As an Asian, I want to speak up for the early modern Asian powers that have been overlooked by the West!

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
21

I actually agree with you on this. It’s something I’ve been advocating for as well.

I think the current design of the Asian civilizations in Age of Empires III relies too heavily on old stereotypes and could definitely benefit from a major redesign. Making them less centered around religion and giving them mechanics that better reflect their actual political, military, and economic systems would make them much more interesting.

That said, this is probably a bit outside the main topic of this thread. Unfortunately, at least from what we’ve seen so far, the developers don’t seem particularly interested in fundamentally reworking the existing Asian civilizations. I hope I’m wrong, because I think there’s a lot of room for improvement.

1 Like
22

I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my post.

I’m not arguing that Korea should never be added to the game. What I’m arguing against is the tendency for Korea to be the automatic second choice—right after Persia—while a number of early modern Asian powers with much greater military and geopolitical influence are often overlooked.

If Korea is added, I have no objection. My point is simply that civilizations such as Burma, Siam, the Durrani Empire, Vietnam, or Oman deserve to be taken just as seriously, if not more seriously, when we’re talking specifically about the 16th to 19th centuries.

The goal of my post wasn’t to attack Korea. It was to remind people that Asian history was much broader than the handful of civilizations that are already familiar to Western audiences. Modern popularity shouldn’t be the only reason a civilization gets prioritized, especially when there are other states that played a much larger role in shaping the political and military history of early modern Asia.

23

That’s actually a good point. To some extent, I overlooked them, so thank you for bringing them up.

Java and a Malay civilization definitely deserve to be part of the discussion. That said, if we’re talking specifically about the 16th to 19th centuries, I would still rank them a little lower than Siam and Burma. In my view, those two were the dominant military and political powers on the Southeast Asian mainland during much of the early modern period. Siam at its height even extended its influence over much of what is now Peninsular Malaysia, while Burma built one of the largest empires in mainland Southeast Asia.

So I do think Java and the Malay world are worthy candidates—I would just place them one tier below those major regional powers in terms of priority.

24

I actually agree with this quite a bit.

Personally, I’d rather see the current “India” civilization reworked into a true Mughal civilization, with other major powers from the Indian subcontinent added as separate civilizations over time. The Mughal Empire was undoubtedly one of the greatest powers of the early modern world, but by the 18th century it had fragmented, while powers such as the Marathas rose to challenge its dominance. Representing the entire subcontinent as a single civilization inevitably oversimplifies a very diverse region.

In many ways, that’s simply part of Age of Empires III’s original design philosophy: each civilization is a broad representation rather than a highly specific historical state.

If the game ever reached the higher level of details, I think Asia would become far more interesting. A dedicated Mughal civilization alongside the Marathas, the Sikhs, or other major Indian powers would make the subcontinent feel much more historically complete.

25

I completely agree with this point. I don’t think Burma being colonized should be used as an argument against adding it.

Being colonized is not simply a reflection of military strength. It also depends on diplomacy, geography, economic conditions, and the balance of power at the time. Burma was eventually defeated by the British Empire, one of the strongest global powers of the 19th century, but that does not erase the fact that the Burmese kingdoms were among the strongest powers in mainland Southeast Asia before that.

In fact, this is one of the reasons why I rank Burma so highly. In my opinion, the peak of Burmese power was even greater than that of Siam. The military achievements of the Toungoo and Konbaung dynasties, their conflicts with Siam, and their wars against Qing China show that Burma was not a minor regional state, but a major Southeast Asian power.

Siam’s survival into the modern era is also a fascinating historical achievement. In East and Southeast Asia, the countries that maintained their sovereignty and avoided complete colonization are usually considered to include China, Japan, and Siam. Siam’s survival was not because it was stronger than all European powers, but because of a combination of diplomacy, modernization, and careful balancing between Britain and France.

So I think both Burma and Siam deserve recognition. Burma represents one of the greatest military powers of mainland Southeast Asia, while Siam represents one of the most successful examples of diplomatic survival in the age of imperialism.

1 Like
26

If you are interested, I can share some of my personal thoughts. These are just some rough ideas, not fully developed designs.

I think the Uzbeks and Kazakhs would both be very interesting, but they would represent very different types of Central Asian civilizations. The Uzbeks could represent the connection between Central Asian cities, the Silk Road, Persian culture, and the steppe world, with a focus on trade, cavalry, and the interaction between settled and nomadic societies.

The Kazakhs would be a much more nomadic civilization. Their history was shaped by their position between powerful neighbors such as Russia, the Dzungar Khanate, and later Qing China. A Kazakh civilization could focus on mobility, cavalry warfare, and the unique challenges of surviving on the steppe between larger powers.

For Brunei or a Malay civilization, I think the most interesting direction would be maritime identity: islands, ports, trade networks, and control of sea routes. Their strength would not necessarily come from large land armies, but from naval power and economic influence across the seas.

I think all of these civilizations would be very interesting additions from a game design perspective. However, if we are talking specifically about regional powers in the early modern period, I would probably place them slightly lower in priority.

1 Like
27

Im very curious if the new dlc sees an increase in waterplay. I think many of the new maps are really good for it, with unique capturable buildings and danes have interesting water shipments aswell. Obviously i couldnt test them in multiplayer yet, but i hope they are fun and that it opens the way for indonesian/polynesian/oceanian maps and other waterfocused civs (oman, burma, malay, …)

1 Like
28

I completely agree with your expectations. However, at least for now, it seems that the developers still don’t place much emphasis on naval gameplay.

I think the Age of Pirates Mod has already set a great example. Its water maps are well designed, the naval AI is much more capable, and the Native Settlements related to the sea add a lot of depth and flavor to the gameplay.

I really hope the developers will continue expanding naval content in the future—not only by improving naval mechanics, but also by introducing more maritime civilizations and sea-oriented features. It would be great to see the oceans become a much more meaningful part of the game, rather than simply serving as a secondary battlefield.

29

His assessment is correct; between the 16th and 19th centuries, Korea pursued a conservative policy of isolationism, remaining aloof from global conflicts. In contrast, other Asian nations of the same era—such as Burma, Siam, the Kazakh Khanate, and the Uzbek khanates—exhibited more distinct characteristics and expansionist ambitions. It is inappropriate to judge Korea’s standing solely based on modern global influence; after all, by that logic, contemporary Spain, Portugal, and Sweden would not be considered significant nations. If one were to rank Asian states from the 16th to the 19th centuries, Korea would rank below Burma and Siam, having long been viewed—alongside Vietnam—as an extension of the China-centric Confucian cultural sphere. Based on this assessment, Korea and Vietnam should appear as part of an expansion pack, with a priority level significantly lower than that of Persia or the Burmese and Siamese dynasties of Southeast Asia.

30

Funnily enough I had the same idea for Kazakhs and Uzbeks.

Kazakhs would be literally a fully nomadic civilization, all their buildings being wagons that can be moved around the map. (Like Egypt in Wars of Liberty.)

Uzbeks on the other hand would take the Delhi mechanic from Age of Empires 4 - All technologies are free but take forever to research unless you assign a Scholar to the building researching them.

Say, since you’re campaigning so hard for a Siam civ, why don’t you help me make one. I made a playable prototype after all, I just need help with the unit skins and building models since I don’t have the time nor resources to do them all.

31

我也没时间。
2020202020202020202020202020

1 Like
32

No but it is why you’re making the argument in the first place. This reactionary revulsion to Korean popularity seems to come exclusively from Chinese people and the reasons why are obvious.

At the very least you’re applying a double standard in your harshness to Korea. Vietnam is in a similar boat as Korea when it comes to Chinese domination, but you seem to laud them. In another comment you were praising their “submission to the north”.

Are you? Literally half your post is bashing Korea saying they’re no good and don’t deserve to be a full civilization. I don’t think you’re trying to be insulting, but you absolutely are going out of your way to diminish them even if that is ostensibly to promote other civs.

I’d argue some of these civs you ranked above Korea just had an easier time of things. They dealt with Chinese incursions but they also had mountainous jungle terrain to attrit their enemies which aids in the defense (yes I know Korea is mountainous too). They also were contending with fewer major powers, while Korea had to survive sandwiched between China, Japan, and the Manchus.

Good, then make the focus on why those civs should be added, not why Korea shouldn’t. In my opinion Chinese players should be advocating for Korea, not against it. They had deep ties to China and adding Korea would provide a great excuse to rework China’s problematic design areas and add content. For example you complain about Korea getting credit for rocket artillery that was heavily Chinese influenced. If they went to the trouble to add those kind of units to Korea, then all the work is already done for making an equivalent Chinese unit. A Ming consulate option for Korea could also come with some new units for China.

33

I said my main criteria was coolness and uniqueness, not western recognition. That is merely a lesser factor to consider.

You presented this a a zero sum game. Like one has to rank their top civ picks because only those will be added and no other. Realistically I want all of those you mentioned, but if slots are limited to like top 5 I’m going to cut redundant ones.

If I were designing a DLC and had the resources for unlimited civs I’d pair them thematically.

Persia + Uzbeks or Afghans
Siam + Burma
Oman + Shona
Korea + Vietnam
Javanese + Malay + Moluccans
Sikhs + Afghans or India rework
etc.

If I need to triage it I’d keep Siam and cut Burma, and keep Korea and cut Vietnam, etc because they’re too similar and I’d prioritize having a good variety of civs.

34

I think your reply has several major logical problems. You keep focusing on my nationality instead of my argument. Whether I am Chinese has nothing to do with whether my historical argument is correct. If you believe I am wrong, then point out which historical fact, source, or conclusion is incorrect. Simply saying “you think this because you are Chinese” does not address my argument—it only speculates about my motives.

Second, you accuse me of applying a double standard to Korea and Vietnam, but I am using exactly the same standard for both.

I am evaluating civilizations based on their military projection, regional influence, and geopolitical importance during the 16th to 19th centuries.

During this period, Vietnam expanded southward, absorbed Champa, extended into the Mekong region, and played an active role in mainland Southeast Asian politics. Joseon, by contrast, undertook almost no territorial expansion and focused primarily on preserving its existing state. I am evaluating their historical roles during the AoE III timeframe, not their relationship with China.

Third, you argue that some of these states were only stronger because they had more favorable geography. That overlooks their actual historical achievements.

Persia, Burma, Siam, the Durrani Empire, and Oman became major regional powers because they expanded, built empires, controlled trade routes, and competed for regional dominance—not simply because they had mountains or jungles.

Fourth, you keep confusing “Korea can be added” with “Korea should be the priority.”

I have never argued that Korea should never be added to Age of Empires III. My point has always been about priority. I believe several major early modern Asian powers with greater military and geopolitical influence have been consistently overlooked and deserve equal consideration.

Finally, regarding your point that Chinese players should support Korea because it could also improve China’s design, I actually agree that China’s civilization could be redesigned and expanded.

But that is a separate discussion.

Whether a civilization should be added should be judged by its historical role during the game’s timeframe, not by the nationality of the person making the argument or by whether adding it might also benefit another civilization.

Historical discussions should be about history, not about the nationality of the person presenting the argument.

2 Likes
35

These overlooked civilizations are not lacking uniqueness. Civilizations such as Burma, Vietnam, Oman, and the Durrani Empire all have very distinctive historical characteristics.

Burma is not simply “another Siam.” Burma held a very special position in the history of mainland Southeast Asia. Especially during the Toungoo and Konbaung periods, it established large empires covering vast territories and competed with Siam for regional dominance in mainland Southeast Asia for centuries. Adding both Burma and Siam would not create unnecessary repetition; instead, it would represent the real historical rivalry that shaped the region.

Vietnam is also not “another Korea.” The two were completely different. As I mentioned before, Joseon Korea was primarily focused on maintaining its rule on the peninsula and following a policy of sadae (serving the great power), while Vietnam experienced a long process of southward expansion, absorbed Champa, and continuously expanded its influence. Their diplomatic strategies, military traditions, and historical trajectories were very different.

Therefore, I believe that civilization selection should not only consider “which civilization is easier to design with a unique unit,” but should also consider the historical importance of that civilization during the Age of Empires III timeframe.

Of course, if resources are limited, developers must make choices. However, I believe the problem with many Asian civilizations is not that they lack unique identities, but that they have long been overlooked in Western games and popular historical narratives.

1 Like
36

I think this is exactly where the discussion goes wrong. You are assuming the motivation behind my argument instead of addressing the argument itself.

You say the reason is “obvious”, but it is not obvious at all. Criticizing the priority given to Korea in discussions about historical game civilizations does not mean someone dislikes Korea or is reacting negatively to Korean popularity.

If a French person argued that another European civilization deserved priority over France in a historical game, would it be reasonable to dismiss the argument by saying it comes from anti-French sentiment? Of course not. The historical argument should be evaluated on its own merits.

My point has never been “Korea should not exist in the game” or “Korean culture is unimportant.” I have repeatedly said that I respect Korean history, culture, and modern achievements.

The actual argument is much simpler: if we are discussing civilizations representing the 16th–19th century Asian world, then military power, territorial expansion, regional influence, and geopolitical importance should be important factors. Modern popularity should not automatically determine historical priority.

Also, assuming that this viewpoint comes “exclusively from Chinese people” is itself a very weak claim. Many people from different backgrounds can look at the historical record and come to the same conclusion. A person’s nationality does not determine whether their historical analysis is correct.

The focus should be on the historical evidence, not on trying to explain away an argument by speculating about the identity or motives of the person making it.

For context, I am sharing some pictures of my personal book collection. History has been one of my long-term interests, especially East Asian history. I am not approaching this topic from online nationalism or hostility toward Korea. My criticism comes from comparing the historical roles of different Asian states during the early modern period.

微信图片_20260731045113_205_1
微信图片_20260731045113_205_11920×2560 2.93 MB

微信图片_20260731045110_203_1
微信图片_20260731045110_203_1960×1280 1.38 MB

微信图片_20260731045112_204_1
微信图片_20260731045112_204_1960×1280 1.37 MB

微信图片_20260731045115_206_1
微信图片_20260731045115_206_11920×2560 2.52 MB

I respect Korean history and culture. My argument is simply that historical representation in a game like Age of Empires III should also consider the actual geopolitical importance of different civilizations during that period.

3 Likes
37

A historical assessment is not the same thing as an insult.

My opinion is not based on hostility toward Korea, but on a comparison of different civilizations according to specific criteria: military capability, geopolitical influence, territorial expansion, and historical role during the 16th–19th centuries.

Saying that Joseon Korea was not one of the strongest military powers in early modern Asia is not an insult. It is simply a historical observation. Many great civilizations have periods where they were weaker militarily compared with their neighbors. Recognizing that does not mean denying their culture, achievements, or historical value.

I have never argued that Korea does not deserve representation in Age of Empires III. My argument is that when discussing which civilizations should be prioritized, we should also consider other Asian powers that had enormous regional influence but are often overlooked, such as Persia, Burma, Siam, Vietnam, the Durrani Empire, or Oman.

The historical facts and my reasoning should be debated directly, rather than assuming my motivation or interpreting criticism as hostility.

I will say this again: if any of the objective facts I mentioned are wrong, please point out my mistakes. If my analysis of those objective facts is not consistent with mainstream historical views, or if it is some highly original interpretation that cannot stand up to scrutiny, then please point out the problems in my analysis.

But instead of doing that, you are making random assumptions about what kind of person I am.

This is a very low-level and inappropriate way to argue. The habit of deciding that someone must think a certain way simply because they are “a certain kind of person” is exactly the kind of prejudice we call “种族偏见/身份歧视” in China.

I do not know what people in Europe call this kind of behavior (or perhaps you are American, or Asian; I do not care, and unlike you, I do not judge people based on their identity)，“The truth holder”?

2 Likes
38

Korea probably would have expanded too if they had a southern border with jungle tribes instead of being stuck between China and Japan.

How is this in any way comparable? A better analogy would be asking a Turk for an objective argument about Armenia (never going to happen).

You’re cherry picking criteria to make them look bad.

Yeah sure.

Technically that’s “representation” but in the absolute most minimal way possible.

I am not making assumptions, merely observing your rhetoric. If you were truly making an objective argument you wouldn’t dedicate half your post to dumping on a specific civ and suggest that it is only suitable as a minor civ when it clearly merits more than that. Just promote the other civs you think are underrated and leave it at that.

Is Korea overhyped? Yes.
Were they militarily weaker than their neighbours? Also yes.
But those things are not the end all and be all and it still has a lot going for it. It certainly shouldn’t be top priority, but if it were added there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

39

我担心翻译软件会产生歧义，这次我用中文来回应你。

关于你提出的那个假设——如果朝鲜南边不是大海，而是像中南半岛那样与更多国家接壤，因此可能会不断扩张——当然，这是一种可能性。但它终究只是一个假设。我们讨论的是历史现实，而不是架空历史。如果朝鲜拥有完全不同的地理环境、邻国、战略压力和发展空间，那么它也就不再是我们所讨论的那个历史上的朝鲜王朝了。地理环境当然会影响历史发展，但评价一个文明，应该基于它真实发生过的历史，而不是基于一个完全不同前提下的假设。

至于你举土耳其和亚美尼亚的例子，我只是举了一个例子而已。这个例子或许并不恰当，但我的核心观点没有变：你仍然是在根据提出观点者的身份，而不是根据观点本身来评价一个观点。我认为这是一个非常荒谬的逻辑。世界上有来自不同国家的历史学家，如果按照你的逻辑，一个人因为自己的国籍，就不可能客观评价邻国的历史，那么历史研究根本无法成立。如果你今天能够举出充分的史实，证明中国在某一个历史时期表现得非常糟糕，而且你的论证符合我所了解的历史事实，我完全会赞同你的观点。我不会因为我是中国人，就觉得自己受到了侮辱。我并不认为，一个人客观评价自己国家或者邻国的历史，是一件像你所说的那样“不可能”的事情。

你还说我“断章取义”。坦率地说，我完全无法理解这一点。我只是提出了我认为《帝国时代III》选择文明时应该重点考虑的几个标准：16至19世纪的军事实力、地缘政治影响力、领土扩张以及历史作用。你当然可以反对我的标准，你可以认为这些标准不够全面，或者认为其他因素应该占据更大的比重。但这应该由你来论证，而不是简单地说我在“断章取义”。我至今都没有理解，我到底断了哪一句章，又取了哪一段义。

另外，我觉得我们之间还有一个可能是翻译造成的误会。我一直都是先用中文写，再用翻译软件翻译成英文，因为我的英文水平不足以完成这么复杂的历史讨论。我原文写的是“相对次要的力量、贸易站点”。这里是两个并列概念，而不是后者解释前者。“相对次要的力量”指的是相对于我前面列举的那些区域强国而言；“贸易站点”则是指《帝国时代III》的原住民贸易站机制。在中文玩家社区里，我们经常直接把原住民贸易站简称为“贸易站”或者“土著”。翻译软件很可能把这两个并列概念翻译成了一个解释关系。如果真的是这样，那么我们讨论了这么久，很可能只是因为翻译造成了误解，而不是我们真正存在那么大的分歧。

最后，关于你说我用了大量篇幅贬低韩国，我并不同意。我的帖子主要面向的是西方玩家，而西方玩家普遍对近代早期亚洲历史了解有限。因此，对于我为什么认为某些文明优先级更高、某些文明优先级更低，我必须详细解释我的理由。恰恰因为韩国是论坛里被提及最多的文明之一，所以我才需要更详细地说明我的判断依据。这并不是敌意，而是在解释我的逻辑。我的所有论述都建立在我认为客观的历史事实上。如果你认为我的史实有错误，请直接指出；如果你认为我的分析逻辑有问题，也请具体说明。我非常愿意讨论。但如果我的事实没有错，那么无论我写一段还是写十段，它依然是在讨论历史，而不是情绪化地攻击某个文明。

以下是补充的英文翻译，我希望你对照观看。

I’m worried that the translation software will be ambiguous. This time I will respond to you in Chinese.

Regarding the hypothesis you put forward - if the south of Korea is not the sea, but borders more countries like the Central and Southern Peninsula, it may continue to expand - of course, this is a possibility. But it’s just a hypothesis after all. We are discussing historical reality, not fictional history. If North Korea has a completely different geographical environment, neighboring countries, strategic pressure and development space, then it will no longer be the historical Korean dynasty we are discussing. Of course, the geographical environment will affect the development of history, but the evaluation of a civilization should be based on its real history, not on a completely different assumption.

As for the examples of Turkey and Armenia, I’m just giving one example. This example may not be appropriate, but my core point has not changed: you are still evaluating a point of view according to the identity of the point of viewer, not the point of view itself. I think this is a very absurd logic. There are historians from different countries in the world. According to your logic, it is impossible for a person to objectively evaluate the history of neighboring countries because of his nationality, then historical research cannot be established at all. If you can give enough historical facts today to prove that China has behaved very badly in a certain historical period, and your argument is in line with the historical facts I know, I will completely agree with you. I won’t feel insulted just because I’m Chinese. I don’t think it’s as “impossible” as you say that a person objectively evaluates the history of his own country or neighboring country.

You also said that I “take it out of continct”. Frankly speaking, I can’t understand this at all. I just put forward several criteria that I think Age of Empires III should focus on when choosing civilization: military strength, geopolitical influence, territorial expansion and historical role from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Of course, you can object to my standards. You can think that these standards are not comprehensive enough, or that other factors should account for a greater proportion. But it should be up to you to argue, instead of simply saying that I am “taken meaning out of the context”. I still don’t understand which sentence I broke and which paragraph I took.

In addition, I think there is another misunderstanding between us that may be caused by translation. I have always written in Chinese first, and then translated into English with translation software, because my English level is not enough to complete such a complex historical discussion. My original text is “相对次要的力量、贸易站点”. Here are two parallel concepts, not the latter explaining the former. “次要力量” refers to the regional powers I listed earlier; “贸易站点” refers to the aboriginal trading station mechanism of Age of Empires III. In the Chinese player community, we often directly refer to Aboriginal trading stations as “trade stations” or “indigenous”. The translation software is likely to translate these two sisposed concepts into an explanation relationship. If this is really the case, then it is likely that we have been discussing for so long because the translation has caused misunderstandings, not that we really have such a big difference.

Finally, I don’t agree with you that I used a lot of space to belittle South Korea. My post is mainly aimed at Western players, and Western players generally have limited understanding of the history of Asia in the early modern period. Therefore, I must explain in detail why I think some civilizations have a higher priority and some civilizations have a lower priority. It is precisely because South Korea is one of the most mentioned civilizations in the forum that I need to explain the basis of my judgment in more detail. This is not hostility, but explaining my logic. All my discussions are based on what I think is objective historical facts. If you think my historical facts are wrong, please point them out directly; if you think there is something wrong with my analytical logic, please also specify. I’m very willing to discuss it. But if my facts are not wrong, then whether I write a paragraph or ten paragraphs, it is still discussing history, instead of attacking a civilization emotionally.

The following is the supplementary English translation. I hope you can watch it.

This is the translation software I used and the original text I kept. It is said to be a translation software, but it is actually an ai made in China. Because I actually use voice input, I asked him to help me polish and integrate it a little and translate it into English, but I feel that he may have misinterpreted my meaning to some extent.

IMG_8144
IMG_81441206×1127 375 KB

那韩国其实更适合作为相比之下次要考虑的力量啊文明什么的，或者贸易站之类的，或者其他方式的区域影响，而不是优先排在这些真正的历史强国前面。

(I found that the translation software I always ignore the word “考虑” in my original text.) What I want to say is that Korea is suitable as a civilization that needs secondary consideration in comparison, Or something like a trade war, or some other way of showing regional influence, rather than prioritizing these historical powers）

Although on the whole in my opinion, the difference is not big, very subtle, but since you mentioned, I also looked back, I do not like to be misunderstood, so I posted here.

2 Likes
40

Yes, the thing is that at this time, even with the Sultanate of Yogyakarta, Indonesia was occupied by the Dutch… at most they could improve the Indonesian Revolution with more cards and UUs…

That could be, perhaps like an alternative revolution for the Indians…

Yes, perhaps it should be 100% Mughal Empire and the rest as separate cards or civs/revolutions…

Yes, exactly…

Yes, it should be like in AoE 2… focused on infantry and elephants and with a weak navy… the UUs would be the Arambai, Manipur Cavalry, etc etc etc and the civilization would reuse the Burmese voices from AoE 2 and the Indian architecture, or else a new one with Siam similar to that of AoE 2…

Yes, Oman would be the third civilization with the best navy after the Dutch and now the Danes…

Yes, between 1500 and 1800, Asia was dominated by great empires such as the Mughals in India, the Ming and Qing dynasties in China, the Tokugawa shogunate in Japan, and Southeast Asian powers like Ayutthaya and the Malacca Kingdom. These empires shaped the politics, economy, and culture of the region, while also facing increasing European pressure.

Imperio Región Características clave
Mughal India Fundado en 1526 por Babur. Controló casi todo el subcontinente hasta el s. XVIII. Famoso por su arquitectura (Taj Mahal) y administración centralizada.
Ming / Qing China Los Ming (1368–1644) impulsaron comercio marítimo y cultura. Los Qing (1644–1911), de origen manchú, expandieron el territorio hasta Tíbet, Mongolia y Xinjiang.
Tokugawa Japón Establecido tras la batalla de Sekigahara (1600). Aisló Japón del exterior (sakoku), mantuvo paz interna y un rígido orden social.
Ayutthaya Siam (Tailandia) Reino poderoso (1351–1767), centro de comercio regional. Cayó ante los birmanos en 1767.
Malaca Península malaya Importante puerto comercial hasta su conquista por Portugal en 1511.
Toungoo Birmania Dinastía que unificó gran parte de Myanmar (siglo XVI).
Vietnam Le Vietnam Dinastía Later Le (1428–1788), mantuvo independencia frente a China.

Yes, that’s why an Asian DLC is important…it can help you rework classic Asian civs to adapt them to the new ones…

Yes, everyone thinks of Korea because of Age of Empires 1 and 2… but yes, there were other more important empires during the colonial period…

Yes, they would be like the Mongols from AoE 4…

Yes, those aren’t bad options… I would do Persia + Omanis (and if possible, a DLC with 3 civilizations + Arabs/Saudis)… and in Central Asia, Kazakhstan + Uzbeks, or if both are combined, Tatars + Afghans or Dzungars…

Yes, but it’s kind of strange to include Siam and not Burma… It’s the same with Europe; until now you had Sweden against Russia and HRE (Germany), but you were missing Sweden’s other two rivals, which are Poland and especially, Denmark…

Yes, it would be like Korea but in reverse… During this period, Korea isolated itself to achieve internal control, while Vietnam had many internal conflicts as it expanded south against the Champa and west against an already weakened Cambodia, while Burma and Siam were locked in endless wars with each other…

1 Like