What's with all the "please add X civ" topics

Hello, I see people posting all the time about adding more obscure civilizations to the game.
Please understand, there’s already like 40+ civs in the game, if anything about 5-6 of them must be cut down or removed/renamed.
Adding your country or some other you are interested in will not really improve the game, it will just bring more imbalances.
Also look at the original Ensemble Studios civilizations, all of them you have studied in your history classes (if you have attended). With all respect to the southern states, native Americans and Oceanic people, adding obscure civilizations like Polynesians, Missisipians, Toltecs or some Indian city state will just water down the game and bring imbalance.
For example Mongols are cool, you feel like a conqueror playing with them, you know what they are about and they will be remembered in history until the end of humanity. Malay, Sicilians (please rename them to Neapolitans or Normans, because the civ naming is really ambiguous), Brahagavatas or Inuits not so much.
Again, no disrespect to the people of said nations, but we have to look at the historical facts and the balance of the game.


That’s your opinion. New civs from different regions with new graphic assets is what keeps this game interesting in the long term.

Again your opinion. Some people like different things. For example, I couldn’t care less about Byzantines but they’re in the game anyway. Not to mention the four last Euro civ we got which I would scrap without hesitance if it would be up to me and replace with some other civs but that’s not going to happen so doesn’t matter.

Just because you don’t care about them doesn’t mean they should not be part of the game.


It doesn’t mean that I don’t care about said civs, but let’s put things in perspective.
If there was AoE5 in year 3000 based on the modern world, which civilizations would you have.
Of course, USA, Russia, China, UK, France and so forth…
Would you have Lithuania, Bulgaria, Mongolia even if they were great in the past? Probably not, because they are irrelevant in the modern world geopolitics etc, quite small and not very powerful countries.
You see my point?


While I appreciate you taking your time to write a post, claiming adding new civs will create imbalance to the game. And I somewhat agree with you on this point, adding new civs means the developers need to find a good balance for them to release them. However, balancing the game doesn’t equate to not adding any new civs/removing 5-6 of them. If the dev team can dish out new and unique civs that are well balanced and fun to play with. I am more than happy to spend my bucks on them.

About a perfectly balanced game, I’m pretty sure no one would want to play the game if all the civs were equal, with the same bonuses and the same tech tree. However that would be completely balanced, as there would be one civ for everyone to play. But that doesn’t equate to fun.

You particularly feel like Mongols should be part of the game, and not some other civ based on some place else. However I beg to differ. I didn’t play the game for around 15+ years. It was only in 2020 I was aware that the game is still getting updates. And it filled me up with joy to see the game is still very much alive with lots of new civilizations. And I grabbed up the game without thinking twice, because I was excited for the new contents added throughout the years.

Lastly, DLCs/Civilizations/Campaigns are crucial for this game to survive. No matter what you say, a game without updates is a dead game. Look at any online multiplayer games nowadays, events and new content is what keeps the games fresh and alive. Do you know that In Game AOE2 events don’t make headlines, but do you know what gets headlines? New Content.


The thing is though they are important. You can’t have Central African campaign/stories without a Central African civ, can you?

Meanwhile some regions have gotten tons of civs while others are completely missing out.

There’s a reason why adding civs from a region which already have a lot of civs when some are completely missing out is a bad idea. Because people like you are like “I don’t want x amount of civs” and that the design space is getting smaller with each expansion coming.

But you know, I’m the one which is unreasonable for asking more civs from a region which don’t have any, right? /s


I’m not saying don’t add new civs, just to consider their historical relevance based on

It doesn’t mean that I don’t care about said civs, but let’s put things in perspective.
If there was AoE5 in year 3000 based on the modern world, which civilizations would you have.
Of course, USA, Russia, China, UK, France and so forth…
Would you have Lithuania, Bulgaria, Mongolia even if they were great in the past? Probably not, because they are irrelevant in the modern world geopolitics etc, quite small and not very powerful countries.
You see my point? <

this post. Just saying they have to be carefully considered according to their historical power and relevance. Will people from across the world study their history? Will it bring imbalance to the game? Are they accordingly named etc.
IMO Sicilians, Slavs are not named accordingly. Burgundians are kinda pointless when you have Franks, they should have been Flemish/Dutch to represent the northern parts of Burgundy, as the south were pretty much Franks. And so on and so forth.
One of the original AoE devs Sandy Petersen said it really well, the civs have to be cool and fit in the time period. Some additions are great, while others are too obscure. Just a bunch of indigenous people without even a proper government, doesn’t classify as an Empire or even a country, does it?

1 Like

Historical relevance is such an empty term which comes way too often.

What happened in some English county is absolutely of zero importance when it comes to Cambodian history during the time frame this game depicts.

Or do you have some "Historical-Relevance-O-Meter® " which tells me that Britons have 100 Kiloimportance and are thus relevant? /s

Seriously, the same arguments come up over and over again. For a Cambodian, British history is irrelevant during the time frame the game frame depicts.

Or do you want to telescope history back in the 12th century just because the English were the ones with colonies?


Well the British controlled India (and about a quarter of the entire world). The Dutch controlled parts of Indonesia. And China is just north.
While Oceanic civs even though they are relatively close, they didn’t really have an impact on them. Or even if they did it was a minor one. Hope you see my point.

1 Like

All the game civis fall under this category.


I think 3-4 of them are unnecessary, 3-4 more are not appropriately(Slavs, Sicilians, ######## ### the top of my head) named and a couple more are just of shoots of their so called “parent” civ (e.g. Tatars are pretty much reformed Mongols).
Not that I’m being critical of the devs, just my personal opinion especially when comparing with the original civs. I like the game a lot, I think they did a great remaster but I want to point out what I think are some deficiencies.

PP Why are I t a lians censored LMAO

not during the timeframe of the game


Why shouldnt slavs be a ingame civi? If you said poland or bohemia that I can agree somewhat.


Not saying they should be removed , I’m saying they should be renamed. Most likely to Russians. Most of the so called slavic nations are already in game, yet there is another civ that captures them all. Only Slavic civs not in the game are Serbocroats and Russians, I think the Slavs represent the Russians looking at their tech tree.

and Belarussians, Ukrainians, Sorbs, Slovaks, Rusyns, Silesians Moravians and any of the Balkan slavs (not all of whom are Serbocroats. If such a thing as ‘Serbocroats’ even exists…)
and ther are probably others I am missing/not aware of
given the symbol of the Slavs, Kievan Rus or Ukrainians might be a better name for them if renamed

1 Like

I don’t want to get political here, it just what I think is correct in historical terms:
Belarussians - Russians
Ukraine - 50% poles, 50% russian mix (with tatars and w/e else lived there). No need to be a separate civ, this country was created in the 20th century. (I’m against Russia doing anything there, just saying what I think is historically and demographically correct).
Slovaks - not a country or nation during the time period
And the rest are just ridiculous to be added as a separate civ.

I see this topic is turning into one of these ridiculous ethnic debates, just leave them alone for a minute and look at the bigger picture and the point I’m trying to make, not obsessing about every single ethnic minority that exists.

1 Like

This is a modern term at best they should be called Rus.


the issue is that any such renaming would be political, right?
The Slavs having a blue-yellow colour scheme, the trident on their coat of arms they have some quite Ukrainian symbols. Renaming them to Russians (or Rus) would be controversial. I don’t think Microsoft will go their if they can avoid it.

this is technically accurate, but the people group has existed for way longer

I think there is a bigger issue with the naming of civs in aoe2:
Some are people groups: eg Teutons, who never had an overarching political structure
some are political entities: eg the Huns. They were multi-ethnic to the best of our knowledge (same for Byzantines)
some are called by exonyms: Saracens, Japanese, Chinese are all not the names these people had for themselves
and some are just misnamed: Britons should be called English or Anglo-Saxons, Vikings should be Northmen, Byzantines called themselves the Roman Empire etc
and some are just wrong: Mayans isn’t even a word. The people are called the Maya, the adjective is Mayan. ‘Mayans’ is like ‘Britishs’


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


You do know that the Germans states were more in number than the current AOE 2 civs? like 50+? Imagine AOE with 50 German nations, 10 English and Saracen nations and so forth…
The Teutons are like an umbrella for all the German states and is actually really well done.

Answering your question:

What’s with all the “please add X civ” topics

It’s for fun. Some people like being creative. Others like to share their historical wisdom or whatever. Others like being entertained. Maybe some people even like being inspired by this. There are probably a billion indivirual motivations for the activity in these threads.
Most of them are probably just for entertainment.

Devs do what they want regardless.

So if you can’t enjoy these threads… Just ignore them. Others like them.