I am also disappointed that there is no unique Caucasian architecture set.
However if I would do a “cost benefit analysis” and being the devil’s advocate:
After giving an unique Caucasian architecture set to Armenia, Georgians, Byzantine et cetera, are there future civs that could use this set?
Not really, the new Caucasian architecture set would probably a “dead end” for future use.
If the developers would make a new new architecture set, they probably want to make one that can be used for a lot of future factions.
(I am also not happy about it, the likelihood that we ever get a new new architecture set are very slim at the moment)
At the same time, making a new architecture set would make fans a lot happier and probably increase sales of the DLC. So from that perspective, making a new set would be worth it.
Consider also that the devs remade every single set in the game for DE, along with making a new one. So making a new architecture set for a DLC that costs $15 (only 25% less than the cost of the base game) is not unreasonable.
Byzantines seem popular with modders, I guess because they had inappropriate architecture for so long. Here’s another example, from a mod for The Conquerors called Age of World Empires:
Those are the best set I’ve seen for them, except a couple buildings like TCs.
Byzantines should definitely have their set and I think realistically Balkan and Caucasian civ (orthodox Christians) would be included. Yeah ideally everyone would have a different set but that’s unlikely.
A Caucasian only set could be added if actually more civs in the area will ever be added to justify it (Cumans could almost fit given their wonder and kazars of course).
Romans should definitely NOT have the Italian set please guys. It’s not that because they were in Italy it means that renaissance domes make any sense lol.
Again ideally Romans should have a late Roman set to share with goths, probably Huns, vandals, Lombards etc but that’s hardly going to happen so I guess the best bet is the byzantine set. It will probably look slightly off in imp but not as the Italian (current Mediterranean) one.
Finally goths and in general nomad civs or people who didn’t stay in one place like vandals, Lombards, Huns, Cumans etc will always be tricky to assign to a set. My opinion is to make them switch set through ages but I already know noooo too confusing. Who am I if goths can switch sets and people switch genders??? Nothing makes sense anymore etc
For example goths could have a Scandinavian set (central European?) In feudal, go byzantine in castle (Ostrogoths) and Iberian in imp (Visigoths) if Iberian would ever be added as it should.
Otherwise the best fixed set for goths would be a late Roman one, no alternatives. Byzantine one would be off for Visigoths and early Goths.
Similar argument for Huns but even harder to choose. We have no idea of their architecture so everything would be arbitrary. Late Roman would synergize with their wonder I guess…
Also Roman wonder should be the damn Arch of Constantine already in scenario editor, not a super generic amphitheater (which is not even the coliseum), having that is like having a university or a market as a wonder, amphitheaters were everywhere in the early empire and they were not building them anymore after Diocletian!
I previously checked out “AbeJin’s” and other artists steam workshop to see, what they have in the store about the Byzantines, Goths and the other civs. And look here, there are 2 architecture sets for the Byzantines and 1 architecture set for the Goths and many more. I think, they look appealing and could be use in a similar form in the game here to “relieve” the current sets.
The “Byzantines” could share with the “Bulgarians” a new Balkan set and if necessary, add the “Armenians” and “Georgians”, but an own Caucasus set would be better for this 2 civs.
Credits goes to “AbeJin”.
Credits goes to “Catbarf”.
This follow “Bulgarian” set would also work well for a Caucasus set with the Armenians and Georgians.
Credits goes to “LordGood”.
The “Goths” could share the Central European set with the Vikings and or Teutons as until now or run it “alone” because they have such a special history across through many parts of Europe.
Credits goes to “AbeJin”.
The set for the “Teutons” and “Vikings” can be left as is or adjustments can be made.
Credits goes to “AbeJin”.
Credits goes to “AbeJin”.
Credits goes to “Redkirby”.
For the Mediterranean set, I would like to see a split into “Portuguese” and “Spanish”. I tend to leave “Italians” alone and unite “Romans” and “Sicilians”. The Italians can use the earlier set of the HD version, it fits pretty well. This set is difficult to split out correctly in a historically right way. It is easier with other sets.
Credits goes to “Emperor Jaco”.
Credits goes to “TriRem”.
Credits goes to “Catbarf”.
I would give the “Romans” and the “Sicilians” the current Mediterranean architecture set.
For the “Huns”, I propose a common Nomadic set with the “Mongols” to reduce the East Asian set from 5 civs. The current allocation of the Huns to the Central European set is simply completely wrong and does not fit into the picture at all. The same applies to the Mongols, their allocation to the East asians is a slap in their face.
Credits goes to “Gaudio”.
Credits goes to “Saint_Michaels_” and “AbeJin”.
Credits goes to “Redkirby”.
The Western European set with the “Burgundians” and “Franks” can be left as is, but I would also be in favor of dividing it into two parts. “British” and “Celts” could use a new Celtic set.
Credits goes to “AbeJin”.
Credits goes to “Redkirby”.
The Eastern european architecture set is also overloaded with 6 civs. For the Bohemians I would give the Central European set.
Put the “Lithuanians” and “Slavs” to the Rus set, already I mentioned here, which was planned for the HD version in 2013, it just looks great and from a historically view, fits better to this 2 civs than the current one.
Credits goes to “Saint_Michaels_”
The Persians should switch to the Central Asian set.
It is also possible, which I would even advocate, to give the Persians their own set, as they played a major role in the history of the time and deserved to be unique.
Credits goes to “Omar_gg”.
The East Asian set with 5 civs is like some others too overloaded. They should redesign this sentence, the current strongly Japanese inspired with a few Chinese elements are too uniform. A separation for the “Koreans” and “Japanese” from the “Chinese” and the “Vietnamese” would make sense here. I would even go so far as to divide the Chinese and Vietnamese, as the cultural differences are big enough, not just related to the different language family.
Credits goes to “Redkirby”.
Credits goes to “Yakko”.
Credits goes to “AbeJin” and “Omar_gg”.
Credits goes to “AbeJin”.
For the Southeast Asia area, I would give the “Malays” and the “Burmese” their own architecture. The existing set can be given to the “Khmer”.
Credits goes to "Omar_gg and “AbeJin”.
Credits goes to “Omar_gg”.
I now come to the Indian set. The added “Bengals”, “Gurjaras” and “Dravidians” of about 1 year and a half ago with the “Dynasties of India DLC”, should each have their own architecture, as the cultural differences are far too strong to combine them in one set with the renamed “Hindustanis”.
At this point I would like to refer to a forum entry with a unique Mod for Age of Empires 2 DE from around 2 years ago, which introduced a variety number of Indian civs including different architectures in terms of units and buildings. Microsoft and the devs can be inspired by this, because the work of this mod is worth highlighting.
Microsoft has already adopted some things of this mod, like the introduction of the Indian civs of Bengals and Gurjaras, but has by no means exhausted its full potential. The new human special unit “Savar” was probably taken over for the soon to be appearing, revised “Persians”.
Credits goes to “StereoQuasar163”.
Credits goes to “Juggernaut8704”.
For the Native American set, I would seperate out the “Mayas” and “Incas” from the “Aztecs”. All 3 cultures are too different, to be included in one sentence.
They left Scandinavia very early. By the timeframe of AoE2 Goths already were roaming around the Balkans and Italy.
I understand this can be a nod to the Goths’ origins, but tbh, that’s not a strong argument, in my oppinion.
I’d say feudal age can work for the whole mediterranean. It can even work for Georgians. Castle Age, almost exclusively Italians. Imperial Age, Italian, Spain and Portugal.
Thanks bro
Even when I’m not a fan of Abejjin’s style (He’s very skilled, tho), I have to say this is one of the best fan-made architecture sets I’ve seen. It’s really, really immersive and, at first glance, historically accurate, not falling in the stereotypical longhouse-only architecture.
I can confirm this. Georgian mountain villages tend to incorporate a lot of rough stonework with slate roofs or whatever, with wooden porches and balconies. It’s not 100% accurate, but close enough that my immersion is intact…until the Castle Age, at least.
I am of the opinion, that the Ethiopians and the Malians set should also be divided, since they have a common set. The architectures are too different.
