Do you really think "VILLAGE" should be nomadic ger(yurts)?

oh…I just understand why you say that. I mentioned ‘stereotype’, ‘bias’ and such words in one of my replys, cuz such aggressive words were used by author in this topic before changed. I understood the emotion that he wanted this village to be changed. but people don’t know how many Han-chauvinists in China are, who hate those Chinese with identities of Mongolian and Manchu people minority nationality, especially the later one. in Internet nearly everything related to Manchu culture and history is followed by attacks and insult form those Han-chauvinists. back to time of nostalgic AoE3, there were many of them with hatred for Qing Dynasty complaining about the design of China civ. Even today their attempts to remove non-Han elements from China civ is still not ended. I think that’s the background of this topic only we know about. But anyway, I’m glad to see the author is just a friendly history and culture amateur who doesn’t go extreme and the topic is now not aggressive to any group.


Thank you for your approval. XD

Thank you for your response and recognition. My English is very bad, Before posting, I once discussed with players in a group, aggregated their opinions, and made certain trade-offs. After seeing your response I also made some phrasing of these thoughts, thank you anyway.

1 Like

You are forgetting than one of the features of the chinese are their Villages/TC cards, named as nomads, also they train goats (a nomad thing), get shipments, garrison settlers, attack and call for sentinels.

They are though to be spread next to resources. Other point is if the meta is around that or doesnt.

yea ; ) thank you, too, for providing a chance of such a good and friendly discussion on history and culture. and the material you provided is really valuable

This card does not seem to have much impact on the game design. this card is called Nomadic Settlement. We may also understand it as the Qing Dynasty people who originally lived in Mongolia choose a settled lifestyle after entering the China proper.
But I think compared to the 6 ideas I put forward above, this card doesn’t seem to be enough to overturn those.
Also, as someone who lived in a North China village as a child, it is definitely not uncommon for Han villagers who are settlers rather than nomads to raise sheep, and we don’t need yurts.
My English is relatively poor, and I don’t know much about the habits in English. I hope it won’t be rude, and I hope it won’t cause you discomfort.

I don’t know what other people think.

As a Chinese, I would feel a little strange, but ok, after all, the Shaolin Temple really did receive the imperial government’s pay as a military force.

1 Like

“First of all I’m not you but I think you should like your stereotype.”

1 Like

Kung fu is not stereotype. Extensive existence of kung fu in military and any other place where it should not typically be is stereotype.
Panda is not stereotype. Chinese raising pandas as pets in large scale is stereotype.
Horseback riding is not stereotype. Mongol students riding horses to school is stereotype

Just like how English massively using longbows in middle ages is not stereotype. English massively using longbows in WW2 (because maybe one guy did so) is stereotype.

That’s the logic.


I agree I’d like to see the yurts replaced with houses it was a strange choice.

They could reuse some existing assests from the home city to make the villages perhaps?


So then would you say having a single Kung Fu master or two as the explorer is not a stereotype? In contrast to every member of the player’s Chinese army being a shaolin monk? Or in contrast to every member of the Chinese army (whether they be pikeman, arquebusier etc.) breaking out into exaggerated Kung Fu moves when in melee range?

Because NEVER, at least in recorded history, had an old shaolin kungfu master with bare fists participated in actual warfare, or took the role of a military leader. That is not where kung fu or such a representation of (the typical cinematic type of) kung fu should exist. In fact rarely did any monk in Chinese history.
The same can be said with Indian monks ramming enemies with elephants.
Japanese monk is a little better because there were actual strong warrior monk factions in Japan and they at least use proper weapons.

You’re like saying in a WW2 game British should have a starting unit of a longbowman because one guy once carried longbow in one photograph.

BTW I’m not bothered by a single representation of kung fu. I’m bothered by the fact that when people think of ancient Chinese warfare the first thing that comes into their mind is kung fu. And that is the case with the original TAD design. The first warrior you see is a kung fu monk knocking people into disciples with bare fists. Along with other things like Chinese using odd exotic weapons such as meteor hammer (which were mostly sidearms or projectiles carried by individual practicers). That gives me an overall sense of “fancy exotic stereotypes”, which in turn enhances the fancy exotic stereotype feeling of the kung fu monk explorer.
If that kung fu monk is an explorer skin or even a support unit I would not say a word.


Valid points. Two questions:

  1. Fancy exotic stereotype = bad? I’ve usually heard the word “exotic” in the context of compliments.

  2. Is it necessary that the Shaolin Master is perceived as the leader of an army? I never perceived the European explorers as leaders of their armies or empires but rather merely explorers meant primarily for exploring and losing relevance as the game goes on.

While Shaolin Monks were rarely used in battle during the early modern period, and never recorded fighting barehanded in a war, they were still active as an organization that heavily promoted the development of martial arts. A Shaolin Monk being used as early game recon, who can fight some treasure guardians and bandits (something they did do and wouldn’t be recorded in most cases), doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch from historical reality at all. Though a staff would’ve made it much better.

In the original AOE3 setting, the in-game explorer is the scout and the “leader of the colony”. And they fulfilled those roles in real history.
The shaolin master fulfilled neither.

—when you are judging a foreign culture.
If you are part of that “foreign” culture yourself it is not a compliment.
And when you impose an image just because it is exotic you get a stereotype.
Ancient Chinese did not make cinematic king fu moves in battle. They did not use chi or spiritual power or whatever you call it to boost their strength. They did not massively equip odd looking weapons in military just because they look “exotic”. They performed standardized military drills and mostly used the ordinary spears and swords and arquebuses like everyone else. (that being said Indians are more poorly represented in terms of weaponry)

And that “martial arts” that get promoted in history and in real practice either means personal self defense, or armed martial arts, or both. Rarely does it relate to military practices or “reconing”. When it does, they do not go with bare fists either. And sadly they looked not so much distinct or “exotic” from the military drills of other cultures, and had nothing to do with the kind of your typical “martial art” moves in movies or TAD.
Again the “hero” in the game is either a scout (explorer) or a military/faction leader (most non-European civs). And the shaolin master would fulfill neither.

EDIT: and there is a difference between “not liking a design” and “not liking a design so much that I cannot even play the game”. But as the topic is brought up I would say I dislike the current representation of Asian civs in the game, like the yurt village as OP suggests, or shaolin monk explorers, etc. That does not mean they have to change it or I will riot.


This is exactly what makes it problematic. There isn’t an issue with China having Kung Fu monks, but they shouldn’t be in the position of “leader of the colony”. All the Asians should have their monk leaders replaced:

1 Like

You are overthinking it, where its said that they are the leaders?? They are monks just cause natives settlements are religions. Its fine

This is not a MISTAKE. Qing Dynasty was a multicultural empire, and yurts were part of the diversity of the empire. If all cultural elements all chosen by population, all civilizations in AoE3 will fall into stereotypes and chauvinism.
In contrast, Shaolin Temple as a minor civilization is more like a mistake. The Asian minor civilizations of AoE3 are divided according to religious sects, but Shaolin Temple is also Zen(called Chan in Chinese), and there is no difference in religious sense from Japanese Zen. Shaolin Temple is only special in martial arts, and should not be presented as a minor civilization. It’s better to add Tibetan Buddhism Temple to a minor civilization. In the historical era of AoE3, they have a certain influence in Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia, Siberia, and North India.

Would you mind reading what I wrote…