ESOCommunity

It's just that a US civ wouldn't have much new stuff compared to Brits. They had the same units, because they were literally Brits living in colonies.

But that's been a recurring theme in the AOE series where both original civ and the later divergent civ are included. I believe there was pushback even back then on their inclusions if I am not mistaken. I think they picked USA as the popular choice. The civ that will successfully sell DLC.

Just to give an example from earlier games though to show this is a recurring theme the AOE series has done:

Mongols and Tartars
Phoenicians and Carthaginians
Greeks and Macedonians
Franks and Burgundians

I'm sure there are more I'm just going off the top of my head.

People are complaining about a new civ added to this game?

They must not have been around for the dark ages of AoE3.

Warno wrote:People are complaining about a new civ added to this game?

They must not have been around for the dark ages of AoE3.

Considering that they almost certainly want us to pay for this content while the game itself is significantly broken. Yes, people are complaining. It's also a very lazy and half assed choice which as I said previously sums up aoe3 DE's design process.

iCourt wrote:
But we now need 6 more without including USA. Keep going I believe in you all! Also are those actually all better?

I feel like some of those you could make mostly all the same arguments against them as you can against the USA being included.

BEWARE! Post is long.

I was going to say if using that poll was cheating, but hey I get to do my 'Peachrocks gets to be a game designer for a few seconds shtick'

The core argument against the US at least from where I sit is two fold.

1. They did not exist at the start of the Age of Discovery.
Considering that the game is about colonisation or defending from it in the case of the natives and the Asians, the United States don't fit in here. Whether a nation actually did colonise or could have been under threat of colonisation is beside the point. You can bend things a bit. With the US you simply cannot bend which does not exist.

2. They are already in the game by a mechanic which covers this aspect of the colonisation era: Revolting.
It feels lazy to put in a civ that is already represented by a mechanic which was specifically tailored to them. Yes the all in nature of the mechanic is awful but it could be worked on and improved.

So with those two points in mind, I will justify all those choices and more. Keep in mind some of this is my subjective taste etc.

1. Italy
No brainer. Was always in the frame for vanilla. Whether it should be Venice or another Italian state I'm not sure but it doesn't matter, especially if Germany is allowed. It's not hard to imagine this one being in the game at all.

2. Ethiopia
Africa is a popular topic for an expansion. True scramble for Africa would make for a better new game entirely which could include the US but Ethiopia is unique in the fact it was basically the only nation who survived the scramble intact. It took until the 1930s for Italy to finally conquer them and that didn't last long.

3. Persia/Iran
The Ottoman-Safavid War is enough of a justification for them and they've got an excellent leader to pick from too. Iran's got quite a storied history, despite its status now so yeah another very very solid choice.

4. Poland
Another no brainer. They have not been in aoe before (outside of Germany's winged Hussar card) and that alone should be enough. They were a significant power in the period and there's a lot of support for them.

5. Zulu
First one I would not have. This would better fit a game themed around the scramble. There's better fitting African states then this but I can understand the appeal. The Zulu are very well known though unlike some of the choices I would put first which explains their presence on the poll.

6. Austria
This would come with reworking Germany into Prussia. Austria-Hungary is a very influential nation in the era. Doesn't need much explaining. Bonus points for not having been in aoe yet.

7. Morocco
Ironically the first nation to recognise American Independence. There were big talks between Queen Elizabeth I and Ahmad al-Mansur about dividing the Americas between them and taking it away from their mutual enemy in the Spanish. Didn't eventuate but the world could have looked VERY different if it did. Also seriously compromised Portugal in the period.

8. Denmark
Not hard to justify this one either. Norway would be a revolt choice and they technically found the New World before anyone. Denmark going colonial was certainly not out of the question.

9. Siam/Ayutthaya/Thailand
Good Asian choice and have a lot of history to draw on for wonders, cards, units etc.

10. Kongo
Famous for converting to Christianity from Portuguese missionaries. Even though many people in charge of this game like to cover their eyes and pretend it didn't happen, yes the slave trade is a thing which the Kongo both engaged in and were victim of due to the whole deal of the triangle trade. Nevertheless, this sort of thing should be highlighted and learned from rather than hidden under the carpet. Also George Washington had 100+ slaves of his own, so yeah.

11. Vietnam
Considering they were already in aoe2, not so sure about this one but there's more justification here then the US. Were definitely part of the whole European 'trade and conversion' circus in the period which justifies the other Asian civ choices.

12. Joseon
Another one I'm against because Korea are in aoe2, but Korea is a relatively popular choice and those who want them are quite passionate.

13. Maratha
India really should be divided into the Mughals and Maratha rather than trying to get both as well as the influence of the British East India company into one civ. So yeah.

14. Myanmar/Burma
Very significant power at the start of the period. Expanded to crazy proportions in a short time and later came under British control. However you would choose between them and Ayutthaya and considering that Burma was in aoe2, makes it harder to justify.

Those are the ones on the poll. Some that were not.

15. Benin/Oyo Empire/Dahomey
Not sure how you'd categorize this, I'd have to research more. Again, you wouldn't have both this and the Kongo but they work for the same reasons. You've got a lot to draw on from the walls of Benin, to Dahomey Amazons.

16. Egypt
Conquered by the Ottomans and yes already in the game as a revolt but the difference is they existed at 1490. If Africa was to be in the game Egypt and the Mamluks are a very obvious choice.

17. Barbary Pirates
Wouldn't have both this and Morocco, but also a good choice. Granted they are already in the game as a revolt but because they are based in Africa they are easier to justify then anyone based in America. I think revolt though is a better fit for them but I would much rather them then the US.

18. Courland
Had short lived colonies in the Caribbean but the what if here is quite interesting and Livonia is generally not represented at all. Though it would be hard to argue them over Poland but again, better then the US which is the case here.

19. Ireland
Questionable considering they were Britains thumb for most of the period they certainly have significant presence in the Americas the same way the Germans did. The fact they aren't even represented by mercenaries or even a revolt is a little silly. However they have a fascinating, rich history with plenty to draw from.

20. Mapuche
Honestly I think this should have been the pick rather then the Inca. They still give the Chileans 'headaches' as it were today and there's a legitimate push for Mapuche independence. They certainly did not make things easy on the Spanish either.

That's 20. I could go further though. There's a lot of Native American tribes you could use like the Cherokee, the Tupi, the Arawak, the Taino, the Carib, the Navajo (or Dine), Shoshone. Europe has Georgia, Switzerland, Bohemia and others. Asia has Oman (or Africa depending on your view point), Nepal, Brunei.

Really yeah. You've got LOADS of better choices that all existed at 1490s and 'mostly' don't fit better via the revolution mechanic.

People should be glad they chose to go for USA because of the easier implementation. Who wants the devs to spend a ton more time on a (probably broken anyway) new civ instead of making the game playable?

Kaiserklein wrote:People should be glad they chose to go for USA because of the easier implementation. Who wants the devs to spend a ton more time on a (probably broken anyway) new civ instead of making the game playable?

Well most of the effort on an actual new civ would be made by people not involved by those who actually fix the game. That's what people take issue with. It's a lazy choice that's easy to implement and doesn't require them to hire people for special work. Artists, voice actors etc. don't usually fix bugs. Whereas people who do broken silly game mechanics and test a new civ for bugs, their time would be better spent making the game work rather than trying to cash in with DLC. It's just very rude.

Peachrocks wrote: Well most of the effort on an actual new civ would be made by people not involved by those who actually fix the game. That's what people take issue with. It's a lazy choice that's easy to implement and doesn't require them to hire people for special work. Artists, voice actors etc. don't usually fix bugs. Whereas people who do broken silly game mechanics and test a new civ for bugs, their time would be better spent making the game work rather than trying to cash in with DLC. It's just very rude.

Well, we don't really know how much MS is willing to invest into the game. Maybe the studios they hired just chose the easier and cheaper choice because they don't really have the budget for more voice acting and research at this point. Maybe the money and effort is better spent into fixing the game. But idk maybe it doesn't work that way.

Besides, US is just easier to implement for balance as well. See how every single asian or nat civ (would apply to an african civ too) shares absolutely no unit nor age up (nor many shipments) with the other civs. This kind of civ requires more unique design and mechanics, that is to say extra painful to balance.
Meanwhile, I think we can expect US to be pretty close to a euro civ, with similar or even shared units, shipments, techs, politicians, etc. Surely that's easier to implement and balance.

Sure it could work with e.g Italy too, I wouldn't mind. Just saying that regardless of history, which has never been the prime concern in this game anyway, US might be an "efficient" choice for the game at this point.

Kaiserklein wrote:

Peachrocks wrote: Well most of the effort on an actual new civ would be made by people not involved by those who actually fix the game. That's what people take issue with. It's a lazy choice that's easy to implement and doesn't require them to hire people for special work. Artists, voice actors etc. don't usually fix bugs. Whereas people who do broken silly game mechanics and test a new civ for bugs, their time would be better spent making the game work rather than trying to cash in with DLC. It's just very rude.

Well, we don't really know how much MS is willing to invest into the game. Maybe the studios they hired just chose the easier and cheaper choice because they don't really have the budget for more voice acting and research at this point. Maybe the money and effort is better spent into fixing the game. But idk maybe it doesn't work that way.

Besides, US is just easier to implement for balance as well. See how every single asian or nat civ (would apply to an african civ too) shares absolutely no unit nor age up (nor many shipments) with the other civs. This kind of civ requires more unique design and mechanics, that is to say extra painful to balance.
Meanwhile, I think we can expect US to be pretty close to a euro civ, with similar or even shared units, shipments, techs, politicians, etc. Surely that's easier to implement and balance.

Sure it could work with e.g Italy too, I wouldn't mind. Just saying that regardless of history, which has never been the prime concern in this game anyway, US might be an "efficient" choice for the game at this point.

I dunno man, I think Sweden has ruffled considerably more feathers then the Inca, though both are pretty disliked as far as I can tell and I guess 'potentially' Inca's design is harder to salvage but then torps are just a really terrible idea. If it wasn't for Sweden I'd agree with this point.

Also that doesn't excuse not putting Poland, Bohemia, Austria, Denmark, Courland, Ireland, Georgia or numerous other European candidates in there. The one thing those nations don't have though is that they don't speak English and they would require more research from an American developer rather than just throwing their own people in there and calling it day. I mean if the rumours are true its going to be Italy/US in a similar fashion to Sicily/Burgundy and charging for that when the game is in such a condition even if you completely ignore the balance and just focus on the whole 'does this game even work'? Yeah, that really rubs me up the wrong way.

Peachrocks wrote:

Warno wrote:People are complaining about a new civ added to this game?

They must not have been around for the dark ages of AoE3.

Considering that they almost certainly want us to pay for this content while the game itself is significantly broken. Yes, people are complaining. It's also a very lazy and half assed choice which as I said previously sums up aoe3 DE's design process.

iCourt wrote:
But we now need 6 more without including USA. Keep going I believe in you all! Also are those actually all better?

I feel like some of those you could make mostly all the same arguments against them as you can against the USA being included.

The post of all posts

BEWARE! Post is long.

I was going to say if using that poll was cheating, but hey I get to do my 'Peachrocks gets to be a game designer for a few seconds shtick'

The core argument against the US at least from where I sit is two fold.

1. They did not exist at the start of the Age of Discovery.
Considering that the game is about colonisation or defending from it in the case of the natives and the Asians, the United States don't fit in here. Whether a nation actually did colonise or could have been under threat of colonisation is beside the point. You can bend things a bit. With the US you simply cannot bend which does not exist.

2. They are already in the game by a mechanic which covers this aspect of the colonisation era: Revolting.
It feels lazy to put in a civ that is already represented by a mechanic which was specifically tailored to them. Yes the all in nature of the mechanic is awful but it could be worked on and improved.

So with those two points in mind, I will justify all those choices and more. Keep in mind some of this is my subjective taste etc.

1. Italy
No brainer. Was always in the frame for vanilla. Whether it should be Venice or another Italian state I'm not sure but it doesn't matter, especially if Germany is allowed. It's not hard to imagine this one being in the game at all.

2. Ethiopia
Africa is a popular topic for an expansion. True scramble for Africa would make for a better new game entirely which could include the US but Ethiopia is unique in the fact it was basically the only nation who survived the scramble intact. It took until the 1930s for Italy to finally conquer them and that didn't last long.

3. Persia/Iran
The Ottoman-Safavid War is enough of a justification for them and they've got an excellent leader to pick from too. Iran's got quite a storied history, despite its status now so yeah another very very solid choice.

4. Poland
Another no brainer. They have not been in aoe before (outside of Germany's winged Hussar card) and that alone should be enough. They were a significant power in the period and there's a lot of support for them.

5. Zulu
First one I would not have. This would better fit a game themed around the scramble. There's better fitting African states then this but I can understand the appeal. The Zulu are very well known though unlike some of the choices I would put first which explains their presence on the poll.

6. Austria
This would come with reworking Germany into Prussia. Austria-Hungary is a very influential nation in the era. Doesn't need much explaining. Bonus points for not having been in aoe yet.

7. Morocco
Ironically the first nation to recognise American Independence. There were big talks between Queen Elizabeth I and Ahmad al-Mansur about dividing the Americas between them and taking it away from their mutual enemy in the Spanish. Didn't eventuate but the world could have looked VERY different if it did. Also seriously compromised Portugal in the period.

8. Denmark
Not hard to justify this one either. Norway would be a revolt choice and they technically found the New World before anyone. Denmark going colonial was certainly not out of the question.

9. Siam/Ayutthaya/Thailand
Good Asian choice and have a lot of history to draw on for wonders, cards, units etc.

10. Kongo
Famous for converting to Christianity from Portuguese missionaries. Even though many people in charge of this game like to cover their eyes and pretend it didn't happen, yes the slave trade is a thing which the Kongo both engaged in and were victim of due to the whole deal of the triangle trade. Nevertheless, this sort of thing should be highlighted and learned from rather than hidden under the carpet. Also George Washington had 100+ slaves of his own, so yeah.

11. Vietnam
Considering they were already in aoe2, not so sure about this one but there's more justification here then the US. Were definitely part of the whole European 'trade and conversion' circus in the period which justifies the other Asian civ choices.

12. Joseon
Another one I'm against because Korea are in aoe2, but Korea is a relatively popular choice and those who want them are quite passionate.

13. Maratha
India really should be divided into the Mughals and Maratha rather than trying to get both as well as the influence of the British East India company into one civ. So yeah.

14. Myanmar/Burma
Very significant power at the start of the period. Expanded to crazy proportions in a short time and later came under British control. However you would choose between them and Ayutthaya and considering that Burma was in aoe2, makes it harder to justify.

Those are the ones on the poll. Some that were not.

15. Benin/Oyo Empire/Dahomey
Not sure how you'd categorize this, I'd have to research more. Again, you wouldn't have both this and the Kongo but they work for the same reasons. You've got a lot to draw on from the walls of Benin, to Dahomey Amazons.

16. Egypt
Conquered by the Ottomans and yes already in the game as a revolt but the difference is they existed at 1490. If Africa was to be in the game Egypt and the Mamluks are a very obvious choice.

17. Barbary Pirates
Wouldn't have both this and Morocco, but also a good choice. Granted they are already in the game as a revolt but because they are based in Africa they are easier to justify then anyone based in America. I think revolt though is a better fit for them but I would much rather them then the US.

18. Courland
Had short lived colonies in the Caribbean but the what if here is quite interesting and Livonia is generally not represented at all. Though it would be hard to argue them over Poland but again, better then the US which is the case here.

19. Ireland
Questionable considering they were Britains thumb for most of the period they certainly have significant presence in the Americas the same way the Germans did. The fact they aren't even represented by mercenaries or even a revolt is a little silly. However they have a fascinating, rich history with plenty to draw from.

20. Mapuche
Honestly I think this should have been the pick rather then the Inca. They still give the Chileans 'headaches' as it were today and there's a legitimate push for Mapuche independence. They certainly did not make things easy on the Spanish either.

That's 20. I could go further though. There's a lot of Native American tribes you could use like the Cherokee, the Tupi, the Arawak, the Taino, the Carib, the Navajo (or Dine), Shoshone. Europe has Georgia, Switzerland, Bohemia and others. Asia has Oman (or Africa depending on your view point), Nepal, Brunei.

Really yeah. You've got LOADS of better choices that all existed at 1490s and 'mostly' don't fit better via the revolution mechanic.

This is it.

Denmark once had the US Virgin Islands.

still no italy, garja nor cagliari riders available, smh.

I want Argentina as a civ now. Even better, make all Revolutionary civs into new civs.

Is it too late to ask the devs for colonial USA villagers to look like the pilgrims from the New England map?

Peachrocks wrote:

Warno wrote:People are complaining about a new civ added to this game?

They must not have been around for the dark ages of AoE3.

Considering that they almost certainly want us to pay for this content while the game itself is significantly broken. Yes, people are complaining. It's also a very lazy and half assed choice which as I said previously sums up aoe3 DE's design process.

iCourt wrote:
But we now need 6 more without including USA. Keep going I believe in you all! Also are those actually all better?

I feel like some of those you could make mostly all the same arguments against them as you can against the USA being included.

The post of all posts

BEWARE! Post is long.

I was going to say if using that poll was cheating, but hey I get to do my 'Peachrocks gets to be a game designer for a few seconds shtick'

The core argument against the US at least from where I sit is two fold.

1. They did not exist at the start of the Age of Discovery.
Considering that the game is about colonisation or defending from it in the case of the natives and the Asians, the United States don't fit in here. Whether a nation actually did colonise or could have been under threat of colonisation is beside the point. You can bend things a bit. With the US you simply cannot bend which does not exist.

2. They are already in the game by a mechanic which covers this aspect of the colonisation era: Revolting.
It feels lazy to put in a civ that is already represented by a mechanic which was specifically tailored to them. Yes the all in nature of the mechanic is awful but it could be worked on and improved.

So with those two points in mind, I will justify all those choices and more. Keep in mind some of this is my subjective taste etc.

1. Italy
No brainer. Was always in the frame for vanilla. Whether it should be Venice or another Italian state I'm not sure but it doesn't matter, especially if Germany is allowed. It's not hard to imagine this one being in the game at all.

2. Ethiopia
Africa is a popular topic for an expansion. True scramble for Africa would make for a better new game entirely which could include the US but Ethiopia is unique in the fact it was basically the only nation who survived the scramble intact. It took until the 1930s for Italy to finally conquer them and that didn't last long.

3. Persia/Iran
The Ottoman-Safavid War is enough of a justification for them and they've got an excellent leader to pick from too. Iran's got quite a storied history, despite its status now so yeah another very very solid choice.

4. Poland
Another no brainer. They have not been in aoe before (outside of Germany's winged Hussar card) and that alone should be enough. They were a significant power in the period and there's a lot of support for them.

5. Zulu
First one I would not have. This would better fit a game themed around the scramble. There's better fitting African states then this but I can understand the appeal. The Zulu are very well known though unlike some of the choices I would put first which explains their presence on the poll.

6. Austria
This would come with reworking Germany into Prussia. Austria-Hungary is a very influential nation in the era. Doesn't need much explaining. Bonus points for not having been in aoe yet.

7. Morocco
Ironically the first nation to recognise American Independence. There were big talks between Queen Elizabeth I and Ahmad al-Mansur about dividing the Americas between them and taking it away from their mutual enemy in the Spanish. Didn't eventuate but the world could have looked VERY different if it did. Also seriously compromised Portugal in the period.

8. Denmark
Not hard to justify this one either. Norway would be a revolt choice and they technically found the New World before anyone. Denmark going colonial was certainly not out of the question.

9. Siam/Ayutthaya/Thailand
Good Asian choice and have a lot of history to draw on for wonders, cards, units etc.

10. Kongo
Famous for converting to Christianity from Portuguese missionaries. Even though many people in charge of this game like to cover their eyes and pretend it didn't happen, yes the slave trade is a thing which the Kongo both engaged in and were victim of due to the whole deal of the triangle trade. Nevertheless, this sort of thing should be highlighted and learned from rather than hidden under the carpet. Also George Washington had 100+ slaves of his own, so yeah.

11. Vietnam
Considering they were already in aoe2, not so sure about this one but there's more justification here then the US. Were definitely part of the whole European 'trade and conversion' circus in the period which justifies the other Asian civ choices.

12. Joseon
Another one I'm against because Korea are in aoe2, but Korea is a relatively popular choice and those who want them are quite passionate.

13. Maratha
India really should be divided into the Mughals and Maratha rather than trying to get both as well as the influence of the British East India company into one civ. So yeah.

14. Myanmar/Burma
Very significant power at the start of the period. Expanded to crazy proportions in a short time and later came under British control. However you would choose between them and Ayutthaya and considering that Burma was in aoe2, makes it harder to justify.

Those are the ones on the poll. Some that were not.

15. Benin/Oyo Empire/Dahomey
Not sure how you'd categorize this, I'd have to research more. Again, you wouldn't have both this and the Kongo but they work for the same reasons. You've got a lot to draw on from the walls of Benin, to Dahomey Amazons.

16. Egypt
Conquered by the Ottomans and yes already in the game as a revolt but the difference is they existed at 1490. If Africa was to be in the game Egypt and the Mamluks are a very obvious choice.

17. Barbary Pirates
Wouldn't have both this and Morocco, but also a good choice. Granted they are already in the game as a revolt but because they are based in Africa they are easier to justify then anyone based in America. I think revolt though is a better fit for them but I would much rather them then the US.

18. Courland
Had short lived colonies in the Caribbean but the what if here is quite interesting and Livonia is generally not represented at all. Though it would be hard to argue them over Poland but again, better then the US which is the case here.

19. Ireland
Questionable considering they were Britains thumb for most of the period they certainly have significant presence in the Americas the same way the Germans did. The fact they aren't even represented by mercenaries or even a revolt is a little silly. However they have a fascinating, rich history with plenty to draw from.

20. Mapuche
Honestly I think this should have been the pick rather then the Inca. They still give the Chileans 'headaches' as it were today and there's a legitimate push for Mapuche independence. They certainly did not make things easy on the Spanish either.

That's 20. I could go further though. There's a lot of Native American tribes you could use like the Cherokee, the Tupi, the Arawak, the Taino, the Carib, the Navajo (or Dine), Shoshone. Europe has Georgia, Switzerland, Bohemia and others. Asia has Oman (or Africa depending on your view point), Nepal, Brunei.

Really yeah. You've got LOADS of better choices that all existed at 1490s and 'mostly' don't fit better via the revolution mechanic.

This list feels somewhat subjective to be honest. You've named 20 civs, but I feel like most lose out to the USA solely based on the relatively low impact that they did have. The USA is also simply a really good thematic fit, because the civil war simply feels exactly what aoe3's era is all about and that's basically what the USA as a civ would be all about.

@RefluxSemantic

Almost everything is subjective and honestly almost nobody outside of America wants this when there’s so many better options. If they announced Australia in the same capacity you can bet I’d argue the exact same points. Also what impact did the United States have during 1490-1700, oh right absolutely none at all they didn’t even exist except as a British colony and Britain is already in the game!

Honestly what you are stating is a better fit for a game themed on the scramble period and if there was only 4 civ slots the US would still get in, though I wouldn’t go with less then 10. Having a nation that was a former colony is a terrible thematic fit for a game that was mostly based on colonising the Americas, it’s putting the cart before the horse. What does the civil war have to do with colonising a distant foreign land or defending from a distant foreign colonising nation? Civil war Is literally what the game is NOT about. It’s interesting don’t get me wrong, but giving it its proper place rather then cramming it in with mechanics that don’t make sense for it would be much better.

Yeah it focuses on some of the stuff after that but it’s very cursory and only at the extreme tail end of the period.

wow! nice to see my country Nepal there at the end. i'm very happy to see this. Did you know that gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers, not indian.....

piro_wololo wrote:wow! nice to see my country Nepal there at the end. i'm very happy to see this. Did you know that gurkhas are Nepalese soldiers, not indian.....

I did and they got their bad ass reputation against the British. I’m not that knowledgeable on Nepal other then it unified in the mid 1700s and largely maintained its independence from both Qing China and the British, though it was more or less allied with the latter after territory concessions even eventually assisting in world war 1 and 2. All the same though, they maintained their independence when others did not.

Gurkhas being Nepalese is maybe the only thing that I know about Nepal

Eat shit eurotrash

Does USA not make more sense to have in the game than let´s say; japan?
Even if it is not my personal wish for a civ i wanted to see.

USA being in game makes no sense

It's a financial choice considering most player base and profit comes from UsA

princeofcarthage wrote:USA being in game makes no sense

Suck shit bitch

voigt1240 wrote:Does USA not make more sense to have in the game than let´s say; japan?
Even if it is not my personal wish for a civ i wanted to see.

Japan makes sense because the Asian civs are more themed around Europeans trading/colonising/controlling their territory rather then them going to the Americas. Japan existed way before 1490, even if not unified the culture was very much there and it did unify within the games timeline, so it passes those checks easily.

The Portuguese traded significantly with the Japanese clans during the Sengoku Jidai (the thing Tokugawa ended up winning) bringing guns and religion to them and causing issues and some of the clans even outright converted to Christianity. After Japan went mostly into isolation with the exception of the Dutch who were still allowed to trade with them.

Now whether Ashigaru Musketeers should be as strong as they are despite being peasant soldiers is another matter .

Europeans actually used local populace. At one point British India Army surpassed even the British Army during WW's. If the local armies were actually sensible the countries could never have been colonised. Of course this is not as simple but point is Asia civs having stronger units make sense.