There’s not a single Age game which (officially) features Polynesia. It doesn’t have to be AOE4, though if they’d add them, I’d be extremely happy.
3 Likes
Does Empire really have to be a modern definition made upon how many were killed and suffered?
I prefer the old school romanticized definition for Empires, of magnificent entities that unify different people under the same ruler and banner. Tuʻi Tonga Empire is a prime example of unify people across large areas, and maintain a wast trade and infrastructure.
But it doesn’t mean, it leads nations and people to the conclusion they should right now forget about their current problems and prepare against a “possible unknown” threat
It’s not like we are today any smarter, there are millions of asteroids out there, that could wipe out humanity like it did happen with dinosaurs, but all out military investments go into weapons to fight each other. Even the biggest Super Powers with capacity to wipe out the earth several times, rather increase their arsenal, than to prepare something against asteroids.
For Example Apophis is a near-Earth asteroid with a relatively large size (it is about 1,100 feet – or 335 meters – wide). It gained notoriety in 2004 when early observations suggested it might strike Earth in 2029. How much are we prepared? Exactly, even worse than Aztecs.
2 Likes
That is not the definition of Empire, modern or old.
An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.
That is the definition of Empire. To build one, however, you do have to step on many toes, and cut many heads.
That is you issue. This is not realistic, or how ANY empire ever came to be.
It makes them lookout for said threat, like the Chinese did for the Romans. The Native Americans were caught with their proverbial pants down. Thye had no chance to prepare. because they were deeply isolated.
Those weapons ARE in orbit to target asteroids the size of which killed teh dinossaus, and the only reason we developed them, is because we wanted to kill each other.
We also spend immense amounts of money to lookout for them, because we know, as Eurasian global culture descendant peoples, that it is often what we do not see, that will have the greatest chance at wipping us out.
Wrong, it will not hit the Earth, that was published in newspapers to cause panic and sell, the scientific community already denied it.
We are better prepared than you think.
2 Likes
Looking how we all failed to deal with a simple pandemic,
I kind of expect the humanity to completely mess it up.
China and India had knowledge of other nations, and used to be way more advanced than Europe, but still was very easy for Europe to take them down.
Know-how of other nations, wouldn’t have had helped much the Aztecs.
-they still would have had no access to technology Spain had, like gunpowder or horses.
-they still would have had problems with new illnesses from Europe.
-they still would have to fight their neighbors
-their neighbors, still would have had allied themselves with Spain
1 Like
On the contrary, Europe took them on and won, because they became more advanced than China and India, specufically in tools and means of War.
They could have brough Gunpowder or Horse, from Asia.
True, but they would have contracted them long before the Europeans arrived, and developed immunities.
With Steel, Gunpowder and Horses. It would have been much easier.
Or they would not exist, because they may have adopted some of the Eurasian thoughts on warfare and empire building.
Age of Empires is the name of the franchise, but it is a common misconception that the civilizations must adhere to some definition of an “empire.” That’s never been the case in this franchise. They are exactly what the games call them – civilizations.
5 Likes
Kind of surprised that such a thing has to be explicitly explained. Just a look at the civs of any past game would be enough to realize that we never dealt with empires per se. Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Celts, Britons, Slavs, Vikings etc.
We have always been dealing with groups of people and their respective ethnonyms. Sometimes more and sometimes less distinct from one another.
2 Likes
And considering how Burgundians, Vietnamese and Bohemians are now a thing in AOE2, it just further shows that.
2 Likes
It’s a game. We have fun.
2 Likes
AoEIV is actually going to be the first installment in the whole series that will introduce some civs as political structures. Delhi Sultanate, Holy Roman Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate. I personally have no issue with that but I really do not like the naming inconsistency amongst the civs. If some of them were going to be political entities then I would also want all of them to be.
4 Likes
Yeah, it really feels like the Devs kinda missed the memo on how we name things around here. Or they read the memo and do not care.
3 Likes
hm there is an inconsistency with abbasids, it’s not the caliphate, but the Abbasid Dynasty.
Apparently the reasoning with dynasty, is than the game cover their dynasty from badgad to the rules of mamluks 
(but it’s a bid odd anyway).
1 Like
It really should be the Abbasid Caliphate. That is what it is known by, and “Caliphate” is derived from Arabic, which is their language. “Dynasty” comes to English from Greek, and while similar in definition, just isn’t as on the nose as Caliphate. Details really set the scene and are important. Meanwhile, the game already uses the word Dynasty as a term of art in the game feature of the same name of the Chinese. So there’s some inconsistency and a bit of overuse/watering down of the term. It’s just a bit inartistic, but obviously not fatal. The game still runs, but the language is not as sharp as it could have been.
4 Likes
I think I may get the difficulty of their naming task though. Trying to move away from some of AoEII’s very broad names and do things more ‘accurate’ while at the same time presenting some major states that could be including more than one ethnic group inside their borders. Sounds like a double edged sword unless they get introduced the way they did.
But it would really be a mess if they decided to go down that road. Dynasties, Kingdoms, Empires, Duchies, Despotates, Republics, Tsardoms, Sultanates, Caliphates, it would be very confusing and unfun. I generally also prefer cultures and ethnic groups than states.
Same tech inferiority problem as americans but worse
I would love to see the Malian/Songhai Empire in the game !
1 Like
Vikings weren’t a people; it was an occupation. Danes, for example, were a people/nation (although not until the late “viking age”), some Danes were vikings, as in they went on raids.
“Old Norse viking (n.) meant “freebooting voyage, piracy;” one would “go on a viking” (fara í viking).”
Taken from: viking | Origin and meaning of the name viking by Online Etymology Dictionary
1 Like
The game starts in the middle 800s, from most of the civs we have seen, so Danes fits very well.
1 Like
The word Vikings describes all Scandinavians during the viking age that’s why it’s a perfect name for a civ in this game.
But it doesn’t though. It describes a sub group of Scandinavians during a rather short timeframe compared to this game. In the game in age 4, you would have Viking knights and canons fight against The Holy Roman Empire?? This would be historically wrong AND would not even fit with the popular understanding of what Vikings are.
If they are to be represented, I like the idea someone else mentioned of having Danes/Nords as a faction that can recruit Vikings (maybe an infantry unit that can be “trained” off of ships, or that have a boost to combat for the first minute after making landfall)
4 Likes