Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019) • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by cwmma » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:57 PM UTC

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 blog for very in depth articles about this subject including

- this one on mounted warrior cultures and how they often dominated https://acoup.blog/2020/02/28/collections-the-fremen-mirage-... - this long series on why the legion ended up dominating the phalanx https://acoup.blog/2024/01/19/collections-phalanxs-twilight-...

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

#22

Post by ndriscoll » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

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…

Civilization (at least 4) also has subjugation as an explicit mechanic where a mostly defeated AI state surrenders as your vassal and has to give you resources, vote for you in UN elections, fight in your wars, etc. but they otherwise continue to act independently.

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

#23

Post by nvme0n1p1 » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

A funny quip to be sure. But one could be counter-pedantic and say the title never promises empires. It promises to take place in a time period where empires exist.

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

#24

Post by paxys » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:05 PM UTC

I think Rise of Nations (an amazing spiritual successor to the original AoE games) fits their definition of empire a lot better. You create multiple cities in your “empire”. The ones at the core naturally grow larger and prosperous, while peripheral ones generally have specific uses like training a military or mining resources. You can also capture cities from neighboring civilizations.

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

#25

Post by ricree » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:17 PM UTC

mordymoop wrote: post #18

Does this mean the Galactic Empire and the Imperium of Man are also not empires?

Or even the Roman Empire itself.

> an empire is a state where the core ruling population exercises control and extracts resources from a periphery which is composed of people other than the core group

By definition, doesn't the later Roman Empire cease being an "empire" as there isn't really a "core" population anymore outside of some vague multi-ethnic military aristocracy.

Sure, Rome had a few lingering privileges and prestige, but little in the way of direct power. And certainly, the post-crisis Empire didn't exist to siphon resources on their behalf. Heck, pretty much as soon as the 3rd century crisis ended Italy itself lost most of its special status and more or less just became yet another province.

And once that was gone, they weren't really replaced by anyone except the imperial bureaucracy and aristocracy itself. So who are the "core" people here, because if "an aristocracy" is enough to count, then who the heck isn't an empire under this definition?

Maybe it's enough that they began as an empire under this definition. Or maybe Devereaux is fine with the stereotypical Empire losing its status as an empire long before losing its territory and power. Or perhaps would have some counterargument at hand if he happened to read this. Who knows.

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

#26

Post by zengineer » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:20 PM UTC

fylham wrote: post #13

For those who aren’t aware, AOE2 is thriving today with a huge player base, fan base, ongoing development and large international tournaments (recent Red Bull Wololo tournament in London, for example). I play this game regularly with friends and love it.

And I have to add that the Wololo tournament was insane and even a spectacle for people who have barely played the game.

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

#27

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:24 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#28

Post by NoboruWataya » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

nvme0n1p1 wrote: post #23

A funny quip to be sure. But one could be counter-pedantic and say the title never promises empires. It promises to take place in a time period where empires exist.

I had a similar thought, that a game in AoE could really represent a localised skirmish involving people from different empires, rather than an actual simulation of the development of those empires. Which also fits more with the scale of the map.

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

#29

Post by Windchaser » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

ffixf wrote: post #19

A contrived and ahistorical definition of empire invented to support a particular modern worldview about supposedly oppressed peoples

The article hardly mentions "oppressed peoples" at all. Much of the focus is on the benefits gained to the empire by the diversity therein, with brief forays into the historical and geographical layout of different parts of the early/mid Roman empire.

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

#30

Post by cauch » Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 6:32 PM UTC

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.

And yet it's not rare to find people explaining that the roman empire, the roman armies or the roman cities were "all the same". Yet these persons seem to know that in real life population is not limited to 200 or that there is day-night cycles.

The article talks about it, and makes the point that people who created AOE may have been biased by the same misconception that is also visible more generally. And it is an interesting thing to raise.

edit: in fact, it is illustrated by the ridiculous recent Elon Musk fit about "the odyssey" cast, itself fueled by the misconceptions that "having black guys in a roman army is woke because everyone knows the romans are not black".