Cool concept for a thread and I’ve enjoyed reading your ratings and rationales. But I disagree strongly on this one:
I’ve always considered the Malay architecture one of the most egregiously wrong fits in the whole game. I’d be really curious to see some examples of real ‘Malay’ buildings that fit the South East Asian architectural set, particularly for the Castle and Imperial ages. Presumably we’re talking about Javanese architecture, which would have Hindu elements rather than the Buddhist faces of the Khmer buildings.
Personally, I’d envisage a Malay architecture set to have mostly timber buildings, with woven palm walls, that never become blocky stone buildings despite ageing up (perhaps the patterns in the weaving could become more elaborate as ages progress). Only the most important Castle age and Imperial age buildings would be brick or stone, and incorporate Hindu elements rather than Buddhist. For a real twist, the monastery could switch from a Hindu temple to an Islamic mosque (of the unique Javanese style) when reaching the Imperial age. Of course they’d never do such a comprehensive rework on architecture just for one civ, but it’d make the Malays actually feel real.
(Don’t look too closely – hastily cobbled this together and it’s not even DE.)
By the way, in another alpha version there was what seems to be a fully Shinto version:
I think something similar is true for Khmer too, and even their palaces were wooden. My understanding is that, for Castle and Imperial Age, the architecture in game is based purely on temples.
Look, I get you don’t like me. Not everyone does. But don’t try to ruin the vibe of the post.
I was more lenient with other civs because I know less about their architecture. That’s simply the reason. I don’t know everything, nor can I know everything. I usually have to base my opinions on a quick Google Images search.
You weren’t lenient by avoiding SMUM when he called you wrong on Berber Castle and then selectively answering to him on Buddha to make him look like a fool.
If the Berbers weren’t clearly including Al-Andalus, I would say that the African set is fitting. If there is ever an Andalusians civ with the Middle Eastern set, the Berbers should get the African one, but because Muslim Iberia is clearly part of the civ, it’s not super egregious.
1st of all I didn’t call him wrong. I disagreed with his ratings on some civs.
Because I was a fool. What us your point?
If you already have a “Berber” castle, why not give them the Castle? It’s like adding Pashtuns/Afghans/Pathans and give them Hindustanis Castle when Central Asian castle is literally based on a Afghan castle.
Well, the Berbers were added when civs were approached differently in terms of architecture. We can’t really compare them to modern cases. There are always mods.
Check on his profile how many posts he likes. He rarely does so. He liked your last post because you apologised and it made him feel honoured to have subdued somebody. It is this behaviour I pointed out.
African architecture was made at the same time. They could get the whole set which would be more inaccurate I guess. But at least Castle would be correct. Or make the new rule - general architecture 1 set, castle is shared with different set.
I ain’t a stalker.
I didn’t notice. And honestly I never cared who liked my comment and who did not. I hardly notice or remember who liked my comment and who didn’t.
Maybe you can a have a good career as a detective. I don’t see discussing personal behaviour adding anything to this forum.
A fair point. I guess the devs felt that the ME architecture was more fitting because of Al-Andalus, which is what the campaign is centered around founding.
