Well, you should’ve said all the other East Asian civs other than the Japanese should share the Chinese set. I see some people group the Koreans and Japanese as the same group, which is totally incorrect. Koreans also need to share the same set as Chinese, not as Japanese. The Japanese were the most unique in East Asia, and all the other East Asians were based on the Chinese style though each of them also developed their own styles, of course.
So, I must say that it should be only the Japanese that has its own architecture set which is fine with the current East Asian set. The rest East Asian civs should have the Chinese set which should be new.
Yes, but they too had stronger Chinese influences depending on the area more or less.
That is true for the majority, but not for all peoples.
Yes, but the graphic style itself also has errors. The castle looks like a village center, not like a castle, so it should be improved.
I hope, that the next DLC, which may come next winter, will bring a new architecture set for the Chinese within an East asian extension. It would be very nice to see.
Yes, but what does the Savannah set look like? What are its signature features? How would it be different from the set they have now? Do you think their current set isn’t in line with their architecture? How - I’d like some real, explained examples please. Because I have some examples of in-game building models here.
The FA market has some pretty standard structure, I think it fits the buildings I showed quite nicely as well, with a bit more “simple” roof(which makes sense, as this is FA, not CA or Imp).
Again, for the university - pretty clear elements of that Malian architecture I showed (it’s almost the same as the building from the first photo I shared).The more I look at it, the more I love it, actually.
The castle looks almost like a mix of both styles, which would make sense. Though I feel it’s a tad bit closer to the Ethiopian style.
I think all these buildings look pretty freaking close to the architecture style of both nations, especially when compared to photos of those very real buildings. These are just examples, but all the other buildings in game are made in the same style, with most of them feeling like a little bit of a mix, which is nice. I personally think they represent those nations well, their uniqueness and architecture. They are in line with real architecture and I have no idea how the “savannah set” would have to look to represent them better, since the current one does it pretty well.
Not everyone is gonna have 100% completely accurate sets. Also, looking at the architecture in southern Spain (which was for a long time occupied by Moors, or Berbers), I think their current set is pretty much fine.
And again, what is this “Near East” set? What would it look like? How would it be different from the current Middle Eastern set? Why isn’t the Middle Eastern set good enough?
Also also, considering we’re literally now getting two new nations, which are Catholic or Hussite (Protestant), that are getting the Eastern European set which literally has an Orthodox cross on the ship sails and an Orthodox Monastery, I feel like these are just stupid nitpicks about architecture that actually works for those nations (unlike with especially Bohemians, which should have the Central European set).
This is a very good proposal, but your content can be said to be stupid, which makes me feel helpless and angry.
1.Huns and “xiongnu”.
This is a very controversial academic topic，the Huns recorded by the Romans and the Huns recorded by the Chinese are essentially different in their living habits, clothing and construction, and even production techniques,The difference between the appearance time and the degree of civilization of the two is too huge to be equal.And for this rather early primitive nomadic tribe to be rashly classified into the Turkic ranks without evidence is simply disrespect for the study of nomads.
2.Mongo.
Scholars from China, Mongolia, and Russia have conducted detailed research and restoration of Mongol architecture. Facts have proved that the Mongol architecture is completely inconsistent with the Tatar architecture in the game.
Moreover, the names of the Turks and Tatars are mixed in the records of the entire West and Central Asia, and it is difficult to make a simple differentiation.
Berbers and Saracens, Malians and Ethiopians.
No irregularities were found in the known research data.
4.China？Taiwan？
In the game, China, Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan all use Japanese-style buildings.This is a very loose mistake
I am fortunate to have done some research on East Asian architecture. I can tell you with certainty that there is no so-called independent “Taiwan architecture”.Unless you are talking about thatched houses and stilt houses of indigenous Taiwanese.
The influence of Chinese architectural culture on East Asia is very profound,it’s not that Vietnam, Goryeo (Goguryeo), Japan or Mongolia, the Huns and other nomads do not have their own independent buildings, but its independent buildings are rarely or not at all retained until now. Most of the remaining are Sinicized building.
In addition to Japan and Mongolia that retain more unique styles, nomadic peoples such as Vietnam, Goryeo (Goguryeo), and Huns are unable to prove the independent characteristics of their ancient architecture due to insufficient documentation, calligraphy, and architectural preservation.
For example, the ancient buildings in Vietnam and Goguryeo, due to war and natural destruction, until now there are not many independent architectural styles.Comparing Chinese architecture is just a few subtle differences in craftsmanship and materials. Such as tiles, load-bearing beams, roof layout and decoration and color.The Kingdom of Ryukyu is only left with Japanese-style architecture from the period of Japanese occupation, and has completely lost its own ancient architecture with independent characteristics.
In summary, the division and research of East Asian architecture is huge and complicated, and it is not just a nation that can leave a different architectural style.Based on this premise, I think that proposing that China is divided into Taiwan is a stupid and ill-considered act. Even if it is a non-political but for game considerations, it should be put forward after certain research, such as Tubo, Jin, Liao, Xixia, Qiang, etc. National considerations with strong characteristics.
Finally, resetting the buildings of various ethnic groups is indeed a good proposal.
Quite an impressive building, I must say, Notre Dame, San Lorenzo, and Angkor Wat got nothing on this. I wonder what other materials from the vast richness in Africa were implemented in this intrincated work of masonry, besides mud and wooden sticks
It’s not mud, it’s clay first of all. Secondly, the wooden sticks are there for maintenance work on the structure due to the stress due to climate. Wood and stone is not at disposal in the Sahel zone in suficient quantities, so most structures are made out of clay which is typical for Sahel zone architecture.
If you’re interested into details why Timbuktu is considered part of UNESCO world heritage, I’d recommend you reading more on it.
It is also necessary, because there is a mess in the game regarding a suitable architecture for each people, and this since the game was first release in 1999.
The content is now correct, i have improved the things, which was unclear in the meantime. I hope, that you are now satisfied.
I agree with you, that is true. Nevertheless, nowadays one can make rough assessments.
You go to far apart here. The shown Huns correspond to the European Huns in Age of empires 2. This explained their current Central european graphic set. Further points to this, shows the Huns campaign, which leads from Eastern europe to Western europe. The Huns appear also as Computer opponents in some European campaigns.
I did not mean with bad intent. The Huns were no means a primitive Nomadic tribe, but a bigger people, who where able, to endanger the Roman empire. The majority of researchers are of the opinion, that the Huns came from Central asia, in any case not from Europe or East asia. For these reasons, the developer should give the Huns their own set.
Yes and that is why a new architecture set should be made for the Mongolians, because it is so unique. The reason is probably in this, because the Tatar architecture in the game is based on the medieval Persian architecture.
One can see it like that. The Turks tend towards a style of Turkish origin in terms of architecture. The Tatars more like the Central asian style, which was introduced in the Middle age by the Persians.
Afterwards corrected, you are right.
Afterwards corrected, you are right.
Yes, it is. A next DLC should create order here.
Well, your spawned reasons should be then correct.
Afterwards corrected, you are right.
Yes, i meant the Dark age maybe still parts of the Feudal age.
Even, therefore it would make a lot of sense for the game, if the Chinese were given their own set of architecture
Of course, yes.
You may be rather right concerning Vietnam and Goryeo, who represent the medieval Korea. But you are sure right about the Huns, we have no serious legacies over building remains there.
The Mongols and Japanese building style has survived to nowadays.
It could be true, that the Huns were inital nomads. With Vietnam and Goreyo the matter is more difficult to clarify.
Yes, one can see it like this.
These peoples adopted evidently the Chinese building style to a large extent.
Therefore we should take a close look at which architecture suits to which civilizations.
Afterwards corrected, you are right.
The aim is, that the game should represents the timespirit of the Middle Ages from a visual view and not only in terms of Game mechanics. I really hope, that Microsoft will tackle this obvious issue with the next DLCs. Every player, who plays a people, wants to play it with his historic architecture and not use any architecture from other peoples, which is unfortunately to many times the case in the game.
For me regarding architecture sets I’d say there is obviously a need for a nomadic style architecture with tents that would be used by both Huns and Mongols because currently both those civs feel like imposters in the architecture styles they use.
Other changes suggested here feel more like just nitpicking at details.
Yes, the Huns use currently the Central european set and the Mongols the East asian one. There is a clear need for action here.
The obvious architecture allocation for the peoples is so disturbing, that i am annoyed since some time, because of these flaws.
If you have a lot of small details, they will to the end quite big and that is the case with the architectural relation of the buildings with the game.
Don’t seem to be playing on my own. seems to be plenty of people who own the game.
yeah because aoe2 isn’t one of the most popular RTS games of all time despite all the historical inconsistencies. and aoe2 DE hasn’t sold Millions of copies despite those continuing.
According to your poor argument, this seems to be the case.
There are thousands of players, who did not buy the further content of the game, because of such flaws.
I speak from nowadays view, which the work for the game is to be finetuned. From a visually view, the game is plainly historically inaccurate, not just a little, and that is a bigger issue.
The game sold so many times, because the game mechanics of Age of empires 2 are so good. But i have never questioned that.
yeah? and so we should change the game to cater to a small minority of players?
if you care about historical accuracy so much where is the big stink about
Meso Civs having Steel, Crossbows, and Arbalests?
Mamelukes throwing swords and riding camels?
Frankish Throwing Axeman/Celtic Woad Raiders?
Siege without operators/Meso civs having siege/using wheels?
Campaign Inaccuracies (Hordes of them)?
among the many other issues.
and if it was really such a big issue the game wouldn’t have sold well.
Tatars are considering themselves as a another branch of Turks .And their language are %99 same. Their culture are same. They are like 2 brothers of same man and woman .As a conclusion its naturally hard to apart them from each other.
in short they are same people who lives in different regions.
The majority buy a game and are after silent about the content. Your majority will certainly not improve the game, our minority will it does.
You see that, all the time, if you play. Play the Saracens with their european looking swordsman as an example, it really makes sense and also fun That such a graphic blunder has not yet been officially adapted, is very bad and that for over 20 years market time.
It is distinctly more difficult to create historical correct models for the units than for the architecture, which is why i have not made any suggestions so far.
You can only negative criticize, but can not make own suggestions, because you are not interested enough for the game. A bad report for you.
Can you see it, how naughty you are? i did not design any official campaigns.
It is not just about selling. The game itself is rated worse with such graphical errors. Do you notice what?
will they? or will they just keep asking for more changes, pissing off the silent majority who are completely happy with it as is. who recognize the elegance in simplicity?
or maybe it’s a good design choice that makes balancing and knowing what’s going on easier. look at AoE3 where you hardly know what counters what at a quick glance. that is the beauty of aoe2 - I Don’t need to know what 30+ versions of the swordsman is.
and still highly rated overall, which tells me that the old adage of gameplay over visuals still holds up to this day. 93% positive reviews on steam. seems visuals a good game does not make.
you want this stuff as optional DLC that you can apply to your game without messing it up for everyone else - sure go ahead. you want it as baseline? no thanks.
but i find your argument of historical accuracy hilarious in consideration of all the historical flaws in the game.
thats another thing which is funny
BUT Gotta see these ones;
Rams attacking farms (!!!)
Rams tanking 270 Cannon balls from BBT (!!!)
Man on the horse that are able to survive after 191 direct flaming spear shot (!!!)
Burning Building which are able to be %100 functional for endless years. (!!!)
and…Ships…Man im talking about ships which is able to carry 5 elephants but not able to carry 6 man xD
That such a graphic blunder has not yet been officially adapted, is very bad and that for over 20 years market time.