But then who else would get the Japanese style? I don’t want the Japanese to have a set all their own.
Aside from the roof colors, these styles look relatively similar to me, having wood and paper as the main materials for the walls. I’m not sure a game like AoE2 needs another East Asian set.
Before India got split they had a unique architecture for a really long time and that wasn’t an issue.
I’m not sure a game like AoE2 needs another East Asian set.
Sure the game doesnt need anything it’s already gone on for far longer than anyone could have expected but we are just discussing things we’d like to see. I’m not sure why you are directing so much opposition at this suggestion in particular.
I find it hard to look at those two styles from Rise of Nations and say they look similar, especially the castles
4 Likes
I mean, I guess we could have a separate architecture set, but it seems relatively low on the priority list, and I think the one we have now is fine.
I don’t agree that Chinese and Japanese architecture, such as in the example you provided, are basically the same in style, beyond them both being recognisably East Asian. Eg I think there’s very clear differences in materials, ornamentation and the shape of the roofs. I don’t think it’d be impossible to create a generic “East Asian” set though, but I’d say the architecture in-game looks too Japanese overall right now. However I wouldn’t want it changed in anyway because it’s classic, so to rectify that they could just introduce a separate Chinese set. Hopefully they’ll be a new set for the inevitable East Asian DLC anyway.
But basically I just wanted to question your view of it being fine that “A lot of civs have architecture styles that don’t fully fit them”, whilst saying that Georgians must have their own set, which seemed a bit illogical, and support those who, like you, are passionate about cultures being represented properly. But we can just agree to disagree, and have a good one.
2 Likes
Another good example would be Chinese in AoE3 vs Japanese in AoE3.
2 Likes
I think the issue here is that there are currently no explicitly Byzantine styles in the game. That is, there are no architecture sets that incorporate Eastern Orthodox buildings. Eastern European gets close, but that’s more Russian Orthodox than anything else. So that’s why the Caucasus region needs a new set, aside from the fact that it’s not similar to anything else in the game outside of religious buildings.
Chinese and Japanese architecture is certainly different, but I don’t feel it’s different enough to break the immersion of having Japanese buildings stand in for Chinese ones. I just feel they’re similar enough that there’s no need to separate them. That’s the main distinction.
Yeah I totally agree that Caucasus should get it’s own architecture.
No need to clarify - understand your opinion about the East Asian architecture I just don’t agree is all. If it doesn’t bother you personally that’s cool, it’s a matter of opinion and I’m not trying to change yours, other people just have a different view is all and I just wanted to put mine forward.
2 Likes
Yeah, I’m fairly indifferent to it myself.
I don’t think they’ll change it, but if they do, there’s not much I can do about it, and it’ll probably be even more immersive anyway.
I’d like to see a new “Black Sea” buildings set and have it applied to Byznatines, Bulgarians and a new Georgians civ.
But I’m actually not sure if Georgian and Byzantine architecture are similar enough.
3 Likes
They should use a Byzantine one which can also apply to the Bulgarians. There was one set created for AOK:HD which could be rendered for AOE2DE.
3 Likes
You limited conception of Chinese architecture. That’s all there is to say sir.
Perhaps so…I had to look up the differences between Japanese and Chinese architecture, because I really couldn’t tell the difference. I think it’s not gonna matter to the average person.
Georgians can use either the cuman set or the saracen anyway they will get a new castle.
If you’re trying to make a point that that is how I sound, that’s pretty silly, because Chinese and Japanese architecture are a lot more similar than Georgian and Central Asian. I don’t know how everyone thinks they’re so different when their similarities are quite obvious.
1 Like
I would too, because I agree with @Apocalypso4826 that it would be better to continue to have an architecture set covering multiple civs than just one (if not for the sake of convenience then one of keeping expectations low). If the architecture of the Caucasus is similar to the Byzantines and Bulgarians, I think it would be ideal for them to share the same new set.
Following this reasoning, I would accept a single “East Asian” architecture for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese, with the appropriate adjustments to reflect each civ (perhaps something like Japanese in the Feudal Age, Korean in the Castle, and Chinese in the Imperial, for example).
Or else, in the desired case of we have more civs of the area added, two East Asian sets, divided according to the similarities of each.
The same idea would follow for the Incas and Malians. So:
-
No new civs added → rearrange the set to better reflect each civ covered. Example: Incas in Feudal, Aztecs in Castle, Mayans in Imperial; repeat for Malians + Berbers.
(I think Vikings would fit in here, if better adapted to the Teutonic set). -
With new civs added → make a new set for new groups of civs. Example: Incas and Chimus; Malian and Kanembu; Aztecs, Mayans and Tarascans; Ethiopians and Somalis.
However, this brings me a difficulty, as I personally see it as ideal for each set to have at least 3-4 civs. For example, the proposal above would leave the Central Asian set with only 2 civs — Persians and Tartars — or else, depending on how you see the latter, with only the Persians.
Of course, this can be solved by forgoing my idea. But how many would be ideal? Is 2 civs enough? What do you all think?
Finally, as for nomadic civs, I think everyone here seems to agree that they need a new set independent of new additions.
1 Like
Georgian and Byzantine architecture is quite similar with the religious buildings, but the vernacular architecture is significantly different.
I think it would be better for them to have a separate set.
1 Like
I used to think that way too, but I decided that Caucasus architecture is rather unique in terms of style, and only takes broad strokes from Byzantine architecture. As a result, it would look rather odd for the Byzantines and Bulgarians to have architecture that is distinctly Caucasian.
1 Like
Look at where georgia is geographically placed its between the ingame cumans and persians so either one will work same as incas having aztec buildings or eithopia having mali buildings.
Architecture sets aren’t based strictly on geography, but whether or not the civilization in question actually had architecture like it. Georgia was nothing like what you’re suggesting. It was much more European in nature.