Cultural skins for units?

I would suggest extracting the hard-coding linking civs to certain unit graphics and building sets. This way modders could add unique architectures/unit skins down the line!

Idea is good but this means there will be lots of skins and players have to memorize every one of them. I don’t think it would be confortable to say “What was that unit?” every time you see a unit

@mFd said:
I don’t think it would be confortable to say “What was that unit?” every time you see a unit

Iam disagree about that becouse if unit use horse = cavalery, if unit use spear + shied = academy, if unit use sword = infentry. No confusion is possible (not like aoe2).

Super interesting idea, but I don’t think it’s viable, considering the sheer amount of sprites and work that would have to go into this. It would also mean that we have to re-learn the units visually, which would be a little confusing.

@Amphiprion6 said:

@mFd said:
I don’t think it would be confortable to say “What was that unit?” every time you see a unit

Iam disagree about that becouse if unit use horse = cavalery, if unit use spear + shied = academy, if unit use sword = infentry. No confusion is possible (not like aoe2).

Depends on how much you alter their sprites. But if you do it AoM-style it can be very confusing indeed.
But if you make it with small details (like the ships in AoE2) like a different shield type/logo with swordsman/academy units or different horse/elephant types, and leaving 80% of the unit intact, divided in the same way as the building types (5 in total) I could see its aesthetic value.

@LegoVogel said:

@Amphiprion6 said:
Depends on how much you alter their sprites. But if you do it AoM-style it can be very confusing indeed.
But if you make it with small details (like the ships in AoE2) like a different shield type/logo with swordsman/academy units or different horse/elephant types, and leaving 80% of the unit intact, divided in the same way as the building types (5 in total) I could see its aesthetic value.

100% this. If you keep the silhouette of the unit the same between cultures then there shouldn’t be any issues with having different unit looks for each culture and still have them all be easily recognizable. Particularly if no two units of different types have similar silhouette, which I think is the case with aoe1

@LegoVogel
Yep, small change (like you said, shield / helmet etc…). As for building. And no need to change axeman i think.

@Amphiprion said:
Yep, small change (like you said, shield / helmet etc…). As for building. And no need to change axeman i think.

Well different skin/hair colour depending on culture would be appropriate, the weapon and clothes could stay the same on all seeing as it is pretty general caveman stuff

@mFd said:
Idea is good but this means there will be lots of skins and players have to memorize every one of them. I don’t think it would be confortable to say “What was that unit?” every time you see a unit

They do a pretty good job with buildings in AOE 1. For instance, bronze age houses are different for each tileset, but they are all immediately recognizable and named the same thing.
If they made it that easy to identify units across the board, I would love more variety.

@GepardenKalle said:
Well different skin/hair colour depending on culture would be appropriate
Yes!

@LegoVogel said:

@Amphiprion6 said:

@mFd said:
I don’t think it would be confortable to say “What was that unit?” every time you see a unit

Iam disagree about that becouse if unit use horse = cavalery, if unit use spear + shied = academy, if unit use sword = infentry. No confusion is possible (not like aoe2).

Depends on how much you alter their sprites. But if you do it AoM-style it can be very confusing indeed.
But if you make it with small details (like the ships in AoE2) like a different shield type/logo with swordsman/academy units or different horse/elephant types, and leaving 80% of the unit intact, divided in the same way as the building types (5 in total) I could see its aesthetic value.

Remember that in Age of Mythology there are different units, no different skins, and even so they are quite easy to identify. I honestly don’t see a problem in this, other games have cultural skins (like Civilization IV for example) and there’s no confusion.

@Daxtesoscuro said:

@LegoVogel said:

@Amphiprion6 said:

@mFd said:
I don’t think it would be confortable to say “What was that unit?” every time you see a unit

Iam disagree about that becouse if unit use horse = cavalery, if unit use spear + shied = academy, if unit use sword = infentry. No confusion is possible (not like aoe2).

Depends on how much you alter their sprites. But if you do it AoM-style it can be very confusing indeed.
But if you make it with small details (like the ships in AoE2) like a different shield type/logo with swordsman/academy units or different horse/elephant types, and leaving 80% of the unit intact, divided in the same way as the building types (5 in total) I could see its aesthetic value.

Remember that in Age of Mythology there are different units, no different skins, and even so they are quite easy to identify. I honestly don’t see a problem in this, other games have cultural skins (like Civilization IV for example) and there’s no confusion.

Age of Mythology does have a problem with visual feedback on units. When battles rage it is often a big mess and individual unit types are not as easily recognizable at a glance as they should be. You should be able to instantly recognize all unit types in play the moment your eyes hit the screen, no matter how big the battle is - this is not the case in AoM and even AoE2 has some issues here (though it is much better).

That said I agree that different unit skins for each culture could be done, but it needs to be done carefully and correctly. With great emphasis on unuiqe siluette and other factors that promote good visual feedback.

There’s room for improvement with some minor variety sure. Egyptian Hoplite n Phalanx shields are iconically different to Greek and Roman for example. I like the change In AOK with the MesoAmerican Priests. I wish all their units became unique. It would give them a chaotic advantage because the enemy can’t identify the units quite as quick. They where good to remove the horse from the trade cart but then forgot all the steel armour on the infantry. Now that I think about it, they shouldn’t have had wheeled carts at all. They should have been pack lamas. and Desert Civs should have been pack Camels. I’d be ok with getting rid of the carts for everyone and use mules, donkeys, and oxen instead cause the carts can get traffic jammed at gates. BTW, AOE needs gates, and diagonal walls… and garrisoning. speaking of wheels, suppose different terrain types slowed down traffic at different rates? lets say crossing sand is very slow but hard pan and grassland is quick. In AOC you left footprints in the snow so what if traveling repeatedly on the same ground left a trail that was a bit faster to travel on. you could also build roads for maximum speed. chariots and wagons would be slowed down exponentially by sand but also exponentially sped up on a road. you should also be able to dig canals and bridges. sorry for that tangent, getting off topic lol.

I don’t even mind the lack of female villagers. If you change anything, make sure that hunters don’t choose a bow or spear for animals and then a knife or bone for enemies. That was ridiculous. Firefly Studios’ Stronghold does it well, if a vil is attacked while hunting, he used his hunting gear to fight but if he was smithing or logging or whatever prior to fighting then he uses his respective tool to defend himself. In those games though you don’t have a choice on what each vil does. The direct obedience of AOE vils could be exploited so maybe they have to go back to a TC, house, granary, tower or pit to change tool kits? so a micro manager can’t just wall in a deer so that he can quickly change all the foragers baskets to hunting spears instantly and then defend against a raid. To make foragers defensible, maybe give them pruning hooks and animate the sprites reaching the tops of the bushes with them so that they have something plausibly formidable to defend themselves with in a fight. I think it makes it fair that hunters get a bit of range since they are the most likely unit to take damage and be far from home during an attack.


You mean something like this

The Roman and Greek, soldiers look sweet, here in the Alpha 22 build, still need a little polish, but the progress is good. Now i want to see the Roman Legionnaires.

@Augustusman said:

You mean something like this

Those female warriors are ridiculously unhistorical. Such things have no place in AoE.

@qweytr24 said:

@Augustusman said:

You mean something like this

Those female warriors are ridiculously unhistorical. Such things have no place in AoE.

Ok, let me clarify my post the 2 Roman/Greek soldiers on the right look sweet, and yes I agree with @qweytr24 the 2 females on the left are extremely non historical.

@Torgrimmer said:

@qweytr24 said:

@Augustusman said:

You mean something like this

Those female warriors are ridiculously unhistorical. Such things have no place in AoE.

Ok, let me clarify my post the 2 Roman/Greek soldiers on the right look sweet, and yes I agree with @qweytr24 the 2 females on the left are extremely non historical.

I’m not sure about those either. They would be hoplites I guess, since they have a spear. But other than that the models look very similar to longswordsmen and they might therefore not be distinctive enough.

@qweytr24 said:

@Torgrimmer said:

@qweytr24 said:

@Augustusman said:

You mean something like this

Those female warriors are ridiculously unhistorical. Such things have no place in AoE.

Ok, let me clarify my post the 2 Roman/Greek soldiers on the right look sweet, and yes I agree with @qweytr24 the 2 females on the left are extremely non historical.

I’m not sure about those either. They would be hoplites I guess, since they have a spear. But other than that the models look very similar to longswordsmen and they might therefore not be distinctive enough.

True

@Torgrimmer said:

@qweytr24 said:

@Augustusman said:

You mean something like this

Those female warriors are ridiculously unhistorical. Such things have no place in AoE.

Ok, let me clarify my post the 2 Roman/Greek soldiers on the right look sweet, and yes I agree with @qweytr24 the 2 females on the left are extremely non historical.

@Torgrimmer said:

@qweytr24 said:

@Augustusman said:

You mean something like this

Those female warriors are ridiculously unhistorical. Such things have no place in AoE.

Ok, let me clarify my post the 2 Roman/Greek soldiers on the right look sweet, and yes I agree with @qweytr24 the 2 females on the left are extremely non historical.

The female are Mauryan maiden from 0 A.D faction the other are Macedonian Pezhetaroi.

1 Like