This model comes from Liu Zheng from Mongolian camp, but it is a model with extremely failed design, both in terms of history and aesthetics: a strange mix of colorful iron and cloth armor, the helmet is actually Islamic style, the overall color scheme is chaotic, patchwork and uncomfortable.
Of course, due to the busy schedule of developers, it is impossible to expect them to create a brand new, historical and aesthetic model. Therefore, I suggest that developers modify this model appropriately: the character’s body does not need to be modified, the helmet needs to be changed to Chinese style, replaced with a rider or knight, or even a spear soldier’s helmet can be used, and the horse’s armor can be changed to ERA3’s Chinese knight or ERA2’s Mongolian knight, which is much better.
And I noticed that the “Yuan Raider” and “Jeanne’s Champion” melee units are carrying bows and arrows behind them. Is this the game mechanism (these units can switch to remote)? Or is the model modification missing?
In addition, I request the editor to allow players to freely switch between the mount/rider, arrow bag, shield, weapon actions, and even helmet, armor, and other elements of the unit model (by calling the model path), because currently our adjustment package can only achieve the replacement of weapon models or the overall character model, and the models of infantry and cavalry cannot be replaced with each other, which greatly reduces the freedom of MOD development, Please let developers take this seriously.
Hello Sire, I saw you in many topics. I accept you are right but I feel that devs hate your topics. They even prefer to listening to “experts” who give out names like “Zhu Xi’s Legacy”, but reasonable suggestions here given out by their players who bought their games and every DLC(like me). Indeed, I had been an enthusiastic one like you in previous years, but now I feel tired and dropped.
I admit I’ve talked too much here, and it’s understandable that developers are tired of me and my suggestions, but it’s out of my love for this game that I want to make it better. I would rather believe that developers are busy with more important things now, and when they finish these things, they should have the opportunity to consider my suggestions.
Mmmm, I disagree. If a bottleneck is too small, little fluid will fall out. In this case, maybe you give a lot of feedback; but the issue lies with how much the developers engage with it. The fact is simply that there are a million and more problems with this game. Many of them can be solved relatively quickly.
Yet it feels like they have no one actually doing any of that. There are apparently developers working on new content, but what about the countless of issues that keep being shown to them since the beta?
There are either not enough developers in the developer team, or they genuinely do not care. I actually think it is a high degree of both.
The reason why Jeanne’s champions got a quiver is because their model is basicaly a castle french archer with a kite shield and a Streltsy axe (go figure why the bot censors the name of the weapon).
Haven’t been able to find the equivalent for the yuan raiders they don’t look like to have the quivers from the mangudai or even the rus mounted archer. Their horse though is the khan’s horse.
For the quivers it’s probably those placeholders/leftovers that will likely be gone at launch. Like the byzantine cataphracts got their nice byzantine tear drop shape shield on the screenshot presenting them, then you scroll to a screenshot featuring them with the HRE knight shield so probably an older screenshot.
TLDR what we see is a mix of the final assets reusing older ones for the variant civs and some placeholders.
There are never enough developers to reasonably action all customer feedback. This will continue for as long as games are forced out the door to earn money. Heck, I’m sure it’ll continue even if that doesn’t happen anymore. Players outnumber developers what, a hundred thousand to one?
I’m all ears for how to improve that across the industry, but it is a fact of the industry. Turns out, solutions are hard! You will see developers who are “indie”, for example, who don’t suffer that kind of financial constraint (but then also don’t have the corresponding budget to use, which can limit them in other ways). And you’ll see companies that refuse to be publicly-traded, so they’re not at the mercy of release windows / the stock market generally, but that’s a luxury most studios simply don’t have.
The developers will have a backlog. This backlog will be adjusted by priority based on how many developers they have available. I, personally, wish they’d have as many as they need to accelerate content plans so that they can prioritise more of the niggles that bother people. I, personally, wish they communicated more of this stuff with the playerbase so people at least knew if things were on the backlog / being investigated / in an upcoming release.
But nobody can snap their fingers and make either happen. The developers themselves can’t. So where does that leave us?
For me, the game is improving. The game continues to improve. That is something, and I hope it continues. So long as it does, I have faith that we will see these things trickle down. And I empathise with those who want specific things and don’t see those things, but I draw the line at any language beyond that.
(apologies for snipping the quote, but I simply didn’t want to engage with the other part of it)
Until a developer shows up and tells you that he’s tired of your suggestions, don’t pay attention to anonymous comments. Constructive criticism is good.
A long time ago (half a year) I reported that the Spanish translation of the game had a terrible Bug that made any technology to improve units instead of saying “mejorar a elite” (“improve unit to elite”) it said “mejorar a arquero de tiro largo de élite” (“improve elite longbowman”). Finally it was corrected, but that was because I warned, it still took months but they fixed it.
ABOUT THE HELMET OF THE IMPERIAL GUARD.-
Anyway, as you mentioned, with the helmet it seems that the main incorrect detail is the “mouthpiece” or “mask”, which is more typical of Islamic cavalry. As far as I have seen, most representations of Chinese mounted soldiers from the Ming or Song era do not have such a mouthpiece. As you mention, a helmet with an open face would be ideal.
At least in the following ancient artistic representations, the face is always visible in the cavalry.
I am making irony. I have opened ottomans landmark threads and I have put some evidence like you but this forum players dont want to see and say only Ottomans are good, landmarks are good. No need to change vs vs. I dont think devs listen you and change the model. They say that this is my game so I dont change it but one who want to see can see the what is wrong with the game.
It’s just unhealthy, there is no perfect game in this world and AoE4 is no different, always room to improve.
I do feel like there is a group of people who keep defending the game no matter what = basically saying “No need to improve.”
Say the “Zhu Xi’s Legacy” name makes no sense, with the historical evidence as support, then always a few people jumping in and “The name is fine for me” or “It’s not about the name but the gameplay”. Okay…
Folks are allowed to like things you don’t. You’re allowed to dislike things others do.
At the end of the day all that matters is what the developers choose (and are able) to take on board. Getting into mudslinging doesn’t really help that.
