Yes they are, just look at the ingame building distribution same set always shows up next to each other except inca and eithopia.
Vietnam is not part of East Asia. It is part of Southeast Asia. But its architecture IRL is more Chinese than Indian, so it received the East Asian architecture set in DE. And half the “Middle Eastern” civs were nowhere near the Middle East. So no, it isn’t based entirely on geography, but real-world architecture as well.
Saying the Georgians should have Muslim architecture when they had nothing of the sort in real life is just fallacious.
4 Likes
Are the cumans muslims?
Some were some weren’t.
Some where Tengri and some Christians.
Depending on time and place.
1 Like
No, but they also weren’t known for building anything, being nomads.
Anyone who seriously suggests that the Georgians should have Muslim architecture is simply going to be made fun of by everyone on the forum, for good reason. Go look at the architecture of Georgia and tell me that any of the suggestions you gave would fit.
2 Likes
If there are no new building sets added and georgians are a ingame civi which set fits them?
None of them truly fit (which is why I think there should be a new set), but if they were going to go with one, I’d say Central European, because a monastery in Georgia is the inspiration for the Central European Monastery.
1 Like
Thats a great suggestion never even thought of them as a fitting building set.
It’s only fitting in a pinch. I still think the best option would be an entirely new set. I’m not sure why you dismiss the idea.
Looking at the latest dlcs its doubtful we would get anymore new building sets.Obviously it would be great to have a new set for any civi.
1 Like
I hope you’re wrong. I think if the devs see high demand for new building sets, they’ll make some. I think part of the reason we didn’t get any is because the civilizations they picked didn’t need new ones. But that will obviously change in the future.
3 Likes
Didn’t want to create another same topic but I just wanted to say that I agree with @Apocalypso4826 on that regard. New architecture sets are always nice to look at. Hoping the next DLC is going to feature a new set.
7 Likes
If new building delay the churning out of new civs then by all means feel free to slow it down
1 Like
Anything new regarding graphics is great to have but we do have building sets with less usage ingame.
1 Like
We have two different sets with only two civs each right now (Africa and Central Asia), and honestly I think both should be split into two different sets.
2 Likes
Ethiopian architecture is already represented in the Imperial Age for the African architecture. It would be weird for them not to have them later on, and other civs to get that architecture when they didn’t have it in real life.
As for the Cumans, they’re basically a Huns situation, so their architecture doesn’t matter. I think making a nomadic set is a bad idea, because it’s going to look extremely janky no matter what.
Central Asia set is easy to fix just give it to persians.African set will need more civis.
2 Likes
They can keep the Imperial Age buildings for the East African set, they would be replaced by new ones for the West African one.
there is more differences in bengali terracota architecture, dravidian rocky architecture, mughal marble architecture than there is in caucasian and mediterranean architecture.
2 Likes
I agree that the presence of only one Indian set isn’t ideal, but that doesn’t justify giving the Caucasus unfitting architecture. There are already too many civs with the Mediterranean architecture. A new set would be nice.