"Eastern" civs' walls should be redesigned, for specificity and uniqueness!

Since Rus was allowed to build its own stone walls in the game (through season 2 update 17718), I was lightly disappointed to see that it’s peculiarity was restricted only to the gates and the towers, because the walls sections were the same as the Chinese civ (be aware that I am referring to both: wall textures and the shape of the marions on top of such walls)
After the Ottomans and Malians civs were announced, though, it came to my attention that every civ belonging to what we could call an “eastern” frame (excepting the Mongols, naturally) – i.e. Rus, Abbasid, Delhi, Chinese and the Ottomans – do have the exact same appearance to their walls (the exception being – what makes it even more disappointing because the work is already there – the gates and towers which are specific to each and every one of these civs), and that feels frustrating. I believe this is an offense against the civilizational specificity that the devs have expresively commited themselves to and which – along with many other things – makes the game so much more interesting and attractive than its predecessors, at least in regards to looks and aesthetics.

The two following images are of Rus walls in game (both from Gamescom trailer from 2021, first showing the walls in-game, that are still in the same situation; the second being a design the devs made and showed in the same trailer):

Notice that they designed themselves what could be a specific Rus wall and yet chose to follow with a generic “eastern” model.

If ever the devs read this and invest their work into redesigning such walls, I personally would like to sustain that Rus walls should be redesigned (and that includes gates and towers as well) to have red bricks as their composition, just like the following cases of the Novgorod Kremlin walls and (for a proper homogeneity) some of the Rus landmarks (Golden Gate, High Armory, Spasskaya Tower):

Rus Spasskaya Tower

The following two images are of the Delhi Sultanate walls in-game; and of Delhi walls in real life that corroborate the looks that not only were most certainly the basis for what the gates and towers (and other structures in the background of the first image) look like, but also what the rest should similarly look like:

I will not discuss the Chinese walls, since they are fully coherent in and of themselves and because they are the basis for the rest of the “eastern” civs’ walls (I am aware though that there are other discussions in the forum outlining possible incoherences to real life); also, obviously, I won’t discuss Mongols, they don’t have walls at all (and I support that).

Here is an image of the Abassid Dynasty’s walls:

In this very specific case, it is a complicated matter, because I did see more than a single appearance to the walls of medieval Baghdad (both surviving and model reconstructions), including walls that have a similar appearance to this “eastern” look which already exists, so, as it is, it doesn’t seem to be controversial (but I still personally support a general change that would make walls, gates and towers all look the same way – in favor of the gates’ and walls’ appearance, naturally).

and last but not least, the following images show the walls of the new Ottomans civ that’s coming up (notice that even the towers have the same appearance as gate and towers, making it a starker discrepancy); and the surviving walls of Constantinople that seem to have been the basis for the gates’, walls’ and towers’ design for such Ottomans civ:

Constantinople walls

Please, forgive me for such a lengthy presentation, and please know that I am aware that this may apply to the controversial topic/discussion regarding the “it’s a game, doesn’t have to be so historically accurate” argument, but I do feel like and believe this is an issue of internal consistency and inherent to the game’s principles of making the civs unique (something that only makes the game more interesting, good looking and special, particularly when compared to its predecessor).

Anyway, thank you for your attention and feel free to make suggestions and opine on this discussion, any constructive argument is very welcome!

Sources: AoE4 trailers and Google Images


Very good. I would also like to see the walls improved historically.

1 Like

Yes your passion needs the recognition it deserve. Well Said. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

1 Like

One addition/correction to my post above, particularly regarding the Delhi and the Abbasid:

Only recently did I realize that the Abbasid Dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate have the exact same gates and towers to their walls. So, not only did the devs make the questionable move of opting for a single type of wall for every “eastern” civ, they also made the shameful decision to apply the same structures to two different civs (quite explicitly falling back into the whole homogeneity and plainness seen in older Age of Empires games).

Notice how the following image of the walls from Red Fort in Delhi represents very well the gates and towers applied to both civs:

I believe, then, such walls and towers should be kept for Delhi Sultanate only.

Why not just make, for the Abbasid Dynasty, simple arab wall additions that look like the ones that survive in modern Iraq from the days of the Abbasid rule?

If there is need to add structures on top of the gates and towers (e.g. to fit with arrow slits), why not add domes similar to the ones that are already on top of buildings such the House of Wisdom, the Prayer Hall of Uqba (the wonder), the university and the mosque? Would fit a lot better the specificity of the Abbasid Dynasty civ.

1 Like

It strikes me as odd that they’d add theodosian wall architecture to much of Ottoman’s kit, but not their walls, while Malians do get different walls. This post does a good job at portraying for those unfamiliar, how vastly different most civilization’s walls should look like and how out of place it is that the game is actively using placeholder items for such significant assets.


Mongols did have Capital City that was stonewalled just like the Chinese.
So, yeah, it did offend my country’s culture and history :frowning:

Yea, I agree, they copy pasted it and added a stone wall to Rus. A little bit of “Effort” would be nice.

Perhaps the devs should just do to the Mongols what they did to the Rus, i.e. if you choose the Kaghanate Palace when advancing into the Imperial Age, you get access to stone walls and its implacements (stone gates and stone towers) – depends whether the player wants to keep the nomad moving base strategy or if they want to settle down in a place --; and they should give the Rus stone walls altogether in the Imperial Age.

But that’s up for the community to discuss, of course. I am making a suggestion that could go both in the direction of fun and historicity.


I think the same. Since the balance of Landmarks is now allowed, Kaghanate Palace could do like the Russians and allow the Mongols to build walls in Imperial (IV).

Although, for balance purposes, since Mongols in the late game acquire a disproportionate amount of stone, (by looting buildings or by merchants with their unique technology), probably their walls could cost something more expensive, or another resource:

1.- their walls could cost “Wood” x4 the amount of other civs in stone.
2.- their walls could cost “Stone” x4 the amount of the other civs.