please feel free to show me where i insulted you? and i never insulted the topic - I said historical accuracy is a can of worms, because we would have to change entire unit lines, entire civs design, balance entirely. we’d basically have a completely new game, all for historical accuracy sake. even the campaigns would have to change. and that is definitely objective and true.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/a-can-of-worms#:~:text=phrase,might%20be%20better%20left%20alone.
5 Likes
I have been doing that all the time.
Your first sentence insulted the topic as a whole, you have not differentiated.
That means, that the historical accuracy is good enough, thereby they can eat the worms.
We can change individual areas of the game in terms of historical accuracy, if we see obvious errors.
Yes, that would even be much better, because the current game is often crap in terms of many historically imprecise things.
If the architecture is changed, there is no need to intervene in the game mechanics.
You mean for you? Yes, you would need more instruction in relevant spelling.
NO…this is a mistake！
1.With the support of Roman records and existing archaeological evidence, the Huns were completely unable to build a large number of buildings or “houses” in the true sense. They don’t even have “yurts” similar to other nomads.Compared with Scythians, Sarmats, Thracians and even the Chinese Huns, the level of civilization is completely primitive and barbaric. The Romans commented that the Thracians were primitives, but the Thracians could also have decent military buildings. And the Huns don’t even have a decent living building, this impression has not been able to overthrow it so far!
Secondly, the status of “Turkic people” and “Turkic language group” in the classification of grassland ethnic groups is almost equal to the status of trash cans. Any nomadic people who are unclear and lack records, even if they are tens of thousands of miles apart, are called “Turks”!
2.Regarding the question of the Kumans and the Mongols, it must be stated that for Europeans, the name “Tatar” refers to the most representative golden tent (Suchakulus) and its subjects (that is, Local Qincha people), but in the Chinese context, “Tatar” refers to the ethnic group that speaks Mongolian.
Before the Mongols rushed out of the grasslands of East and Northeast Asia, it can be said that the Kumans had no direct contact with the Mongols. The only thing they have in common is that they are all nomads.
But in fact, the expansion of the Mongols was accompanied by the invasion and assimilation of Mongolian culture. Although the vast majority of Mongols were eventually assimilated by Islam and Chinese culture, a small part of the area was still integrated with Mongolian culture.（The Tibetans are now the only unique ethnic group that incorporates Mongolian culture.）
Although the Mongols invaded Tibet did not succeed in expanding their territory to the plateau, they allowed their own culture to replace part of the original Tibetan culture，the Mongols themselves have also absorbed a certain amount of Tibetan culture, knowledge and technology.
The Mongols in Central Asia and West Asia failed to leave the cultural technology, architectural style and historical record of the time,hese are not many in the records of ancient Russian historians,the discoveries of modern Russian archaeology are not enough to fill this huge gap.（Unlike the Mongols in East Asia and Northeast Asia, the Mongols in West Asia and Central Asia did not leave their own writings and relics. Basically, all the research on them comes from the records of other ancient countries.）
As for the Mongols in East and Northeast Asia, they have left enough historical relics and their own writings. From this we can see that although ordinary Mongols still live in simple buildings such as yurts, their nobles already have A large building with a Han-Tibetan style or a mixed style
As for the Mongols in East and Northeast Asia, they have left enough historical relics and their own writings. From this we can see that although ordinary Mongols still live in simple buildings such as yurts, their nobles already have A large building with a Han-Tibetan style or a mixed style.
The treaty signed by the Tibetans and the British, written in “Basiba Mongolian”
3.Architectural styles of nomads in China and surrounding areas.
This is indeed a question worth talking about. Chinese culture is too radiant for these nomads, and even after they settled down, they all chose Sinicization without exception.Xiongnu, Donghu, Wuhuan, Xianbei, Rouran, Khitan, Shiwei, Mohe, Jurchen,Huihe…these nomads are deeply influenced by Han culture.
（According to some historical documents, the Huns may even be refugees from the Xia and Shang dynasties of China who fled to the north due to the war.）（Khitan established Liao, Jurchen first established Jin, then established please，both the Liao and Jin nomadic countries appeared in the Mongolian campaign in the game）（Among them, the Liao and Jin costumes in Chinese history books and portraits have obvious nomadic characteristics, but the architecture is basically the same as that of the Han.）
4.This is what I have been unable to understand. Why is there a stubborn demand for a “Taiwan style” building that does not exist at all?
The Han people migrated to Taiwan on a small scale from the end of the Han Dynasty to the Three Kingdoms War for the first time, and they were mostly middle- and lower-class refugees, and they did not establish a city similar to their hometown in Taiwan.The largest scale should be the immigrants of the Ming Dynasty.
However, they did not develop a local style architecture that was clearly different from the hometown.
The “traditional Taiwanese buildings” and “ancient buildings” you see now actually belong to the branch of southern Fujian architecture in the classification of Chinese architecture. Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan also belong to this cultural group.（This is the point! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !）
5.East Asian construction issues.
Goguryeo is the predecessor of Goryeo, and the specific architectural style has not been verified. However, the buildings from the period from Goryeo to the Kingdom of Korea to the Kingdom of Korea are testable. Although the war has damaged most of the buildings and is very similar to the Han architecture, But there are some differences.
The difference between the ancient architecture of Vietnam and that of the Han nationality is greater than that of Korea. Although the Imperial Palace was built after imitating the Forbidden City of the Ming Dynasty, there are still some remaining temples and stone buildings that can be distinguished in detail.
Although Japan also has a large number of Chinese architectural elements, it has successfully retained the unique ancient local architecture due to local religious factors and is the most independent of the tributary countries.
（The king of the Korean Kingdom therefore hated Japan very much, and publicly stated that if both North Korea and Japan are counted as the sons of China, North Korea is the filial eldest son, and Japan is the rebellious and rude younger son）
（The Kingdom of Ryukyu only has buildings from the Japanese occupation period, and there are no archaeological materials left in the previous era.This is very special.）
It is indeed not an easy task to distinguish these highly similar buildings. Fortunately, ancient China and the tributary state worked together to formulate laws on the construction methods of the tributary state.
The most obvious difference is the tiles. The law stipulates that tributary countries cannot use tiles of the same size and color as Chinese buildings. For example, the royal palace of the Kingdom of Korea must use cyan tiles.（This is a very strange thing. Because the alternating wars of Chinese dynasties sometimes made it impossible for China to monitor whether the tributary state complied，the tributary country is really unwilling to fully comply with this law, although he also participated in writing it.However, in modern times, the Blue House, the residence of the Korean Prime Minister, and the magnificent building of Renmin University in North Korea, have all complied with the “blue tiles” in ancient laws.）
The Gyeongbokgung in Kingdom of Korea
The Cheongwadae in Republic of Korea
The Grand Peoples Study House in North Korea.
2 Likes
Are you forgetting this is a game? It costs too much effort and too little reward to do every civs architecture style correctly.
Yes…but I hope that at least every nation can be subdivided into independent castles, just like the four newly added nations
No, we will not forget that. But if developers want to classified their games into genres and peoples, they should at least try, to do it as well as possible.
If you swap for the Persians their Near east architecture with the Central asian, that means a very little effort for the developer. You can do this for any number of civilizations, the effort for the developers in graphic barter, would be very small. The design of new architectural styles is also easy and feasible at any time. It is not about, interfering into the game mechanics. The effort would then be much higher, but i am not talking about that in this topic.
then your argument of “historical accuracy” is bunk. you don’t care about historical accuracy at all. which was my point - you only want the visuals you want. you do not care about historical accuracy. you’re just using it as a means to an end, to get the change you desire.
1 Like
You argue, that my suggestion regarding architectural adaptation for individual peoples leads to big changes and i said thereupon, this is not true, as there are no game technical changes. And then you twist the thing like this, that i am not interested in historical accuracy. It is precisely because of such a distortion of facts, why you lie massively.
That is why i opened up this topic as well. They just keep making themselves ridiculous.
That is a evil assumption. I create topics, where i know enough about, what i am always allowed to do.
Therefore i made this topic, so i must be interested in historical accuracy. It looks like this, that you are not interested in historical accuracy, so far i have not seen a theme, that you have created to improve anything in the game for historical accuracy.
Again a evil assumption. I have never criticized your complaint concerning historically incorrect units with weapons from other peoples.
yes, it does. you argued they should be changed for historical accuracy.
actually i do care about history. i just understand this is a game, and therefore certain liberties have to be taken. but the point is, if you truly were a person who cared about making the game historically accurate, like you claim, that would extend beyond just the visuals of architecture sets.
where did i lie? you listed historical accuracy as a reason for this change - i just pointed out the truth - you don’t care about accuracy, that’s easy to see as you don’t have a history of complaining about all the inaccurate stuff of the game.
you care about a very small portion of historical accuracy. and are using that as a means to an end.
No, it does not. You make false claims.
It does not look like it, no.
If the community want to improve a game, they can do it. That has nothing to do with the fact, that one then deprives the developer of the liberties.
Even not and you do not know why? Because i do not have enough knowledge in all areas of the game, to use these points as suggestions. I know quite a bit about the architecture for individual peoples and that is why i made this suggestion, so that adjustments can still be made.
All over, you do constantly nagging criticize, instead of making suggestions themselves.
A big lie, that is very obvious.
I do not have to either that, because i do not have everywhere the same knowledge.
There is no issue with that, i take care, where i know enough.
I use it with proofs for the purpose, there is nothing wrong with it.
1 Like
oh i do? it’s right there at the end.
and here again. you refer to historical correctness. so no. i’m not making false claims.
Yes, you do it wrong.
I can argue, like i want. You do not have to tell others, what they may write and what not.
You should reconsider your behavior.
Yes, i do that. If you could read, you would realize that.
They judge others out of envy. Bring your stated complaints to the forum, otherwise you will continue to be implausible.
You make false claims, that is very obvious.
even your thread title says they should be correctly assigned, yet i’m making false claims?
1 Like
That is why i strive for historical accuracy.
They contradict each other.
1 Like
“Xiongnu, Donghu, Wuhuan, Xianbei, Rouran, Khitan, Shiwei, Mohe, Jurchen,Huihe…these nomads are deeply influenced by Han culture.”
Mongols are actually different from most of these peoples you mentioned, they were one of the few that actively resisted sinicization and retained their own identity. In fact Mongols are more Tibetan-ized rather than sinicized. Same thing can be said for the Huihe, the ancestors of the Uyghurs, they also haven’t really been sinicized.
“This is what I have been unable to understand. Why is there a stubborn demand for a “Taiwan style” building that does not exist at all?”
Well tbh taiwanese-style indeed existed, but it won’t be the type you see in modern-day taiwan, but rather the aboriginal cottages. I don’t think the addition of taiwanese aborigines are necessary, cause during the time frame covered by the game they were tribal and never established any influential kingdom.
“The “traditional Taiwanese buildings” and “ancient buildings” you see now actually belong to the branch of southern Fujian architecture in the classification of Chinese architecture. Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan also belong to this cultural group.”
These provinces you mentioned each has their own respective cultures and ethno-linguistic groups, so I don’t think you can put them all into one category. If I were to categorize these Southern Chinese provinces, I would put Fujian and the eastern part (Chaoshan region) of Guangdong as one group, the western part of Guangdong and Guangxi as another group, and Hainan as a group of its own. Guangxi and Hainan, despite being largely sinicized, still retain a sizeable amount of native population, in fact the percentage of native population in Hainan is likely a lot higher than taiwan, and for Guangxi it’s probably even higher.
“The difference between the ancient architecture of Vietnam and that of the Han nationality is greater than that of Korea.”
Agreed. Although I think this largely applies to Southern Vietnam or Champa (which honestly should be its own civ) and not really to Northern Vietnam or Dai Viet. The in-game Vietnamese civ is clearly based on Dai Viet, so I’m perfectly fine with them having East Asian architecture.
“Although Japan also has a large number of Chinese architectural elements, it has successfully retained the unique ancient local architecture due to local religious factors and is the most independent of the tributary countries.”
Agreed, they were indeed quite unique.
1 Like
Would be tough to be a game developer in the year 2021 
I appreciate the detail in the OP, but also feel sorry for the devs who can’t just make a fun game; as they have to perfect historians on everything, apparently. Same goes for any game, really. Games have advanced so far that even an FPS needs to hire experts for every little detail, otherwise they get called out for inaccuracies. The devs of Pac-Man and Missile Command had it so easy back then 
3 Likes
Why invest such amount of human and financial resources in something that doesn’t affect gameplay at all???
The game need much improvement in many aspects, archtecture aesthetics isn’t one of them.
1 Like
Mongolian nobles living in Mongolia prefer Tibetan or mixed styles, while Mongolian royal families living in China choose Chinese styles to facilitate their rule. The Mongol emperors in the middle and late Yuan empire could even write Chinese poems.
There are too few wooden buildings left in Vietnam…even the Hue Imperial City has only ten buildings left.
However, the imperial city of Hue was built in complete non-compliance with the construction laws of the Tributary State, so the difference between the buildings from Ming Dynasty is too unobvious.
However, we can also see some unique styles of Vietnamese wooden architecture from buildings such as Ninh Phuoc Temple and One Pillar Temple.（The embarrassing thing is that only Ningfu Temple has more reference value, because the One Pillar Temple is almost identical except for the smaller yellow broken tiles used in the tiles, which are obviously different from the Chinese architecture.）
The Minnan architectural style I mentioned refers to the Han people in these areas.The ethnic minority groups are collectively referred to as “Baiyue”, and it is further subdivided into the Dong-Taiwanese language family, Jing nationality and the aborigines of Taiwan. However, the Baiyue culture has also affected the southern Han nationality (Wu Yue, Guangfu) to a certain extent, and this has also affected The Development of the Culture of South Fujian of the Han Nationality.（Japanese scholar Togoshi Kensaburo believes that the Japanese nation may also be one of them. According to the Han Dynasty’s “Yuejueshu” on the Han-Vietnam War, the people of the Ryukyu Kingdom may also be refugees from Baiyue, who were caused by the war fled to the sea.）
The Baiyue people of Hainan and Taiwan failed to form a kingdom, but the Baiyue people from Fujian to the Southeast Asian peninsula formed a country independently or with the help of external forces.
Both Emperor Han Gao and Emperor Hui of the Han Dynasty canonized the independent Kingdom of Vietnam.But after the Baiyue country was in turmoil, the emperor of the Han Dynasty cancelled its kingdom status and completely conquered it by force.
There are other ancient Baiyue kingdoms on the Chinese territory today. There are three independent kingdoms that developed independently and are older than the two kingdoms bestowed by the Han Dynasty.Dian Kingdom, Yelang, and Gouding. Unfortunately, there are not many archaeological materials about their architectural styles, and it is impossible to confirm the architectural forms of these ancient humans.
“Mongolian nobles living in Mongolia prefer Tibetan or mixed styles, while Mongolian royal families living in China choose Chinese styles to facilitate their rule. The Mongol emperors in the middle and late Yuan empire could even write Chinese poems.”
Nope, Yuan was a typical conquest dynasty, most Yuan emperors could not read or speak Chinese. It’s only after the collapse of the Yuan that some Mongols left in China eventually became sinicized.
“The ethnic minority groups are collectively referred to as “Baiyue”, and it is further subdivided into the Dong-Taiwanese language family, Jing nationality and the aborigines of Taiwan.”
Taiwanese aborigines are Austronesians, Zhuang/Dong/Hlai are Kradai, and Jing/Kinh are Austroasiatic. They belong to three different families, though Kradai does seem to be related to Austronesian in some ways according to the Austro-Tai hypothesis.
“However, the Baiyue culture has also affected the southern Han nationality (Wu Yue, Guangfu) to a certain extent, and this has also affected The Development of the Culture of South Fujian of the Han Nationality.”
I somewhat agree, but it’s hard to define and to categorize what’s “Baiyue culture” since “Baiyue” wasn’t a particular ethnic group but instead referred to all the Non-Sinitic peoples that inhabited Southern China, and that likely included peoples from different language families.
The only way we can tell for sure is going by genetics, and according to genetic evidence only the “Han” people from Guangdong and Guangxi (Guangfu or Yue speakers) are significantly mixed with natives, while the others aren’t.
“Japanese scholar Togoshi Kensaburo believes that the Japanese nation may also be one of them. According to the Han Dynasty’s “Yuejueshu” on the Han-Vietnam War, the people of the Ryukyu Kingdom may also be refugees from Baiyue, who were caused by the war fled to the sea.”
That’s a really far-fetched claim. Japanese aren’t related to the southern peoples, neither genetics nor archaeology shows any strong correlation between Japan and Far South China / SE Asia. Japanese are much more similar to Koreans and the historic peoples of Manchuria (like Fuyu or Goguryeo) than to Far South Chinese or SE Asians. And not to mention that Ryukyu, for much of its history, had been an independent kingdom, only absorbed by Japan in the 1870’s.
“There are other ancient Baiyue kingdoms on the Chinese territory today. There are three independent kingdoms that developed independently and are older than the two kingdoms bestowed by the Han Dynasty.Dian Kingdom, Yelang, and Gouding.”
It’s hard to say, they could be Baiyue or could be Baipu. Again terms like “Baiyue” and “Baipu” don’t designate particular ethnicities or kingdoms, but referred to the ensemble of Non-Sinitic peoples in the southeast (in the case of Baiyue) and in the southwest (in the case of Baipu).
The viewing link does not work 
I did not question their architecture, just thought about adaptations.
A people like the Congolese would be a suitable addition for another people. I am thinking at that to an African DLC, who may to come yet in someday.
The commonalities are not so small, as to not bring them together. But yes, they would be even better, if they were alone.
Of course yes, that is why i opened up this topic for more accuracy.
My whole argumentation was coherent more than less with the other peoples. I have corrected the unclear allocation of the Taiwanese, that it would be good, to outsource the Chinese and Taiwanese from the Japanese architecture and make a unique set for them, as other users like @LapinVicomte unanimously and well founded suggested here.