Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)
Players and history-minded readers debate whether the real-time strategy game Age of Empires meaningfully represents actual empires or simply abstracts pre-imperial warfare for fun and balance. Many argue the game’s focus on small-scale battles, symmetric factions, and early-age endings makes it more about becoming an empire than running one, while others see value in using its misnomer and simplifications to highlight popular misconceptions about how historical empires functioned—especially their diversity and methods of control. The thread also branches into comparisons with other strategy games, the limits of historical accuracy in entertainment, and how media shapes public ideas about Rome, imperial diversity, and concepts like vassalage.
Scope of Age of Empires Gameplay
- Several argue AoE2 is fundamentally “pre‑empire”: you start as a tiny settlement and become dominant; most competitive games end before “Imperial Age” and never resemble a large empire.
- Others note that late-game mechanics (trade, alliances, resource extraction) and emergent multiplayer strategies (bullying weaker players into tribute) feel empire-like, even if not modeled deeply.
Abstraction, Fun vs Historical Accuracy
- Some see AoE as a deliberate abstraction: small pop caps, no seasons, simplified combat, and minimal culture to prioritize fast RTS gameplay.
- Critics of the article’s framing say it over-interprets game mechanics (e.g., religious “conversion”) and that fun and balance reasonably trump historical nuance.
- Defenders counter that games are cultural products; using AoE to unpack common misconceptions about empires is legitimate even without demanding strict accuracy.
Definition of Empire and Diversity
- Many found the extraction-focused, core–periphery definition of “empire” clarifying, contrasting it with the simplistic “big kingdom” idea.
- Discussion centers on how real empires rely on diversity and integrated subject peoples for manpower, skills, and military strength.
- Some push back that major empires (Roman, British, Spanish) also aimed at assimilation, not just loose multiethnic extraction.
Race, Romans, and Representation
- Debate over how “diverse” Rome and other imperial centers really were: one side stresses multicultural, multiracial armies and cities; others say such diversity was rare and overemphasized today.
- Specific disagreement over evidence for Black Africans in Roman Britain and how much demographic data supports nontrivial numbers.
- A tangent links modern casting controversies and “Romans weren’t Black” claims to these broader misconceptions.
Game Mechanics for Empire, Subjugation, Vassals
- Several note that annihilation playstyles are partly social conventions; in principle, players could impose vassalage or tribute instead of total destruction.
- Examples from other games (Civilization, Master of Orion, Europa Universalis, Rise of Nations) show more explicit mechanics for subjugation, vassals, and cultural assimilation.
- Some argue being another player’s vassal is usually unfun, which discourages sustained “empire-style” relationships in multiplayer.
Reactions to the Article’s Tone and Depth
- Reactions range from “interesting, enjoyable pedantry” to complaints that the critique of AoE is contrived or combative.
- Supporters emphasize the blog’s mission: using pop culture as a hook to teach deeper historical concepts.
- Detractors feel the focus should have been framed more as “misnomer” and less as a critique of the game.
AoE Franchise Popularity and Evolution
- Multiple comments highlight AoE2’s enduring popularity, active competitive scene, and long-lived top players, with AoE4 seen by some as a related but significantly different RTS.
- Notes that modern editions run on Linux and macOS, and that some families remain heavily invested in AoE across generations.