I’m not sure why the devs are choosing to not introduce any new architecture sets in the DLC. Maybe the added civs just don’t need new sets. Either way, I hope that they decide to introduce new architecture in the future, especially if Caucasus civs will be added, which really need their own set. I hope they aren’t choosing not to add certain civs just because they need new sets, because that would be really lazy if so.
17 Likes
I agree with adding more architecture sets. I think some of the existing ones are overused already – we have six civs using the Slavic one and, once Return of Rome is out, six civs using the Mediterranean one. That’s too many, in my view. But it’s clear that adding new architecture hasn’t been a priority since The Last Khans – especially in Dynasties of India, in which the wonders aren’t even scaled properly.
On the other hand, I’m very wary of suggesting that the developers are “lazy”. I’ve seen a lot of that recently (e.g. it’s “lazy” for Return of Rome not to include such-and-such a feature) and it doesn’t sit well with me. The games industry has a huge problem with crunch culture, which is partly motivated by fans accusing developers of laziness – we should avoid stooping to that level. What might look like laziness from our point of view is much more likely to be the result of managers not allocating resources the way we want them allocated.
31 Likes
Fully agree most of these people who are saying devs are lazy clearly have no idea how much work and time is needed to do things.
11 Likes
I think it might be a good idea to introduce “half” architecture sets where only some buildings like monasteries and houses are different.
Or making parts of a building like the statue in front of the university different.
This way there could be more diversity with less work.
And it could “smooth” the transition between architecture sets by having civilisations from different sets share some buildings like monasteries depending on religion.
For example Poles could be Eastern European while Bohemians are Central European but they would get some shared new buildings.
Some “gamers” want everything, they want it now and they want it for free.
“I paid 5€/$ once for the game in a sale, can you please add this super complicated feature for me, also why hasn’t there been a patch in weeks, reeee!”
9 Likes
I think that such Architecture Sets are needed for more variety of European civs:
- Byzantine Architecture Set - Byzantines, Bulgarians + Serbs
- Iberian Architecture Set - Castilians (currently Spanish), Portuguese + Aragonese
- Northern European Architecture Set - Goths, Norwegians (currently Vikings) + Danes and Swedes
DLC proposals with which these Architecture Sets had their premiere:
- Balkan DLC - Croatians, Romanians & Serbs (Byzantine Architecture Set)
- Mediterranean DLC - Aragonese, Moors & Venetians (Iberian Architecture Set)
- Lords of the North DLC - Danes & Swedes (Northern European Architecture Set)
7 Likes
In addition, a Nomadic Architecture Set for Huns, Mongols and Cumans should be created.
With these changes, the Central European Architecture Set would no longer contain civs that simply don’t belong there. Goths, Vikings and Huns would be replaced by brand new civs: Alemanni, Bavarians, Franconians and Saxons + Bohemians.
5 Likes
This will leave teutons and huns in the german set which makes no sense.
1 Like
At this point I’d be happy for just changing a few. I think there has been some compelling cases set out here for swapping Bohemians from Eastern Euro to Central Euro and Persia from the Middle East set to the Central Asian one. There is a good historical case for it plus it gives some underused sets some more civs.
But yes to new architecture too please. I know some will bristle at this but I’d happily pay a bit of money for a cosmetic dlc that added some new styles. Something like a Castle pack that gives some of the older civs unique castles. The East Asian style looks very Japanese to me and is not a good fit for China/Vietnam etc. especially the Castle so I’d like to see that improved.
4 Likes
East Asia has 5 civs which also very crowded.
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure destruction animations made the addition of new architecture sets far more difficult. That’s probably one of the reasons why the devs have avoided having to deal with new sets since the DE came out.
I’m sad I can’t upvote this comment more than once.
Houses would probably not be a good idea. It seems simpler because they are smaller buildings, but you have to keep in mind there are three different shapes of house + they’re there from the Dark Age and change over time, so there are actually a dozen different models of hosues per set.
Monasteries on the other hand would be a good idea, and the recent threads showing many possible variants for monasteries and monks show that many members of the community (including me) would like this idea.
Changing the university statue is actually briliant, I think. Now I want to see it in game.
I don’t think the Mongols belong with the other two. When you look at the remains or drawings of the city of Karakorum, the capital of the Yuan dynasty which they built themselves when they decided to settle, it is actually pretty close to Chinese architecture. As @DukeOfLorraine suggested in another thread, maybe it would work better to have different sets for Eastern Nomads (Mongols and possibly Jurchens, Khitans and Tanguts in the future) and Western Nomads (Cumans and Huns, and maybe Kazars, Vandals, Avars, Vandals and/or Pechenegs…)
====
Other sets that I would like to see added would include South American (Inca, Chimu, Muisca, Mapuche…), Balkanic (Byzantines, Bulgarians, Serbians, Vlachs…), Caucasian (Georgians, Armenians, possibly Alans and Avars if they’re not put into the Western Nomads, or maybe the Azeri), plus a split of the African set into West African (Malians, Songhais, Soninke…), East African (Ethiopians, Nubians, Somali…) and Central African (Congolese, Swahili, Shona…)
1 Like
I dont see why new architecture is required. Just load us up with a bunch of civs. If they’re struggling with ideas i know people who can help.
Remember 20 years ago when tech was simpler, they farted out a Koreans civ. I cant see why thry cant make other intrtesting civs too.
1 Like
I explained it in the post below:
I explained it in the post above:
The part you quote (and everything after the “====”) was not a reply to your post.
They only change once, from Feudal to Castle Age (ignoring Dark Age) so it’s not that much.
Houses tell you a lot about the culture of a place so it would be a very good way to make a civilisation feel unique.
The best example would be Yurts for nomadic civilisations like the Mongols or Cumans.
In that case they could probably stay the same between Ages too.
I think every building is valid for new appearance besides maybe the really boring ones like drop off buildings.
Not lazy but at least scattered, because how more work could take doing this kind of historical or regional improvements and release them with each seasson instead of the “funny” and fancy mods like snow man-at-arms, mounted penguins, etc…
A lot of players are asking for more architectonic sets for years and they receive penguins mounted in polar bears, sorry, but I don’t fin a good justification for that…
2 Likes
I dont think its the reason people call lazy. Remember at the core of the game is the GAMEplay. And not giving us enough new ways to play the game modes with new iterations is bad.
However sometimes reinventing the wheel isnt needed. With so many new mechanics revisiting them instead of overloading with new ones can be a great way to improve the game.
I don’t see it brought up a lot, but agree. The set is basically Japanese, and isn’t a great fit for Chinese, Vietnamese or future potential civs like Tanguts or Jurchens.
And it’s REALLY weird for Mongols. Especially as they never even got a foothold in Japan.
5 Likes
Thanks, If they do expand that part of the world a new architecture set would be great and the old one would become a de facto unique Japanese style
Or at the very least make a new castle style as thats probably the most striking Japanese thing about the current East Asian architecture
Good point. I assume they have a good system for making them, but it must still be a lot of work. I have mixed feelings about the destruction animations, because they look fantastic, but they make modding so much harder.
This is exactly what I meant about managers not allocating resources the way we want. I wonder who uses these novelty mods, and how quickly they get bored of them.
I have the theory devs are not to be blamed for this.
I believe the decision of implement these “”“funny”“” mods is made by the marketing and selling team of World’s Edge, people who are more businessmen than game developers, and believe these kind of mods and events are “what the youth like”. Forgotten Empire may be just following instructions from their financial overlords.
2 Likes