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
Wasn’t it Meji government that did those things?
Also an emperor rules over an empire…
Invasion of Ryukyu was done by the local warlord of Satsuma.
The emperor of Japan did not have much power since medieval times. The word is translated as an “emperor” because they called themselves so (in Japanese).
Even the definition of “empires/emperor” is ambiguous depending on the source language. When we talk about “emperor of Japan”, “emperor of China”, “emperor of Rome”, “emperor of HRE”, “emperor of Ethiopia”, “emperor of Bornu” we are talking about people with very different roles in very different political entities.
5 Likes
So? They still remained independent. It wasn’t until Meji rra that they got annaxed.
It is doubtful to use Italians and Maltese to compare Koreans, who have dissimilar histories. In particular, Maltese is the origin of AoE3, and their introduction is more importantly a homage, which is impossible for Koreans.
You are Korean, then of course you feel that Korean history is very important to Asia. But for people in other countries, not necessarily. The Japanese are likely to think that communication with the Portuguese and the Dutch is more important during that period.
Well, that’s your opinion mate. Having the Americas explored by Europeans was thrilling, but it made much sense to have therefore the local civs represented too!
Yes, I read that 15th c. arguments but AoE3 never solely focused on that century. The vanilla game already had 19th c. references (Gendarmes, Tanzimat, Needle Gunner…). What critics could have emphasized though, is the focus on late technologies for the US compared to the Europeans, that could’ve implied superiority in-game
No mate, I patiently took the time to prove they made sense, as you seem to have just drop their names without digging a bit more
I mean Prussia and Austria were two German states that fit the time frame + were sovereign. Similarly, Mughals, Rajputs or the Maratha were Indians states that fit the time frame + were sovereign. Therefore, Germans and Indians are absolutely viable civs
Again, I don’t think any exceptions, zigzagging, concessions were made for the civs so far except the Maltese. New horizons however, were definitively explored.
Eventually, the 2 prerequisites I mentioned are not my creation: they’re just drawn from what AoE3 communicated on its ads and publications, and from the civs so far released.
It would be insightful to ask the devs one day what motivate their civ choice
1 Like
BUT the rule that “every civ should exist in 15th century” still persists before US. “The 19th century reference is portraying how they evolved from the 15th century into the 19th century. So a civ that does not even have a 15th century should not exist.” That was the logic of the argument. I do not know why it has to be discarded, and it was especially championed by someone who is now liking every one of your posts (arguing against that rule) here.
And Aztecs and Incas did not last long in the game’s time period. It is undeniable. So it violates the “lasts long” rule, and you need to create an exception for them. That already shows the standard does not hold by itself.
I repeat it: you can always fit a standard into the current state from a retrospect.
The opening cinematics of the game clearly says “The New World” so anything else that is not the new world does not fit and needs to be purged.
From the civs so far released (2006): TWC should not exist
From the civs so far released (2007): TAD should not exist
1 Like
There really should be a consistent criteria for civ selection, but it seems like no standard is ever followed. Ideally they should follow some guidelines like this:
- Exist for the majority of the game’s timeframe (~1500 to <1900)
There needs to be some bounds on what countries should be included. Most people would be upset if they included civs like Byzantium or the Soviet Union.
A number of civs violate this with Aztecs, Mexico, and USA being the worst offenders (Inca also doesn’t in its current depiction but if they did persist as an insurgency long enough to potentially fit this criteria).
- Have a suitable military that can fill a unit roster
This is where having a coherent timeline impacts gameplay. There is an established progression from archaic units to modern ones. Civs like Mexico and USA are too modern to have archaic units, and civs like Aztecs lack anything modern which makes balancing a struggle.
Malta lacks this currently, but a lot of that is because they were very poorly designed.
Other civs like Lakota stretch this requirement with their total lack of artillery.
- Be a distinct and independent state or cultural group of some significance
USA and Mexico violate this because for half of the timeframe they are indistinguishable from colonial Britain and Spain. Implementing them as a much more developed revolution mechanic would have been far superior to a standalone civ.
Malta violates this because they were never really independent and don’t represent a significant cultural group.
India and Germany also violate this by being nebulous umbrella civs. These could be fixed by breaking up the civs like AoE2 did with “Dynasties of India”.
Some “insignificant” civs like Hausa and Lakota are good representatives of their cultural groups and had periods of prominence like the Sokoto Caliphate and Battle of Little Bighorn.
2 Likes
Hu… wasn’t the Sokoto Caliphate a Fulani state born precisely from the destruction of Hausa kingdoms?
The Hausa weren’t destroyed by the caliphate, they were an integral part of it. One of their units is the Fulani Archer.
The civ was probably chosen based off the Sokoto Caliphate and then just generalized to the Hausa to make it fit the timeline better.
They shouldn’t follow any guidelines but their own, the devs themselves ultimately decide what civs they want or not. US and Malta were campaign civs, pretty obvious to add them. US is also defined by both the thirteen colonies and after their indepence, kinda makes sense if you stretch it a bit.
“Battle of Little Bighorn” & “Period of prominence”.
But you disregard Malta, despite their rather large stand against the Ottoman Empire during the siege of Malta and that the Knights of Saint John existed from 11th century to now. While bringing some interesting mechanics to the game.
Also it simply isn’t always possible to do everything. Breaking up civs like AoE2 works very differently from AoE3, perhaps with an infinite budget and hundreds of more developers. It just isn’t feasible.
4 Likes
It’s a little bit sad imo. AoE3 covers the time period during which the Fulani were the most prominents, while the Hausa already had powerful states during the Moddle Ages…
They are probably never going to update the campaigns so this just makes things inconsistent.
They make perfect sense… as a revolution. The problem is they didn’t exist in the early game and mess up the chronology and unit progression by forcing them to exist then. There would be no issue if they were just Britain, Swedes, or Dutch for the first couple ages and then became USA after revolting.
That was their only time of relevance, and 11th century knights are irrelevant to the game’s timeline.
Lakota also only had a brief period of prominence, but they’re a sort of representative of all the plains tribes. Malta represents European empires that are already extensively covered by the game. They only offer poorly executed asset reuse.
Breaking up Germany would involve renaming like two things to be specifically Austrian and shifting the leader and home city to Prussia. Otherwise it’s as straightforward as making a totally new Prussia civ.
India would require more substantial work, but it’s still very doable.
1 Like