I prefer if they chose factions that interact with each other historically in base game. Outside factions as DLC.
While it does bother me greatly that Africa and SEA combined could not get a single civ and the game having four European civs is a bit much. It also could have been a lot worse.
Delhi frankly feels like an apology for the camel focused umbrella Indians of AoE II, but it is still very welcome.
Abbasid is a good touch.
Chinese could maybe have been split into multiple civs, but their main gameplay gimmick seems to address this anyway, so it is pretty neat.
Rus are… interesting. Frankly I don’t mind them, they aren’t done to death by any means. I just feel like their spot could have been used by something else. Sure there are no Eastern European civs, but did the game also absolutely need to represent Eastern Europe when literal continents are omitted?
Mongols are too fan favorites not to include. It would have been interesting if they had filled the cav archer and nomadic culture niche with some of the other nomadic people. But there is also nothing really wrong with having them here either.
Franks are the obvious and absolutely mandatory inclusion.
Which sort of leaves me at HRE and the English.
English… I feel like mostly exist because they really wanted to do 100 years war… even though they could have probably done Charlemagne for the Frank campaign. You know, to not repeat just Genghis, but also Joan. Can’t wait for when they announce HRE Barbarossa campaign too.
But yeah, English really exist because while culturally Franks would do excellently well to represent them, it wouldn’t really go well having the English be most a heavy cavalry civ over their beloved longbows.
I feel like the main reason the English have to be in is from a problem the devs created for themselves. But they are in the minds of people unique to the medieval setting and the theme seems to be to play it safe as possible. It is what it is.
HRE could have even more been represented by the Franks, this time even gameplay wise reasonably well. It is very much a case of another fan favorite, playing it safe. Even then, Byzantines, Vikings and Japanese are some fan favorites that didn’t make the cut, so I am just confused why the HRE absolutely had to make it.
Overall, the devs have played it very safe. And that direction highly suggests we will at least see the three previously mentioned civs and probably a handful of others, before a single SEA or African civ.
1 Like
I’m a fan of history so in my opinion every history class is probably not good enough.
But I don’t think the 100 years was is particularly important to learn about.
My main criticism of you our History education is that it’s extremely centred on Europe, especially Central Europe. China basically doesn’t exist until we got a protectorate there.
What I wanted to say it that at the beginning of the war it was more like a French civil war with one of the sides happen to have that small island kingdom too. There is the story of English kings that spend nearly their entire life in Normandy.
The 100 years war essentially created England. Before that the nobility of England were all French(Norman) people speaking a French dialect. Only over the cause of the war they adopted English.
I generally like the way the English play. I don’t like the unique features of the Mongols, Chinese or Delhi that much.
But I do think the French or HRE are kinda the better version of the English. They are the main reason why I think the English aren’t the best choice.
No they couldn’t have. Charlemagne is long before the time period that AoE4 depicts.
The Dark Age of AoE4 is around 1000 AD while Charlemagne died in 814 AD. You couldn’t even alow the French to reach Feudal Age because they would already have Royal Knights.
I think that wouldn’t have worked.
I think big umbrella civilisations are bad and most people agree with me.
The HRE and the French are quit different. But I have to agree that they are not different enough to both be in the base game.
I can absolutely agree on the Byzantines. They are a very unique and important civilisation. There is no civilisation like them and they would never be to similar to something else to not be added.
But the Japanese are maybe to close to both the Mongols and Chinese which are both more important so it makes sense they are not in the base game. Especially because the Japan every one thinks about is more AoE3 time period than AoE4.
The Vikings have the same problem as Charlemagne. The Viking Age ended in what is the Dark Age in AoE4. And AoE4 doesn’t have a lot of Dark Age combat.
You can’t have “Berserker” next cannons, that is just wrong.
While Danes could be a viable civilisation but probably not a very important one, especially if you already have 3 Western European civilisations.
I do hope they don’t decide to just add Civilisations from other time Periods again. AoE2 had some ancient civilisations randomly added like the Celts with a unique unit that looks like it’s from 0 AD, the Huns that straight up stopped existing before the fall of Rome and the Goths that for some reason even got gunpowder units.
Not that AoE1 or AoE3 are much better either.
1 Like
Some people are truly over-entitled xD
How is it not a diverse selection of Civ’s ? The different architecture and game mechanics to each is a new thing on how it plays for the Age Franchise.
You say ‘add more diverse civs’ as if creating them and figuring out balance, numerous code and art work that goes on behind the scenes is some sort of magic sorcery that is conjured up instantly.
Maybe they will in the future… be quite likely in fact.
1 Like
Your comment is laughable.
Patatoes were not invented by the Native Americans. The New World had a big impact on the rest of the world, not the Natives themselfs.
You picked Aztecs for your No European civs, thats laughable. They came into existence in 1428, and even then they were only an alliance not really the Empire yet. Their impact is pretty small on the world. Tarascans are also like adding Burgundy in the start of the game.
Its a medieval game. In the medieval era, Europe, Asia and (North) Africa were the main regions associated with the medieval age. Those areas also impacted the other. The crusades, the trade between Europe and Asia, the Muslim expansion into also Iberia etc.
Aztecs etc are worthy civs for dlc, not base game.
Also I do think England is out of place and I would have rather seen Castille or something.
Sorry, but Mexico has way more of a impact on the world than the Aztecs, Incas or Mayas ever had. Aztecs were conquered in like 3 years. Mayas were a bunch of city states and Incas although holding way longer out, did only have an impact of the conquistadores and not on the world.
Mexico has foreign relations with almost all countries, was one of the reasons why the US declared on Germany in WW1 and way more.
Again Patatoes, gold and silver were not invented by the Aztecs nor the Incas. If they werent there, but some other civilization it would have made almost no difference.
2 Likes
Ok. You are a minority, and games are one thing on the long list of things that aren’t made for the priority of the minority (like my rhyme 
).
Can You really think anyone would enjoy a game where almost all civs weren’t European, the center of the Medieval world?
Remember, not including is not denying. Everything has its place, and this game is just not the place for unheard of peoples and stone age technologies.
Enjoy
5 Likes
Lol, i would have (and i am from France). This game is from the 500-1500 time period, called “medieval” by us but its not Age of Medieval, it’s Age of Empire, so what kind of Empire england manage to produce during this period? nothing
Should have deleted Brit and Rus (small nation in this time line) for better ones outside europe (prob byzantine and i don’t know enough the history of other empire arround the globe).
Also Inca seem better than Brit even with their “stone” technologies because they manage to clame a sort of empire, maybe too isolated from other civ.
5 Likes
Okay, lets just add North American tribes, like Iroquois or whatever, instead of French or Abbasids. Like seriously? Every culture is very unique, I would only change one thing, replace English with Byzantines.
So setting aside the part about marketing. Beyond the word medieval being a term that more describes Europe in where it ends and begins and what defines. That age period itself… Is Europe really the center of it? The Islamic Golden Age and all of the Chinese inventions would very much argue against it.
Unheard people? Mali and Khmer are perfectly heard and noteworthy empires to have in the game. Mali was source of much of the gold of the medieval world. Angkor Wat is arguably the greatest temple of the time.
Furthermore, stone tools is not exactly a point of anything. Something not being made out of medal does not itself make it primitive compared to the “advanced” world
For example, mudbricks are not primitive nor an inferior construction material when compared to something more “advanced” like regular bricks. They are perfectly strong and very cheap to make. They do struggle with damp. But in where that requirement is met. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using them even today in the world of concrete despite mudbricks being absolutely ancient.
So Mali were an empire, part of the medieval world and adding them to game would even would add a fun different architecture. Even outside the part of having zero African civs in the game, they have good merits to be included even if the game already have Ethiopians, Swahili and Berbers. So I cannot by any means call that overinclusive.
4 Likes
Got conquered by the Turks in the period that the games takes place IIRC.
Moscow takes its place. 
1 Like
??? That image was from AoE3, based on discovery age. In that trailer they went trought every AoE game
Have to agree with this . The vanilla civs are unevenly disturbuted (4 for Europe and the rest 4 spread out all over Asia) .
2 Likes
To me all these political discussions just demonstrate that it’s better for future games to stay away from history and focus on fantasy worlds instead.
3 Likes
I’m with you, man. Too few civilizations honestly…
2 Likes
I think 8 at launch is a balanced amount of civilizations and we all know more will come later down the road, the question is how many.
I don’t want it to be just like AoE2, way too many to make them feel different from each other.
But we will have to pay for the next civs that are coming…
Spanish, Aztecs, Japan, Romans, Vikings
We needed more Civs at base.
1 Like
Damn, your racist ■■■ really enjoying because the game got eurocentric? ‘’ The center of the Medieval World’’
pufff hahahaha
4 Likes
We don’t know yet if they will cost, how much etc. but they will come we just need to be patient. They want quality over quantity which I approve.
What do you mean by Romans? They were a part in ancient time not in medieval timeline unless you mean the Byzantine Greeks who self-identified as Romans (Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι) but are referred to as Byzantine Greeks in modern historiography. Latin speakers identified them simply as Greeks or with the term Romei.
Well, it would not hurt to include the Romans. This is Age of Empires, not Age of medieval.
And come on, bud. You know they will cost money. That’s why there is already an expansion on the making…
I understand but also they’ve specifically chosen each faction to exist around the same time frame.