To do this without giving all Eastern European civs the Central European architecture, you’d have to use a data mod. Those have major drawbacks. You can’t use them in ranked multiplayer, and to use one in other multiplayer games every player has to use the same mod. You have to remake them every time there’s a balance update. I believe they also prevent campaign progress.
Of course, you could make a graphics mod that changes all Eastern European architecture to Central European architecture, but that introduces architectural inaccuracies elsewhere.
I can’t imagine why the building set issue would be an issue for multiplayer people. That demographic isn’t really looking for historical accuracy, and certainly don’t have much of a case when you have grids, mini trees and what nots un-aesthetic tweaks. The ones who would be more concerned would be the scenario designing crowd. But you have the build set toggle in the editor.
Use a graphic modpack for building swaps for whichever civilisation you want to play with at a point in time. There are some like that hovering around I think for the central Asian set for example.
Seems like you want your cake and you want to eat it to, which isn’t very fair to everyone else, no?
Just saying that there are more ridiculous things on that regard, like Ethiopians having a Mosque as religious building.
I would like to see Bohemians using the Germanic set for another reason though. Having 6 civs using the same set is excessive and Bohemians fit better within the Germanic set than the Poles.
And then you look at the Indian set with just one civ…
I know, I’m repeating myself, I know. The fact that the new expansion packs don’t feature as much content as the HD expansions feels like greed to me to be honest. The Lithuanian campaign could have easily been part of the DE or at least included in an update afterwards instead of now being sold for DotD.
You keep talking about a group of people that want Bohemians to have the Eastern architecture. Who are those people and why do they want to have a wrong architecture set for the civilization?
Come come we all know india is just one culture group with no difference in language or customs unlike europe.so one civi is more than fine(insert sarcasm here).
I’m not talking about “them”. I’m talking about the malcontented lot who are harping on something that can be easily remedied with mods in some way or other. What the developers need to focus on is adding more editor/graphical content. To add depth to the game in areas which cannot be remedied with mods.
I don’t believe that the playerbase divides neatly into “multiplayer people” and “singleplayer people”. I play both, and judging by what I’ve seen on this forum/Reddit/Youtube, so do many others. Nor do I believe that “multiplayer people” all use grids, small trees, etc. and don’t care what the game looks like. (In fact, I don’t use those things because they make the look worse.)
Even if you insist that architectural accuracy is only relevant to campaigns and scenarios, presumably that applies to the co-op mode that is launching soon? Plus you still have the issue of data mods preventing campaign and achievement progression.
What if I want to play as random? What if I want to play as Bohemians but against Slavs/Magyars/etc.?
Me personally? I was just answering your question “What’s so difficult?” I don’t understand what you mean about fairness. Do you think it isn’t very fair that Byzantines now have Mediterranean architecture, or that Vietnamese now have East Asian architecture?
They really need to make unit skins and civ building architectire un hardcoded into the data mods so we can start fixing these thing with mods and implement our own regional generic units so atzec wouldn’t use European longsword and so on choose the building set we found fitting.
Best case acneario, devs need to do only have the work to allow the tools for future more moddability and if we lick out some free working mkdders can fill in the graphics that are expensive to produce for Microsoft if they provide the necessary tools