So Three Kingdoms dont fit because Timeline reason, then they dont either
Yeah lets remove all of them and move them to Chronicles
where Multiplayer is dead and you cant even find a match
2 Likes
Made mistake in the past isn’t an excuse for making mistake in the future.
19 Likes
Yeah if Three Kingdoms gets moved, all Civs that were mistakes should be moved to Chronicles too
and if its moved to Chronicles gives everyone Refund or make the DLC Free
Makes no sense ppl ask to move 3K To Battle of Greece when you have anti historical civs still around
Just admit you’all are biased and doesnt like Chinese thats all
Both Celts and Goths are objectively medieval.
15 Likes
In what way? you dont even have evidence to back it up, how about doing some research?
and 3K isnt? 3K is literally warring states of japan but china
1 Like
The last Goth kingdom fell in the 8th Century (not counting Theodoro).
Celts still exist today
11 Likes
Kingdom of Scotland, lasted in all of Middle Ages.
Crimean Goths, lasted in all of Middle Ages
Visigothic Kingdom, lasted for 200 years in the Middle Ages
14 Likes
If we consider the Middle Ages to begin at 476, all of those civs still fit the game.
There were still some Huns around in the 6th century.
The last Roman rump state, the kingdom of Soissons, fell in 486
The Goths had many states of their own, like the Visigothic kingdom that fell in 720, or the Principality of Theodoro which was conquered in 1475!
And the Celts? I mean they’re still around today, with independent countries and all. But through the entire Middle Ages they had too many kingdoms to count.
The Three Kingdoms are nowhere close to being medieval, unlike the others listed here. The only exception could possibly be the Huns, but then again, Attila died 20 years before Rome fell. Cao Cao died 250 years before that, big difference.
10 Likes
If think it flexibly, there were numerous Wei, Shu and Wu in medieval China, though they were not the one in 3K era…
How about you read more or play the campaigns?
Chinese have been in the game since the start 25 years ago and still no campaign.We want a campaign for them first before anything else.
7 Likes
The Three Kingdoms fit in the ancient times, both culturally and chronologically. In contrast, the Goths, Huns, Western Romans, and Celts played key roles in the collapse of ancient empires and the rise of the medieval world, especially in Europe. So it’s more accurate to associate those groups with the late antique to early medieval period, not ancient.
Goths: They invaded Roman territories, sacked Rome in 410 AD, and eventually established kingdoms in Italy and Spain.
Western Rome: The fall of Rome marks the start of the Middle Ages in Europe. The post-Roman world becomes fragmented, feudal, and begins transitioning into medieval structures.
Celts: In places like Ireland and Scotland, Celtic kingdoms and cultures were very much part of the early medieval landscape (e.g., monastic Christianity, tribal kingships).
Huns: Their invasions destabilized both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, triggering migrations and warfare that shaped the early medieval world.
12 Likes
Pockets of western romans survived for a while and Huns were active in india.
OP has forgotten both the base game and chronicles have persians side by side.
5 Likes
It’s not (only) a problem of timeline: in AoE II we have civilizations, these are dynasties; like we had England and then added in Wars of the Roses DLC York and Lancaster Houses.
4 Likes
Late Romans are fine in my opinion as they are depicted correctly. However i always hated that the Italians were not named Lombards and maybe the Spainish could’ve been called Iberians with no Portuguese included. It just felt wrong having them fight the Huns etc.
The Japanese Sengoku period was in 15 century, 1000+ years after the three kingdoms
And nobody looking forward for an Oda, Takeda, Uesugi civilizations DLC
2 Likes
3 kingdoms belong to chinese. What is the point of making 4 playable civs for Han Chinese? You should have read how Chinese players are pissed off before you create this post.
4 Likes
I will write an answer as exhaustively as possible so that I can copy and paste it whenever necessary.
-
The term “Middle Ages” originated by the Italian humanists of the 14th century who, as they set out to create a new humanity in imitation of the model represented by ancient Greece and Rome, felt led to lump together in rejection and contempt the centuries in which the forms of classical art had declined and disappeared. In essence, what had been built, sculpted or painted in the interval was branded as “Gothic”, named after the barbarian sackers of Rome in 410. It should therefore come as no surprise that the Middle Ages were in large part considered the Dark Age and how it does not make too much sense to talk about the Middle Ages outside the European context.
-
So Huns, but also Vandals, Goths, Anglo-Saxons, Lombards, or the forgotten Turcilingi all contributed to the birth of this era. The Roman Empire had been in decline since the 2nd century, and the barbarian invasions of the 4th century only gave it the final push. I can conclude that adding these barbarian peoples from the 2-4th century is not too much of a problem, although in the original vision, it was preferable to include civilisations that arose in that period and then lasted for a considered part of the Middle Ages. So, showing this civilisation was born and then evolved over the centuries was part of the spirit of the game. In this sense, the Huns are a negative exception, because they soon disappeared, although not entirely obviously. But they fall into the category of peoples who contributed direcly to the birth of the Middle Ages. So it’s not so bad really.
-
The three kingdoms do not have a huge temporal problem per se, and moreover of the various possible criticisms is the weakest, but it must be pointed out that in no way did they contribute directly (unless one has to evaluate the butterfly effect) to the birth of the Middle Ages. So, it makes them difficult to connect to the rest of the civilisations of that possible historical period in the game although they are not so distant in time.
-
Also the civilisations in the game are deliberately abstract, because they are meant to represent a centuries-long period in which the civilisation has also evolved. Adding a hero, in addition to the change in gameplay, puts a definite point in the history and identity of that civilisation, rendering the whole process of abstraction largely futile. The civilisations in this game are not organised into kingdoms or empires, but mainly into groups of people who share a common history or identity. The most common example is the Spanish, or why not, also the Italians. The three kingdoms are all Chinese, they are essentially 3 variations of the Chinese civilisation already present in the game. For all these reasons, the 3 Kingdoms openly violate the entire spirit of the game.
14 Likes
Nobody wanted 3K, or to buy custom scenarios that were already free to play, but here we are 
1 Like
Did you guys have an internal meeting to decide the next wave of unified arguments?
1 Like
Discussions like these keep coming up but is it that hard for people to reimagine the concept of middle ages they were thought in school? Do you ever question anything in your life?
Just make the game start in the 3rd century, is it too hard for a brain to take? The timeframe is the last of the issues with the 3k, the main one being that they’re Chinese kingdoms with very little ethnic diversity.
I swear I’ve seen people who lost their parents getting over the trauma quickly than people having to accept Huns and Romans in this game.
Is this some very selective kind of racism? Is it a problem with the inability to think reality without neat categories that must make sense at all costs and approved by a superior authority (history, Microsoft)? Is it the love of mental order and uniformity like the ones of marching armies? (Would make sense given the context)
I don’t know, I’m honestly worried at this point, I’m trying to think it in psychiatric terms because I don’t know how I should approach the issue tbh.
It’s like being impermeable to any argument that is not the “official” one. A part of me wish I could be that stubborn honestly lol.
1 Like