Regarding Asian wonders (poll)

This has been brought up in other topics several times but I think it’s worth its own discussion.

Basically the reasons why I think Asian wonders are not-so-good an idea are:

  1. It’s a bit weird building one specific building with a clear real-life counterpart as a new settlement or a military outpost.
  2. Gameplay-wise it limits the design of new Asian civs. You’ll need five distinct buildings with real-life significance and in-game unique mechanics. Some existing ones are already quite forced (e.g. “Torii”). People might be more open to unique units/techs being shared ones with slightly tweaked stats because they always have been, but all wonders have been very unique.

But I’m not strongly in favor of overhauling the system entirely either. So what do people think?

For exisitng civs:

  • Keep it as it is
  • Reskin it to something functionally similar
  • Overhaul it
0 voters

For new civs:

  • They need to get very unique wonders as well
  • I’m okay with overlapping wonder functions
  • They can have a different age-up system than wonders
0 voters

For candidate Asian civs, I’m thinking of Koreans, Viets and Siam, which should belong to the same civilization group as the existing ones.
Persians, Tatars and Arabs (or more specific ones like Omani) are trickier. They could belong to the current Asian group, or the “European” group (further split out as a sub-group together with Ottomans), or even something similar to the African system, or their own group.
In either case whether to use wonders and how to design them would be a concern.

1 Like

But it has always been like this, since aoe1, and I think most players have just accepted it even if it doesn’t make sense. Having the Aztecs fight the Chinese in Africa doesn’t make sense either.


I dont think any possible future Asian civ needs to follow the same format as The Asian Dynasties civs. Clearly making new architecture sets is time consuming which is probably part of the reason we get a lot of civs that can justify using an existing set. Mandating that they would need to make 5 unique wonders as well is going to make it worse.

As for the existing civs I agree the wonders feel a little strange but what’s done is done. There are plenty of things that could be improved for them without messing with the wonders like changing the Chinese villages into houses rather than Mongolian Yurts.

AoE3 has a different premise than the other Age games. You’re explicitly not building a big new country or emulating the rise of one, you’re building an outpost for that big country back home.

The wonders make sense in other games, but not here.


They are called “wonder” not the exact building, in other AOEs.
Yes they are modelled after real buildings but they are not called so because they are not.

And those game do have a “civilization building” theme unlike AOE3 but they still are not calling the wonders with real life names. There must be a reason.

I don’t like it when people use this argument for literally anything. It’s like trying to shut down the discussion with no valid points.

We’re talking about why one or two specific names or designs that do not look good. I have made my point why I think the wonder is not a good design. You first need to point out why this is comparable to Chinese in Mexico.

Chinese could surely set up a settlement in Mexico if they have the chance. But there is no way multiple groups of Indians build multiple Taj Mahals in Mexico and call all of them Taj Mahal.


It is honestly astounding how much of an “it’s always been this way and I hate change” mentally people have. A visual/name change to generic landmarks would be unquestionably better even if it came with zero gameplay changes.

Maybe you have to more clearly explain what exactly the change would be. Give some specific examples otherwise people just assume it’ll be something radical and immediately reject the idea.

Some simple reskins and maybe some slight reworks like this would be great.

Confucian Academy → Fireworks Workshop

Still trains Flying Crows and also gains a fireworks stun ability like the Hanover royal house.

Temple of Heaven → Tulou

Acts as a very strong additional Town Center. There’s usually a shrine at the center of these compounds so they could still have some mystical shenanigans going on.

Porcelain Tower → Imperial Kiln

Generates resources.

Karni Mata → Stepwell

Boosts nearby resource collection.

Golden Pavilion → Tatara Forge

Upgrades different unit types.


These are cool and would make making new Asian civs significantly easier. I do rather love these.

This is a bad argument. Each civ needs to make sense on its own and how it interacts with itself - that should be based on history.

The moment other civs get involved on maps is where all hell can break loose and things can get as wild as you want… but this isn’t about that part of the game.

1 Like

I would like to have the term “wonder” changed to something like “infrastructure” to make it more generic. There is no need to change their function, just need to reskin them.

To Chinese wonders, I suggest:
Confucian Academy → Gunpowder Factory(火药厂)
Gunpowder Factories were built to produce and store firearms in Ming dynasty. The most famous one is Wanggongchang due to a mysterious explosion.

Porcelain Tower → Market Tower(市楼)
In ancient China, every city had its market tower act as market regulator and symbol of the marketplace, like Pingyao Market Tower.

Summer Palace → Drill Ground(校场)
It was common to have a drill ground in important cities and forts during ancient China.
There was Nanjing Dajiaochang Airport in Nanjing. “Dajiaochang(大校场)” literally means drill ground, indicating that it was build on a military drill ground of Ming dynasty.

Temple of Heaven → City God Temple(城隍庙)
The worship of City God was very important to Chinese. There are still many City God Temple remains, the Shanghai one may be the most well-known.

White Pagoda → Pagoda
Just no need to specify it.


I’m not trying to shut down the discussion at all, and even though you may not like my argument, it is still a valid point. You want a better example? How two players could play against each other with the same civ and THE SAME LEADER? What I’m trying to say is that “mirror match” or whatever you want to call it does exist in video games, whether you like it or not.

I never said “I hate change”. Do not put words in my mouth. Change doesn’t bother me, I’ve even created a thread for possible changes for the Aztecs. And I approve many proposals made on this forum. As for a name change yea why not? I never said no to name changes.

I’ll explain myself better. This argument was meant to explain my point, but I never said it was a bad thing. Maybe this wasn’t the best example.

I wasn’t specifically replying to you, I was commenting on the poll results that were 80% “Keep it as is”.

But this reasoning for being against a change is also really dumb.

Same civ is no problem. Civ is not one faction or one army. It’s a broad concept. Civil wars within factions of the same “civ” are normal.

Same leader didn’t really happen. You can take a look at it. When duplicate civ happens only the first one got the leader name. All the rest got the generic civ name. That’s the reason why in legacy duplicate civs are not allowed (a pretty bad choice though), and all other AOEs have a long list of random leader names. Even the explorer names are random.

So my point still holds: you should avoid duplication of specific, real life assets.

It is disappointing how many people say keep it as it is. But my belief is that most players of the game have no knowledge of important asian landmarks, and hence do not realize how the current implementation is wrong.

For instance, the same people would probably object if the European civs had wonders and the wonders were named Buckingham Palace, or The Palace of Versailles or Koln Cathedral.

For the love of AoE, people. AGRA IS A PLACE IN INDIA. THE AGRA FORT BEING BUILT IN THE BAYOU MAKES NO SENSE. It needs to be renamed to just “Fort” or something similar.


I thought even the “Red Fort” could be a better name. At least it sounds generic.

And the Toshogu Shrine is a memorial of Tokugawa Ieyasu…

Red Fort is a building in Delhi, not generic at all…

That’s true, even we can see “Tomb of Ieyasu” ability in Toshogu while Tokugawa Ieyasu can be sent from HC and act as computer leader.

Well at least the name sounds generic, as it’s not tied with a specific location or person.

1 Like

Yes, I suggest “Qila”. It is persian and translates to Fort in english.

Why can’t the Confucian Academy just be… a Confusian Academy?

I’ve made rough sketches (or not so rough, for those who have seen my designs for Siam & Korea) for most any possible asian civ that could be added to the game and I have full confidence that wonders for new civs can have completely new abilities that don’t overlap with those that came in TAD. There’s endless options to be had with a little creativity and concise game design.

I’d be for making the wonders more generic landmarks rather than the literal Taj Mahal in the middle of nowhere, but I wouldn’t mind if they went with the “literal wonder of the world” for the new civs just because they look so funny just showing up in the middle of nowhere, as wrong as it may be.


I may not have expressed myself clear. I simply stated this as a fact. I was just trying to explain that video games don’t always have to make sense.

I honestly would have no problem with that personaly, but again, if the solution is to simply rename wonders with generic names, so be it, I wouldn’t complain either.

1 Like

Keep it as it is. The premise of the asian civs is being under colonial influence. Hence the consulate, the export mechanic etc. If they’re fighting on their home turf it’s actually important to have something meaningful to defend.

Besides ofc the legacy argument. I don’t want to play c&c4 if i bought c&c3.

1 Like