Please give Sumeria the Mesopotamian Architecture Style

All around Egypt have their influence over every single culture this no means have same architecture. You take a class of art and history?



Hittites don’t make a obelisk or pyramids , because they are closer donuts means anything.
Gauls and Romans were close but they don’t share mostly of architecture.
Or Persian and Greeks, obviously the influence between those exist.

Im not saying they don’t must fix Mesopotamian to Sumer is evident they create the style.
They are much older than the others, again Assyrian are most related to Babylonians.(using you logic they are even closer than Hittites.

Another example romans controlled territories in the east this no means give to them the architecture from eastern even Bizantines have their own style.

Egypt and Nubia share mostly of architecture but nobody in the game must have Egyptian architecture.

All civs except Sumer/Sumeria have Egyptian influence. Later they have Greek…

This looks Egyptian or Mesopotamian?

I stand corrected , as of UPatch 1.1 (07-03-2015) Beta2 … and i quote: -> Assyrian and Sumerian restored to their default Egyptian tileset (building architecture and interface graphics).

Yes, my mistake on that one, it seems the original developer (nickenamed aoe_scout) has changed his mind on the architecture style. I have not played AoE Rise of Rome with UPatch since early 2015 and i do agree some of the things are … of the top of my head/from what i remember (not very precise … i agree … should read more before posting … i promise to do better guys)

For those interested you can see the chat here : http://aoe.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/aoecgi/display.cgi?action=st&fn=17&tn=6327&f=17,6327,0,10&st=1450

If, Augustman, all civs except Sumeria have Egyptian influence, then why should Sumeria not get the Mesopotamian architecture style?

I don’t see what Solomon’s Temple has to do with anything. Solomon was not Phoenician.

Good to know re: BornPants34 what that whole UPatch discussion was about. Was confusing. XD Why did he change his mind on the architecture style?

more interesting!!

In my opinion every civilization should have its own style. At least some minor details should be unique.

Reason for why he changed it back was because there were a lot of requests (due to nostalgia from what i understand) from other players to return to the old architecture style. From his changes, only the Egyptians would have had the Egyptian architecture style, while most civs would have had the Mesopotamian one(that would be historically correct as AoE tends to be historically correct - although i do not believe you are historically correct when you call a unit phalanx as it was a formation from what i was able to read around nor where Cataphract introduced as unit until the age 225-300 A.D. - but hey, who am i to complain?).

When he was developing it he was taking suggestions from multiple players and wanted (this is just me assuming) to get as many players on board with his changes.

I was not bothered by the civs architecture change. To be honest i barely even noticed it. But … sigh … some people want to have the same old chocolate i guess, even though it is a bit rough on the edges and dusty … if you get my drift.

SOLOMON’S TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM
A helpful source of information on Phoenician architecture is the Bible’s I Kings 6-7 description of King Solomon’s temple. This was, of course, built at Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE but the architects and artists involved in its construction were Phoenician and its layout matches temple descriptions at Phoenician sites and the wider region. Its general design shows a significant influence from Egyptian architecture.


This don’t mean Salomon temple was Egyptian style. It’s was influenced, Hittites never build Egyptian style. Influence isn’t the same as doing in the style.

Example Roman Architecture influence Spanish colonial or Neoclasissim but aren’t the same.

What’s mean have influence, may be proportions, may be base or the floor plan , may be material, no the same style necessary.

@BornPants34 said:
Reason for why he changed it back was because there were a lot of requests (due to nostalgia from what i understand) from other players to return to the old architecture style. From his changes, only the Egyptians would have had the Egyptian architecture style, while most civs would have had the Mesopotamian one(that would be historically correct as AoE tends to be historically correct - although i do not believe you are historically correct when you call a unit phalanx as it was a formation from what i was able to read around nor where Cataphract introduced as unit until the age 225-300 A.D. - but hey, who am i to complain?).

When he was developing it he was taking suggestions from multiple players and wanted (this is just me assuming) to get as many players on board with his changes.

I was not bothered by the civs architecture change. To be honest i barely even noticed it. But … sigh … some people want to have the same old chocolate i guess, even though it is a bit rough on the edges and dusty … if you get my drift.
Good to know. Frankly the Sumerians having the Egyptian architecture style really irked me because in Age of Empires’ own historical notes (in the Gold Edition manual), the Sumerian ziggurat appears (if I recall correctly). As a kid I wondered why Sumerians’ wonder wasn’t even their historical wonder. That would be like Romans building the pyramids.

@Augustusman said:
SOLOMON’S TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM
A helpful source of information on Phoenician architecture is the Bible’s I Kings 6-7 description of King Solomon’s temple. This was, of course, built at Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE but the architects and artists involved in its construction were Phoenician and its layout matches temple descriptions at Phoenician sites and the wider region. Its general design shows a significant influence from Egyptian architecture.
http://www.ancient.eu/Phoenician_Architecture/
This don’t mean Salomon temple was Egyptian style. It’s was influenced, Hittites never build Egyptian style. Influence isn’t the same as doing in the style.

Example Roman Architecture influence Spanish colonial or Neoclasissim but aren’t the same.

What’s mean have influence, may be proportions, may be base or the floor plan , may be material, no the same style necessary.

Sure. But I think in Age of Empires, “influence” is as close as we can get to the architectural style if we want to give the Egyptian tileset 3 civs at least. And as Phoenicia showed both Greek and Egyptian influence I think it’s fine for them to have the Greek tileset.

It would be potentially ok for Phoenicians to get Egyptian style, Macedonians Greek, and Sumeria Mesopotamian, that would leave Rome with 3 civs, Greece with 3, Egyptian with 3, Sumerian with 4 civs. That would be the most historically accurate way to go about it. Palmyra having Roman tileset makes complete sense, even if Carthage getting it doesn’t…

But really I mostly just must insist Sumerians get the Mesopotamian architecture style due to their being tied to the Mesopotamian wonder (of course, Age of Empires II also had that weird thing where the Britons’ wonder was Aachen Cathedral, but it at least looked like a cathedral that might have existed in medieval England…a Sumerian pyramid by comparison just beggars all belief).

I don’t care if Egytians only have a single civ using his art style.
You are demanding accuracy , I’m helping how the things probably were.

Phoenicians are canaanites, even their origins are speculative(sea people, philistines?)

Hittites don’t look Egyptian.


Problaby by nostalgia they don’t change in the first version.

The problem factor here is nostalgia mostly of fans don’t know.

Indeed Sumerians crate the early style but Babylonians and Assyrians were the master of bring this architecture to the highground.

The Hittite pictures you show generally show Egyptian-style wall reliefs and columns, even if the lions suggest a more Mesopotamian influence to some small degree.

I think having Egypt with only an Egyptian architecture style doesn’t make sense unless the developers of the DE create more architecture styles (I doubt they will create new ones). Phoenicians may be Canaanites, but their architecture showed Greek AND especially Egyptian influence, and as a nation of traders and seafarers their architecture likely reflected a variety of foreign influence overall. Unless and until the developers create a “Canaanite” architecture style just for Phoenicia and Carthage, the idea of shifting Phoenician architecture to a different tileset is not feasible within the limits of the game’s ability to portray historical detail accurately.

@mythdracon said:
The Hittite pictures you show generally show Egyptian-style wall reliefs and columns, even if the lions suggest a more Mesopotamian influence to some small degree.

I think having Egypt with only an Egyptian architecture style doesn’t make sense unless the developers of the DE create more architecture styles (I doubt they will create new ones). Phoenicians may be Canaanites, but their architecture showed Greek AND especially Egyptian influence, and as a nation of traders and seafarers their architecture likely reflected a variety of foreign influence overall. Unless and until the developers create a “Canaanitetic” architecture style just for Phoenicia and Carthage, the idea of shifting Phoenician architecture to a different tileset is not feasible within the limits of the game’s ability to portray historical detail accurately.

Doesn’t make sense if you want balanced architecture, Hittites don’t build any kind pyramids or obelisks. All have same influence there Egyptian and Mesopotamian , they even don’t know about architecture as terminology, but they make great buildings.

Greek Classical architecture comes in 500 BC. Then Hellenistic.
Im talking what is accurated based in evidence. Obviusly nostalgia and cheap development can be a factor.

Yes indeed the game isn’t accurated , Yamato Hoplites? Legionnaires in Greek fashion looking style?

Again Hittites look more influential by Mesopotamian than Egypt.

Right, but again, the goal doesn’t have to be “to be as accurate as possible”, as that’s not feasible unless you realign a number of architectural tilesets in the manner suggested. Rather, within the limits of the game, what makes most sense? Hittites are not, in my view, that much closer to Mesopotamian than Egyptian, and few examples of their architecture actually survive.

We don’t know that Hittites didn’t build obelisks. They likely didn’t build pyramids. But as I mentioned, at least one of their ramparts resembles a pyramid.

What about the Sumerians? Did they build a pyramid? No. They built ziggurats. So then the question arises as to WHY they cannot build ziggurats at all in Age of Empires when the Hittites can. We have no remnants of Hittite ziggurats. So as earlier mentioned, all this fudging won’t result in a perfectly accurate architectural arrangement, but Sumerians should AT LEAST have the Mesopotamian building style.

Yamato hoplites represent the uji warriors, and legionnaires don’t necessarily have purely Greek fashion; they look vaguely Roman anyhow. And this kind of inaccuracy extends to Age of Empires II as well–Aztecs get European-style pikemen with chain mail. But that’s all irrelevant. This topic is about architecture, not about other inaccuracies in the game.

Again. Sumer are probably the first civ that we can know about their existence.
For me add the architecture but don’t try get the things worse adding Egyptian architecture to another culture for compensate this mess.


This late republican army, don’t have that Corinthian helmet. The only thing the unit legión have in common with real Roman is a Sword. Lol.

Ok Hittites don’t creates Ziggurats but neither Pyramids.lol.
Aztecs and all precolumbian in AoE are a big mess.

I said before I’m not against your suggestion to add Sumerians the Mesopotamian style. I’m against you suggest give Egyptian to another civ.

You read the last of my point?

Again I’m not against with Sumerian have Mesopotamian style I’m against Egyptian style in other civs.

I disagree–I think the legion armor looks quite like what we might think of for a Roman legionaire (at least in a stereotypical sense). They had to make it generic enough otherwise it would make less sense for other civs (like the Choson for example).

Hittites didn’t create pyramids that we know of, but at least the rampart I mentioned twice earlier looks like a pyramid. They certainly could have created smaller pyramids with relative ease.

That’s fine from a historical standpoint re: against having Egyptian architecture for other civs, but from a gameplay perspective they have to give the Egyptian style to some other civs, sorry. :expressionless: I am saying that of the candidates Assyrians, Hittites and Phoenicians can fit that bill if needed.

@mythdracon said:

@BornPants34 said:
Reason for why he changed it back was because there were a lot of requests (due to nostalgia from what i understand) from other players to return to the old architecture style. From his changes, only the Egyptians would have had the Egyptian architecture style, while most civs would have had the Mesopotamian one(that would be historically correct as AoE tends to be historically correct - although i do not believe you are historically correct when you call a unit phalanx as it was a formation from what i was able to read around nor where Cataphract introduced as unit until the age 225-300 A.D. - but hey, who am i to complain?).

When he was developing it he was taking suggestions from multiple players and wanted (this is just me assuming) to get as many players on board with his changes.

I was not bothered by the civs architecture change. To be honest i barely even noticed it. But … sigh … some people want to have the same old chocolate i guess, even though it is a bit rough on the edges and dusty … if you get my drift.
Good to know. Frankly the Sumerians having the Egyptian architecture style really irked me because in Age of Empires’ own historical notes (in the Gold Edition manual), the Sumerian ziggurat appears (if I recall correctly). As a kid I wondered why Sumerians’ wonder wasn’t even their historical wonder. That would be like Romans building the pyramids.

@Augustusman said:
SOLOMON’S TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM
A helpful source of information on Phoenician architecture is the Bible’s I Kings 6-7 description of King Solomon’s temple. This was, of course, built at Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE but the architects and artists involved in its construction were Phoenician and its layout matches temple descriptions at Phoenician sites and the wider region. Its general design shows a significant influence from Egyptian architecture.
http://www.ancient.eu/Phoenician_Architecture/
This don’t mean Salomon temple was Egyptian style. It’s was influenced, Hittites never build Egyptian style. Influence isn’t the same as doing in the style.

Example Roman Architecture influence Spanish colonial or Neoclasissim but aren’t the same.

What’s mean have influence, may be proportions, may be base or the floor plan , may be material, no the same style necessary.

Sure. But I think in Age of Empires, “influence” is as close as we can get to the architectural style if we want to give the Egyptian tileset 3 civs at least. And as Phoenicia showed both Greek and Egyptian influence I think it’s fine for them to have the Greek tileset.

It would be potentially ok for Phoenicians to get Egyptian style, Macedonians Greek, and Sumeria Mesopotamian, that would leave Rome with 3 civs, Greece with 3, Egyptian with 3, Sumerian with 4 civs. That would be the most historically accurate way to go about it. Palmyra having Roman tileset makes complete sense, even if Carthage getting it doesn’t…

But really I mostly just must insist Sumerians get the Mesopotamian architecture style due to their being tied to the Mesopotamian wonder (of course, Age of Empires II also had that weird thing where the Britons’ wonder was Aachen Cathedral, but it at least looked like a cathedral that might have existed in medieval England…a Sumerian pyramid by comparison just beggars all belief).

Everything you say makes sense and keeps a fair spread of the different tilesets +1. Agree.

Thanks! So full tally of the most balanced distribution with some historical accuracy:

Egyptian–Egypt, Phoenicia*, Assyria
Mesopotamian–Hittites, Babylon, Sumeria*, Persians
Greek–Greek, Minoan, Macedonian*
Roman–Rome, Palmyra, Carthage
Asian–Choson, Shang, Yamato

Only three civs’ styles need be shifted for this to work–Phoenicia from Greek to Egyptian style, Sumeria from Egyptian to Sumerian style, and Macedonian from Roman to Greek style. :smiley:

Maybe the developers will at least let us customize the architecture sets in the scenario editor? (Since I doubt they will shift any architecture styles, even if it takes little effort.)

Change Macedonian for Carthage, Macedonian successors creates most rich art called Hellenistic.

If AOE DE is going to have a workshop, there is going to be a custom mod to change it for sure :wink:

Would have to be, since I doubt the developers would make an official change. We’ve been scant on news in general for the last two weeks.