3K civ outside of Middle Age ? We already have some

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Hello everyone.

So as many of you saw, since the DLC announcement, the time period of the new civs seems to be the source of a lot of troubles in the community. It’s not the only reason, but it’s one.

So I talked to a friend, who isn’t playing the game, and he pointed me something that no one took into account, even I.

I mentionned on many threads about Huns, Goth, Romans, etc, but we actually have ingame one official civ, who’s origine are like … 2’000 BC and NO ONE Complain about it being in RANKED at all. It’s the Mayan. According to historian, Mayan civilization laster from 2’000 BC to approximatly 1697 AD. Yes part of itl asted during the middle age, yes, but not only.

But, the reason why I’m posting this message is more about the famous “Rome as Fallen” that too many of you are using to say the game is not meant for pre-roman fall era. So just after waking up I realized one thing, this sentence is not the Game base root, it’s… “AGE OF KING” base roots. The name of the game is “Age of Empires 2”, and the OG ““DLC”” is “Age of King”, Age of King is meant for a time period after the Fall of Rome, but that’s the only time when that sentence was meant to say something.

So please, stop using the argument of the “Rome has Fallen” timestamp to say that a civ is not legit for the game. Also as the Mayan seems to cause no problem at all for no one, stop use the time period too. Ranked gameplay is not about historical authenticity, but about balancing. So for those really not wanting to see the ““non medieval”” civs in their ranked game, why don’t you start a pool about asking the devs some Elo-Match-Filtered-Ladders ? I’m pretty sure the devs won’t stay blind if comptitives players ask for spearated multiplayer ladders, abit like a “wow vanilla” version of age of empires 2, where only civs from AoK are playable for this elo ranking, or AoK+TC, etc etc etc.

Final note: I’m not saying here that the 3 kingdom civs are legit, just trying to make people understand correctly how the game was designed, why they used such words etc, and also stopping that infair hate against my beloved romans !

2

Persians indians chinese says hi.pretty sure arabs koreans and japanese also are in this bucket.

People did not magically appear out of nowhere they were around in some form or another.

If anything is not time bound I suggeset adding USA as a civi.Jamestown does fall under current time frame of 1600.

9 Likes
3

Yeah but the Xiongnu would be way more interesting than the 3 Han chinese factions we got. There are loads of factors here, not just age.

I love the Romans too.

4

Not just the era, 3K is just a Chinese dynasty in civil war. All are Han Chinese. They aren’t different enough to be independent civ.

7 Likes
5

I agree on that point but also think about it, China is huge, like it’s very big. If the devs of the original Conqueror expansion thought of the Swiss to be part of the game, as they’re definitly not conqueror at all, I know that I’m Swiss myself. Do you really think it’s unfair for chinese sub-faaction to exist in the game ? Swiss were all about selling their military skill to other countries during their wars, mercenaries, you can’t call that a Civilization at all, nor an empire, but they were candidate for the conqueror anyway.

The question we should ask ourselves is: What define an Age of Empires 2 civilization ?

Is it religious uniqueness, technology uniqueness, region of origin uniquness, clothing, architecture, time period, langage, ships, weaponry, art, conquest, etc etc.

Once more I’m gonna bring the Viking topic to the matter, the Viking origin people spread all arround Europa, their langage made many modern langage exist today. They were similar too, but in the end, we already have ingame multiple viking-rooted civ. I know those civs are not the “proto-viking” version, as those 3 kingdom civs can be seen as, but still. Teutons, Franks, Vikings, Britons, maybe even the Celts can be linked to vikings if we dig deep enought in the history.

And this game is all about history and swords and castle. IF the 3 kingdom were implemented in the base game, or made part of a total conversion update, then I would accept all those critics people make about them. But it’s a DLC, that people are not forced to buy nor play with. I’m not used to competitive gameplay rotations what so ever, but I’m sure that if a player doesn’t want to play with the 3K civ, it’s possible.

I think this DLC put the light on something important, the community is divided about the" “time period” idea, and I think it might be the perfect time to introduce some kind of … How to say… “Filtering” parameters to every civ. We already have the role at which civs are good at, the architectures, but it’s not actually usable to filter civs in skirmish for example. Giving some key-parameter to every civ, like their region of influence, their centuries of existance, could be a very interesting way to then add a “pool” system for some tournament and for themed skirmish style game.

That’s something I always made myself when playing skirmish with AI, I’ve always liked to do some “logical” play, like Roman and Byzantin against Goth and Hun etc. I’m pretty sure the dev can easily add a system for that, maybe even pushing it further with adding some specific things to those “”“game mode”“”, like they did for the antiquity mod with the oysters. But I’ll let that topic for concerned players, the competitive entousiasts, they know better than I what they need.

6

3K dynasty only lasted for around 60 years. And they are the same ethnic group as Han Chinese.

The era they lasted is far from Chinese Historian’s definition of China’s Middle Age (usually Tang+ Song Dynasty)

Quite a lot of them are quite similar.

6 Likes
7

Were you paying attention? The fanbase was over the Moon with the idea of Juchens and Dali coming to the game
The fact that you seem to push this question makes me wonder if you want to bury the criticism over racism

Pretty sure it’s ethnicities and peoples, not dynasties which is more of a AoE4 stuff
This is why we have the Saracens instead of the Abbasid Caliphate or Franks instead of the Carolingian Empire, and why “Indians” was a disliked term because it covered multiple ethnic groups
Shu, Wei, and Wu are dynasties, short ones on that
Should Britons be divided in Lancaster and York too? By the standards of the 3 Kingdoms, they should!

3 Likes
8

yeah, lets have the rump state of Trebizond V the Mongols please.

9

Might as well add the Yamnaya and the Naqada peoples too.

1 Like
10

时间并不是最重要的，而是逻辑问题。
我解释一下为什么中国人不愿意在基础游戏中加入魏蜀吴，我需要打一个比方：

在AOE3中已经有了美国人，假如现在新推出一个DLC叫做美国南北战争。在基础游戏中加入了加利福利亚人，得克萨斯人，纽约人，并且还保留了原来的美国人。
大家会不会觉得奇怪？因为AOE3的美州故事在美国独立战争后就结束了，而且加利福尼亚人、得克萨斯人，纽约人都是美国人，这和阿拉斯加人以及夏威夷人不一样。

这样解释你能理解了吗？魏蜀吴都是中国人（汉人），这和女真人和契丹人不一样，在AOE2基础游戏中加入魏蜀吴是极其荒谬的，他们应该在编年史中，而不是在基础游戏中。

Time is not the most important thing, it is a matter of logic.
To explain why the Chinese are reluctant to include Wei Shuwu in the base game, I need to make an analogy:

There are already Americans in AOE3, and if a new DLC is released now called American Civil War. Added Californians, Texans, New Yorkers, and the original Americans to the base game, and also retained the original Americans.
Isn’t it strange to you? Because AOE3’s American story ended after the American Revolution, and Californians, Texans, and New Yorkers are all Americans, unlike Alaskans and Hawaiians.

Do you understand this explanation? Wei Shu Wu are all Chinese (Han), unlike the Jurchens and Khitans, it is extremely ridiculous to include Wei Shu Wu in the AOE2 base game, they should be in the chronicles, not in the base game.

12 Likes
11

What about adding Prussia? They’re much closer to Age of Empires’ original timeline than the Three Kingdoms. Then maybe we could add the USA, which was founded around the same time.

And after Prussia and the USA, why not the Soviets next? It wouldn’t be an issue—by then, we’d already have Prussia and the USA in the game anyway.

1 Like
12

USA civ banned in Dark Age, Feudal Age, Castle Age. Directly start at Post Imperial. Damn I lost braincells just trying to think about this.

1 Like
13

Prussia already is in AOE2 timeline! The old Prussians were medieval, and they also could represent the Teutonic Order, the Prussian Kingdom, and all the way to WW2 Germany, just like how (someone claims) the Wei to represent the entirety Northern China from the Three Kingdom all the way to late middle ages,

Take notes, World’s Edge!

14

Would love to see the Prussians represented in a medieval context. Great name recognition too.

15

Generally disagree with the OP, but I do think that the filtering system proposed might be interesting.

Yes, but the main question is “did the Mayan exist between 400-1600?” If yes, then it can be included. If not, then we should not. (Note that I also disagree with including the Romans, but that is another story). Whether or not the Mayan exitsed before or after this time period is irrelevant, as this is a Medieval Period RTS.

But the civs introduced should have a common theme. For example, they are all notable civilizations that existed during the Medieval period. Only if this is established, can we talk about balancing.

You are right that what defines a (notable) Medieval civilization can be murky. The problem is that the Tangut and Tibetans are definitely not on the murky side of this civilization definition. The fact that these should have been clear picks, but were discarded in favour of political factions (3K civs) falling clearly outside of the Medieval Age, is what the player base are upset about.

But the Vikings are pretty much just a “cooler” name for the Danes or Norse. There is very little confusion here, as no one is going to think of the Vikings as a Frankish or Teutonic off-shoot.

That could be interesting. We could categorize civs as Early, Middle, Late Medieval Age, and have it so that Early civs can only fight other Early civs, and the same for Middle and Late. But then this would be an entirely different game.

1 Like
16

Complaint about romans and 3k is that they started AND finished outside the time period, as polities.

Huns were added before people had a dedicated place to complain about them - but if their existence is an argument for this sort of design, just erase the civ with romans and 3k.

There are about 3 continents worth of civs to explore and we have redundant overlap - Lakota, Inuits, Hawaiians, whatever was happeing in australia…there’s alot.

17

I can heard this explaination yes. There you provide something based on logic, not on pure raging because the DLC is not what some expected.

I have no problem with people saying the choice is strange, it’s the arguing that turns me made to see absurds reasons about time period etc.

But once more, Chronicle is not a garbage place to park anything “that is not meant for the base game”. This logic is just insulting for CaptureAge. Chronicle is another way to tell Age of Empires 2 story, focused on Narrative gameplay rather than competitive. That is in no way meant for “things illogic for the game”, so no, it has no place on Chronicles at all.

Only history nerds yes, but you get my point with what I said.

I think that official filtered competitive lobby, or just “game modes” from a dropdown menu that allows you to only use specific time-range / region-based civs can add something to the game. Something simple to do, without needing to erase anything nor postpone anything.
But it’s up to the dev to decide for that.

1 Like
18

The Three Kingdoms of China—Wei, Shu, and Wu—were all ruled primarily by people of the same ethnic group, the Han Chinese. This period (220–280 AD) followed the fall of the Han dynasty, which was a unified Han Chinese empire, so the Three Kingdoms were basically successor states led by rival warlords, not by different ethnicities.

That said, here are a few nuances:

  • Han Chinese majority: All three kingdoms were culturally and ethnically Han at their core. Their leaders, officials, armies, and populations were mostly Han.
  • Minority interactions: Some non-Han ethnic groups lived on the fringes or within the borders of these kingdoms, particularly in Wu (southeast China) and Shu (southwest China, including Sichuan). These included groups like the Man and Yi peoples. Shu, for example, had to deal with tribal unrest in its southwestern territories.
  • Cultural identity: All three kingdoms upheld Confucian traditions, used Chinese characters for writing, and saw themselves as inheritors of the Han legacy, not as something entirely new or foreign.

So, in short: yes, they were the same people, ethnically speaking—Han Chinese—but ruled by competing leaders during a chaotic and fragmented time.

Let me know if you’re also curious about how their cultures, governments, or military styles differed!

I asked to chat GPT about ll of this, conclusion: those new civs are all the very same Han Chinese, just ruled by different Warlords.

2 Likes
19

If they designed the civs to represent the respective minority peoples, it would be more consistent with the rest of the game. The Three Kingdoms all interacted with minority peoples and levied from them.

Wu subjugated the Yue peoples. And the fire archer does not look like a Han Chinese.

Some of the white feather guard of Shu maybe recruited from southwestern natives. Shu also had special corps entirely comprised of the natives.

A simple name change could fix these two.

Now Wei is a little tricky. They defeated the Xianbei, but afaik didn’t massively recruit them. Most of the civ’s references are about the Xianbei dynasty of Northern Wei, so the civ design is in fact more Xianbei than Han.

Using the native peoples that interacted with them, instead of the Han-majority Three Kingdoms themselves, could better capture the cultural diversity in a much longer and more fitting timeframe. They could always use triggers to rename those civs for the 3K campaigns.