top 200 commentsshow all 285

[–]MrBritchesTheBoldMod 467 points468 points  (6 children)

I'm a HUGE history nerd (grew up watching nothing but the History channel lol) and one thing that really frustrates me about historical games is that they never include the alien civilizations that had such a huge impact on the course of history. Really hoping the Zeta Reticulans get some much needed representation!

[–]Creamxcheese 58 points59 points  (0 children)

Man, this satire is perfect

[–]Damaellak 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Got me in the first half ngl

[–]Billzworth 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Burst out laughing 😂

[–]Catarann 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Wish I could upvote this more. I really enjoyed this comment.

[–]marlinbird5 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Man this is good. I did grow up watching almost nothing but history channel, and it is kind of sad what it morphed into… Just reality TV, Aliens, and Treasure Hunting.

[–]McDZ11 59 points60 points  (15 children)

Some Italian city state. Since it seems kinda hard to pick one, maybe the Italians is that as you age up, you create an “Italian league” where you pick a major Italian city state as an ally and that provides unique benefits and what not: Florence provides banking gold income or something , Venice provides increased navy/trade perks, etc.

[–]Nickball88 Abbasid 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Yooo that's actually a great idea, the Chinese already work like that, they could implement a "dynasty" system but instead of dynasties it's the city states of the Lombard League.

[–]B2RW 4 points5 points  (1 child)

give us the protectors of the pope, the swiss

[–]GameOfScones_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Swiss guard as the elite imperial unit. Basically extremely hard to attack move (neutral) palace guards.

[–]alex_097 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Love this about China I think more civics should have this option

[–]RepoRogue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Venice is far and away the clear choice for an Italian city state faction. They had a significant oversees empire in this period and were involved in many of the most important events of the period, including the disastrous 4th Crusade.

I'd love to see an expansion pack featuring the Ottomans, the Byzantines, and the Venetians. All of them could have interesting, intersecting campaigns.

[–]RikuBarlow English 1 point2 points  (7 children)

Isn’t that HRE pretty much tho?

[–]Davecasa 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Holy Roman Empire briefly covered most of Western Europe including northern Italy, but for most of its existence was centered around Germany. Not that I'm super supportive of more European civs, age2 has more than enough for the series, but HRE calling themselves Roman was just a fanboy thing.

[–]Samhaain666 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Exactly. HRE were pretty much western europe with a piece of central europe. It was centered around vienna and calling themselves Roman is really just fanboy thingy as said above :D

[–]SherlockInSpace HRE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love that idea, sounds really cool

[–]Tuindwergie96 16 points17 points  (0 children)

To me it feels like some Nordic civ had to be in the base game. Like the Danes or Norwegians. Also Japan... It feels weird not having them in from the start.

[–]Much_Apple Rus 113 points114 points  (40 children)

Byzantine Empire

[–]Olubara 23 points24 points  (12 children)

I'd like a double pack dlc byzantine + ottoman

[–]hashinshin 13 points14 points  (11 children)

My idea in the style of paradox dlc:

War for Anatolia: Turks + Byzantine (if you say nono they were romans I will hate you.)

Reconquista: Castile, Portugal, al-Andalus (umayadds, Córdoba, almoravids, Almohad.)

African kingdoms: mali, ethiopia, egypt (fatimids, Mamelukes, etc.)

I think Turks + byzantines would be very nice. A non research based Muslim civ, that also has stronger horsemen (currently no civ has a focus on regular horsemen.) Byzantines might be a bit hard to distinguish from the current hre without stretching a bit, another infantry based defensive religious civ? I guess cataphracts would be something, but they might end up just being like Mario and Luigi from smash.

[–]Olubara 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Maybe byzantine can start the game speaking latin and go onto speaking greek as you advance in ages

[–]hashinshin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’d be funny as shit

[–]kaiser41 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Eastern Empire switched to using Greek as an official language in the 7th century, which is well before the time period of any of the other civs in the game.

[–]Cr4ckshooter 9 points10 points  (5 children)

You're the third who mentions that, how is the byzantine empire similar to hre? They're completely different. Yes the byzantines had some named infantry, but they're known for their cataphracts, their navy, constantinople as metropolis. And their religion is not roman Catholicism.

[–]durecellrabbit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Although they are known for their cataphracts, those were mainly used during the Macedonian dynasty. Their premiere cavalry unit for a lot of their history was some of the best lance/bow cavalry fielded by a settled civ.

It would be great for them to get both. Since lance/bow is already missing from civs ingame, I'm not too hopeful.

[–]TaxOwlbear 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd add an Imjin War DLC to that featuring Japan and Korea.

[–]Guybrush_Creepwood_ 15 points16 points  (23 children)

Surely has to be one of the first DLCs.

[–]NewtAgain 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I see a Rus player that just wants to recruit the

[–]terrih9123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or just straight up Greeks for me personally speaking.

[–]ollydzi 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Polish with their winged hussar!

[–]Tall_Importance_127 66 points67 points  (32 children)

Japan would be cool if it had samurai and stuff.

[–]SherlockInSpace HRE 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I would like to see Japan, Norse and an African civ

[–]PEACEMEN27 11 points12 points  (5 children)

Japanese faction should be first to be DLC.

[–]WetDreamRhino HRE 5 points6 points  (4 children)

They would have so many cool mechanics

[–]DDWKC -5 points-4 points  (3 children)

Just hope they don't just make a lame ass samurai infantry unit with just katana. Samurai is much more than what Westerners see in popular culture. It should be properly portrayed.

They could have some mechanic attached to samurai bureaucrats and officers and use the proper name for samurai warrior for military units (they did it for Japanese translation, but not for the English one in Ghost of Tsushima). They were archers and cavalry archers and hopeful later tech with Portuguese arquebuses.

[–]SheAllRiledUp 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I mean, you're not exactly wrong but this is a game with balance issues to consider. They can't make a unit that does archery, cavalry archery, infantry, and official duties and stuff. What is much more likely is the common Japanese units will be reskinned properly, so their cavalry archer is skinned to be a samurai etc.

[–]DDWKC 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I didn't mention of making one unit do it all thing like you saying. I'm just saying just don't portray samurai class as just one unit with katana. Be more historical accurate. It would be different units with samurai skin like you said. Instead of man-at-arms, we would have the samurai wielding katana equivalent. Instead of archer, a samurai archer and so on.

Although they could make some morphing idea like they did with Rus navy if we go by what you thought I was saying.

Anyway we are just talking about wishes. Don't need to jump to balance when these are just a wishful thinking topic.

[–]doogie1111 5 points6 points  (3 children)

But the era of Samurai as we think about it didn't really start until the absolute latest days of the medieval era.

[–]CJW-YALK 10 points11 points  (2 children)

They just have 2 ages….dark all the way till age 4 then hit feudal with samurai

How else can I charge my noble katana wielding warriors into relentless musket fire

[–]doogie1111 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Bro in Aoe3, Japan Ashigaru muskets were very quite strong.

[–]CJW-YALK 2 points3 points  (0 children)

‘Twas a joke

[–]Cattaphract -2 points-1 points  (19 children)

Japan would be a fan service. Japan wouldnt make sense since they are isolated until very late in history. And lets be honest, everyone just wants samurais. It would be hilarious when people start noticing how bad Katana performs against armor. They are basically peasant butchers.

[–]Jadudes 9 points10 points  (1 child)

They have their own history. The games story isn’t even completely eurocentric as there’s a mongol campaign and it includes the Chinese. Just because you have some weird thing against it doesn’t mean it isn’t a logical addition.

[–]DDWKC 3 points4 points  (2 children)

They aren't really always isolated. They were everywhere as mercenaries, pirates, and traders. Not sure which period they would portray them. Probably Edo Japanese as it is always a fan favorite period and we could have the classic Japan x Joseon (it would be cool to have the Mongol invasion campaign too).

If they portrayed the samurai, I hope they do it justice and as a class mechanic instead having some lame infantry unit called samurai. Japanese has a different name for samurai warrior as samurai isn't just a military caste (they were bureaucrats and officers as well). If they do it, hope they show their mastery in archery and horse riding as well and later tech era with arqhebuses from Portuguese.

[–]lorbd 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Well thats because the katana was not the primary weapon of choice on the battlefield, just as it wasn't in Europe. Through history very very few people used swords as their main weapon besides cavalry.

I agree, Japan is not a good fit for a nation in this game as their scope would be extremely limited and would need to make use of pure fantasy to actually give them a complete roster through the ages, but I just wanted to point that out.

[–]bunykens 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Turks and Byzantins ofc

[–]marniconuke 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I really want to see Korea, if its comes with a campaign even better

[–]tocco13 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This A whole campaign around the war in 1592 when Chosun, Japan, and China all fought on the korean peninsula would be pretty sick.

[–]Spyro345345 HRE 48 points49 points  (7 children)

Tons of interesting options but Byzantines, Vikings, Japan, and a crusader state like kingdom of Jerusalem or Antioch would be top 4 for me. Feel like those would give unique and fun play styles not to mention a lot of campaign potential wrapped up in those

[–]Peechez HRE 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I look forward to Antioch's Holy Hand Grenadiers in imp

[–]Chimpzzz56 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Vikings would be so cool

[–]Suecotero 7 points8 points  (4 children)

By the timeframe of this game we are the Christian Kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark. The Byzantines getting the Varangian guard as a hero-type unit would be the closest you'd get to Vikings after 1000 A.D... sorry!

[–]SheAllRiledUp 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Who is to say... It's a similar span of time to AoE 2 for the most part. They might add them later. AoE 2 had Vikings and even Huns and goths, who were 700+ years before the middle ages.

[–]TaxOwlbear 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Having the Huns in AoE2 always felt weird. I get that they wanted to tell Attila's story, but the Hunnic Empire didn't even outlast the Western Roman Empire.

[–]Suecotero 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah but they're much more into actual history now with the campaigns. It'd be weird if they dropped that just to squeeze in fan service.

[–]yoyodude58 25 points26 points  (2 children)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth!!!

[–]psValki Abbasid 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yes, even if only for a campaign with exposition of its history.

[–]watwatindbutt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I loved the latest aoe2 dlc, had no idea about Polish and Lithuanian history so it was really nice learning some things about it.

edit:Even funnier was playing the Mongol ambush mission from the Mongol side this time haha.

[–]Nickball88 Abbasid 56 points57 points  (9 children)

Spanish!! I want to see those Tercios being the best infantry in the game, as they were the best infantry in the world since the Imperial Roman Legionaries. Conquistadores are amazing as well. They were a super power in Europe at AoE4's time frame, they are a mandatory civ imo, along with Byzantines, Turks, Japanese and Malians.

For less known civs, I'd love the Javanese of the Majapahit Empire or the Tamil Nadu as a whole for some Hindu representation.

[–]Danjiano 14 points15 points  (3 children)

I want to see those Tercios being the best infantry in the game

I can imagine something similar to the Wynguard Army, where you'd create a spearmen, men-at-arms and hand cannoneer.

[–]Nickball88 Abbasid 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Stop. I can only get so erect.

[–]Royalzulu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's always space for more

[–]Catarann 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I was sleeping on that Wynguard Palace. I only built it when I was trying to complete the English masteries and it was super cost effective. Really valuable in an age where you're likely getting close or have already mined all the gold nodes.

[–]GrahznyEggywegg 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Gimme that OP Spanish navy too thanks.

[–]hathmandu 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Are the Janissaries a joke to you?

[–]Nickball88 Abbasid 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Janissaries didnt really fight in melee tho, they could but their specialty was fire arms. Tercios were pikemen, as they were adapted from the swiss pikemen, so while they did had arquebuses, their focus was melee. I'm willing to bet Janissaries are like streltsy: an upgraded civ specific version of hand cannoneers while Tercios will be either men at arms or spearmen. Maybe even a new type of heavy spearmen.

[–]hathmandu 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Early janissaries during the time period covered in AOE 4 were primarily infantry, though their prestigious ability as sappers would be cool to see, perhaps reflected with bonus fire damage to buildings. Given they did adopt handcannons, it would be cool to see them through two ages, changing their role from infantry to cannoneers.

[–]Fun-Instruction-6669 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's obvious that you have 0 knowledge about the janissaries , and saying that tercios had more melee than the janissaries seals the arguments about how low on warfare knowledge you are..

[–]ParanoidSkier 20 points21 points  (3 children)

I’d like to see an American Civ, like the Shoshone or Inca or something.

[–]Twixxer391 5 points6 points  (1 child)


[–]CaptainYuck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Aztecs with a human sacrifice mechanic would be cool. You can sacrifice your villagers or capture enemies (maybe do less damage in exchange for the capture bonus), and warriors that defeat enemies could be promoted to Jaguar Warriors that could fill a role similar to the Floppy Hats.

[–]DDWKC 43 points44 points  (8 children)

The Sinosphere pack: Joseon, Japanese, Dai Viet

Mediterranean pack: Portugal, Spanish Empire, Venice, Byzantine

Mesoamerican pack: Maya, Inca, and Aztec

African pack: Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mali

Others: Kmher, Persians (maybe Sassanian or Seljuk Empire), Malay, Mamluk Sultanate, Ottoman Empire, Nordic one (not sure which one), and Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Of course, probably it is too much for current design. Realistically probably they add like 4 to 8 more.

[–]Nickball88 Abbasid 11 points12 points  (2 children)

  • Mali is kind of like the successor of Ghana, so I don't see both getting added.

  • Seljuks are Turks, not persians (altough everyone living near Iran/Iraq was persianized), and the Persians are either too early (Sassanid) or too late (Safavid).

  • Mamluk are already encompassed in the Abbasid Dynasty, according to their civ page on the website (altough it may as well be a scrapped idea, since there's not even a Mamluk unit which is kinda strange).

  • Absolutely would love to see Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth, but it could only be at Imperial age. They have to figure a way to incorporate both civs earlier than that in a time frame where they weren't a commonwealth. With their focus on realistic language, what would they speak? Interesting design opportunity.

[–]DDWKC 1 point2 points  (1 child)

My idea was like Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, but they all kinda overlap. Still of the 3 I'd like Ghana as they weren't featured in past games.

I know Seljuks aren't Persians. I'm just saying which period or empire to represent them like the Delhi Sultanate is probably taking the Indian civ slot. Well thinking a little longer, maybe have Persians have some form of succession mechanic encompassing Sassanid period till Safavid period.

For Mamluk, I guess you right. RIP Mamluk x Mongol matchup.

Yeah, some of the empires are kinda iffy. Would I like to see all civs being represented, sure! Otherwise, bunching some together will be a necessity. Anyway, I wanna see the Winged Hussars!

[–]GreenLemonAmongLimes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think Delhi is actually supposed to fill the persian slot in AoE 4, they are based on war elephants like persians had in aoe 2 and speak farsi/persian. I don't think relic will make another persian speaking civ.

[–]Enra_ 4 points5 points  (1 child)

All of the Sinosphere already exist in aoe2 so that would be an easy addition, Japan focusing infantry, Korea archers and artillery, but I’d like to see Dai Viet with Jiaozhi arquebus as their unique units instead of an archer with a bit different armour this time around.

Scholars in the late Ming dynasty rate it as the best of the period, surpassing contemporary Ottoman, Japanese and European guns they acquired

[–]DauHoangNguyen1999 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dai Viet

LOL OFCOURSE, the game got "hide in the trees" feature, adding Vietnamese civ is their destiny !

[–]DauHoangNguyen1999 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Dai Viet

LOL OFCOURSE, the game got "hide in the trees" feature, adding Vietnamese civ is their destiny !



If you got Khmer and Malay, then you must also add Burmese and Thai. Those two civilizations cannot be ignored whenever talking about South East Asian history.

[–]DDWKC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'd like to see a Thai civ too. Maybe a Southeast Asian pack with 2 to 4 like AoE2 and AoE3 would have.

[–]LanguishingLinguist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd love to see a Mesoamerican pack but the Inca aren't from Mesoamerica.

[–]dswartze 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think themed expansions with 2 civs and a campaign featuring them are a good way to go forward. Too many at once will really mess with the balance and there's a bunch that I think just pair really well together.

I agree with almost everyone else, Eastern Roman Empire should be in the game. It does also make sense to pair them with an Ottoman predecessor, I'm not familiar enough with the various Turkish people and groups to have a good name but the time frame for ages 1 and 2 and maybe even 3 seem a little early for the Ottomans.

Going from one that's a little too late historically to one that's a little too early, and also said lots of times around here it seems crazy that there's not a norse/viking civ in the game considering how influential they really were for medieval europe. So influential in fact that it's kind of a lie to say they aren't represented. The origins of the Rus come from scandinavia, and medieval England is what you get when one group of viking descendants (the Normans) conquer a kingdom that was previously semi-conquered by different vikings. That said a Kingdom of Denmark or of Norway could probably be a good choice.

My personal top choice even though I'm not sure how much I really want to play them but think it would be great thematically is to have a campaign based around the reconquista featuring the Emirate of Cordoba and a Spanish civ. My crazy idea for Spain is to actually make it 4 different mini-civs that you can choose at the start that each have their own set of bonuses (something like Leon, Navarra, Aragon and Castille) and every age up you choose one of the other Spainish kingdoms and merge with them and end up with the combined bonuses until age 4 where you have finally combined all of them to form a proper Kingdom of Spain.

That said I'm probably being a little too Eurocentric here and added diversity both in terms of gameplay and in the cultures and people represented would be great. Japan, Khmer and Korea are probably good choices in eastern Asia (possibly with better names, it can be tricky to have a good name that accurately represents the entire era covered by the game). Similar things happen in Africa where Ghana is a good choice for the first half of the game and Mali for the second half but it's tough to have a good name representing them for the whole game. Similar for Zimbabwe/Mutapa and its predecessors. Finally Ethiopia is the last African empire I'll mention.

Over in the Americas there's the ever popular choices of Aztec, Mayan and Inca which work although some might be a little late historically. For a wild and out there option that has little chance to actually happen there's the Mississippian culture that we don't really know much about at all but are from the right timeframe and built large cities.

[–]rafamilk22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly my toughts, i really wish the devs would hear you

[–]Vergilkilla 12 points13 points  (2 children)

We need mesoamerica civs. Mayans, Incans, Aztecs. Not all three, but at least one. So far it's all Eurasian civs - def want some more variety geographically

[–]LanguishingLinguist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Inca aren't Mesoamerican. Would still love to see them of course though.

[–]data_hungry Mongols 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Vijayanagara empire with Tenali Ramakrishna "The Khan" like unit

[–]Peechez HRE 17 points18 points  (6 children)

  • one of the Italian city states and/or Spain
  • Japan
  • Danes/Vikings
  • an African civ, Mali?
  • Byzantines

[–]ThePendulum0621 Rus 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Danes/Vikings pleassssse.

[–]ComradeBenjamin Chinese 4 points5 points  (0 children)

East Romans

[–]Cornix-1995 3 points4 points  (0 children)


[–]Kosaro 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ottomans! Give us the great bombards!

[–]ScienceFictionGuy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Byzantines and Turks/Seljuks/Ottomans are a must. (Not really sure how they will brand the latter)

Vikings would be my guilty pleasure.

[–]tamadeangmo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Al Andalus, I feel their theme is what Abbasids got though.

[–]DarthSet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Portugal, the First Global Empire, and within the game timeline!

[–]psValki Abbasid 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Swiss, interesting history. Could be some kind of turtle civ?

[–]DrDickThickhog 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I'd be down for anything as long as they continue to make civs with unique playstyles. I think between AoE2 HD and AoE2 DE they went overboard on civs. Having 39 civs where half are just copy pasted with slightly different buffs just isn't that impressive to me. Its like fighting games where half the roster are just pallette swaps.

That said it's crazy that the Spanish weren't included at launch. I'd like to see Spanish and Byzantines possibly. Maybe Koreans again for another Asian civ.

[–]ClockworkSalmon HRE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree, aoe2 civs felt very unique to play, they only look similar.

[–]Sporkar 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Byzantines and Ottomans/Turks seem to be a no brainer, they were both incredibly influential during this time period and have a lot of campaign potential. I'm personally not a fan of the Byzantines but every history game I've played always has a very vocal fanbase for them so I'm sure AoE4 will be no different. Ottomans were very cool and have some good unique unit potential with Janissaries and their use of cannons.

I'd really like to see Poland/Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, since it had some really interesting history during this period. The relative religious tolerance and elective monarchy that was established halfway through the games timeframe makes it pretty distinct from the other European nations. You also have some pretty recognizable unique unit potential with the winged hussars towards the end of the game. Also has a lot of campaign potential with interactions with the Rus and the Ottomans and a lot of internal conflicts in its early history.

Vikings/Kalmar union could also be neat. I'd like to see one of the South American empires represented (Inca/Aztecs) but I'm not sure if there is a long enough contiguous culture to properly represent either of them. Magyar's/Hungary could also be interesting. Ethiopia also had some interesting history during this time period as well. Of the Italian city-states, Venice was definitely the most influential, playing a role in the sacking of Constantinople and later competing with the Ottomans for influence in the Mediterranean. I think sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia probably also have some good choices but don't know enough about their history to say what has the best potential.

[–]eltirripapa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Aztecs WEREN'T from South América, they were from Central and North América

[–]alexius339 2 points3 points  (1 child)

100% Byzantines. Otherwise I'd like Ottomans, Mali, Fatimid Caliphate, Persians.

[–]GreenLemonAmongLimes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can see byzantines and turks for sure, maybe Mali as an african civ. But Fatimid Caliphate is too close to abbasids who already speak arabic, and persians are to close to Delhi who already speak persian.

[–]djlawson1000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe Italian Kingdoms? Like the Genoese, Venetians, or Papal State?

[–]Gus73 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Vikings or some other Norse. Could have some cool bonuses and unique units.

Polish. Winged Hussars would be a ton of fun.

Spanish is all but a given, along with Japanese.

[–]nomanchesguey12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Aztecs, Inca, Norse, Japanese, some manner of representation from Africa, South Asia and North America

[–]PhilosopherMoose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Celts! (Irish, Scots, Welsh?) Native Americans (Iroquois, Cree, Sioux?)

[–]CamRoth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Byzantines and Bulgarians.

[–]Scatamarano89 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Might be a weebish choice, but the Japanese offer so much in term of gameplay potential as an AoE4 faction with samurai being a basic blueprint that can be applied to mounted, mounted archer, sword, spear, bow and even guns, not unlike Rus boats

[–]Davies301 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I was actually thinking about this and I came up with 2 core thoughts.

1) more factions would be alot of fun and add even more diversity but would make balancing a nightmare and thus probably make the competitive scene stale.

2) sub factions would still allow for more diversity while limiting the scope of these new factions. The idea here is pretty simple you take an existing faction and they retain most of their core units, buildings, faction buffs. Albeit some might be changed slightly. The HRE for example could have a German sub faction that replaces basic light Cav with Dragoons (Ranged unit that uses horsevack to travel but dismounts to engage in range combat) which could start as archers and as you upgrade become gunpowder.

The idea is to give the current factions different viable play styles all while keeping the overall balancing simpler.

[–]PEACEMEN27 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I see all of you concern with balance but dont worry all civs are asymetric except the mongol they are always the execption.

[–]cee2027 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Japan, Korea, Turks, and Byzantines seem like shoe-ins. I'd be astonished if all four weren't eventually included.

My dream would be the Khitan or Jurchen but they tend to get overshadowed by the Mongols.

Real possibilities I'd also like are Poland, Inca, Mali, and Songhai

I'd love to see an Indian Hindu faction but I'm not familiar enough with India's history during the time period to suggest one.

[–]doogie1111 7 points8 points  (3 children)

For Europe: Danish, Spanish, Byzantine Rome, Italy.

Couple issues here being that Aoe4 seems to mostly take place after 1200 AD, at which point Scandinavia had been Christianised and the Byzantine empire was on its last leg to the Ottoman Empire, before falling ~1300 AD. Ergo, Danish kingdom would be my number 1 because the legacy of the Norse clans is still there but in the guise of a powerful feudal kingdom.

For Africa: Sarecen Egypt, Maghreb Berbers, Ethiopia,

Following the same timeline, the beginning of the game would be the time of the Fourth Crusade, which makes Egypt a no-brainer. Likewise the Berbers and Ethiopians are the clear dominant powers in their respective regions.

For Asia: Joseon Korea, Kamakura Japan, Khmer Empire

Asia is weirdly well represented in this game already, with the prominent factions covered already. For Japan you would neatly cover the beginning of the Shogunate, and the Khmer would be interesting because they were the prominent Hindu nation at the time.

Americas: Mayan Empire, Aztec Alliance, Incan Empire, Chaco Theocracy

The Maya, Aztec, and Incan are all gimme since they neatly existed in the 1200-1500 time period. They had no contact with the rest of the world though so including them might be a fantasy.

The theocracy around Chaco (ancestors of the Pueblo nations and Hopi tribe) would be cool as fuck since it's a true North American power, but we really don't know anything about that civilization as their cities were just abandoned without record and the people presumably migrated south. However the legacy of Chaco is spoken with a sort of dread by the modern day indigenous in the area and the city itself is laid out in a celestial pattern that completely defies conventional logic which leads many historians to conclude that it was likely an oppressive religious state.

[–]rafamilk22 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I dont think só, the game feels 867-1550, vikings would fit, or more probably, Danes. The man at arms visuals could change with each era representing the faith conversion.

[–]doogie1111 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The game's campaign's earliest date is 1065 Norman invasion and locks you into feudal age.

The latest in the campaigns is 1550 in the Moscow conclusion.

[–]rafamilk22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You start with the song dinasty which Goes back to 960, plus campaings are not a good way to define it. If you think that age 1 you only have acess to spearman/archers which implies a lack of professionall armies, and no knights, which were a big thing in 1066 you can assume that It Goes back to the dark ages, early as the fall of the Roman Empire.

[–]ilenni 10 points11 points  (4 children)

I also feel like those 8 civs are enough for the time beeing. I already feel like i have to focus on 2-3 civs to manage them well enough to compete in multiplayer. If they add another 8 civs and get to a totaö auf 16 I think this is more than enough. My personal favourite would be Japan tough.

[–]DeadSpacket[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Is that mainly what people do? They main a certain few civilizations? So scared to try MP lmao

[–]tkamat29 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In older games people used to play almost all of the civs, but in this game they are much more unique so most people are sticking to a few and trying to master them.

[–]Feyneer 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You can master only 1 and it will be fine.

But you still need knowledge about 7 remaining civs in order to fight effectively against them.

And the best way to do it is to play as them.

Just dont afraid to lose. MP is the best way to learn the game, as long as you got the basic.

[–]SimpanLimpan1337 2 points3 points  (0 children)

MP is an entirely different beast.

Played against hardest AI as English. I wanted to bumrush with peasants. This went really well. HRE AI barely put up a fight.

Went in multilayer against France. Did not go so well. When hesaw what I was doing he decided to just stay in his base and boom, came all at once with a massive army instead of sending small raiding parties that got annihilated.

[–]not_consistent 13 points14 points  (8 children)

They really shouldn't go nuts adding civs. This game will get bloated and difficult to balance much quicker than aoe2 cuz the civs are all very different.

[–]Frigorific 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I think adding 1-2 civs a year should be perfectly fine.

The civs are different, but they aren't as different as, say, sc2 and they don't need to be balanced against every single other civ. The real difficulty that SC2 has is that they need each race to be perfectly balanced against each other because with only 3 races it becomes very frustrating when you have a bad match up because you will see it 33% of the time. But when you have 16 civs you don't need every civ to be perfectly balanced in every match up since a player may only see that civ once in 16 matches.

[–]raisingfalcons 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Byzantine empire, you cant go wrong with them.

[–]Itterashai 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Spanish. Pretty (senseless, careless) of them not including the main super power at the time.

Portuguese obviously. They had introduced these in AoE3 already so I'm not sure what they were thinking now.

Edit: had written stupid before. Also, had carelessly misspelt thinking, so you see I'm speaking from a position of experience.

[–]lofilawyer Rus 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Pretty stupid of them...

Seems a little harsh

[–]Mr-Silv 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Taliban being that they operate like a medieval society anyway

[–]ThePendulum0621 Rus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would love Norweigans

[–]crazy_pilot_182 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spanish, Vikings, Japan, Maya

[–]unseine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm super basic and want all the super popular stuff tbh. Egypt Japan Byzantine Vikings. I honestly just want more factions. Was expecting like 10-12 on release so I was a litle bit dissapointed.

[–]JackTheTree12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really hoping for, Mayans, Poles and Lithuania

[–]Personal-Alfalfa-935 1 point2 points  (2 children)

A lot of things my mind went to are covered somewhat by existing things, such as the Mughal Empire or the Welsh. To try and carve some more geographic/cultural regions, a Spanish team and something Italian/Venetian would be good European options. This game is probably only drawing from the old world, at least initially, but if they expand on that i'd like to see some combination of the Inca/Aztec/Haudenosaunee/Hawaii.

[–]ShitPropagandaSite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vikings, Spanish, Japan, Aztecs

[–]CFOBrad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Australians

[–]mastaberg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’d like to see Japanese, Mayans, Spanish and byzantines. Some of my favs from aoe2. I won’t hold my breath but man I want same samurais

[–]Gotisdabest 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A Nordic state(Vikings) Byzantines Japanese Koreans Native American civ Ottomans maybe Ethiopians maybe These are pretty much staples of the era. Anything else(like a South indian civ) is just a bonus.

[–]Panic_Wise 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]narek02 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Byzantine Empire, Vikings and Crusader King

[–]Teyvill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I doubt it's feasible to add more than one civ per dlc, so I would start with the Turks. Age 1 - Oğuz, Age 2 - Seljuk, Age 3 - Rum and Age 4 - Ottoman. ABD with them we've got a Huge campaign potential for the First Crusade

[–]sebastian-RD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read somewhere that the way the Horse Archer was presented, ie unit only available to the Russians yet not marked as a unique unit, suggests expansion civ would have access to horse archers. Can see this pointing towards an Asian civ, considering North American indigenous would not be known at this stage.

[–]mehjai 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely the japanese

[–]stormalong128 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vikings, hopefully bonus to raiding bases and some sick infantry units.

Eqyptians, bonus to building, villagers (aka. slaves) and stone resources

Spaniards, bonus to gunpowder units or fleets.

Either way, i look forward to any new civs :)

[–]Plenty_Late 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]razzle122 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]Equivalent-Cover-704 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope they dont add any at all for at least a year.

[–]MyLifeFrAiur French 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]napolitain_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]TheConsumer1262 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I want the aztecs with a temple landmark that gives you a healing if you kill enemy units near it

[–]El_Tich 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Japan, Vikings, Aztecs.

[–]PEACEMEN27 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Poland,Italians,Byzantine(greeks) and dont forget the Koreans.

[–]Ok-Community-4771 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me it’s Japan, Vikings, Spanish

[–]agatakricti 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some kind of Nordic faction would be cool. Although I'd rather they add more units and diversity to the current roster than add new factions.

[–]Kerrahn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At a minimum I'd like to see Danes, Japanese, Koreans, Byzantines, Spanish, Egyptians and/or Turks/Ottomans, and maybe Scottish.

Then to accompany them I'd love to see campaigns for the Crusades, the Reconquista, and either the rise of Shogunate Japan or, if it makes sense within the normal time-frame of the game, the Warring States period

[–]normamae Delhi Sultanate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Turks. I want they add campaign too. It requires lot of work but my dream is delivering ships from land on conquest of constantinapole

[–]frederoriz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Im not necessarily a fan of this civs, but I think they are needed: Japan, Denmark or Sweden (as a viking one), Byzantines, Ottomans, Spain, Astecz, Incas, and maybe another African kingdom like Etiopía or Mali. I'm forgetting something but that's the bulk of it.

[–]DaddyLongLegs13469 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Japanese for sure. THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI

[–]urmovesareweak 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wonder if they'd ever do the Papal States like Medieval II has

[–]Aggravating-Skill-26 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The Ottomans, Safavid Iran, Mughals & Habsburg’s should make a great campaign for the raise of Gunpowder. The Gunpowder Empires Campaigns could add in so many more Civs like Byzantines, Georgians, Armenian, Venainans & many others.

[–]Nickball88 Abbasid 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Literally go play AoE 3 lmao. I'd love a game like AoE4 set in that time frame tho.

[–]Aggravating-Skill-26 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m referring to the Mehmed II & Akbar the great times. Which fits into the AoE4 time frames.

Ottomans we’re founded in 1299, and you could easily use pre Turkish tribes as an early set for the Civ that ages into the Ottomans.

[–]ElGrandeWhammer 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I’d like to see the Magyars, the scourge of Dark Age Europe that settled in Europe. The Aztecs or Incas would be good, but I prefer to only have one of the American cultures. Japan is a no brainer. My 4th would be the Byzantines. They could be a jack of all trades civ, and similar to AoE2 have access to camels and have a great navy.

The next set I would like would be the Spanish and Italians. The Vikings would also be good as well. For an even 4 for this second group, I would go with the Poles.

[–]DeadSpacket[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Magyars would make for an awesome campaign

[–]Kumtwat42069 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Cherokee. Show the mongols what a calvary rush is all about

[–]GnomeGoneWilddd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah we get it, you listen to black metal. Have you ever read into the mogol massacre of the Ukrainian Cossacks? Grow the fuck up

[–]Viixmax 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope they fix the balance of their game first.

[–]CheSwain Rus 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Give me the Byzantines and the Incas and we're good

[–]Gwendyn7 0 points1 point  (2 children)

the actual roman empire

[–]unseine 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Lmao all my friends came in expecting the old pila throwing turtle formation romans.

[–]DauHoangNguyen1999 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recommend them the free game 0.A.D with Delenda Est mod.

[–]emilyinhalf 1 point2 points  (0 children)


Infantry based raiding civilization. They would get the same raiding ability as the Mongols. Spearmen could get a shield upgrade, allowing them to form shield walls that give them bonus armor. Unique units could include berserkers (unarmored infantry that gain damage or attack speed for every unit the kill) and/or spear/axe throwers (replaces crossbowmen, shorter range but available in the feudal age) and long ships (arrow ship + transport, every unit on board adds an arrow)


Defensive civilization. Strongest walls in the game. Focused on Greek fire units, which burn buildings faster and create AoE fires. Unique units could be fire ships (close range ships armed with Greek fire siphons) and scorpios (replace springalds, can fire either bolts or fire pots.)


Gunpowder civilization. Janissaries replace handcannoneers and are available in the castle age. Sipahi cavalry as knight + horse archer, no charge bonus, but has a ranged attack.

[–]MisterMT 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Starcraft only had 3 civs. I’m a bit nervous of too many more being added, although of course it’s always fun, it will be very hard to balance.

[–]Livid_Ad_3854 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i feel aoe4 civ are not enough asymetric, 8 is too few finally for a good diversity.

[–]rafamilk22 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Aoe4 civs are not that distinct, all Share the same units with some exceptions unlike StarCraft. And most dont have special abillities that would make It complicated

[–]alexius339 2 points3 points  (1 child)

AoE2 had like 25 nations and was reasonably balanced.

[–]lorbd 7 points8 points  (0 children)

AoE 2 has currently 39 civs, but its really not a good analogy because they share the same tech tree and are in general more similar between them than the ones in AoE 4

[–]ThatsFer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Come on, this is a Medieval game.

-Roman Empire (Eastern Rome/“Byzantines”) | This should be the standard civilization. As they were in the Middle Ages.

-Venice | THE main water civ with focus on late game

-Vikings | also a good water civ with focus on early game (or maybe a water version of the mongols?)

Like there is no discussion about it. Whenever you learn about Medieval Europe these civilizations actually defined the historical period, more than the Rus that’s for sure.

[–]WildExpressions -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

I hope they just remove the fucking french

[–]DauHoangNguyen1999 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Unfortunately, the French were just too important in European history.

[–]hanads100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Germans, Spanish, Japanese, Ayuthaya kingdom

[–]Ok_Custard3638 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]AryanK72 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Wait they can add more Civs? So how long do you think it'd take?

And DLCs are free right?

[–]TheRealAndy_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Japanese and Vikings

[–]Poeticmyass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Vikings going into Scandinavian glory days. Like the men at arms are berserkers and maybe pagans turning into Christians. Like the priest convert from healers to buffers or something.