Variant Civs Should be Campaign Only

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
1

I’m going to be honest, I hate this idea for multiplayer. If it was just for campaigns then I would be perfectly fine with it but as is I’m really disappointed.

The first issue I have is that when AOE4 came out, their idea for making this game different from AOE2 was to make fewer civs that felt truly unique as opposed to tons of civs that were 95% similar. Adding civs that are semi recycled from existing ones just completely contradicts this idea and cheats us out of the many civ options that are better than knockoffs.

Next, the lack of historical accuracy is just silly. Yes, I know, there are tons of historical accuracy issues that already exist but at least they made an effort until now. Why name an entire civ after a woman who wasn’t born until the 15th century or an order that didn’t exist until the 15th century? I’d really rather not mention her riding around on a horse shooting a hand cannon but it is hard to overlook. Looks like the Jade Empire has been renamed but it still doesn’t sound great.

Third, I’m really not a fan of the hero based gameplay either. It is basically just ripping off concepts from other games and really doesn’t sound like it belongs in age of empires. They probably want to attract new players but the reality is that they will probably just alienate many of the existing ones.

Anyway, I’m excited about the two actual new civs that aren’t just knockoffs but I feel like by buying the expansion I would be paying to make the game worse. They should really just leave the variant civs in campaigns where they belong and focus on game balance or making more civs that are actually unique.

6 Likes
2

The issue is that they want to implement AoE 3 revolutions in the game and they can’t find a way around it…

3

Variants could help keep things fresh and interesting, though they have to be more rooted in history. If it weren’t for the names (and the hero-centric gameplay for Jeanne d’Arc) the 4 (3) proposed would be so bad. The Devs could have picked better choices, that’s true.

4

The campaign is the area that is heavily rooted in historical accuracy . Having what-if and spin-offs civs should belong only in MP imo just like how it is. MP in itself is not really intended to be historically accurate in any way (After all you can already play the French against the Chinese in Slovakia)

1 Like
5

Well the historical accuracy part is just a component of why they are bad in general. I don’t want them in multiplayer because there is too much overlap with civs we already have. Part of what makes aoe4 great and differentiates it from aoe2 is the civs having very different playstyles and win conditions. Oversaturating the civ pool with knock offs is a downgrade for multiplayer in my opinion. Ultimately, I think this is just a money saving exercise. They rebrand civs they already made with a few different unique units and landmarks but reuse the architecture, music, voicelines, and general playstyle while marketing them as something new. I’d rather not have them at all, perfectly content with the addition of Japanese and Byzantines

2 Likes
6

From what we’ve seen/heard, the Ayyubids are almost as different from the Abbasids as like the French are from the english. Maybe a bit less than this, but the play/work drastically different.

7

No that isn’t a good idea.

1 Like
8

Okay, bot account lol

9

you deserve the same comment

10

Erm doesn’t she function as a villager, a soldier, and a production building? Khan and Mehter just give buffs for a few seconds. Also, not just that one civ, I don’t like the idea of “variant civs” at all. It’s just a money saving strategy and I want them to do better.

1 Like
11

The English King heals the units without a time limit :wink:
The variants are faithful to history since there have been several dynasties, for example they could make the faction of the Ottoman Empire after the conquest of the Byzantine Empire

12

I mean, the king is kind of a meme unit that nobody uses, not the core mechanic for a civ. Sure, some “variants” could be true to history but I’d rather just see new civs that don’t have stuff copied over from existing ones. “Joan of Arc” isn’t a civilization, she was a person whose rise to power happened like 3 years before she died but they are naming a civ that you play from dark age to imperial age after her. Also, out of countless “empires” to choose from, I’d prefer ones that at least existed in some form throughout the timeline of the game. Basing civs around individuals just isn’t a good idea in my opinion. I just think the stories of individuals belong in the campaigns and the empires belong in multiplayer.

1 Like
13

She summons her followers but they are trained at the Keep.
So it’s a teleporting feature.

14

Not a bot acc but this reads as, didnt like the content so should be locked behind campaign.

Also there are a bunch of threads already about variant civs.

If anything, MP is where this should be at.

15

I mean I definitely don’t like it for but not liking it isn’t why these should be campaign rather than multiplayer. It doesn’t make sense to turn the stories of individuals into entire civs when the actual civilization they come from already exists in the game. I also don’t that they are making slight variations of civs that already exist to save money and then selling them as if they are new civs. I want them to add more civs, sure but not at the expense of variety and quality. Byzantines and Japanese sound like great additions and were more than enough for now. Honestly the variant civs idea seems cool in terms of honing in on a specific era and making it feel authentic but I think that the stories of individuals belong in campaign, not on the ranked ladder

1 Like
16

Stop it with these unrealistic suggestions.

The campaign is already done, they can’t suddenly change the whole campaign. and they already plan to release these as multiplayer civ.

Also i want those civs in the multi not just in campaign.

2 Likes
17

It isn’t unrealistic to ask them to do a decent job. This whole idea is crap. We literally already have a Joan of Arc campaign as well as a French civ. If they campaign isn’t good enough then fine, make changes. If they aren’t happy with the French civ then sure change it, don’t make a second one that co-exisits with it while there are tons of other civ options that are completely unique rather than a subcategory of ones we have already. We really don’t need two French civs and so on for HRE, Abba and Chinese. Why are they making recycled junk instead of something original? As always it comes down to money. So basically we are getting lousy knock of civs because they are being cheap. There are tons of parts of the world that have no representation yet but even another generic European civ like Spanish or Italians would be better than a second French/HRE/Abba/Chinese

1 Like
18

They’re trying new mechanics with the variants. Making a full civ is surely more work and money then these 4 variants. They didn’t just want to add a second French, HRE, Chinese or Abbasids, they were inspired by elements in the history of these particular civs. Maybe there were others, but opted for these 4 instead.

19

Erm, exactly my point, they are being cheap and lazy and the players deserve better. My guess is they were inspired by the amount of money they could save by ripping off existing civs instead of coming up with something new and these ones are they ones they thought they could justify. However, the laughable names they came up with and subsequent changes suggest otherwise. We only currently have 10 unique civs in the game and they are already recycling existing ones when so many part of the world still have zero civ representation.

1 Like
20

I agree, I honestly find the latest civilization variants announced Ayyubids and Jeanne d’Arc to be anonymous, something nice for sure, but truly anonymous, then I wouldn’t want to say but just like the name they are just variants, for example ayyubids seems only Abbasid to me with some not too unique units, then I don’t want to say but the house of wisdom literally has the same mechanics of evolution of the ages with only technological changes, honestly the lack of new constructions, with new mechanics for me makes everything so ugly and anonymous, also as already read, the consistency of the previous music and the design of the constructions, I am very disappointed by these variations, I will definitely try them, but I can’t say that they give me a good feeling, truly truly anonymous, as said, it just seems like they were made to attract new people and to please casual players, who only manage to learn very few civilizations, I think the time used to create them could have been used for something else, I’ve been here for almost four years since aoe4 is out, with experience upon experience and all of this, even without reading other people’s opinions, so as not to be influenced by them, doesn’t make me happy.

then I would like to add one thing, these variants almost seem like an update of the civilizations but since they wanted to change them a little more they decided to keep the latest updates, like a union of patches, honestly I would have preferred if they actually had changed the existing civilizations with these variants instead of making them new ones, since in this way it also almost seems like they made the decision to make them detached from the normal civilization, just to add a bit of offer to the DLC to allow the increase in sales.

with the first civilizations Mali and Ottoman and updates, I had never really complained, I was very very happy with them, but this expansion leaves me speechless, I specify, to make you understand that I am not just a person who wants to complain, because 'I love the game and it would be like spitting on your family, but, I would really really like to have a say in the matter and make a revolt!! because this stuff that is about to come out will remain in the game forever and in my opinion it is a (********).

1 Like