This is such a provocation
2 Likes
Funny considering neither Tatars nor Cumans had any architecture of their own and it’s literally based on Persian buildings.
6 Likes
It should be prudent to make a Nomad architecture style for the Cumans, Huns, Tatars and Mongols. Different types of tents, Town Center that can be packed and unpacked, moved. The mule chart is also good for them.
While the Persians should definately get the Central Asian architecture IMO. Hindustanis as well I think.
1 Like
I think the Nomadic Architecture Set actually has the highest priority considering that they just didn’t found cities and were mobile. The Nomadic Architecture Set should be used by Cumans, Huns and Mongols civs + potential Jurchens civs.
Tatars civ could be paired with the Persians civ in the Central Asian Architecture Set.
This would be cool, but I think it would make the Nomadic civs too asymmetrical from the rest of the civs.
I think many more civs (maybe even all civs?) should have access to Mule Cart. It’s strange when Armenians and Georgians civs don’t have acces to Lumber Camp and Mining Camp - they should have them. Just make the Mule Cart a trainable unit for more civs (or all civs) in the Town Center or Market.
1 Like
I promised I would make some comparison shots. So here we are.
I’ve stated before how Sassanid buildings are similar to the Feudal Age set, and now I intend to make it easier for people to see that by posting some images showing both.
This isn’t supposed to be “these buildings are clearly 1-1 replicas/direct inspiration”. This is to show how similar Sassanid architecture is to the Central Asian set, specifically the Feudal part, as it’s supposed to represent older buildings.
I have given names for all the buildings used, so people can look them up themselves. Sadly there were some really interesting buildings I found, but couldn’t get a name for them, so wasn’t able to confirm for sure if they were Early Middle Ages Persian or not.
But anyway, for the benefit of anyone reading who thinks the Middle Eastern set is a better representation for Sassanid buildings, allow me to present…this, enjoy:
28 Likes
I’d say they almost didn’t used mules, or at least surely not as much as many other civs.
Mule Carts are a reference to material transportation on mountanious regions, not to nomadic lifestyle.
If you feel nomad civs should have some feature that enhance their nomadic aspect, mule carts is not it. We should rather ask for some kind of pack-unpack mechanic for some buildings.
Not quite true. They founded lots of cities and occupied many existing ones. Specially Tatars. Samarkand? Bukhara? Sarai?
I believe you, but is there reading on this subject I can look at?
I don’t have any. And I only keep repeating this because I’m trying really hard to convince myself to believe they didn’t include such a disruptive and gamechaning mechanic, which is also shared (which implies some kind of thematic underlying meaning), just because “oh it looks so cool”.
I see. Honestly, your theory is plausible, but I think it would be more appropriate being unique to the Georgians, since mule carts are still popular in parts of Georgia.
1 Like
Yes, I’m aware of that fact, and I would have really prefered if it had been that way. I really dislike the mule cart for Armenians
2 Likes
Particularly because the Armenians live on much flatter ground than the Georgians.
1 Like
That’s the most non-argument ever 
The Central Asian architecture set is literally based on Timurid architecture. I agree about the other nomad civs getting a shared set but Tatars should stay, even if they don’t represent only Timurids.
9 Likes
Yeah, I’ll stop saying this eventually, but I’m 98% confident that they will change it within a couple months. I really think the only reason they haven’t is bureaucratic red tape and generally being slow-ish with things that they don’t consider tier-1 priorities. And there’s not really any market pressure - nobody’s going to boycott the DLC because of this. There’s also the ironic possibility that they don’t view it as urgent precisely because they can change it in an instant.
But, who really knows
6 Likes
That is in fact a small portion of their history, the Tatars should by all means have the nomadic architecture style. In scenarios and campaign, the CA architecture could be fixed for them, it is easily done.
Tatars can also represent settled other settled states like Kazan or the Il-Khanate, so there’s that. But assuming it ever happened officially (big if), they could go that way if the Turks get Persian architecture too.
1 Like
Agree. I’m thinking that’s likely the reason it wasn’t done between the PUP and release.
Why it wasn’t initially done for the Persians I would put my best guess as not realising how much of the community want this change compared to those that do not.
I even saw a T90 video last night where he brought it up.
3 Likes
But I just said that Tatars civ SHOULD HAVE the entire Central Asian Architecture Set - together with the Persians civ.
2 Likes
Which one and what time?
Check New Civs Duel! Armenians and Georgians. Not sure what time.
2 Likes
29 minutes in he mentions it.
3 Likes