Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#51

Post by onraglanroad »

cauch wrote: post #44
onraglanroad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but Musk is really astonishingly ignorant. I realise he didn't have a classical education but he's the kind of person who would complain about Othello casting a black man as the main character.

Sure, but it is just an example, he is not the only one thinking this misconceptions is "historical".

I'm agreeing with you. Rome was the centre of the empire so had every type of person just as London had as the centre of the British empire.

And I suppose New York as a major centre of the American empire. Multicultural cities are the rule rather than the exception.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#52

Post by TZubiri »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #32
TZubiri wrote: post #14

I think annihilation is a property of how we played the game and not of the game itself. I get that the game was designed around it, but there's nothing stopping players in a Free For All from subduing an enemy into slavery instead of wiping them out, some may call this an ally. In fact, it's probably the optimal strategy, annihilating might be a pyrrhic victory, where one player is knocked out, and the 'victor' is l…

I think this is unlikely to happen (or at least, be sustained very long) in most games because being a slave to another player doesn't sound very fun. Playing as someone else's vassal (and being deprived of any real chance at victory) would be tedious and probably slightly embarrassing. You'd rather just go out of the game, and if in the process you end up screwing over the player who beat you, all the better. Two po…

I think the victor would allow you to even have a small army, not big enough that you can rebel and be a threat, not small enough that you are useless, defenseless (or bored).

And if the victor dies, you would then be free. Not necessarily game ending. And it might match up with actual history too, how many towns have outlived their tributee empires?

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#53

Post by WorldMaker »

anyonecancode wrote: post #47
WorldMaker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Galactic Empire as shown in the movies seems to have a very small core, almost all of the movies are set in its periphery rather than its central core. Tatooine is paying taxes to the Empire and subject to its troops, but doesn't seem at risk of being culturally seen as "Imperial". Alderaan wasn't subservient enough as a culture and is subject to genocide. Endor was certainly never truly imperial. It's almost har…

Given that each planet seems to have one species, except that humans live everywhere, I always kind of assumed that the Galactic Empire was one with humans at the core.

That is a possible reading, especially given the way the Empire's xenophobia manifests, if you assume all humans are culturally homogeneous in Star Wars, but I think the movies are somewhat clear that humans are culturally diverse. The human cultures in Tatooine seem very different to Alderaan or Naboo, for two somewhat specific notes in the films. The Imperial accent often being more "British" (RP) implies cultural differences with the periphery that at least mirror somewhat, say, the differences between Britain and much of its former Empire.

The Galactic Empire showing a clear citizenship "caste" favoritism of Citizen/Officer Humans, General Humans, Cloned Humans, Aliens, and then Droids, but also working with all of those at the same time in its military efforts (there are a few aliens in the Empire's military, there are a lot of droids) does seem imperial in the way the article suggests, especially because that core of clear "Citizen/Officer Humans" seems so relatively small versus they armies they command of all the other types.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#54

Post by hatthew »

cauch wrote: post #38
hatthew wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that part and I still don't like the article. I have several hundred hours in AoE2. Maybe I am unique, but it has never even occurred to me to call the collection of people and buildings I control an "empire". I think "it's just a game['s name]" is still a perfectly valid argument. I would like the article better if it took an approach such as "Age of Empires is a bit of a misnomer, let's explore the actual de…

If you have "several hundred hours", maybe you approached the article a bit too defensively. When I read it, I did not see any "combative approach", it seems even to be tongue-in-cheek (the misnomer is qualified as "amusing silliness", this is not at all what you would expect from someone who is combative).

The article has a good point and is correct. But it gets too far down into the weeds. For example, the paragraph about how priest conversions don't count as empire-building seems like the sort of argument one makes when desperately clutching at straws—a position that's entirely unnecessary given how reasonable the premise of the article is. It's building a straw man for a nonexistent opponent.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#55

Post by arjie »

cwmma wrote: post #21
arjie wrote: post #12

Wow, that’s actually really interesting. I knew of other empires in this shape (to me the Kushan empire is the most obvious syncretic example) but I didn’t know they were all shaped this way. I suppose I always imagined empire being a bigger thing than kingdom but this definition seems more useful. It seems that other definitions don’t involve resource extraction necessarily but power over multiple nations. Still, it…

> That makes me curious if military tactics of the time also had regional variation and if the relative strengths of various regions came from their awareness of certain tools being effective. Bringing in a foreign army with its foreign techniques might have been like bringing small pox to a population- they’d have no defense the first time around so if you’re fast you get them all. I highly recommend...the author's…

Thank you for the links. Much appreciated!

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#56

Post by complianceowll »

onraglanroad wrote: post #43
complianceowll wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Have you ever watched The Gladiator? How many of them were black? They were slaves. Do you know how many slaves were black in the Roman empire? More than had American accents I assure you. None of them spoke English either.

More times than I can count, bubba. And if you can't differentiate between a producer making a movie in English because its main audience is English speaking and producing a movie that is either: (1) accurate historically; or (2) true to its original story -- than I can't help you, bud.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#57

Post by complianceowll »

cauch wrote: post #45
complianceowll wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What do you mean "out of context". The initial article is literally explaining that there is a misconception around the diversity of culture during the antiquity. This anecdotal event, that I picked because it was recent (sorry to disappoint you, I don't really care for Musk), was just a concrete example that the exact misconception we are talking about is real and still present today. The fact that the culprit is Mu…

> I don't really care for Musk

I'm laughing so hard right now. You resoundingly do care about Musk; you're obsessed with him.

Second, who said anything about me alleging that "they depicted a roman army that was no entirely Rome-inhabitant looking"? Those are your words not mine, and if anyone is looking for the king of strawman arguments, we have a winner with you.

Rome was a very ethnically diverse place, including the demographics of its slaves, contrary to America's slaves.

The only thing I said was that they recast the Gladiator as black, not being true to the original MOVIE character. If you didn't understand that, the solution is not to put words in people's mouth. The solution is to work on your reading comprehension.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#58

Post by onraglanroad »

complianceowll wrote: post #56
onraglanroad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever watched The Gladiator? How many of them were black? They were slaves. Do you know how many slaves were black in the Roman empire? More than had American accents I assure you. None of them spoke English either.

More times than I can count, bubba. And if you can't differentiate between a producer making a movie in English because its main audience is English speaking and producing a movie that is either: (1) accurate historically; or (2) true to its original story -- than I can't help you, bud.

You can't help me anyway because you know far less than I do.

You don't know what's historically accurate. You don't understand why there was a black community in Rome. You don't know why there was one in 17th century London. But you still think you know better than me bubba.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#59

Post by tshaddox »

jerbearito wrote: post #11
tshaddox wrote: post #5

Well, sure, and there's also a 200 population limit per player (in Age of Empires 2, at least). And no day-night cycle or seasons. These are clearly intentional choices to capture the vibes of economic and military conflict while massively compacting the scale of true historical conflict.

The author addresses that.

Not really. The author mentions "the game is to be understood as an abstraction" as a potential caveat, and then immediately dismisses it with "but I don’t think it goes for Age of Empires."

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#60

Post by complianceowll »

onraglanroad wrote: post #58
complianceowll wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More times than I can count, bubba. And if you can't differentiate between a producer making a movie in English because its main audience is English speaking and producing a movie that is either: (1) accurate historically; or (2) true to its original story -- than I can't help you, bud.

You can't help me anyway because you know far less than I do. You don't know what's historically accurate. You don't understand why there was a black community in Rome. You don't know why there was one in 17th century London. But you still think you know better than me bubba.

The fact that you are telling me (someone you don't know) "...you know far less than I do" and "You don't know what's historically accurate" and all the other "you don't know"s, tells everyone everything they need to know about who they're speaking to.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions!

Post reply on HN