The fast change of aoe2 which i don't like

I was thinking how the game really changed after the DE came to field, it is even just keep going for something different from the aoe2 that we know, and i think this is something that aoe2 fans don’t want it actually, no one wants to change the game but looks like the devs are making some weird decisions to change the identity of the game, thats started by the 2 weird ideas with 2 DE civs and now with 2 new DLC with new weird stuff to the game

-Bulgarians: can build kreposts+weird UU that turn to infantry when die

-Cumans: 2nd TC+Siege in feudal

-Burgundians: every thing with this civ is sick and broken and weird to aoe2

-Sicilians: like Burgundians every thing sick and weird

I don’t mind adding new civs to the game (but i am not a fan to add more civs actually), but if the DEVS should add new civs then PLEASE don’t change our great game to something else with new weird stuff because no one actually liked what you did lately.



Your opinion is 100% of the player base


100% of 100% correct…

sarcasm man, sarcasm…


hahaha sorry , i amended mine… but one can never be too careful, i didnt check the name at first :joy:

this really isnt that weird, and is actually a really cool unit idea without breaking the game

again, doesnt break the game, and is cool

yes it’s weird and a lot of it is imbalanced, but in the long run it will be fun. only really the coustilier that is really broken, and the flemish could do with tweaking

no ways, tons of people are enjoying these guys, again they need some balance but they are cool, lots of knee jerking but people are learning they arent as imbalanced as they would seem

tons of people have been asking to play infantry more, and now you literally can… and the existence of serjeants justifies the militia line as a counter, further encouraging the use of the much wanted infantry(although tech could do with tweaking)

the devs have got to make money man… they have to try new things… sometimes that doesnt always make everyone happy, but DOTA makes a mother ton of money and it was a very new concept at the time


Cumans, Burgundians and Sicilians should be removed from the game asap, because, they don’t meet the criterias

  1. Completely break the balance
  2. Cumans were just the least important horde ever, 15 nomad civs were much more important
  3. Sicilians are already Italians, Franks, Byzantines and Saracens
  4. This is Age of Empires, not Age of French Duchies, Burgundians do not belong to the game.

emmm NO

1 Like

It wasn’t even a khaganate, had no government, they were just a horde, like Huns.

But had a huge impact on the Mongol Empire, the Golden Horde, the Mamluk Sultanate, the Delhi Sultanate, to name a few…

Anyway go ahead and name those 15 nomadic peoples that were much more important.

And removing civs is like 100% fantasy

1 Like

Strange enough than that Burgundians played such a big role in the existing campaigns.

For me meso civs are much more misplaced in this game than any of the aforementioned.

And @Equalizer938341: you’re not speaking for 100% of playerbase. Why can’t people just speak for themselves instead of trying to speak for everyone?

What is huge impact? They fled from Mongols, then raided Hungary and were used as mercenaries all the time. That is Cuman history.
Magyars, Mongols, Tatars, Bulgars, Turks, Gokturks, Khitans, Jurchens, Khazars, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyzs, Tibetans, Serbs. All of these were more important than Cumans and were semi or 100% nomadic. As a Hungarian I learnt about Cumans a lot at school and I still don’t understand why they got into the game, it makes 0 sense.

Burgundians are French.(=Franks)

Incas and Aztecs were big empires, Mayans had many powerful city states, all of them are more important than European duchies after we have like 15 civs from that region.

Already covered by tatars and cumans.


They became famous from Kingdom Come: Deliverance, just like Celts from Braveheart.

AoE has a very pop-culture aproach to what civs get in, and that has honestly done the game well.

I do like the two new civs but their Flemish Militia and First Crusade techs need to change to something that fits with the game because they are way too gimmicky and a cheap way to win a game. They don’t feel very AoEII-ish to me.


Coustillier should be nerfed. Flemish Revolution UT should be reworked.

Sicilians TC building time bonus either not apply to starting TC or nerfed to 50% for Nomad balance. (and little nerf on First Crusade)

New civs are Okay other than that. Sicilians might need some buff honestly.

If you rant about the poor design of the new civs or units you will be attacked and flagged by the very same users, in fact that small gang think they own this forums.

The average user of this forums wouldn’t complain if they create the Venetians, with a UT called Davinci time’s machine and gives you a cobra car, in fact for them it would cool and innovator, because they play the game but don’t enjoy the challenges of playing competitive so they don’t see the broken things and in case they were losing they would simple type a cheat code and win.

Imagine there are people asking for tibetans or purepechas, polinesians or stuff like that, they just want more civs and more mechanics outside the original game design and timeline.

Right now the game doesn’t feel like aoe2 and no one can deny that.

I deny it tacitally. It still is AoE2, just much better.


Here we go again…

Burgundy is a small part of France now, but it was a superpower in the 15th century. It also included the Low Countries. Most of its territories were in the Holy Roman Empire by the way.

I wouldn’t include the Burgundians if the game had just 13 civs like AOK, but if you have 37 civs, including the Burgundians makes sense.

1 Like

Superpower of France, aka the Franks civilization, including the redudant Burgundians makes 0 sense. Burgundians are ETHNIC FRENCH, so they are covered by Franks.