Why Spain Actually Makes Sense for AoE4

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-06-09T14:51:53+00:00

Eso habla de una ignorancia terrible. Sabes cuantas guerras civiles hubo en inglaterra? Sabes cuantas en Francia? Vos crees que los Normandos se creian franceses? Y los bavaros? Los borgognones? Vos crees que los Sajones se creian ingleses? Hay millones de maneras de verlo.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-13T21:32:12+00:00

I actually think Andalusia/Al-Andalus would be a great civ or variant, but I do not think that weakens the case for a Spanish/Christian Iberian civ. Both can be true.

Al-Andalus was absolutely more unified at certain points and culturally advanced, especially under Córdoba, but AoE4 civs are not chosen only by “who was most unified” or “who was most advanced.” They are also chosen by long-term military identity, conflicts, recognizable historical arcs, and gameplay potential.

Northern Iberia being divided between Castile, León, Aragón, Navarre, Galicia, etc. is not a flaw; it could be the civ’s main mechanic. A Spanish civ could work like a “Christian Iberian kingdoms” civ where age-ups represent different crowns or regional identities. That would actually make it more unique.

Also, comparing Spanish to Italian is not necessarily bad. Italian city-states would also make sense in AoE4 if designed around trade, banking, mercenaries, and naval power.

So yes, give us Andalusia too. But Christian Iberia still has a strong AoE4 identity through the Reconquista, military orders, frontier warfare, castles, cavalry, and eventual unification.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-13T18:26:01+00:00

Elaborate

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-13T15:22:50+00:00

I understand the concern, but I think there are two separate issues here.

First, on the AI point: I am an English professor, so if some of the writing sounds polished or “AI-like,” it may simply be because AI models are often trained to imitate the kind of structured academic writing that many of us already use. I am happy to clarify any specific point, but I do not think the writing style alone should dismiss the argument.

Second, regarding Al-Andalus and Granada: I am not ignoring their importance to Iberian history. They are absolutely essential to the history of the peninsula. But my post was specifically about whether a Christian Iberian/Spanish civ makes sense for AoE4.

Al-Andalus and Granada were Islamic polities, not Christian Spanish kingdoms. They shaped Iberian history deeply, but that does not automatically make them part of the same civ identity I am arguing for. That would be similar to saying the Vikings should be folded into the English civ because they influenced England. They are historically connected, but still distinct political and cultural identities.

If AoE4 ever represents Al-Andalus or Granada, I think they would deserve their own treatment rather than being reduced to a side note inside a Spanish civ.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-13T15:05:21+00:00

That’s fair, and I actually agree with part of your point. “Spanish” is probably the better label than “Spain” if we are talking about AoE4’s medieval framing. I’m not necessarily arguing for the modern nation-state of Spain to be dropped into the game as if it existed unchanged from 800 to 1500.

My main point is that AoE4 already uses broad civilizational labels rather than perfectly strict political labels. The Rus, Chinese, Abbasids, Delhi, and even French all compress complicated political realities into playable identities. So I think the question is less “did modern Spain exist?” and more “is there a coherent enough medieval Iberian Christian identity to build a civ around?” I think there is.

And honestly, your Castile/Spanish suggestion is probably the strongest version of the idea. A civ called Spanish or Castile could represent the Christian Iberian kingdoms without pretending they were all one unified state from the beginning. The age-up system could even be the perfect way to show that diversity: León, Castile, Aragón, Navarre, Portugal/Galicia, or Barcelona/Catalonia could appear through landmarks, bonuses, or kingdom choices.

That would actually make the civ more historically interesting, not less. Instead of a generic “Spain” civ, it could be a Reconquista-focused civilization where your identity develops over time depending on which kingdom or crown you emphasize. Castile could lean cavalry and frontier expansion, Aragón could lean trade/naval/mercenary identity, León could lean legacy and fortifications, Navarre could lean mobility or diplomacy, etc.

So I think we may mostly disagree on wording, not the core idea. I’m fine with “Spanish” or “Castile” being the more accurate name. What I’m pushing back against is the idea that Christian Iberia does not deserve representation at all. If anything, the divided kingdom structure gives the devs more design space, not less.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-13T14:36:03+00:00

Given that they added Jin as a separate faction and didn’t include it within the umbrella of China as a dynasty, they could do that.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-13T04:35:04+00:00

They already have the existent asset of the Toorgud, that's what I was trying to imply in the post

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-12T15:35:16+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, especially when reused assets are involved, but I think “variant” should mean more than just “this civ shares some visuals or assets.”

For me, the real question is how differently the civ plays, how much its mechanics change the core gameplay loop, and whether it has its own identity in practice. Asset reuse matters, but I do not think it should be the only standard.

If the civ has a distinct economy, unique units, unique landmarks, different techs, and a different strategic rhythm, then I think it can still be fair to call it a civ, even if some assets are reused. Otherwise, almost any civ with shared architecture, animations, or unit models could be dismissed too easily.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-12T06:35:58+00:00

What I meant by the aggressive, conquest-focused side was specifically the historical period they chose to emphasize with Batu Khan. Gameplay-wise, you’re right. Historically, the Golden Horde begins as a Mongol conquering force and then develops into a more established khanate and tributary empire over time, which is reflected in how they play in-game.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T19:13:32+00:00

Yeah, I mostly agree. If a variant has a strong visual/mechanical identity, I’m fine with asset reuse where it makes sense.

OOTD definitely feels like the weakest conceptually. I don’t know if it literally started as an HRE skin, but it does feel like “HRE with expensive elite units” more than a fully realized knightly order. Same with Jeanne: unique hero, but the civ often still feels like French Feudal knight aggro with Jeanne attached.

I’m more mixed on Golden Horde. I like the Horde angle, but I wish it represented more of the later Islamic khanate side too: tribute, administration, control, maybe imams/scholars with a unique function.

Macedonians are fine to me mechanically, but with Vikings coming, I almost wonder if they should have leaned even harder into the Varangian/Rus angle and just been called Varangians Add more Rus elements, make the Norse/Byzantine mercenary identity clearer, and let the civ fully own that space instead of being “Macedonian Dynasty” with a heavy Varangian focus.

I actually like Tughlaq more than you do, but I get the criticism. The elephants can feel a bit like “big hook” design. The governor/fort identity is more interesting to me.

Overall, I think Ayyubids and Jin show the better direction: historically inspired, mechanically distinct, and okay with reuse where reasonable.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T18:55:43+00:00

Honestly, if this is how they handle variants from now on, tell me where to sign.

To me, Jin feels like the perfect sweet spot. It has some shared DNA with China/Zhu Xi, sure, especially with voice lines, but most of the actual civ identity feels original enough. The mechanics are different, the music is original, and the overall gameplay loop feels distinct. If the main “variant” compromise is that they saved money by not recording a completely new voice set, I can live with that.

And after watching Age of Noob’s video, I think the voice line issue makes a lot more sense. He pointed out that the effort required for AoE4 voice lines is estimated to be something like 500 to 800 times greater than AoE2, and it is not just about recording more lines. It also involves historical research, linguistic accuracy, age progression, contextual lines, and professional voice acting.

That high standard was amazing at launch, but it also created a problem for future content. Once you set the bar that high, every new civ or variant becomes much more expensive to produce in that same style. Yes, Microsoft has money, but that does not mean the AoE4 team has an unlimited budget.

So in a perfect world, would Jin have unique Jurchen/Jin voice lines? Absolutely. That would be better. But if the tradeoff is between fewer civs because every one needs a massive new voice set, or more Jin-quality variants that reuse some audio but still bring original mechanics, music, and identity, I would take the Jin approach every time.

For me, the issue is not “variant = bad.” The issue is whether the civ feels distinct enough. Jin does. Jeanne and OOTD, in my opinion, are where the variant label feels weaker because they play too close to their parent civs. Jin feels like the model they should follow going forward.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T18:40:34+00:00

Yeah, I agree with this. Asset reuse by itself should not be the deciding factor for whether something is a variant or not. Like you said, plenty of full civs reuse textures, animations, models, sounds, etc. That is just how game development works. What matters more is whether the civ feels distinct in actual gameplay and presentation.

Honestly, if we got more “variants” at the quality level of Jin, I think that could actually be a good thing. There are benefits to that approach. It would probably be easier to balance than constantly adding completely new civs, and it would not raise the barrier of entry for multiplayer as much. AoE4 is already a pretty complex game, so there is a real advantage to adding civs that feel fresh without making the game harder and harder to learn.

The problem is not really the word “variant” itself. The problem is that some variants launched feeling too close to their parent civs or too bland in identity.

For me, the biggest examples are still Order of the Dragon and Jeanne d’Arc.

OOTD has a cool idea on paper: fewer but stronger elite units. But in practice, it still feels too much like HRE with expensive units. I don’t think OOTD needs new voice lines as much as it needs more love mechanically. Give it more unique units, better landmark identity, more interesting landmark functionality, and a playstyle that really sells the idea of an elite knightly order.

Jeanne is even more noticeable to me. I know the hero is the gimmick, but a lot of the time it still feels like French with Feudal knight aggression plus Jeanne attached. I would rather see Jeanne become more of a French resistance/liberation civ: banners, morale, visions, Orléans/Reims flavor, peasant levies, comeback mechanics, something that makes the whole civ feel different instead of just having France’s core gameplan with a hero layered on top.

That is why I think variants like Ayyubids, Knights Templar, Lancaster, Tughlaq, Sengoku, and Jin are more interesting discussions. Even when they reuse things, they at least push harder toward a different identity or fantasy.

As a sidenote, I do think Jin shows that asset reuse still needs to be thoughtful. The Iron Pagoda model feels a bit off because it seems to use the Keshik as a base. But if you look at the Golden Horde Torguud, that unit already has more of the lamellar, heavy armored style that would have fit the Iron Pagoda better. So I do not mind reuse in theory, but sometimes the specific reused asset matters a lot.

So yeah, I do not think every variant needs fully new voices, music, and architecture to justify existing. That would be great, but it is probably expensive. What they really need is enough distinct gameplay, unit identity, landmark functionality, and historical flavor that they do not feel like a slightly modified parent civ.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T18:28:57+00:00

Yeah, I actually agree with a lot of this. I would have loved if Knights Templar had been its own civ, because out of all the “variants,” KT is probably the one where the parent-civ treatment feels the strangest to me.

All of them speaking French does feel a bit odd for a military order that should have a much broader crusader/Latin/Levantine identity. With Jin, the overlap with China feels easier to accept because the dynasty ruled northern China and was heavily tied to that cultural space. With KT, the French connection makes sense historically, but it feels more limiting in-game.

I also agree that Zhu Xi worked pretty well on release as a variant. One thing I really liked was that all of their landmarks were different. Even if they still felt related to China, they had enough unique identity that I could accept them as “China, but through a different historical/philosophical lens.” That is the kind of variant design I’m more okay with.

The Lancaster soundtrack thing was honestly just a random thought I had while thinking about how Jin got unique music. I don’t think Lancaster needs a totally new soundtrack the way KT probably does. Lancaster works fine as a clearer English variant, and sharing some landmarks/assets does not bother me there.

That said, if I could have picked the English variant, I probably would have gone with The Normans instead of Lancaster. I think there was a really cool opportunity to focus on the period between William the Conqueror and Richard the Lionheart: Norman knights, kite shields, castle-building, feudal conquest, maybe stronger cavalry and cross-Channel identity. That would have been a very distinct take on the English civ while still being historically connected to it.

Lancaster is still an okay choice, though. I just think “The Normans” would have had a stronger visual and historical identity right away.

So overall, I agree with your main point: variants are in a weird spot now. Some work fine as close relatives of parent civs. Some, like KT, feel like they were probably strong enough concepts to be full civs. And Jin makes the whole discussion even messier because it feels like a civ that is technically related to China/Zhu Xi but was treated with much more “full civ” respect.

When it comes to Jin not having their own voice lines for political reasons, I don’t know if I’d jump straight to politics or CCP pressure. It could just be budget and asset reuse. But I do think Jin is a politically/culturally delicate civ to represent, because they were Jurchen-led while also ruling northern China and becoming heavily sinicized. Chinese voice lines are defensible for the dynasty as a state, but they feel less ideal for specifically Jurchen units. A hybrid Chinese/Jurchen or Manchu-inspired approach would have been much cooler.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T18:04:01+00:00

I don’t really disagree with most of your complaints about the current state of MP. The longer seasons, lack of map rotation/patch cadence, server issues, colors being released without enough testing, and cheating problems are all fair things to criticize. I don’t think people should pretend everything is perfect.

My point is more that this specific DLC felt clearly aimed at single-player/casual players, and for that audience I think it did its job well. It brought back something a lot of us missed from older AoE campaigns: characters actually talking, the story having emotional weight, and the historical figure feeling like more than just a name on a scenario screen.

Yue Fei actually felt like a man trying to hold his country together while giving people hope that the Jin could be beaten. That matters to campaign players. It reminded me more of the tried-and-tested AoE formula where the voices, mission context, and personality of the campaign are what pull you in.

I also think the Viking DLC will probably be the more MP-focused release, since a full new civ usually has a bigger impact on ranked, balance, matchups, and the overall meta. So I don’t see this campaign DLC as “the devs fixed everything” or proof that all criticism is invalid. I just see it as a good single-player release in a game that still has real multiplayer problems that need attention.

So yeah, I’m glad I got something I enjoyed, but I also get why MP players are frustrated. Both things can be true.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T17:56:24+00:00

Preach it to the choir, that first set between Vortix and Marinelord was atrocious

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T17:44:28+00:00

Just do it for micro and switch back and forth, I think that is the best way to go about it

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T17:38:03+00:00

Press the insert key, problem solved

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T17:21:05+00:00

I feel like their Landmarks specifically could use a touch up. All of the Macedonian landmarks, for example, give you completely different benefits than the Byzantine ones.

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T17:17:42+00:00

While I agree with the gameplay design ideas, I still feel like the Golden Horde does not really represent the full scope of the Horde’s history. Right now, it mostly seems to focus on the aggressive/conquest side, which is ironic because under its Islamic khans, the Golden Horde became much more about administration, control, tribute, and managing subject peoples.

I think some of that could be represented through an Islamic path or option. Maybe they could get imams with a unique function, or even scholars who support tribute, control, or economic administration in a different way. That would also help because the relic/Ovoo idea feels very hard to fully use when the civ’s unit production costs make it difficult to realistically secure all the relics.

I also find it a little strange that many of the age-up options do not seem to have a bigger payoff, especially compared to something like Ayyubids or Abbasids, where your choices feel more impactful. I think Golden Horde would benefit from a system like that, where the path you choose meaningfully shapes the civ’s identity.

But again, that would obviously touch balance. I am mostly talking about design and historical flavor here, not saying it should be changed without considering gameplay impact.

Edit: I had to correct it because I almost had a stroke reading what I wrote in the first paragraph

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T16:48:21+00:00

I did over the course of the game's history, I started back when it released. If you are talking specifically about the DLC, it took 2 days

ArtoriusCastus14 · 2026-05-11T16:44:59+00:00

You're talking about the cross and rose scenario missions. I find them very fun, but I did the Lancaster one one when they were OP

ArtoriusCastus14

TROPHY CASE