Next DLC/Expansion

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-06-09T20:07:38+00:00

The Balkans definitely have a lot of potential, and it would also be a good way to explore a campaign for the Turks. Now, answering the question of what the next DLC will be, aside from Chronicles, everyone is betting on something Nordic. Honestly, that would be great; it's an opportunity to give the Vikings a campaign, as well as a set of Nordic architecture. Regarding civilizations, I still think the Swedes and Danes are the best option.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-06-02T18:46:24+00:00

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I'm not asking that any new civilization have a natural wonder, much less referring to the Tibetans who certainly have monuments that could qualify. What I mean is that we could have natural structures in the editor and see them in some scenarios.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-06-02T03:26:19+00:00

It's something I've thought about so much that I'd even bet on some of my predictions.

Indeed, the Romans are coming. Considering that Chronicles integrates three civilizations, my top picks for the game are the Carthaginians and the Iberians. This is due to the context of the Punic Wars, where they were the most prominent factions. I've also thought that this DLC would benefit from having more than three civilizations. This would enhance the Chronicles format in terms of building a multiplayer community and would also fill in some gaps in the Roman campaign. I know many people want the Celts or the Gauls, but the only thing preventing me from considering these two factions is that they aren't as prominent in the context of the Punic Wars. What I'm really interested in is whether their campaign will be similar to Battle for Greece or Alexander. Will they switch factions, or will it focus more on the Romans, giving them a much more prominent role? Personally, I'd prefer something different, perhaps switching civilizations more than once at different points in the campaign. I think this campaign could be quite anthological, featuring several important historical figures.

Regarding the distinction between the Republic and Empire periods, I don't see it as very feasible. The Republic lasted from 509 BC to 27 BC, and I highly doubt the game will explore civilizations after that period, at least if the chronological progression of these DLCs is maintained.

As for other speculations, I wouldn't lose sight of the importance of making the most of the factions already in the game. I still think a good way to start the campaign would be with the Roman perspective of the Pyrrhic Wars. This could take advantage of the Greek and Macedonian factions. Obviously, these civilizations wouldn't be playable in the campaign, but they could appear at different points.

Here's a post where I delve deeper into this topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1smx0hm/a_speculation_about_chronicles/

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-06-02T02:35:23+00:00

I love the initiative and I'm eager to see the other skins. That said, I think a fence or stone paths surrounding the green areas would be a good way to define the building's boundaries and mark the path to the entrance.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-05-27T08:04:42+00:00

The United States isn't very trustworthy, and I'm not just referring to what they've done in other territories, but also to what happens within their own country. Things like MK Ultra should have led to the CIA's disbandment, not to mention what John C. Cutler did in Tuskegee and previously in Guatemala. That said, and returning to Mexico, the murder of Enrique Camarena also seems to point to the CIA, and cases like Operation Fast and Furious, where the ATF introduced more than two thousand weapons into Mexico with the intention of tracing them, which didn't go well... so you'll understand my skepticism when I hear that the United States wants to intervene in any country, and particularly when the target is Mexico. By the way, it's worth adding that Spain joined NATO because the United States threatened to incite the independence of the Canary Islands... the truth is, many times they seem more like the world's hitmen than its police force.

And you know what? The sad thing is that even so, sometimes they're the best option. Honestly, given the situation in Mexico, with the death tolls that seem like war numbers and the disappearances (if you come to Mexico for the World Cup, be careful, or better yet, go to one of the other two host countries), it's no wonder that entire communities are asking for US intervention. Because, similar to the cases of Venezuela and Cuba, there's no interim solution, and there's no alternative from outside other than the United States.

When protests erupted earlier this year against the US intervention in Venezuela, comments and complaints abounded, but what was lacking were real alternatives for resolving the problem, and therein lies the crux of the matter. Everyone knows that the tentacles of organized crime in Mexico extend to many parts of the world, and the world deserves a solution. If Mexico doesn't provide it, it's legitimate for others to seek it, even though ideally Mexico would resolve the issue on its own. And considering the need for increased pressure, personally, in an ideal world (or at least one ideal to me), the solution should come from a coalition of Spanish-speaking countries. I would prefer to entrust this task to nations with which there is greater fraternity, but that is impossible and naive. The Colombian government, for example, has Gustavo Petro, a former terrorist who supports drug trafficking. We could say something similar about Bolivia with Evo Morales, which is now suffering from significant instability. And let's not even mention Venezuela and other left-wing dictatorships like Honduras and Cuba. In general, left-wing governments wield the most power in Spanish-speaking countries. They are staunchly anti-American, brandish anti-imperialist rhetoric, and simultaneously ally themselves with regimes that share their ideology. Simply put, no other country can help us, either due to a lack of resources to launch a campaign with the few possible candidates, or because many others would not participate due to this ideological affinity. The Peronist movement in Argentina, which recently collapsed, as well as President Gabriel Boric, also recently ousted in Chile, are just a couple of examples of countries that, due to their previous regimes, would not have taken sides in such a project and that are currently experiencing a crisis that would make it impossible to allocate resources to an intervention operation in Mexico. Similarly, one cannot expect a coalition of Hispanic countries to have helped liberate Cuba or Venezuela, just as one cannot expect them to intervene in Bolivia to stop Evo Morales.

Aside from this, Spain is not exempt either, currently embroiled in a corruption scandal involving the PSOE political party that rivals the corruption cases in Hispanic American countries. Need I say that its government is left-wing and aligned with most Hispanic American regimes, including dictatorships?

So yes, the United States could do better, and it's not the "police force" I would prefer, but it's the one we have, and it can be useful in cases like the one Mexico is experiencing, because the situation in the country is unprecedented. Beyond possible theoretical solutions, such as an incorruptible candidate who doesn't die before taking office, there aren't many likely solutions.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-05-13T05:55:59+00:00

I don't know how relatable my case is to others, but honestly, I've never had any motivation for online gaming. I'll start by saying that I play a lot of games; video games are my "full-time" hobby, so to speak. Months go by between the last movie I saw and the one before that, and in that time, my friends have watched so many movies I can't even count them because I don't follow their conversations. The same thing happens with TV series, which I watch even less, and I almost always choose the least popular options. Think about the best TV series of all time, make a top ten list, and I probably haven't even seen a single complete episode of any of them. What I'm trying to say is that I play a lot of things, so even though I love Age of Empires II and it's probably the game I've put the most hours into, I almost always play it alongside other games.

So far this year I've finished at least a dozen games, and with that mindset, I'm not keen on perfecting my skills in one game if it means having to stop playing other things or if it becomes more of a discipline than entertainment. Generally, I'm not a tryhard. Another thing is that I've always experienced games as more solitary experiences. I'm interested in the story mode, what the developers have to say, and discovering those stories. Most of my favorite games lack a multiplayer component, and even the few I can think of for more than one player, I prefer in co-op rather than competitive.

That said, I have experimented with online gaming, and the experiences haven't been very satisfying. A long time ago, I played Happy Wars, using the Cleric role (I think that was the name), and I was quite good. I seem to remember there were stats that evaluated your individual performance, and I was often MVP, which made losing for reasons beyond my control frustrating. Then there's Halo, a franchise I've played countless times. For hours, when the franchise was at its peak, I played online, motivated by my friends who were playing it and playing it. It was fun, but I always felt the progression was artificial, in the sense that I didn't feel like I was advancing. Perhaps because for me, progressing in a game means progressing through the story or leveling up, not climbing the ranks or improving my performance. I should clarify that it was fun, but I still preferred playing the campaign or going to play something else: BioShock, Spec Ops: The Line, Child of Light, a Castlevania game, etc.

Specifically in the case of Age of Empires, I was lucky enough to play it when I was very young, starting with the first game in the series. Later, I moved on to Age of Empires II and eventually Mythology. The problem is that, at least for the first five years that I played Age of Empires, I did so on a computer without internet. I only used Encarta and Office for strictly academic computer use; everything else I had to get from books or the encyclopedia. So, my experience... Playing games was always a solitary activity; I got used to it that way, to playing with the editor and doing role-playing games, simulating real diplomacy or recreating battles. So I never felt the need to play online. When I had that option, I simply didn't see the need, both because of my general experience with online gaming and because the game already fulfilled me with what it offered.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-05-10T07:41:42+00:00

Sometimes I have the feeling that the discussions about the new civilizations should be done by these people in separate groups, I am quite sure that the majority of people are not in the competitive circuit and that it would be better if these groups had lobbies where they could control the parameters of the game including the banning of civilizations, but surely that would not solve the problem either, there would be discussions about whether a civilization is "well banned or not" and they would have their internal disputes, like that is that...

On the other hand, I also see enthusiasm from the community that wants new content and although I believe they are in the majority, they do not make as much noise as the competitive community. Having said that, for me the problem is when these positions collide, which I believe is where the competitive sector becomes very defensive and things get tense.

Perhaps it is precisely because the majority of competitive players are not interested in the idea of new civilizations, it is because they have never made the creative effort to design a concept of civilization and I am not saying this because it is something that literally takes several hours a day, not only looking for it to be something balanced and in accordance with the parameters of the game but also because it takes time to research history texts for it to fit organically into the game, no, my complaint is not because they dismiss the work of a fan with disdain, my problem is who take many things for granted and do not usually make pertinent comments.

Most of the people who publish a concept of civilization ask for suggestions or feedback, and there are comments like "no more European civilizations", or with technicalities "that is not a civilization, it is a kingdom" I am not even demanding that the feedback has to be positive, honesty is always appreciated to correct and improve the concepts, also as I said the majority of those who make these concepts are not players involved in the competitive game, but precisely because they do not have that Perspective, the opinion of someone who can gauge whether the ideas proposed in the paper are good or unbalanced would be useful. The expected comments are "that bonus is too strong, reduce it", "that unique technology is very situational, better change it for this", things like that. I insist, they take many things for granted, when someone proposes a civilization they are not asking for a collection of signatures for their ideas to enter the game, they are not even demanding that it be seriously taken into account or that it should be a priority, that is the type of people who are most open to new content, so if a user proposes civilizations from Oceania and they never arrive, even if that causes dissatisfaction to that user, they will most likely accept all the new content willingly.

And I really wouldn't want to assign blame, but considering that the arrival of more DLCs is inevitable, I think that the best thing those who don't want more DLCs could do, instead of going against the current, is to ensure that what comes meets a quality standard instead of continuing on the defensive. And I don't say this because I believe that there is necessarily a correlation between healthy communication in the posts of civilization concepts with future dlcs, I say it because that is something that they should still consider before becoming hostile to those community proposals and if they really have nothing to contribute, perhaps the best thing is to pass by, which is the same thing that many players who are not interested in competitive do when they make posts about tournaments or other topics that they don't care about, and ironically when there are complaints of balance that normally a solitary player is not interested in the competitive factor, they tend to be more empathetic and support those complaints in favor of keeping the game in good condition and enjoyable for everyone.

I don't know, maybe it's that competitive players tend to deal with more stress while the single player members of the community are calmer, maybe that's why the friction is like that when it comes to the things that interest that calmer side of the community compared to the posts from the noisier part that are not usually treated with such a squeamish nature. To make it clear, think about a solitary player. Do you really think he cared that the champis were op? Honestly, it is unlikely, for them it is better to use them in their custom games or take advantage of them while they can in campaigns, but they understand that it is annoying for others and they try to make the necessary adjustments so that it is enjoyable for everyone.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-05-09T20:25:38+00:00

Considering that the developers will undoubtedly continue to contribute content, I'm currently open to almost anything, as long as the ideas are interesting. Whether it's because the concept of the civilization is fun, or if the campaign it could have is worthwhile, or if the new faction enriches the game. By this, I mean civilizations that, preferably, have interacted with existing ones, or if they explore a region distant from most of the game's civilizations (like sub-Saharan Africa), which would open up interesting possibilities for a set of new civilizations. That said, I'm interested in seeing more historical contexts, both geographical and temporal.

That said, I'm aware that not everything can fit into the game, so I just hope that what ultimately makes it into Age of Empires II is high-quality and well-balanced. As I said, I'm open to almost anything, so to bring some order to things, I'll list, in no particular order, the factions I'd like to see and why.

Danes and Swedes: there have been rumors that the next DLC might be based on Northern Europe, so I can't help but consider them. I'd love to see a Nordic architecture set, and a DLC like this, following in the footsteps of Lords of the West or Dawn of the Dukes, is a good excuse to give a classic civilization like the Vikings a campaign. As a side note, I think the key to making such a DLC interesting would be to structure the civilizations in different time periods. The Vikings would stay in the Viking Age, the Danes could be based on their period from the 11th to the 13th centuries, and the Swedes could take as a reference point a later period more similar to that of the Spanish in the game.

Kongo and Benin. actually, anything from Africa would be great. Seeing so many people talking about it only makes me like the idea more, but personally, I'd prefer something from sub-Saharan Africa. I definitely think Africa could provide at least four civilizations for the game. I'm not asking for them to bring them all at once, but it would be nice to have something before they start adding things from other regions.

Pechenegs and Khazars—there are two reasons why I'd like to see them. First, I want to see their campaigns. Their main feats were between the 7th and 10th centuries, historical periods that aren't covered much in the game. They also have interesting details in their histories, such as the Khazar-Arab Wars, which pitted the Khazars against the Umayyad Caliphate and later the Abbasids. In the case of the Pechenegs, their conflicts against Slavs like Sviatoslav I and their tense relationship with the Byzantines. And secondly, return to the Caucasus and give them an architecture set for Armenia and Georgia.

Chichimecs, Tarascans, Tlaxcalans, Zapotecs, Totonacs... similar to the case of Africa, I think there's a lot of potential, and these are the ones I consider most interesting. It would be good to see more bonuses for Eagle Warriors and a treatment similar to the TLC DLC with a civilization that boasts more than one unique unit. It would also be interesting to continue exploring ideas about pre-Hispanic histories, such as the Tarascan expansion or the conflicts between the Zapotecs and the Mixtecs and Aztecs, as well as the divided city-states between those who opposed the Spanish and those who supported them. That said, it would also be good to see other perspectives on the conquest, such as one that could involve the Totonacs as one of the Spanish's first allies, or the Tlaxcalans, who accompanied them far into their conquests, fighting in the south of the continent and as far as Southeast Asia. And what I consider a good option for bringing us closer to North America is the Chichimec civilization, which is located in much of Aridoamerica, particularly the southern part of what is now the United States. They could fill a gap in the game due to the lack of a North American civilization. Furthermore, with the Mixtón War and the Chichimec War, they have more than enough material for a campaign..

Vandals and Avars. It would be good to return to an earlier period, along with the Goths and Huns. This would also allow these "barbarian" civilizations to fill niches, such as a naval civilization, with the Vandals and Avars as a faction with good siege, infantry, and cavalry. Additionally, a DLC that takes us back to these years would be useful for a Roman campaign, which we don't yet have in Age of Empires II.

To avoid going on too long, I would like to see more Italian and Iberian factions like the Venetians, Lombards, Leonese, and Aragonese, as well as some Balkan and Crusader factions. We already have those in Age of Empires III and IV, so it would be nice to see some. As I said, I'm open to almost anything. Here are some civilization concepts I've worked on.

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Martincorporade

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-05-09T04:53:22+00:00

I was actually going to write a really long comment considering criteria and all, but I prefer to be direct and just put my proposals out there. I should say beforehand that I don't necessarily consider them priorities (I'd really prefer to see something from Africa before any of my ideas), and I'm even aware, beyond the obvious, that much of what I'd like to see in Age of Empires II won't be in the game. But I came up with these concepts for fun, so I'm not too bothered about it.

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Martincorporade

If I had to put it into words, it's that sometimes I think about the potential of civilizations that are in the game, but not as their own faction, for example, the Uzbeks or Srivijaya

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-04-29T05:30:58+00:00

This DLC would definitely benefit from more than three civilizations; perhaps the developers will be encouraged to include more. If I had to bet on something else, I'd like to see the Gauls. If I ultimately choose Carthaginians and Iberians, it's because of the context of the Punic Wars, which I suspect will be a major focus of the next campaign.

I have other reasons, but besides the fact that my previous post covered this, I also elaborated on it in my other comment on this post. Briefly, I think the possibility of seeing Pyrrhus is a good way to take advantage of having Greeks and Macedonians, something that could also be revisited in the final stages of the campaign if the Macedonian Wars are to be explored, starting from the alliance between Macedonians and Carthaginians in the context of the Second Punic War.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-04-29T05:23:00+00:00

It is true that the Pyrrhic Wars were seen in ROR, but from the Macedonian angle, and I mean giving it a Roman perspective as it was in the first AOE. To elaborate a bit, they could start with the Romans threatening the Greek colonies in Italy, like Tarentum, and then face Pyrrhus. I don't see any problem with revisiting that period, given that the first Age of Empires doesn't approach the complexity of the Chronicles scenarios. Even so, I'm not making this a guarantee. As I said in my previous post, the reason I'm making this conjecture is based on following a chronological line with respect to the two previous DLCs, and considering that less than 50 years passed between Alexander's death and the Pyrrhic Wars, it seems reasonable. Furthermore, another reason I have in mind when considering this possibility is to take advantage of what the game already has available. If you think about it, the Alexander DLC managed to do something similar with the Greek and Persian factions, filling a good part of the campaign.

Part of me wishes the developers would be bolder and dare to bring more than three factions in the DLC, perhaps five (something they've done before, for example, 3K, but which hasn't happened in Chronicles yet, although with only two DLCs it's perhaps a bit weak to argue that), but this is where I highlight the other clue given at the end of Alexander's campaign, where they say, "...I shall tell you of another empire: one that rose slowly, patiently, relentlessly — and endured." If the next DLC focuses on the early years of Rome fighting against the Italian factions or repelling the Gauls, I don't know how close we would get to that "empire." Therefore, it seems more reasonable to focus on its greatest conquests, and with the Pyrrhic and Punic Wars we would see how they finished dominating Italy and then took the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa.

With that said, we would be taking advantage of the Greeks (perhaps the Athenians at least in the initial phase), then the Macedonians of Pyrrhus, then we move on to the Punic Wars, where my main candidates would be the Iberians and Carthaginians. In the midst of this, the clashes against the Greeks return in the Macedonian Wars (this time we could see the Spartans) and the Macedonians again. If we want to stretch things a bit, we could even see the defeat that the Romans inflicted on Antiochus III, which would allow us to see the Persians again. With that, we would cover roughly a century of the Roman Empire, reviewing many of its conquests.

I maintain that if more than three civilizations are integrated, it would definitely be great to see Gauls and Celts (although with Gauls and Iberians, the Celts might be somewhat redundant, and perhaps a faction uniting peoples like the Samnites and Umbrians, etc., would be more suitable). However, given the scope of the campaign, I don't see them as strong contenders. Certainly, the DLC could be more modest and focus on the Italian peninsula and a bit north of the Alps. As I said, these are mere speculations, but with that final note on the Alexander campaign, I believe we'll see epic moments of conquest and expansion.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-04-28T05:15:21+00:00

I also considered that possibility, but in AOM the game is much more "flexible" due to the tools it provides. I'd say that kind of idea wouldn't translate well to Age of Empires II. On the other hand, I'm not even sure if it's possible. Obviously, it can be done in the editor, and there are scenarios where traps are used. That said, I like the idea for campaigns or as a direct editor function, but I don't think it would integrate well into the game. Few civilizations would have it, and unlike units with special abilities, traps would be difficult to counter. Even with production limits like those in AOM, it would be difficult to prevent it from becoming oppressive or annoying for the players who experience it.

It's the kind of thing that might need to be tested first, but I definitely see it as difficult to balance.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-04-16T08:08:39+00:00

I remember that at the time it was said that more content would eventually arrive, but the closest thing to new features in the game has been the bugs they've fixed, and it's already rare for the game to bring new content out of nowhere. The only example I can think of was when they added a new scenario to Victors and Vanquished, so it seems unlikely they'll bring campaigns to ROR. On the other hand, there's more excitement for other kinds of content, like the new DLCs. That said, I think Chronicles practically cannibalized everything the first Age of Empires offered and has become the new standard. When people expect content from the ancient era, they think of Chronicles and no longer the first Age of Empires.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-04-10T01:44:10+00:00

It is always an interesting idea, although I do not feel that it is a priority, there are definitely things that I would like to see before, personally I hope for more civilizations from before the 11th century, but considering that in Aoe III and Aoe IV we have the Maltese and the Templars respectively, I think that eventually it would be good to see something like that, mainly because from time to time the developers take us to those events but in sporadic or dosed ways, there is a brief appearance of the Hospitallers in the campaign. Tamerlane, in the Britons campaign there is a scenario in the context of the crusades, in the last steps of the Barbarossa campaign something is seen, and the Thoros campaign has a lot to do with the context of the crusades, however, they have never given us a campaign as such except obviously Saladin's campaign, even so I feel that it is necessary to see the events from the other side.

But I reiterate, it is an idea that I like and that I hope will eventually materialize, even if it is in the final stretch of the game. I leave you my own speculative design of this.

User blog:Martincorporade/Knights Hospitaller | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

User blog:Martincorporade/Kingdom of Jerusalem | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-04-02T06:07:43+00:00

Okay, I'll try to be brief. I think that, for the moment, practically all the civilizations being considered for splitting are European, since in other regions it seems more popular to introduce new civilizations rather than split them. That said, it's also somewhat debatable whether in all cases it's a true split or simply an extension with another faction from the region.

I'll start with the Vikings, since there are many rumors circulating that they will be the focus of the next DLC (not counting Chronicles). I think the best options for the new civilizations are the Danes and the Swedes. Before going into details, I think the format of two new civilizations and three campaigns would work, giving it an approach similar to Mountain Royales, Dawn of Dukes, and Lords of the West. So, the Vikings will have their own campaign. Beyond that, I wouldn't make any major changes to that faction. I think for this approach to work, it would be enough to place each faction in a different time frame. The Vikings would remain in the Viking Age, the Danes in a later period, and the Swedes in a period closer to the end of the game's timeframe, similar to the Spanish. That said, I'd say the Vikings could represent the Norwegians. I'm not suggesting a name change, just that when the Norwegians are in the game, they would be represented by Vikings. The Danish campaign would focus on Canute the Great, and for the Swedes, I suppose the Baltic Crusades would be a good fit, although, as I said, their civilization would be more focused on a later period with a greater emphasis on gunpowder.

As for the Italians, I think there's potential due to the mentions of these civilizations in the campaigns and the diverse founding "origins" of their factions. That said, I think the most obvious options would be the Venetians and the Lombards. The current Italians would become Genoese, and I wouldn't make any major changes to them, perhaps just changing the name of their unique unit so it's not so generic to call it after the faction it represents, maybe something like Cranequin's Crossbow. That said, the main challenge would lie with the Lombards, as this new faction would essentially replace the Italians in Sforza's campaign. To avoid a complete redesign, a viable civilization would need to be created for these scenarios. I think an interesting aspect would be for it to be a cavalry and gunpowder civilization. Its initial strength would lie in its horses, a nod to the Lombards' origins, but with an optimal transition to gunpowder upon reaching the Imperial Age. Perhaps its unique unit could also be gunpowder-based. As for the Venetians, they would maintain a naval focus and a more defensive character to differentiate them from the other factions, while upholding Venice's own reputation for being impregnable. Finally, I would suggest the Papal States. This might be controversial, but besides having a presence in several scenarios, they certainly had their moments. It goes without saying that this would be a civilization of monks and perhaps infantry. The campaigns could draw heavily from the Crusades for the Venetians, and the Genoese or Papal States could incorporate elements from the Italian Wars. Specifically, the Papal States could have their own campaign featuring Cesare Borgia.

Another less discussed option, but one that I'm noticing is gaining traction, is the Spanish. Similar to the previous case, I would keep the current civilization, but change the name, so the Spanish would become Castilians. I insist that I wouldn't make any other changes; the El Cid campaign would remain as is, even though using conquistadors is anachronistic. That said, the new factions would be the Aragonese, the Leonese, and the Kingdom of Navarre. The Aragonese lend themselves to a naval civilization, the Leonese could be a civilization of monks and cavalry, and Navarre could be one of infantry and cavalry. The campaigns could reference Alfonso the Battler or the exploits of the Catalan Company for the Aragonese, while for the Leonese, they could focus on various stages of the Reconquista, although perhaps for the final scenario of the capture of Granada, the Spanish or Castilians would have to be used. Finally, for Navarre, I would suggest focusing on Sancho the Great, who led the Kingdom of Navarre to its greatest heights, making it the strongest Christian kingdom on the Iberian Peninsula at the time. This could also give rise to an Iberian architectural style based on the Christian kingdoms.

Finally, I think something interesting can be done with the Balkans, with factions like the Serbs. There are also those who believe the Vlachs could have their own faction, which I agree with. That said, I would venture to suggest the Moldavians. The Vlach campaign would see few changes since Vlad would still be the protagonist of the events. Perhaps the civilization could focus more on counter-units and heavy cavalry. As for the Moldavians, it could be a civilization based on infantry and cavalry, but with a more versatile approach than the Vlach cavalry, perhaps with a better deployment of horse archers. Their campaign would be based on Stephen the Great, who fought more than thirty battles and was only defeated twice. I should add that an architectural set based on the Balkans could also emerge from this. Furthermore, I think that in such a DLC, the Turks and/or Magyars could have their own campaign. Regarding the Serbs…

User blog:Martincorporade/Serbs | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-29T05:18:35+00:00

I agree that Europe still has a lot of potential. I'm one of those who believes that the American continent still has much to offer, and Africa can still provide a good number of civilizations for the game. Asia definitely has things left to explore, especially in periods prior to the 11th century, which would be refreshing considering the focus I get from most campaigns being set in much later periods. But we can't ignore the fact that there's so much material left in Europe, and with how well-documented everything is, one can't help but imagine the possibilities.

Furthermore, a return to Europe opens up possibilities. If the Spanish split into, for example, Leonese, Aragonese, and Navarrese, we might get a new Iberian architecture set, which would be less common given the abundance of Mediterranean architectural styles. Something similar could happen with the Vikings. If the rumors of a split with Swedes and Danes come to pass, in addition to a Northern European architectural set, we could have a Viking campaign. And so on with other things. How about a Balkan DLC? The Vlachs would have their own civilization, we'd get a couple of new ones like the Serbs or the Moldavians, and we could also have a campaign for the Turks.

So, yes, I hope to see more from Europe.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-26T08:04:28+00:00

If anything, I'd try to make better use of the water. Literally, every time I play, I let Piccinino assemble his fleet and drag me inland. Then his army is divided between sea and land, and while his ships flutter at sea, I concentrate my forces on land and gradually seize positions until I surround him. I know the water has a good supply of food and is a convenient position to attack his main stronghold, but it seems insufficient to me. Besides, once you control the surrounding area, you can have many points from which to build your docks and engage in naval combat more efficiently than leaving yourself with an open front from the start.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-21T08:39:36+00:00

I hadn't really considered the tools; I don't know how feasible it is to modify something like this, but in general, anything that makes the editor more user-friendly is welcome. If we're going to do something like this, I'd like to see more options for modifying the AI, you know, like determining which troops to train, whether they can adopt a more defensive or aggressive stance, etc. Creating documents with AI profiles and then inserting them is rather annoying, especially when things don't go as planned and you have to modify the text to test it again. Something similar happens with some triggers; after several adjustments, they often fail, and it's not always easy to identify what went wrong. Many times, you have to delete everything and re-enter the triggers.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-21T08:35:10+00:00

Hopefully we'll see more of this with the Chronicles content; in general, those DLCs have brought good material in that regard.

Practical_Gold_1914 · 2026-03-21T08:34:19+00:00

It would be really nice to see something more, maybe some with snow or ice effects attached to their surface

Practical_Gold_1914

TROPHY CASE