I’m hoping that “popular mods as in-game settings” on the roadmap includes this, although I suspect it’s just things like small trees and improved grid.
This is fantastic…
…and this is even better!
I’ll have to look up some non-English localisations, I’d be interested to know what they’re like (not that I’m any good at other languages).
Which makes the Mongols architecture even weirder when you think about it.
are you paying the artists for that?
What kind of argument is that? We pay good money for good quality DLCs. This should be made.
Agree, the nomadic set is more urgent than ever. Alternatively add the Tibetans and give the Mongols a shared set with them.
If that happens I would be overwhelmingly happy.
tibetians would be fantastic, but unfortunately that ain’t happening cuz china (would love it)
Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis have Tibet as a formable nation and are not banned in China afaik.
don’t think their chinese playerbase is as big as age tho, not sure, just speculating
A lot of these changes seems to imply that all of Europe has one design, while all of non-europe, i.e, pretty much all of the world, have another.
I don’t know man, this reeks of that Euro-centric attitude lots of people have. If you actually want to do this, give different designs to different regions in the world. Middle East, Africa, Meso civs, South East Asia, etc all should have their own designs.
Granted, all the designs now are just based on Europe and that isn’t great. But at least it gives visual clarity. Champion looks one way and you can identify it immediately.
This was my critique as well, although I don’t think the intent was consciously Eurocentric so much as just very poorly resolved and/or not so well thought out beyond the desire for not all generic units to appear European. But yes, if we’re going to mess with OG stuff like how Aztec champions have looked for 20 years, any change should be for improved representation, not swapping out one overly broad design for another.
The German one is is kind of fun, not so much because it has such funny translations, but more in how it provides alternate names for units/buildings in game. For example, the Teutonic Knight is just called “German Knight” (Deutschritter), and Siege Workshop is called “Weaponsmith” (Waffenschmiede). That and some of the unit titles are entertainingly long, because German.
I believe introducing more architecture sets is the solution to the problem of certain sets being shared by too many civs, and this will also make the game more beautiful. Ideally, I personally like each set to be shared by 2 or 3 civs as much as possible, 4 at most.
My current ideal list:
For some potential civilizations:
NOTE: These are only assumptions and may not be realistic. For example, if there will be no Mapuche and Polynesians, then Muisca would most likely be with Incas and Chimu, even though stone buildings were not popular in Muisca. Also, the Vandals would be a difficult problem. Perhaps introduce North Africa set for Berbers and them. I don’t know.
tbh, I honestly believe that every civilization could have its own architecture set and that would not cause any readability issue as long as designers don’t go crazy with the designs. The only issues that could emerge are with monasteries and universities, which don’t have a standardized shape.
That will be wonderful, but providing different modules for every single kind of building in 40+ civilizations is probably too much work, I think. Let 2 or 3 civilizations share a set, currently only needs 17 sets, including potential civilizations needs about 25 sets, which is much better in terms of cost.
For universities I think it’s ok, but for monasteries and castles, really should have their own modules as well as wonders.
I think having “architectural sets” is a good compromise between uniqueness and readability (and effort). Some could be further split into subgroups, and hopefully new ones will be added, but I really don’t think we need 42+ (hopefully 50-60 civs eventually) different archery ranges. Its kind of an intriguing idea, but far more so in its anticipation than its reality IMO. But certainly unique Castles and Monasteries would be great.
Just an idea though, to provide more flavor to each architecture set, what if more standard buildings each had a visual variant (like how there are 3 different houses for each set, but they’re very clearly identifiable as houses)? Like houses, they all share some core elements, but with varied architecture and eye candy? Or at least turned 90 degrees so that all barracks/castles, etc, don’t have doors that can only face one direction.
Tatars should keep the current set, as they represent the Timurid Empire, which had very Muslim architecture. I might be on board with a nomadic set if it looks all right.
Yes, and also Hindustanis.
I’m on board with this.
I don’t think this should be a base game change. Any such change should be relegated to client-side DLC only, so people can choose whether or not to have it (being aesthetic-only means that there wouldn’t be a name change, just a change in appearance).
I suppose this could be a good idea, but Hussars were extremely European, so having them called that but be more generic could be jarring.
It depends on how the variant you want is made. If you wanted to give each kind of building a few more house-like variants, I think the actual amount of work is equivalent to creating new sets, because you also have to make new graphics for each kind of building.
If the variants are based on the existing graphic, such as adding an extra arrow target to the archery range, or changing the color of the horses at the stable, it can save a lot of time by not having to create a new graphic from scratch. Even, technically this might just be necessary to do something on the existing graphic, like snow on the roof, so it doesn’t need to be a new one, and saves a lot of both space and time. I guess the 90 degree rotation can be something like this, as it will only need to mirror the existing graphic and the accompanying snow and flame.
I agree with the central Asian set for Persians.
Ditto, and I also think the Hindustanis should have it too. Or, if you want to have a civ to replace the Persians with Middle Eastern architecture, give them back that set. However, Central Asian is a lot more fitting.
I think it would be awesome if they modified the aesthetics of buildings and units to showcase unique cultural differences of each region.