Poll: Which architecture set do you think should be remade?

What if we get both Tibetans and Tanguts?

1 Like

The ancient name for Tibetans was Tubo not Tufan.

Tanguts belonged to a related group of Tibeto-Burman tribe that settled in Northwestern China and founded the Western Xia kingdom there.

1 Like

Highly unlikely due to political circumstances. Tanguts is ok, but Tibetans not really (unless you call them Tubo, but still it’s unlikely that they would be added).

1 Like

As for Jurchens, another possibly sensitive one, then I may suggest “Tungus” instead of “Jurchens” just like Tanguts instead of Tibetans. :slight_smile:

Jurchens aren’t sensitive, their name appears in Chinese history textbooks taught in schools.

1 Like

It isn’t the matter of terms. It’s the matter of “splitting China into several factions (“fractions” in their POV)”. The matter of Tibetans are already well-known that I don’t think we need to talk about it deeper and this web isn’t for that kind of debate, but as for Jurchens, at least the people “Jurchens” are now a subgroup of “Chinese” just like Tibetans are.

But there’s a difference. At least the Jurchens are already deeply Sinicized unlike the Tibetans. So, no need to be that sensitive as much as the Tibetans. However, if they (China) allow the Jurchens to be added in game, then it may indirectly help the matter of Tibet. That’s why I guess the Chinese wouldn’t want the Jurchens at least they refuse Tibetans.

However, I still see it’s not proper to cover all the peoples in China just as “Chinese” in this medieval game… So, if the Tibetans and Jurchens are not to be added, then I want to suggest “the Tanguts” and “the Tungus” instead. Tanguts were cousins of Tibetans (And even Tanguts aren’t existent today as Genghis Khan wiped them out completely. Even DNA tracing isn’t easy.), and the term “Tungus” includes the Jurchens.

As a Chinese person myself, I can tell you that Jurchens, Khitans, and Tanguts are ok since those names referred to historic peoples that no longer exist as ethnic groups. Their names appear in Chinese history textbooks taught in schools and also in numerous Chinese history dramas hence I don’t think there’s any problem adding them into the game. However Uyghurs and Tibetans are much more sensitive.

I definitely agree with you that it’s not proper to cover all the peoples in China just as “Chinese” in the medieval period. Same thing can be said about Southern China where they were also many different groups of peoples back then. I would like to see the Nanzhao kingdom in Yunnan being added as a new civ in a future DLC.

9 Likes

Thank you for the specific and realistic answer. I always needed answers like yours. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I want to give my opinion on the Eastern European set for the Poles and Bohemians here too:
Not exactly redone, but they shouldn’t have an Orthodox monastery - Age2 architecture sets often only provide a vague representation of a civ’s actual architecture in one time period.
To me it sometimes feels like compromising for a “lesser evil”.

The Brama Florianska of medieval Kraków, built about 1300 as a rectangular Gothic tower of wild stone.

Barbakan in Warsaw

It appears the Eastern European set which somewhat resembles Brick-Gothic suits polish medieval architecture well as far as fortifications go. It also harmonizes well with the design of their castle.

It’s good to have the white stone buildings in the mix because especially peasants’ buildings in medieval Poland were more similar to what the Central European set looks like.

An optimal solution would be exchanging the Poles’ Orthodox monastery for a Catholic one. It should not take much effort and is justified considering new civs get unique Castle skins too.

Polish medieval church

After consideration I believe the Central European style would make sense for Poland unless the devs will give them a Catholic church afterwards.
However the Eastern European set is a welcome alternative and looks so much better in conjunction with their castle.

I’m frankly let down we didn’t see a new architecture set for Bohemians and Poles to set them apart from their Eastern and Western neighbours.

2 Likes

Burgundian is not like Tibetan, the USA usually want to split the tibet out of China,this is the thing that Chinese Goverment do not allow, so if it is OK in Conquer times ,the Korean will not be added and can be replaced by Tibetan.

Yeah, I think the most sensitive thing to do is to add tanguts as a civ but heavily based on tibetans in regards of design. So they would be tanguts on paper but we, the community, would know they are actually tibetans at their hearth.

1 Like