The New DLCs feels very "Safe"

[CountGriashnackh]

The new DLC was announced and honestly while I like it, I find it kinda underwhelming but also interesting at the same time.

This DLC feels very Safe in a way, since it had Civs mostly people would recognise with a popular theme which is the Vikings. Even the unique units seem very tamed compared to before like: “Throwing Axeman but Cavalry” or “Keshik but Infantry” or “Fire Lancer but not Gunpowder”. It feels almost like their trying to guage community reactions for more radical ideas in the future.

Like I found the inclusion of the Varangians very interesting, moreso the fact they just reuse the Jarl hero unit as it’s UU. It kinda feels like they’re testing the waters to see if they can split the Slavs into like Ruthenians and Muscovites since the Varangians are proto Rus as migrants from the Norse into Eastern Europe.

It is interesting to note that Xbox itself is having a major restructuring under a new CEO, who seems to value community feedback over letting Devs do whatever they want. So this DLC may be the Devs trying to guage various player reactions.

It feels CCs are being less critical of this DLC, I remember pro players like Hera and Viper complained about too many Civs when Last Chieftains was announced. But so far they’re silent on this, but that could be because it’s too early rn.

[cito]

I don’t think being “safe” is the biggest issue. For a long-running game like AoE2:DE, I would rather see more focus on maintenance and stability before adding more content.

DLCs are not one-time products. They become part of the game and require long-term support.

Sometimes it feels like: “WE require more minerals.”
Except now the minerals are mined from your wallet for the next DLC.

[VNDISPVTED]

One interesting takeaway from this DLC is that they seem to be treating the Vikings as a legacy civilization rather than replacing or renaming it. Instead of removing the original civ, they’re expanding the roster with more historically focused civilizations alongside it.

If that’s the design philosophy moving forward, it could have interesting implications. Rather than renaming or splitting legacy civilizations such as Saracens, Slavs, Teutons, Britons, or Celts, they may instead choose to keep the originals while introducing more specialized historical civilizations alongside them.

If so, that’s actually a direction I like. It preserves the classic AoE2 roster while still allowing the game to become more historically detailed over time.

[MatM1996]

Yes, they won’t touch the classical civs since they are the classical civs of Ensemble Studios and they respect that legacy…they will only add new adjacent ones and that’s it…

[KHANATTILA]

@CountGriashnackh

It feels CCs are being less critical of this DLC, I remember pro players like Hera and Viper complained about too many Civs when Last Chieftains was announced. But so far they’re silent on this, but that could be because it’s too early rn.

Because it contains a lot of familiar elements, so it will be much easier to take in.

[VNDISPVTED]

I think one solution to the discussion about the growing number of civilizations in AoE2 would simply be to give players more control over the civilization pool in the lobby settings.

Instead of having the debate of “too many civs” versus “more civs are always better,” the game could allow the lobby host to choose which civilization packs are active for that match.

For example, there could be options such as:

• Only Age of Kings civilizations
• Only The Conquerors civilizations
• Age of Kings + The Conquerors civilizations
• All civilizations
• Custom civilization pool
• et cetera…

The custom option could allow the lobby host to manually remove any civilization they do not want included. This could be done before the game starts, or even through a voting system where players can suggest and vote on civilizations to exclude.

This would satisfy both sides of the community. Players who enjoy the classic AoE2 experience with the original civilizations could continue playing exactly that. Players who enjoy the modern game with a much larger and more historically detailed roster could use the full civilization pool.

It would also solve many balance and preference issues. Some players dislike facing certain civilizations repeatedly, some prefer specific historical settings, and others simply want a smaller selection to make civilization choices feel more meaningful.

The game already has a massive amount of content, and instead of limiting future civilization development because some players feel overwhelmed by the number of choices, a better solution is simply giving players the tools to customize their own experience.

More options do not have to mean less accessibility. A flexible civilization pool system would allow AoE2 to continue expanding while still respecting players who prefer the older, simpler roster.

[cito]

I think this is a very reasonable solution. The problem isn’t really the number of civilizations, but the lack of tools for players to manage such a large roster.

Players will create their own rules anyway. Some prefer classic civilizations, some avoid certain DLCs, and some create custom pools. If players are already doing this manually, why not let the game support it officially?

For example, I think Jurchen and Khitan are interesting additions, but I don’t necessarily want the Three Kingdoms civilizations in my pool. That doesn’t mean I don’t support new content. It just means players have different preferences.

Buying DLC doesn’t always mean players want every civilization enabled in every match. Sometimes the limitation isn’t the price, but whether the content fits their preferred experience.

A customizable civilization pool would also help developers understand player preferences by showing which civilizations are included or excluded.

DLCs aren’t one-time products. Once added, they become part of the game. Giving players more control would allow AoE2 to keep expanding while respecting players who prefer a smaller or more classic roster.

[VNDISPVTED]

I agree 200%. Spot on contribution. Bravo!

[cito]

I think another reason this issue appears now is that AoE2 has changed over time.

When the civilization roster was smaller, most players could accept the entire pool because there were fewer choices and new civilizations were added less frequently. As the roster grows, players naturally become more selective about what they want to play against.

This isn’t necessarily because players dislike new civilizations. It’s simply a result of having a much larger game. The more content a game has, the more important it becomes to give players ways to customize their experience.

Also, not every player goes online for Ranked or competitive play. Many players just want to find others who enjoy the same type of game. They may prefer classic civilizations, certain historical settings, or specific DLC content.

A civilization pool system would help these players find matches that fit their preferences instead of forcing everyone into the same experience.

It wouldn’t reduce the value of new DLC. In fact, it could create more room for future expansion because different groups of players could enjoy different parts of the game.

[Akleoni]

Always ignoring that most people doesn’t care about multiplayer and ranked at all.

[VNDISPVTED]

Attilakan123 posted this in the other thread regarding the upcoming DLC. I have to verify if this naming is official or not.

Update : I cannot locate any info on this being official renaming thus I am interpreting this as fan made as an example of what it could look like if renaming occurred.

[Thire7]

@Nateybatey

the castles are made of wood, which seems strange because the european castles are made of stone, so the european castles should OWN the south american ones but thats not how the stats are in game.

You underestimate the strength of wood. There are two main reasons to build with stone instead of wood:

1. Stone lasts longer in the weather. Wood eventually rots, but stone doesn’t.
2. Stone doesn’t burn at all. Wooden walls do take effort to get them to burn but it is possible.

But wood does have advantages over stone:

1. Wood is easier to work with allowing faster construction.
2. Wood is lighter and has better tensile strength allowing for more complex geometry.
3. Wood can be transported to the site allowing wooden forts to be built practically anywhere.

Wood has comparable structural integrity to stone, but its temporary nature means that fortifications and monuments that were meant to last a long time would be worth the extra time and labor investment to build out of stone.

Besides that, shields were usually made of wood, and not the thick trunks or boards and beams that castles would be made of, but relatively thin sheets of wood. And they were so effective that practically every army used them.

[cito]

I agree with your point that DLCs don’t always have to be about adding new civilizations. As the roster keeps growing, players naturally develop different preferences…

As the roster keeps growing, players naturally develop different preferences. Some players enjoy new civilizations, some prefer classic ones, and some only want certain historical themes. Buying a DLC also doesn’t mean players want every new civilization included in every match.

The important question is not what the developers want to sell, but what players actually want to play.

A different direction could be adding more player-focused content, such as Civ Editor, custom civilizations, or new civilization bonuses.

Collecting new bonuses could even become one of the reasons to buy DLC.

For example, a DLC could introduce new options like:

1.Faster Archer-line movement.
2.Stronger cavalry.
3.Economic bonuses.
4.Defensive traits.

Players could collect these bonuses and use them to create their own civilizations in custom modes.

Of course, custom civilizations would need restrictions. Players should not be able to combine every powerful bonus together, so different specializations would need limits.

Official civilizations could still break some of these rules because they are designed as complete historical identities, not just a collection of bonuses. Their uniqueness comes from carefully designed combinations.

These collectible features don’t even have to be part of Ranked play at first.

Ranked can remain focused on the official civilization pool and competitive balance, while custom modes allow players to experiment with collected bonuses and create their own civilizations.

However, as the system becomes more mature, it could eventually become its own competitive format, especially with an Arena-style mode.

Players wouldn’t only compete with their gameplay and strategy, but also with how they build their civilization before the match begins. This would create a new layer of decision-making and make matches more interesting to watch.

Instead of viewers only asking:

“Which civilization is this player using?”

They could also ask:

“How did this player build their civilization?”

For a game as old as AoE2, the future doesn’t have to be only about adding more civilizations. It can also be about giving players more ways to collect, create, customize, and participate in the game.

[Apocalypso4826]

@Nateybatey

the castles are made of wood, which seems strange because the european castles are made of stone, so the european castles should OWN the south american ones but thats not how the stats are in game. shouldnt the south american castles have like 500 hp if made of wood?

While Oceania civs do have the unit problems you mentioned, they can plausibly build Castles meant to last a long time. Polynesians built hill forts, Fijians (Melanesians) built clifftop villages, and Micronesians had stone fortifications on the island of Pohnpei. I feel they may actually fit in the game better than certain American and African civs for this reason.

[MatM1996]

@VNDISPVTED

I think one solution to the discussion about the growing number of civilizations in AoE2 would simply be to give players more control over the civilization pool in the lobby settings.

Instead of having the debate of “too many civs” versus “more civs are always better,” the game could allow the lobby host to choose which civilization packs are active for that match.

Yes, I thought of another option… what do you think about making several civilizations from AoK to DoI (currently the base game civilizations) into minor civilizations on the maps, like in AoE 3? This would allow us to halve the number of playable civilizations without losing them, and would also give the maps more variety. You could train them from the mercenary house, which would be available to the remaining playable civilizations (all post-DoI), spending 100 gold each…

[cs-mark]

Personally rather than adding new civs all the time they should make campaigns for the many civs that don’t have them

[UnAutreVoyage]

100% YES I cannot agree more

[VNDISPVTED]

I am not familiar with this mechanic - it has been many, many years since I played AoE3.. I still have it but I would have to update myself on it and the overall concept in order to give my opinion on it.

[cito]

@cs-mark

Personally rather than adding new civs all the time they should make campaigns for the many civs that don’t have them

I agree.

More campaigns for existing civs would also be a great direction.

AoE2 already has many civilizations with interesting histories, but not all of them have their own campaigns. Adding more historical content for existing civs could give players a reason to revisit them, instead of always expanding the roster.

New civs are one way to add value, but they shouldn’t be the only way.

[Nateybatey]

somebody seriously removed my post wow thats sad

you disagree with me so you remove what i said.

and yes the oceania people built castles but they weren’t as powerful as european castles so the game either has to reflect that or just dont put them in the game. it looks out of place. So I’m not allowed to think it looks out of place and it makes the game less enjoyable as a result?

what is this postmodernist of empires? I guess I’ll just stop playing the game then, I’ll have to wait 20 years until im 50 and maybe by then you can have some balance in your representation of history. The Europeans (and the middle east and asia etc) in the middle ages were more powerful than oceania, north america, africa, etc. its a fact it’s not hating. im just saying there should be a threshold for how strong your civ had to be at the time to be a civ in the game.

Another thing im interested to know is, since this deleting what I said because it’s ever so slightly “right-wing,” (even though im not trying to be right wing I just get bothered by the weirdification of the aesthetic) if everything becomes super left wing and we abolish private property, how are you even going to play age of empires 2 if you dont have private property?