Some Chinese forummers said that Medieval Tibetans and Uyghurs are taught about in Chinese history textbooks. It should not be a case of MS being even more prudish than the Chinese themselves in this case. 
The Tibetans are a huge gap right now. With that civilisation a new building set can be introduced and would also cover the Mongols.
2 Likes
Why would mongols have tibetan buildings?Chinese set is fine for mongols.
Not all the south indians are tamil or speak tamil so it might lead up to the same issues as umbrella indians.
a uu or the elephant line?
It would definitely have to be the Urumi, it is the most exotic and iconic weapon of the South Indias.
It could also be a high HP, no Melee Armour unit with a big attack bonus vs Infantry and Trample Damage.
1 Like
Alright let’s start with the Tamils first. It’s good that they’re a transnational group in the modern world. I really don’t think it needs to represent other Southern groups. We can leave the room open for more in the future. We’ve just gotta start somewhere.
I would go with the Urumi since it has already been designed in AoE III. What about war elephants or similar units though? I think all Indian civs need that.
1 Like
We could do just 3 for now. I recommend Tamils, Bengalis, and Carnatic for now (these three had large empires)
1 Like
I wouldn’t take Bengali away for these reasons:
- Thought the language was formally attested in the 11th century, the Pala used proto Bengali Prakrit. The same reason could then remove Franks and Portuguese out of the picture for instance. Franks for example are a Germanic group that ruled over a Gallo Roman populace that spoke several languages. French only became official later on (from langue d’Oil) and the Frankish language had disappeared by then. Italians too would then be a weird addition.
- Bengalis existed as the Vanga before. I think even Mahajanapada period if I’m not mistaken.
- Bangla people are transnational like Tamils today. AoE would see a benefit of targetting multiple countries then.
- I really would like to have Odia (Gajapati period etc) but it is a tough choice if we have to stick to just 3 new civs
1 Like
Fully agree. Yeah I would stick to the Deccanese architecture they currently have. One day when the subcontinent has over 5 civs then we could consider new architecture.
1 Like
They kinda did break up Saracens and Slavs though by adding Berbers and other Slavic groups. One of the comments suggested keeping Indians as Indians. I wouldn’t mind that. Then it would seem like the civ was not split.
1 Like
Hey you’re right. Some are nations, some orders, some geographic.
Because the Mongols (Karakorum) and Tibetans had similar architectural styles, a Silk Road-ish style. The Chinese need a stone building style, not the ridiculous thatch roof in castle/imperial ages. Maybe give that to the Koreans too.
2 Likes
My civ concept suggested they get the Battle Elephant line, with a civ bonus particular to production rate (therefore improving their BE-led Fast Castle). Their unique unit is the Ratha, an anti-Camel and Elephant chariot unit that represents the Pala Empire’s use of chariots against their enemies (making them good against the neighboring Indians and Southeast Asian civs).
The Chinese can keep their architecture. The distinct Imperial Age buildings suit them better, and the Fortified Walls also look Chinese. The main benefit of giving the Mongols a new Tibetan architecture style would be to not only have more than one civ have the new set, but also so there aren’t five civilizations that use the East Asian architecture set.
1 Like
How does it make sense that the Chinese, who were known for building in stone, continue to have thatch roof buildings in Imperial Age? Again, the developers have the models from AOE1DE, and it would not be a case of redesigning things from scratch. The AOK East Asian buildset was based off the ES developers looking at some Japanese faux buildings in San Francisco or somewhere in the USA.
1 Like
Japanese architecture in itself is heavily influenced by Chinese architecture, just as much of its other culture was imported from China. It makes sense that the two would share the same architecture set. The pagoda-style roofs are a common theme. Despite the thatched roofs, even most of the Castle Age buildings have some stone components to them. The disparity is nowhere near the same level as the HD Byzantines having Muslim architecture or the Huns having German architecture. If the devs still won’t change the Persian architecture to the new Central Asian set even after several months of requests and consensus favoring to change it, then I don’t see why they’d change the Chinese architecture, either.
The buildset change should come when they introduce a set of civilisations for the East Asian region including proper and overdue full campaigns for the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, and adding the Tibetans and possibly the Siamese. The impetus being for the addition of new graphics, particularly when there is a template in AOE1DE to work off. As for the Persians, its not impossible for modders to make the change with the AGE3 editor. Why not you be the one to do it instead of griping?
A nice informative video:
Would recommend taking out some time and listening to it.
2 Likes
they would first have to allow us to add civs and additional buttons (customized ones with working function/links) before we can even begin.
1 Like
That Marthanda Varma mention and deLanoy <3
1 Like
pala or bengal sultanate
maratha
tamil
punjab sikhs
delhi sultanate
manipur
1 Like
some of the head gears worn by bengal sultanate warriors… you can see persian resemblance
2 Likes
Manipur is great but the Meitei would need to be split from the Burmese.
1 Like