You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.21 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » What civilizations would you like to see added to this game?
Topic Subject:What civilizations would you like to see added to this game?
posted 09-28-19 06:46 PM ET (US)         
Now, here is something that I was wondering whether to put here or on the modding section. I eventually chose here, however, because it is less of a organized "mod" idea, and more of a... "Just throw your randon thoughts here?" Obviously, the implication is that other players are free to help you work further on your randon ideas, if they so wish

A few thoughts:

-A civilization with a bonus that gives Legions more pierce armor.

I know that AoE purists will hate me for saiyng this, but: You know what I loved about AoK? The units dedicated to subverting the unit "rock paper scizzor" systen. The anti-archer infantry, the anti-infantry cavalry, the anti-cavalry archers. Surely, you get what I mean.

Since this game has no unique units, it would be harder to implement, however, Legions are already unusually effective against archers, when given the Tower Shield upgrade. Just add a bit more of pierce armor, and they could, theoretically, work as a anti-archer unit. It wouldnt even need to be that much of it, really.

-More civilizations based on the "barbarians"( Ex: Vandals, Goths, Huns etc. )

Remember the Roman campaigns? ... Remember how awkward it was that the barbarians were for some reason being represented by Asian civs such as the Choson and the Yamato?

If one does not minds too much making a blatant referrence to AoK, it is possible, to fuse both of these ideas and make the Goths the civilization that has extra pierce armor for their Legions. However, not only that would probably upset the purists, but also it would not be very historically accurate: As, unlike in AoK, the Goths-Did-Had a lot of cavalry going for then, historically speaking.

-Sighs-But still... I will at least try and share my idea. Those who like it: Great! Those who dont: That is fine, feel free to make any suggestions on how would you include the Goths into the game.


Civilization bonuses: All infantry units( Both from the Academy and the Barracks ) are 25% cheaper.

Swordsman-line units have +2 pierce armor and move 30% faster.


Infantry: They lack Centurions, Aristocracy as well as Plate Armor, but everything else is avaliable

Cavalry: They get only Cavalry, without either Nobility or Plate Armor.

Archers: They get the Improved Bowman and the Composite Bowman, without Plate Armor. They do get all else that is relevant, though.

Siege: They get Stone Throwers, Heavy Catapults and Ballistae. But they lack Engineering.

Priests: They lack Monotheism, Medicine and Martydon, but everything else is avaliable.

Defenses: They would lack Architecture, Ballista Tower, Guard Tower, and Fortification.

Economy: They get all Market techs.

Overral: If it is not obvious, they are a huge one-trick pony with their infantry. Their cavalry is so astonishingly laughable it would make the cavalry of civilizations like the Greek or the Assyrians seem amazing by comparisson, and their archers arent that much better either. They do get decent siege support for their infantry, though. Now, granted, the lack of Engineering limits their usage against enemy Catapults, and for sieging against Ballista Towers, but Heavy Catapults are always Heavy Catapults, and they will always be able to clear a area of enemy infantry.

Their main strenght is their infantry. +2 Pierce armor and extra speed for Swordsman-line units from the Bronze Age would make then one of the few civilizations that can afford to use then on that age, as they soon would have enough pierce armor to counter foot archers( Especially factoring in their super-cheapness ). Cheaper Hoplites may not seem like much, but it would be important to deal with meele units too strong for their Swordsman to handle on their own. I know from experience that Phalanxes are usually strong enough to tackle non-Elephant cavalry, and with their 25% discount, the Gothic ones should be able to take this role pretty well... Though the lack of the Centurion upgrade and Plate Armor would make then really weak against elephants.

They would struggle mainly against civilizations with very good mounted archers( Like the Yamato or the Hittite ), or with powerfull elephant units( Like the Phoenicians or the... Hittites, again ). Though they do have priests to counter elephants. Not great ones, though, but they are there.

[This message has been edited by Draco_Wolfgand (edited 09-28-2019 @ 06:48 PM).]

posted 10-01-19 11:58 AM ET (US)     1 / 21       

From Barbarians

About Goths I would like too see bonus too strenght attack for Infantry.

Gauls would be another infranty civs. Main bonus would be faster moving infantry

Scythians would be cavalry civilization and I think perfect for them would faster attack speed of all chariots

Huns would not need to have houses and again another cavalry civilization witch faster rate of cavalry.
posted 10-01-19 01:26 PM ET (US)     2 / 21       
On a only loosely related note, as a historian, my greatest dream would be to find evidence of the existance of precisely a single Gaul village that the romans never managed to conquer. But I get ahead of myself.

In all seriousness, the Gaul should totally have some bonus benefiting their priests, to referr to the influence that druids had on their society. One idea I had would be for priests to cost wood instead of gold, what sounds pretty useless until you remember the teensy, tiny detail that gold is usually the first resource to run out on these matches.

Oh, the Scythians! I know very little about then, but I like then! I just think we would need to remember not making then feel too much like the Egyptians. My idea would be for then to have better "conventional" cavalry forces but lack the "unconventional" ones, aside from their Chariots. What I mean is: Remove the elephants and the Camel Riders, tack in Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, and Horse Archers. Since-All-Scythian cavalry was good, not just their Chariots, another bonus they could have is free Nobility upon building a Government Center, on top of a faster attack rate for their Chariots.

For the Huns: We would just need a different bonus for then, to set then apart from both the Yamato and the Scythians. One idea I had was the ability to train Horse Archers on the Bronze Age( Though they would still need to wait for the Iron Age to train Heavy Horse archers ), but I am not sure if that would be overpowered... Or, fudge, we could give then the Chariot Archer and let their bonuses be focused on the Horse Archer and cavalry-line anyway. No rule saiyng we cant .
posted 10-01-19 03:02 PM ET (US)     3 / 21       
Gauls without gold depended Priests could be nice addition.

I prepare One Civilization

Hebraws or Judah

Priests 33% more HP and all techies

All units units and 2 attack bonus too buildings.

Infantry- lack Phalanx and Centurions- all techs

Cavalry - lack Elephants and Cataphracts - All techs

Archers- lack HHA - all techs

Siege- all techs and Siege

Naval- Fire gallerys without Tireme

Defense- without Ballista Tower

I don't remember all techies. Lon time I was not playing AOE 1
posted 10-01-19 05:35 PM ET (US)     4 / 21       
Wait, would they have Elephant Archers? War Elephants and Elephant Archers are units that almost always come in pairs, you see. Most civilizations either have both, or lack both. The only exception currently in the game that gets one but lacks the other is the Palmyrians, who have War Elephants but not Elephant Archers.

I definitively think it would make more sense for the Hebrews to lack both units as I know of just about no sources that mention Hebrews using Elephants in warfare. ... But the same goes for quite a few civilizations on this game...

What reminds me, to put on the list of suggestions:

-A civilization that has Elephant Archers, but no War Elephants( Like the Palmyrians, but in reverse. )

If one was feeling in a "Let us make blatant referrences to AOK" mood, like I was with my alternative Goths, the Indians could fit.

-A civilization with Chariot Archers, but no Chariots on the Stable.

Chariots and Chariot Archers are ANOTHER pair of units that always comes in duos, with a single exception: The Romans, who get Scythe Chariots but no Chariot Archers.

It also hit me, the Scythians would necesserially need to have far, far worse defenses and Priests then the Egyptians. But Ì dont know enough about their religion to know which Temple technologies should they get or lack. ]
posted 10-02-19 04:56 PM ET (US)     5 / 21       
You keep saying Palmyrans are the only ones without the other, that is not true; Macedonia and Sumeria only have War and Armored Elephants, but both lack Elephant Archers. I think you don't like Macedonia.

I have a list of over 40 different civilizations, but if I were to add just one to DE, I would probably go with Israelites or India(Mauryans, they "could" use the Babylon tileset).
posted 10-02-19 05:08 PM ET (US)     6 / 21       
Actually... It is just because I royally forgot about then .

Though I will admit I am not a fan of the Sumerians, but on-Their-Case, it is because they hit me as kind of like "The Hittites, minus not as good."
posted 10-03-19 03:08 AM ET (US)     7 / 21       
Gauls, Etruscans and ancient Indians.
posted 10-05-19 03:49 AM ET (US)     8 / 21       
What would be the Indian elite unite? War elephants and axemen?

"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde.
posted 10-05-19 07:38 AM ET (US)     9 / 21       
I... Well, if you meant "unique unit", they unfortunatelly do not exist on this game .

They should definitively be a elephant and priest focused civ, with relatively weak non-elephant mounted units, in my opinion. Now, what I could never decide is on how good their infantry should be. It doesnt help that, not only is my knowledge of Indian history limited, but technically, as of the timeframe of this game, there WAS no India, as a unified nation: Only as a bunch of smaller groups that happened to share a somewhat similar culture( Though, you can make a similar argument for Greece )

If we base ourselves on Mauryan India specifically, they should probably get Centurions( To reflect their relationship with the Greek ) but no bonuses for then.

EDIT: Also, for the Huns, how does the following idea sounds:


Does not needs Houses: Starts with the maximun amount of population.

Stable units deal +6 damage to Buildings.

Archery Range units are 20% cheaper and trained 20% faster.


Barracks: Gets only the Short and Broad Swordsman.

Academy: Gets only the Hoplite.

Stables: Gets the Cataphract and the Scythe Chariot, but lacks Camels or Elephants.

Archery Range: Gets Chariot Archers and HHA, but lacks Improved Bowman and Elephant Archers.

Siege Worskshop: Gets the Stone Thrower, but nothing else.

Granary: Gets up to the Mediun Wall and the Sentry Tower

Market: Lacks Craftsmanship, Artisanship, and Crop Rotation, but gets everything else.

Government Center: Lacks Aristocracy, Architecture and Engineering, but gets everything else.

I am still indecise about their Temples and Docks, though . Again, if I knew more about their religion, it would be easier.

[This message has been edited by Draco_Wolfgand (edited 10-05-2019 @ 08:14 AM).]

AoEH Seraph
posted 10-20-19 03:55 PM ET (US)     10 / 21       
Some from the Indian subcontinent, but we got Beyons the Indus for that.
posted 10-28-19 02:00 AM ET (US)     11 / 21       
I would like Sparta and Corinth to be in the game or some of the city states.

"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde.
posted 10-28-19 08:53 AM ET (US)     12 / 21       
If Sparta was in the game( As its own separate civilization, I mean ), Athens probably would have to be too .

You know: If one knew deeply enough their history, one COULD, conceivably, make a mod of the game based entirely on the Greek City-States, or "ancestors" of the Greek City-states( Like the Myceneans ) with MAYBE Rome tackled in the midst( While Rome was, obviously, not a Greek city-state, after their conquest of Greece, they inherited quite a lot of Greek culture: In particular but not exclusevly, their religion. ). One could also make the same argument for the several sub-cultural groups in India... But alas, I am not NEARLY as familiar with Indian sub-cultural groups as I wished I was .

Some of the units in the current tech tree( Such as the Hoplite-line, the Legion... If I am not mistaken, "Cataphract" is in and by itself a Greek word, although ironically Greek cavalry was quite lightly armored compared to their Middle Eastern counterparts ) are already extremely "Greek-esque" or "Roman-esque" to begin with. Very little changes would need to be made on the tech tree for such a mod. The only units that MAY have to go are the War Elephants and Elephant Archers... And even then, that would be, if we didnt wanted to include the Macedonians .
posted 10-29-19 03:07 AM ET (US)     13 / 21       
%&*(%)^ Macedonia and yes Im posting Drunk!

I think that the city states were the way to go as far as historical entities go. Empires cost too much bloodshed. And if you think about, it the game it isn't really about empires, it's about your town or city taking another town or city. So I am overall pleased with the game as it is. However, it would be nice to see some sort of mod that replicated the city warfare of the time. I am unfortunately not an expert on the matter but have some knowledge of it. Enough to want to see it in glorious 4K but alas we can't always have what we want.

"To love Christ -means not to be a hireling, not to look upon a noble life as an enterprise or trade, but to be a true benefactor and to do everything only for the sake of love for God." —St John Chrysostom
"When one returns to the Greek; it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some, narrow and dark house." -Oscar Wilde.
posted 11-01-19 09:37 AM ET (US)     14 / 21       
The Greeks themselves did not make use of catphracts, but the Seleucid Empire, which was one of the Hellenistic successors after Alexander the Great, used cataphracts.
posted 11-14-19 02:24 PM ET (US)     15 / 21       
Personally I would like to see a civilization of ancient Indians.

VPN Sai Mannat AnyDesk

[This message has been edited by damiendada (edited 12-02-2019 @ 08:01 AM).]

posted 12-11-19 05:29 AM ET (US)     16 / 21       
If DE makes a new expansion it might get the game more active again.
I would like to see an India based expansion Mayrurans Kushans Pallawas Pandaya kingdoms and maybe the xiang nu(huns) to fill the gap between china and persia.
An indian expansion will get a lot of revenue.
posted 12-11-19 11:42 PM ET (US)     17 / 21       
Personally, I think the game is perfect regarding civs, but if I had to think of any civ, I still have few in mind.

Libyans, Latins, Kushites, Nubians..

But preferably, I would love to see a set of civilizations that offer different buildings, while still maintaining that immersiveness AoE has with their mediterranean/middle eastern civs... maybe buildings could have a rough texture or something primitive.... Libyans could qualify, as they comprised of tribes that lived in isolated areas according to Herodotus; or maybe a Sea People civ comprising of raiders from different regions of the mediterranean, so I imagine they could have some primitive camp-like structures or something...

Macedonian could immerse well with the diverse civs in aoe, but they would most likely be given Roman buildings; Gauls probably, but it'd be a stretch to immerse them with the present civs; Latins, Kushites and Nubians are great, but they'd probably be associated with Greek and Egyptian buildings respectively.

A Lycian civ and an Akkadian civ could fit in aoe, but they'd most likely end up with Hittite and Assyrian style buildings; same with an Ethiopian civ. But a Thracian civ could fit in perhaps, and maybe be given different set of buildings.

[This message has been edited by Mazeppa (edited 12-11-2019 @ 11:44 PM).]

posted 04-29-20 11:16 AM ET (US)     18 / 21       
I think it would still be a good idea for the Hebrews to still have Trireme, Catapult Trireme, and Juggernaut to be honest and if getting added in DE, then it can definitely also have the Fire Galley as well since in DE the Fire Galley doesn’t share the shortcut with the Catapult Trireme due to the fact that there’s more slots on the selection part of the interface than in the original.
posted 04-30-20 06:59 AM ET (US)     19 / 21       
When I thinking about civ which missing in this game.


I mention before about European barbarians like Gauls, Huns, Scythians and Goths. Next could be Sarmantia which would have bonus for heavy cavalry and Horse Archers.

In the Middle east there is Partian Empire. It was very big empire which fight with Roman Empire.
AoEH Seraph
posted 06-07-20 03:06 PM ET (US)     20 / 21       
I know that this game is sought to be fun and not historically accurate, but I find it very hard to swallow the Hebrews would have such an advanced navy as SonicBlade suggests.
posted 09-18-20 09:38 AM ET (US)     21 / 21       
Hebrewscan go under the Phoenicians. I think that in terms of ancient anthropology studies, the Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Israelites made up much of the same ethnic group in ancient times.

Certainly the Israelites' religion was different, but I think that their language was basically the same. The Israelites even used Phoenician architects and the help of a Phoenician king for building Solomon's Temple.

When thinking about designing missions for Rome's battles in the first-second Centuries, I come across the issue that there is no German Civilization. A German Civilization would be like a Celtic one for game purpoes, sharing the same architecture.

The downside, or at least one reason why it's not very necessary, is that the Celts and Germans were not considered major unified civilizations like the Romans and Greeks were. If the Romans were building giant stone buildings, the Germans and Celts are considered being more primitive and focused more on wood dwellings. So in essence you could use wooden or relatively primitive tool age buildings to reflect the Celtic ones. You can object that Tool Age buildings don't make the right units. That's true. The Celts would be fighting with swords and chariots, not just axemen. Maybe this is why alot of the ancient Germanic missions that I've seen use the wooden-buildings from the East Asian civilizations.

Still, consider that during Boudicca's revolt, a Roman legion took out a force several times larger than itself with massive casualties on the Celtic side. Effectively the Romans wiped out a lot of Britons. It's hard to make a Barbarian European Civ that would fight the Romans because you would be in effect churning out tons of low cost weak units, whereas AOE is designed for more balanced teams.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames