User blog comment:MasterBroccoli/Listing order (games and civilizations)/@comment-5157002-20190828072553

The civilization listing bothers me. It feels more natural to do it alphabetically in AoE2, and by expansion in AoM. Either we have to:
 * List them by expansion in AoE2 (which would mean looking up which expansion the civilization comes from before creating such a list - unnecessary work)
 * List them alphabetically in AoM (which feels wrong, somehow)
 * Have different rules for the different games (which is inconsistent, and hard to keep track of).

Having considered it, I think we should list the civilizations alphabetically. Consistency is important, and it is less work (and looks better) than keeping track of which expansion the civilizations come from. Also, "It feels wrong" really isn't a convincing argument, even to myself.

I think, however, that we should list the games chronologically. We don't list expansions alphabetically (placing "Rise of the Rajas" before "The Conquerors" or "The Asian Dynasties" before "The WarChiefs"), and often, AoE3 builds on and expands on things first introduced in AoM. It would be odd for the AoE3 section to point to the AoM section which is located below it, and weirder for the AoM section to contain the sentence "it works the same as in AoE3", when AoM introduced the feature being discussed.