To add to what I think are excellent points, the Aztecs were defeated in 1521, and didn’t interact with most of the civs in the game (from my understanding). Korea at least had significant diplomatic interactions with China, and various military interactions with China and Japan. Not sure how significant they were, but they probably also had some level of interaction with some European powers.
The Aztecs had contact with the Spanish, and if they had waited a little longer to expand southward, they would have encountered the northern territories of the Incas…
1 Like
That’s how I see non-Chinese people where they keep mentioning Siam but somehow snore on/belittlingBurma even when Burma conquered Siam at one point during the 18th century.
Well it already had Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedes, Aztecs and Inca which were in decline at some point so not every civ is some winner with a huge landmass territory for a long time.
I retype a few times, meant to say they didn’t survive long after encountering the Spanish. Big oops.
I personally want bigger empires over little regions, but at some point it would be cool to implement them. Plus SEA hasnt any representation now.
1 Like
Yes, if you’re more flexible, you could consider that the Aztecs, already under Spanish rule, faced the Japanese ronin in Manila in 1572 (and the Chinese if you take as an example the stupid theory of the 1421 Chinese campaign)…
Yes, I also thought that in AoE 3 they might add the Georgians in a DLC alongside the Persians, like TMR from AoE 2…
It’s not like they didn’t do anything. It’s just that usually what they were doing was getting walloped by their bigger neighbours.
And not having many victories would only really matter if each civ had a campaign like AoE2 which is never going to happen for AoE3.
Only Aztecs is really a good example of this. All these other ones reached their peak golden age during the period even if some declined later.
Yes, the same applies to the civilizations of Central Asia that were located between Russia and Persia…
Of course, the historical peak of the Eurasian civilizations was precisely this period (1453-1914)…the other civilizations only confronted them to avoid being erased from history…
Denmark had colonies, its own West India and East India companies.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was at its height from the second half of the 16th century to the first half of the 17th century, winning military victories against both Russia and Sweden.
No one can really prove that. All we can do is compare their respective achievements.
If you really want to make a comparison, Burmese actually defeated the Qing, while Koreans, quite literally, suffered a humiliating and crushing defeat. Korea needed substantial military assistance from the Ming to avoid being conquered as a country, whereas Vietnam, despite also being a subordinate state, successfully defeated the Ming while they had used to be directly ruled by Chinese. Vietnam also defeated other neighboring powers, something Korea never really managed to do in the timeframe.
2 Likes
You can say this about every group in human history. This isn’t a particularly good reason to single out Korea.
I still think my previous conclusion holds. The point isn’t really whether Korea should be a playable civ. It’s that, within the timeframe, they actually have relatively few achievements, which doesn’t really match the huge amount of enthusiasm for them on the forum. On the other hand, the Burmese and Vietnamese did conquer territories, yet hardly anyone seems to talk about them like that.
Turtle Ships, so cool.
Gakgung Archers were the major force in the defense and resistance against Toyotomi Japan. They could shoot short bolts, which was pretty cool.
Joseon Musketeers saved the Qing troops and gave the Russians a beating at the Battle of Hutong. That was the first written encounter between Russia and Korea.
Rocket Carts firing fire arrows would have historical significance for both the Chinese and Koreans.
Regardless of whether Korea becomes a playable civ, I think it would still be worth adding these units to the game first as mercenaries or Native units. At least, the Chinese could ship them through cards.
The Maltese are an exception. They genuinely served as defenders of Western civilization, and more importantly, their inclusion was a homage to the story mode. That’s something no other potential civ would have.
2 Likes
Exactly, I would add that Poland, through Courland, also had colonies in Tobago and the Gambia River…
Yes, and that civ used a lot of assets from the campaign, so it’s easy for me to do the reverse process (from multiplayer to campaign)…
The truth is that historical accuracy should always be a primary criterion for implementing a civilization, rather than inventing units or roles without coherence or historical basis.
I suppose if they had turtle ships, their navy was more than respectable. Furthermore, with this unit they achieved one of the most important military victories in history:
You could pick any group, look for any achievements or distinctive things they did within the timeframe, and design a unit based on those.
The turtle ships are definitely cool, but they were actually expensive and pretty rare (about 3 to 5 ships). They were used as a shock force to charge into enemy fleet formations. They did help the Korean navy achieve some victories at sea, but it was much more a testament to Admiral Yi’s individual talent. Even the Korean navy’s success itself was largely due to Admiral Yi’s ability.
The turtle ship was specifically designed to counter the Japanese reliance in boarding, which came from Admiral Yi’s familiarity with how the Japanese fought. When he lost command of the navy, the Korean navy suffered a devastating defeat, at one point being reduced to just 12 panokseon ships. After regaining command, Yi used his knowledge of the Myeongnyang Strait to win with those 12 ships, preventing Korea from losing control of the seas entirely.
The Battle of Sacheon you mentioned was the turtle ships’ first deployment, but it probably wasn’t the Korean navy’s greatest achievement, nor was it the most important naval battle of the Imjin War.
3 Likes
I mean, I think you dug into the gist of the issue.
It’s just easy to find military units for Korea.
See on the other hand how you didn’t mention any from either Burma or Vietnam. Simply because finding any is really, really hard.
It’s an issue of “having the unit roster served to you in a silver platter” vs “Having to contact specialists and dusty old books that haven’t even been translated just to see if there’s anything there.”
Historical accuracy doesn’t exist. Don’t play the fool now.
And they were really bad at it and ended up selling nearly all of them to the British. During the AoE3 timeframe they did nothing but decline in power. And yet, they’re perfectly acceptable as a civ.
Comparing their respective achievements doesn’t really say anything about those nations being stronger than Korea. The Chinese invasions into Burma and Vietnam were through mountainous jungle terrain extremely distant from the Chinese heartland. Korea is right next to the Chinese and Manchu heartland and has much more favourable terrain. The defense of Burma and Vietnam were impressive achievements but they were pulled off thanks to some significant external factors that Korea didn’t not have.
Vietnam defeated neighbouring jungle tribes. What comparable neighbours did Korea have?
Fun fact, there was trade between the regions. We ofc dont know if it was direct trade or through intermediary groups but chincha rafts made of bolsa did sail to central America and there was exchange of items.
Ofc spain burned most the records so we will never likely know how aware each kingdom was of the other. But could be a fun nod to add in game
In this thread we are discussing civilizations that fit within the AoE3 timeline for potential DLC choices. Asian civilizations are frequently brought up, and we haven’t had any new ones in over a decade. The Koreans are a popular choice, and they are distinct enough from other East Asian civs already in-game like China and Japan. They would work fine in AoE3. You already mentioned some unit types that can be used in a potential Korean civ (Gakgung Archers, Musketeers, Turtle Ships, etc.)
I’m all for a AoE3 Vietnamese civilization. I’m sure the devs can make a workable Vietnamese civ in AoE3 if they decide to go that route. There are various visual examples for potential AoE3 Vietnamese military units:
That was with a simple google search. No hunting for obscure military books. The developers have access to more resources and can hire specialists. They can do it. Why the Vietnamese are not a more popular choice for a civ, I don’t know and frankly don’t want to get into. We can have both the Koreans and Vietnamese as a DLC civ duo.
1 Like
Partly because we’re mainly talking about Korea, and partly because my culture is closer to Korean culture.
Also, thanks to AoE2, everyone knows that the Koreans would have this really cool thing called the Turtle Ship. Even people who aren’t familiar with Korean history still know about it, but that’s probably about all they know.
As for the Vietnamese, we could similarly use the Rattan Archer. That would feel familiar to AoE2 players, even though it’s not really all that unique in itself. If you’re interested, there can find a lot of interesting things:
- Not surprisely, Vietnamese dynasties used elephants in warfare. Elephant Archers and Elephant Javelineers would obviously be a good fit as a shared unit for Southeast Asian civs.
- Early on in the timeframe, Vietnam had well-developed technology for producing hand cannons and arquebuses. Those firearms were called Jiaozhi guns. Besides, during the Trinh–Nguyen Civil War in the 17th century, the Nguyen lords were known for extensively importing and imitating Portuguese-style artillery. (See Artillery of the Nguyen lords.)
- In the 18th century, when the Tay Son rebels rose up against the two ruling lords, they were also skilled in using various types of firearms. They even revived and effectively used hand cannons called “hoa ho” (fire tiger), which were similar to flamethrowers.
- By the 19th century, the Vietnamese used wooden cannons against the French during the Cochinchina Campaign.
- Their ships was similar to that of the Chinese, they also used junks. What’s interesting is that they were still using the Mong Dong as late as the 17th century, while the Chinese equivalent, Mengchong, had already fallen out of use several centuries earlier.
- Tonkinese Riflemen would be a great fit as a mercenary unit. Historically, they served the French, so the French could ship them. They also represent the modernization of the Vietnamese military, so it would make sense for the Vietnamese to have access to them as well.
As for Burmese, the relevant Wikipedia articles provide a lot of information. I think they’re a good place to start.
- Elephant units, including Elephant Archers and Elephant Javelineers.
- Myinsi, cavalier with high status, coming from nine hereditary villages in Upper Burma (which could serve as a reference for nine cards).
- From the 18th century onward, the cavalry consisted of Bama (Burmese), Shan, and Meitei (Manipuris). The Cassay Horseman from Meitei were elite light cavalry. Their performance against the British was praised.
- The royal navy was mainly a riverine navy. They used barges carrying around 30 musketeers along with cannon. The coastal Arakanese (Rakhine) and Mon peoples had noticeably larger and stronger fleets.
- Their local artillery was considered poorly trained, while European mercenaries were not trustworthy enough, so they recruited the Bayingyi people as their cannoneers.
- Overall, they had excellent cavalry and a diverse range of native units, but were not particularly strong in gunpowder units.
6 Likes