The game is based around establishing colonies in new territories. The Danes were undoubtedly more successful than the Germans, Swedes, and Poles when it came to establishing colonies. They unquestionably have a ticket to entry.
I’m not saying those are rigorous comparisons, but they’re comparisons that can be made, and in any case, they’re more meaningful than “imagining the entire Korea being magically teleported to Southeast Asia.”
If you think the Burmese and Vietnamese victories were easy, you might want to consider that the Burmese were fighting the Siamese while also having to fend off the Qing, and that the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war while one of the factions intervened in Cambodia and fought against Siam. Additionally, a large portion of the Ming troops sent to support Korea were also brought in from the south.
When you say “jungle tribes,” are you referring to Champa, Laos, Cambodia, Siam… and the Qing as well?
I very much doubt that. The Germans, Swedes, and Danes all had a handful of Caribbean islands and West African trade posts. But later on the Germans got ahold of huge chunks of Africa and Papua so they’re clearly far more successful. Swedes had New Sweden for a time which is a lot nicer than Denmark’s Greenland territories.
Wasn’t this like the default state of affairs? Seems like Burma and Siam were always fighting each other and Vietnam was perpetually in civil war.
I was meaning the Moi though the Champa weren’t really in a stellar state during the time of AoE3 so conquering their last rump states isn’t hugely impressive. Also I meant to say conquered, not defeated so no I’m not referring to the Qing.
I think you should probably take into account the big difference between old colonialism (the first wave of European colonialism) and New Imperialism (the second wave of European colonialism).
For the most part, the game focuses on old colonialism. In any case, the Danish West Indies remained a Danish colony for more than two centuries, while New Sweden only lasted 17 years.
The Scramble for Africa is probably the clearest example of New Imperialism. And Germany at the time was that German Empire of the late 19th century. Whether i should be represented in the game is somewhat debatable, though. I’ve seen people discuss Prussia and the German Confederation, but they don’t seem to want to go any further and get into the Second Reich. Also, within the timeframe, the New Imperialism only falls within the last 15 years of the 19th century.
So it’s not like they won simply by being united and having to put all their effort into fighting just one opponent.
If you think the challenges faced by the Koreans were far greater than those faced by them, then you can take those factors into consideration as well. The Koreans were united, and they only had one opponent to deal with at a time.
If you want to talk about tribes, Korea also carried out campaigns against the Jurchen tribes in the 15th and 16th century.
But still, while both Korea and Vietnam were subordinate states under Chinese suzerainty, Korea never achieved anything comparable to Vietnam defeating Siam and making Cambodia its own subordinate state. Although both Korea and Vietnam saw themselves as inheritors of Chinese civilization after the Ming was conquered by the Manchus, the former stopped there, while the latter actively sought to establish its own sphere of suzerainty.
The Vietnamese in-game are based on Vietnam under the First and Second Phase of the Regime of the Nguyen Dynasty (1802-1839) (en: Kingdom of Việt Nam, vi. Việt Nam quốc) and struggles, revolutionaries against the Invasion of Franco-Spanish Expeditionary Forces and later, French Colonial empire.
Age-up wonders: Temple of Literature, Tran Quoc Pagoda, Hue Imperial City, Turtle Tower, Trieu To Temple
Unique Units:
Infantry: Hue Rifleman, Rattan Archer, some kind of spearman (?)
Cavalry: Some kind of lancer (?), some kind of war elephant (?)
Artillery: Hoa Ho cannon, Holy Cannon, some kind of elephant artillery (?)
Naval: Mong Dong gunboat
Explorer/monk: Some Vietnames folk religion shaman (?)
Yes, literally the Danes had a colonial empire (even to this day if you consider Greenland a former colony)…not to mention all the wars they had with Sweden…Denmark couldn’t be left out of the game…
Yes, exactly…you have plenty to draw from…the wars between Burma and Siam from the 16th-19th centuries and Siam and Vietnam in the 19th century…
Yes, the same applies to Italy, which although it did not have colonies in America, had Libya and Eritrea in Africa…
I would take that as a point in favour of a Korean civ over against Vietnam that was fractured and fighting itself.
So another point in favour of Korea?
Korea didn’t have any remotely comparable opportunities to do something like this. There simply weren’t any ailing middle powers in their neighbourhood they could nab territory from.
Ultimately I think all three of these nations are worthy, capable civs and we’re probably more in agreement than not. If people want Vietnam and Burma then they should be posting about what makes them great and what they could look like and you’ve actually done that. What I’m taking issue with and pushing back against is people merely going out of their way to shit on Korea and making apples to oranges comparisons to hate on them. Doing that is just petty and unproductive.
While the Danish one had been for a particularly long time. All in all, the legitimacy of the Danes is right there.
Given those advantages, I’d take those crushing defeats as a big point against a Korean civ.
Yeah. That’s one of the things they can point to within that timeframe. But if you don’t think Vietnam’s conquest of those jungle tribes is anything worth mentioning, then Korea’s conquest of the Jurchens is really not much different.
That is objectively true. But without achievements to back up, any praise of strength feels hollow. Otherwise, there’d be way too many “if they’d had the opportunities” candidates.
In my view, the issue comes from that some people who push a Korean civ don’t really realize how Korea (and other Asian candidates) actually performed within the timeframe. Particularly, some people seem to simply think it would be a good idea to put them alongside the Persians, which makes me feel like, beyond knowing that they’re both Asian and well-known, they don’t really have a much deeper understanding.
It’s fair enough if it’s purely because of modern Korea’s gaming market and international recognition. But if they’re trying to hype up their historical achievements, then that’s where it gets awkward. For example, the naval achievements under Admiral Yi are undeniable, but if you compare what they accomplished during the Imjin War to something like Lepanto, then the overall situation was far more terrible. It was as if the Ottomans had already swept across continental Europe, with not just Rome but even Paris falling, and the Pope fleeing to Britain. People hype up the naval victories, but rarely mention the bigger picture.
When it comes to next Asian civs, I think it’s really a question of priority. The Persians , as the highest-priority one, shouldn’t really be paired with any from Far East. They’re just way too different in pretty much every respect. Then, if we get the Siamese & Burmese first, and then the Vietnamese & Koreans, I don’t think the people you mentioned who “hate on Korea” would really have much to complain about.
But excuse me.. The 19th-century Joseon dynasty effectively collapsed in the process of decline. Because, starting in 1875 (the 18th century), Japan (then Meiji Japan) sought to effectively turn Korea into its colony, and to do so it waged diplomatic wars and wars against the great colonial powers of the time, including the Qing Dynasty, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the United States, and even went as far as massacring civilians within the Korean Peninsula (the Great Subjugation of South Korea). And on August 29, 1910, through the Treaty of Ganghwa between Korea and Japan, the Joseon dynasty (then the Korean Empire) remained a colony of the Japanese Empire for 34 years, 11 months, and 17 days, and on August 15, 1945, it won independence.
Bonus: The great powers of the time were so vile and selfish that by handing over Joseon to Japan, they had already revealed all of that far too clearly.
I agree that Persia probably shouldn’t pair with those types of civilizations and would pair better with a Central Asian civ, at least thematically.
Putting aside historical military victories during the AoE3 timeframe, we should consider that the Koreans have already appeared in both AoE1 (as the Choson) and AoE2. This is something they share with the Chinese and Japanese. Adding the Koreans in AoE3 seems like a fitting way to round things out. Now I’m wondering how a Korean pantheon would work in Age of Mythology…
All this “next civ” talk is assuming we actually get more AoE3 DLC of course. Marketability is going to influence what AoE3 civilizations are going to be considered for DLC in the future, if any. By contrast, AoE2 can just sell whatever and it will do well. Even Three Kingdoms sold well despite the hate it got.
Check the category. Here is a discussion about AoE3, not about AoE2.
That’s why I said that if there’s ever going to be a Korean civ, the theme should focus on the Hermit Kingdom. The Consulate mechanic doesn’t really fit it. They could have a different mechanic that uses export instead.
We have multiple Germanic civs in AoE2, AoE3, and AoE4, but there are no Germanic people in AoE1, and Germanic mythology isn’t represented in AoM either. Is it really necessary to appear in every title in the franchise?
The Benin Kingdom’s flag would be pretty cool, though it’s quite violent.
As for Africa, I’m all for the Kongolese and the Zimbabweans. I’d actually prefer them over more Asian civs, because I really don’t want to see another civ with Wonder and Monk Hero mechanic.
There were differences in the attitudes of various powers, the Qing Dynasty, and the Kingdom of Korea: the Qing Dynasty attempted to protect Korea, but they were completely defeated by Japan in the Sino-Japanese War; Russia sheltered the King of Korea, but failed in the subsequent Russo-Japanese War; Britain regarded Russia as an adversary and attempted to support Japan to contain Russia’s influence in the Far East, and it clearly achieved its goal; other powers basically remained on the sidelines
Most of the treaties made between East Asia and the Western powers were very far from “equality.” These are facts that anyone who has even glanced at East Asia’s modern to contemporary history would know, and there were very many cases where China and Japan themselves signed treaties with the Western powers that were far from such “equality.”
Funnily enough tried to come up with a design with an actual Swiss for a mod and we came up with nothing lmao. Switzerland sounds a lot more interesting in theory than in practice, like sure they had their mercenaries really early on, but after that they kinda just didn’t get involved in wars, so…
es exactamente lo que pienso, capaz podrian funcar civilizacion menor (?) pero no estoy del todo seguro (ademas de que hay otras civilizaciones menores mas interesantes , COMO SUDAMERICA que estan los zapotecas o en asia y africa o incluso otras casas reales, pero tampoco es una “necesidad” eso ni muchos es “apremiante” por decirlo de alguna manera), bien ahi el intento de pensar el diseño igual
pero no estoy del todo seguro 
(ademas de que hay otras civilizaciones menores mas interesantes 
, COMO SUDAMERICA que estan los zapotecas 
o en asia y africa o incluso otras casas reales, pero tampoco es una “necesidad” eso ni muchos es “apremiante” por decirlo de alguna manera), bien ahi el intento de pensar el diseño igual 
