Full-scaled occupation of Hokkaido happened as late as 1870s, definitely not what the “colonial age” looks like in the game.
You’re like saying a game about classical antiquity should have a colonial age, because Romans and Greeks and Carthaginians were establishing colonies, and Gauls and Iberians and Germanics were fighting against them.
No matter what the word means literally or how it becomes like this, “colonial” in the modern world has inevitably become associated with European (or more accurately, western) conquest and settlement of overseas lands since 1400s or 1500s. That’s the first impression when most people see the word “colonial”. Just like how (in US) “plantation” is naturally associated with slavery.
Japan never colonized Hokkaido untill after fall of Edo Shogunate.
And what does fighting against colonizer got to do with any of it?
I guess you won’t mind if Haiti got a civ in this game eh?
“During the Muromachi period (1336–1573), the Japanese created a settlement at the south of the Oshima Peninsula, with a series of fortified residences such as that of Shinoridate. As more people moved to the settlement to avoid battles, disputes arose between the Japanese and the Ainu.”
Then that gives excuses to every former colony in the world.
As such any civ in the world can be in the game.
So you shouldn’t have any problems with whatever civ they put in on this game.
Let me clarify what I mean by “colonial age only applies to Europeans”.
Colonization happens all the time since the beginning of human civilization. Phoenicians colonized Carthage and Carthage then colonized Iberia. Greeks colonized a lot of places. Medieval Italian states colonized several mediterranean and Balkan territories. Those events did not make those periods “colonial age”.
Qing China in the “colonial age” colonized Dzhungar lands, for sure. But back in Qin dynasty, Chinese also colonized what is now considered southern China. Han and Tang colonized lands to the west. None of them are called “colonial age”.
Ottomans subjugated massive lands and peoples and you can vaguely call it an act of colonization. But so did Romans, and Persians, and Franks. But those periods are not “colonial age” either.
Southeast Asians and Polynesian seafarers colonized by sea all the time. Those periods were still not called “colonial age”.
None of these aforementioned events necessitated the “colonial age”. The reason why 1400s-1900s is considered a colonial age is not because colonization happens (it happens all the time all over the world) but because colonialism is extensively practiced by Western Europeans. And English is a Western European language, so it is natural.
Now Japan occupying Hokkaido was indeed an act of colonialism, but it was because they were borrowing western imperialism ideas. Western.
Just like there was Greek dark age and Islamic renaissance. But if you say “dark age” or “Renaissance” without any specification, in English, people think you’re talking about the period where Western Europe was chaotic or undergoing the renaissance.
Complete colonization of Hokkaido is an imperialist practice. Japan became an imperial power because it borrows western ideas. And even if that is the case, it does not change the conclusion that “colonial age” is “western colonial age”.
Japanese were migrating to Hokkaido much earlier than 1870s of course, but Japanese also “colonized” what is now northern Japan back in medieval periods. The Yayoi people who made up the majority of Japanese population were probably “colonizers” from what is modern Korea. None of those periods are considered a ”colonial age”.
Only when Europeans began massive practice of colonialism, which naturally leads to colonization, did the “colonial age” in English began.
Oh by the way “medieval” is mostly a western concept as well.
By the time of the Romans it is a bit of a stretch, but the earlier period where the Phoenicians founded colonies like Carthage and the Greeks founded faraway outposts could absolutely be called the “colonial age”.
Only when the game is focused on Mediterranean and “Asian” (meaning Anatolian) settlements of course. That’s comparable to AOE3 before the first expansion.
Now let’s make a game about the whole ancient world, including East Asia, and even Americans, which is basically an extended version of AOE1. Would you still call roughly 500BC-300BC “colonial age”?
There was lots of migration all over the place then. It could absolutely still apply to a wider context.
Not everything has to be vague to the point of being meaningless. Calling modern times the “Commerce Age” would be reasonable since it’s so non-specific. By your logic there should also be no “Industrial Age” because that was also restricted to Western Europe at the time.
I’m not saying “colonial age” is the worst name ever but it is definitely not a good one. Just like a lot of other age names.
Yes “industrial age” is not very good either. You can clearly see there are many civs that do not undergo any industrial revolution at all in the game. But I do think it sounds less awkward than “colonial age” because the word “colonial” has such a strong cultural image that can hardly be applied to other parts of the world (even back in Europe. You do not have a “colonial age” on an European map. At least industrialization can happen anywhere).
Like I said the “age” in AOE games except AOE1 are actually “developmental phases”. They just look for any name that is relevant to the period and order them by which sounds cooler. Same with “dark age” (only applies to western Europe), “feudal age” (basically the entire period), “castle age” (is there anything called that?).
But hey it’s a game so fine. The original one is fine. The new one is also fine. That’s my point. Please do not mistaken my argument against the “colonial age” as saying “commerce age” is by all means better. I’m just saying the “colonial age” does not make more sense than the “commerce age”. Not less either. But I do personally prefer (but it is not a must-have) more generalizable names.
Yes, let’s say that the colonial age was more of a Eurocentric era… so it is not all bad that they changed it to the commerce age, since that also happened (although less clear)…
Exactly, let’s say that the colonial age was out of place since The Asian Dynasties,because not all the civs of the game colonized the new world…the Asian civs did not do it nor did the African ones…that’s why they changed it…