You know Asia is not in America right?
2 Likes
Very little. Japan really “colonized” Korea and Northeastern China (Manchuria) in late 19c and early 20c which is already beyond the scope of the game.
In the period of AOE III, China didn’t “colonize”, but directly subjugated or vassalized a few regions.
This “colonization” is called state expansion.
1 Like
The definition is a little vague here. Sometimes I see people refer to that period as “Japanese colonization of Korea”.
1 Like
Sweden did colonize Finland more than Japan did colonize Korea.
I mean there are still Swedish speaking people in Finland.
I think Korea could be a very possible civilisation in the game. They have some unique and interesting units and they fought of an failed Japanese invasion.
A defensive Asian civilisation could be a nice addition. Maybe they can build Castles and Towers. The Aztecs can already kinda do that.
2 Likes
So? The game is about the European colonization. Addition of Asia still is within colonial theme, not to mention China became an informal empire within Britain and macau + Hong Kong were directly annexed, Japan had a special island where the Dutch were allowed to trade and this kept going even in their isolation. Both China and Japan were also important in the European trade there.
And the people saying the colonial theme has no potential anymore are just plain wrong.
Following nations can be added:
- Literally all of Africa
- Indonesian civs
- Indochinese civs
- South and North American civs
How again are we limited within the theme? I would much rather have the continent of Africa, which would bring so much cool new maps, animals, setting, civs, then another blend and boring European, Asian or American civ.
1 Like
No. Before TAD the theme of the game is clearly European colonization of AMERICA so anything outside of America should not be introduced.
2 Likes
That never happened.
So the addition of any region outside of Macau, Hongkong or Nagasaki should break the “colonial” theme. But they added mainland China and Honshu of Japan.
1 Like
That’s weird. It is strange to argue that American colonization should be the only theme in a game about colonization. European civilization colonized not only the Americas, but also Africa and Asia, which expands the game.
But those who say colonization is no longer meaningful want the game to expand, but hate to go into more detail about colonization in Africa and Asia. Despite the fact that America is not the only region colonized by Europe.
I don’t know if they want the expansion of the game or the European War.
1 Like
I’m following his logic. If the theme of the game has to be confined to colonization because so far it has been confined to colonization, I’d say the theme of the game before TAD should of course be the colonization of America. Anything introduced after that is out of the theme.
And there is a kind reminder that the devs never said the theme of the game is the colonization overall or the colonization of anywhere.
Is there really anything contradictory here?
1 Like
Of course. This is because there is a big difference between the war between European civilizations and between colonial natives and European civilizations.
As colonization is the theme of the game, it is inevitable that the subject of European colonization and international expansion will be dealt with. Many people argue that colonization outside the Americas is meaningless, but I would like to point out that colonization in Europe is forgotten that the journey to trade with India was the beginning.
In other words, European colonization should also include civilizations and trade on other continents, which will show interesting results both historically and as a concept of the game. But those who want the European War deliberately try to ignore it.
Then matchup between European nations should not be allowed in the game.
No. American colonization is the theme of the game. Anything after TWC is not accepted. It’s not the problem of whether colonization out of the Americas is meaningless or not, but everything about the game before TAD is set in the America. So TAD has broke the theme.
1 Like
It is an answer that intentionally ignores the fact that there was a war between colonies. In addition to the colonial battles of England and France, the historical battles added by the new developers of DE include numerous scenarios for colonial battles between European countries.
Don’t force it to force it like the European War is the only answer to the game. In the past, developers tried to expand the game as much as possible under the concept of colonization. But those who want the European War deliberately ignore it and insist that the concept of the game is of no value.
This is what you said, right?
Let me tell you what’s funny: I’ve not even expressed any objection towards adding Africa, etc.
I’m just saying the game needs not to be confined to some “colonial” theme that the devs never stated.
The Japanese campaign, and even the design of the entire civ, had nothing to do with colonization. It was a mere “Asian War”.
1 Like
I never said that I can’t understand what it means:>
I also do not object to the African DLC, and I agree that it will be the perfect content addition for the game.
The presence of the consulate reveals that they did business with European countries, and that is not historically wrong. Also, the countries were too large and powerful to be colonized. Therefore, the relationship between them and Europe was expressed as trade. In addition, the reason why the Japanese scenario cannot be said to be a story unique to Japan is that the weapons they used were weapons traded with Europeans. Campaigns aren’t all content in the game.
This is what you said:
this clearly does not include:
Now you’ve already expanded the “theme” to “trade”.
Someone would simply jump out and say trade is not within the theme of colonization.
I believe if TAD comes 10 years after TWC, people would object to it because it breaks the theme of colonization of the Americas. Fortunately it only took the devs two years before any theory of the “theme” had been established.
If Europeans hadn’t colonized, they wouldn’t have done business with Asians. As I said earlier, what Europeans challenged to do business with India led to colonization. If you are interested in history, you will know this well. The war between colonies is what convinces the battle between Europe. You seem to have forgotten this is a game.
Initially, colonization of America was limited to a few countries, and Germany, Ottoman, Portugal and Spain did not participate in the colonization of the Americas, so the question can be seen as a question of the fundamentals of the game.
Sudden controversy puts you and I in danger of wasting each other’s emotions. It’s up to the developer to add content anyway, so arguing like this with you is completely meaningless. But if you want it I will answer whatever you want. Until I fall asleep.
You have just said the golden quote that justifies almost any additional content so I don’t see any point for further argument.
I’d like to think that is a typo.
Germany and Ottoman did not colonize Asia, at least India and East Asia either (within the period of the game). I believe the devs added Ottomans in the very beginning not because they involved in colonization but because they cannot be ignored in a game set in 16c~19c.
Idk why they only released American settings in the earliest release, but the inclusion of Ottomans (and the way they sneaked into the campaign about colonization) already breaks away from the ‘colonial’ theme. So there is no need to stick to it.
Disclaimer: I’d actually like to see an African expansion before any new European nation is introduced. If we are fortunate enough to get any additional content, I’d like to see the devs going back to Europe and include some “European wars” contents after visiting Africa, etc.
Ottomans have a record of participating in the war for an Indonesian small country called Arch. So it is not unusual for them to join the war in Asian. Austria also operated an East India Company to do business with India. As I said earlier, the concept of the Asian Dynasty Expansion Pack is that Asian countries traded with European countries.
However, in addition to trading with some Asian countries, it is also true that they colonized Asia. Just because not all countries have been actively colonized does not mean that not all of them have colonized. And its history continues to be the cause of the conflict between European countries and Asian countries.
The last thing I want to say is that this is a game, so you shouldn’t wish for complete historical facts. In fact, the Lakota fight against the United States, but even if they appear as major civ and war against Asian countries, it is acceptable because it is a game.
Yes, we’d rather be imagining how African civilization will be added to the game, and understanding that it’s wiser to share opinions and understand that it’s for the game.
However, it should be recognized that the European War only describes the conflict between European countries, so there is no room for other civilizations to intervene.
The European War is only a war between Europe, but we must not forget that colonization was a conflict between Europe and other native and Asian countries.
I don’t think this is what the devs were thinking when they decided to add Ottomans…
But Napoleonic Wars and Thirty Years Wars, etc., are also a part of history and cannot be ignored (and extremely interesting as well).
AOE 3 has been criticized for lacking sufficient single-player content, esp. campaigns. And the fictional storylines before DE are really more difficult than actual historical events. If we stick to the colonial theme we might run out of ideas for campaigns.