What do you think should be the focus of the next dlc for AoE2?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
264

Sounds good. Then let’s let the majority make all the decisions for this game, and try to always appeal to the masses. Sounds like a somewhat narrow plan, albeit likely a financially safe one, but if that’s your thinking and can’t see much beyond “let’s just add new civs for the next decade or two,” I can’t change that.

Careful, though, you might someday get a pretty diluted game sequel for a franchise you love that pleases hardly anyone, if that’s your criterion for game dev decisions. Fortunately, AoE2 already has a strong foundation, so simply adding more civs is pretty safe. But for other games, in general, you probably can think of a game or two where the sequel got so diluted in an effort to please the masses that it bores you.

Well, as the majority is catered to in AoE2 by simply adding more civs and doing incessant balance tweaks and cartoony profile icons :slight_smile: , I’ll just keep playing other games. No problem for me. AoE2 had a good run in my gaming history. There are some cool games on the horizon, too

PS: I love how the forum’s filter makes your name be “###############” when quoting you :smile:

266

Africa and America are super underrepresented in the game right now, so I wish they would at least add a few more civs from those regions. Would also add more variety to the civs you face in their campaigns.

10 Likes
267

I thought I already commented on this thread. It seems I didn’t.

Ok, answering OP question: Next DLC should be ambienced on East Asia, including civs from the Sinosphere: Tibetans, Jurchens, Tanguts, Khitans. Preferably in that order or priority and no more than 3 civs.
Thais could be throw in there as well.

I’m glad Africa and the Caucasus are also top priorities.

Something I want to adress, is that we should not only think of which DLC comes next, as if we will be getting new civs for ever. Yes, some people want 100 civs. That’s a minority we really don’t know if the next 2 or 3 DLCs will be the last ones including new civilizations. We don’t know if the popular oppinion will be swifting (for whatever reason) into “no more civs”.

We must assure that the most “”“relevant”“”" civs still not in the game should be added, and they should be so in order of priority.

I’ll put a concrete example. This is based on my civ preferences, but put your attention on the main idea, not the civs listed:

I believe that after the East Asia DLC, Somalis and Kanembus are the next priority. Then comes the Georgians.

That means that somehow, someway, even if DLCs release in a non thematic way, civs should be released more or less in that order.

Nooo, that’s precisely my point. Kongolese are not a priority for me.
Someday we’re not be recieving any more civs. That’s a fact. Don’t be unrealistic. If that moment comes, let’s suppose, just hypothetically, after the Africa DLC, then that means that because of the inclusion of the Kongolese, Georgians will never be part of the game.

I hope you get my point. It’s irresponsible to ask for some minor civs (I’ve read suggested here) when big players of the medieval world are still missing. Let’s focus on the actual priorities of the game.

2 Likes
268

I think minor civs are subjective to each person here, one says a certain civ is more important than the other while the second person says the opposite.

I personally hope we’ll never get split dynasties of existing civs or more late antiquity civs like the Romans ever again…I get the whole “but Huns and Goths are in the game since 2000/Attila and Alaric campaign appearances” but when looking at almost every poll, they were never present.

8 Likes
269

GIVE US AN ANTARCTIC CIV LET ME HAVE MY PENGUIN ARCHERS

3 Likes
270

Well according to some numbers I’ve got from several sources, the population of Europe is closer to 15-20% of the total world population (this is including Central Asia, because that’s how whoever made the estimations did it). Although Africa as a whole seems to have had a smaller population than Europe indeed.

271

I do think “importance” is ultimately subjective, but I also think that asking for subdivisions that address minimal cultural differences for the sake of it is kind of myopic design for the game (and yes, I’m talking about the Romans, Burgundians, Sicilians, Portuguese, Bohemians…) when there are regions with much more gameplay potential and that were much larger, relevant and influential during the game timeframe. I just don’t get why people think that having 5 different German states or a civ for each Italian city state is a bigger priority than representing peoples that don’t even have a reasonable umbrella (Aztecs and mayas are not good to represent the entirety of Mesoamerica, just having Incas for south America is ridiculous and the main reason their campaign sucks, and only three African civs is also funny, not to mention the absence of Asian civs were most of humanity has existed).

9 Likes
272

This is the same as importance a subjective thing.

1 Like
273

Italians (Venetian Empire)
Japanese (Hideyoshi’s wars)
Lithuanians and Poles had the Commonwealth which was one of the biggest states in Europe for 200 years.

274

The Georgians, Armenians, Tibetans and Thais (who come from mountainous Yunnan South China) should be added as a pack titled Lords of the Mountains…

4 Likes
275

Your proposal is the best I’ve heard for an Asian DLC!

It would also add a brand new region to AoE 2, the Caucasian civs (which would have their own unique Caucasian Architecture Set) as well as the long-awaited Siamese and Tibetans civs. 4 brand new civs, 5 campaigns (4 new civs + 1 chinese) and 1 brand new Architecture Set - I think the price of such DLC could be as much as RoR DLC.

276

The Tibetans should also get a new building set, maybe giving this to the Mongols too.

277

I know it’s a unpopular oppinion, but I dont see Armenians as a priority. There are other civs that should be added first. But yes to the rest.

278

The Armenians should be added at the same time they add the Georgians, as the two have had a strong relationship for many years. Besides, the Armenians did have their own separate kingdom for a while.

7 Likes
279

And that’s exactly what I’ve meant when I said that “minor civs are subjective to each person here”, group A wants them and group B doesn’t.

7 Likes
280

Armenians are 100% worth of their own civ, for sure. I’m not saying they’re not. And yes, they have had a shared history since forever.

What I’m saying is that there are other missing civs with a higher priority to be added that Armenians.
In the case the current constant stream of new civs is suddenly over, I would like civs to be added in order of priority. Otherwise we may get Armenians added but some time after DLCs are decided to not come with new civilizations and now there’s another civ out of the game forever that’s more “worthy” than Armenians.

I hope you get my point, I’m finding it very difficult to properly express it in english.

2 Likes
281

Regardless how you express it people will not understand that not everybody will agree with their civi choices.

282

I understand your viewpoint, and I respect it. But I think that if the Armenians were to be added, the most logical time would be at the same time as the Georgians. Since there’s already a theme, they’re an appropriate pick, and would also appear in related campaigns as themselves rather than being represented by another civ. It all just makes too much sense, at least to me.

5 Likes
283

I have to go with North America north of the Rio Grande. That region doesn’t get enough love.

But if you’re going to put the Iroquois, Mississippians, Algonquians, etc. in the game, give them their own architecture sets. It makes no sense to use the same building sets as the Mesoamerican civs and Incas.

Speaking of the Incas, it makes no sense for them to use the same building set as the Aztecs and Mayans. The Inca aren’t even Mesoamerican. They’re a South American civ. Totally different continent.

9 Likes
284

You’re not wrong, but I doubt the devs would #### # ##### new architecture set for only 1 civ.