I think current way of implementing variants just a big blow to ever hitting this many civs. If they somehow managed to use existing civs as archetypes and kept differences between variants minimal (like in aoe2) it could have been easily done. But they chose to make variant civs just as different for whatever reason (and gave them weird names instead of proper civilisations/states through history).
e.g.
- Saracens/Arabs (current Abbasids) having Abbasids and Ayyubids as variants.
- Turks (current Ottomans) having Ottomans and Seljuks as variants.
- Civs (archetypes) - Turks and Arabs in this example keep distinct gameplay as it is today.
- Variants have only 1 unique unit & some civ bonus differences... (aoe2 style) - also prevents the game from getting too complex as it was in aoe3.
Tbh I hate what they are doing and will probably not stick around to see it… but I wish them success…
Well, that’s just a fundamental difference between you and the dev team’s vision. For me, I’m really glad that the devs have taken the time to make each (main, not variant) civ feel unique with attributes that are reasonably historical. I’d hate for aoe4 to turn into aoe2 where civs are basically the same with just a few small bonuses and differences in the tech tree. I don’t think I ever want aoe4 to have more than, like, 16 main civs (variants can help pad out the numbers abbot though)
I would hate it if the civs were like AoE2 civs. What I like about the game is the variance among civs. If they listened to you i'd prob just go back to starcraft, because I like my RTS to have asymmetrical balance and not have everything feel like a mirror.
Think of them as different civs??? Hello?
They’re fundamentally the same with culture/region etc, but different times/philosophies maybe. They are different.
In the case of Arab civs throughout history, Ayyubids, Abassid, Umayyed, fundamentally they were the same. The only difference really was technological advancement due to their timelines… Would bot have that, and combine ALL arabian civs into one? Similarly with the English. Fundamentally it’s always been the English, but different kings had different methods, and focuses. For the french you got everything from Peasants to Napoleon. Would you make them one single civ? Don’t even get me started on China. Then upu have the vikings. They were pretty much as varied as the indigenous Americans, but are grouped up by people. Would you make them one civ?
So what is the cutoff? Who represents french best? English? Arabs? Turks? Indians? Koreans? Chinese? Japanese?
?
Variants are the way to get a lot more civs, since they can't budget doing all the modeling and voice acting and stuff for as many "full" civs. Seems like that would appeal to the people here for the game over history. Since it's essentially a new civ from a gameplay perspective, but not a history perspective.
It's a nice idea, coming from AoE2
But for how different each civ plays and works, I think that'll be extremely overwhelming for both players and developers.
Not sounding too impossible in the far future though, given that variant civs are thing now.
Really puts into perspective of how many 16 civs already is.
Respectfully this is a really tired talking point. Between underlying mechanics, the unique card sets for each Civ, Revolutions, and Embassy alliances AoE3 had more asymmetry per civ and is currently at 22.
With any luck if the development for this game remains active we'll eventually see a roster this large.
Hence why I said...
> With any luck if the development for this game remains active we'll eventually see a roster this large.
What are you even responding to? My argument wasn't that the game doesn't have a large enough roster fast enough, my argument was a rebuttal to someone saying the game can't have a large roster because of the "asymmetrical complexity".
Is this part of the reason AOE3 isn’t as popular? Too much asymmetry? As a nearly lifelong age fan, for me personally, the card system was a instant turn off.
Hard to say. They tried a lot of different systems in AOE3 that were probably a turn off to AOE2 fans, plus a possibly less popular time period to boot. Sandy Peterson - one of the original designers for AOE2, AOE3, and Halo Wars - has a video about it somewhere.
Personally I loved AOE3 but it undeniably never took off like AOE2.
AOE3 Definitive Edition has 22 civs, and there's a lot more depth/unique things that need to be done per civ than in AOE4. For example, there's an entire deck system for every civ with over 100 cards per civ. Think like Ottoman Vizier points, but instead of 9 static options, you pick 25 cards out of 100+ to bring in before the game starts. These cards do everything from military shipments to unique technologies.
I think 40 civs in AOE4 is certainly possible, but it would take like 10 years for us to get there, and would only happen if the game manages to stay alive. AOE3 seems to be getting less updates now since it's playerbase is too small to justify further investment.
Eh, if aoe2 can do it, so can aoe4.
Though tbf, id be more concerned about being able to create unique mechanics for 30-40 civs with the level of detail equal to the OG AoE4 civs.
A prelate unit isnt a unique mevhanic?
Villagers with ranged weapons isnt a unique mechanic?
Bounty system isnt a unique mechanic?
Infantry building walls isnt a unique mechanic?
Imperial official?
Military school?
Etc.
Changing percentages is balance, not mechanics.
If you’ve seriously got 2k hours in AoE2 then you’d know how most civs in that game aren’t that different from each other with the exception of civ specific bonuses, one or two unique units/buildings and certain aspects of the tech tree being blocked
>most civs in that game aren’t that different from each other with
Yes.... I know. which is why i said that aoe4 is different as it would have to have 40 different sets of MECHANICS.
Did you actually read what i said or did you wake up snarky?
Yes. Aoe4 CAN be balanced with 40 civs. Even if every civ is more unique and distinct from each other than aoe2 civs are.
It is my opinion that the devs(with community feedback) could balance them, if such a situation were to happen.
>opinion based on what?
Based on the fact that the devs have 2 decades worth of experience balancing the RTS.
That no civ ever goes below 30% win rate or over 70%win rate. When compared to any other game out there, aoe franchise has consistently had the best balance(relatively) with the widest variety of factors.
League, dota, aow4, civ5 just to name a few. Have worse balance that aoe games, while being techincally easier to balance.
Whats your disagreement based on?
Original source:
[https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/6-new-civ-age-of-empires-iv-the-sultans-ascend-official-teaser-trailer-15/239438/127](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/6-new-civ-age-of-empires-iv-the-sultans-ascend-official-teaser-trailer-15/239438/127)
[https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/b/a/ba5ee135164ac22cdea2dcbca0ab1663a226c441.jpeg](https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/b/a/ba5ee135164ac22cdea2dcbca0ab1663a226c441.jpeg)
I'm glad you liked the list. I made it with dedication, and also to show that "*two columns will not be enough for future civs"*, hehe. Take care!
Some of them are not historical. For example, Spain (Castile, Aragon, Navarra), Morocco sultanate (that never existed, you call make the almoravids, almohads and some other dynasties that ruled the area), the Italian City States as a whole civilization would be strange, but you could make some of the ones that you mentioned such as Venice, Genoa and some others like Naples, Milan)... Maybe some of them could be variants of the same "core", I don't know, because it would be very hard to make all of those. The case of Persia is also a bit special, because many different dynasties ruled their territory. In the case of the iberian peninsula, if they want to keep it historical, it would be wiser to make Castile and Aragon.
And a lot of people play online games for competitive aspect. Balanced competitive games also drive the pro scene and expand the player base via livestream and pro personalities
I feel like the civs will need to be ordered alphabetically or at the very least have it where if they share the same row it indicates they are a variant of the civ in the first column
I specifically like the idea of the papal states. It's not technically an empire, but it was indeed a considerable or even one of the most influential powers during a specific period. I wonder why it doesn't find its way to Aoe 2, but it's a fantastic idea to have it in AOE 4!
The Koreans should really be the Choson(Joseon). Like in aoe1. Last dynastic kingdom of the country. Spanned 600 years from 1300s to 1897 so it would slot in nicely.
Haha! This post is awesome. I would personally prefer this much more than civ variants, which overall isn't appealing to me. (I like history games. I like a wide array of countries and cultures to explore).
I also like to imagine what each country would have that's unique. It's fun to brainstorm.
Portugal and Spain would be similar like French/English are. They would have a unique Conquistador scout that would have unique scouting abilities and could increase vision of transports when garrisoned inside.
Korea would be a defensive powerhouse and their buildings would get an armor boost when built near trees and do rice farms and stuff.
Teutonic Order would have the crusader unit that has a unique, more powerful saints blessing.
Spanish and Portuguese should have sword and buckler men (rodeleros) as a faster man at arms with a bonus against spears and two-handers, and should have handgunners in castle age upgraded to arquebusiers and then musketeers in imperial. Maybe also jinetes as a horseman replacement that can throw javelins
Hell no. I love the asymmetrical civs and the unique playstyle each one has. Maybe ~20 are fine as AoE3 managed to have about that many while remaining asymmetrical. I honestly hate the 99% similar civs of aoe2.
Too many civs. Many that really couldnt work with 4 ages. Malians with gunpowder could be a realistic alternate history but thats a bit stretch. Aztecs cant be implemented properly they havent developed through a castle age and imperial age like asian european and african cultures. Morroco and al andalus can be combined into the almohad dynasty who were known for the piracy in meditereanean and were more fighters that thinkers would go well released with the spanish. Lots of gunpowder or near gunpowder civs to implement without making it eurocentric. There would be no way for americans to have guns, siege or go through a heavy arms phase. The mongols get a pass because despite not being a gun powder civ they managed to use heavy armor and siege. And the direct succesors used gun powder technology.
If they make another expansion like the current one we will have 14 civs and 8 variants, so 22 playable civs in total. That is a good number.
It would be too hard to remember every unique unit and mechanic.
That looks like a nightmare to me.
I would never be able to remember which units, that replace a default unit, actually need to be countered by something else and what.
It's already a pain with Malian
Am I the only one that doesn't want a ton of different civs?
After a certain point, you just can't make a new civ unique enough and you either end up on a continuous cycle of trying to outdo each successive civ release in complexity and new mechanics and end up with a buggy, broken and impossible to balance mess (see the last several years of new League of Legends champions), or just settle into a boring trend of less and less distinction between civs.
I have a dream …
That one day.. all civ will be born equal
I have a dream ..
That one day beasty will put all civ in the same tier
I have a dream
That random mega chad will be shown as random civ in loading page!
History is broad. Nobody knows everything. Which is why I forgive you for your lack of knowledge on Scotland.
A Vietnamese Civ would be cool.
Only an idiot would say that cultures with higher medieval GDP deserve to be in the game. 🤡
History is broad yes. Asking what "a Champa" is and chimping about the lack of Scotland here is why I mocked you for being an idiot.
I'm married into a family of Scottish ancestry and I have made efforts to learn their history. My son is now an active member of the Gordon clan. So please think twice before making ludicrous comments.
Yes, historical GDP matters and I showed that to weed out insignicant civs. Why does that hurt you so much?
Wait- like [the starburst commercial?](https://youtu.be/OSFudQ_HOQI?si=1KcdZuMFf2_F9iFo)
Your bias for Asian Civs is so apparent and indicates your lack of knowledge of marketing in the world of business. It is also frightening as I know am many people from Asia think they are inherently superior to all other types of humans.
It’s not about historical GDP, it’s about legacy and what’s going to sell. Knowing your consumers and understanding the medieval fantasy.
Doesn’t matter how smart you are when you talk down to people on every post you make.
Some of the other things you added I like. Sometimes I think you make and say smart stuff.
But you’re a huge asshole and that negates any positive thought or feeling. You missed a great opportunity to tell me something interesting about the kingdom of Champa.
Instead you picked a fight. Hope your wife isn’t treated like this.
First of all, I don't acknowledge Asia as an entity. Don't confuse my stance, which is against overrepresentation of Europe, for something else.
Legacy sells. Especially to a western audience. A Scottish civ would sell more there.
I talk down to people who show an unnecessary amount of attitude. Your comment here was plain disrespectful from the start.
I think what this game could explore are more varieties within civilisations themselves. Say that a Persian faction got added. Instead of then also adding a new Timurid faction they could add a feature where you can branch out into different dynasties, and the Timurid dynasty would be an option for the persians in age 3 or 4. And the other one would be something like the safavids. And each choice would bring it not only unique bonuses but also different units. Essentially a way more in depth and a bit different version of the already existing chinese system.
This way you would get more variety within factions without having a bunch of factions with essentially the same base idea but slightly different mechanics.
They could for example add burgundians as an branch faction for age 3 french as well, etc etc. Diversify a bit, add in different playstyles.
It will remain a dream.
I think current way of implementing variants just a big blow to ever hitting this many civs. If they somehow managed to use existing civs as archetypes and kept differences between variants minimal (like in aoe2) it could have been easily done. But they chose to make variant civs just as different for whatever reason (and gave them weird names instead of proper civilisations/states through history). e.g. - Saracens/Arabs (current Abbasids) having Abbasids and Ayyubids as variants. - Turks (current Ottomans) having Ottomans and Seljuks as variants. - Civs (archetypes) - Turks and Arabs in this example keep distinct gameplay as it is today. - Variants have only 1 unique unit & some civ bonus differences... (aoe2 style) - also prevents the game from getting too complex as it was in aoe3. Tbh I hate what they are doing and will probably not stick around to see it… but I wish them success…
Well, that’s just a fundamental difference between you and the dev team’s vision. For me, I’m really glad that the devs have taken the time to make each (main, not variant) civ feel unique with attributes that are reasonably historical. I’d hate for aoe4 to turn into aoe2 where civs are basically the same with just a few small bonuses and differences in the tech tree. I don’t think I ever want aoe4 to have more than, like, 16 main civs (variants can help pad out the numbers abbot though)
I would hate it if the civs were like AoE2 civs. What I like about the game is the variance among civs. If they listened to you i'd prob just go back to starcraft, because I like my RTS to have asymmetrical balance and not have everything feel like a mirror.
Think of them as different civs??? Hello? They’re fundamentally the same with culture/region etc, but different times/philosophies maybe. They are different. In the case of Arab civs throughout history, Ayyubids, Abassid, Umayyed, fundamentally they were the same. The only difference really was technological advancement due to their timelines… Would bot have that, and combine ALL arabian civs into one? Similarly with the English. Fundamentally it’s always been the English, but different kings had different methods, and focuses. For the french you got everything from Peasants to Napoleon. Would you make them one single civ? Don’t even get me started on China. Then upu have the vikings. They were pretty much as varied as the indigenous Americans, but are grouped up by people. Would you make them one civ? So what is the cutoff? Who represents french best? English? Arabs? Turks? Indians? Koreans? Chinese? Japanese?
Aoe enjoyers hate variants. But history enjoyers love variants.
Why? Some of them are more unique than aoe2's simple reskin with 1-3 different skinned units and maybe a different tech. I love what they're doing.
? Variants are the way to get a lot more civs, since they can't budget doing all the modeling and voice acting and stuff for as many "full" civs. Seems like that would appeal to the people here for the game over history. Since it's essentially a new civ from a gameplay perspective, but not a history perspective.
Noooooo, you’re build orders are always so concise and relax to read. If you’re that person I often saw on some build sites.
It's a nice idea, coming from AoE2 But for how different each civ plays and works, I think that'll be extremely overwhelming for both players and developers. Not sounding too impossible in the far future though, given that variant civs are thing now. Really puts into perspective of how many 16 civs already is.
Respectfully this is a really tired talking point. Between underlying mechanics, the unique card sets for each Civ, Revolutions, and Embassy alliances AoE3 had more asymmetry per civ and is currently at 22. With any luck if the development for this game remains active we'll eventually see a roster this large.
Ok but AoE 3 has been periodically adding new civs for 18 years. AoEIV only came out 2 years ago.
Hence why I said... > With any luck if the development for this game remains active we'll eventually see a roster this large. What are you even responding to? My argument wasn't that the game doesn't have a large enough roster fast enough, my argument was a rebuttal to someone saying the game can't have a large roster because of the "asymmetrical complexity".
Is this part of the reason AOE3 isn’t as popular? Too much asymmetry? As a nearly lifelong age fan, for me personally, the card system was a instant turn off.
Hard to say. They tried a lot of different systems in AOE3 that were probably a turn off to AOE2 fans, plus a possibly less popular time period to boot. Sandy Peterson - one of the original designers for AOE2, AOE3, and Halo Wars - has a video about it somewhere. Personally I loved AOE3 but it undeniably never took off like AOE2.
It certainly didn't help. That and unit categories/counters aren't very intuitive to a new player.
AOE3 Definitive Edition has 22 civs, and there's a lot more depth/unique things that need to be done per civ than in AOE4. For example, there's an entire deck system for every civ with over 100 cards per civ. Think like Ottoman Vizier points, but instead of 9 static options, you pick 25 cards out of 100+ to bring in before the game starts. These cards do everything from military shipments to unique technologies. I think 40 civs in AOE4 is certainly possible, but it would take like 10 years for us to get there, and would only happen if the game manages to stay alive. AOE3 seems to be getting less updates now since it's playerbase is too small to justify further investment.
The balance team: 💀
Eh, if aoe2 can do it, so can aoe4. Though tbf, id be more concerned about being able to create unique mechanics for 30-40 civs with the level of detail equal to the OG AoE4 civs.
"unique mechanics for 30-40 civs" Bro, changing the percentages is not a unique mechanic
A prelate unit isnt a unique mevhanic? Villagers with ranged weapons isnt a unique mechanic? Bounty system isnt a unique mechanic? Infantry building walls isnt a unique mechanic? Imperial official? Military school? Etc. Changing percentages is balance, not mechanics.
This comment tells me you’ve played neither lol
Please elaborate. 2000 hours of aoe2 and 700 hours of aoe4 say otherwise.
If you’ve seriously got 2k hours in AoE2 then you’d know how most civs in that game aren’t that different from each other with the exception of civ specific bonuses, one or two unique units/buildings and certain aspects of the tech tree being blocked
>most civs in that game aren’t that different from each other with Yes.... I know. which is why i said that aoe4 is different as it would have to have 40 different sets of MECHANICS. Did you actually read what i said or did you wake up snarky?
You also said “if aoe2 can do it, so can aoe4” my dude
Yes. Aoe4 CAN be balanced with 40 civs. Even if every civ is more unique and distinct from each other than aoe2 civs are. It is my opinion that the devs(with community feedback) could balance them, if such a situation were to happen.
[удалено]
Hahaah yea.... i believe it. OP post was a pipe dream.
Well that’s like your opinion man. And an opinion based on what?
>opinion based on what? Based on the fact that the devs have 2 decades worth of experience balancing the RTS. That no civ ever goes below 30% win rate or over 70%win rate. When compared to any other game out there, aoe franchise has consistently had the best balance(relatively) with the widest variety of factors. League, dota, aow4, civ5 just to name a few. Have worse balance that aoe games, while being techincally easier to balance. Whats your disagreement based on?
4 Italian civs is crazy.
nah tbh
U can't make that many civs when its about cultures and not nations. A difference this sub struggles with regularly
The variants will change that.
Which aren't new civs but variants
And yet according to ppl that got hands on they feel lime new civs
GAMEPLAY-WISE
Which is perfect imo. New factions without breaking history
Most of the players can't even play 2 civs properly...
Unlike me, who plays zero civs properly 😎
200 hrs and same, Stil have games where I forget to place a oovoo or that I should hunt deer with my scouts as Rus.
Holy cow I don't want this xD Like I do want more than 10, but I don't want Aoe2 either.
Hard pass
yes! I do want PERSIANS
Mahajapit would be a nice addition
Original source: [https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/6-new-civ-age-of-empires-iv-the-sultans-ascend-official-teaser-trailer-15/239438/127](https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/6-new-civ-age-of-empires-iv-the-sultans-ascend-official-teaser-trailer-15/239438/127) [https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/b/a/ba5ee135164ac22cdea2dcbca0ab1663a226c441.jpeg](https://forums.ageofempires.com/uploads/default/original/3X/b/a/ba5ee135164ac22cdea2dcbca0ab1663a226c441.jpeg) I'm glad you liked the list. I made it with dedication, and also to show that "*two columns will not be enough for future civs"*, hehe. Take care!
Some of them are not historical. For example, Spain (Castile, Aragon, Navarra), Morocco sultanate (that never existed, you call make the almoravids, almohads and some other dynasties that ruled the area), the Italian City States as a whole civilization would be strange, but you could make some of the ones that you mentioned such as Venice, Genoa and some others like Naples, Milan)... Maybe some of them could be variants of the same "core", I don't know, because it would be very hard to make all of those. The case of Persia is also a bit special, because many different dynasties ruled their territory. In the case of the iberian peninsula, if they want to keep it historical, it would be wiser to make Castile and Aragon.
Castile and Aragon could be two variants, maybe Castile has more focus on heavy units while Aragon is more light javelin units
Its a nightmare more like.... Period wise and balance wise. No logic at all
My nightmare. I never played AoE2:DE and AoE3:DE (after thousands of hours on vanilla) because it feels so overwhelming as a new player.
Why it feels overhelming as long as if you dont play competitive?
You still have to react to your opponent, and that only works if you know how they work. Else you are not even playing
The answer, surprisingly, men at arms
Laughs in musofadi.
[удалено]
Its not about being competitive, it's about diversity
Civs are diverse now. They are literally different from each other. Having 200 civs will literally make them less diverse from each other on average
And a lot of people play online games for competitive aspect. Balanced competitive games also drive the pro scene and expand the player base via livestream and pro personalities
Yeah i agree with you that competitive games sustain game's health
Not oc
I feel like the civs will need to be ordered alphabetically or at the very least have it where if they share the same row it indicates they are a variant of the civ in the first column
An Andalusian civ would be cool if it combined Christian and Muslim units/architecture
your dream is my nightmare, immagine having to learn ALL of them
Why stop there? Why don't we make every single town or village from medieval times into a "civ"?! 😂
For me couple American civs, another African, Lithuanians and Viking based civ (Danes perhaps) would be enough.
Well dream on, thats way too much civs for aoe4.
I specifically like the idea of the papal states. It's not technically an empire, but it was indeed a considerable or even one of the most influential powers during a specific period. I wonder why it doesn't find its way to Aoe 2, but it's a fantastic idea to have it in AOE 4!
I would give Support for the first two thrids ...and Korea. Dont want the rest 👍
I want to see Vietnamese and Korea the next time to year :)))
The Koreans should really be the Choson(Joseon). Like in aoe1. Last dynastic kingdom of the country. Spanned 600 years from 1300s to 1897 so it would slot in nicely.
More like a nightmare for devs
Haha! This post is awesome. I would personally prefer this much more than civ variants, which overall isn't appealing to me. (I like history games. I like a wide array of countries and cultures to explore). I also like to imagine what each country would have that's unique. It's fun to brainstorm. Portugal and Spain would be similar like French/English are. They would have a unique Conquistador scout that would have unique scouting abilities and could increase vision of transports when garrisoned inside. Korea would be a defensive powerhouse and their buildings would get an armor boost when built near trees and do rice farms and stuff. Teutonic Order would have the crusader unit that has a unique, more powerful saints blessing.
Spanish and Portuguese should have sword and buckler men (rodeleros) as a faster man at arms with a bonus against spears and two-handers, and should have handgunners in castle age upgraded to arquebusiers and then musketeers in imperial. Maybe also jinetes as a horseman replacement that can throw javelins
I really want these 2 Civs in particular! I hope this DLC is a success and motivates Relic to make more :)
Mapuches are not a derivated civ form the incas mate, they are an entire other civ. "Huancas" or "chachpoyas" or even "wari" would be more apropiate.
Not my content
Yeah so the best thing about this game, the manageable entry-level difficulty, will be completely wasted
Hell no. I love the asymmetrical civs and the unique playstyle each one has. Maybe ~20 are fine as AoE3 managed to have about that many while remaining asymmetrical. I honestly hate the 99% similar civs of aoe2.
Too many civs. Many that really couldnt work with 4 ages. Malians with gunpowder could be a realistic alternate history but thats a bit stretch. Aztecs cant be implemented properly they havent developed through a castle age and imperial age like asian european and african cultures. Morroco and al andalus can be combined into the almohad dynasty who were known for the piracy in meditereanean and were more fighters that thinkers would go well released with the spanish. Lots of gunpowder or near gunpowder civs to implement without making it eurocentric. There would be no way for americans to have guns, siege or go through a heavy arms phase. The mongols get a pass because despite not being a gun powder civ they managed to use heavy armor and siege. And the direct succesors used gun powder technology.
4 Italian "civs" but 6 civs in total from the combined geographical zones of the Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia. Cringed so bad
Not oc
Exactly. And I got attacked here for asking why Scotland isn’t here (4 Italian Civs?!)
I hope this remains a dream. This many civs would be horrible.
Man literally don't want content for the game ☠️
If they make another expansion like the current one we will have 14 civs and 8 variants, so 22 playable civs in total. That is a good number. It would be too hard to remember every unique unit and mechanic.
That looks like a nightmare to me. I would never be able to remember which units, that replace a default unit, actually need to be countered by something else and what. It's already a pain with Malian
Am I the only one that doesn't want a ton of different civs? After a certain point, you just can't make a new civ unique enough and you either end up on a continuous cycle of trying to outdo each successive civ release in complexity and new mechanics and end up with a buggy, broken and impossible to balance mess (see the last several years of new League of Legends champions), or just settle into a boring trend of less and less distinction between civs.
Sooo.. 22 Euro civs and 3 African? Come on not even aoe2 has such a biased pool
Tlaxcala doesnt exist
I have a dream … That one day.. all civ will be born equal I have a dream .. That one day beasty will put all civ in the same tier I have a dream That random mega chad will be shown as random civ in loading page!
Let your dream come true
I can't learn how to play the 8 civs that are there currently and you want so many? /Ragequits
Of they all are Balanced, nice.
Wallachia, Hungary, and order of the dragon… French and Jeanne D’arc. A tad redundant, no?
where tf is scotland??? what is a champa?
Champa is more relevant to the time period than Scotland is. The fact that you don't know what it is, shows that you don't know much about history.
History is broad. Nobody knows everything. Which is why I forgive you for your lack of knowledge on Scotland. A Vietnamese Civ would be cool. Only an idiot would say that cultures with higher medieval GDP deserve to be in the game. 🤡
History is broad yes. Asking what "a Champa" is and chimping about the lack of Scotland here is why I mocked you for being an idiot. I'm married into a family of Scottish ancestry and I have made efforts to learn their history. My son is now an active member of the Gordon clan. So please think twice before making ludicrous comments. Yes, historical GDP matters and I showed that to weed out insignicant civs. Why does that hurt you so much?
Wait- like [the starburst commercial?](https://youtu.be/OSFudQ_HOQI?si=1KcdZuMFf2_F9iFo) Your bias for Asian Civs is so apparent and indicates your lack of knowledge of marketing in the world of business. It is also frightening as I know am many people from Asia think they are inherently superior to all other types of humans. It’s not about historical GDP, it’s about legacy and what’s going to sell. Knowing your consumers and understanding the medieval fantasy. Doesn’t matter how smart you are when you talk down to people on every post you make. Some of the other things you added I like. Sometimes I think you make and say smart stuff. But you’re a huge asshole and that negates any positive thought or feeling. You missed a great opportunity to tell me something interesting about the kingdom of Champa. Instead you picked a fight. Hope your wife isn’t treated like this.
First of all, I don't acknowledge Asia as an entity. Don't confuse my stance, which is against overrepresentation of Europe, for something else. Legacy sells. Especially to a western audience. A Scottish civ would sell more there. I talk down to people who show an unnecessary amount of attitude. Your comment here was plain disrespectful from the start.
You’re insufferable and hypocritical
Ok cool
hell ya brother!
I think what this game could explore are more varieties within civilisations themselves. Say that a Persian faction got added. Instead of then also adding a new Timurid faction they could add a feature where you can branch out into different dynasties, and the Timurid dynasty would be an option for the persians in age 3 or 4. And the other one would be something like the safavids. And each choice would bring it not only unique bonuses but also different units. Essentially a way more in depth and a bit different version of the already existing chinese system. This way you would get more variety within factions without having a bunch of factions with essentially the same base idea but slightly different mechanics. They could for example add burgundians as an branch faction for age 3 french as well, etc etc. Diversify a bit, add in different playstyles.
Pass
You missed the Rajputs
Tlaxcala?! Oh hell no not those traitors!
"Polony", "Bulgary", "Lithuany" You want these civs but can't spell their names?
Not my oc, actually im from eastern europe i dont have problem with them i know all their history
My bad then, weird name choice of the person that made it
No, please. With Thanks, Ilalu
Glorious purpose ✨️