I prefer to have playable multiplayer civs as opponents in a campaign as it showcases that specific civ matchup and also the player’s civ (the civilisation that we are playing as in the scenario ) in general
1 Like
For me, the fact that there can only be 8 civs at start explains why we don’t see those civs. They picked some of the most important civs that you need to have at the start of a medieval RTS game. Rus is the only one that confuses me, could’ve replaced them with Japanese or Eastern Roman Empire imo
3 Likes
I feel like you must be referring to south american civilizations like Mayan, Aztec, and Incan. It would be nice to see them come as a DLC perhaps but they don’t seem to strike me as “Medieval”. As for north America, from my understanding the peoples there mostly lived a tribal nomadic lifestyle and there’s very little indication of massive cities or forts like we see elsewhere in history. They also largely remained isolated for most of history.
I agree, southeast asian history is very rich and interesting. Indonesian, Malayan, Filipino etc.
Same as africa.
South American Aztecs ?
2 Likes
I believe that’s the correct region. Then again im thinking of it as “south of the US”. Perhaps Mesoamerican would have been a better description.
1 Like
That’s Mesoamerica , part of North America
4 Likes
I am pretty sure the area we call Mesoamerica overlaps with the area we call North America. List of North American countries by population - Wikipedia
I don’t think these semantics affect the game though.
1 Like
yeah it is north, partially in central America- but ‘central’ is more like a region. And people operate on continental scale.
People mix things a bit because of the cultural-ethnic similarities. It’s fine to pick from cultures and not continents, but they use geographical terms doing that 
I prefer quality than quantity.
The civilizations presented are well built, and this is satisfactory for the beginning of the game. Remembering that this is a competitive game, and a lot of civilizations is difficult to balance.
4 Likes
I prefer both quality and quantity. I just want my Japanese and Korean civs to be in-game. Also this game focuses too on new and casual players to the the RTS genre.
I do too but that’s no excuse to have half of the civ slots being European. Hell, you can even go Aztecs and Spanish in the base game if you really think the only interesting story to tell about the Nahua/Mexica is their conquest (Spoiler: it isn’t).
3 Likes
I fully agree with you @Szaladon. My reply is in response to the poster above my previous post. Also don’t worry Aztecs and Spanish will definitely be in-game at a later date, we need the Eagle Warriors and Conquistadors. I find it weird they didn’t include the Aztecs and Spanish in the base game when they artwork for it during the first trailer. /11
1 Like
I think the initial 8 civs are well chosen, considering the limited roster size and the fact that the civs are meant to interact with each other in the campaigns. Civs from other areas would feel a little disconnected from the rest.
The expansions must introduce American, African and/or south eastern Asian civs, though. Expansions usually feature less content, so it would be perfect to introduce 2-3 civs that share a common campaign, even if they never meet the former 8.
It will be very disappointing if they just add more Europeans.
3 Likes
North America if we are including Mesoamerica is more like half hunter-gatherer and limited mostly to Canada and western US.
Cahokia was pretty huge in the medieval period. And a civ centered around one of the Mississippians would be cool. I posted this previously but will post it here too if anyone is curious.
Mississippian forts:
I would say there is enough data to make a civ out of, we know the kind of warriors they used, there are varying candidates for languages depending on which kingdom is chosen. Coosa or Cahokia would be a good choice imo. In the former Creek could work.
That said, personally given the limited roster I think Mesoamerica and/or the Andes would be better choices. Just going to mention the Mesoamericans here:
Aztecs in particular we know a lot about their warfare and cities. The downside with the Aztecs is their lateness in the game but with them alone one could make campaigns against the Spanish and the Purepecha (maybe a campaign only civ?). There are also many interesting aspects of the siege of Tenochtitlan which could be worked into their civ like how they learned to use crossbows from captive Spaniards, how they attached swords to lances, the capturing of a mangonel and how they dealt with cavalry charges by luring them into tight urban spaces and overwhelming the spanish and their native allies in an ambush. The latter effectively made cavalry charges too risky and the Spaniards had to resort to destroying house by house, since these houses were used for defense from the rooftops. It was a slow process since Tenochtitlan was huge with a population of 215,000, and Tlatelolco a city connected to it continued the resistance. The close quarters though did also make them more vulnerable to the disease in combination with the weary and malnourished bodies especially after their drinking water was cut off.
For the Maya their external enemies were either in the southeast which many are not familiar and I doubt the devs would include the Pipil, Xinca or Lenca and really there isn’t enough info to make an accurate fleshed out civ - or the west, where we have Teotihuacan. This could work, and you can have Teotihuacan campaign with the Maya when they took over Tikal in the early classic period (but I wonder if this is too early in the time frame). And then the Maya dealing with the Spanish, where you there are many options. The Maya also have some interesting tactics and strategies. To deal with cavalry they built stakes hidden in the road or fought in tight spaces in canyons and ravines. They also used dummies to trick the enemy, placing them on walls.
The Purepecha while interesting and definitely enough to flesh something out, really had their moment of glory against the Aztecs. Their fall to the Spaniards was pretty anti-climatic imo and not worthy of a campaign.
4 Likes
To be honest, just going by interaction too, you could very well have different starting civs. Let me show you:
- Aztec
- Spain
- Either Swahili, Malians or Ethiopians
- Abbasids
- Chinese
- Mongols
- Delhi Sultanate
- Holy Roman Empire
I’ve basically just switched out France, Rus, English with Malians, Aztecs and Spain thus covered already 2 more continents within the base game while still keeping 1 representative for the Middle East, 3 for Asia and 2 for Europe while still having tons of options for campaigns (Aztec-Spanish, Ethiopia-Abbasids, Holy Roman Empire-Abbasids, Mongols-Chinese, Abbasids-Spanish).
2 Likes
Age of Empires III starting 8 CIVS:
Spanish, British, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian, German, and Ottomans .
Literally ONLY European civs, compared to that AOE 4 is EXTREMELY balanced.
We WILL get expansions, I assume:
Americas Expansion:
Spain, Portugal (maybe?), Aztecs, Incas (Maybe)
Asia:
India (confirmed), Japan (there has to be Japan), Korea and maybe some South East Asian CIV.
They Prioritized Civs that are either in the Mongol Campaign or 100 years war campaign, the only one that was sort of thrown in was HRE.
2 Likes
Half of the roster is European so I don’t think so. Europe is always overly represented in video games, but that’s probably just marketing.
5 Likes
Venice is missing, yes the population was small but the Venice Empire endured more than 1000 years
it played the biggest role in early medieval to late rinascimento giving life to Europe thanks to trades and gave all the navy to the crusades.
It was a naval empire since the game has naval battle we can have Venice and add the Venetian arsenal it would be amazing. Venetian Arsenal - Wikipedia
“one of the earliest large-scale industrial enterprises in history”
You essentially just added Spain so you can have a reason to add the Aztecs? I think that’s a bad way of thinking.
I think AoE4 should completely leave out the colonisation of the new world and let American civilisations just fight each other in the campaigns.
It’s completely fine to have a civilisation that didn’t interact with anyone else in the base game.
We don’t even know if all of the 8 civilisations from AoE4 will appear in the campaigns. Maybe Delhi, the Abbsaides the HRE or even China won’t be part of any campaign.
My idea of a diverse list:
- Mexica
- France
- Byzantine Empire
- Ethiopia
- Abbasid Califate
- Delhi Sultanate
- Mongols
- China
6 Likes
The lack of diversity would be an issue if each civ wasn’t uniquely played (i.e. AoE2). Age of Mythology launched with 9 “civs”. Even that is inflated, it was more like 3 unique playstyles on launch. Each to their own, but I felt that diversity was plenty to provide endless strategies to work through.
Now if this is an issue of historical relevancy (which appears to be the case based on replies) then that is a whole separate discussion of “why are some civilizations more recognizable than others” and not so much a gameplay issue.
3 Likes