that are already covered.
I understand the history of East Asia better, but I will not add as many as 15 new minor civilizations and 35 new maps in East Asia and even Asia (excluding the Middle East which is not yet in the game).

I’ve never objected to existing civilizations getting updated, but some of your suggestions in this thread are not to update existing civilizations.

No matter how a civilization is updated, the amount of its content is the amount of a civilization, and it is unlikely to inflate too much. Either get a small number of small things like a few new cards and so on, or remove existing things to introduce more new ones. In addition, the content of civilization is the core content of the game, they will be used and enjoyed mainly and frequently, so this kind of content is very related to the quality of the game. The budget spent on this pays off relatively easily.

New maps and new minor civilizations, etc., are a net increase in content in the region, and the more new things are, the more inflated. Anything new needs to burn a budget, however, the amount of this kind of content does not guarantee the quality of the game, like the law of diminishing marginal utility. Even the Asian region currently covered in the game may not be able to afford 15 new minor civilizations and 35 new maps, how could I think this number is possible and appropriate for Europe based on the same standard?

1 Like

Here is a comparison of the number of Unique Units in all European civs present in the AoE 3 DE. We see a huge gulf between the old European civs (including Swedes civ) and Italians, Maltese and Ottomans. Of course, the Ottoman civs deserve the most “uniqueness” in the fact that most of all European civs were distinguished by a different cultural-religious-civilization circle. Italians and Maltese, in turn, as typical European civs have several times more Unique Units than the rest, which causes chaos. I hope the developers will rewrite the old civs so that they are closer to modern civs standards. The new units can even be just a different model and the name of the units already in the game. My proposal to swap the “Prince Electors” Home City card into a Big Button might just be such a thing.

I also think the same applies to civilian units and buildings - new unique things can just have a different name and appearance without major changes (or with bonuses included).

Examples of new civilian units for old civs:

  • Peasant - a settler that has less HP and is less efficient (increases its efficiency when Oprichnik is nearby) - a unique civilian unit for Russians civ (also for Poles civ, but with them it increases efficiency at the Szlachcic unit)
  • Surgeon - now available immediately to all European civs in the Church

Since the Ottomans civ received a lot of completely new units, I think that similar updates can meet every old civ (not only European).

Asia needs more maps and brand new Minor Civilizations - this could be Asian DLC content (old maps would get new Minor Civilizations, but you need to purchase DLC to enjoy new Asian maps).

The current Asian Holy Site is no longer “Asian”. Just rename it into “Holy Site” and give for Asian maps a brand new Minor Civilizations. Do not map a good idea as to what Asian Minor Civilizations should look like - Asian specialists may have a good idea.

Personally, my dream is the new Japanese maps and Japanese Minor Civilizations, as well as the content of the Middle East and the Caucasus.

My ideas are about remaking the current civs.

In my opinion, there are too many Home City cards that unfortunately clutter up the deck of cards. To be able to train Cows with the Livestock Pen, you need to have a Home City card from this Home City - in my opinion it is a litter of the deck, because it should be the default content of the Livestock Pen.

BTW. The Livestock Pen could get more default farm animals in the update, e.g. Pigs and Chickens.

In place of numerous junk Home City cards (which can be implemented immediately or combined into one), you can create a lot of completely new interesting Home City cards.

European civs will never be as unique as, for example, Asian or African civilizations. Even with updates. Non-European civs have their own unique architectural styles and tons of their own unique units and mechanics. My suggestions are only to modernize the European civs to make them less outlier in terms of content compared to the new Definitive Edition civs.

Asia can afford a lot of new content. You just have to wait for the Asian DLC.

The Definitive Edition focused at the very beginning on updating the content of America (South America, not a hundred less). African Royals and Knights of the Mediterranean gave us a completely new continent - Africa and Europe, and a huge amount of new content. The rest of the globe is waiting for new DLCs - Asia, Middle East, South America, South Africa and Oceania.

1 Like

Honestly, I think this would be too much content to bring into the European region. Introducing Serbians and Norwegians as Revolution options seems nice, but the others are either represented by Cards (Belgium and March Revolution), by Royal Houses (Greek Revolution in the Phanar RH) or are not as historically significant.
Fifteen new Royal Houses seems WAY too exagerated to have in the game! With the exception of the House of Luxembourg (and maybe, MAYBE Ascania) I don’t see any reason to add these new Royal Houses, since they’re already represented by Cards (Hohenzollern, Ottoman [Osman], Nassau, Savoy, Trastamára and Romanov), ruled one nation of the civs we have in-game or weren’t as important.
From the new maps I see like 4 or 5 that might be worth adding.

I fully agree with these three changes, though ( maybe not the Church Card change).

I agree about the church improvement cards - they should be ‘inbuilt’ for each Euro civ to research in their church. They make the civs unique so why not give them their church quirks as research items from the start (well depending on the age their available).


I think the developers could add 2 new civs, expand the number of barnyard animals available to all civs, improve existing revolutions, and add new revolutions. :slightly_smiling_face:

Note: I don’t think I have to explain which are the two civilizations that I think are adequate to justify these changes. :wink:

Another thing that I would like is that the revolutionaries could promote, especially the Brazilian revolutionary.


No, they should definitely add more Asian content. Asia is very poorly represented in the game, same with America excluding the US.

I’d add at least 10 more minor civs for each of these regions (including non-religious ones for Asia) and 20 more maps for each.


Exactly what I want to say.

More content is acceptable, but too much content is not.

Even if you want a rich hot pot, you must first consider the size of the pot.
Too much content is not appropriate for the game, even with rich cultural and historical elements.

1 Like

I’d rather have too much content than too little content


These alternate “revolutions” are the worst possible way to do things. The Greek revolution was a huge deal and it’s a joke to have it’s only representation be a janky royal house ability.

The absence of significant options like the Greek and Cossack/Ukrainian revolutions is inexcusable.

Nassau ruled both the Netherlands and British Isles so they’re probably the best option for an additional royal house. Romanov is part of Oldenburg so it’s already represented.


This does not justify the negative impact of too much content and make it acceptable.
But just because I pointed out that there is a negative impact of too much content doesn’t mean that I think there is no need for more content.
If you want more new content that can come true, then it is better to consider whether the amount of it is reasonable, so that your ideas can be more easily accepted.

Of course it’s nice to have them, but totally “excusable” if not.

It’s not easy for this game to continue to operate to this day, and the community has received far more than expected in the past. If it wasn’t for the developers’ enthusiasm for this increasingly niche game, we wouldn’t even have Royal Houses as well as many European stuff today, let alone a potential new revolution option. There’s really no need to express dissatisfaction with the developers’ efforts with such a harsh word.

1 Like

I agree with you when it comes to a Cossack revolution, that makes sense to hold off on until there’s a Polish civ. But with the Greek revolution, they’ve really done them dirty. Making it a lame royal house ability is worse than not doing it at all since then it’s used to justify not adding an actual revolt later on. Phanar deserves a better ability and the Greeks deserve a full revolution. It’s especially bad that they added two civs that would be a perfect fit for a Greek revolt and instead assigned them revolts that make no sense. Hungary has no connection whatsoever to Malta, and Italian immigration to America was almost nonexistent until the 20th century.

The Maya revolt is also bad for similar reasons. The Maya deserve to be their own civ, but since they got a revolution, that will be used to justify excluding them.

1 Like

I never thought in the past that this game could get so many new things, and honestly it still wouldn’t be surprising if they announced one day that they would no longer be putting in new content. The game has survived on the passion of its developers. Even if unfortunately there are some imperfections, it is by no means inexcusable.

There’s never been a right answer to how each element like Greece, Maya, Malta , etc. in the game is implememted. You can have your opinion on how to do is more appropriate and show it to the community and the developers, but why blame the developers just for choosing a way that is different from what you think is the best solution? To suggest that Greece is suitable as a revolution option for the European civilizations and to show that it is pity to not do so, fine. But is it necessary to criticize that it is wrong or dirty to not do so? A year ago the game didn’t even have any Greek contents. Not to mention I don’t even think the introduction of Polish civilization is a sure thing for the future.

1 Like

Some options are objectively better than others. Using the inclusion of a worse option to justify not adding the better option is inexcusable. We can at least see what people would prefer for the inclusion of a Greek revolution.

  • A full revolution
  • A House of Phanar ability
  • A full civ

0 voters

Maybe there could be some improvements for the AI coding or script, so that it will be a more reliable teammate in matches and won’t cheat when the player sets it to a higher difficulty than [Hard]. By doing this the AI will be much more complex in its behaviour and doesn’t have to cheat in order to compensate for its higher difficulty, which can make some matches unfair.

A user by the name of @falcon0920 recently made a post that revolves around the problems with the AI in team games. (Ally AI Is So Bad!)

1 Like