Ultimate Potential New Civilizations Review

I will always recommend the Jivaros as a major civilization, representing South America:

They are a civilization that was never conquered by either the Inca Empire or the Spanish Empire (they were never even defeated by them).

Both Incas and Spaniards tried to conquer their territories repeatedly, in the case of the Spaniards it is due to the existing gold mines in their territory.

In the year 1599 the “Jivaro Insurrection” took place: an army of 20,000 Jivaro warriors rampaged 6 cities, assassinating at least 25,000 Spaniards (the figures vary up to 30,000 or even 50,000).

In the year 1600 an army of 1,000 Spanish soldiers (and an indeterminate number of auxiliary natives) was sent with the mission of subduing the Jívaros and recovering the territories lost by the Spanish Empire, these Spanish soldiers were annihilated, only 4 Spaniards surviving.

Throughout the 17th century and a good part of the 18th century, Spanish expeditions were sent to subdue the Jívaros, all these expeditions failed, those military expeditions were led by Jesuits and due to the consecutive failures in 1704 the Jesuits were forbidden to arm more missions (although more expeditions were sent clandestinely during the 18th century, all these missions also failed), it was not until 1767 when the Jesuits were expelled from South America that the expeditions against the Jivaros ceased. The Jívaron did not allow any living Spanish to enter (or leave) their territories and it is probably the greatest military defeat suffered by the Spanish colony during the 16th and 17th centuries.

  • The Jesuits, in addition to evangelizing the Jívaros, had the objective of conquering the Amazonian territory claimed by the Spanish Empire in the face of the threat of “Portuguese penetration into the Amazon” (which eventually happened).
  • The prohibition of the Jesuits to send expeditions against the Jívaros in 1704 was issued directly from ROME: "The Jesuits were forbidden to continue their missionary work among the Jíbaros, by an order coming from Rome, on the grounds that the defeats were great and not justified the investment "

The Jivaro territory has been the source of many legends, such as the well-known “forests of cinnamon and a city made of gold” as was well explained in the Francisco de Orellana campaign of AoE 2 (before the Definitive Edition).

The Jivaro territory, although it was delimited, was not conquered by Spain. It is one of the reasons why there were territorial conflicts with Gran Colombia and Peru, in theory both countries claimed those territories but in practice it was a territory not yet conquered; border conflicts continued even after the separation of Gran Colombia (The last conflict over these territories happened in 1995)


Finally: the Jivaron have appeared in various media such as movies, books and video games (as in the case of Blizzard games).


You’re looking at it only from the perspective of researching the history and with that approach, you are right that the Haida are quite insignificant. Their population was tiny and they only controlled a few islands so on the surface they don’t seem like a strong contender for a civilization. However, I think there are many compelling reasons for their inclusion. The two primary reasons are the representation of the peoples of the Pacific Northwest (who as a whole are significant), and the many features of the culture that would translate into gameplay.

Haida would be a good representative of many of the cultural elements shared among the peoples of the Pacific Northwest. Things like Potlatch, totem poles, dugout canoes, matrilineal kinship, longhouses, slave raiding, etc. These cultural elements have some of the greatest intensity among the Haida. Their art is beautiful and iconic, they raided nearly the entirety of the west coast, and their warlike culture is a perfect fit for a game about just that. There’s just so much that could translate to units and gameplay elements.

They had enormous canoes that they use for their raids and to clash with Europeans. They even captured some of their ships and artillery. A robust navy (not in a gimmicky way) and plausible artillery is something most of the other contenders for native civs lack. They could even introduce new mechanics like this:

They built hilltop fortifications, longhouses, and totem poles so they could have strong buildings with some unique options for the function of totem poles.

Their land military also has decent options with weapons like knives, bows and arrows, firearms, and units with wooden armour like this:

The only thing they’d be missing is cavalry. Living on heavily forested islands with easy transportation via canoe makes horses not very useful to them. A shock infantry unit like Aztecs and Inca would probably be enough to fill that one gap in their roster.

Zulus and Xhosa are in the far south of Africa. The Shona are actually pretty far away in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and northern Mozambique.

Indonesians and Malays are quite distinct, I think you may just be getting confused by the term “Malay Archipelago”. There is a Malaysian ethnicity, but there isn’t really an Indonesian ethnicity. Each island has many different people groups that can be extremely different. This map shows the massive amount of diversity.


This map can be a little misleading since the island of Java makes up 55% of the population of Indonesia and Javanese alone make up 42% of the population. The Javanese also have the heritage of the Majapahit Empire which ruled most of Indonesia before collapsing shortly before the game’s timeframe. They’re twice as numerous as Malaysians and clearly distinct so I think they could both be included as civilizations in their own right.

You can see that Malay occupy the coasts of Sumatra and Borneo (as well as the Malaysian peninsula) and are obviously the most widespread. I think that, along with their history is enough to earn them a place in the game. I made a post about them being a minor faction, but they could also be reasonable for a full civ.


@Valagos2 Thanks a lot mate : it indeed took me a lot to achieve this!

Like many of us, I’m always eager to see new civs but, I came frustrated by the trends I was reading here and there, with candidates thrown without really considering the game’s time frame or theme while others scandalously ignored.

A fond of History, I’ve started reviewing potential civs, until my notes started to have heavy consistency. I then tried to format it so it remains readable and here is the result! I’d say it took me approximatively 2 full weeks of full-day work: I had to look for nominees, learn their broad history for the 1450-1900 period, then condensate it into paragraphs, sort them, and finally find appropriate flags.

I really wanted to be pinpoint for each civ and not allow any error: I think you could regard this as a work of vulgarization too! I mean, I’m the first to have learned tremendously during these researches!

In the end, what I wanted to achieve is having the feeling of facing absolutely playable civs, picturing yourself you’re in game and are able to click on that HomeCity flag!

For the upcoming civs, I’m fully agreeing on your expectations except the Poles-Lithuanians: to me they’d mean little in AoE3 but it’s true they’re often requested.

You made a very good point, Aoe2 indeed just broke down Indians. At one point, this process could also be considered for AoE3 but, contrary to AoE2, there seem to have yet many civ to cover before starting to divide one of the main civ.

Moreover, whereas the Germans would have much consistency with Prussia and Austria, I wonder how and where the British Raj units (Sepoy, Gurkhas) would be put.


With Grenadier Guards, Fencibles, Royal Mounted Police and Princess Louise Dragoon Guards, Canadians will be another North American powerhouse shouldn’t be refused :canada::grin::grin::grin:

Over here (I especially recommend Tom Dillehay):


This is a very nice illustration, although I do have my obvious priorities about which of these should come first if at all, I’d like most of them to be in the game at some point. However, one thing I really do give importance to is campaigns and DE has so far been quite lacking in that regard, I do hope that they bring campaigns with the next DLC even if it’d mean 1 less civ swapped for campaigns for budgetary reasons.


Again, my point still stands - the Comanche accomplished a lot in their little bit of area, but they were never numerous enough to sustain a true empire and their existence started with the horse. If you wanted to include them, imo, the best way to do so would be to create the Shoshone as a civ and give them a Revolution-like option going into age 4 or 5 that would allow them to become the Comanche.

I deliberately didn’t list the Cheyenne. Most of what the Cheyenne did was exist as the closest allies of the Seven Fires, which I did list and who are somewhat represented in the game. One of the Seven Fires, the Lakota, are present in the game, but the other Six are very much not in the game.

1 Like

@Josh1Axel You made your point, their fierceness and remote location that allowed them to repel foreign (Inca and European) domination is impressive: let’s welcome the Jivaro! I’ll add them

But in the shared Amazon culture, I might then add the Tupi who were by far the main Native group of the what is now Brazil.

Although they lost aspects of their original traditions quickly, decimated by the diseases through their extensive exposition to European adventurers (populating the coastal Brazil, from where the Portuguese arrived), they intertwined with the Portuguese to such an extent, a new population emerged in Portuguese Brazil, the Mamelucos, that will actually launch the exploration and exploitation of the immense Brazilian inland.


@ M00Z1LLA That’s impressive work, I’ve learned a lot!

First of all, you offer 2 very pertinent arguments: I can’t agree more on the fact we need a Pacific Northwest Native American contender: in this sense, the Haida are a welcome potential addition. Similarly, a strong naval-oriented Native American civ would be an innovative choice.

That being said, would the Haida be the best representative of the Pacific Northwest? This is where I see above all the Chinook or the Nootka in the immediate Pacific vicinity, but also the surrounding Nez Percé, Modoc, Inuit or Aleut seeming to have a stronger impact and influence.

Nootka for example, were at the epicentre of the lucrative Maritime Fur Trade, controlling the strategic Nootka Sound, were capable of fielding armies of 300-400 warriors under Maquinna, successfully assaulted Western ships, and even acted as intermediaries between the British and the Spanish.

In the same way, Chinook acute sense of trade and diplomacy with the adventurers, dominated the region to the point they imposed their language, the Chinook Jargon, as the intercultural language for the whole area.

These 2 are powerful entities sharing the Northeastern Pacific culture, that would allow us to see totems and canoes.

The emphasis on maritime Natives would perhaps been epitomized with the introduction of Pacific Islander like the mentioned Maoris and Hawaiians, or maybe the Inuit.

For the Indonesians/Malaysians, I’m adamant about the Malay World:

Malay world - Wikipedia

As specified in the corpus, I do differentiate Malays from other people of the Indonesian Archipelago, such as the Javanese or the Sundanese. But both refer alternatively to the Malay or Indonesian Archipelago using the common ‘Nusantara’ word, that encompass very much the same area.

Moreover, the Malacca, Aceh and Johor Sultanates are Malay kingdoms that spread over current Indonesia. To gather enough consistence for a Main civ, I’ve chosen to assimilate these close two.

Otherwise, the fragmented political entity of these people might not be enough according to me: the Majapahit Empire as you said, would have been an exquisite choice but it indeed disappeared right at the beginning of AoE3’s time frame.

Malays or Javanese deserve at least to appear as a Minor civ: the game furthermore covers extensively their regions with the maps of Borneo, Malaysia, Indonesia… And I particularly like your idea of having a native artillery unit!

1 Like

Designating ‘little bit of area’ a territory nearing the size of Texas tends to be undervaluing, but I’ll agree the Comancheria, as well delimited as it was, is difficult to qualify as a true state.

Still, the Comanche ruled that area numbering 8,000 people in 1805, and probably 20,000-up to 40,000 before. The Lakota were 22,000 people in 1786 and managed to keep that number in 1881 (that’s without the other Nations numbers I assume, for which I couldn’t find any study). This tendency further confirms the peak of the Comanche achieved until the 1850s, from when the Oceti Sakowin Confederacy (Seven Council Fires/Great Sioux Nations) will succeed them as the main Great Plains Native American power.

1994-Teton_Sioux.pdf (nebraska.gov)

Therefore, Comanche dominance has to be assessed compared to other Native tribes. After the Oceti Sakowin and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, few can argue having exerted that much power, over an extended time and a large territory.

Nonetheless, I like your idea of starting from the Shoshone to obtain the Comanche. But yet, I find it not reflecting well the more impactful mark the Comanche left, even though they indeed derived from the Shoshone. In that way, I’ll underline we obtained the US as a main civ, itself an offshoot of the British.

I agree with you on the Cheyenne, that you’ve mentioned twice in your 1st answer: they fit ideally as a Minor civ.

For the Lakota, I too support it’d be pleasant to have a stronger emphasis on the Oceti Sakowin to represent better the formidable force it was. So far, we only have little hints on some HomeCity cards like the Two Kettle, Oglagla, Sans Arc supports etc.

With the Lakota & Haudenosaunee HomeCity customizations coming up, I’m expecting and hoping some work might be done there, just like the Aztecs enjoyed last time.

1 Like

I think the Seminole should also be considered for a new civ due to their wars against US.

1 Like

The Two Kettle (Oohenumpa) Oglala, and Sans Arc (Itazipo) are all smaller tribes of the Lakota themselves, not the other Six fires. The other Six are the Mdewakanton, Wahpekute, Sisseton, Wahpetonwan, Ihankton, and Ihantonwana.

1 Like

Seems trivial, but including a civilization in a game it’s a very good way to learn about them, although simplified and often stereotyped.

I never had listen about Hausa/Sokotho Caliphate before AR. Then I learned how the south Sahel was almost fully Islamic.

That being said the implementation has to be carefully done, there were complaints against the inclusion of Cree/Poundmaker in civ6.

1 Like

IMO, it would be incredibly difficult to portray all three nations of the Oceti Sakowin properly - the Lakota, Dakota, and Dakhota all resided in different environments and had different ways of life, but considered themselves one nation together. The Lakota were the horselords of the plains, the Dakota were the protecters of the eastern border, and the Dakhota protected the pipestone quarry.
To implement all three into a single civ in AoE3 would require too many compromises to properly represent them all.
While the differences may be trivial, I firmly believe that AoE3 should stick to representing the Lakota while AoE4 would be an excellent place to explore the entire Oceti Sakowin instead.

Chinook and Nootka are already represented by minor civs and neither are any bigger or more powerful than Haida. Armies of 300-400 could probably have been fielded by most of the tribes in the area. Tlingit would be a better option than either of those and I still prefer Haida over them.

Inuit have the problem of not making sense out of their homeland so I don’t see them being a full civ. But they would be a great minor civ:

It seems like your ideas about the ‘Malay World’ are coming from outdated racial theories. Javanese and Malaysians are distinct groups that had separate sultanates like the Malaysian ones you mentioned or Javanese ones like Demak or Mataram.

The Seven Fires controlled an area nearly three times that size. The Haida may have resided solely on Haida Gwaii, but the Potlach Gov’ts that they would be the representing force of controlled a massive swath of land on the PNW. The Iron Confederacy controlled trade throughout western Canada and even into areas that the Seven Fires controlled.
Comancheria was a decent chunk of land, but the Comanche were basically a smaller version of larger, more impactful nations like the Seven Fires or Diné. The Comanche are seen back in history as this incredible force because they simply encountered more people than some of the more northern nations did - Comancheria was smack in the middle of a bunch of trade routes, but they couldn’t expand in any direction because there were nations more powerful than them corralling them into Comancheria.

The red area highlighted under the popup there is basically the entirety of Comancheria. For comparison, below is the effective territory of the Seven Fires (I included the Cheyenne highlighted as well, because the Cheyenne might as well have been the Eight Fire.) The vast majority of the smaller communities within the red blob that is the Seven Fires in the picture below are simply the smaller tribes of the Seven Fires, with only a few not being directly of them - but then people like the Hidatsa, Ho-Chunk, Mandan, and Iowa maintained more settled communities that the Seven Fires acted as the traders and go-betweens of. The Seven Fires were traders, first and foremost - why they’re portrayed as heavily aggressive is beyond me, as that goes against the entire cultural standards and historical records of the people.

Basically, though, Comancheria was not that big. The Comanche were crushed into their territory because they didn’t have the strength to leave it or expand - but they gained a reputation far surpassing what they were capable of because they pushed for it and encountered many many peoples through their territory and pushed the reputation onto them.

As I said, it was an awesome work, pal. I am a world history and political theory teacher, and the work you did is next level great, I should know.

On the other hand, the reason why I see Poland-Lithuania as viable is due to the deep historical connections it had with Austria, Russia, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire, all of which are already in the game. Plus, their historical reliance on cavalry (that remained legendary all the way up to the Napoleonic Era) makes for a nice niche opportunity as there is no European horse civilization in the game. Sure, they were not defined as an empire, but they were far from irrelevant in world affairs for quite some time. They are not at the top of my list (that would be Denmark) but I would like to see them down the line.


Very pretty selection of potential new civs, but still missing Austria-Hungary and Prussians!!!


Espero que esto te resulte interesante. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Chinook aren’t in AoE3, are they?

Still, with all I’ve read, I couldn’t find enough on the Haida to conclude they had more impact nor more power than the Chinook nor the Nootka. In the end it comes to our personal preferences. Indeed I thought of the Tlingit too.

Agreeing with you on the Inuit

For the Malay, please care to read, implying I’m using outdated racial theories is a serious accusation: