So what’s the historical background of destroying the “fountain of youth”? Or american gatling guns wrecking aztec villagers hiding in hausa forts during siberian winters? Are you really so sure it’s, at the core, a historical game?
That would be great, BUUUUUUT like I said
No one is talking about priorities here. When we write these suggestions we are not implying “these should be done asap or we will riot”.
These are just ideas. 80% of the ideas discussed here are not going to get into the game. We are just bringing up certain problems that we observe so that the devs might consider them as good and find a smart way to address them some day.
Now who are you, the ultimate judge of what people should ask and what people shouldn’t?
BTW when I talked about British churches it’s only because I saw all churches can change models at age 4 while this is the only one that cannot.
Your overreaction over it being “protestant” (yes I wasn’t even counting protestant vs catholic vs orthodox when writing) tells me about something, and that’s pretty much in accordance with some other points you’ve been making…hmm
1 Like
Well, I’m just going to resume the normal speed of the post, please, I ask you to avoid heated discussions and disrespect, I’ll keep an eye here.
Carry on with the discussion as usual.
I dont understand what is wrong about them. Its a game and its not the first one using wonders. It teachs players about monuments around the world. Its kinda general knowledge that everyone should know. If a 13yo kid can learnt it from a game it is good.
1 Like
I’m not saying it must be changed, but building Taj Mahal everytime everywhere and multiple times feels a bit off.
I think it could keep the same model while called something more generic, then the compendium introduces Taj Mahal like it already does.
BTW, most other games are just calling it “wonder” despite based on actual buildings, maybe to avoid that.
1 Like
Why is it “American” “gatling guns” “Hausa” “Siberia”?
Not “faction no 8” “super duper space marine blast cannon” “faction no 6” “faction no 12” “map seed 747839”?
Think about it.
1 Like
Its the magic of AoE, fighting koreans vs Vikings in Texas. Games like RoN or Civilizations where you can build Piramids on jungles exist while playing as Germany exist so…
Because this game initially had a loose historical background based around stereotypes, around the time when calling the sioux the sioux wasn’t seen as a controversial issue, or any issue at all. Personally, I’d like it to stay true to the original instead of demanding change for the sake of it.
For the especially, academically correct simulation there’s always the option of mods.
1 Like
It was then, too. It’s just that nobody bothered to ask us about it.
And as for the historical-ness of the game… my take on it is that every civ needs to individually be historical and a look on their own history in a vacuum. The fun in the game comes from when you take those historical elements and combine them into wild stuff like playing the Lakota on Honshu, protecting a Japanese Lord from the Hausa and Indians while Highlanders and Manchu get hired from saloons.
That’s where the fun comes in.
This isn’t a Civilization or city building game where you’re representing the civilization as a whole and constructing monuments. In AoE3 you play as a small offshoot or colony of the Metropole. Grand iconic monuments belong in the home city while the game takes place on the frontier.
What you should have access to is iconic landmarks that represent architectural styles or iconic industries. Instead of specifically the Karni Mata you could do a Stepwell or instead of the Porcelain Tower you could do a Porcelain Kiln. Buildings like that are just as iconic, but not one off constructions that don’t make sense on the frontier. And they are thematically a much better fit with a well irrigating to give a gathering bonus or a kiln producing goods for export.
2 Likes
That’s why people are not usually bringing up “historical accuracy” in this kind of discussions.
Personally in the points I’m making in op, a grander and more decorated church model in age 4 looks better. More appropriately modeled buildings looks better. Aztec and Inca temples look better. The game is not directly reflecting history but “the collection of the best and coolest things from history”, so what is the problem of adding more of them?
1 Like
The problem is that you’re opening a pandora’s box of infinite additional cosmetic customization for the sake of it, which is unarguably unsustainable and, if anything, should be the realm of custom mods.
I’d too wish to have a civ-unique fortress, civ-unique ships, troops, barracks, houses, markets, resources etc etc but there’s gotta be a practical line to be drawn, and imo the current state is ok.
Instead, why not couple new visuals with new gameplay? Let’s explore the greek or balkan revolution and include novel church mechanics, or rework the current and make the church reflect your choice of cards, like a petrine barocco implying you’re about to perform military reforms and musk-allin, or old-believers wooden church meaning there’s a boom going on and you’re vulnerable to a rush. Something along this lines, it’s just an example.
That is a slippery slope. Nobody says that.
Don’t put words into my mouth.
You can say they’re already opening some “pandora box” when they decided to make Native American units unique in TWC (not the same European models as in AOE2), or even when they decided to make more unique units in regular training buildings not one unit per civ in a castle since the very beginning.
I said a million times. I support that. If you write a proper list of ideas, not jumping in to call others’ ideas nitpicking, I wouldn’t object a single word.
But why do I need to be exhaustive in a random fun thread about what comes onto my mind? And especially when I explicitly asked people to post theirs? Nobody here but you is saying like “no the devs should definitely prioritize what I ask for before anything else”. I don’t know some people always act like “your idea is killing mine”.
And guess why I’m only talking about visuals not gameplay here?
- Because I only want to talk about visuals at this moment.
- If you ask for changes about gameplay, you’ll face even fiercer objections. You’ll see.
I said it’s not necessarily bad. They are a bit unsatisfying, but not killing the game for me.
But Civilizations are real “civilization” simulators. You really start from a small tribe at the dawn of civilization, and every “wonder” is only allowed once.
If you play an 8 player AOE3 game with all Indians, you get 8 Taj Mahals.
1 Like
I think the amount of patience you guys have in arguing with this troll is admirable, but you should stop feeding him.
Most people understand that in these games there are certain elements that try to stick more to the historicity and others that are there for the sake of fun, and they know how to differentiate between the two. For example:
-The game would be very boring if you couldn’t play any Civilization against any other on any map.
-The pool of units includes those that each civ used in general in the period of time in which this game is set, regardless of anachronisms.
-The campaigns are historical fiction separate from the standard multiplayer game.
(etc.)
But every once in a while someone comes along who isn’t smart enough to realize this, and uses these fun game elements to justify nonsense. Since these kinds of people don’t have the ability to understand this (otherwise they wouldn’t), I suggest you just ignore them.
Ridicoulous, nobody cares about having 8 Gold Towers in AoE2. You are overthinking it because of HC and real names of maps. If HC mechanic would have other name you wouldnt say anything. If you didnt care about adding USA you shouldnt care about getting wonders out of place.
Then, USA shouldnt build capitol, its in Washington, isnt it??
They have been there for 15y and have become essence of TAD civs, let it for posterior games.
1 Like
That’s why they are called “wonders” not Gold Towers, or “Torre del Oro” which definitely refers to that one building if you use it in English.
They can still be modeled after real world buildings like many of them already are. But the name could be more generic to justify multiple instances.
State capitol. It’s like you’re founding a new state in the new territory.
And you didn’t get my point. I said names like Confucian academy or summer palace are good because they are generic. You can build such a building everywhere, like capitol. Capitol is not the name for a sole building. You can build a capitol wherever you want. Multiple nations can have capitols.
My problem with names like Taj Mahal is that it is so tied to a specific building at a specific time point. You should make an analogy with “Washington DC Capitol” not just the capitol.
That’s why I also think “Istanbul Imperial Palace” in AOE4 is a really bad name (even though the name does not refer to an irl building), but some others are better like “Imperial Academy”.
1 Like
In my opinion Keshik would be fine just staying there. At best it gets a new name.
The Mongolian army does not need to change either.
Manchu just needs to remove the mercenary tag. Adjust its stats if necessary.
All we need is to bring in a new mercenary unit with Mongol dialogue and skin, named Oirat or Mongol or Keshik or something, and make it serve the Kalmucks.
No existing game assets are wasted, no confusion may be created by “swapping units”, and the Chinese can even get a new unit to be their Sipahi.
I think this issue has become a situation where everyone has their own point of view and preference.
This is true. It can be a cavalry that rides a camel and uses a musket.
The game is about great powers building new towns and competing against each other in new unexplored territories and frontiers. The developed home country territory represented by the Home Cities are far from the battlefield.
So the presence and construction of palaces or temples that already exist and are representative of the mother country at the unexplored territories is fundamentally contrary to the theme of the game. The developers did not obey the core of design. It’s not even about history.
I would go further on this point, as I stated before. I don’t think every age option needs a building as a container.
The effects brought by the age option of other civilizations do not need to protect a container, nor will they lose the effect if the container is lost.
I’d like to change the options that give active and passive abilities to grant those abilities directly to civs, hero units, or other existing buildings. In this way, each Asian civ may only need at most 2 buildings as the generic replacements for wonders. These generic replacements don’t have to be unable to rebuild either, as long as the effects are well controlled.
The only reason Manchus aren’t China’s default horse archer is because they were a mercenary before China was a civ. They were at the head of the Qing Dynasty so they should have been reworked when China was originally added.
Making them a national uber unit like Sipahi is a bit redundant if they already have Keshiks. Swapping the roles of Keshiks and Manchus and calling the Mongolian Army “Manchurian Army” instead would be the least drastic change since it would only be cosmetic.
There is Deli, a actually good heavy cavalry, and we still have Sipahi.
There is Gurkha, a actually good skirmisher, and we still have Urumi.
Keshik is actually not really strong against cavalry and artillery since it is weak as a Chinese regular unit.
Make Manchu act Sipahi-like unti for Chinese could be more important and interesting to the civ, compared to Sipahi for Ottomans or Urumis for Indians.
Of course, your suggestion is not bad. As I said, everyone has their own point of view and preference.
I am of the opposite opinion on this point. Skins, names, many have to be changed. This creates an inconvenience for recognition and forces the players to spend time readapting to the changes that don’t actually affect the game.
The Manchu was supposed to be a strong horse archer, but turned into a weak unit, and the Keshik became the opposite. The Mongolian Scourge card were supposed to strengthen the Mongolian Army but we suddenly lost them and make the card strengthen non-Mongolian stuff.
For me, it would be easier to adapt and not too much work for the devs if just making Manchu not a mercenary and replacing it with a new Mongol mercenary with no changes to other regular units.
An added benefit of making the Manchu an irregular and non-mercenary strong unit is that it can also be a Chinese isolation unit if Chinese isolation is implemented. Chinese isolation is a far better consulate option than the German ally. The isolationism and conservatism of the Qing court had a far more profound impact on China than the Germans who interacted since the late 19th century.