Should only important Empire be in AOE3?

This argument keeps coming back and whenever new civs is announced and if they are not strong Empire ie-Malta and Mexico- people always complain at how they don’t fit into game.

I say any civs that managed to survive to “gunpowder era” can be in this game. Weather they are great empire or small they can be interesting civ to play.
Plus I see AOE3 as nice little “what if” game anyway.


Yes. The game is called Age of EMPIRES, not Age of Minor Non-Unified Ethnic Groups.


Nope, but not civs like Australia and Canada for example since they weren’t independent during the timeline or Pirate republic.

Nothing against the territory size of the civs or unknown unit rosters but I wouldn’t like to see civs like Byzantines or very-shortlived ones…I think Maltese kinda opened a can of worms about civ relevance…

1 Like

Japan never was empire during the game’s time period… neither was Haudenosaunee and Lakota.
Also Italia and Malta was never an Empire.


The Iroquois had an empire. The Venetians had an empire. Japan had imperialistic ambitions for the Imjin War but admittedly they get a pass anyway for that weeb money.


confederacy. they never had Iroqouis King. name the list of Iroquois king.

That was BEFORE the start of this series. Remember the campaign and the leader/special unit- Tokugawa? He only came to power AFTER the war.
Heck I’ll say the idea of “empire only” died with Warchief expansion.
let me guess you are going to cry the tears when Korea eventually gets included in the future.
Because I think Korea will be added once they decided to touch Asia.


Since when is a king a pre-requisite of an empire? The Iroquois grabbed territory from their neighbours by force and settled it with their own people. Empire.

Also the Imjin War started in 1592, clearly within the timeframe of the game. Before or after Tokugawa’s rise is irrelevant.

And yes, I’m not for the Koreans being added to the game. A nonsensical pick, imo. I’d let it slide if AOE3 had a big Korean community but it doesn’t. The Persians and even Siamese would be better picks for a new Asian civ.


definition of Empire: an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
If by that definition you can say India and China now is an Empire because they own large lands.


They don’t have large African community and yet they added Hausa.
They sure don’t have large Maltese community and yet they added Malta.
LOLZ they are starting to move away from “important civs” idea.
If Italy and Malta can be in the game so can Korea. ESPECIALLY when Korea is important in the history of Asia. After all we were the ones who mainly traded and influenced Tokugawa Japan. They only traded with China and Korea.


Well there is one type of civ that is less suitable than non-empire civs, and that is civs that were a part of someone else’s empire. Korea didn’t know independence until the 20th century. Korea was a vassal-state of China for most of its history.

1 Like

Dude… that’s… just so historically incorrect.

Korea was independent until we got colonized by Japan.
Paying tribute dose NOT mean we were subordinate under China.
" The political sacrifice of participating actors was simply “symbolic obeisance”.[8] Actors within the “tribute system” were virtually autonomous and carried out their own agendas despite sending tribute; as was the case with Japan, Korea, Ryukyu, and Vietnam.[9] Chinese influence on tributary states was almost always non-interventionist in nature and tributary states “normally could expect no military assistance from Chinese armies should they be invaded”.[10][11] For example, when the Hongwu Emperor learned that the Vietnamese attacked Champa, he only rebuked them,[12] and did not intervene in the 1471 Vietnamese invasion of Champa, which resulted in the destruction of that country. Both Vietnam and Champa were tributary states. When the Malacca sultanate sent envoys to China in 1481 to inform them that while returning to Malacca in 1469 from a trip to China, the Vietnamese had attacked them, castrating the young and enslaving them, China still did not interfere with affairs in Vietnam. The Malaccans reported that Vietnam was in control of Champa and also that the Vietnamese sought to conquer Malacca, but the Malaccans did not fight back because of a lack of permission from the Chinese to engage in war. The Ming emperor scolded them, ordering the Malaccans to strike back with violent force if the Vietnamese attacked.["
Tributary system of China - Wikipedia.
we were just “acting” subordinate to please the big Empire. We gave them gifts and usually Emperor of China have to give EVEN MORE BIGGER gifts.
In reality its more of “ok we will call you big bro but don’t bother in our internal politics and stuff. We will give you gifts but we also expect some returns”
China never interfered in Korean governments.
If you said that to Asian historian you WILL be laughed off as biggest idiot of the century.


in conclusion only time Korea lost independence was when Korea was occupied by Japan. before that Korea has always been independent! ( yeah ok its bit cloudy under Mongol Empire when it was more of puppet state…)

With the exception of Malta, AoE3 so far always released civs that met precise standards in order to maintain a coherence in the roster.

I’ve detailed here and there (forum) these requirements implied by the game needed for a civ to be considered as a candidate: they must first of all meet the game’s time frame (roughly 1450s-1890s), have produced an organized, sovereign, stable, influential entity, over a lasting span, and be somewhat related more or less to the Age of Discovery (although this last argument is on the verge of being defunct).

As such, a civ doesn’t compulsorily have to be an Empire: the US and the Mexicans were Republics, the Haudenosaunee were a Confederacy, that match all the above criterions.

With the Maltese, the lines were blurred, as Malta chiefly wasn’t even a sovereign nation. Nonetheless, as many have pointed out, Malta’s addition seems to be rather a nod to AoE3 in itself, answering an old request too. The civ’s extensive reuse of campaign elements, the HC customization with all the protagonists, the Morgan Black references as a politician and a card are all strong arguments supporting this view.

In conclusion, I think from now on only 2 arguments are absolute for a new civ: the time frame and the sovereignty.

Furthermore, let’s not forget the civ categories have to be somewhat balanced too: with 11 European civs now, one could reasonably expect the Africans, Asians or Americans welcoming some additions to equalize the balance.



you know that supreme authority =/= king right? … a parliament could also be that authority

Does not mean it’s an empire. To be an empire one needs monarch.

Empire is a Roman term. The vast majority of “empires” history has cataloged would never had called themselves as such in life.

USA experienced imperialism with manifest destiny, no later than the Monroe doctrine and Teddy Roosevelts Big Stick policy the US can be seen as an Empire/Great Power just like the ones in europe

Mexico also had an emperor, eventhough it was short lived

the british empire was mostly ruled by its parliament …

"As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the prime minister, which are performed in a non-partisan manner. The monarch is also Head of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate executive authority over the government is still formally by and through the royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent. "

p.s. thats why your dictionary definition doesnt simply say “an empire is ruled by a monarch” …they have to keep it vague and include the juristic construct of “(single) authority”

1 Like

The title doesnt necessarily dictate the content tbh.

Also Age of Empires, kinda points to an age during which empires rose to power, fell and existed. Not that every civilization in the game has to be an empire.

Malta could just aswell be justified because it stood rather short handed against the ottoman >empire< during the siege of Malta.

Take it from Voltaire that said “Nothing is better known than the siege of Malta” apparently a great turning point in European history. Still relevant to the title aswell.


The game is called AGE of empires not EMPIRES!!!.
Palmyra and Minoans exist since AOE1.

1 Like