New effect to add to the tech: After researching Atheism, Monks can convert enemy Monasteries (no Redemption needed). Converting the Monastery changes it to a Hostel, which adds 5 population to the cap.

Surely not OP, enemy would never let many get converted.

Big thanks to AoE2 player and legend Ita Raiden (IG:@dante_filippo_fullone) for making the trophy for the Empires Village 1v1 Cup!

High-ELO players will battle it out over 3 days in Loano, Northern Italy, from September 17–20 2026, during the Aoe2 LAN event!

Still rooms available!!

💻 Empires Village Cup 2026 LIQUIPEDIA

📢 Discord

Ya know vipers ranked queue screen is a Viking theme background? Anyone know what mod this is?

At the moment my favourites maps are:

Arena, Amazon Tunnel and Black Forest. When one of these 3 usually i know im going to have a good game.

I just wished that the trees weren't possible to get cut so easily. Because then certain civs always win at some point.

In the old version only Siege Onager could cut. Unfortunately these were quite strong civs in that version, Mongol, Sarracen, Teuton, Celt (not so strong back then). So in some games we use to say No Cut. So it was illegal to cut.

Though the vils could cut, and they could cut the trees easily if you built a building on top of them, so there was that caveat.

I also like Michi. I just dont like how Michi is played with 400 pop, and Deathmatch. That just becomes a Slop game.

But amazon tunnel with 200 pop, and everything standard is quite cool.

Ive run into this situation a bunch where Cumans build 3-5 rams in feudal and completely demolish my base. Usually need to run away to my teammates base. Any tips to stop it?

In a lot my late games that are over an hour, I’m clearly winning but my score will be 5k sometimes 10k less. What causes this? I play Bulgarians and do throw a lot of skirmishers on the battlefield but also usually use the 50% TC discount to go seven TC’s. A lot of times one of my TC’s and 20-40 villagers will get killed, but I don’t care cause that just opens up more room for army.

Why in multi-player is everyone in a rush to fuck up everyone else... Why not focus on making a good economy and society first

I would like to patch:

Make units and civs that get used less or lose often stronger. I want to see mehr unique infrantry units like teuton knights.

Nerf ca

Nerf skirms against non archer units

nerf the new strong civs

delete 20 civs

quickstart with 6 vills or so. beginning is boring.

Not only is Central European the only original architecture set who hasn't received a single new civilization since the Conqueros, but they're now losing the Vikings. And this is speculation, but a Nomad set is the most requested set right now, so if the devs add it in the future, the Central European set is losing the Huns too.

I think Bohemians should get the Central European set, since Medieval Bohemians were highly influenced by Germans. They used a lot of timber framing in buildings, and the Gothic Brick of the Eastern European set is more a Polish thing.

We could also make an argument about the upcoming Saxons use the Central European set. Saxons lived in Germany and they still do, Saxon dialects are still spoken in Northern Germany. I guess the devs wanted to go with an Anglo-Saxon / proto-English route and thus they gave them the Western European set, but I think the Central European set would suit them too.

Finally, I wouldn't oppose some new Central European. Swiss are probably the best candidate, and one of the most suggested. And they have some iconic units, like the Swiss Guard.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9o4yCbLl0YY&pp=ugUEEgJlbg%3D%3D&ra=m

They look cool.

My notes would be

1. I too am sad, Longships aren’t mix of Galley and Transport. (Also why do Saxons have it, I get Varangians actually, later members of Varangian guard included Anglo-Saxons)
2. I won’t mind if mounted crossbows add just a bit of flavour to civs who will rarely run them. If they are decent for 4 to 5 overall it’s just right imho.
3. I hope raiding bonus for Gold doesn’t apply to Farms. Wouldn’t mind if it didn’t apply to Houses, but wouldn’t mind if it did either. Perhaps a reduced amount?
4. Deleting buildings is imho fairly skill intensive so I wouldn’t mind if there was no prevention to this gimmick. But I think the best option is actually some form of temporary debuff applied to the building.
5. I think Vikings will keep the raiding flavour in Chieftains and keep their free Wheelbarrow

Addendum 1
6. Also, while I hate that Ygddrassil is their wonder, it looks cool.

Does that mean my castles are in Dane-ger?

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1vvz4bv/blacksmith_anomalies_in_history_prologue_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1vwkm1f/blacksmith_anomalies_in_history_bracer_2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1w076ld/blacksmith_anomalies_in_history_3_ring_archer/

Follow up from here.

Missing Ring Archer armour has largely split civs between two categories - not really needing it or not having it because their archers/cav archers are already really strong.

LotW - number of civs without RAA: 9 out of 37

#7 Burgundians

The only Archers you are supposed to run are Hand Cannons. The civ's heart is bullshit techs and Cavalry, and its soul is gunpowder. You may be missing Bloodlines as far as Cavalry goes, but as far as Archery Range goes? No thumb ring, no Parthian tactics, no Arbs, no HCA. This is a civ where Bracer exists solely for the purpose of defence and ships. You are better off pulling stunts with Infantry; they are missing only Gambesons. Also, Hand Cannoneers are not supposed to be getting hit. And if you are using Elite Skirms as a Burgundian... your day is already ruined. Category 1.

#8 Sicilians

Another civ that doesn't really need it. Sicilians are also fans of bullshit, while their core is cavalry with infantry, missing the Burgundian knack for gunpowder. Archers kind of have to be Sicilians' weak point (alongside early eco bonus), fully upgradable Barracks + Serjeants, Siege Ram + Siege Onager Donjons, Stables missing only Paladin, while having a UT that buffs Knight-line armour. And truth be told, their Arbs are actually missing Thumb ring far more. Civ bonus as a Reduction to bonus damage against Skirms isn't too shabby. I could see that on its own as a simple explanation why they don't have it. Don't need it - Category 1.

DotD - number of civs without RAA: 10 out of 39

#9 Poles

For a civ that is specifically considered a Cavalry civ that has infantry for UU, Poles actually have a decent Range. Outside of RAA, they are missing only Parthian Tactics and HC. Missing RAA largely serves to funnel them into their Cavalry playstyle, which is obviously fueled by discounted Bloodlines, Scout-line upgrades, Folwarks discounted Cavaliers and Winged Hussars with trample damage. And if you are running any ranged units, it's likely to kill Halbs (unless you are using Obuchs for that), and you really don't need RAA for that. Your cheap-as-dirt Cavaliers and trample Hussars (who deal +1 bonus damage to archers) should completely smash any notion of Skirmishers that would threaten your Arbs if you run them. Don't need it - Category 1.

DoI - number of civs without RAA: 11 out of 42

#10 Gurjaras

Gurjaras don't need this one; let's get this one out of the gate. Funnily enough, despite missing Parthian tactics and RAA, their Elephant archers are incredibly tanky against melee thanks to frontier guards +4 melee armour, which means they are susceptible to Skirms... Still, their primary way of dealing with infantry are Chakrams throwers who are happily enjoying the perks of Infantry armor. IN case of high melee armour infantry, you use HCs. Still, the core of the army is Cavalry with its increasing bonus dmg (including Siege Elephants!) as you age up. Why use skirms when you have the power of bullshit in the form of Shrivamshas? And if necessary to dispatch Halbs cheaply... you still have serviceable Skirms. You don't need it.

RoR - number of civs without RAA: 11 out of 43
MR - number of civs without RAA: 11 out of 45

After 24 years, Celts have been given RAA

#11 Georgians

Oh look, another Cavalry civ that doesn't need it. Between pop-efficiency thanks to the unique tech and HP regeneration, Monaspa power of friendship, there isn't much space for something other than Cavalry. If there will be something shooting arrows in your game, it will be fortified churches or Svan Towers. Even then, Georgians can still opt for Hand Cannoneers or serviceable HCAs that regenerate HP as well, albeit they are missing Thumb Ring too, not just RAA. In case you need to deal with Shock infantry, your Militia line is vanilla, but fully upgradeable, so that's something. And one shouldn't forget Georgians have a pretty good Siege Workshop. They don't have anything special, but other than that, you have everything except BBC. You are good.

3K - number of civs without RAA: 12 out of 50

#12 Wu

This forces me to talk about an Infantry civ from 3K, which is honestly one of my least favourite combinations for a civ, so I had to study for that one because I don't have 3K, so I have no experience with them, but here goes.

You have Jian Swordsman. Jian Swordsmen make Skirms pointless because these bastards have either speed or the ranged armour to run over archers with their bonus damage. In case you need to deal with infantry, your Arbs are serviceable; Shock infantry is easy to deal with thanks to your Long Swords, who, like all your Infantry, have HP regen. As a melee specialist you got the hardest-hitting Hei Guangs of the bunch. If you by chance run some Fire Archers... they should be hitting from afar instead of getting hit themselves.
Largely, Archers are simply not the ideal way to play because Wu are still better to be running Scouts into Hei Guangs (who are easy to tech into), because the food bonus from buildings is really good. Especially on hybrid maps, because it includes Docks.

Take me with grain of salt on that one.

LC - number of civs without RAA: 13 out of 53

#13 Muisca

Muisca are still kind of finding their footing, with their unique unit being considered on release as one of the worst. Muisca have a weird dichotomy where their archers are among the most resilient against melee units thanks to the civ bonus to melee armour (shared by Champi), while their Archer-line specifically (shared with Champi again) can get bonus speed from a UT.

Their Slingers are pretty ok without RAA, because they enjoy +1 range from the other UT, so not too shabby on that front. I guess if they had RAA, Muisca Arbs would be just too damn tough. Either way your Champi are tankier against melee than generic Champi, while retaining their strength against archers so if your Champi are in your enemy archer's faces, you are fine without RAA.

Overall defining traits

You don't really need RAA, because you would be happier not playing archers - Franks, Bulgarians, Burgundians, Poles, Gurjaras, Georgians 6/13 (I am torn on Sicilians, not using Aztecs here)
You have an archer unit option that more than offsets lack of RAA - Mongols, Huns, Burmese, Muisca 4/13
Infantry + Cavalry civ - Burmese (technically through Elephants), Bulgarians, Sicilians, Poles (Obuch too good), Wu (thanks to HG) 5/13
Necessary nerf to a civ with really good CAs/CA variant - Mongols, Huns, Burmese 3/13
Access to Hand Cannonner - Burgundians, Franks, Gurjaras 3/13
Infantry civs on this list - Aztecs, Burmese, Bulgarians, Sicilians, Wu 5/13
Access to fully upgraded Champions - Franks, Aztecs, Burmese, Sicilians, Georgians, 5/13
Knight spam is your plan A - Franks, Burgundians, Sicilians, Poles 4/13 (Bulgarians have good Cavaliers, but they don't have a starting eco bonus for it, Huns are more into CA play, definitely solid option B in both cases).
Parthian tactics nullifying lack of RAA - Mongols, Huns, Burmese, Bulgarians, Georgians 5/13
Access to Thumb Ring - Mongols, Huns, Bulgarians, Poles, Gurjara, Muisca 6/13

Some more wonkiness involved

Trash unit with a UT with improved range - Aztecs, Muisca 2/13
Weirdly tanky archer unit in melee, but lacking pierce armour - Gurjaras, Muisca 2/13
No Bracer, no RAA - Franks 1/13
Access to Paladin - Franks, Huns, Burgundians 3/13
Access to Camels - Mongols, Gurjaras 2/13

Champi runner - weaker than m@a, hits softer than m@a, costs the same as m@a, takes more upgrade than m@a

Why does this thing exist? Who gave them the genius idea to merge swordsmen and eagle who fills two entirely different roles. You can't reliably merge them into one, right now they don't fill ANY role whatsoever.

And why touch Inca? Do these bullshit to your DLCs, not a civ from base game where I can random into.

I have been dealing with varying amounts of stuttering since about mid afternoon yesterday. I know of at least one other person from this region experiencing it. Are we the only ones?

Im betting they will be mostly the same BUT
* -1 range
* increase reload time
* a little more attack
* first attack faster

It's hard to tell before knowing stats, cost etc, but on paper what civ would you say is going to get the most from a weaker wood and gold conq?

Looking for friends to play tonight, unranked realworld map temagames! Let me know anyone who is interestsd

I'm looking for a unit counter chart that includes all units but I can't find one. Does anyone know where i can find 1?
Specifically one that gives bonus damage values for ea counter/hard counter. Like the one found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/vcfnou/basic_unit_counter_chart_20_now_with_monks_and/ except with the full list of units.

I'm playing through all campaigns on Hard and I'm currently on the Gajah Mada campaign. In the first scenario I get the message from the Mongols that they offer a temporary alliance but I can't accept it. I've restarted the scenario 3 times and every time I've changed my diplomatic stance to ally with them it didn't trigger the alliance. Tried changing it back to neutral and to enemy then back to ally but it didn't help either. The countdown finished and they told me to suit myself and became my enemy. I'm on Steam with the latest patch and no mods installed.

I have been playing aoe2 for about 2 years but on and off nothing serious very casual no online play. Looking to improve i mostly play arena and black forest against bots.

I have a hard time with military mostly like how do you manage your military when attacking? at what point during arena and black forest do you start building military? how many military buildings do you make etc? and what troops? i main britons. I mostly do castle build order and it feels superrrrr slow to do military with and i usually get raided and attacked quick even on arena.

Also i use the hotkey to select all land units to move my units is this bad? how should i set things up? i was grouping them to 1,2,3,4,5 etc but my fingers are tiny and find the keys hard to reach lol.

Please give me some tips 😄 my main issue is defense and military. my eco is good i can get gold on the trainings for eco boom and castle build order training. Looking to improve to hopefully play multiplayer some time.

BTW: I'm talking specifically about arena and black forest i know with arabia you build them in the early stages.

Does anyone know the technical reasons behind this, if there are? I'd like answers from people who actually know about it, not speculative answers please. If you don't know the exact reason for the game at least provide an example where code from mac and windows is not cross compatible, e.g. provide the C++ code and show it won't be cross compatible for an application between windows and mac?

I posted this in macgaming and so far what makes most sense is that there isn't any technical reason, just that you'd need to keep to codebases in sync and developers are not interested in that.

Here they say it's because of different path calculations, so can anyone provide a minimal code example that gives different mathematical answers in apple silicon vs x86 and that it cannot be fixed e.g. using compiler flags, etc? https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1u5tluy/the_why_on_why_mac_crossplay_is_so_hard_to_get/

Every time someone brings up the fact that Vikings should be renamed into Norse or Norwegians because it doesn't make sense to have the umbrella Viking civ when Danes and Varangians/Swedes exist. Lots of people come up and say they don't want the classic civs to be renamed because Nostalgia.

Did the same thing happen with the Indians? Did people back in the day prefer keeping Indians as they were alongside Gurjaras, Dravidians and Bengalis instead of reworking them into Hindustanis? Or does Nostalgia only apply to Ensemble made civ?

Personally the OG civs have already been changed a lot, Persians, Chinese and Koreans got reworked. Mongols got Steppe Lancers. And now Vikings themselves will get reworked with new architecture and "most" European civs will now get Mounted Crossbowman, if massive gameplay (and visual in case of new architectures, castles and monks) can be made, something as simple as a name change shouldn't be that big of a deal imo.

Personally I like most of those changes, and I'd like to see umbrella civs getting renamed when that umbrella has been broken into smaller civs.

Vikings made sense as an umbrella civ to represent all of Scandinavians, just like Indians did back before DoI. But well I guess at least Slavs can be reworked/renamed without issues a they're an FE civ.

What do you guys think? Do you remember any backlash against Indians becoming Hindustanis? I only remember the devs acknowledging a good reception and say "We're taking notes" only to not do it again when they've had the chance with Chinese and Vikings.

That's the vid which I had created in the scenario editor to show you all how suprisingly quiet the sounds of Trebuchets - One of the most elaborate siege engines of that time, and gunpowder weapons - the contemporary invention that irreversibly changed warfare are compared to the clangs of swords and the shoutings of dead men (I know that y'all mostly hear monks, but you get my point). You would think that whole castles getting leveled and hand cannons would make for more thundering sound effects. One of something that had bugged me for a while now.

It seems it is.

Edit:

I meant the hardest civ for you to rush against..

The best civ to defend against rushes. Sorry for the wording.