0). The game is not perfect.
Outlines and rules discussed here are idealistic. We all know how the game often deviates from its own set of rules and contains mistakes, inaccuracies. But most importantly, poor choices. Some civilizations should debatably not exist (USA, Mexico) or are partly weirdly designed (India bending too much through the East India Company), and weird choices of flags or leaders (Napoleon, Garibaldi). But overall, the state of the game is fine, it’s just not perfect.
1). A civilization is not a nation, nor a revolt, nor a colony, nor a tribe.
Examples: Canadians, Greeks, Paraguay, whatever…
The word civilization has always been subject of confusion. The definition used for the game is not the one that is commonly used (a complex society with a series of characterizing traits, such as urbanization, agriculture, etc). The game has its own definition, and its certainly not synonym with faction, nation, or state. Most of the time, people think of a historic state and try to suggest it as a civilization. It’s wrong.
Currently in the game, we could assume that all people pertaining to a civilization were at that time identifying, or identified by foreigners, as people of an entity represented by the in-game civilization. This concept is pushed further by the idea that states encompass different people that do not recognize as being part of that civilization, but are still subsumed in the game by the civilization. These borderline elements are often represented as cards or special technologies that do not constitute the core essence of the represented civilization.
An AoE3 civilization must be a broad and symbolic representation of a group of people linked with a geographical presence that goes beyond the country itself sometimes associated to that civilization (an “umbrella”). Moreover, it must not be locked behind or beyond a political border : if the “civilization” cease to make sense outside of the border implied by its name (eg. Gran Columbia, Canada) then it’s not suitable.
Let’s take Canada for instance: what is Canada beyond its artificial borders? Nothing. “Canadian” is not even a recognized culture at that time. So beyond borders and a name, how could one justify Canada as an AoE3 civilization? Beside that, a civilization is not a tribe or a people so small that it has such little military and cultural influence that it simply can’t be a good candidate. Hawaiians and Zulus (also virtually “invisible” before the 19th century – so out the time frame), and others are typical examples of this.
2). Out of time frame civilization
Very often, people will come up with a civilization idea that is either totally out of the time frame, or doesn’t exist before the late 19th century. (In)famous examples are: most South-American post-colonial “civilization” (Chile, Grand-Columbia, etc), Zulu, Egyptians, Greeks, Canada, Australia, and the Afghans (sometimes refered as “Durrani”). Most of these ideas are not only out of the time frame, but they fail to meet most standards discussed in this post.
An AoE3 civilization must be relevant with the time frame the game currently has (roughly 1450 to 1850). Here relevance means that a civilization must have at best a historical continuity through most centuries of that time frame, or at least have a fictional historical continuity starting from that time frame (eg. Aztec, Inca).
Historical continuity means that the civilization retains its core cultural identity and presence through time, where cultural, political or identity shifts are not enough to suggest the civilization’s end. Fictional historical continuity means that the civilization didn’t persist in reality but “in the hands of the player” might perdure through time against the odds. Fictional continuity mostly applies to Native American civilization but could well be applied to potential civilization, such as, to a lesser extant, the Kazakhs.
Not following this mindset is not only disrespecting the settings of the game, but it’s also ignoring what makes the game unique, and voluntarily going against the representability power of the game. The game attempts to represent a period of time (the Early Modern Period) and the cultures associated to that period. The Early Modern Period is a construct, a model on which the game relies for existing as it is. You can deconstruct the model, but you can’t deconstruct the game while the model exists. Age of Empires 3 is game that puts as much emphasis on pistols as on bows, on swords as on guns, on conquistadors as on rifle skirmishers. In short, your civilization should be able to portray “archaic military” as well as some form of more modern military. Having a civilization that disregard all this balance is a decision that goes against the foundations on which the game stands. The game is not War of Liberties, it’s not Napoleon: Total War.
The same reasoning applies when choosing a civilization leader. The leader is the personification of the civilization, but is also the “child” of an era. Thus, a leader must represent the civilization as much as it represents the whole era (ie. 1450-1850). A leader’s characteristics oscillate between being generic with personality, internationally influent, easily identifiable, and stereotyped. Some leaders in the game are not well balanced (Napoleon, Garibaldi – the game is not perfect). For example, Napoleon fails to represent the early modern period, and totally fails to represent what the French are in the game. Why didn’t they choose Louis XIV?
3). A civilization should not be if a close civilization with a greater cultural imprint already exists.
Is there enough cultural elements that are unique and justify the suggested civilization to exist in the game? The question should be asked taking into consideration existing civilizations, but also potential ones or ones that are obviously lacking. Let’s take the example of the Uzbeks to illustrate the idea. While the Uzbeks seems like a good suggestion, they are in my opinion a trap not to fall into when suggesting a civilization. First of all, they are part of the Central Asian culture that is not represented in the game beside a few rare units. They boast an interesting and lasting culture and on top of that, they had their own sovereign state: The Khanate of Bukhara, which perfectly fits the game time frame (1501 to 1785). So what’s wrong then?
Well, first, they are between two better choices for potential civilization that don’t suffer the disadvantages carried by the suggestion of the Uzbeks. The Persians and the Kazakhs. The Uzbek features too much cultural elements that could be represented much better by a Persian civilization and a Kazakh civilization. The Persian civilization fits perfectly into the game. The Kazakh on the other hand would be the best choice at representing the lingering nomadic people and political entities of Turko-Mongol heritage, because their unique characteristics would not be better represented by any other hypothetical civilization. On top of that, their nordic presence neighoring Siberian people is an asset. So having the Uzbeks plus the Persians would be redundant. Having only the Uzbeks without the Persians would be a fault.
The Persians are not only the Persians of Iran. They are, they should, as we have seen previously, be a representation of a certain extent of the Persian world, that was vast and beyond the borders of the Safavid Empire (Caucasus, Mesopotamia, South-Central Asia, etc). While both the Kazakhs and the Persians would succeed at representing some sort of cultural sphere (something that was particularly well done with Hausa and Ethiopia), an “Uzbeks” civilization would fail that necessary endeavour. On top of that (and it’s not of primary importance), the Uzbeks don’t seem to have influenced beyond their relatively small geographical area, but were instead the receptacle of foreign influences. The Kazakhs on the other hand influenced Russians, Polish-Lithuanians, and represent the never ending Chinese struggle against Central Asia.
Other examples of “what not to do” for similar reasons would be Koreans, Afghans and Danes.
4). So what are good potential civilizations?
Beside the ones I’ve already mentioned here because I of my strong attachment to them, there are few potential civilizations that could be suitable candidate.
- The Polish-Lithuanians
- The Moroccans
- The Siamese
