Why Huns in Central Asian set and Goths in Central European? I feel neither makes sense.
Also, I feel every civ should get a unique monastery, on top of a unique castle.
Why Huns in Central Asian set and Goths in Central European? I feel neither makes sense.
Also, I feel every civ should get a unique monastery, on top of a unique castle.
Mostly because there are five civs using the East Asian set, which I think is a bit much. I donât know much about medieval Vietnamese buildings, but the ones Iâve seen - to my eye at least - look more like the South East Asian (which is really Khmer) set than the East Asian (which is really Japanese) set. Iâll happily be persuaded otherwise if someone can show me some examples though.
I agree, in fact I considered saying that. But the problem with a nomadic set is that it would be mostly round tents, so it would be hard to make the different buildings easily distinguishable.
I agree it matches the castle well. I actually donât like the castle, even though it looks cool I think itâs too obviously based on a specific building and therefore looks too much like a wonder. I considered suggesting replacing it, but that felt petty and I saved my pettiness for Britons.
But actually my main motivation here is that there are six civs with the Eastern European set and I think thatâs too many.
Because they settled in Italy and Spain. Plus if you look at surviving Visigothic and Ostrogothic buildings (not many, mostly churches) they do look more like the Mediterranean set.
I get that. But EE has even more. Change Mongols and Huns to a new Nomadic architecture and they will be more accurate.
I donât think so. We donât have to make military buildings like RAX or SW to be round shaped. Houses into yurt, TCs into bigger yurt.
Yep. We need another new after Nomadic for Byzantines and Bulgarians. And possibly Caucasians in the future.
My suggestion (Parenthesis indicates optional or in the future) -
Honestly I donât hate giving nomadic empires the architecture of the ones they ruled over, especially when you consider the fact that they have farms and castles.
If youâre changing Chinese you might as well just give EA to Japanese as their unique architecture.
Magyars donât need nomadic set, they had one of the strongest fortifactions, castles in Europe in the high middle ages and everyone lived in houses, not yurts.
East Africa and South America also need new architecture set asap. Korean and Vietnamese architecture is influenced by China so its better to change their sets.
Take a middle ground and have a nomadic Eastern Asian set for Hun Mongol Khitan and Jurchen.
Where will Koreans and Vietnamese go?
And the whole set is 90% Japanese.
Not as nomadic as other 2 but I can take that. A new architecture set regardless of region is cordially welcomed.
Same as Chinese. Makes much more sense them grouping them with just Japanese.
Northern, central and southern africa had different architecture. North, meso and south america also had different architecture.
North africa
-Berbers
-Saracens (Ayyubid caliphate)
-Nubians (New), (Because they are popular).
Central africa (could be west or east too)
-Ethiopians
-Malis
-??? (Could be Benin, Kanem, etc), (Because most of them are popular).
South africa + new architecture set
-Zimbabwe (New), (Because they are popular).
-???
-???
North america + new architecture set
-Missisipians (New), (Because they are popular).
-???
-???
Mesoamerica
-Aztecs
-Mayans
-Tarascans (New), (Because they were in the bronze age).
South america + new architecture set
-Incas
-Chimu (Already in the campaigns), (Because they were in the bronze age).
-Wari (Already in the campaigns), (Because they were in the bronze age).
I think Mahazona is right. It can be confusing to have unique monasteries and would set a precedent for requests for specific changes. Itâs easier for the devs to just stick with regional architectures.
And as said above, there are different arch sets in Africa and the Americas. For me, the ideal would look like this:
âNew set for Ethiopians (and possibly Somalis);
âMalians share a set with possible Kanembu and Songhai;
âNew set for possible Kongo, Benin and Shona;
âNew set for the Incas and possible South Americans;
âNew set for possible North Americans;
âChinese and others East Asians with a new set or a revamped Asian set;
âPersians using Central Asian arch set;
âMaybe the Arabic set could be reworked to have some characteristics of the Berbers (their arch set is unique, but it would be a single civ using it).
âMongols and other nomads with a set like this:
We can tell the difference if we make each building with a color pattern. The author of this one is Tzontlimixtli (the guy who made the Indian set) according to a Reddit user.
Ooh, thatâs kind of rough. Even with differentiated colors thatâs just way too much copy-paste of the round tent structure; only the market and shrine look nearly different enough to not blend in and be confused with everything else. Iâm not saying the nomad-architecture set isnât viable, I just donât find this very convincing as a Proof-of-Concept. Even semi-nomadic people would have built semi-permanent structures, albeit with a Dark or Feudal Age aesthetic. Make everything tents and it looks like the circus is in town, and a very confusing circus at that.
Nubia is like right next to Ethiopia.
So it would look more like this:
Northern Africa: Ethiopia, Nubia, Somalia⊠Berbers?
Sahara: Mali, Songhai, Kanembu, Hausa, Ghana
Southern Africa: Ubini/Benin, Swahili, Kongolese, Zimbabwe
I agree. My sentence about the colors did not refer to the image.
Btw that image was an attempt by the guy to creste an arch set for Mongols, but itâs from 7 years ago, so he probably already abandoned it. It was just an example.
Here are a couple of other examples that I think are better:
I think these are much better, personally, because itâs easy to tell which building is which. But Iâm not sure they really count as ânomadicâ â how easy would it be to pack up and move one of those buildings?
(current) West African:
Malians
Songhai
Kanembu
Hausa
East African:
Nubians
Ethiopians
South African:
Benin
Swahili
Shona
Kongolese
Middle Eastern:
Somalis
Why? Itâs south of Ethiopia. Touching it even.
Because an Ethiopian-Nubian based architecture would be an insult to them. The current architecture doesnât fit them either. Somalia is pretty close to Arabia tbh, so it wouldnât be a big of a problem.
Lol, that Sea Tower sticking out like a sore thumb in the first one. I like the later ones though, especially the last TC, which looks more or less like a standard TC, but also looks like most of it could be packed up if needed.
Also, just because a people were nomads doesnât mean that they would have packed up and moved everything every day; thereâs still a reason to invest in semi-permanent structures. For a blacksmith, youâll need a stone/brick hearth or furnace (blacksmithing in tents = asking for trouble). For a market, youâll want large storage areas for your goods, and maintaining it in a permanent ad highly visible location helps traders find it. And any kind of defensive structure would be built wherever the camp decided to âdig inâ for a while (like how the Roman Legions usually built fortified camps even while travelling). Itâs also reasonable that they could have built foundations for military/storage buildings, that would be left for the next wave of nomads, while taking the poles and canvas with them as they moved on.
My wish:
African set: Congolese, Ethiopians, Kanems, Malians, and Swahili
Generic East Asian set: Chinese, Dians, Jurchens, Koreans, and Vietnamese
Japanese set: Japanese and Ryukyuans
Inner Asian nomadic set: Mongols and Tanguts (possibly Huns as well)
SE Asian set: Burmese, Chams, Khmers, Malays, and Siamese
Mesoamerican set: Aztecs and Mayans
Andean set: Chimus and Incas
Caucasian set: Armenians and Georgians
Iâm not that familiar with Europe so Iâll leave that part out.
Thanks. This helps a lot.
I wish we could have each civ with their own assets separated so we could mod individual civs visually without using data mods.