Hausa are probably the best way to go for the civ since the Fulani came to prominence more towards the end of the time period. But having Sokoto as a proper revolution would have been a good way to make the Fulani have more prominence.
Strawman, hypothetical scenarios, disliking of a new civ and stating it as it was fact when it isn’t and made up criteria. Along with an unnecessary breaking up of the German civ.
1100 - to present day “brief period” 
Also it doesn’t really matter as it is a game, if they feel like improving on some parts they will. But it isn’t 100% vital that the game is 100% historically accurate. It will never be and it shouldn’t either.
2 Likes
What are you arguing against? I simply stated my opinion of what would be a logical and coherent civ criteria. If it was fact, Aztecs and Malta wouldn’t have made it into the game and USA and Mexico would just be very fleshed out revolutions.
You’re the one with strawman arguments. I never once said Malta was not long lasting. They were just never significant other than one major battle and some piracy.
The adventures of some crusaders in 1100 also have nothing to do with the game. They didn’t even rule Malta until 1530. Might as well have Byzantium if that’s your criteria.
2 Likes
I argue that your “logical and coherent criteria” is unnecessary and/or restricts the games potentially new content. But in the end it only matters what the devs do or dont do. At this point it isnt a necessary discussion.
Your disliking of the civ comes across as if you were trying to state facts rather than your opinion. I could be wrong on that?
Also I dont really have a criteria, byzantium isnt being added either, so dont know why you bring it up.
1530-1900s is good enough. I mean they are being added, so it is 100% good enough.
1 Like
I’m all for new content, but they are very, very far from exhausting the potential content that fits the theme of the game. For example, a Prussia civ which you say is “unnecessary”, would be a much more appropriate inclusion than Malta.
1 Like
Disagree, but heey, we got different opinions about it and it is fine!
Have a good one either way!
4 Likes
People keep on saying it but never explains: what IS the theme of the game that prevents certain civs from getting included?
…I already posted what I think that is in this thread 
It’s pretty much just conflicts between nations in the Early Modern Period.
1 Like
My personal perspective is the following
By necessity the criteria that developers have to make civilizations are.
Economic benefits: For example, malt is much easier to make than any of the African or Asian civilizations.
Attractive to the consumer: The product has to be fun to ensure the highest number of sales possible.
That respects the essence of the game: Although there is no strict time period, new civilizations should not clash with the game, for example there should not be a civilization with technologies from the first or second world war.
Hope this helps answer your question 
6 Likes
That kinda went out the window even with a OG AOE3 civs so no.3 is meaningless.
What original AoE3 civ doesn’t fit those criteria? Germany and India are overly broad but they still contain a distinct core of Austria and the Mughals that could conform to that with a few adjustments.
Saben una cosa? a mi me importa entre poco y nada la cronología, yo compre el juego para entretenerme no para ver un jodido documental, para eso busco uno o me leo un libro de historia, la saga age no fue pensada para que fuera históricamente correcta, fue pensada como un juego con ciertas bases históricas que estimulasen a los jóvenes a aprender sobre historia pero no más allá de eso, o sino el age of empires 2 tendría poquísimas civs y los españoles y portugueses ni deberían estar en el juego por ser muy modernos, es un juego con tintes de ficción y yo aquí les pregunto… conocen el concepto de “Libertad creativa”? estoy seguro que responde bastantes cosas (incluso los juegos RTT como los total war tienen muchísimas fallas históricas)
7 Likes
我认为到目前为止，论坛里的许多讨论已经超出游戏的范畴。论坛里除了修复BUG和新文明与正常的游戏功能提问，看不见任何游戏玩法、卡组思路、多人竞赛、粉丝二次创作和模组的讨论，而陷入了某种过分学术（尽管AOE3de的玩家大多数并非出身于历史专业领域）的讨论中。
一个文明是否被添加到游戏？是以主要文明还是次要文明的形式加入？是不能让出身自那个地区或国家的人（或者是某些历史爱好者、被当地文化影响、有当地血统的人）来扰乱游戏内容策划的，玩家们提供对游戏可玩性上的提升、平衡问题或者是原则性历史错误的修改才是应该被重视的反馈。
如果想要历史的严肃，就像上面老哥说的，为啥我不去看历史纪录片或者学术书籍？每个地区都会存在长时间或者短时间的强权显赫一时，但是放在世界上到目前为止的文明之林里，他们的知名度除去对本地人的影响显得很有影响力吗？他在与其他文明的冲突中，有什么较为突出的表现吗？美洲的原住民们，有四个有着较高知名度和与欧洲殖民者的冲突中有着突出表现的文明或种族，被当成主要民族加入了游戏，其他那些部落以地图上的小文明加入了游戏。请论坛中的玩家们结合世界历史而不是局限在当地历史中去考虑是否提出加入新文明的建议。就比如说，一些人在论坛里讨论毛利人或者波利尼西亚人，是否是出于刻意的多样性才提出？这些文明是否只要以小文明的形式加入游戏就够了？
对于一些游戏目前的错误，比如论坛里的美洲原住民玩家提出的豪德和拉科塔的海军单位错误问题，和粘合了德意志地区内多个地区特色的德国，还是以拿破仑为领袖却使用波旁王朝象征的旗帜的法国、俄罗斯帝国用着俄联邦的旗帜的俄国，甚至是揉合了元明清于一体的中国、多个信仰撮合在一起的印度，这些问题如果出于历史考量，那么问题太多了，各种文明也可以无限的分裂下去形成所谓的“新的主要文明”，我认为AOE3de的开发者们和提出意见的玩家们应该考量到一个平衡：游戏可玩性与符合历史的程度达成一种平衡。
结合前面一些讨论的观点，我认为一个主要文明的加入，还是应该看这个文明是否能被设计的有足够可玩性、独特性、策略性，其次是这个文明的加入是否能最大限度刺激老玩家和新玩家的购买，而不是出于刻意强调多样性和政治正确，或者是这个文明的本地人在论坛里发声大小而把这些文明加入到游戏内。况且如果你对你本土文明能够加入到游戏，你为何不去找那些MOD开发去讨论这些事情呢？
8 Likes
Of course, it is more an era with kingdoms and empires than simply putting empires as such…
Korea fought against the Japanese at the end of the sixteenth century (1592-1598), against the Jin and Manchu in the seventeenth century (1627-1636) and against the French and Americans in the nineteenth century (1866-1871) so I do not see why they could not be… also to maintain the historical coherence of the saga with choson of aoe 1 and the Koreans of aoe 2…
Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598) - Wikipedia
Later Jin invasion of Joseon - Wikipedia
Qing invasion of Joseon - Wikipedia
1 Like
A vassal like Ryukyu wasn’t independent.
That may be so. There was a Burmese Empire, Emperor of Vietnam, Emperor of Korea and of course the Emperor of Japan. While you may quibble, they were acknowledged as such by other states in the region…
1 Like
Not so much.
There are a lot of words that can be translated to “emperor”. At least for Japanese, the word “皇” just means supreme monarch as in Chinese, and also has some religious meanings in it. Both the Chinese and Japanese word (which share the same root in Chinese) are translated as “emperor” but the roles are different in China and Japan, and also different from “emperor” in other parts of the world.
On the other hand, the Pope in simplified Chinese is also translated as “教皇” with the same 皇. But you cannot say the Pope is comparable to an “emperor” (in the Chinese sense) because they have similar names.
2 Likes
Well, just because we chose to translate a title as emperor or king in western language doesn’t necessarily mean that the people from those countries would have made the distinction before the first contact with Europeans…