Every time I see your icon I say ‘hey, I didn’t write this comment’
Edit: @Hzdrafxx
ooʇ 'ʇı ƃuısn ǝɹɐ noʎ ʍou 'ʇɐǝɹ⅁
2 Likes
What can I say? it’s a pretty cool icon. I thought about changing it but nothing came to mind.
2 Likes
I’m well aware of that. It’s just I feel like those who design campaigns are not really in it anymore. I don’t know what’s going on over there, are they struggling something? That’s why I’d want devs to open a little bit to us.
1 Like
I would far rather have 2 more architecture sets than any dubious Swahili DLC tbh
I would far rather have 2 more architecture sets than any dubious Slavic DLC tbh.
2 Likes
How about an Indonesian Architecture. It will look like the feudal age of South East Asian but with imperial roof.
Spain deserves whaever architecture Toledo has.
It will be offensive to them because Toledo has Moorish Architecture (Islamic). After Reconquista those buildings were forced changed to Christian style.
Two potential new architecture sets seem to be fan-favourites:
- Nomadic set for Huns, Cumans, Mongols. They already have a unique UI in-game and huts already exist. In case of an Eastern Steppe DLC, this set could also include Khitans and makes room for Jurchens in East Asian set as Mongols move to this set
- Byzantine (& Caucasus) set for Byzantines, Bulgarians, Armenians, Georgians, Romans. They could have ancient Roman architecture in Feudal Age, then focus on Byzantine architecture with Orthodox church in Castle + Imp, compare Catbarfs set. It would be one of the largest sets right away, but I guess the region is really complete and there are no new civs to be added.
As devs have limited resources, I understand that they are reluctant to add new architecture sets. But now, there are really too many civs in both Eastern Europe and Mediterranean categories. So I hope at least one of the two can be realized soon.
Also, two categorizations are controversial:
- Bohemians could fit better into Central European instead of Eastern European
- Persians could fit better into Central Asian instead of Middle-Eastern
The rest seems fine and still leaves some room for new civs, especially in African, Native American, Central Asian and South-East Asian sets, most of which could really need some new civs.
7 Likes
Not controversial at all.
Basically everyone agrees.
Why is Bohemia not Central European already? Poles too.
Makes no sense.
Goths, Huns and even Vikings are way farther away from Central Europe.
3 Likes
Could Bulgarians be added to reduce the bloat on EE as well?
1 Like
We already know this is not happening since the Persians represent all iterations of Persia in the relevant timeframe and the current one is accurate for the earlier portion.
Oh, absolutely. I would personally have the set be specifically for the Armenians, Bulgarians, Byzantines, and Georgians, and not the Romans like the other guy suggested. That way, it can be based on Caucasian and Byzantine architecture, and can be called the Black Sea set, as all civs with it would border the Black Sea.
Are you sure about that?
They look a lot like the Central Asian set to me.
1 Like
Not really. I’m just repeating what I keep seeing on the forums and Reddit.
My advice, don’t do that.
Instead, look at evidence provided.
2 Likes
Not an expert on Bulgarians tbh but probably yes because their wonder looks very close to the style I’m referring for Byzantines, Romans, Georgians and Armenians (take a look at pictures I posted in the next comment from the one you quoted and you can clearly see the pattern, maybe try to confront it with something Bulgars built).
2 Likes
I think they look at E. Euro architecture as Slavic architeture (other than Magyars and Lith. of course). Tbh I think Poles should stay E. Euro but Bohemians should for sure be moved to Cent. Euro architecture. Honestly…this is a stretch but maybe they could move Magyars to Cent. Euro architecture too, though i’m not advocating that one, just throwing out there as an idea
3 Likes
My idea for the set (which I fully intend on finishing my sketches for) would be mostly based on Georgian and Armenian architecture as opposed to Byzantine architecture, but given there are quite a lot of similarities, it could work well for all four Black Sea civs. For me, the Monastery would be based on Jvari Monastery, since the Armenians and Georgians have Fortified Churches, and thus giving the set an exclusively Caucasian church when the two Caucasian civs can’t build it is strange. Jvari Monastery is Georgian, yes, but it also looks generically Byzantine.
The Feudal Age architecture would be based on the mountain villages in Georgia such as Ushguli and Dartlo, in Svaneti and Tusheti respectively. I’ve posted pictures before, so I’m not going to do that again, but you’d be able to see where the style comes from.
The Castle Age architecture can be based mostly on Armenian and Georgian churches, with a similar coloration to the buildings you posted. The challenge is making the Fortified Churches fit in, since they were designed to fit the Mediterranean set.
The Imperial Age set can be darker in color and more exclusively Byzantine, with many details based on this Bulgarian church in particular.
What’s especially important to me is that the towers look Georgian. You can see them in the mountain villages I referenced, and Georgia is famous for its towers, so the towers looking authentic is important to my immersion.
1 Like
Okay but where’s the fun in that?