I’ve been wondering about the logic behind the four Ages in Age of Empires II: Dark Age, Feudal Age, Castle Age and Imperial Age.
The campaigns cover a very wide historical period, ranging from the 3rd century to the late 16th century. However, not every civilization fits neatly into the same historical framework. The Huns, Goths, Mongols, Chinese, Japanese and Aztecs all had different political and social structures.
For example, the term “Feudal Age” does not really fit every civilization, while “Imperial Age” might suggest that every civilization is progressing towards an empire.
I understand that the Ages are primarily gameplay stages rather than strict historical periods, but wouldn’t more universal names make sense? These names would describe the player’s progression, from establishing an economic base to expanding, fortifying their position and eventually reaching the height of their power, without tying every civilization to a specific historical model.
What do you think? Is there a particular historical or gameplay reason for the original Age names, or would a more universal naming system be a better fit for AoE2?
Well, it’s simple, and you likely already know this: the Ages follow the logic of the European kingdoms that emerged right after the fall of Rome and expanded as the period drew to a close, leading into the Renaissance or the Early Modern period, depending on the civilization.
Interestingly, if we define the “Feudal” Age simply as a time featuring a ruling warrior elite (ideally one holding lands and having cavalry power) led by an autocrat (King, Khan, Raja, Sultan etc), alongside a similarly prominent parallel religious institution (whether hierarchical or not) and a predominantly agrarian peasant population, then many non-European civilizations fit the mold as well, despite their unique characteristics. In other words, the abstraction holds up perfectly well. And while we’re on the subject, I’d suggest googling “Global Middle Ages,” a recent concept that is gaining traction in academic circles.
On a more practical level, of course, the game is over 20 years old, so it isn’t going to change those names now.
I understand your point, but I think defining the Feudal Age so broadly makes the term “feudal” lose much of its historical meaning. A warrior elite, a ruler, religious institutions and an agrarian population existed in many societies that did not have feudalism in the traditional Western European sense.
The Huns, for example, built a nomadic confederation based on military leadership, personal loyalties and tribute. The Goths established their own kingdoms and adopted elements of Roman administration, but that does not mean they had the same feudal system that developed in medieval Western Europe.
I also find the distinction between the Dark Age, Feudal Age and Castle Age historically problematic. The periods associated with the Dark Ages and the development of feudalism overlap, while the Castle Age is not a clearly defined historical period. Fortifications existed thousands of years before the Middle Ages, and castles or comparable defensive structures developed differently across various civilizations. Their existence does not define a universal historical age.
Since AoE2 campaigns span such a wide range of history, from the Three Kingdoms period in China to the late 16th century, I think the Ages are better understood as gameplay stages rather than a universal historical timeline. That is why more neutral names, could provide a more consistent naming system across all civilizations.
The explanation is fairly straightforward: Age of Empires II is a historical RTS game, not a chronological simulation of world history.
The four Ages are primarily gameplay stages, loosely inspired by the conventional periodization of medieval European history.
Dark Age: The initial stage of settlement, economic development, and limited military capabilities. The term itself traditionally refers to the Early Middle Ages in Europe, although historians increasingly avoid using it as a blanket description of that period.
Feudal Age: Represents the development of more organized economies, military structures, and territorial control. Feudalism was never a universal system, not even throughout medieval Europe.
Castle Age: Represents more developed medieval warfare, fortifications, military specialization, and increasingly sophisticated economies. Castles are simply an iconic feature of the game’s medieval setting.
Imperial Age: Represents the civilization reaching its highest level of military, technological, and economic development within the game’s progression. It does not imply that every civilization historically became an empire.
None of these Ages corresponds to a universally applicable historical period, nor are they intended to. A civilization advancing to the Imperial Age is not necessarily entering the same century, developing the same institutions, or undergoing the same historical transformation as another civilization.
The game already takes considerable liberties with chronology, military technology, architecture, and civilization identities. Technologies and units separated by centuries coexist because the gameplay is built around a shared progression system rather than strict historical synchronization.
The names also reflect AoE2’s original medieval European thematic foundation, which has since expanded to encompass civilizations from across the world.
Personally, I see little reason to replace four established, recognizable Age names merely because they are not universally applicable. They were never meant to be universal historical classifications in the first place. They are thematic labels for gameplay progression, and they serve that purpose perfectly well.
It’s a naming convention at this point and it’s better to just let it be. Same with “civilization”. Bohemians and Poles are hardly separate civilizations, both in general and from each other, but it’s still a naming convention.
Yeah, it’s a euro-centric terminology that falls off the more you go out of Europe.
But there’s not really an effective term, since there aren’t any true historical stages that you can apply to all civilizations. Native Americans never got to gunpowder stage, for instance, outside of instances they managed to plunder or trade gunpowder.
A similar thing is up with Chronicles, with its Archaic, Civic and Classical Age, all of them specifically dealing with European periodization. And then you have Imperial Age which, I think it is supposed to represent the overall strength of your civilization as having reached imperial status, rather than any particular time period.
It’s an abstraction similar to what civilization does. You set up the general stages and you have civs go through them irrelevant of if the civs went through those stages or not.
The only alternative I could fathom is instead setting up ages to denote status, rather than temporal progress. So something like Tribal Stage, City Stage, Kingdom Stage, Empire Stage, or something.
If not it would have to be based on technological progress in some way, with the last one being gunpowder, I guess.
I don’t think so. Making it more universal would be to do something very generic like aging up to " I > II > III > IV". "Player 2 advanced to Age III!"
Doesn’t sound too exciting or immersive to me. Same with any other generic approach."Player 2 advanced to the 800s-1400s period!"
On the other hand, if every civ has its own unique name for the ages in real life, I’ve wondered a few times through the years if it’d be cool for the game to have custom age names for each civ that needs them. If you play the Huns and they had different names for the rough time periods, for example, it could be neat to show their age names to the player playing them – probably not everyone else. It’d be another layer of civ immersion, imo, similar to how all the castles and priests are different now
As an option, I think I’d enjoy trying it out and might stick with it, tbh. It might actually encourage me to use other civs more often, too. Let me know if I need to start a new thread proposing the idea
I don’t think it would get too hard for the player to keep track of since the game has Roman Numeral iconography everywhere showing the age number we’re in or going to. Shouldn’t be a problem, imo, I’ve just been neither here nor there with the idea before so haven’t pushed for it. But now I may have a renewed intrigue in the idea.
Not universally applying generic names to all, but rather going the opposite direction. Make more specific names that are appropriate for each individual civ (where needed)
Well, AoE 3 was already 15 years old, and for AoE 3DE they changed the first two ages from Discovery Age to Exploration Age and Colonial Age to Commerce Age…
