Not talking about “power creep”, balancing or gameplay because I’m pretty bad at this game. And balancing can be eventually solved, maybe with the simple no-brainer solution of nerfing the economy and/or the base unit stats to the ground.
But does that solve the entire problem? No. The amount of contents of the new civs are still there. If we are going down the path of stuffing more and more into new releases, eventually the potential of the game will be drained.
1 Content creep and why it is a problem
I think that problem starts from Swedes, or even TAD civs, but they all look very mild compared to later DLCs.
Swedes
This civ used to have one unit that can do almost everything, with 5 cards, and a special ability. Two of the cards give this unit some unprecedented traits compared to other regular musketeers: range (well Haud has that but that’s still quite rare) and ranged resistance (wtf?).
It has a lot of far improved version of underused or even useless mechanics: cavalry trampling, merc training from regular buildings, mortars targeting units, etc.
But Swedes now looks rather conservative compared to later additions.
US
The federal state is a great new mechanic. The problem is, the unique bonuses and traits received from federal state cards (40) is more than almost all vanilla European civs combined.
And they can receive a lot of units they lack or are weak at, with much greater accessibilities. Many old civs have to live up with their limited unit roster, only compensated by mercs or natives (which are very situational), but they’re still happy with that.
They also have cards with bundled effects. Early units + unit shipments, unit shipments + bonuses, etc.
Africans
I actually like the African designs more than US. They are creative but less drastic.
My main issue is that they are able to give almost every unit some distinct buffs. That’s perhaps a tradition since TAD, but African ones are much more drastic. Lifidi Knight for example already has its unique trait, but can be unlocked earlier, gain an AOE damage and also receive insta-training, which was removed for French because it is too op.
They have more “bundled cards”. Even their merc cards can give a small bonus. And they also have a lot of free upgrades to natives and mercs, making them much more viable. Though the usage is limited by influence income, they still have far more useful options compared to others.
In addition, African outlaws used to be too strong and too unique. Thankfully they are nerfed. Old outlaws are weak and not interesting at all. But suddenly when every civ went to Africa they all started spamming outlaws.
Mexicans
Mexico has all these aforementioned “problems” combined. It is indeed the most diverse civ ever.
- They have units with tons of abilities and unique traits.
- They can buff almost every unit and give them some even more unique traits.
- They have 40 federal state cards
- They have cards with bundled effects, and get access to units they do not have (while they do not really have bad basic units like US cavalry)
- On top of that, they also have 7 additional revolutionary decks, each offering several new units and bonuses.
Historical references
Now this is something very personal, but I believe many feel the same. The reason why people love AOE is at least partly attributed to its historical backgrounds. I’m not suggesting they should be entirely accurate, but seeing the historical contents in the game is a lot of fun.
However, the amount of historical references in the federal state cards is again more than all vanilla civs combined.
Think about how many interesting people and events that shaped the world there are in this time period. It’s a pity the majority of them are still not included.
For most other civs livestock is not even an option. Mercs and outlaws are very situational. Many units and cards are still never considered. When I play these civs I got bored easily, especially after going for the same few card builds every time for many years.
And DLC civs keep getting new cards over time, as if they are really lack of cards.
2 “But you’re not going to use all of them”
I know new civs would eventually be optimized and most cards will remain unconsidered. But at least many of these new cards seem to me like a straight-up improvement of the old, underused ones. Same with other stuff like livestock, mercs, etc. There is a different between “sth is so bad so I would not use it” and “sth is dwarfed by something even better so I would not use it”.
Also, if I have the option to buff whatever unit I like, or to stack one unit (carolean, solado, chinaco, etc.) into superman, even at the cost of investing too many cards, why can’t I do the same in other civs?
3 “Keep the play style of older civs!”
That is a very solid argument and I’ll definitely agree with it. Old civs already have well-established strengths, weaknesses and play styles. I’m not suggesting a complete overhaul.
We actually have a few very good examples of how this could be done:
Logisticians
Many of the logistician options makes it possible for some strong and sustainable age 2 strategies, for example Spanish. They do not interfere with the original play style though, like you can still go with FF+2 falconets playing Spanish by choosing your regular politicians.
BTW the British one is really bad.
Nizam Reforms
This one also opens up new gameplay possibilities for the Ottoman. But again, you’ll need to go down a different path to make use of it, and it’s a pretty large investment that really pays off (unlike some other church techs that simply do not worth it).
If you’d prefer to stick to your familiar Ottoman build, it does not prevent you from doing so.
New Aztecs cards
Most of them are pretty good. I especially like the calendar ceremony. Again, that’s a new gameplay option, and you can choose not to use it and go for your familiar builds.
The “ship 1 xxx from every n xxx lost so far” cards are some great additions that synchronize well with the Aztec playstyle of throwing in a lot of melee infantry.
Captured Mortars
Most matches typically do not last that long, so native Americans still retain their original playstyles.
But when it comes to late game or treaty sieges, they used to be hopeless. This addition only makes late game more interesting for them, while not interfering with balancing too much.
For the future additions, we can do a simple thought experiment here. Take one civ with very clear play styles, and a quite strong one (and one that I am most familiar with): British.
Imagine giving the British these...
Proposal #1 Some new mercenary cards
Does it interfere with the established playstyle? No.
Are they going to be OP? Perhaps, but nerfing is simple.
Is it going to add more fun? No doubt.
Proposal #2 Some unique imperial cards/techs
Does it interfere with the established playstyle? No. Most games never reach that stage.
Are they going to be OP? Maybe for treaties. But nerfing is simple.
Is it going to add more fun? No doubt.
Proposal #3 Greater, but still limited access to skirmishers
(For example, being able to train skirmishers from forts after sending Rogers Rangers, or get some cards that send a unique skirmisher like spahi)
Does it interfere with the established playstyle? To some degree. That is going to change unit composition and resource management. So it should be limited.
Are they going to be OP? Maybe. But nerfing is simple.
Is it going to add more fun? No doubt.
Proposal #4 A highlander shipment that also gives musketeers +5% damage, or a special ability
(A bundled card like the African merc cards)
Does it interfere with the established playstyle? Not very much. Merc cards are still expensive and hard to get
Are they going to be OP? Very likely. Their musketeers are already good enough. So it should be made very costly and moved to the late game.
Is it going to add more fun? No doubt.
Proposal #5 A card that also allows auto-gathering of livestock from livestock pen
Does it interfere with the established playstyle? Maybe, because you are now able to get some additional economy in the early stage. But (1) that can be solved by moving the card to later ages (2) that may not be a problem at all because it’s still a card investment and might be overshadowed by other better options.
Are they going to be OP? Maybe, but nerfing is simple.
Is it going to add more fun? No doubt.
The same can be said for most other civs. All of these changes would do little harm but opens up far more gameplay options for the older civs. Some aspects of the game are so bad that they are never really part of the gameplay. So improving them does not change the old play style at all.
Later updates to older civs should follow their quality. And I really like this suggestion, not changing the civ entirely, but only giving a few new options:
Now the only thing that prevents these updates is that they take time and resources, and cannot be sold as DLCs. Fine. They can be updated slowly like the new Aztec cards. I can wait. That’s why I am in desperate need of a roadmap.
tl;dr: new civs have far more contents and options. Please give old civs some new contents and historical/cultural references that do not interfere with their main gameplay, like the new Aztec cards. It’s better if we can see a roadmap for this.
