[poll] Cosmetic DLC

im not sure why some are so against a “free” skin DLC as form of monthly releases that they’ve got already going on.

You believe that it would introduce a lot of bugs if regional skins were paid compared to them being free?

How should that be the case? The source code of the game would be literally identical in both cases.
The only difference would be in Steam or the Microsoft Store where you have to make a purchase instead of downloading it for free.

They are not going to completely remove visual mods just to prevent piracy. That would be very hard to do for them and would generate so much hatred in the community that I could never imagine them doing that.

I’m not against it being free. Doesn’t matter if at once or in monthly updates.
But I rather pay a few bucks now then to have to wait for years of updates to get the same content.

im not sure what it’ll introduce tbh, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that they have been breaking stuff they have fixed in the past, multiple times at that. incompetence or simply not enough man power to testgame w/e we call it, issue would simply resurface and they have a clear history of that.

ignoring that fact and past issue is simply ignorant and thats saying it nicely.

answer me on this, what is it about having it as monthly release you don’t like? this is the 3rd probably 4th time i’m asking you this and you have yet to give a clear answer.

edit: I just read the last of your last reply. I wouldn’t call it years, they are doing it pretty frequently and vast majority of the time are skins that nobody really wanted or asked for, like polarbear knight etc. they can totally put that effort and direct it to say, regional skins or UU skins.

I think that since AoE 3 has DLC adding skins for Hero units, then AoE 2 could also have DLC focusing on units - the question is which ones.

I think Architecture Sets should be free or unique to civs with DLC - eg Caucasian Architecture Set in Caucasian DLC.

The appearance of civilian units is also slowly becoming adapted to the respective regions.So I think such a DLC could include something that is the most irritating and most likely to generate revenue for this game - unique look of military units for each of the regions. Such a DLC could provide a unique look for all units for regions while preserving the spirit of these units - this means a unique appearance, but the ability to easily recognize which units we control. Of course, in the game options there would be an option to disable the visibility of such models for other players.

I think such units could be divided into slightly larger regional groups combining 2 to 4 civs. The DLC could cover one regional group of units (e.g. Southeast Asian Unit Pack DLC) or across entire continents/civilization groups (e.g. Asian Unit Pack DLC or Middle Eastern Unit Pack DLC).

1 Like

I would prefer as many as possible… I leave all the skins of the activated events activated (especially the skin of the musketeers for the manual cannoneer)…

Do you have any screnshoots? I’m curious to know what the units look like.

btw I’m glad you decided to choose my nomadic buildings set among all the existing ones.

1 Like

All units are made by me with 8 directions and transparent shadows directly imported from civ3 flcs and I made sure all have proper player colors.

1 Like

Really great job! The only thing I would change are the names of these sets:

Rename to Western European

Rename to Eastern European

Rename to Islamic / or African

Rename to Central Asian / or Middle Eastern / or Islamic

Rename to Southern Asian

Rename to Far Eastern

Rename to American

Hey, they look really good for a fanmade.

I’ve put a lot of thought on how to arrange each civ in different regional skins set, trying to keep them between 6 and 8 (better if 6). And came to a more or less similar arrangement.

One of the differences between my model and yours is the division between Western and Eastern Europe. As I see it, most of european armies looks kind of the same in regards on weapon and armor, specially in the later centuries. The exceptions (in terms of the game civs) would be Slavs and Lithuanians in one side and Byzantines on the other, these two being pretty different. You also have Bulgarians who are kind of inbetween Byz and Slavs and Hungarians and Poles having some eastern elements but being mostly western based.
With that in mind, do you consider it’s the better choice to have an eastern european set that groups together Byzantines and Slavs? Instead of having a single european set, letting some outliers to exist.

I don’t really care about the names here. It is just a placeholder. It is a mod focusing on graphics only. Names do not matter at all. You can call them whatever you like.

The mod is made upon my Independent Architecture Mod logic and including more is going to be unnecessarily messy. I cannot make more sets mainly because I have completely used up all the graphics slots for the buildings and units which is a max of 32767.
Beyond that game doesn’t support.

1 Like

I guess I didn’t made myself understand properly, sorry. I was asking about the design choice you have already made of having an eastern european set that groups together Byzantines and Slavs, when those two looks (at least in my eyes) nothing alike, and including also there magyars and poles, which (again, imo) are closer to western europe than to Rus’ and Byzantinium.
I’m asking this because the eastern european slot could be filled with an african or nomadic set, and I want to know your oppinion on this.