As it’s flagged “Unused”, I bet more on just a late 2027 content placeholder app.
The app seems to not be a recent one, last update is 2 month ago, so they maybe even unchecked the “isHidden” by mistake.
So now either they show the patch preview in 3 days, or we’ll have to wait for after the AoE3 dlc release to get more infos about what’s coming outside of the new civs.
I find the increase of DLC files interesting, I think the changes in Xbox may have something to do with this. The new CEO is a lot more… Aggressive in pushing out content, she listens to what consumers want more and is pushing Devs owned by Microsoft towards that instead of letting them do whatever line Phil Spencer.
I wonder how much of this is Civ DLC and how much is something else entirely (other than the chronicles one), we already had two Civ DLCs this year which is more than usual. So I wonder what’s up with the gearing up of more content.
If you study the app numbers and first appearance you can see that some dlcs are released in non linear order. They start working on a content and it’s not necessarly the next to come, it’s more of a multi-topic workflow and then content is published when it’s ready / matches other games in the saga topic.
That’s mainly about Xbox games, AoE is a PC content not a Console exclusive content if you see what I mean. But sure this can have an impact, only time will tell.
Maybe they’re just getting more budget to work on more content, or the content they’ve been working on is ready now so it’s starting to be uploaded for futur release.
The newest unused one could be something like a… “better than UHD enhanced pack” like 4k what so ever ? (I hope not xD)
I can actually see FE getting a higher budget being the case, since iirc they were of the most best performing Devs at Xbox currently, despite some misteps like 3K. The act they were able to revive the AoE3 DLC is proof of this, along with them just putting the AoM modding capabilities
AoE2 is almost the easiest and cheapest to make content for while also being the most profitable. Most the effort and cash goes into unique models, art assets and voicelines along with game design stuff like campaigns.
They’ll probably keep doing this as long as people are interested and people keep requesting a new set of Civs even as they announced a new one.
Among all the threads, this one usually always makes me curious, and I always wait for Ekarlath to post, so there is one thing that I am almost certain of, and I hope that among the three “unkown app” options, one of them should be a new dlc.
If my theory of them coordinating DLC content across multiple games in the franchise, there is Scottish content in AOE 4, and its feasible that we could get a Celts DLC in AOM, Maybe they are going to do a Celts split in AOE2 and have already started working on it as they were doing research for the Scottish in AOE 4, hence it already having a file.
Yeah people working at the Chronicles Dlc are pretty incredible, they pay attention to stuff you never notice unless you know the civilizations, I hope they take whatever time they want, they deserve it, we’re super proud of them.
Gauls in Chronicles could be a thing soon
Think of it differently.
Think Money instead of coordination.
Spending three time the money on three different years to create three different norse themed dlc is a damn waste of money, compared to using the same money to do researches on the topic for all games at once, and then you release them when you can / want. The gather info & build-up part of the content is probably now done all at once, art team, history team, etc, and then designer ties together things.
But nothing force them to release the final content all at once then. What determine if they release something together or not is the Marketing team, which has little to no link with the Dev, Art and Designer team except the fact they’re paid by the same person.
The scott aren’t a hint about something to come for AoE2 for one specific reason: Content Redundancy. Maybe they will do something someday about it yes, but not for the next dlc. If you use the same thematic from on dlc to the next one of the same game, you loose your audience, it’s why it’s mandatory to have theme rotation.
That hints us toward the fact that the next vanilla dlc will not be about viking nor england, and probably also not about balkan and europe, to avoid Content Redundancy.
As the next Chronicle is probably going to focus on Rome, the logic synergy with it is Africa beeing the next candidate for vanilla DLC, but that’s not a “for sure”. It’s more, if they have to work on artistic things, model rigging, animations, etc, for africa in Chronicle, all that knowledge can be then used on other content of the franchise.
But once more, it’s only past decision analysis, nothing in my theories is prouven fact, just information gathering, linking and extrapolating.
For the Scott, I’d say 2027, because of the Picts with Roman invasion of Britain. That could be a legit moment for the team to work on it, at least some scottland / celtic related thing, when they will work on the Britain part of Roman history.
Gauls and France are related, Gremans and Germany (no kidding), etc etc.
Depends if they split or not the roman part of the story. If they split, then we’ll only see some celt-iberian merceanry unit during the Punic War chapter, and some more deep dive during the Julius Caesar chapter.
Can’t wait for the Siege of Alesia !
Yes, content doesn’t always have to match between all games, earlier this year was a good example where each game had something different: Aztec for AoM, South America for AoE2 and China for AoE4, no overlap between them; it was unlike this current round, where the Danes are added to three games simultaneously, it seems to be the semester of Danemark.
Yeah, for me would go for the early Roman Republican era (509-387 BC) with the Battle of Allia against the Celts of Brennus… I don’t think the Pyrrhic and Punic Wars (280-202 BC) are relevant because the campaigns of Pyrrhus and Carthage in Return of Rome already cover that, and it would just be repeating scenarios throughout the saga. Instead, I would go for the War of the Diadochi (323-281 BC), connecting Alexander’s campaign with Pyrrhus’s, or even the Mauryan campaign (321-250 BC)… then I would go for a remake of “Caesar” from The Rise of Rome for Chronicles (60-48 BC), like Alexander’s campaign… and finally the Gothic Wars of the 3rd century (248-268 AD)…
Julio-Claudian Dynasty (27 BC-68 AD) or Gothic Wars (248-269 AD)?..
Yes, let’s give the devs a break…this remaining half year has 3 Norse DLCs: the Baltic one for 3, the Viking one for 2, and the North Sea one for 4…
Yes, that’s a good theory… the AoE 3 DLC brings Scottish units for the House of Stuart, and the AoE 4 DLC brings both Vikings (which connects with the Norse civilizations from AoE 2 and the Danes from AoE 3) and Scots… that would suggest that the next AoM DLC will be Celtic (and then Inca, or vice versa, to connect with The Last Chieftains from earlier this year), and the AoE 2 DLC would be a Celtic DLC bringing Irish and Welsh civilizations, with the Celts simply reworked or renamed as Scots, so nothing changes to Wallace’s campaign…
Yes, it could also be a DLC featuring Caesar in the Breton and Gallic Wars against the Picts and Gauls, or as I mentioned above, the early Roman Republic against Brennus’s Gauls…
Yes, or even the Celtiberian wars (181-133 BC) against Viriathus and Tanginus…
This, but done well and surrounded by enemies…
Exactly, but it doesn’t sound like a bad idea to reuse themes throughout the saga to speed up the creation of DLCs. Then you have the team working on Chronicles and AoE 2 on one hand, and on the other hand, the team working on AoE 3, AoM and AoE 4…
Brenus will be done via scenario editor unit for sure. If they split rome history into ultiple dlc, the brenus moment will either be during a cutscene, or via editor units for the celts.
If you think about it, Punic War chapter will not feature a Celtic civ, but will requiere Celtiberian for some specific moment, like the carthaginian army crossing their land, but only as a single encounter and as mercenaries hired in the army.
While Caesar moment will requiere civs because of how the tribes acted with each other and with Rome.
I feel like they have to split it into multiple DLCs tbh. I wrote up a proposal for my ideas on it awhile ago, though it does depend on 4-5 civs per DLC which is probably not realistic. I’m going to see how I can maybe break it down into more DLCs that are only 3 civs each while still keeping thematic. I also had a Diadochi proposal which i’ll leave in here even though I know it probably won’t come. I have more detail but i’ll try to provide a summary of it:
Diadochi (Including the Pyrrhic War. Time Period 323 BC-281 BC)
Rome (Included in this DLC for the Pyrrhic War primarily, but also helps get the Rome hype started and to avoid overloading the Punic Wars DLC too heavily)
Seleucids
(Ptolemaic) Egypt
Italiotes (Greeks in southern Italy) (I’m open to other ideas on this, perhaps Greco-Bactrians or Epirus. Really what i’d love is a more generic “Greek” civ, because Athens and Sparta don’t really fit well for Greek umbrellas, but i’m not exactly sure that’s feasible at this point.)
Punic Wars (should likely include Rome’s interventions/eventual conquest of Greece too, as they happened at the same time and were related in cause (Rome not wanting Macedon to help Carthage) Time Period 264 BC-146 BC, you could make an argument to maybe include the Jugurthine War against Numidia here, but at 111-105 BC it seems like an outlier)
Rome (if no Diadochi DLC)
Carthage
Iberians (non-Celtic Iberians along the eastern coast)
Numidians
Celtiberians
Triumvirate period (Third Mithridatic War, Third Servile War (Spartacus), Gallic Wars, Battle of Carrhae, Caesar’s Civil War, Second Triumvirate, War of Actium; 73 BC-30 BC
Ptolmaic Egypt (if no Diadochi DLC)
Armenia
Parthia
Pontus
Gauls
Imperial Period (Covering Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Jewish Revolt, the Great Illyrian Revolt, Roman Conquest of Britain 43 AD-84 AD, & Trajan’s wars in Dacia & Armenia, ending at Rome’s high-water mark 117 AD)
Judeans
Illyrians
Germani
Britons
Dacians
Roman Downturn (This DLC is more of an optional addition, but it brings us nicely to the transition into the base-game AOE2 timeframe. It covers the Sassanids taking over Persia from the Parthians in the roughly 220 AD, various very early (200s AD) Barbarian incursions into Rome, and the rise and fall of the Palmyrene Empire. This will end either with the abdication of Diocletian in 305, or the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. So rough timeframe being 220 AD-312 AD. Perhaps simultaneously we can get a separate “traditional style” campaign for the base-game Roman civ)
Sassanids
Sarmatians
Goths (The first incursion of Goths into the Roman Empire was the sack of Histria in 238, right in the middle of this time frame, and given their experience on the Steppes before that and their Scandinavian origin they seem perfectly acceptable to have as their own civ as opposed to being covered by the Germani)
Palmyra (i’m dubious on including this as a civ, because the story is interesting but it only lasted from 260-273, Palmyra could also just be represented by Sassanids)
Sure, we’ll see how they do it… but we’ll need Celts/Gauls in Chronicles at some point to face Rome…
The Chronicles primarily unfold from the perspectives of legendary figures, so I suspect the two Scipio Africanus figures will be the protagonists of the upcoming Chronicles DLC. Following them, the narrative would likely cover historical eras through the viewpoints of roughly one to three key figures—such as Caesar and Octavian—leading up to the Crisis of the Third Century.
Ok, after nerding out for about an hour, I think I got it! 7 DLCs with 3 civs each, covering all of Roman history other than the unification of Italy and the stuff in the late 300s and 400s, which is getting into the mainline AoE 2 period. I do think another 3-civ DLC for the early Italian unification could be done (Romans, Etruscans, Samnites) but if they aren’t doing the Diadochi I doubt they will do Italian Unification, and from a marketing perspective the Punic Wars is way more flashy for sales anyway.
Punic Wars (Time Period 264 BC-146 BC)
Rome
Carthage
Iberians (will need to combine Celtiberians of the center and west with the non-celtic Iberians of the east coast of Iberia)
Roman-Greek Wars (This will be somewhat awkward as Rome’s wars especially with Macedon are tied in to the Punic wars (Rome not wanting Macedon to help Carthage) but I think is necessary to keep scope narrow and not add too many civs in one DLC. This will also include the wars in Illyria and the Roman-Selucid War, ending with the Achaean War and the annexation of mainland Greece. Time period 229 BC-146 BC. Could include a prologue of the conquest of the Greek cities in southern Italy, but that would push the start of the time period back to 280 BC
Illyrians
Selucids
Pergamon/Ionians (if no prologue is done, Representing the Kingdom of Pergamon and Greeks in west Anatolia as a whole, can be used to update the enemy faction in the Achaemenid portion of the Battle for Greece campaign as well)
Italiotes (Greeks in southern Italy, if the prologue is done)
First Bridge period (Better name pending) (Jugurthine War & Mithridatic Wars, time period 111 BC-63 BC)
Numidians
Armenia
Pontus
Triumvirate period (Third Servile War (Spartacus), Gallic Wars, Battle of Carrhae, Caesar’s Civil War, Second Triumvirate, War of Actium; time period 63 BC-30 BC
Ptolmaic Egypt
Parthia
Gauls
Imperial Period (Covering the Great Illyrian Revolt, Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Jewish Revolt, Roman Conquest of Britain time period 9 AD-84 AD)
Judeans
Germani (representing the western portion of Greater Germania, a distinction made by Romans)
Britons
Second Bridge period (Better name pending) (Domnitian’s wars in Dacia and Trajan’s wars in Dacia & Armenia, hitting Rome’s high-water mark 117 AD, as well as the Marcomannic Wars. Full time period 85 AD-180 AD)
Dacians
Suebi (representing the eastern portion of Greater Germania, a distinction made by Romans)
Sarmatians (Representing the Iazyges, with more utility later)
Roman Downturn (This DLC is more of an optional addition, but it brings us nicely to the transition into the base-game AOE2 timeframe. It covers the Sassanids taking over Persia from the Parthians in the roughly 220 AD, various very early (200s AD) Germanic & Sarmatian Barbarian incursions into Rome, and the “Crisis of the Third Century” (the rise and fall of the Palmyrene Empire & the breakaway Gallic roman Empire). This will end either with the abdication of Diocletian in 305, or the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312 AD. So rough timeframe being 220 AD-312 AD. Perhaps simultaneously we can get a separate “traditional style” campaign for the base-game Roman civ)
Sassanids
Goths (The first incursion of Goths into the Roman Empire was the sack of Histria in 238, right in the middle of this time frame, and given their experience on the Steppes before that and their Scandinavian origin they seem perfectly acceptable to have as their own civ as opposed to being covered by the Germani)
Palmyra (i’m dubious on including this as a civ, because the story is interesting but it only lasted from 260-273, Palmyra could also just be represented by Sassanids)
I suppose you could slim it down to 6 DLCs and cut 3 civs by getting rid of the “Second Bridge Period”, adding its events and the Dacians civ to the Imperial period DLC, removing Judeans, removing Suebi (letting Germani represent them) and moving Sarmatians to the Roman Downturn DLC, removing Goths and letting Germani represent them too, though I do like including Goths as they are something of a bridge between the Germans and the Steppe peoples, adopting aspects of both, and they played an oversized role they are technically Germanic though so I could see them being included with Germani. You could also change their name to Gothi (the early Roman name for them) or Gutones (a name for them when they were residing in modern Poland, though ancient authors didn’t identify the two as one in the same) to avoid confusion with the base game Goths civ, though the Goths name is far more recognizable
Also the more I think on it the more I like Pergamon/Ionians for the Roman-Greek Wars DLC. With them you have all the pieces needed for a custom Diadochi campaign as well (Macedonians for the Antipatrids/Antigonids, Ionians for the Lysimachids, Selucids and Ptolmaic Egypt for the other two) It also keeps the DLC more in-scope without the weird outlier prologue in southern Italy, and the Kingdom of Pergamon did play a fairly noteable part in the Roman-Selucid War
In the case of Goths and Sassanid Persians, I’d probably just use the standard civs, crossplay between them and Chronicles would be interesting. (Ofc they’d get the antiquity skins instead of medieval era knights etc)
Yes, as they approach the Roman and medieval periods, they can reuse several civilizations from the base game:
Romans: Legionary and Centurion (let’s see if they divide them into Republican and Imperial Rome)…the Republican could use Legionary and Centurion (like in AoE 2) and the Imperial could use the Limitanei and Cataphract like the Byzantines in AoE 4…
Celts/Gauls: Woad Raider (just like AoE 2) and Druid (a warrior monk)
Goths: no changes
Huns: no changes
Persians: they would use the Achaemenids but renamed as Sassanids
The vanilla Persian civ is pretty much Sassanid, save for the gunpowder Castles and the mosque Monastery
