The devs' current tendency of new civs decision doesn't make sense

When the AOE 2 was a new game in the past, the civilizations were based on peoples instead of countries. However, since the Conquerors expansion, it started to change unfairly.

Why the devs develop new civs based on “country” rather than “peoples”?

See how “Vikings”, “Britons”, and “Teutons” sound different from “Lithuanians”, “Burgundians”, “Spanish”, “Portuguese”, and “Sicilians”. Compare these to “Balts”, “Hispanians (or any proper terms?)”, and “Normans”. The latter forms fit much better to the original concept of civs in this game, IMO.

I think other proper worldwide peoples have been ignored because of the current tendency of choosing new civs.

The civs in this game are already way too many, but a number of them were made out of the unfair tendency. There should’ve been other peoples such as the Georgians, Armenians, Tibetans, Jurchens, Bantus.


I am not a fan for keep adding more civs, but I totally agree with you that there were mistakes in the game from 20 years ago that changed the current state. I blame the devs from 20 years ago more than I blame the current ones. But in the end I don’t think the game need more civs tbf.

Adding new civs in general doesnt make sense anymore.

Everyone who read my posts in other threads already knows my reasoning.

These names were all wrong, just like the whole concept of the Celts being based on the movie Braveheart. But that’s on the past, and from the million reasons you could find against the idea of adding or not adding more civilizations, the worse justification you could find is a badly thought naming system of 20 years ago


So you’re saying the Spanish, Sicilians and Portuguese aren’t “people”? They are just countries? Multiple states containing an area called “Burgundy” or “Burgundian tribes” did not exist?

Just because mistakes were made doesn’t mean they should be repeated for the sake a misled notion of consistency

What’s the basis of this statement? The game has been continuously incorporating new cultures into the game. This process will have to end at some point, and not all peoples will be covered, not even all the groups you might deem important.

1 Like

I dont think that its a mistake at all to call the civs after a people instead of after a name of the inhabitants of a country.

Old names were sometimes odd. And “vikings” is not a good example of naming people (that’s like calling the japanese “the samurai”).

The problem with naming civs as in broad terms like “people” is that sometimes a group of people does not mean that this group is a proper representation of the kingdoms/countries that are on it. I don’t think “Slavs” speaking old russian with a boyard as an unique unit is a good representation of Poland/Bohemia. The problem is more exacerbated with “Indians” (a region with so many cultural differences that, at least, deserves 2 “civs”) .