Besteiro upgrade - this one has been mentioned elsewhere - basically it upgrades to an (awesome) Napoleonics era uniform but still has the 16th century crossbow. I’d love to see this Royal Guard upgrade return to a more realistic 16th look, whether armoured and wearing a morion helmet or unarmoured with a broad-brimmed hat and nice looking threads from the late 1500s. The wonderful, current upgrade skin looks like a prime ‘unit replacement’ shipment kind of thing, but that’s not for here…
Feitorias - a shipment that makes the Ports Town Center unique via it’s resource trickles - that ticks the box for a unit or building that does something ‘extra’ stat-wise compared to the standard! I’d love to see renamed Town Centers with their model to look like a trading/warehouse/factory amalgamation with the same silhouette of a TC.
Wrong units for Asian civs now need to be corrected, the game has changed enough for European civs recently. Obviously most of the players in this game are in Asia, especially China, and they have to endure so many historical mistakes. I don’t think it’s fair.
This is quite a popular civ for skin and name changes.
I wish the various codexs were used for reference for unit types - they surprisingly easy to follow!
I don’t know where to start with Aztecs - the use of ‘Knights’? They had Noble Warriors, backed up by commoners and had a ranking system. There were no Arrow Knights, and generally bows and slings were for commoners, whilst Macuahuitl could only be used if you had captured at least one enemy soldier and nobles generally used atlatl for their ranged weaponry.
Skulls Knights should Cuachic (graphic and name change) and Otontin are way-off - their name is for the second highest ranked noble warriors and their in-game upgrades model is that of a Papalotl (2- captive rank noble). They should just be Yaoquizqueh (commoner) slingers, especially as they are trained at the war hut and not the noble hut.
I have always felt that all the changes to make the image of the units in the game more in line with history are very meaningful, which can not only enhance the immersion of the game for players, but also enhance the entertainment and attract new players.
Many Chinese history enthusiasts, after coming into contact with the Chinese civilization in Empire III, will feel a very strange, familiar and strange feeling, because there are many military units which make people who know Chinese culture feel very strange.
I think developers have also paid attention to the messages left by Chinese players on steam, and from time to time there are complaints about the design of Chinese units.
Of course, it’s not just China, but at present, China in the game may be one of the civilizations with the most stereotypes and historico errors.
I think it is better to make some fine-tuning on the existing basis than to deduce and redo it. This is what I have been calling for in the forum. The simplest way is to redesign the visual effect for the unit, because as far as my personal experience is concerned, it is much easier to redesign the unit visually than to rebuild it as a whole.
Would your prefer an Imperial appearance that is at their height of use or a ‘reimagining’ using 19th century aesthetics?
For example, the Portuguese Besteiro gets reimagined as a crossbowman in Napoleonic-era uniforms instead of appearing in uniforms linked to ‘its era’, and as a counterpoint, the German Dopplesoldner Imperial upgrade retains its period of uniform.
All Noble hut units that use ‘Knight’ should just use ‘Warrior’
Cuextecatl - replaces Arrow Knight. The skin used is of the Cuextecatl (2 captive rank Warrior), so it already fits in within the Noble Hut - it’s just the name is completely made-up. There was no such thing as Arrow Knight/Noble/Warrior. This would be a great, super-minor change. Personally I’d rather them use Atlatl as noble warriors much prefered them over bows which were (along with slings) more for the lower ranks to use in the initial skirmish before the big-hitters rush in.
Alternatively, separate the wooden wall from the stone wall as two separate “buildings”. The “Bastion” technology would replace the current stone wall with something more akin to a more early modern fortification.
Whilst it would be awesome to have those Fort Walls, they’re not great for standard (especially multiplayer) gameplay - 1. they only face one way, meaning it’s probably a knightmare to fix that and 2. they take up too much space.
I’m aware the fort wall from the campaigns/select maps exist, however, gameplay wise, they take more space than standard ones and they only face one way.
A compromise is to change the model of the current walls to represent the more early modern era rather than middle ages, whilst using the same footprint.
Also I’d totally love to see wood and stone walls being able to be built independently as the above post - as long as the differences are pronounced - stone being very slow to build, expensive, but super strong and wood being a cheap and quick fix.