1. Which architecture set do you think needs to be redesigned? For example, one isn’t proper to represent the cultural sphere. (Up to 2 choices)
- The West European set (Britains, Celts, etc.)
- The Central European set (Teutons, Vikings, etc.)
- The South European set (Portuguese, Italians, etc.)
- The East European set (Slavs, Lithuanians, etc.)
- The Middle East set (Saracens, Turks, etc.)
- The Central Asian set (Tatars, Cumans)
- The South Asian set (Indians)
- The East Asian set (Chinese, Japanese, etc.)
- The Southeast Asian set (Malays, Khmers, etc.)
- The African set (Malians, Ethiopians)
- The Central American set (Aztecs, Incas, etc.)
- All of them are well-made.
2. If one of the following architecture sets should be added, which one do you think is necessary? (One choice)
- The North European set (for the Vikings)
- The nomadic Central Asian set (for the Huns and Mongols)
- The Malay set (for the Malay)
- The Arabian set (for the Saracens)
- No more architecture sets are needed.
4 Likes
Almost every architecture set is well-made. f.e. The Japanese architecture looks perfect, so it does not need to be redesigned just because it does not fit Chinese.
Chinese, Vietnamese and Koreans really need a new set though. Same with Incas, Ethiopians, Byzantines, Bulgarians, Mongols, Cumans, “Slavs”, Vikings and Huns.
I think the current architecture fits Malay:
As you can see the Middle Eastern Set is based on North Africa, Middle East and Arabia:
Don’t change it.
I think Eastern European architecture set needs to be redesigned the most. Move Bohemians to Central European. Remove the Orthodox Monastery. Add a Catholic Monastery. Change the Feudal Age architecture to stone buildings. Give Ruthenians an independent architecture set with the old Orthodox Monastery and Feudal Age buildings.
3 Likes
The only thing which really bothers me is that the Eastern European stable looks bigger than it actually is.
3 Likes
It’s shared with East Asian set, too. Even this set has a bit larger Black Smith. On the one hand, the Middle East Trade Workshop looks smaller than it’s supposed to be.
3 Likes
I think there are one or two sets that don’t have their own ships yet? Maaaybe that’s an inconsistency that could use fixing.
For the rest I’m not really a “keep redoing all your graphics stuff” kind of person. I think the current abstractions work quite well. I would rather see continued balancing, development of new content and support for the community and multiplayer.
1 Like
East Asian set needs a remake. The current East Asian set is based on Japanese architecture and isn’t suitable for Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese. And the Mongols shouldn’t belong to the East Asian set, they need their own unique nomadic set. Same for the Incas, they need their own Andean set, which is different from the Meso set.
8 Likes
I’d like if they remake Inca architecture, though I’m not sure it will be enough to people stop erroneously calling them meso-americans
9 Likes
They’re called Mesos for the Eagle Warrior playstyle (actually a unique Aztec thing but yeah…). Completely agree for a new Inca set though.
3 Likes
That’s why I don’t think only the architecture will do much.
Though it’s not like people call chinese european because of the champion, right? 11
It’s silly to call a civ meso because it shares a same different unit with other meso-american civs. Why not call all 3 only americans? sigh
1 Like
I would rather have them invest that amount of resources (human, financial etc) into improving the game estability, performance tc.
It really triggers me when people call Inca as mesocivs. It’s pretty much like calling mongolians or ethiopians as european civs. 
6 Likes
Yes! I ask my friends “do you also call russian mediterranean?” 11
1 Like
Don’t know much about Meso architecture but there was a mod that made them colorful and it made me realize they were a lot more colorful during the 1500’s.
2 Likes
I would love it if they actually colored the American set. I mean it was colorful when those cultures existed, right?
3 Likes
I don’t remember which civ is, but there’s one where the Mill looks just like a house.
I’ve built farms around houses more than I would like to admit
2 Likes
Give us the Tibetans and give them and the Mongols a unique set. A Chinese like set for Viets, Chinese and Koreans.
I bet that’s the African set.
What a good timing! I have some questions:
(1) Are there any reasons why Tibetans (maybe you think Jurhens are not OK either?) are not okay? We don’t see any problem with the Burgundians though they’re now French just like the Franks became, or like the Sicilians though we already have the Italians.
(2) Let’s suppose there’re no political problems with them, like there’re no independence movements. Then, would the civs be okay to be added? In this case, the situation is just another Burgundians.
Tibetan civ is unlikely to be added for well-known reasons. However the devs could add a Tangut civ and it could share a new Inner Asian set with the Mongols.
1 Like
I would be okay if the Tibetans were called Tufans or Tanguts and but their campaign was about the Tibetan empire. We could easily mod it in.
