Given the number and size of civs, it would be absurd to have the Teutonic Knights or the Templars as they own civs. They mainly drew their manpower from the HRE and France respectively.
For custom campaigns when the editor will be available though, a simple reskin of existing civs could work. The Normans from the first 2 missions of their campaign are just modified French with another banner, after all.
Well the Danes are my second favorite high medieval faction so come on relic, rolls dice this bunny needs a new pair of Gotland footmen!
Norsemen score a lot of points on the gameplay category, something could be done for them to be early game raiders for quick resources theft in the feudal age.
Think I will make a faction post for em eventually. Especially since they are more plausible than the Teutons.
Not in a rush for DLC for new civs. There is a lot of core functionality still missing, and balancing and bug fixes to prioritize. I wouldn’t be upset if we don’t see DLC until next holiday season.
Greetings, I’ve seen there are some topics about new possible civilisations around the forums.
However, I thought it would be nice to have them all in one topic, so, it will be easier to see for the forums users (and maybe the developers 
).
So, what are your ideas ? They are all welcome.
I’ll also group up the links to the civilisation topics I find:
I’ll start, with…
Naval, Raids, Loot.
Loot:
The Danes would have a mecanic similar to the Rus’ bounty, but, would earn the “loot” score in a way similar to the mongols. They would, by destroying certain buildings, or killing merchants and merchants ships, earn a certain amount of bounty in gold.
My values ideas:
Economical and religious landmarks: 500
Town centers, Religious Buildings: 250
Mills/Hunting cabins, Lumbers camps, Miners camps: 50
Houses: 25
Building up this “loot” value would allow a scaling bonus on training costs and time.
Exemple:
100 - Villagers trains 10% faster.
250 - Villagers trains 15% faster and are 10% cheaper.
Units trains 10% faster.
500 - Villagers trains 25% faster and are 15% cheaper.
Units trains 15% faster and are 10% cheaper.
1000 - Villagers Units trains 30 % faster and are 25% cheaper.
Units trains 25% faster and are 15% cheaper.
3000 - Villagers Units trains 30% faster and are 30% cheaper.
Units trains 30 % faster and are 25% cheaper.
5000 - Villagers trains 30% faster and are 50% cheaper.
Units trains 30% faster and are 30% cheaper.
8000 - Villagers trains 50% faster and are 50% cheaper.
Units trains 30% faster and are 50% cheaper.
10000 - Units trains 50% faster and are 50% cheaper.
This scale is, however, theoric. I have no idea how it could bring up actually.
The same bonuses than for soldiers would apply to villagers, but one rank earlier.
These bonuses wouldn’t apply to boats, not siege weapons.
This score would be vital for a Dane player, as both villagers and soldiers would be more costful than the ones of other civilisations, but the progressive bonus will make their soldiers cheapier than the ones of the other civilisations.
Raid:
Because their Loot bonus, the Danes would be a early attacker civilisation, and have the capacities to do so, thanks to their navy and “wikingr”, that would be a sort of militia: Turning villagers into wikingrs would allow them to have better fighting capabilities, and more importantly: being able to plunder enemy buildings to raise the Loot score.
This would be a needed strategy as their villager would cost 100 food, twice as many as for other civilisations.
Naval:
The Danes would be a great naval civilisation, having, similarly to the Rus’, no anti-building ships, but having special ships, like the Langskips, replacing archer boats, that not only would be able to transport units, but would also be sturdier than other civilisation’s archer ships, being produced twice as fast, and being cheapier.
However, I am not satisfied on my ideas on Danish Navy, so any idea is welcome.
I have not much ideas on potential landmarks, I am open to suggestions.
But I can note: A landmark generating ressources based on 10% of the loot score per minute.
The campaign would act around the Wiking golden age, and the Danelaw.
The levels would consist of Wikingrs’ raids on Francia (both Occidental and Oriental), and, later, when civilisations like Al-Andalus or Byzantine Empire will be added, the Raids on Iberia, Sicily or Constantinople.
However, most of the levels would be around the raids in Scotland, Ireland, and England, and around the Danelaw, both it’s creation and it’s expansion.
A level around capturing the City of York would be relevant, but I do not have enough knowledge yet to say what could be the possible levels in details. Once again, I am open to suggestions.
I think |Danes/Noregr/Sweden|, but also |Portugal/Léon/Al-Andalus caliphate| could be intersing add-ons.
Norsemen
Valhalla
Loss of health is compensated with increased damage.
Vikings
Villagers have better weapons, making them stronger melee units
Charging with units is more effective as it also debuffs nearby enemies.
Raiding
With your Longboats, your units gain a movement speed bonus once you ungarrison your units to a different part of the map from your main TC.
Gain resources as you damage enemy buildings. Gain more resources from killing Trade units and attacking Markets.
Runes
A building that give bonuses based on battles as each battle will be recorded. When building a Rune you can pick what battle you want the rune to represent, each giving you different bonuses as an aura effect. You can only have a limited amount of runes that cannot be placed close to each other.
Uniques:
Man-at-Arms replaced with a light armor unit but with faster attack speed.
Longboat. A versatile and fast boat that can be used for transport and warfare.
Spearman gets a shield. Extra melee and ranged armor, ranged bonus gone while attacking. Stance more powerful.
A religious building. Your Monks can spill blood for Odin using animals and by sacrificing your own units. Once you have enough you can convert it into a temporary buff, of your choice, for your military units.
Other ideas:
Longboat can be packed, like Mongols buildings, to land and unpacked to sea.
Longboat can be used for trading.
(A post I made on another similar discussion)
I am not enthusiast about the valhalla point, but I really like the rest ! thanks ! ^^
How would the idea of Valhalla even work in AoE4? Maybe have a nearby rune get stronger when you lose units during that ‘spill blood for Odin’ buff.
I know it’s pretty early after release, but there are always threads about what’s missing or what we’d like to see. So I just wanted to make a compilation top tier candidates for making it into future expansions (realistically 1-2 years later at the earliest for the first). I won’t go into fine detail about what each civ should look like down to all of its units and techs, because frankly it never comes out to what people predict. Rather, I’m just showcasing the ones that have the most merit, historically why they fit in to AoE4, what they had in past games – which can be used as a reference – and some general ideas for what they could look like in AoE4.
Of note, most civs seem to be some where in the timespan of c. 800 to c. 1500/1600, which roughly covers the Middle Ages. So my criteria is a civ that has had a significant presence during this time period and has something to add from the original 8. From that, I picked six main candidates that best fit the bill.
And on a side note, we shouldn’t be expecting much numerically from an expansion or DLC pack… I question if we’ll even get 3 per pack. Each civ in this game has an incredible amount of work put it into, from each unit and building being different than everyone else (very few reused assets), to all the voice work, and then the music. So with that in mind, each civ that’s picked should be well worth all that effort.
Anyways, here are the picks:
867 – 1453
Historical Comments: 867 was the year Basil I acceded the throne; 1453 was the fall of Constantinople. The Byzantines are tied for #1 most deserving of a spot. While Byzantium was on the decline during the time period of AoE4, it still had a significant role during most of these centuries. They were the empire during the Middle Ages, after all.
AoE2 Characteristics
-Increased building HP
-Cheaper camel riders, skirmishers, and spearmen
-Better fire ships
-Cheaper imperial age
-Faster healing monks
-Limited high-end siege options
UU: Cataphract (anti-infantry heavy cavalry)
Thoughts for AoE4
-Along the lines of an easier imperial age, the Byzantines should have a strong early game but relatively weak late game, to go along with their overall decline in history. Maybe access to early units (knights, crossbowmen, men at arms) but the upgrades aren’t as potent? Cheaper ages could also be a thing, but obviously there would need to be a downside to that as well.
-Religion should also be a focus. Faster healing monks would be a nice bonus. Maybe more HP or something.
1037 – 1566
Historical Comments: 1077 was the founding of the Seljuk Empire; 1566 was the death of Suleiman I and the peak of Ottoman power. The Turks are tied for #1 most deserving of a spot. Note that these are specifically just Turks, generically, representing great Turkic powers, primarily the Seljuks and then the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire didn’t really come in until the latter half of this period, and it would be too specific. The Turks would be the third Islamic civ in the game and round out that side nicely.
AoE2 Turk Characteristics
-Gunpowder bonuses (more HP, cheaper techs, fre chemistry)
-Faster gold mining
-Free cavalry upgrades
UU: Janissary (gunpowder unit)
AoE3 Ottoman Characteristics
-UUs include Janissaries, Spahis, Abus Guns, and Great Bombard
-Town Centers automatically train settlers.
Thoughts for AoE4
-I think a lot of the AoE2 bonuses can apply to some extent to AoE4. Big focus on siege and cheaper gunpowder. For early game, cavalry bonuses will keep them going. Earlier access to siege workshops would also be huge and of course gunpowder weapons.
-The Turks were primarily a pastural people, living off sheep much like the Mongols. This was part of their advantage, being mobile and living off the land. It wasn’t until later when they settled down that they became more like other agrarian cultures. That said, I’d like to see them use the pastures that the Mongols have, but obviously without the moving buildings (in the beginning of the game, they can start with a TC wagon though). This might conflict with the later Turks who used farms though.
-Being an Islamic civ, they would likely have the same restrictions as the Abbasids and the Delhi Sultanate with regard to hunting boars but getting berry bonuses.
-On UUs: Spahis (cavalry) should be unique units. Given the focus on gunpowder units, start the Janissary line at age 3 instead of 4. Of course, there’s also the great bombard that always goes with the Ottomans. Similarly, maybe the bombard line starts an age earlier?
-Auto-training villagers could be a nod to AoE3.
794 – 1573
Historical Comments: 794 was the start of the Heian period; 1573 was the end of the Muromachi period. The Kamakura period is in between these two. Of note, the Muromachi period encompasses the famous Sengoku period. Overall, Japan was not much of a “power” during the AoE4 era in that their significance in the world stage was very limited. They were not even united as a country. Still, this time span does include the Sengoku era and the emergence of samurai. This is also feudal Japan, and AoE4 is essentially a feudal era game. Not to mention their unique culture, military of the time as well as modern day cultural prominence/market make them the #3 choice. And of course, they would round out the East Asian civs as the third choice.
AoE2 Characteristics
-Better fishing boats
-Cheaper resource buildings
-Faster infantry attack
-No high-end cavalry/siege weapons
UU: Samurai (anti-unique unit)
AoE3 Characteristics
-Multiple unique aspects as an expansion East Asian civ. For example, one of their features was aging up by wonders… obviously that won’t apply here.
-Their particular unique features was not gathering food by hunting. Instead, they built shrines to gather resources. They also start with an orchard rickshaw.
-Military units were expensive but powerful.
Thoughts for AoE4
-A similar focus on strong infantry and weak cavalry/siege weapons makes a lot of sense
-Samurai is an obvious UU, but I’d expect Ashigaru as well.
-AoE3 characteristics are very fitting. Expensive but powerful units and the shrine idea are both unique enough and fit perfectly in AoE4.
830-1511
Historical Comments: Mesoamerican culture is so rich, but the difficulty here with choosing a civ to represent the region is that the time period that best covers the AoE4 time period is the Postclassic period from 900 to the early 1500s. The problem is evident in the name; this was already past the Mayan hey-day. I originally had Aztecs down, but their reign was really very brief, with the Aztec Empires lasting from 1428 to 1521, and there is hardly anything about them before this time period (no early Nahua kingdoms, etc). This is basically a single “age.” While this may be okay for AoE2 standards to include them, AoE4 is much more limited in civ selection. So as the Maya were the dominant culture for this time period, they make the most sense, while the Aztecs are far better suited for AoE3. Basically, they’re here because they represent the rich region despite the region as a whole being at a low point in the time of AoE4.
Similar to the Byzantines, the game can focus on early game strength (drawing from their Classic Period achievements) with rather weak endgame that will depend on the advantages gained from the early game. Late game can also incorporate elements of Aztecs for inspiration in the Imperial Age as the Maya were basically just a shadow of their former selves by 1500.
830 was the beginning of the Terminal Classic age (postclassic begin in 950 – I stretched it out to give them more flexibility). 1511 was when the Spanish first made contact.
AoE2 Characteristics
-Starting Eagle Scout
-Starts with an extra villager but -50 food
-Resources last 15% longer
-Cheaper foot archers
-Cheaper walls
-No stables/cavalry
-No gunpowder units
UU: Plumed Archers
Access to the Eagle Scout/Warrior line. While shared between civs in AoE2, this would likely become a UU (much like the Abbasids taking unique control of the camel line)
Thoughts for AoE4
-Rituals and religion are an absolute must. This was central to Maya (and Mesoamerican in general) culture and even warfare. For example, raids would be conducted to find targets for sacrifice. This would be a great opportunity for a more unique civ aspect (akin to the Mongols) where building a temple/pyramid will act as the center of rituals. Maybe they can act like in AoE3 using ceremonies and community plazas. Overall, this should be a mechanic that compensates in part for their lack of cavalry, lack of siege, and lack of gunpowder. Sacrifice should be a key component. For example, maybe choosing to offer your sheep in exchange for increased movement speed? In addition, kill count would also help to generate something, whether it’s a new resource or a passive bonus to your economy/military. Movement speed bonuses should apply somewhere though to overcome the mobility lost from lack of cavalry.
-On cavalry, these were replaced by Eagle Warriors in AoE2 (In AoE3, Aztecs had Coyote Runners). Eagle Warriors are really Aztec. If they go Maya rather than Aztec, something more Maya-like should be chosen at the cavalry-like infantry. That said, there is so little knowledge Mayan military that they might just have to “borrow” this unit from the Aztecs for gameplay reasons. Lots of fictional flavor would likely have to be added. Perhaps it could be renamed the “Jaguar Warrior” or “Jaguar Raider” to make it more Mayan.
1200 - 1533
Historical Comments: 1200 was the start of the Sapa Inca dynasty. 1533 was when the Spanish conquered the Inca. While the Mesoamerica region is best represented between the Maya and Aztecs (and I made my case why the Maya are better for this time period), the Inca are the best representative for South America. While their overall “reign” was short, it was not nearly as short (or late) as the Aztecs, and they were in their peak during the time of AoE4. Because of this, if only one Native American civ were to be added, one could make an argument for the Incas.
AoE2 Characteristics
-Starting Eagle Scout
-Starting free llama (100 food)
-Villagers benefit from infantry upgrades
-Houses support 2x population
-Buildings cost less stone
-Farms built much faster
-No stables/cavalry
-No gunpowder units
UU: Kamayuk (anti-cavalry infantry)
UU: Slinger (anti-infantry archer)
Access to the Eagle Scout/Warrior line. While shared with other Native American civs, this is a bit more jarring for the Inca as they are not even of the same region. This is fixed in AoE3 though.
AoE3 Characteristics
-Very unique civ much like the other Native Americans; very difficult to summarize. However, this could serve as a good base for AoE4, which favors more uniqueness than AoE2.
-The UB, Kancha House, supports even more pop
-There are numerous UU’s. Notably, Chimu Runners are the cavalry equivalent (shock infantry).
Thoughts for AoE4
-See Maya above regarding cavalry. The Inca had runners that were able to relay message very quickly throughout the Empire using their roads. So runner-like units (shock infantry) would be very appropriate. Unlike
-Inca were famous for their roads. Maybe this can result in some kind of benefit in the trader speed?
-Inca were also famous for their stone buildings. This is already reflected in one of their bonuses in AoE2.
-Incan military depended more on sheer force of number (bolstered by what was essentially mandatory conscription). Maybe cheaper, weaker units but decreased population costs would simulate this. Since it’s hard to have ½ population, maybe villagers not counting towards population could be a perk.
-Being able to interact with mountains (for example, letting scouts cross mountains) more would be cool, but also may not be the best since several maps don’t even have mountains.
711 - 1492
Historical Comments: 711 was the beginning of the Reconquista, and 1492 was the fall of Granada (the end of the Reconquista). For most of this, there wasn’t a unified Spain. Mostly multiple kingdoms, predominantly Castille, Leon, Aragon, and Navarre. However, they all fought against the Moors together. This would be the 4th western European civ, which is why I put the Spanish last on the list. However, they go very well with the Native American civs.
AoE2 Characteristics
-Builders work faster
-Blacksmith upgrades cost no gold
-Better galleons
-Gunpowder units fire faster
-Trade units generate more gold
-No Archer upgrades
UU: Conquistador (mounted gunpowder unit)
UU: Missionary (mounted Monk)
AoE3 Characteristics
-UUs include war dogs, missionaries, rodoleros (infantry), and lancers
-Other bonuses primarily revolve around home city shipments, who don’t apply to AoE2
-Overall, one of the most generic civs in AoE3, so hard to pull any interesting ideas about how to make this unique.
Thoughts for AoE4
-Religion is again very important. UU Monks will be likely as well as probable upgrades. Earlier access to monasteries and cheaper monks would make sense.
NOTABLE MENTIONS:
Khmers (802-1431). Would be a very representative SE Asian civ. Could be an alternative the Spanish. While known for their amazing architecture, their military was not quite as impressive; their army fought barefoot and naked. However, this didn’t stop them from being included in AoE2.
Hungarians/Magyars (895-1526) – A good choice for an Eastern European civ. They would of course be very much cavalry-based, and therein lies the problem. The game is already quite heavy on cavalry, specially between the French and Mongols. The unique culture of the Hungarians as having origins from outside Europe would make them a bit more distinct and separate them from other European civs.
Poles (960-1569) – Another Eastern European civ, which would also be heavy on cavalry (famous for their winged hussars). Very similar to Hungarians though, and if an civ from Eastern Europe (outside of the Byzantines), it would be one of these two.
Berbers (1040-1574) - From the Almoravids to the Almohads and then finally the Hafsids, multiple Berber dynasties controlled western North Africa and Iberia until the Reconquista. This would also go well with Spain. The main problem is separating them from the Abbasids, who have taken the camels as their own UU. Giving the Abbasids Mameluke cavalry instead and reassigning the camel cavalry to the Berbers could solve this.
So with all those said, one prediction would be two expansion/DLC packs:
AoE4 - Eastern Empires: Byzantines, Turks, and Japanese (fits the name to a T)
AoE4 - (can’t think of a name): Maya, Incas, and Spanish
Or if each expansion only has two civs, probably Byzantines and Turks together, then Japanese + Maya or Inca.
But until then, I’ll happily enjoy the game with the current lineup.
Spanish first then japanese, I would also like a campaign focused on the crusades, and if there can’t be a campaign for every civ at least historical battles for the remaining civs
Hungary starts at 895. Their Cavalry Archers were feared by everyone (Horse Archery continued to be very important in Hungary, even in the Late Middle Ages). Hungarian gunpowder was the second best in the whole world - Every forth infantry soldier used an arquebus and we had big bombards - Ottoman Great Bombards were partly developed by a Hungarian. Hungarian defenses were also exceptional - Even the Ottomans ofted strugged with 10x more men.
I would love to see the Polish again considering they were once the largest country during the medieval times.
EXACTLY! You hit the nail on the head there. What makes these games great is exactly what you said, variability and customization that allows us to be both creative AND competitive.
Btw totally with you on wanting a solid roadmap.
DOWN WITH THE SWEATY ESPORTS DUDES!
Here are the civs I’d like to see
Africa
Ethiopians
Malians
Swahili
Berbers
India
Bengalis
Tamils
Decani
(Gujaras)
SEA
Khmer
Malay
(Vietnamese)
Europe
Magyars
Iberians
Romans
Turks
Ottoman Empire territory is exaggerated , especially in Africa .
It doesn’t mean more Indian civs can’t be added .
Tamils are good candidate , chole , pandana too
I personally prefer Gupta , that’s the empire that represents the golden days of India , but they are late ancient and early mediaeval empire , so less likely .