Why does Japan not have castles...In CASTLE AGE Developers Please read

[Straelbora]

I want to bring up something that I and I know many others feel is a major issue with the current design of the Japanese civilization in Age of Empires IV: the decision to lock castles behind Imperial Age. It’s not just a balance concern; it’s a historical inaccuracy, a gameplay limitation, and frankly, an insult to how Japan is represented in the game.

1. Castles Were Core to Feudal and Medieval Japan

Historically, Japanese castles existed long before the introduction of gunpowder. The Sengoku period (mid-15th to early 17th century) saw extensive castle building long before European-style gunpowder warfare reached Japan. Structures like Himeji Castle, Azuchi Castle, and Gifu Castle were architectural marvels of their time, constructed to control land, project power, and provide regional defense. It is simply inaccurate to make castles a late Imperial Age feature.

Why are other civs allowed to build castles or keeps in Castle Age, but Japan—a civilization defined by its fortress towns—is not?

2. Map Control Is Severely Handicapped

In AoE4, map control is everything—securing sacred sites, resources, forward bases. Keeps are an essential part of any civ’s ability to control space in the Castle Age. Denying Japan this critical tool until Imperial Age creates a lopsided playing field.

By the time Japan can drop a castle, other civs have already:

• Built multiple keeps.
• Secured relics.
• Locked down sacred sites.
• Fortified trade routes.

This delay severely limits Japanese mid-game power and makes aggressive or defensive strategies much harder to execute.

Not to mention that this basically forces Japan always be the one to make anti building siege, specifically trebuchet which in the current state of the game is NOT a favorable position.

3. It’s Unfair and Punishing Economically

To add insult to injury, Japanese castles cost significantly more than normal keeps, despite requiring the massive upfront investment to reach Imperial Age. So not only are we forced to wait longer, we’re also punished economically for the privilege. That just doesn’t make sense.

You’re telling us to:

• Delay a crucial structure,
• Pay more for it,
• All while every other civ gets it earlier and cheaper?

It feels like Japan is being penalized for aesthetics or style over gameplay fairness.

---

Suggestion:

Please move Japanese castles to Castle Age, where they belong. If balance is a concern, adjust HP, cost, or firepower slightly—but give Japan the same strategic tools other civilizations have.

This isn’t about making Japan overpowered. It’s about:

• Respecting history.
• Leveling the playing field.
• Making the civilization more fun, flexible, and competitive.

Thanks for taking the time to read. I really hope the devs reconsider this design choice—it’s holding back a civilization with so much potential.

[Salgore]

Gameplay mechanic. You cannot have damyo TCS which have more hp and damage than castle and castle too in castle age. Also castle age is just a name, not a literary meaning that every civilization will have castles. Look at the sergents that make castles in Feudal age in AoE2 …

[Straelbora]

The idea that Damyo TCs justify delaying Japanese castles isn’t fully convincing. While Damyo TCs do offer more HP and firepower defensively, they are static, economic buildings—not forward-deployable military fortifications. Castles/keeps are a completely different tool for map control, sacred site defense, and aggressive positioning.

Most civs can:

• Build a keep aggressively near a sacred site or resource.
• Fortify a trade line.
• Secure the center of the map.

Japan can’t do any of that until Imperial, by which point they’re already behind in map control. Damyo TCs don’t replace that strategic flexibility.

[Croissantini]

How I wish other keeps in the game had their own cultural design like the Japanese, instead of being reskinned European castles. Readability can only go so far before it becomes stupid.

[GoldenArmorX]

@Straelbora

The Sengoku period (mid-15th to early 17th century) saw extensive castle building long before European-style gunpowder warfare reached Japan. Structures like Himeji Castle, Azuchi Castle, and Gifu Castle were architectural marvels of their time, constructed to control land, project power, and provide regional defense. It is simply inaccurate to make castles a late Imperial Age feature.

That’s the point, “in the Sengoku Period” (1500-1700), which for the game era would be the Imperial Age, so their delayed construction is well represented.

Historically

Before that (800-1450), most Japanese fortresses consisted of “fortified observation posts” behind wooden palisades or earthen walls.

On the other hand: The reason other civs can build Keeps in the Castle Age is because they were building them long before:

• The English under Norman rule (>1066 AD) began a plan to build a network of castles throughout the territory, including the White Tower (wood: ~1080 AD, stone: ~1100 AD).
• The French also, under the name Château, upgraded old wooden forts to stone, such as Château de Coucy in 1079 AD.
• The kingdoms of Spain acquired the model of Roman forts and then improved them with designs brought from the Moorish “Ksar” fortresses, later called “Alcázares,” and this began before 900 AD.

About ages, the Castle Age of the game is very broad, spanning from the year 1000 to the year 1350 or 1450, depending on the civ.

• But even with that long-time, the problem persist and we have to be fair: The Japanese only started building those castles in the 1550s onward, not even in the first part of the Sengoku War, but in the second. Even the bonus of the Castle is named “Oda Caslte”, because is believed that many Sengoku Castles become improved versions of the first Azuchi castle (1576) of Oda Nobunaga.

On a gameplay level

The Japanese already have the best and most fortified town center of all the civs. Instead of castles, they’re supposed to build town centers and fortify them for defense.

And yes, on the downside, they lack the strategy of building Keeps around enemy bases with lots of villagers. If they do the same with a town center, they have to upgrade it later, and it takes time and costs more.

---

Intermediate Point

Now, they could also have another defensive building: “Yamajirō” for Castle Age.

They were castles made by taking advantage of the stones and boulders in the environment. I’m thinking it could work like the Mongolian Ovoos, building it on top of a stone quarry (saving resources), although they would have less HP than normal Keeps. At least historically would be the correct term, they were very simple:

Usually, they have many walls, and zero (0) keeps.

[Croissantini]

Still can’t believe they gave up on walls in this game. A huge way to make the game more visually appealing when playing a civilization. Malian stone walls are great, and they already have wooden Rus walls in store.

I wanna see Japanese stone walls, thick Chinese ones, the famous Byzantine walls, and in the future Aztecz, Inca or Khmer walls too.

[FocalPenny96393]

I thought they made more accurate use of words by calling the large defensive structures “keeps” not castles, because castles are complexes not single buildings…then they re-introduced “castle”.

A less confusing name would simply be Tenshu

Tenshu

But it’s quite inconsistent. Some Japanese names are literally translated when unnecessary. For example “bannerman” when there is already hatamoto (and bannerman confuses with the Manchu Banners).

Then onna-musha and onna-busheiga are translated homophonically when very few English speakers know these words and they look very similar.

[Salgore]

Castles are not the only way to gain map control. Japanese have many quality of life advantages like forges and houses, shared with their gold-stone gathering. Imagine they could make castles third age? Too broken. Now, japanese are low in the meta, they need a buff, but not a castle building in lll age kinda buff.

[VoidMaker5560]

While the disadvantages listes are true, it focuses only on the negative and ignore all the other advantages japan has like banners and better farming.

Japan is already extremely strong in castle. With mounted samourai that have deflect and bonus 15% attack. Their samourai maa are also very strong with the sword upgrade and banner. And then you have the mounted crossbow…

Japan should play more aggressively and less defensively in castle, and you can still rush imperial if needed.

[Straelbora]

Japan’s Castle Age Strengths Don’t Justify the Lack of Castles

VoidMaker5560
I appreciate the points about Japan’s strong Castle Age presence—better farming, the banner system, Mounted Samurai, and other powerful units. Those are great and help give Japan a unique identity. However, I still believe that not having access to castles (keeps) in Castle Age is a serious design flaw, and the current advantages do not make up for it from a gameplay standpoint.

Here’s why:

• Every civilization has bonuses—Japan is the only one missing a core mechanic.
  All civs get powerful units or eco mechanics—whether it’s English longbows, French knights, or Abbasid tech discounts—but they also all get castles in Castle Age. Japan is the only civ that has to wait until Imperial for this crucial structure, and that delay hurts their ability to contest the map during a critical phase.
• Castles are not just defensive—they are essential for map control.
  Keeps are used to secure sacred sites, protect trade routes, lock down resource nodes, and establish forward bases. Japan simply lacks this entire strategic option during Castle Age, forcing them to rely entirely on army presence with no fallback structures.
• “Just rush Imperial” isn’t a consistent solution.
  Reaching Imperial costs time and resources. During that window, opponents can already have 2–3 keeps on the field. Even after reaching Imperial, Japanese castles cost more than standard keeps, which means you’re still paying a premium for something other civs got earlier and cheaper.
• Playing aggressively shouldn’t be the only viable option.
  Yes, Japan has strong units for aggressive play, but not every game or map supports that. Sometimes you need to defend, sometimes sacred sites spawn far from your base, and sometimes your opponent pressures early. Other civs can adapt using keeps—Japan cannot.
• Strengths like banners and farming are good—but they don’t replace a foundational mechanic.
  These bonuses should complement a complete toolkit, not replace something as important as Castle Age fortifications. Strong units and eco are great, but they shouldn’t come at the cost of strategic flexibility and map control.

This isn’t about making Japan overpowered—it’s about giving them access to the same core tools every other civilization has. Their identity and strengths can shine even more with castles in Castle Age, not instead of them.

Hoping the devs take another look at this. Japan has amazing potential, but this one design choice really holds the civ back from being both fun and competitive.

[Straelbora]

@GoldenArmorX

That’s the point, “in the Sengoku Period” (1500-1700), which for the game era would be the Imperial Age, so their delayed construction is well represented.

This is a really well-reasoned post and I like your thinking. I actually really like the idea of introducing a Yamajirō-style structure in Castle Age to reflect early Japanese fortifications. That could be an awesome way to stay historically grounded and solve the gameplay gap. Totally on board with that line of thinking.

That said I think its unlikely to be implemented and I still think the current implementation hurts Japan from a core gameplay perspective, and here’s why:

• Castle Age isn’t just a historical time stamp—it’s a gameplay phase.
  In AoE4, the Castle Age represents a turning point where most civs unlock key techs, stronger units, and—importantly—keeps. Whether your civ’s real-world castles came in 1100 or 1550 doesn’t really matter as much in the context of how the game flows. Japan not having a structure to fill that role puts them at a disadvantage during this critical stage.
• Keeps serve a vital strategic function that Damyo TCs don’t replace.
  Town Centers—even with great HP and damage—can’t be placed aggressively. You can’t drop them near a sacred site or on a gold node and expect to hold it. Keeps are a huge part of map control, especially in Castle Age when players start spreading out. Japan lacks that tool, plain and simple.
• Other civs also don’t follow perfect historical timelines.
  Mongols have rams in Feudal. Abbasid get siege weapons extremely early. Mali has gunpowder and cannons when they historically did not. Same with Delhi. The game already takes liberties for the sake of balance and fun. So tying Japanese castles strictly to late 1500s history feels inconsistent when other civs aren’t bound the same way.
• The Sengoku period is Japan’s Castle Age, in spirit.
  If we’re talking about when fortifications truly changed warfare in Japan—massive walls, tall towers, stone bases—it was during Sengoku. That was Japan’s own version of the Castle Age, even if it overlapped with other civs’ “Imperial” periods. Translating that into AoE terms doesn’t have to be literal—it just needs to be functional.
• Giving Japan some form of Castle Age fortification wouldn’t break balance—just close the gap.
  Whether it’s a Yamajirō with less HP or a unique, weaker early castle, it would go a long way toward giving Japan the same core tools other civs get without sacrificing their identity or breaking historical immersion.