Unless they finally fix HD, noone will care.

Aleph, you should check out the latest patch (3.9). I think you'll find it makes some nice improvements (and many more to come!)

I dont have HD but there seems to be lots of criticism by people on the new patch regarding the xp issue.

For the new expansion isn't it possible to give different looking unit sets?

there seems to be lots of criticism by people on the new patch regarding the xp issue

MS has decided to stop supporting Windows XP in general, so the end of XP support in AoE2HD is a byproduct of that. I see that as more of a discussion to be directed towards the people in charge of MS operating systems rather than the AoE2HD devs. More info can be found here.

For the new expansion isn't it possible to give different looking unit sets?

What do you mean? As in having different unit graphics for every unit for every civ in the game?

[This message has been edited by HockeySam18 (edited 04-09-2015 @ 01:18 PM).]

I for one am curious if Microsoft has learned from its mistakes with the previous DLC.

I have a few worries about it.

Namely, what is this new structure going to look like? For example, do I need to now own FE AND the new expansion just to have all the content? If so that is a bad idea. The community here I feel is just getting over the bad feelings towards FE. Give it another year and it might have been pretty well accepted, at least for MP and MP scenario designers. Go add a second expansion people have to buy and you just keep fracturing the community into more categories.

It would be a great idea if the new expansion could incorporate the old FE stuff. It would be a golden chance to start fresh and make an expansion that everyone embraces. But money is money, and they won't do that. Instead we will get a second lightweight expansion and need to buy both. Which, really, is disheartening.

Constant bursts of DLC is cool in single player. But MP games, in order to keep playing with everyone, you have to keep paying. I never liked map packs for shooters and this looks to be sort of the same pressure sales tactic.

For the new expansion isn't it possible to give different looking unit sets?

We like to keep true to the basic idea of aoe, which is a simple and easy yet complex rts game so that both new players and experienced players can enjoy the game. A lot of people play the game out of nostalgia as well so they in general don't like big changes to the base game. Not to mention the amount of time and money it would require.

I've seen some modding projects here however that have great potential for fulfilling this request of yours.

Namely, what is this new structure going to look like? For example, do I need to now own FE AND the new expansion just to have all the content? If so that is a bad idea. The community here I feel is just getting over the bad feelings towards FE. Give it another year and it might have been pretty well accepted, at least for MP and MP scenario designers. Go add a second expansion people have to buy and you just keep fracturing the community into more categories.

"The second big item we’re focusing on developing right now addresses some lower level systems. At the moment customers looking to play multiplayer must choose either vanilla or AoF exclusively. With a larger potential pool of players in the base game, it creates a negative feedback loop of fewer lobbies showing in the expansion. I’d like to give a shoutout to the enterprising community members who created aoe2.net to help alleviate the lobby issue via a useful external site. In the future we’ll be working to adjust the data structure within the game to allow all game lobbies to be listed inline within the game, loading the appropriate game information on the fly instead of clicking a banner manually. Likewise, you won’t have to flip between game modes to play base campaigns or expansion ones. There’s a lot of work to be done here behind the scenes, and many questions to be answered, for example if you don’t have the expansions what happens to all of the additional ones? At the end of the day though, our goal is to make getting into a fun game quick and easy, as well as encourage people to host the newest content without fear of not getting players to join. After all, the best part of the game is actually playing it!"

Does this answer your question?

Quoted from Dead_End:

I for one am curious if Microsoft has learned from its mistakes with the previous DLC.

Doubt it.


I completely agree to you, Matt.

I'll copy over my opinion on the topic, as you probably don't want to search for my post in the Town's Crier and/or on other sites:

---

I'll copy and paste my opinion that I already voiced in another place and also quote someone who I completely agree to:

Me:



"SaladEsc":

---

And from what I've heard, there have been some players noticing improvements in frames, but for the majority, nothing changed. I personally can't start up the game at all anymore since the latest patch, it crashes to Desktop after playing the Microsoft Logo film.

[This message has been edited by John the Late (edited 04-09-2015 @ 07:19 PM).]

John, I heard of a couple people who had that crash issue and tried a reinstall or verified the integrity of the game cache and things worked perfectly after that.

Does this answer your question?

Yep. It means they know anyone who is following the issues with a head on their shoulders will have the exact same complaints as me. So they are going to say a whole lot of garbage about lobbies and matchmaking, which nicely boil down to this.

1. To play HD I need to buy the game I already have a superior version of on disc, assuming I use UP (I did this, paid for and bought HD).
2. TO play with people who own FE, I can either buy FE (which should have just been included in HD as extra content to get me to buy the game I already own), or make the people who own FE play down to the HD version. Which, they won't want to do. I can safely say this because I played a lot of games competitively on XBL and such. The better competitive players always want to play only on the latest update. This means if I don't buy FE, my HD purchase has diminished value.
3. So now I plunked down money for FE. NOW, I need to pay for expansion #2, or both HD AND FE have diminished value.

I wouldn't have a huge problem with this. I have a job, I can pay for these expansions without worrying about it. the issue I have is that FE is lightweight. As John said, there is no voice acting, to name one thing. Now there is a lot of content in FE. If it had all been in HD, HD would have been a great buy. But as an expansion, it's not quite as big as TC. From 2000. Content is easier to add and I expect for than that a decade and a half later.

That said, there are steam sales and I think with enough time lots of people would break down and buy it. But another expansion makes people not want either.

It's nothing against the FE team. This is just a greedy business model that is becoming popular. For new games I can stomach it. But tacking some stuff onto an ancient game that I can do on my spare time and charging me for is greedy.

We like to keep true to the basic idea of aoe, which is a simple and easy yet complex rts game so that both new players and experienced players can enjoy the game. A lot of people play the game out of nostalgia as well so they in general don't like big changes to the base game. Not to mention the amount of time and money it would require.

I've seen some modding projects here however that have great potential for fulfilling this request of yours.

Not every civi just a different look for the meso/arabic and asians to give it a more realistic feel.

Personally I am disappointed that Microsoft has no intention to release the HD edition or a regular version of Forgotten Empires on disc. If they were to do so they could make some sort of special collectors edition containing the whole series. Such as the now outdated Age of Empires Collectors Edition. That means if I want to play the "proper" version of AoF I have to buy and download AoE II and the DLC from steam. I prefer to have a hard copy of the game rather than downloading it off a network. Microsoft says:

Note that both platforms rely heavily on Steamworks for functionality like multiplayer and the Steam Workshop, which is why the games remain solely on the Steam platform.

I see this to be no reason to not release the game on disc, as all you would need to do to play online would be to download steam and activate that way as other games can be such as SEGA's Rome: Total War. Go buy the cd from your local retailer, whack the disc in, install steam, activate the game and away you go.

As I don't own the HD edition, I can't comment on the various bugs and so on that AoF apparently has, however I don't see continually patching the expansion as a proper way of going about things. Games shouldn't be half-baked before releasing them. If anyone heard what happened with Assassins Creed Unity, released before it should have been, some players found the game to be near unplayable and a patch had to be hastily made. If I am to correctly believe, the original Conquerors expansion had one official patch, the 1.0c patch, which had just about every fix that was needed.

Unfortunately Microsoft has also discontinued support for the XP operating system, forcing people to upgrade or to not be able to use new programs that they have released. Future (and I don't know for sure, but maybe also current versions.) versions of AoF and the new expansion to be released, may not run according to standards on the old XP OS.

Finally, I'm not sure I see the need for another expansion to the game. It already has two, plenty of civs to choose from. What else can they do without using a new game engine? Perhaps they are already looking at making another game for the series, this is what they should be looking at, while keeping in mind what hasn't worked in past games.

It will be interesting to see how this new expansion, and whatever will be in it, works out.

[This message has been edited by MrMew (edited 04-10-2015 @ 02:21 AM).]

Finally, I'm not sure I see the need for another expansion to the game. It already has two, plenty of civs to choose from. What else can they do without using a new game engine? Perhaps they are already looking at making another game for the series, this is what they should be looking at, while keeping in mind what hasn't worked in past games.

If it has more civis people would bye it more it will offer something the free version didnt.And most people wanted civs like Khmers in the game so I think its a good idea to have few more civis not a lot more.Since there is a camel archer unit I guess there is a arabic/african civi added in the game.

the AoF campaigns still don't have voice acting

Some of these scenarios have a ridiculous amount of dialogue which dates back to the time when it was a free mod. Voice acting all of that would be really expensive. The later campaigns did have less voice acting so for those it might still be a possibility.

And steam version modding support is still bad, using names for IDs (which, unlike IDs, often exist multiple times) for overwrite-slps is a stupid handling. Hex edits and other exe patches won't work

They intend to update the modding support and provide an in game mod workshop. Though expecting hex edits and exe patches for a game is overstretching imo. Mind that till very recently (a bit longer for the extra civs) we didn't have all these possibilities either. And these changes are really for the hardcore modders, slp and data editing is plenty for most modders.

For me, it is disappointing seeing over 5000 players per day getting the wrong experience of this wonderful game though HD playing campains and terrible multi player.

I always get the impression AoC is over glorified. Sure UP is still superior but I played AoC and UP for years on gameranger and been playing AoEII HD for quite some time too now and for me both games just work fine. I have not more lag than I did playing on gameranger, equal amount of drop outs, ...
Same for the ES campaigns. When you take away the voice acting and intro slides many of the scenarios were nothing more than enhanced random maps. The AoF campaigns won't get a super high rating here on aok heaven but they're not meant for the specialized experienced designers here. They're more in line with the old ES campaigns but often still more advanced. I can't speak for the scenarios I made but I think the scenarios of the other designers are of great quality.

3. So now I plunked down money for FE. NOW, I need to pay for expansion #2, or both HD AND FE have diminished value.

At the moment HD is still being played more than AoF so I don't think this is the case. But also.
"for example if you don’t have the expansions what happens to all of the additional ones? At the end of the day though, our goal is to make getting into a fun game quick and easy, as well as encourage people to host the newest content without fear of not getting players to join."

This implies they will try to avoid another division like happened with aok/aoc and aoc/fe.

But as an expansion, it's not quite as big as TC. From 2000. Content is easier to add and I expect for than that a decade and a half later.

I believe AoF actually adds more to the game than TC did. But yeah I agree that the missing voice acting is a sour point.

I see this to be no reason to not release the game on disc, as all you would need to do to play online would be to download steam and activate that way as other games can be such as SEGA's Rome: Total War.

That's just the evolution of the gaming industry whether you like it or not. I'm sure you can't get Total War: Attila on cd anymore either.

Unfortunately Microsoft has also discontinued support for the XP operating system

Like Sam said this is a decision of Microsoft for all their products and has little to do with the game developers.

What else can they do without using a new game engine?

I agree here, it's not easy anymore finding new civs. Some people suggest North-Americans or Polynesian civs but that's just overstretching I think. The civs of the new expansion do fit in nicely however and I'm sure many people will like them.


In conclusion I must admit that I'm biased (obviously) but I do not want to say you're wrong. Heck if I wasn't part of the team I'd probably have a very strong opinion as well but what I want to provide is a counter-weight to some of the statements that regularly surface around aoeII HD. Many are right but others are influenced by a general feeling which has become persistent. We do try to keep on improving the game and try to fix issues that were introduced by AoeII HD but also ones that we've become so accustomed to in AoC (1.0C was far from perfect just look at all the workarounds when designing a scenario). I don't think AoeII HD is an inferior product compared to the cd version and I'm sure that it will still become a lot better in the future. And obviously without the possibility for another sale Microsoft would not keep on investing in this. But what multinational company would? I think it's a good thing as it will keep this game alive and create an interest for the game with a lot of new people who will possibly also visit forums like aokheaven.

[This message has been edited by Jan dc (edited 04-10-2015 @ 05:17 AM).]

I'm sure you'll find a copy of Attila on cd for PC at our local retailer actually

Quoted from Hockeysam:

John, I heard of a couple people who had that crash issue and tried a reinstall or verified the integrity of the game cache and things worked perfectly after that.

I'll try this later, thanks. Too bad it's the only thing you replied to.

Quoted from Jan:

Voice acting all of that would be really expensive.

But is this already too much of a commitement to expect from a major software company? I'm pretty sure most of you on the team are not payed comparable amounts to "professionals" doing the same things in the same time without being enthusiasts for the particular game. And don't Cysion and/or the ones working on the game files actually use user-made programs such as AGE? It just doesn't stop giving the impression of basically taking advantage of game fans as their content producers and making money of it, and some of you are gladly part of that.

They intend to update the modding support and provide an in game mod workshop.

Oh, sure they intend to improve it. What don't they intend to improve? The lobby system is still awful, so much that it made people create an external site to give players a better alternative to the ingame one.

Though expecting hex edits and exe patches for a game is overstretching imo. Mind that till very recently (a bit longer for the extra civs) we didn't have all these possibilities either.

I believe that the Userpatch was there for quite a while... 2011, no?

I always get the impression AoC is over glorified. Sure UP is still superior but I played AoC and UP for years on gameranger and been playing AoEII HD for quite some time too now and for me both games just work fine. I have not more lag than I did playing on gameranger, equal amount of drop outs, ...

Oh, a difference is certainly noticeable. Not sure when you last played a game with several players on GR, you're probably just used to HD by now. And about drops/connection errors are always restorable in UP. In HD that's very much not the case. For example, if you briefly lose the internet connection - long enough for the game to enter the vote panel, but short enough for you to actually resume the connection, all players will be there, nobody drops, and everyone is stuck on the voting screen. Neither continue nor save and exit work, and the player that dropped just for a few secs has to resign and quit.

They're more in line with the old ES campaigns but often still more advanced.

However they miss a certain thing that made ES campaigns special from almost all others: Voiced unique slides, voiced dialogues. For any expansion trying to portray itself as a worthy successor, they can't simply take a step down from previous ones.

I believe AoF actually adds more to the game than TC did.

This would require a deeper comparison, but I honestly doubt that.

I'd like to finish this by simply quoting Matt, who I agree with:

It's nothing against the FE team. This is just a greedy business model that is becoming popular. For new games I can stomach it. But tacking some stuff onto an ancient game that I can do on my spare time and charging me for is greedy.

I believe that the Userpatch was there for quite a while... 2011, no?

Just filling you out a bit here

.exe and HEX-editing has been around for ages. HEX-editing has been a thing for aoe1 pretty much since launch. And .exe editing must've been around for ages for all the hacks to exist, not just the hack-pack, but speed hack for single player, no-cd fixes, anti-cheat, custom resolutions etc.

[This message has been edited by Basse (edited 04-10-2015 @ 07:47 AM).]

Yeah, I was just trying to give a better known example.

Quoted from John:

I'll try this later, thanks. Too bad it's the only thing you replied to.

I had two final papers/projects due today, so apologies for my brevity yesterday. I figured I'd still help as best I could without getting drawn into a time-consuming discussion

As for the other points, I can't really say anything beyond what Jan already said. AoF definitely added more content than AoC (though the lack of voice acting was obviously a sour point) but that it was previously a free mod and used some unoriginal graphics in the early stages diminished that effect and that is understandable.

Obviously I'm also biased here so any comment I make will be taken with a grain of salt. HD has had a rough past and we all realize that. Naturally everyone's eyes are on the future, and I can't comment on most of the speculation as I'm not at liberty to disclose anything that MS hasn't revealed already. I think it's fair to say, though, that the trend for a while now has been positive and that the continued support speaks volumes.

It just doesn't stop giving the impression of basically taking advantage of game fans as their content producers and making money of it, and some of you are gladly part of that.

The bolded portion is disappointing to read. This is about an opportunity to contribute to the longevity of a game that we've all played for a significant portion of our lives. AoF was contrived years ago as a mod/expansion to pump life back into AoE2 long before anyone could have imagined that MS would support the game again. Official support from MS presents far more potential for AoE2 than anything else ever could, and we're fortunate enough to have an opportunity to contribute to that. No amount of money could quantify the time and memories that AoE2 represents for me, and the direct and indirect impact that it has had on my life. I should hope that is easy to understand

It's just that some of us might feel that the FE team is acting as an enabler.

Microsoft pays them relatively nothing (at least according to popular consensus), invests zero into them, and let's them essentially work with the same tools we use here. Then they turn around and sell whatever the team produces with almost no concern, because, hey, free money.

It feels a lot like everyone wants so hard for this to be legitimate. The FE guys want to be a part of a real project. Microsoft wants a legitimate expansion to make money off. The fans want continued support. But this isn't it, and people get really angry that everyone won't lie to themselves and make it work.

i think the opposite of you, Sam. There is huge desire for AoK content. THe game is crazy popular. Microsoft sees this. And if they didn't have the FE team to abuse and use, they might actually put some effort into a true sequel. They might make a game that HD should have been. But as long as there is easy money to be made off a group of dedicated fans there isn't the incentive to do anything but collect a quick pay day.

I personally enjoyed AoF a lot.
It fixed many issues and added a lot of content for scenario editors. And it fixed many of the unused units.

Plus the new civs are awesome.
I for one, am looking forward to the next expansion.

I personally enjoyed AoF a lot.
It fixed many issues and added a lot of content for scenario editors. And it fixed many of the unused units.

Plus the new civs are awesome.

The thing is, all those things were added by the community for the original game with mods (UserPatch and later Forgotten Empires mod) before Microsoft decided to sell it on Steam for money.

Didn't this discussion already happen like two years ago?

[This message has been edited by Defibrilator (edited 04-10-2015 @ 04:57 PM).]

.exe and HEX-editing has been around for ages. HEX-editing has been a thing for aoe1 pretty much since launch. And .exe editing must've been around for ages for all the hacks to exist, not just the hack-pack, but speed hack for single player, no-cd fixes, anti-cheat, custom resolutions etc.

Of course but I'm referring to the specific hex editing we see nowadays. The one that changes hardcoded things that would otherwise not be possible through data editing. It might have been done earlier and userpatch goes a long way back but those hex edits being available to so many mods (pcm and chivalry for example) is quite new. I'm not talking about just new civs but about expanding the existing ES campaigns, moving petard and berserk abilities to other units,... As far as I know that's quite new.

they might actually put some effort into a true sequel. They might make a game that HD should have been.

Age of empires online, castle siege. If you're hoping for a true sequel you're pretty much left disappointed as both of those games weren't a great success. I doubt they can bring another great age of empires without the people from Ensemble Studios. Just like Sam I think the expansion and enthusiasm of people has brought age of empires back to the attention of Microsoft and probably has convinced their board members and financial people that this genre indeed has a chance for great success. Thus increasing the chance of another successor in the series. The success also increases the chance of more rts games as competitors will see its success and will try to make their own games to share in that success and get a piece of the pie.

The thing is, all those things were added by the community for the original game with mods (UserPatch and later Forgotten Empires mod) before Microsoft decided to sell it on Steam for money.

Forgotten Empires has come a long way from that. It's very different from the old free mod and will probably distinct itself from userpatch even more as well.

Didn't this discussion already happen like two years ago?

Exactly, maybe we should rather discuss the new stuff that's coming instead of repeating things that have been said plenty. I doubt I can change any of your minds and visa versa.

[This message has been edited by Jan dc (edited 04-10-2015 @ 06:38 PM).]

Didn't this discussion already happen like two years ago?
Exactly, maybe we should rather discuss the new stuff that's coming instead of repeating things that have been said plenty. I doubt I can change any of your minds and visa versa.

Im with this.

1.0C was far from perfect just look at all the workarounds when designing a scenario

When ES made this patch I don't think scenario design would have been there priority. They probably focused on game play issues in both singleplayer and multiplayer. I doubt at the time they would have thought that scenario designing would have gone to such a level it has now become.

AoF definitely added more content than AoC

I disagree in some aspects, this subject is largely debatable.

Didn't this discussion already happen like two years ago?
Exactly, maybe we should rather discuss the new stuff that's coming instead of repeating things that have been said plenty. I doubt I can change any of your minds and visa versa.

Agreed.
What info exactly has been released on it's content? Or name? I'd like to think Age of Other Forgotten Empires.

I'd rather see they finally fix the frozen screen with continue/wait/exit bug. And I tried running with win10 tech preview and it doesn't even launch (yes I tried compability mode etc.). Also add more support for older hardware first. Then I just might consider buying a new expansion.

And I completely agree with Mr. Wednesday.

[This message has been edited by PhatFish (edited 04-11-2015 @ 09:08 AM).]

I agree here, it's not easy anymore finding new civs. Some people suggest North-Americans or Polynesian civs but that's just overstretching I think. The civs of the new expansion do fit in nicely however and I'm sure many people will like them.

Can't wait to see what the new Civs are

Would the community accept another mod turned 'expansion'?

Would the community accept another mod turned 'expansion'?

This expansion has started as an official MS product from its announcement. AoFE was a mod first, but this one never was.

That would mean Microsoft actually learned from its mistakes with FE. I'm not saying that can't possibly happen, but it sure would be a rare sight.

@D_E: Rest assured, this one is being developed completely from scratch

Quoted from Jan dc:

Exactly, maybe we should rather discuss the new stuff that's coming instead of repeating things that have been said plenty.

Agreed. In line with this, I'm curious to hear what people would like to see (subject matter, content-wise, etc) or what their speculations are on the new expansion? For those of you who haven't seen it, here is a teaser image posted on the FE website a few days ago.

I still want to have different looking units for meso/arab and asians but that wont happen anytime soon I guess

About civis I think 3-5 would be more than enough without over complicating things. Khmers would be my best pick with a UU of a cannon elephant or a guy fighting melee riding the elephant.

I still want to have different looking units for meso/arab and asians but that wont happen anytime soon I guess

I think, unique skins for the different cultures would be too much... too much work, for one thing, but also too big a change from what players are used to.

I would say, however, that they should change the monk sprites for middle-eastern and asian civs. In AoF, there is the Imam sprite and Chand Bhai sprite that could perfectly be used for the middle-eastern and asian monks respectively. The reasons for just monks to change are pretty simple - both new sprites already exist, and there's already different monks for the mesos compared to everyone else. All that would need to be made is a sprite of the 2 new ones holding a relic.

Relic carry part is already done for those new monk skins heck I helped Todler make those.Only main problem I see if the weird bugs coming with the monks,hopefully they can fix it.New king skins should also be included there is the shah already done so they would just need the asian and meso kings.

I always wondered what the archers of the eyes should look like with a non default skin.

[This message has been edited by Mahazona (edited 04-13-2015 @ 10:17 PM).]

Relic carry part is already done for those new monk skins heck I helped Todler make those.Only main problem I see if the weird bugs coming with the monks,hopefully they can fix it.New king skins should also be included there is the shah already done so they would just need the asian and meso kings.

That's brilliant news. And yes, I love the Shah model, if there was Asian and Meso kings too it would be great.

Quoted from PhatFish:

I'd rather see they finally fix the frozen screen with continue/wait/exit bug.

This.

And I also agree with everything Matt said.

---

They definitely should not replace the icons of the editor heroes that came from The Conquerors (the ones with the generic unit as icon). They have the potential to make them look out of place in older scenarios, it would be far better to add a new unit if they wish to add a specific icon.

[This message has been edited by John the Late (edited 04-16-2015 @ 04:37 PM).]

They definitely should not replace the icons of the editor heroes that came from The Conquerors (the ones with the generic unit as icon). They have the potential to make them look out of place in older scenarios, it would be far better to add a new unit if they wish to add a specific icon.

They are only replaced in the Forgotten and the icons are all close ups from those units made by ES.

I completely agree to you, Matt.

I'd like to finish this by simply quoting Matt, who I agree with:

And I also agree with everything Matt said.

I think we get that by now .

[This message has been edited by Jan dc (edited 04-16-2015 @ 05:12 PM).]

He made a new post, so I have to agree to that one, too!

I mean, I can't agree in advance, can I?

They are only replaced in the Forgotten and the icons are all close ups from those units made by ES.

Yes, the problem is when you replace them. Making a new unit and setting a different icon for it takes about 10 seconds, would be a better way, in my opinion. (So you can still use the unique-icon-free units as heroes but also keep the new FE stuff).

[This message has been edited by John the Late (edited 04-16-2015 @ 05:14 PM).]

I honestly can't think of civs worth adding at this point. AoK sort of wrecked the idea of lots of civs by going with civs like 'saracens', which prevents having a more detailed approach like Berbers, Egyptians, Syrians, Moors, etc.

Portugal and Hungary seem like options, but a stretch. Irish are and Scottish are covered by 'celts', Wales is swallowed in Britons. The American civs were a stretch to begin with and the Incans even further. If they start adding stupid things like Cherokees I'll just laugh.

I dunno, I think Age of Chivalry is better if you want to get into little factions, while AoK was always about sweeping generalizations.

Normans might be fun. They aren't exactly covered by either vikings or franks, and it's a general enough name to fit AoK. I always thought Indians and Italians worked, but they should have gone with Russians instead. Feels more like what ES would have done.

Ghana/Mali are Islamic, but don't really fall under Saracens, like the rest of the North African civs you mentioned.

Ethiopia had a fairly significant empire too, and they managed to remain christian while surrounded by muslims.

Khmer in south-east Asia are another legit empire of the time period, as are the Tibetans.

Portuguese for a fifth one - they could be represented by the Spanish possibly, but easily not.

Berbers/Moors are looking likely however, since the screenshotted new unit is a camel archer.

Fyi, Hungary is already in AoF as the Magyars.

The Slavs vs Russians question is interesting and has been brought up a decent amount (probably because the Slavic units speak Russian). I think "Slavs" is actually what ES would have gone with, though, as it is the name of a broader people-group and not an actual nationality. ES had a similar style with "Britons" instead of "English", "Vikings" instead of "Danish," "Norwegians," "Swedish," "Franks" instead of "French," "Celts" instead of "Scottish" or "Irish," and so on. That naming system also usually has the benefit of covering a longer time period from a historiographical standpoint. The Magyars as an entity enter history around the 4th century CE, while Hungarians enter history with the founding of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1001 CE.

Naturally, the benefit of "Slavs" as a name is that it covers a wider area (as the ES names do as well) and so can apply to more of Eastern Europe than just Russia.

Here is a good explanation why the slaves are in the game even ES had the same thoughts.could it be that some of these civics would come out again?
http://aok.heavengames.com/gameinfo/conquerors-expansion

speculation is correct the camel archers are the coming of berbers in to AOF.
http://www.forgottenempires.net/age-of-empires-ii-hd-dev-blog-1-new-civilizations

Ack.. no Khmers or Tibetans so. I am disappoint.

I do hope that the Civ that is being referred to as the one that has been asked for inclusion a lot is not the Romans.
Portuguese are still an option though, and Mali/Ghana and Ethiopia pretty much confirmed.

So that's going to be -
Berbers (confirmed)
Mali/Ghana?
Ethiopia?
Portugal? (hopefully)

What about the last? Vandals, possibly, but I kinda hope not.

[This message has been edited by El Daddy (edited 04-17-2015 @ 11:57 AM).]

I don't suppose the Dutch had much of a presence in the middle ages. Mostly Frisians iirc. And the rest would probably fall under the Teutons. Still, would be nice.

[This message has been edited by Big D (edited 04-17-2015 @ 11:49 AM).]

Portuguese are still an option though, and Mali/Ghana and Ethiopia pretty much confirmed.

How do you know?

How do you know?

They're African, and had the most substantial empires in the timeframe of the game.

Of course, I could easily be wrong. I was dead certain on the Khmer, though that might have just been hope.

Portugal is not African.

Interesting, African civs. I would expect to see Ethiopia and Ghana/Mali/Songhai if this is the case. With the Berbers in too, I think the only other big name left for civilizations would be the Congolese kingdom. Other than that, you are left with the Egyptians, but those are usually included in the Saracens.

As for other civs relevant on the continent from outside, I cannot think on any other than the Portugal and the Moors, but I guess the latter are already included with the berbers, as their historical territories overlap.

MithrilKnight, the expansion is not only going to be out civs from Africa itself, but also empires that "held great power in the region". So they're still a possibility.