The future of AoE2:DE expansions

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Hello everybody!

As everyone knows, we have received news about the new expansion (with some polarizing opinions about that, but mostly positive ones), it brings me to mind that it is not the last one to come.

We are getting 3 new campaigns and 2 new civilizations - which is interesting, because i have always been looking towards new campaigns for existing civilizations.

As a fellow developer, i know that money is important to sustain support for the game (bugfixing, new events etc) - i really think that we all wish that, because there are tons of great games still with bugs (e.g. the witcher 2 and the witcher 3), but with no official support, and thus have to rely on userfixes.

Therefore, i might have some ideas for the future patches:

3 new campaigns and 1 new civilisation every year (i donā€™t think we need that many new civilisations, but 1 a year should not be a big problem, right?)

there is a great post about first possible expansion by DarthPyro4335 - 'Age of the Slavs' DLC Suggestion

Regarding campaigns, there are lots of players (probably even more than those who play ranked matches/skirmish) who play casually and enjoy a good campaign, but are limited to play ā€œonlyā€ 24 (soon to be 25) of the current 35 civilisations -> who didnā€™t wish to play as the mighty persians, english, chinese or japanese in campaign scenarios in their younger years?

some campaigns might include those of:

  1. Slavs (renamed to rusā€™) -> Alexander Nevski (Dracula is not enough to fully experience any of the civs in that campaignā€¦)
  2. Japanese -> Nobunaga or Tokugawa campaigns in sengoku period
  3. Chinese ->Red turban rebellion + Goryeo invasions
  4. Koreans -> Goryeo kingdom, including Kaesong scenario
  5. Lithuanians ->Vytautas
  6. Vikings -> Ragnarā€™s conquests
  7. Mayans -> Tikal-Calakmul wars (expanded)
  8. Persians -> Muhammad Ghori or Shapur the great
  9. Turks -> Mehmed IIā€™s conquests
  10. Magyars -> Andrew IIā€™s camapigns

And the new civs might include

  1. Poles
  2. Bohemians (see the post above)
  3. Saxons (Saxon conquest of Britain)
  4. Dutch
  5. Muisca
  6. Egyptians
  7. Zimbabwe

I would gladly pay 10 bucks a year for official new campaigns for the old civilisations, and thus support the developers in keeping the aoe games healthy and updated:)

16 Likes
2

1 civ and 3 campaigns for 15 bucks (at least for me) seems tad expensive. 2 civs seems fairer.

Ngl if we should get only few civs later on, scrap European ones, especially considering the one weā€™re getting is focused on Western Europe.

If I could decide, Iā€™d pick those:

1.Kongolese
2.Swahili

3.Iroquois
4.Mississippians

5.Chola
6.Bengal

7.Tufans
8.Nepalese

9.Armenian
10.Georgians

6 Likes
3

I think we should have two different DLC ā€˜packsā€™

Once a year we have a civ and campaign pack, but through out the year we can get just packs of something like 5 campaigns (to keep a trickle of money coming in and players occupied). For a game like AoE, more campaigns is better. Yes I want civs having more than one campaign as well.

Thanks for linking my post, my next one is along the lines of the Crusades (will be done tomorrow or day after).

Exactly my feeling, I hate mods, but Iā€™m willing to pay just for official campaigns.

7 Likes
4

9 and 10 yes, no for the rest (see Discord :P)

2 Likes
5

Since the game covers 3rd century, Shapur the great makes a lot more sense

Wasnā€™t this AOE3 timeline?

Not really needed tbh

1 Like
6

is really needed actually.

6 Likes
7

We donā€™t need any European civs other than Wends and Vlachs. Those arenā€™t that important either compared to other civs.
We need more Asian, African and American civs. 10 euros for a single civ is robbery.

Khitans-Jurchen (not in order)
Zimbabweans-Kongolese
Georgians-Khazars
Araucans-Muiscans
Tamils-Bengalis
Siamese-Tibetans

Mississippians-Iroquois
Nubians-Somalis
Sinhalese-Deccans
Vlachs-Wends
Hausa-Kanembu
Tarascans-Toltecs
Polynesians-Visayans etcā€¦

Louis the Great of Hungary had greater campaigns than Andrew II.
Muhammad Ghori should be represented by Afghans. Remember ā€œumbrellaā€ doesnā€™t matter anymore, because Sicilians, Burgundians and tons or Turkic civs exist.

7 Likes
8

Well, 15 bucks are something you pay in a restaurant for a lunch, so giving it once a year for elaborate campaigns and 1 new civ is probably okā€¦i mean, 1 new civ in order not to overwhelm with the new civs, and 3 new campaigns to ā€œcatch upā€ in 5 years with the campaigns, instead of 10:)

And i chose european civs, because european, middle eastern and far eastern civilisations were generally much more advanced than those in africa/america, and we have more history about those. Aksumites and Sundjata have already been covered, thatā€™s why something from south (zimbabwe or swazili) and 1 more could be enough:)

Armenians and/or georgians sound fun though, but i was kinda under the expression that tatars, cumans and persians cover them well enough.

That is not true, however, for saxons (they are quite different than goths) and the dutch:)

thank you for your opinion though!

6 Likes
9

European civs are infinitely boring imo. You canā€™t even make a new architecture for them. Other European civs cover that new Euro civs would.

4 Likes
10

To be fair, we donā€™t really have that much history info about african and american civs, nor were they as advanced as other asian and european ones, thatā€™s why i feel the saxons and maybe bohemians could be introduced:)

though i agree that a small portion of american, asian and african civs should be added

and yeah, Louisā€™ campaigns can definitely be better than Andrew the II:) It was just an example in order to actually have a magyar campaign 11

4 Likes
11

Georgians and Armenians are both Christian European civs, they canā€™t be covered by Persians, tatars or cumans

5 Likes
12

I feel that Shapur is maybe way too early (2nd century is after all way too much into AOE1, but might be fine:)

Tokugawa was, not nobunagaā€¦and Aoe3 is way different 11

It is needed if more slavic civilisations are introduced:)

13

Yes, you are right, I agree:) Probably ā€œCaucasiansā€ could cover both of them, if they were deemed not diversive enough

14

Europe has the best recorded history,where else do you find detailed accounts of battles and number of troops?
Also not everyone can be represented by current civis.you cant represent finns or albanians with any current civi.

8 Likes
15

Finns didnā€™t have a kingdom. They were under the Swedes and Russians. Albanians are fine.

1 Like
16

Were the Mayans and Aztecs that advanced? They have plate mail upgrade in-game so it doesnā€™t matter if they are advanced or not. Saxons and the bohemians can come later, there are more African or Asian civs to be added just by dividing India and China. Siam is also a great civ to be added as the nemesis civ to Khmer.

1 Like
17

Is this game was never about kingdoms if it was where was the kingdom of cumans or huns?

1 Like
18

Thank you for the reference of your post! I must have missed it due to it being a new one - i was about to post this thread yesterday, but didnā€™t have the mood/time to complete it:)

Anways, Nope, Aztecs were not advanced enough (at least they miss on gunpowder), but are the most interesting ones from americas -> and perfect for conquerors campaigns. Mayans werenā€™t that bad actually, especially regarding the 8th century:)

Ethiopians and Malians are the ones i dislike the most, they werenā€™t advanced at all (tbh, they still are not, to this day), not even compared to Aztecs, which is why i donā€™t understand Ethiopian super siege and torsion engines + great arbalestersā€¦I wouldnā€™t ming them having some strong infantry thoughā€¦But balance is balance.

2 Likes
19

Yes itā€™s a great opportunity to learn more of the exotic civs, Iā€™ve never known Ethiopians nor Malians except when I played this game. /11

1 Like
20

For the existing Slavs civ, best campaign would be Svyatoslav of Kiev. He fought a bunch of steppe nomads, then worked as a mercenary for Byzantines helping them fight the Bulgarians, and ended up setting up his own fiefdom in the Danube and supporting Bulgarians against Byzantines.

Lithuanians should obviously get Vitautas- halting the Golden Horde at Blue Waters, and then the Teutonic Order at Grunwald

If we get a Western Slav civ, Iā€™d say do Hussite wars, because Hussites raided pretty much all their neighbours, defended against overwhelming odds, and tried to involve as many nations as possible in their early attempt at the Reformation.

Chinese need a campaign, but thereā€™s a ton of custom-made content out there, some of it top quality; Persians are really the most overlooked by both the devs and the scenario design community from what Iā€™ve seen; not too familiar with that region, so not sure whoā€™d be a good historic leader for a campaign, though.

3 Likes