Mediterranean architecture for Goths

I would like to know if other people would agree with me. I think Goths should get the Mediterranean architecture set. I know it does not reflect the German/Nordic origin and what people think about them.
But in the timeline of the game, Goths were settled all along the northern Mediterranean shores: Thracee in the 4th century, the Balkans in the 5th, and then important realms in Italy (Theodoric), Gaul (in Toulouse) and Spain (Toledo).


Don’t really agree; if there were to be a Goths “split” into a new Vandals or Visigoth civ, it would make more sense for that civ to have Medi architecture though. As it is, I prefer the Goths’ current architecture, and am generally of the mind that architecture should represent a civ’s origins rather than its eventual migrations/settlement. You could even argue for Goths to be given Slavic architecture due to their early settlements in the area of Poland, and their longevity in Crimea. But again, I think architecture tied to origins trumps later influences linked with migration.

Huns definitely need new architecture though; the Germanic set is very strange for them.


The Visigoths were in Aquitania (western french atlantic coast and southeast french mediteranean coast) and Spain and Portugal.
The Ostrogoths were located in Eastern Europe and in Byzantine Empire.
And there’s the italian Goths who stayed in Italy.
The Goths could also represent the Vandals who moved to northern africa, specifically Morocco and Tunis. But Normans could also be fitting for this maybe.
I prefer seeing them as nordic or a frankish architecture.


We dont need short term powers as a civ. Like vandals dont have a long important role in medival age. If devs lower the standards then ıt will be need to add maybe 100 more civs.

Oh no… not that anything but that!!Hold on let me try and must some fear to pretend to be sad about getting many new civs without the blatant sarcasm shining through.

Let me disagree with you. Architecture should reflect architecture. Nothing else. Goths in the game are based on the medieval kingdoms of the visigoths and ostrogoths. Their cities had a mediterranean architecture inherited from the roman tradition.

The goths from the 2nd and 3rd century may have lived in villages looking like a primitive version the feudal age central europe architecture, but that’s a stage of them previous to the timeframe of the game.

I could use your argument to say that magyars should have central asian architecture and britons should have the central europe one because anglo-saxons came from north germany.

You kind of nailed all those points and yet come to a disconnected conclusion

Why? Those closer architecture to all those places is the mediterranean one.


I acknowledge that you can make a decent argument for them getting Medi architecture (although, to my earlier point, this becomes more compelling if there is a civ like Vandals or Visigoths that specifically represents the southern kingdoms). While it’s true that the Goth design is most largely based on the Ostrogoths, the civ is also used to represent early Medieval (“Dark Ages”) people of central and western-Europe - IIRC they’re even used to represent Anglo-Saxons (among other things, see: their UU). So for covering “Goths” in the most broad sense, I prefer the current set, but I get why some people don’t. Ideally I would prefer a new architecture set for Goths (and perhaps Huns) that incorporates some Mediterranean or Central European features, but is semi-nomadic and is more inspired by the early medieval period or even migration era, being that both civs are very skewed towards the earliest part of the AoE2 time period.

True, but it’s always struck me as odd to try to fit Goths and Huns into the same visual mold as civs that reached their zenith 700+ years after the decline of the former two. Gameplay/balance wise, there has to be a compromise struck there, but there’s definitely room for more distinct and appropriate visuals. Once the decision to include a civ has been made, there’s no need to apply “timeframe of the game” too strictly with regard to civ design for early-era civs (else Huns shouldn’t be able to advance past the Feudal Age), or to visuals.

In general, I think the game already has far too little content inspired by the earlier portions of the timeframe, and I’d dislike for the already heavily represented Medi set (5 civs!) to get another civ at the expensive of the Germanic (Central European) set (to which Huns have even less claim than Goths). And this will be exacerbated if the rumors of another “Romans” civ for AoE2 turn out to be accurate. Might as well just call it “Age of Rome” at that point.

Britons’ architecture and the Central Europe set are already the 2 most similar sets TBH, and both the Goths and the Vikings are better representatives of Anglo-Saxons than the Britons, who are designed more after the native (Celtic) Britons and Welsh. I don’t mind if the Goths have a style that is influenced by actual Visi/Ostrogothic architecture, but would prefer a distinctive style rather than lazily throwing them into a set that will then have 6+ civs. At that point it becomes worth splitting the set into more regionally accurate variations.


Forgot to laugh in Hunnic at this :wink:

Goths kinda represent saxons and other germanic groups too so they are fine with the current set.

If anyone should get a change it should be persians getting the tatar set.


Yeh, that’s what I tried to convey with a lot more words. If Goths become more specifically “Visi/Ostrogoth Kingdoms of Spain/Italy” and less “Goths of all eras/regions + catch-all for half a dozen other early medieval Germanic peoples,” then a Medi switch makes sense, but as long as they maintain their umbrella status and some northern European attributes, Germanic set makes more sense.


I agree with the Tatar set for Persians. Interesting answers earlier.

1 Like

What about lombards, normans, vandals? Age of empires 2 de: honks of western europe 11.

There are more prioreties like changing the Huns architecture. It is just so absurd and weird how a nomadic East/Central Asian civ have central Europe buildings and in history there were just raiders who have no culture at all.

On the other hand Bohemians should get Central Europe architecture.

About your topic, I disagree, Goths architecture is good and reasonable.


I don’t get your joke but if you even dare imply that the world is only in West Europe you’re a bit nuts.

We can easily reach the endless civ milestone traveling all over the world outside of Europe.

1 Like

I agree that the central European architecture isn’t really appropriate (especially in the context of the Alaric and Attila campaigns), but I don’t think they should get Mediterranean architecture, simply because there are already five civs that have it – that’s already too many in my opinion (which, I’ll admit, is entirely personal preference and mostly based on AoE1’s architecture distribution). To me, Huns feel most in need of a change of architecture, though.

The central European set is really not accurate for Anglo-Saxon buildings, especially the tiled roofs and the layout of the Monastery. The most accurate choice would be the Feudal Age western European buildings, since they’re wooden European buildings with thatched roofs, but the Castle and Imperial Age ones wouldn’t fit well either. (In fact, the Imperial Age ones don’t make sense for Britons at all – they look more 1700s than medieval.)

I don’t get this joke, but there are about four civs that can represent Normans, and (re: honks) we also already have geese.


Considering how we are getting Romans I think a new building set for Romans, Goths and Byzantines could make sense

1 Like

My point was less about Goths being an ideal representation of Anglo-Saxons, and more about them being an umbrella civ that represents more than just the specifically Romanized gothic Kingdoms of Spain and Italy (also in my opinion their civ design, including UU/UTs, barring gunpowder, is more based on the Migration Era than on settled kingdoms). TBH I think the Castle/Imp buildings of either the Germanic set or the Medi set look bad on Goths, and would prefer a much earlier Medieval look, even for their Imp buildings.

Would be better than the Mediterranean set anyway, since it at least looks older. Still not wild about a fully romanized set for Goths though (I may be biased since I’m working on a Goth migration campaign, and it would be wacky for them to have a Roman set much before ~500 AD). IMO the current wonder and maybe a more romanized Castle on top of an older-looking Central European set would be ideal.

because i think they should have the same architecture as the franks.

I’d like a shared set for Huns, Cumans and Mongols

Personally I would really like it if the feudal age central European set became a separate set.

We also have Sicilians now, they represent Normans.

And what? Make a new topic?? Yes I’m sure about this!!

Uhm sorry. I just wanted to say that Goth are basically Visigoths and Ostrogoths in game and they did settle around the Mediterranean, creating barbarian kingdoms and taking up the spoils of the fallen Roman administration. In the medieval setting, this is what Goths are.

1 Like