The best thing would be to give Babylonian buildings to 5 civs, and leave the Egyptians with a unique set. By the way, change Macedonians to a Greek set.
I dunno, giving the Hittytes the Egyptian set makes sense, considering their rivalry and adjacency. It certainly makes much more sense than the Sumerians, so the devs made the right call switching it around.
3 Likes
What I would do (changes are bold):
- Assyrians: Mesopotamian
- Babylonian: Mesopotamian
- Carthaginians: Roman
- Choson: Asian
- Egyptians: Egyptian
- Greeks: Greek
- Hatti: Egyptian
- Lac Viet: Asian
- Macedonians: Greek
- Minoans: Greek
- Palmyrans: Roman
- Persian: Mesopotamian
- Phoenicians: Egyptian
- Romans: Roman
- Chinese: Asian
- Sumerians: Mesopotamian
- Yamato: Asian
5 Likes
Return of Rome has changed Hittytes’ (can’t say their real name) architecture from Mesopotamian to Egyptian. I disagree with the decision, and I’d like to hear the rationale behind it.
No hard feelings, please let’s keep it civil.
1 Like
Probably because Sumerians were changed to Mesopotamian set and they still think different architecture sets should be more and less equally distributed.
1 Like
They don’t really fit in any of the architecture styles.
So either is ok.
Similar to Phoenicians.
Shouldn’t the Carthaginians be using the same set as the Phoenicians, if we’re changing things? The only reason they use the Roman set is because the civ was added in the Rise Of Rome expansion, which just added one building set.
They didn’t have that similar architecture so it makes sense that they have different sets.
Roman and Greek look kinda similar anyway now that the Roman roofs are red too.
They don’t really fit in any of the architecture styles as you say, thus in my opinion, the change was unecessary. It doesn’t make sense to change something if it doesn’t improve the situation. The old saying still goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The change just added confusion to the 99% of players that don’t care and never read the forums, to cater the 0.5% that actively desired this change without an actual historical basis.
As I said on another topic; unfortunately, we don’t really know what most of their buildings looked like, because their archeological remains are too scarce.
I would leave Carthaginians as they are, because there’s simply no better alternative, Egyptian set doesn’t look appropriate for them, except maybe the huts. It seems that they have occasionally built structures with pillars and even reddish roofs, from the very little information that we have about them. In the end, they were geographically closer to Rome than Greece (but admittedly, they were also closer to Magna Graecia than Rome…). The sad part is, that nothing was left of their original city after Romans completely razed Carthage and slaughtered all as a retribution for the Third Punic War…
The Hatti should have kept the Mesopotamian set until Armenia was added as a civilisation. Urartu and Armenian in AOE2DE.
1 Like
I figured the Armenians could have the Roman set, but I guess that’s pretty full. Greek, then? There is a surviving Greek-style temple still remaining in the country from Antiquity.
These would be the ancient Armenians.
These are the ancient Armenians. They had Greek architecture.
The devs clearly show that they don’t want to leave an architecture set with only two civilizations.
The problem is that the Egyptian set is very iconic to be shared with other civs; Egyptian set can’t fit anyone besides Egyptians. So my best suggestion to them is to put Phoenicians in Egyptian set. The area of Phoenicia is next to Egypt, and was under control of the Egyptians for a time.
Hatti to Egyptian set is very daring even if you ignore the obelisks and the egyptian-style statues, because the Egyptian set is very sandy-yellow for Hatti latitude (contrary to Phoenicians latitude, and proximity). Hatti were fine in Mesopotamian set, and they had a part of Mesopotamia under their control.
I would also move Assyrians to Mesopotamian set, and Macedonians to the Greek set, end everything would look like this:
We do have evidence today of significant Egyptian influence to the Phoenicians, a pretty reasonable thing:
3 Likes
You could also give the egyptian style to the Palmyreans.
Palmyra is sandy enough, but they represent this tho, there’s a Roman link, of the common era even, super distant to ancient Egypt chronologically:
Their capital is full of Roman buildings.
3 Likes
The southern half of Parmyre is Egypt. And the East of the Roman Empire is more greek than roman anyway.
So instrad of making new styles for some civs that need it they do this? Feels kinda lazy.
Picking a more appropriate style is a stop-gap. But given how much noise has to be done for new styles to be introduced to AOE2, which contrary to ROR has a high established value (ROR is in the question mark territory), we won’t see new styles in the near future…
1 Like
Egypt was under Palmyrene control for no more than three years. The Palmyrene Empire that you see in that map has lasted from 270 to 273 CE, while the Palmyrene civilization has existed for thousands of years and was mostly confined to the city of Palmyra and its immediate surroundings.
2 Likes