Current State of Game:
If you were given the choice to shuffle and add, how will you do it?
Wow, that’s a lot of civs.
6 civs per architecture set? I personally prefer 4, or maybe even 3.
Could you add the civ names as well? I think I recognise all the official shields/symbols, but not many of the custom ones.
As for the question in the thread, I think it’s an interesting one, but haven’t thought through my answer yet…
Exactly, even if you read through the entire @Seicing thread, that doesn’t mean you can recognize all the icons again.
Tibet for EA set
Swiss CE set
Shona Swahili for arfican set
Venice for SE set
Georgia either tatar or ME set
This is a great topic, and should have been opened long time ago.
The thing is that Byzantines, and Magyars are using wrong monasteries…
It should be like this:
My question is… why are developers not paying attention?
Magyars never used golden dome monastery arhitecture, nor they use it today.
It’s an East Slavic architecture, and always has been.
Same goes for byzantine monasteries.
Slavs, or Kievan Rus etc. if they ever change the name should stick with this one.
Also if Serbs are ever to be added.
Because the devs give civs architecture sets, and haven’t bothered with unique monasteries so far, hence you don’t have what might be the most historically accurate monasteries.
Yeah, maybe they could just swap them in the next update.
I don’t see a reason not to do it.
That affects readablity and people will want more changes so no thanks.
yes definitely bring it on slowly…2 civs per DLC and 2 DLCs per year for the next 15 yrs will get us there.
If this is only using existing graphics, I’d change just a handful of things:
If we’re adding new graphics, I’d prioritise unique monasteries for Byzantines and Ethiopians, and a new monastery for East Asian civs other than Japanese.
As a personal nitpick that no one else will care about: the Imperial Age Western European buildings look anachronistic for Britons, far too post-medieval. Maybe something like that existed in medieval France, I don’t know. Also the Britons’ Wonder probably made sense to the designer and probably looks ok to most people - but to someone who knows a bit about medieval English church architecture (e.g. me), it’s a mess. Hence I suggested changing it to the Tower of London, although I’d prefer a recognisable cathedral, e.g. Lincoln, Wells or Durham. Yes, I know “it’s Chichester Cathedral”, but only if you squint a lot. Anyway… rant over.
Why? Current set is more accurate.
CA set will be as inaccurate as current set. We really need a new Nomadic set and add Huns and Mongols, maybe even Cumans and Magyars as well since they are semi-nomadic.
No, the current one suits them SO much better
I wouldn’t add any civs for the sake of architecture sets. Europe doesn’t need any new civs for a long time. New architecture set is pretty much needed. I’d rather have 7 civs with East Asian than Vietnamese having Southeast Asian, same with Hindustanis etc.
I wouldn’t do this, purely because I think their current set looks way cooler, and because it matches their castle really nicely.
It was changed from that for a reason, so that it looks more historically accurate.
If Huns were to be changed, they need a new set, probably using something like the ruined buildings in the editor.
Why would you change them to Medi? They were a Germanic civ, so it makes more sense for them to have central European architecture.
I wish we had another south american civ, only for them to make an actual incan architecture set. meso buildings for the incas just doesn’t fit at all.
Unique Castles, Markets and Monasteries with unique Monks for all civs please
These could be the Road Map for 2024, 11
Where do you get the images, are great!
Is not THAT far fetched, given that by the fall of the Western Empire, Goths lived in Italy and Spain and their romanization was in full swing. In terms of campaigns, maybe they could have Central Europe for Alaric and Attila and Medi Europe for Tariq