Should only important Empire be in AOE3?

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.

2 Likes

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.

3 Likes

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.

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.

15 Likes

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.

Best,

5 Likes

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.

4 Likes

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

1 Like

You already see how zigzag the boundary is and how many additional conditions you need to define that “coherence”.
Let me tell you what, you can always find a very coherent theme from any pool of words they give you. It’s just that whether you’re willing to or not. Because US and Mexico were precisely excluded from that “coherent standard” defined by QueenMegatron and many when they were first introduced, but now they magically fit perfectly into it.

4 Likes

Aztecs and Incas

“Germans” and “Indians”

As I have just mentioned, someone who liked your post were screaming 24/7 when they first added Mexicans and US.
See how easy this coherence shifts.

Let’s put it another way. For every group in the world, whether tribes or empires, the chances of becoming a civilization are an invisible ranking, not a question of should or shouldn’t. There are some criteria for judging a civilization’s potential, such as:

Is it a regional or even a world power?
Can foreign affairs be autonomous?
Is there no need to rely on other nations in war?
How similar is it to existing civilizations?
Can its cultural characteristics develop unique gameplay or mechanics?
What does its introduction mean for this game’s past history and future development?
and many more.

Everyone (including the developers) has different criteria for judging civilization. Some people are stricter, some people are looser, and that’s okay. When the candidates for new civilizations are scrutinized by everyone according to their own standards, there will always be differences, and this ranking is formed. For example, the Persian is an option that is qualified in the judgment criteria of most people, then its ranking is quite high, very suitable to become the next new civilization.

The civilizations currently launched are basically with a high pass rate, that is, they can pass stricter conditions. At present, candidates at this level, such as Persians, Siamese, Danes, etc., have not yet been introduced. When these civilizations are all in the game, I think it’s time to start thinking about lowering the pass rate requirement.

Of course, whether the number of civilizations in the game has not yet reached the limit at the time is a big unknown. Since AoE3 doesn’t fit as many civilizations as AoE2, I don’t even think there should be more than 30. On the other hand, whether Microsoft is willing to provide enough budget to support new content at that time is another unknown. So when the civilization you’re looking for is actually not high enough in the ranking, the greater the risk that it doesn’t end up being a playable civilization. That’s it, it’s not a question of what they should or shouldn’t.

6 Likes

I don’t believe these boundaries are zigzag mate, except the Age of Discovery theme that seems to be threatened. On the contrary: these boundaries rely on a few clear and logical concepts (time frame, sovereignty, span) that cleverly allow to cover most of the world’s civs and at the same time to focus on the main ones.

I concluded later you could now even reduce them down to 2 main conditions (time frame + sovereignty): I don’t think 2 prerequisites is too much.

These standards have remained the same throughout the original game and the DE. Even with the out of favor Asian Dynasties, the introduced civs encompassed easily these 2-3 aspects. Only the Maltese are truly groundbreaking, but they seems to be more of a nod.

Now, I understand the US and Mexico startled many: focusing on an ex-colony stemming from a settling Nation was indeed a dazzling new approach. Yet, looking at the bigger picture, they do subscribe to the logic expressed above. Thus, the boundaries were not zigzagged, rather, a new horizon, i.e., American civs, was explored.

Unfortunately, the Native Nations don’t offer as much variety as the Europeans do during that time-frame: I’m sure you know the Discoveries, i.e., AoE3 initial theme, lead to the brutal fall of many local American powers. Therefore, entities impactful enough had to be chosen: the Incas (1438–1572, 134 years) and Aztecs (1325–1521, 196 years, based on Tenochtitlan) offer a respectful span on top of being among the major powers of the Americas at that time.

AoE3 reasons in civilizations, not in states. Germans produced 2 main European powers, Prussia and Austria, among others. Indians witnessed the mighty Mughals or the Rajput. All these components are represented in-game. This particular vision is the reason for the recurring debate of having the Austrians introduced.

Therefore, again, with the exception of Malta, all are fairly justifiable without bending any boundaries, according to me.

I do believe so far a certain consistency has been respected although, as you pinpointed, AoE3 only gave hints on the criterions motivating civ creation and keep for themselves the exact process

1 Like

No the standard of the civ choice should always be colonial powers of Europeans so TWC should not exist.

Because there was the argument that “every civ should exist at the beginning of 15th century” when US and Mexico were introduced (and it fits every other civ back then). But later it got removed, by whoever, and never brought up again.
Of course you can fit in US and Mexico perfectly into the standard if you remove the rules that they violate. See how fragile your standard is.

Now you need such a long and winding logic and has to loosen some criteria to make them fit you standard, and they still remain as somewhat an exception that can be pardoned because of xxx. That’s what I mean by zigzag. Again, see how fragile it is.

So you mean they are not organized nor stable right?
How is a “civilization” covering a hundred small states and peoples also organized and stable?

Toyotomi Hideyoshi? Tokugawa Shogunate which conquered Ryukyu and Hokkaido?

2 Likes

As much as I enjoy games and history, I hate it when people glorify game designs, from ages, to units, to civs, to whatever, as if the developers were having a grand plan on their mind from the very first stage of development and remained faithful to it, and for every addition they need to do mental gymnastics of world building and theories to justify it.
Especially when we are talking about a game started with a theme of American colonization but with Ottomans, hussite war wagons and landsknechts.

The only rules that dominate game designs are (1) fun (2) business.

6 Likes