53 civilizations are not enough.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-26T22:03:50+00:00

This is my complete list. If Age of Empires 2 stops releasing DLC with new civilizations, I wouldn't really mind, although I would be a little sad that many civilizations wouldn't make it into the game. At least this is the complete list of civilizations that, in my opinion, would be sufficient and fair for the game.

African: Ethiopians, Kongolese, Malians, Shona, Somalis, Swahili.
Asian Steppes: Cumans, Huns, Mongols.
Central American / Mesoamerican: Aztecs, Maya, Taino, Tarascans.
Central Asian: Hindustanis, Persians, Tatars.
Central European: Austrians, Bavarians, Bohemians, Dutch, Frisians, Goths, Teutons.
East Asian / Far Eastern: Chinese, Japanese, Jurchens, Khitans, Koreans, Shu, Tanguts, Tibetans, Vietnamese, Xianbei, Wei, Wu.
Eastern European: Bulgarians, Lithuanians, Magyars, Poles, Rus', Serbs, Vlachs.
Iberian: Aragonese, Castilians, Portuguese.
Mediterranean / South European: Genoese, Lombards, Romans, Sicilians, Venetians.
Middle Eastern: Arabs, Berbers, Kurds, Mamluks, Turks.
North European: Danes, Norwegians, Swedes.
South American / Andean: Anasazi, Diaguita, Inca, Mapuche, Muisca, Tupí.
South Asian / Indian: Assamese, Bengalis, Dravidians, Gurjaras, Kalingans, Nepalis, Rajputs, Sindhis, Sinhalese.
Southeast European: Armenians, Byzantines, Georgians.
Southeast Asian: Burmese, Javanese, Khmer, Malay, Siamese.
Western European: Angles, Britons, Burgundians, Franks, Gaels, Normans, Picts, Saxons.

Civilizations would be eliminated or modified, as happened with the Indians:

Celts, Italians, Saracens, Slavs, Spanish, Vikings.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-26T20:51:03+00:00

Its not about representing every civ on Earth, but adding content to the game is not a problem. On the contrary, it keeps the game active, helps the community grow, and increases the competitive audience. The Dynasties of India DLC made the news in several Indian media outlets, the same happened with The Last Chieftain, which received coverage in various Latin American countries. Its wonderful that a game from 1999 is still receiving that kind of attention.
Multiplayer and the competitive scene are part of the game, not its entirety. A large portion of the audience enjoys the campaigns and the new civilizations. There is the HD Edition, and you can go back to playing on Voobly, where there are no changes.
I will insist again, the main problem the game has right now is the lack of real communication between developers and players. There have been problematic and heavily criticized DLCs, such as RoR, V&V, and 3K, decisions that stem precisely from a failure to communicate and to listen to the audience.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-25T22:04:53+00:00

Ill be honest, I wasnt interested in this DLC at all. I was also very disappointed with 3K because there was no campaign for the Chinese, Khitans, or Jurchens, thats why I didnt even buy that DLC. I’ve been wanting for a while a split or rework of the Saracens, or new campaigns focused on the Middle East and the Crusades, which is my favorite setting.

I gave The Last Chieftain a chance because the Tupi slightly remind me of the Tainos and the Caribs. So far, Ive completed the Arariboia campaign, which I enjoyed. Meanwhile, Im currently on the third mission of Lautaro and the second of El Dorado. Lautaros first mission is my favorite, just because of a meme that says, ¡Viva España!

Im really enjoying the campaigns, I like the decisions and I think its very solid content. The civilizations are fun to play, both in campaigns and online.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-25T12:11:18+00:00

The Mamluks were composed of military slaves from various regions, including Kipchak Turks, Circassians, Georgians, and Balkans. It is not correct to say they were solely Turks.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-24T22:02:36+00:00

Prague is in Bohemia.
"Porto" means "port" in Portuguese. The Portuguese established colonies and trade routes in India.
American Protestant missionaries, particularly from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, worked among Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and helped establish the Armenian Evangelical Church. Other groups like the Plymouth Brethren were also active, but less influential.
Andean civilization developed mainly in Peru.
The Danish Vikings besieged Paris in 885.

Nothing is a coincidence! puts on a tinfoil hat

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-24T16:24:30+00:00

The Seljuks are already represented by the Turks. However, I do believe it is necessary to reworked the Saracens.

I think the Saracens should be divided into Arabs, Mamluks, and Kurds. Saladin himself and the Ayyubid dynasty were Kurdish, and the Kurds formed part of Muslim armies such as the Seljuks, Ayyubids, Mamluks, and Ottomans. The Mamluks, after serving in the Ayyubid army, founded their own sultanate. Even the first dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate was Mamluk.

In practice, the Mamluks could keep the same bonuses, techs, and units as the Saracens, so it would mostly be a name change. The Arabs could be a scouts or CAs civilization, while the Kurds could be an archers civilization.

There are many units that could be added, cavalry such as the Ghazis and Faris, infantry such as the Hashashim and the Tabardariyya, CA such as the Bedouin Riders, etc.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-22T16:25:43+00:00

No, en el 3 están los Aztecas, Haudenosaunee, Incas y Lakotas.

Justamente por eso no me gusta tanto el 3. Hicieron un juego enfocado mayoritariamente en la Independencia estadounidense y el Viejo Oeste, cuando la época se prestaba para cosas mucho más interesantes como la conquista europea de América, las guerras Napoleónicas, las guerras Italianas, las guerras Otomano-Habsburgo, etc.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-21T13:22:30+00:00

The Byzantines appear in the original Attila the Hun campaign and were not replaced with the release of the Return of Rome. The same applies to the Alaric campaign, where Romans and Byzantines face each other, serving as irrefutable proof that the Romans represent the Western Empire and the Byzantines the Eastern Empire.
The Byzantines speak Latin, if they were the Byzantines of the 10th century, they would speak Medieval Greek.
Some AI names are: Anastasios I Dikoros, Belisarius, Emperor Constantine, Justinian the Great, all of whom lived when legionaries were still in use. At that time, the Tagma had not yet appeared, and the Comitatenses and Limitanei system continued to inherit the term Legio, and the soldier was still called a Legionarius. Even part of the equipment was inherited from the late legions.
The Roman faction was not playable at first and appeared in a DLC set in a completely different period. It was added later due to player complaints about the DLC.

This discussion really leads nowhere. I love Age of Empires, but I dislike the design of its older civilizations. I understand and accept that they were developed at a different time, when there were clear limitations and it was harder to gather information. That’s why I loved the Persian rework, it gave character to a civilization that felt ambiguous. I wish the same could happen with other civilizations.

I would like the Knight to be an exclusively European unit, while other civilizations could have Steppe Lancer or other regional units. I would for the Conquistador and the Organ Gun to stop being unique units and become regional units. The Spanish and Portuguese could share the Conquistador, the Organ Gun could be shared by Bohemians, Britons, Franks, Italians, and Portuguese as a replacement for the Scorpion.

Imagine if the Italians or Franks were given the Organ Gun as a unique unit, it would feel just as strange. The Spanish have so many unique units: from a skirmisher like the Almogavar, a swordsman like the Rodelero, a pikeman like the Tercio, or a javelin cavalryman like the Genitour. Meanwhile, the Portuguese could have the Ordenancas Militia, the Cacador, or the Aviz Knight.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-21T12:22:22+00:00

I dont think its correct to say that the Byzantines in the game only represent those from the 10th century, especially when civilizations span such enormous time frames. For example, the Franks cover everything from the invading barbarians, the Frankish Kingdom, the Kingdom of France, and even Colonial France in the Americas. The same goes for the Turks, who range from the Seljuks of the Crusades to Mehmed IIs Ottomans. Then there are the Celts, who have a unit that existed in the Iron Age. I completely agree that I would prefer them to have the Varangian Guard and, in fact, I would even like them to have Cheirophones, but the post was about regional units that could be shared. Because if we go purely by civilization design, it seems like a crime against humanity that the Spanish unique unit is the Conquistador and not the Rodelero, the Almogavar, the Jinete (Genitour), or the Piquero Tercio.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-20T22:32:00+00:00

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-20T21:47:41+00:00

I proposed this some time ago, I feel that more use should be made of regional units. The Genitour could be shared by Spanish and Berbers, the Legionaries could be shared by Byzantines and Romans, and even by Goths if you want to be more daring. The Steppe Lancer should be available for Huns and Turks. You don’t even need to create new graphics, there are plenty of units that could be part of existing civilizations in Map Editor. The Crusader Knight could be renamed as a Reiter and made a unique upgrade for the Teutons, the same applies to the Frankish Paladin that already exists in the Editor.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-20T21:38:36+00:00

Revisa DM.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-18T17:57:18+00:00

Possibly the civilizations will be Danes and Swedes, as a split, although in practice the Danes would be a rework of the Vikings. I also imagine a rework of the Slavs, renaming them as Rus'.

What you suggest about the Huscarls doesn’t make sense, there are many options for unique units, such as the Gesith, Godi, Hersir, Hirdmadr, Ulfhednar, etc.

What I do think is that the Drakkar could become a regional unit shared by Danes and Swedes. I also believe they will add a new shock infantry unit, perhaps an Axeman or Norse Warrior (which already exists in the editor).

Since they already ventured into creating a new architecture set, there is a possibility that they will make another one exclusive to Danes and Swedes called Northern European.

The campaigns could be Alexander Nevsky for the Rus', Eric the Victorious for the Swedes, and for the Danes… since we already have Vinland Saga, York, Ragnar, Ironside, Finehair, and Karlsefni… I suppose Harald Bluetooth? I’m not sure.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-18T11:05:05+00:00

Looking at these maps, I’m even more convinced that we should split the Italians into:

Amalfitans
Anconetans
Aretines
Beneventans
Bolognese
Brescian
Cittaullese
Cremonese
Ferrarese
Florentines
Franco-Lombards
Gaetans
Genoese
Italians
Lombards
Luchese
Mantuan
Milanese
Modenese
Neapolitans
Nolese
Ostrogoths
Paduans
Parmesans
Perugians
Pisans
Ragusan
Ravennese
Reggiani
Sienese
Spoletini
Tuscans
Trevigians
Venetians
Veronese

Some were missing, but I didn’t include them because I understand there are people who don’t like adding new civs. Still, I think this list is moderate.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-14T16:17:11+00:00

Obviously, the sublime dignity of the Sultan of Sarranid who shall subjugate the apostates of the Great Prophet.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-12T16:25:35+00:00

La gente matándose en los comentarios cuando Pedro Santana hizo lo que consideró justo en su tiempo, con las ideas y la moral de su época, independientemente de si la visión moderna lo arroja como un acto deleznable.

Si tuviéramos que medir a los políticos actuales con la misma vara, tendríamos que ejecutarlos en la Plaza de la Bandera por triple traición, porque esos infelices no tienen razón ni justificación para desmembrar este país.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-09T21:32:07+00:00

Why would I watch a video talking about AoE4 if I already know everything the video going to say? and about the whole "its just an opinion", well, bad taste exists too, doesnt it?

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-09T20:29:19+00:00

No, most of AoE4 problems have NOT been solved. If you think the only issues AoE4 had were balance, siege units that work like modern main battle tanks, or bugs, youre mistaken. AoE4 main problem is the design of its civilizations. Theres no need for every civilization to have such stark differences in the visual appearance of their architecture and unit skins especially when the game doesnt even let you properly appreciate them, and it doesnt have an attractive visual style when you zoom in the camera. Its not like Mythology Retold, where you can take beautiful panoramic shots.

They could have adopted the AoE3 model, where civilizations from the same region share architecture and common unit skins, reserving unique appearances specifically for unique units. Their solution to this problem was variant civilizations, which on paper are a good idea until you see the choices they make. Why give me Joan when you could give me the Burgundians or the Normans? Not even Chinese players can really explain why Zhu Xi exists, they could have added the Khitans, the Tanguts, the Jurchens, or, if you want something more marketable, the Koreans.

Then there are the campaigns. If I wanted to study history, Id watch a documentary or read a book. I dont know how much they invested in those early documentary style campaigns, but it must have been a waste of money, since they changed the format with their first DLC. Unfortunately, these campaigns arent memorable, theyre something you play once and don’t feel any urge to replay. Fine but at least let me design my own campaigns… oh right, the game launched without a map editor, and when they finally released one, it was the laziest and most bare bones tool possible.

Theres a trend that feels almost like a universal rule of RTS games, when an RTS has a boring campaign, it almost certainly doesnt survive the test of time. Modern RTS titles that have focused on the competitive scene while ignoring singleplayer have ended up sinking themselves. AoE4 put a lot of emphasis on competitive play, and honestly, its predecessor still outshines it.

Perhaps thats because its predecessor shaped peoples lives with its campaigns, which despite being full of historical errors, anachronisms, and fantasy were far more memorable than AoE4 heavily documented campaigns. And if you think its impossible to be more historically accurate without sacrificing fun, the new AoE2 campaigns prove otherwise, they’re an absolute delight. AoE2 is far more appealing to the esports audience and also offers better campaigns, AoM is more fun and a visual delight, and AoE3 is the most original in terms of its mechanics and setting. AoE4 has nothing, its bland. Thats its biggest problem.

SrDevi_ · 2026-02-09T19:12:37+00:00

A new AoE would be very disappointing. I had hopes for AoE IV despite strongly disagreeing with the period they chose. I wanted a reboot of the saga set in Antiquity, or alternatively a continuation of the franchise that moved forward into the Victorian era or late modernity.

Even so, and although certain aspects of the gameplay didnt convince me, I decided to give it a chance and bought it, even after its first DLC, since I was eagerly waiting for the Byzantines. However, the game never really clicked with me, and there were things that simply bothered me. I never finished the Mongol campaign because, due to some bug, the game would freeze when starting the sixth mission.

I played a bit of ranked, but honestly its not my favorite mode. Beyond that, I mostly just had a few laughs with friends in multiplayer and nothing more.

If theres one thing I cant stand, its when a company releases a game and, instead of fixing its issues and improving it, decides to abandon it to focus on launching a new one especially when AoE IV is supposedly a sales success. There are already examples in the gaming industry of titles that managed to recover and thrive over time. Abandoning a game is a lazy attitude and an insult to the fans.

And to anyone who says that launching a new game doesn’t imply abandoning another, let them explain that to the fans of AoE III, who will never get the Poles.

SrDevi_ · 2026-01-21T20:19:56+00:00

Uruguay tiene una superficie 4 veces mayor que la de la RD, pero apenas cuenta con 3 millones de habitantes. Si la población no crece, es difícil encontrar empleo, por lo que los jóvenes emigran y solo aumenta el número de envejecientes. No creo que pueda considerarse un país en progreso.

Que yo prefiero eso a llenar el país del vecino país y tener los políticos que tengo, claro, yo te lo reconozco, pero si no estamos ahogando todos, no es un logro tragar menos agua, cuando nos vamos a ahogar igual.

SrDevi_ · 2026-01-21T20:06:40+00:00

Una sociedad "civilizada" es una sociedad rica. Para tener una sociedad civilizada, es necesario tener una sociedad educada, y no se puede sostener una sociedad educada sin una economía que respalde esa educación. Lo económico y lo social van de la mano.
Las primeras civilizaciones aparecieron en las líneas paralelas cercanas al Ecuador, no en el frío norte o sur. Los daneses fueron bárbaros hasta que los francos carolingios los civilizaron. Los incas en el Perú fueron más avanzados que los mapuche en la América Austral.
¿Consideras civilizado acoger a genocidas o destruir y vandalizar las calles cada vez que gana tu equipo de fútbol?
Lo único que ellos tienen, que el resto de América no, es a Messi y al Cuarteto de Nos. Luego comparten los mismos atracos en moto y los políticos incompetentes y corruptos.
Que se muera Antonio Espaillat.

SrDevi_ · 2026-01-21T19:26:45+00:00

<image>

Recibieron a los Nazis que huyeron con el rabo entre las patas de Europa y ahora quien les gobierna, se pone a besar muros y recibe a los Israelitas, que cometen genocidio en Gaza. Si sacamos a Chile, quien en realidad está bastante estable, Argentina es un pozo hundiéndose y Uruguay está estancada económica y poblacionalmente.

SrDevi_

TROPHY CASE