- Huns/Mongols: One of the thing that disappointed me with DE was Mongols/Huns were still using the architecture that is not really native to their civ. Thoughts on steppe/nomadic architecture set sometime in future?
- Hindustani: In the new DLC Hindustani got temple instead of Mosque while it represents mostly Muslim side of things. I even made argument about how Hindustanis are ok (like how majority population was Hindu) with them but at the same time, it does feel odd to some extent. There was after all a significant growing Muslim majority existed as well. I still believe civ should get another architecture with slight changes? In practice it’s not the end of the world if one Indian faction getting totally Islam focused. After all, Hindustani is mostly representing Islamic side of India (Gurjaras/Dravidian being Hindu, Bengali being Buddhist). Just look at leader names and civ emblem.
- Non-Hindustani civs: Also Indian stable still shows Camel instead of Elephants. Almost every Indian civs got access to Battle Elephants. Also Elephant Archer is something worth mentioning on Archery Range. So do you think those Stable/Archery Range should get some overhaul?
- Unique Castle: One of the things many liked was having unique Castles in Indian civs. What’s your thoughts every other civs in the game getting other types of unique Castles? European civs are the best candidate for it. In scenario editor they are either wonder or named as eye-candy buildings. Do you think it’ll be good to see them in the main game in one way or another?
definitely nomad civs should get a new architecture. Mongol, Cumans, Huns, Tartar .
The file size of the collapsing animations could be the major problem, u know.
Cumans and Tatars literally have their own architecture, why would they change it? Persians should be added to that set though.
A new Byzantine architecture would be good.
Yeah current architecture questions me whether they are Orthodox or Catholic. Same problem with Spanish. But hey atleast they are better than before.
Tbh Cumans could get moved to a new Nomad set. Tatars should stay as Central Asian tho
Persian and Tatars can move to Central Asian set. Cuman/Huns/Mongols should receive a Nomad set. In game Tatars are shown as a Muslim civ. So various civ design and wonder comes into question. Mongols are Tengri/Shaman. I wonder what’ll happen to Cumans/Huns. Magyar comes into discussion as well. They also represent the Steppe side of things. Ingame it mostly represents Hungary. Even Huns in theory.
Yes, yes, and triple yes. For most civilizations it’s fine if their architecture stays within “civilization groups” like “eastern european”, unless the devs really want to add unique architecture for all civs. The only requirement is that the buildings remain recognizable as what they are (university, blacksmith, etc).
As for castles, considering each civilization in the dlc has a unique one, i think the old civs should definitely get some love in that department
I’d like to see more unique/appropriate Monasteries – currently some of them aren’t really appropriate for all the civs that have them, e.g. the East Asian one looks Japanese (and has a Shinto gate, so isn’t even the right religion for the other East Asian civs), and the Mediterranean one looks Italian.
It’s a nice idea, but it might be tricky to identify some of the buildings if they were all tents. Mostly I’d like the Mongol houses to look like Yurts, like that Mongol event mod that it was impossible to keep after the event.
I don’t think they need any architectural changes as such, but it would be nice if the animals visible in a Stable matched what was available for the civ.
It depends on what they look like. I like the unique castles from Dynasties of India and Lords of the West, but I think the ones from Dawn of the Dukes look too much like specific buildings. The Bohemian one in particular has such a distinctive layout that it looks weird once you have more than one of them – I assumed it was their Wonder when I first saw it in a screenshot.
About the nomadic architecture,
Most nomadic peoples lived in yurts, yes. But towns AND even large cities still existed, specially along concurred trade routes and in coastal areas around the Black and Caspian seas. Semi-nomadic and pastoralist communities would move along those routes over the seasons giving life to these settlements.
Mongols adopted building methods and architecture from chinese and tibetans, Tatars took and developed further on persian style, and even Huns had a capital city in the panonian basin, whose level of development impressed the roman envoys.
Nomadic peoples were not 100% nomadic, so I don’t find it crazy that the city you’re building looks like an actual city and not a temporary camp.
The rest I more or less agree. Except maybe about Bengalis being buddhist. They were before islam, but I thik they are also intended to represent the Bengali Sultanate. A mulsim state.
The Bengalis were mainly Hindu but the Pala dynasty were Buddhists.
They are primarily Buddhist in this game and secondarily Muslim(some AI leader names).
Point I still think some sorta blend of nomadic/semi-nomadic architecture would be perfect. Like the way Tatar Castle is designed with tents
Don’t the Cumans also represent the Kipchaks?
Im working off Cumsns proper when I talk about them using Nomadic architecture
It’s the wonder building.
This many posts and no one has mentioned Inca yet?
Like, they lived nowhere near the other American civs, their architecture wasn’t even remotely similar.
Same goes for Ethiopia.
Mongols need to have their own nomadic architecture, having East Asian architecture for them is kind of weird.
Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese need to have a redesigned Pan East Asian set, while the current East Asian set is only suitable for Japanese since it’s based on Japanese architecture.
And yes, unique Castles for every civ.